Sitting of 28 July 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  MILFORD HAVEN (TIDAL BARRAGE) BILL [Lords]
  Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move,
  That the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill [Lords] be re-committed to the former Committee and that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill that they have power to reconsider their decision on the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Donnelly: Tomorrow, Sir.

  PETITION (DINGLE v. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED)
  Mr. Langford-Holt: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of G. B. W. Walsh for leave to be given to certain Officers of the House to attend a trial and give evidence concerning certain proceedings and debates of the House. As I propose to move a Motion in respect of this Petition, I ask that the Petition be read.
  The Clerk of the House The Clerk of the House read the Petition, which was as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Geoffrey Brian Whittington Walsh, a partner in the firm of Swepstone, Walsh & Son, Solicitors for the Defendants in an action entered for trial in the Queen's Bench Division and entitled Philip Burrington Dingle and Associated Newspapers Limited, Arthur George Wareham and Michael Kelly
  SHEWETH
  That reference is to be made in the said action to the report placed before your
  284
  Honourable House on the fifteenth day of May, 1958, by the Committee to whom the Manchester Corporation Bill was referred. And that excerpts from speeches and remarks made by the Honourable Members of your Honourable House in debate in connection with the Manchester Corporation Bill and all matters connected therewith, having been quoted in the newspaper published by the first named Defendants and all such speeches and remarks being set down in the volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT of your Honourable House for Parliamentary Debates, namely HANSARD, reference to such OFFICIAL REPORT is desired to be made in the said action.
  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the proper officers of your Honourable House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the report of the said Committee, the Journal of the House, so far as it is relevant, and all numbers in the volumes of the said OFFICIAL REPORT appertaining to speeches and remarks concerning the Manchester Corporation Bill and formally to prove all the same before the Court according to their competence. And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to the proper Officers to attend and to produce and prove the Journal and the said documents accordingly and to give evidence verifying the same.
  Mr. Hirst: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is it in order for me to object, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: I should remark that this is the time for unopposed business. If the business is opposed it cannot be taken today. I think that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) himself has some experience of a similar situation.
  Mr. Donnelly: I only seek to elucidate the procedure because I am still very new to this jungle of objections. I merely wish to inquire whether it is in order for me to object to the Motion.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I object on the ground that this takes up the time allotted to Scottish Questions.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) must put the Motion down for tomorrow.
  Petition to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Deer Commission
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the names of the chairman and members of the Deer Commission.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Major Michael Crichton Stuart, M.C., D.L., J.P., has accepted my invitation to act as Chairman of the Commission. I am not yet in a position to state the names of the other members of the Commission, but I am receiving nominations from the interested organisations and I hope to be able to complete the membership in the near future.
    Sir J. Duncan: Arising out of that reply, will my right hon. Friend urge on the other organisations concerned the importance of getting on with this as quickly as possible so that the Commission and the area panels will be in action before next winter?
    Mr. Maclay: I agree very much with my hon. Friend on the need for urgency in this matter, and I hope that I shall receive the nominations pretty soon.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any particulars about Major Michael Crichton Stuart to show why he was appointed?
    Mr. Maclay: It would hardly be appropriate in Question and Answer, but the information will be available as to his qualifications and all about him.

    Marginal Agricultural Production Grants
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the future of marginal agricultural production grants which will be available to certain farmers in Scotland after 31st August.
    Mr. Maclay: I have had discussions with the Scottish National Farmers' Union on this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Sir J. Duncan: As the present scheme is to end on 31st August, will my right hon. Friend assure us, particularly those who are interested in this in Scotland, that a new scheme or an amended scheme will be announced before the next cropping season?
    Mr. Maclay: I hope very much that I shall be able to make a statement before very long. I am anxious to press on with it as quickly as I can.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act was before Parliament, we were given an assurance that this matter would be discussed with the National Farmers' Union at the time of the Annual Price Review, and we were led to believe, in all parts of the House, that there would be an announcement in March of this year? It is now nearly August.
    Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Gentleman studies the record—I do not remember the detail myself—he will find that it was clear that there were further discussions going on with the Scottish Farmers' Union after that.

    State Scholarships
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the experimental award of a number of State scholarships to young people about to leave junior and senior secondary schools to undertake voluntary special service in the underdeveloped areas of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Maclay: I am sorry that I cannot accept this suggestion. The present arrangement seems more appropriate, whereby finance is provided from funds obtained by the organisation itself, with some assistance from the areas in which the service is given.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party is considering a proposal for adventure scholarships to be offered to young people who may not qualify for more academic awards? Is he tempted to give bipartisan support to this imaginative proposal?
    Mr. Maclay: I am always astonished by some of the things which hon. Members opposite study.

    Proposed Technical College, Greenock
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates the projected technical college at the Dalrymple Street site in Greenock will be started and completed.
    Mr. Maclay: I have approved in principle the education authority's proposal for a technical college, but it has still to submit proposals for a site and estimated dates for the building work.
    Dr. Mabon: May we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, since this matter concerns both his constituency and mine, that the acute need for this college will be recognised and that sanction will be given as soon as proposals are submitted?
    Mr. Maclay: There are many details to be gone into before we can give a positive assurance about when sanction will be given, but, as the hon. Member knows, I am very anxious to get on with it as quickly as we can.

    Lunacy (Certification)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the present procedure for certification of lunacy; and what consideration he is giving to some amendment of the method.
    Mr. Maclay: I am actively considering the recommendations made by the Committee of the Scottish Health Services Council for changes in the law in this and other respects.
    Dr. Mabon: Does the Secretary of State realise that many doctors are very concerned about this matter, particularly about the actual form itself which, in the circumstances of modern treatment, does not allow enough space to provide all the details for certification, and some doctors are finding, because they cannot get in contact with the various officers of the district council concerned, that they are having to look after dangerous patients and mentally sick patients who ought to be in institutions without the several days' delay resulting from this gap in the certification procedure?
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had very important Reports on this matter and discussions
    288
    with the various interested bodies. All these matters are being studied.

    Redevelopment Schemes (Compensation for Disturbance)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider issuing a circular to all Scottish local authorities, similar to the one issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on the compensation payable to tenants for disturbance of business under the redevelopment schemes.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. I propose to deal with this matter in a circular which is to be sent shortly to local authorities in Scotland.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the vast scale of development being undertaken in the area which I have the honour to represent, business people are having to leave, and some of them cannot even find employment? Will he do his very utmost to ensure that these people receive a fair deal under the compensation arrangements?
    Mr. Maclay: While the use of these powers in any particular case is a matter within the discretion of the local authority, I share the hon. Lady's view that local authorities should make use of the statutory powers wherever appropriate.

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Member's Letter)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to the letter addressed to him by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland on 2nd March, 1959, relating to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board; what are the reasons for the delay; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: I have now replied to the letter referred to and explained to the hon. Member that I greatly regret that an earlier reply was not included in the letter which I sent to him on similar matters on 11th May last.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does this case not refer to the demand against the Benmore Lodge Hotel in my constituency for a capital sum of £5, 200 for the installation

    289
    of electricity, when the total cost, as I have learned from my right hon. Friend's letter, will be £5,750? Is it not wholly unreasonable to expect a small hotel to have to bear a charge of this kind, and is it not contrary to Government policy in a place where tourism is highly regarded as a priority for the Highlands?
    Mr. Maclay: As I have explained on other occasions, the charges made by the Board for electricity are not matters within my direct responsibility. I believe that the hon. Member has another Question later on the Order Paper which bears on this matter.

    Sewerage Scheme, Halkirk
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the applications of Caithness County Council of December, 1957, December, 1958, and 3rd June, 1959, for grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage (Scotland) Acts, 1944–1955, for a new sewerage system in Halkirk to replace the old septic tanks, have been refused; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: These applications have hitherto failed because a high rate of Exchequer equalisation grant, currently 67 per cent., would in any event have been payable on the expenditure involved. A revised basis of sewerage grant is, however, being worked out, and I expect to make an offer to the county council very shortly. I shall see that the hon. Member is told when this is done.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not wholly wrong that the large village of Halkirk should still have seventy-three houses without piped water supply and without any sanitation, while the remainder which have piped water use septic tanks which overflow into the river and are a menace to public health?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise from my Answer that we are considering these matters very carefully.

    Small Farmers Act
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been already approved for grant under the provisions of the Small Farmers Act in Scotland and in Ayrshire; and how many farmers in Scotland and Ayrshire have now been definitely promised grants.
    Mr. Maclay: One hundred and eighteen plans involving grant of £103, 171 have so far been approved in Scotland. No plans have yet been approved in Ayrshire.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State expect Ayrshire to be enthusiastic about that?
    Mr. Maclay: Only four completed plans have been received from Ayrshire, and these are at present being considered.

    Education (Four-year Course)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities in Scotland are operating or being asked to operate the new Ordinary grade four years course; and if he is satisfied with the provisions being made to effect the transfer.
    Mr. Maclay: In the circular, of which I am sending the hon. Lady a copy, all education authorities were asked to provide courses for the new Ordinary grade. Any changes in the arrangements for the allocation of pupils to particular secondary courses and schools resulting from the introduction of the new courses require my approval.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Secretary of State aware that the local authority whose area I represent is unanimously against his proposal and considers that it will create far more anomalies than it will remove? Will he have regard to the representations of that local authority?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Lady knows that these proposals were very widely welcomed as being a great step forward in Scottish education.

    Local Authority Housing Estates (Gas and Electricity)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that housewives are now being deprived of the choice between gas and electricity in local authority housing estates where in many cases electricity is given a monopoly; and what reply he is making to the complaint about this matter sent to him by the Women's Gas Federation on 11th June.
    Mr. Maclay: It is for the local authority concerned to decide which services should be laid on to its houses. I would hope that authorities would give

    291
    full weight to the importance of giving the greatest possible freedom of choice to their tenants as recommended in the Scottish Housing Handbook. I am replying on these lines to the representations which I have received from the Women's Gas Federation.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Secretary of State aware that housewives have always had the choice since the Housing Manual, 1945, laid down that it was the choice of the women of Scotland to be free to decide between electricity and gas?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady will realise from my original reply that I share her view on this.

    Roads, Berwickshire (Resurfacing)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he is prepared to reimburse Berwickshire County Council for the cost of resurfacing stretches of the A697 and A698 roads north of Coldstream damaged by the extra heavy abnormal indivisible loads directed over them.
    Mr. Maclay: I am prepared to meet the whole cost of any works required specifically in respect of this road's use as a heavy load route. The county council's proposals to renew two culverts come within this category, but I cannot agree that the need to resurface stretches of the road is unusual or that it can be ascribed solely to the abnormal indivisible loads which use the road.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he bear in mind that it really is an intolerable imposition on a local authority with a small rateable value to have to maintain roads at the degree of strength necessary to bear these extra heavy loads which, naturally would never come on to them at all?
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. and gallant Friend will agree, I am sure, that this is a very complex subject. I am glad that I have been able to go a certain distance.

    Dugald Johnstone
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the reports on his files concerning the removal of Dugald Johnstone after nine
    292
    years from his foster parents in Mull, and his further four removals before his remains were discovered near Dunoon.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. It would not be in accordance with either precedents or practice to publish confidential documents of this kind.
    Mrs. Mann: Does the Secretary of State know that I saw the report in full last week for the first time, and that it is a shocking report? There ought to have been an inquiry. The case is much more tragic than that of the Thurso boy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a doctor saw this boy and certified that he was in a state of terror owing to the harsh treatment of the new foster parents to whom he had been removed? It is no use dwelling on recriminations, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, if Section 7 of the Children Act, 1958, had been extended to local authorities, this tragedy might never have occurred, because it would have given foster parents the right to appeal? Will he consider revising the law?
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Lady knows, I understand very well her consternation about this case, but I could not fully accept the first part of her supplementary question. As to the second part of it, it is clear that to do what she suggests would raise very difficult questions of principle.
    Mr. Lawson: If what my hon. Friend has said is true—and I have no reason to doubt it—is it not a very grave reflection upon the arrangements in the right hon. Gentleman's Department that a report such as this cannot be made public?
    Mr. Maclay: It is not a question of reports. It is a question of confidential letters received in connection with this case. Of course, as the hon. Member knows, this is largely a matter for the local authorities concerned.
    Mrs. Mann: On a point of order. I said that I would keep the report confidential until I have read it. I would be failing in my duty if I did not make the report public, and I give notice that I shall do so.

    Stoppage of Highways (Ayrshire) Order, 1959
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to implement the procedure laid down in Section 8 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, in respect of the Stopping of Highways (Ayrshire) Order, 1959.
    Mr. Maclay: The procedure on this Order is not governed by Section 8 of the Act of 1936, but by Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation indicated in the House on 17th July, I am deferring action on the Order until I have considered further in consultation with the Minister, the problem of control of road traffic where the runway crosses the trunk road.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that, in connection with the findings of the Parliamentary Commission, the procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State is clearly laid down in Section 8 of the 1936 Act? Also, is the right hon. Gentleman proposing, in association with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, to connive at ignoring and abrogating this Scottish law in order to give the Minister of Transport what his own Parliamentary Commission refused to give him?
    Mr. Maclay: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am advised that the operative Act is the 1945 Act and that the 1936 Act comes in only if a confirmation Bill is to be presented.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that Section 8 of the 1936 Act defines the procedure to be followed where an Order has been opposed?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that I had better write to the hon. Gentleman about the very technical statutory position. It is a little difficult to deal with it in Question and Answer.

    Peterhead Prison (Incident)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the report he received from the Governor of Peterhead prison in regard to the recent shooting
    294
    incident which occurred in an outside working party.
    Mr. Maclay: The Governor reported that on 10th July a prison officer, who was posted as an armed sentry while a party of prisoners was working in an area which is only partly enclosed, fired a warning round. Unfortunately it ricocheted, and as a result a prisoner and another officer were slightly injured.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it was so long before any news leaked about this happening within the prison and why it came to the surface and appeared in the Press only as the result of a message smuggled from the prison? In all the circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to hold an inquiry into this incident?
    Mr. Maclay: As the circumstances which led to the shot being fired have been reported by the Governor to the Procurator Fiscal of Aberdeenshire and are being investigated by the police, I think that it would be undesirable for me to say more at present.

    New General Hospital, Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, in respect of the proposed new general hospital at Dundee, the date on which it was first included in the list of officially approved hospital building projects, the estimated date for the start of building operations, and the estimated date of completion.
    Mr. Maclay: The site for this new hospital was acquired in 1955. It was made clear then that no start on building could be made until the early 1960s. Our present plans evisage a start late in 1961 or early in 1962. It is not possible at present to estimate when the hospital will be completed.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he fought the last General Election with this general hospital as part of his electoral window-dressing, and that he is about to fight the coming General Election on the same hospital? Can he give us an absolute assurance that he will not fight the General Election of 1964 on building this hospital?
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will then be in the Lords.
    Mr. Maclay: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me some accurate forecasts of the dates of all these elections.

    River Tay Road Bridge
    Mr. G.M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce the inclusion of a road bridge over the River Tay at Dundee amongst forthcoming public works projects which are officially approved.
    Mr. Maclay: I regret that I cannot add to the reply given on 12th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison).
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the fact that today's unemployment figures in Scotland are by far the heaviest in the United Kingdom, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this particular public works project is now long overdue? Can he tell us exactly what stage the preparatory work has reached?
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary went into considerable detail in this matter recently, and I cannot add to his reply today. As the hon. Gentleman knows, before the bridge could possibly be authorised a Provisional Order has to be made. Before that stage, a lot of exploratory work has to be done, and that is going on.

    Driving Offences (Drunkenness)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the total number of drunk-in-charge cases during the year 1958 under the Road Traffic Act; the number against whom proceedings were taken; and in how many cases the maximum penalty was imposed.
    Mr. Maclay: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 30th June to his previous Question on this subject.
    Mr. Hannan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the description given to this type of offence by a prominent sheriff when he described it as a crime is probably correct? Does not the small number of cases in which the maximum penalty has been imposed indicate the need, not for heavier penalties, but
    296
    for the greater use of the existing penalties? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?
    Mr. Maclay: As a matter of fact, one of the difficulties is to know exactly in how many cases the maximum penalty has been imposed, because, as emerged from my earlier reply, there are great problems in finding out in how many cases the maximum penalty was imposed.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a presumption that many of the cars which surround roadhouses and other drinking places are not driven by teetotallers? Would it not be advisable to have officers keeping observation late at night and, if necessary, prevent people driving rather than depend on penalties which seem to have failed to have any effect?
    Mr. Maclay: I very much hope that people who drive motor cars will increasingly realise how wrong it is to drive cars unless they are completely free from the influence of alcohol.

    Forth and Clyde Canal
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals have been made to him, either by interested parties or the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee, in respect of the redevelopment of the Forth and Clyde Canal.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received no proposals in respect of the redevelopment of the Forth and Clyde Canal other than the recommendations made in respect of this canal by the Bowes Committee on Inland Waterways. As stated in paragraph 19 of the White Paper of February, 1959, on the Government proposals following the Report of that Committee, these recommendations raise important issues and are being further considered by the Government.
    Mr. Hannan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger to life from this canal and the recent increase in loss of life among children? Also, is not he aware of the menace to health, the hindrance to communications and the barrier which it provides against planning by local authorities? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative in this matter and introduce a scheme for the redevelopment of the canal?
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but he will realise that there are others who hold conflicting views about the implications that he has mentioned. I think that this is a matter for ultimate consideration by the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee, which is at present giving attention to the Monkton Canal.

    Glasgow (Overspill)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of families who have indicated to Glasgow Corporation their willingness to transfer to overspill areas under the industrial selection scheme which that authority operates in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
    Mr. Maclay: This investigation is still in progress, but I understand that almost 7,000 families have already indicated willingness to move to overspill areas.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that 7,000 families out of 189,000—approximately 4 per cent.—have indicated their willingness to transfer to overspill areas? Can he say what steps he proposes to take to encourage the other 182,000 families to remove to overspill areas against their will?
    Mr. MaclayI think that on present form the Corporation is to be congratulated and encouraged by the size of the response at this early stage to overspill operations. I think that we can leave it to the Corporation to carry on with the arrangements which it is at present making.

    Site, Glasgow (Housing Development)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Glasgow Corporation regarding its desire to develop a site at Dumbreck Avenue, Glasgow, for housing purposes; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Maclay: The Corporation represented to me that this site, which is held for development as a Territorial Army centre, should be made available instead to the Corporation for housing development. After consultation with my right
    298
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, I wrote to the Corporation explaining why this could not be done, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my letter.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling in Glasgow about the fact that he is prepared to give a drill hall priority over housing in a city which has no further sites available on which to build and which has a waiting list of 120,000? In those circumstances, is it not wicked and shameful to make a decision of this kind?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will know that this matter has a long history. I think that at an earlier stage planning permission for the use of this site for this purpose was given by the Corporation.

    New Maternity Hospital, Glasgow
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects a start to be made on the construction of the proposed new maternity hospital in Glasgow.
    Mr. Maclay: It is expected that site works for the new hospital will begin before the end of this year. Construction of the main buildings is expected to begin in the spring of 1960.

    Secondary Schools, Ayrshire
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken, and if he is satisfied of their adequacy, to ensure in Ayrshire secondary schools sufficient places for the increased numbers passing from the primary schools.
    Mr. Maclay: The only pupils for whom there will not be such places at the beginning of the session, will be about fifty pupils of Braehead primary school, Ayr. They will follow their secondary course in their present school until January, 1960.
    Mr. Ross: That will apply, I presume, only to junior secondary pupils. Is everything satisfactory in relation to the number of places available in senior secondary schools in Ayrshire? From what I hear, there is considerable concern that there will not be enough places to admit children who would benefit

    299
    therefrom and that many of the makeshift arrangements are giving cause for concern and are far from satisfactory.
    Mr. Maclay: I agree that matters are not entirely satisfactory. I am, however, advised that the authority expects that the schools under construction and projected will enable it to provide all the secondary places required in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Ross: We are not concerned with the foreseeable future of these children, who should get their secondary places by September. The Government have failed to provide them at the right time.
    Mr. Maclay: In my reply, I gave the hon. Member the information which I at present have on the matter raised by him.
    Mr. Ross: Very unsatisfactory.

    Technical College, Kilmarnock
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when purchase of land for the Kilmarnock technical college was completed; and why it will take so long before work starts on the site.
    Mr. Maclay: Negotiations regarding price are not yet complete. After the accommodation was approved in November, 1958, the architects and surveyors had to prepare sketch plans, make working drawings and draw up specifications. In a project of this size, these operations must take a considerable time.
    Mr. Ross: There is no doubt that they must take a considerable time in view of the fact that the interval since the college was first proclaimed in this House as having first priority until the day it is opened will be ten years. For the past two years, the Secretary of State has told me in answer to Questions that the delay is due to a hold-up in relation to the purchase of the land. Was it because nothing was done about it that two and a half years is now required from the time the land was purchased in November, 1958, until the work starts in 1961? This is shocking.
    Mr. Maclay: It has been very complicated owing to the difficulties concerning the site. Had a suitable one not been found in Kilmarnock, different arrangements would have been made. It was not
    300
    possible to have everything cut and dried and ready until the question of the site was settled.

    Lanark (Economic Position)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consideration of the information about the economic position given him by the deputation from part of the Seventh District Council of the County of Lanark; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am giving very careful consideration to the position at Shotts. If I am able to say more during the Recess, I shall write to her.
    Miss Herbison: Has the Secretary of State, since he received that deputation, had serious discussions with his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour? Is he aware that in this area most of the unemployed, both men and women, are long-term unemployed and have waited a very long time for Government action?
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, I am very well aware of the problem in the area and I assure the hon. Lady that this matter has been very carefully discussed and considered.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Labour figures of unemployment, published yesterday, which show Scotland has the only region in Britain with an increase in unemployment in the past month, are further evidence of the lamentable failure of the Government to deal with unemployment in Scotland?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not accept that at all. I much regret that our figures are up by 300, but the hon. Member knows very well that efforts have been made and are having a measure of success at a difficult time in encouraging new industry to come to Scotland.

    Paper Industry
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities and representatives of the paper industry have requested discussions with him on the question of the effects of the proposed Outer Seven Free

    301
    Trade Area on local employment problems; and how many protests he has received consequent on his refusal to meet such representatives.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received requests for a meeting from the Scottish Paper-makers' Association and from five county councils. The latter have protested against my inability to receive them.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State not yet converted to the view that there are special Scottish interests which will be adversely affected by the institution of this new Free Trade Area? Concerning his last Answer, is he aware that in an allegedly developing area of Fife and Kinross, the unemployment figures show the highest increase in Scotland—383 in the last month? In view of this and other implications, will not the Secretary of State reconsider his decision and meet the deputation?
    Mr. Maclay: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply on the last occasion, which gave my reasons. As the hon. Member knows, I receive a lot of deputations, but there are occasions when it does not seem appropriate to do so.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that this body of papermakers realise the necessity for developments relating to the Outer Free Trade Area but are concerned that the Government seem to give no consideration to their representations and no advice to them about what will be their ultimate fate? If they are eventually to disappear, they need to make arrangements beforehand. If they have to reduce their size, they should know about it in good time. What they want are reasons from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows, I think, that the representations of the papermakers have been seriously considered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who still has them under consideration.

    River Esk (Pollution)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to deal with the pollution of the River Esk.
    Mr. Maclay: The connection of a number of sewage works to the new Esk Valley Regional Sewer has already made a considerable reduction in pollution in the river. I understand that the Lothians River Purification Board is doing all it can to secure a progressive reduction in pollution from other sources.
    Mr. Willis: Is the Secretary of State aware that this river is still very much of an open sewer and, I should have thought, a bit of a danger to public health? Whilst we are glad that the matter is being considered, is it not really time, after all these years have passed, that we got some action about it?
    Mr. Maclay: I know that there is still a long way to go, but the hon. Member probably knows enough about sewage to know that river effluents are extremely difficult to deal with. I have personal knowledge of these matters in certain areas. This is a very difficult problem, which local authorities and all concerned are valiantly trying to overcome.

    New Industries, Midlothian
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, since receiving the Scottish Council's Report of the Midlothian Working Party, to bring new industries to the Midlothian area.
    Mr. Maclay: I consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has the primary responsibility in this matter, about the Scottish Council's suggestions.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is quite unsatisfactory, that under his Government unemployment in the area has practically doubled, that the area has one of the largest commuting populations in Scotland and that new industries have not so far come there, in spite of the fine efforts made by the local authorities? As a final kick before leaving office, will not the right hon. Gentleman try to do something about it?
    Mr. Maclay: While I do not accept any of the implications made by the hon. Member, he knows that we have all been working on this problem as hard as we can. I am glad that he paid tribute to

    303
    the efforts of the local authorities, with which is implicit the efforts that the Government have made to help them.

    Smoke Control Area Orders
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have now made orders declaring smoke control areas; and how many have still to be confirmed by him.
    Mr. Maclay: Four local authorities—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and the Burgh of Dumbarton—have each made one smoke control area order. The Dumbarton order has still to be confirmed.
    Mr. Rankin: Do not those figures indicate that, while there is admittedly a sluggardly attitude among the local authorities, there is an even more sluggardly attitude on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland? From these two similarities, when does he propose to develop some speed?
    Mr. Maclay: Personal abuse never reduces smoke abatement.

    New Industries, Ayrshire
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Ayrshire local authorities over the past year about the need for new industries; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received representations on this subject during the past year from Ayr County Council and from several of the town councils. The action taken by the Government includes the addition of North-West Ayrshire to the list of areas eligible for assistance under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958. I have recently approved an overspill agreement and a town development scheme prepared by the Town Council of Irvine, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has continuously sought to attract new industry into those parts of the county suffering from high and persistent unemployment.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State tell us what has been achieved by the Distribution of Industry Act and D.A.T.A.C. procedure? Is he aware
    304
    that the changes in relation to the Distribution of Industry Act have produced two schemes that eventually will employ 178 people in an area in which over 6,000 are unemployed? Is he aware that Members of Parliament constantly receive appeals from local authorities, of all political complexions, asking that everything should be done to produce light industries for places like Prestwick, Ayr, Kilmarnock and North Ayrshire? Will the Secretary of State appreciate the gravity of the situation there and do something about it?
    Mr. Maclay: Of course, I appreciate the gravity of the situation, but the hon. Member knows as well as I do that unless the Government take power to direct industries—and I take it that the party opposite does not intend to direct industry; if it does, it should say so—the policy of inducement and trying to find industry to come takes time. I hope that the hon. Member will help the local authorities to achieve what we all desire.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are all deeply conscious of, and grateful for, the efforts that he and his right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour are making to reduce the hardship at present being suffered in Ayrshire and Ayr and that we look forward to a successful conclusion of their efforts?

    Highland Area (Electricity Connection Charges)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that ordinary consumers in the Highland area are unable to afford the capital charges made for electricity connections; and whether he will give a direction to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to divert a proportion of the 68 per cent. of their sales income, now employed in payment of interest on capital and loans and the redemption of capital and depreciation, towards the reduction of connection charges.
    Mr. Maclay: The Board has made representations to me about the problem of connecting potential consumers in less accessible parts of its area and I hope shortly to discuss the problem with it.

    305
    As regards the second part of the Question, I have explained to the hon. Member that to give such a direction would in effect be to require the Board to disregard the statutory provisions under which it operates.
    Sir D. Robertson: Can the Secretary of State inform the House of any other concern in the history of the world where 68 per cent. of the gross income has been used in this way, and is it not the case that all or most of the capital has been provided by the Government who are fully secured moneylenders? Is it not wrong to deny electricity to crofters and other people living in the Highlands year after year while these extortionate demands for connections and vast sums of money are paid out in the service of capital?
    Mr. Maclay: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the implications of what he is saying raise very profound principles. I should not like to comment on them at short notice. I would refer him to what I said in the earlier part of my Answer.

    Messrs. N. G. Napier, Ltd. (Personal Credit Scheme)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware that the facts, reported to him by the hon. Member for Motherwell, concerning the personal credit account scheme as operated on a large scale by Messrs. N. G. Napier, Limited of Prestwick Road, Ayr, disclose an apparènt infringement of the Moneylenders Acts; and if he will investigate the matter.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I understand that the hon. Member has in mind that part of Messrs. Napier's personal credit scheme under which they give credit to a person to enable him to purchase goods from some third party. My right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to investigate any transactions of this nature which are brought to his notice, and consider whether the facts disclosed would justify criminal proceedings under the Moneylenders Acts.
    Mr. Lawson: May I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will make many people happy since at last steps are being
    306
    taken? Is he aware that many thousands of people in Scotland, who will be very grateful, have pressed very urgently indeed that he should do what he can about this particular type of practice?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am glad with the hon. Member. There is one point which I ought to make. One can investigate properly only if one has specific cases to investigate, and that is why I made a sort of invitation to the hon. Member to give us any cases, particularly more recent ones, which are more valuable to us because of the time bar under the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that all Scottish hon. Members, I believe, received a statement from Messrs. Napier this weekend? I see some hon. Members shaking their heads, saying "No.". Well, most of us did. In this statement this weekend Mr. Napier would seem to me to make quite clear that his business is that of moneylending. If I let the Solicitor-General for Scotland have a copy of the statement, will he consider whether in the statement Mr. Napier is not himself claiming to be a moneylender?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should be grateful to have a look at it, but I am afraid I was not one of the fortunate ones to receive a copy. There may be reasons for that—I do not know.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that allegations are made, apart altogether from the principle of this matter, that cautioners, people who sign their names guaranteeing the original borrower, are alleged to be misled by false statements that they are merely giving testimony of how long a person has remained in a given town, when they are really guaranteeing large sums of money in signing the documents, which are falsely represented to them as being no more than testimony to the characters of the persons involved?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I could not on the facts available to me say whether that is in fact happening, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that if this is happening a cautioner

    307
    would have a good defence on being sued for the balance due at the instance of the particular firm involved.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Sewing Machines (Japanese Origin)
    Mr. Benceasked the President of the Board of Trade how many sewing machines of Japanese origin were marketed in the United Kingdom in the years 1956, 1957, 1958, and to the latest available date in 1959.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): Import licences are not normally given for machines of Japanese origin and imports from Japan have in fact been negligible.
    Mr. Bence: This is a factor which is causing great consternation in this country. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great belief in this country, among the trade in particular, that many of the sewing machines being imported from the British Commonwealth are in fact machines of Japanese origin which are sent into Commonwealth countries or into countries in trade agreement with this country and then sent to this country as of British manufacture?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: It is quite true that some imports into this country may and do contain Japanese components, but they would, of course, have to comply with the normal rules about origin.
    Mr. Bence: Ah, but they do not.

    Pharmaceutical Industry (Metric System)
    Sir J. Barlowasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to provide suitable standards following the change-over of the British pharmaceutical industry to the metric system.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): Measures of 2·5 litre and 250 millilitres were legalised for use in trade in 1953. More recently the Glass Manufacturers' Federation has asked for a measure of 25 millilitres to be legalised and an Order in Council giving effect to this will be laid before Parliament shortly.
    Sir J. Barlow: While thanking my hon. Friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he suggests that the metric system will now be introduced over a wider field in industry?
    Mr. Rodgers: The Hodgson Committee did recommend the adoption of the metric system, but the Government have not accepted this. Nevertheless, we welcome the initiative of the British Association which is inquiring into this matter, and we shall be interested in due course to see the results of its investigation. Such knowledge as we have at the Board of Trade is at the Association's disposal.

    Light Engineering (Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch)
    Mr. J. Edenasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract light engineering industry to the Poole-Bournemouth-Christ-church area; and whether he will grant an industrial development certificate to firms wishing to set up new factories there.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I am aware of the needs of this area and they are taken into account in deciding industrial development certificate applications. My first concern, however, must be for the areas of high and persistent unemployment.
    Mr. Eden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties, particularly those experienced by engineering employees rendered redundant by the rundown and contraction of the aircraft industry? Can he, secondly, tell me how many I.D.C.s have been issued and how many applications have been rejected?
    Mr. Rodgers: We are watching the position of the rundown of the aircraft industry. As to the number of I.D.C.s, six have been granted for extensions since July last year; two for one firm have been rejected, and they were rejected because the firm in question wished to transfer a factory from South Wales.

    Glacé Kid Leather (Exports)
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the exports of glac6 kid leather for the periods January-April, 1957, 1958 and 1959.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In the first four months of 1957, 1958 and 1959 the values of exports were £160,000, £182,000 and £175,000 respectively.
    Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great opportunity for further expansion of the export trade in glace kid and that the real problem is getting hold of the right type of raw material, and that previous Answers by the Board of Trade have created the impression that the problem is misunderstood by them, and that the high quality kids required can be obtained only from countries whose exports to us have to pay 10 per cent. duty? Will he do something about removing this?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I do not think I agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. There has been, as we are advised, a switch of fashion between glace and suede kid. If the hon. Gentleman considers exports of full chrome kid leather as a whole, he will see a substantial increase over the years, which shows that there is no special shortage.

    Industrial Property Conference, Lisbon
    Sir J. Barlowasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the recent industrial property conference in Lisbon, which revised the Industrial Property Convention.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The conference made a number of small but useful improvements in the international machinery for the protection of inventions and Trade Marks. After seventy-five years, English was added to French as an official language of the Industrial Property Union and its Secretariat. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the invitation, expressed by unanimous resolution of the countries represented, to increase the members' annual contribution to the expenses of running the Union. We propose to ratify the Convention if the comparatively minor legislation necessary meets with the approval of Parliament.
    Sir J. Barlow: Can my hon. Friend tell me first what cost this will involve the Government in and secondly what legislation may be required?
    Mr. Rodgers: Our share of the expenses will now be a relatively modest
    310
    one of 29,880 Swiss francs. The only legislation required is an extension from three to six months of the time allowed for payment of renewal fees for patents and designs. This will be introduced when Parliamentary time permits.

    New Industries, North Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to prepare sites and build factories to attract industrialists to the area near the steel strip mill at Gartcosh, Lanarkshire.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: As I told the hon. Lady on 9th June, I have made it known as widely as possible that in all suitable cases factories will be provided and applications for grants or loans considered for firms which will set up or expand in this area or anywhere in North Lanarkshire and we are continuing to seek out and encourage firms to go to these places.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that employment in this part of the steel strip mill will be only 50 per cent. of the men who were originally employed by this firm? Does not that make it all the more important that the Board of Trade, particularly, should be preparing beforehand so that there will be industrialists ready to take up the slack in labour?
    Mr. Rodgers: I greatly appreciate what the hon. Lady has said and we are doing our very best to steer firms there just now.

    New Industries, Midlothian
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for bringing new industries to the Midlothian area of Scotland.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I welcome new industrial development in the western parts of the county, but I would not feel able to give the remainder priority over those districts in Scotland where there is high and persistent unemployment.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment has increased a hundredfold since the present Government came into power? What action has he taken following the presentation to him by the Secretary of State for Scotland of the Scottish Council's Report?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the facts put forward by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend really saying that he agrees with the statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that unemployment has increased a hundredfold in Scotland since the Government came to office?
    Mr. Rodgers: I shall assume—I have not the figures with me—that it must have been from two to four. I am sorry that I did not take up that point, but I would point out that industrial projects at present under construction, or approved but not yet started, are expected to provide 400 additional jobs in Edinburgh and 300 in the rest of the county.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Egypt (Sterling Holdings)
    Sir J. Barlowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present Egyptian sterling credits in London; and how much has been repaid since the agreement signed on 28th February, 1959.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): It is not the practice to give details of the sterling holdings of individual countries, or of transactions on their accounts. I am afraid that I cannot therefore add to the information I gave the House on 16th March last.

    Commonwealth Countries (Economic Resources)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the recent discussions in London between officials of Commonwealth countries regarding the mobilisation of their economic resources.
    Mr. Amory: I do not think I can add anything at present to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on 23rd July.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend say whether these officials are working under the aegis of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council? Has that body come into existence, and
    312
    is Marlborough House ready for occupation by it?
    Mr. Amory: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes". These meetings were held under the aegis of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council and the report of the officials has now been passed back to the Governments for consideration. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I understand that progress is being made with the plans for the preparation of Marlborough House.

    Free Trade Association (Stockholm Discussions)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent Finnish representatives were present at his talks in Stockholm with the Outer Seven countries; and, having regard to existing trade arrangements with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, what representations have ben received from the Soviet Government regarding the effects of the proposed trading arrangements for these countries.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As stated in the communiqué issued after the Stockholm talks last week, the Finnish Minister for Trade and Industry was invited to make a statement to the conference explaining the attitude of his Government to the plan for a Free Trade Association. He said that the Finnish Government hoped to be provided with facilities to follow further discussions more closely. Ministers of the Seven countries took note of the Finnish statement and agreed that Finland, as a member of the Nordic group, should be afforded such facilities being unable to follow developments through the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation of which she is not a member.
    Her Majesty's Government have received no representations on this matter from the Soviet Government.
    Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the failure of the Finns to participate in this agreement was due to Soviet blandishments or due to the fact that it would have been incompatible with the Anglo-Soviet Agreement on trade negotiated only a few months ago?
    Mr. Maudling: Neither. They did not ask to participate. They asked to be given facilities to follow what we were doing, and that request was readily granted.

    Foreign Travel Allowance
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that British participation in the Outer Seven arrangements will create an invidious distinction in the matter of foreign travel allowance granted to British nationals, in that £100 maximum per annum is imposed for all countries oversea except Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where an additional £250 is granted; and, as an overture to all participating members of the Outer Seven arrangements, whether he will now increase the £100 foreign travel allowance to £250, so that all British travellers to all Outer Seven countries may have a maximum equal to the present Scandinavian £250 maximum; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amory: I am aware of this problem but I am not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a thoroughly invidious position would arise if the British foreign travel allowance for the three Scandinavian members of the Outer Seven were two and a half times the maximum rate applicable to the other three, namely, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal? Is it not desirable at an early date to make these arrangements uniform and non-discriminatory in character?
    Mr. Amory: I am conscious of the point which my hon. Friend has made, but I would remind him that the Free Trade Association has not yet come into existence. As to travel allowances, relaxation will be made just as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Bellenger: Nevertheless, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if this arrangement is completely sucessful it will approximate to the sterling area arrangements and that therefore he should do as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has suggested and give travellers from this country facilities which they enjoy now in the sterling area?
    Mr. Amory: I will certainly take note of what the right hon. Member has said.

  THE VICTORIA CROSS (ANNUITY)
  Sir J. Smythasked the Prime Minister if he has now completed his discussions with regard to the Victoria Cross annuity and allowances; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the financial position of holders of the Victoria Cross.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As the House knows, Service Regulations make provision for two forms of annuity to holders of the Victoria Cross. First, an annuity of £10 is payable to all other ranks awarded the Victoria Cross. Secondly, officers and other ranks who are unable to earn a livelihood owing to age or infirmity may receive payments up to a maximum of £75 a year, less any non-contributory pension or annuity received from public funds. There are approximately 220 holders of the Victoria Cross for whom the United Kingdom Government are responsible. About 130 of these are receiving the £10 annuity and 12 are receiving payments of up to £75 a year under the second arrangement to which I have referred.
  We propose to replace these arrangements by new ones, under which all holders of the Victoria Cross for whom the United Kingdom Government are responsible, both officers and other ranks, will be paid an annuity of £100 irrespective of need or any other conditions. This, like the existing payments, will not be taxable.
  I trust that this change will commend itself to the House.
  Sir J. Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his Answer will give very great satisfaction to all holders of the Victoria Cross? Is he aware that his close personal interest in this matter is very much appreciated by all members of the Victoria Cross Association?
  The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) in expressing gratitude to the Prime Minister for his interest in the matter and say that we on this side of the House are very glad to share in the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood and are very grateful for the conclusion?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very courteous words.
  Mr. Bellenger: Although the House welcomes this advance, nevertheless this is a military award. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position of the holders of the George Cross who in valour at any rate are equivalent to the holders of the Victoria Cross?
  The Prime Minister: There is no provision for financial awards to holders of the George Cross. There has been for some time, as the House knows, a good deal of feeling, and some confusion indeed, about the way in which the longstanding financial awards for the Victoria Cross have been operating. I undertook to see whether I could straighten this out and get an agreement. I did not undertake to do in the short time more than that.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While we appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, may I ask whether the position is not somewhat anomalous in view of the distinction between the Victoria Cross and the George Cross? Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into the matter and see whether something similar should not be provided for holders of the George Cross?
  The Prime Minister: I will, of course, look into this but I had hoped that I had done what I undertook to do. I will look into it to see whether any further questions can be raised.
  Mr. Bevan: Is it necessary to take very much time over this? It is a very short decision to make. There are not very many holders of the George Cross, which is supposed to be an award of equal rank to the Victoria Cross,
  316
  and this discrimination surely is undesirable in the circumstances.
  The Prime Minister: I will look into it, certainly. I should like to get the facts, figures and numbers. I undertook to do what was requested in the Question and I have answered the Question. I do not wish to anticipate supplementary questions, but it would be helpful to the House if I made a further observation about this which interests people. One of the difficulties is that we can do all this by Royal Warrant but the question of assistance from the National Assistance Board has been raised. We cannot alter that except by Act of Parliament, but the chairman of the Board has assured me that he has given instructions that any case of a holder of the Victoria Cross applying for National Assistance shall be referred to headquarters, and, as the House knows, the Board has certain discretionary powers which can be exercised in individual cases and I shall therefore be greatly surprised if any difficulty Of this kind arises.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill [Lords] and on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Legitimacy Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock and no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]
ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
House, at its rising on Thursday, to adjourn till Thursday 22nd October, at Eleven o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

NYASALAND (REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
3.31 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry and the Despatch from the Governor of Nyasaland thereon, and extends its thanks to the Chairman and members of the Commission for their work; endorses their conclusion that a policy of violence was adopted by the Nyasaland African Congress Leadership and that the declaration of the state of emergency was fully justified, deeply regrets the loss of life that occurred but acknowledges that prompt and effective action by the Governor prevented the development of a more serious situation; expresses its gratitude to the Administration and to the Security Forces for their loyal service in circumstances of great difficulty and looks forward to the restoration of normal conditions in Nyasaland and to the continued constitutional and economic progress of its people on the basis of respect for law and order.
This Motion begins by taking note of the Report of the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry and the despatch from the Governor of Nyasaland thereon, and proposes that this House should extend its thanks to the Chairman and members of the Commission for their work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I did not suppose there would be any controversy about that. The Commission was appointed on 6th April. Members of the Commission spent five weeks in Nyasaland, they sat for a week in Southern Rhodesia, they heard evidence from 455 individual witnesses and, they say, about 1,300 witnesses in groups.
May I say, in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I am rather intrigued about how that was done. Hearing witnesses in groups strikes me as a somewhat novel procedure. It would certainly save time in the courts, but it sounds rather a noisy business, and questioning witnesses in groups must have been rather difficult. Still they did it, and they studied no less than 585 memoranda.
I mention these facts, which the Commission itself records, for they clearly establish that its task was no light one. I should not like it to be thought by anyone in this House, or by anyone outside, that because the Government do not accept all the Commission's conclusions and all its criticisms we are not grateful
318
to the Commission for voluntarily devoting so much time and effort to its task.
I have seen it suggested in various quarters that the Government, having appointed a Commission such as this, presided over by a distinguished High Court judge, are under a duty to accept all that the Commission says. That really is not right. It is, of course, the duty of every Government to give careful consideration to the report of any commission they appoint, but no Government, by appointing a commission or committee, either pledge themselves to, or are bound, to accept all its conclusions or criticisms or recommendations if any are made.
I remember, in the days of the Labour Government, serving on a very powerful committee with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man). We were the only two Members of Parliament on it and, odd though it may seem to some, we got on very well; we even shared a cabin on the "Queen Mary" without quarrelling. That committee was presided over by not one but two eminent judges: an American judge of high repute and an English Lord Justice. It presented a unanimous report, but the greater part of our conclusions were not implemented.
No one at that time suggested that the Labour Government were bound by what we said, and the present Government are not bound to accept all that this Commission has said. I can assure the House, however, that the Government have given the fullest possible consideration to the Report and to the despatch, and it is my task today to tell the House to what extent the Government accept the conclusions and criticisms and, where we do not, our reasons for not doing so. But before I start on that, may I remind the House of the circumstances which led to the appointment of the Commission.
The House may remember that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies announced, on 3rd March, that the Governor had that morning declared a state of emergency, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) alleged that the Governor was not acting freely and that my right hon. Friend was—and I quote the hon. Gentleman's words—"abdicating his responsibilities to the

319
Central Government". The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) went so far as to allege that there had been a disgraceful surrender on the part of our Government and a conspiracy between the Prime Ministers of the Federation and of Southern Rhodesia. The members of the Commission say that they were satisfied that they were given all the information bearing on this and that they had, and I quote their words,
"… no reason to think that the decision to declare a state of emergency was not the Governor's own."
I hope that in the light of this finding we shall hear, if not an apology, at least no more of an allegation that was, and has been found to be, wholly unfounded and which cannot have helped to alleviate the situation which existed on 3rd March.
The Opposition that day really challenged the need to declare an emergency at all. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asserted, and again I quote his words, that:
"… the real position in Nyasaland … is that a few panic-stricken people are now precipating trouble."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 217.]
The Commission says, in paragraph 149 of the Report:
"We apprehend, however, that it will be generally agreed that on the facts we have found and in the situation that existed on 3rd March, however it was caused, the Government had either to act or to abdicate; and … it had to resort to emergency powers."
May I remind the House of some of the facts the members of the Commission found. They were satisfied that by the beginning of 1959 the extremists had made up their minds to adopt a policy of violence—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that one."] In January, there was the emergency meeting of Congress, and I sympathise with the members of the Commission in their difficulty in finding out many months later exactly what happened. They say that there was an acute conflict of evidence as to what was decided and discussed. The agenda was so secret that Mr. Chipembere, in his letter to Mr. Chiume, avoided committing it to writing, but he said that Congress would adopt "action" as the official policy and "action in the real sense of action."
The Commission thinks that the document set out in Appendix II of its Report gives as good an impression as can be got of what went on at the meeting, and concludes:
"Perhaps the effect of it all can best be summed up by saying that there was to be an all-out campaign to defy the Government, violence not excluded."
Then follows the pregnant sentence:
"When would the violence begin, how far would it go, and what form exactly would it take? The only answer is that it would depend on what happened. If it started in some places and was not checked, it would certainly have spread"—
these are the Commission's words—
'and might have gone very far. That was the real danger in the situation."
It was not long, as the Report shows, before violence started, and it was not just in one place but throughout the country.
On 11th February a crowd of 400 people assembled at a court in the Central Province. They refused to leave, assaulted two court messengers, an officer of the veterinary department whose collar bone was broken and who was knocked unconscious, and two of his African staff. On 17th February, in the Zomba district, a crowd armed with pangas and axes took a man out of his vehicle and threatened two of the District Commissioner's messengers, one of whom was struck. On 19th February a District Commissioner and about 20 policemen faced a crowd of 600 or more. The District Commissioner was attacked with sticks and received a scalp wound which had to be stitched. Considerable damage was done to an airfield. Thirteen prisoners were released.
On the 20th, Mrs. James, one of the two Europeans left on the airfield at Fort Hill, was in the radio hut when a mob of about 200 people, armed mostly with pangas and suchlike, advanced towards her. Some of the crowd were saying that they would kill her. She was not injured, but it must have been a terribly unpleasant experience indeed for her. Fort Hill was not reoccupied for a week.
On the 22nd an African leader of a group of Africans spoke to the head of an American mission and, pointing to an African servant, said that when they spilt the European blood they would spill his. On the 23rd, a warning letter

321
was thrown through the window of an African District Assistant threatening him with stoning or death if he associated with Europeans.
On the 28th a crowd of about 100 Africans surrounded the house in which an African Federal Member of Parliament was staying, threatening to kill him. The Commission found that the hand of Congress was at work here. There was clear proof of it in a letter written by one Congress member to another. That is what the Commission said. The letter said:
"Mr. Mzemba was staying here. … He had organised an underground movement of villagers of more than 100 people. They came and besieged the Mandale store where he was staying. Fortunately enough, it was after the K.A.R.s had arrived. That was going to be the end of him."
I ask the House to note those words in the letter sent by one Congress member to another.
I have briefly summarised some of the events which took place between the emergency conference and 3rd March. These events are all recorded in the Commission's Report, and they confirm the correctness of the Commission's finding that at the conference Congress decided to adopt a policy of violence. The assaults to which I have referred, the threats to murder the African servant when they spilt the European blood, the threats to kill Mrs. James and the apparent attempt to kill the African Federal Member of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many were killed?"]—all, I suggest, indicate that violence, personal violence, the killing of Europeans and Africans—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many were killed?"]—was not excluded.
In addition to these facts, the Nyasaland Government had received before 3rd March reports of informers. It is true that the Commission regarded their evidence as the least valuable, as less valuable than the evidence of detainees who made statements which they subsequently withdrew. The Commission gives no grounds for treating the evidence of informers in this way. As the Governor points out in his despatch, the information which came to him
"came from seven separate and independent sources."
They were not all informers in the ordinary sense. They were in different
322
parts of Nyasaland. Each was ignorant of the others' existence and of the others' reports.
The fact that so many reports were received from different sources so widely apart and substantially to the same effect, all of them saying that bloodshed had been discussed at the emergency conference—and the Commission found that it had—four of them mentioning the murder of Government officers and three of them the murder of Africans, was something the Governor would have been failing in his duty to ignore.
The Commissioner of Police had told the Governor that his view was—I quote the Commissioner's words:
"… that the information about a plan for the mass murder of all Europeans and Asians, men, women and children, in the event of Dr. Banda being arrested, was correct and must be accepted seriously."
In the light of these facts and in the light of this information, I submit to the House that the Governor deserves not condemnation or criticism but commendation for declaring the state of emergency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I further assert that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was entirely wrong in asserting that the real position in Nyasaland was that
"… a few panic-stricken people are now precipitating trouble …"
The Commission, as I have said, apprehended that it would be generally agreed that the Government had either to act or abdicate and had to resort to emergency measures. I ask—the House should be clearly told—whether that conclusion is now accepted by the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "We accept it all."] I rather gather that it is, for they have tabled an Amendment asking the House to accept the Report of the Commission. They do not say" with acknowledgments to the Manchester Guardian", but they should. I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has his name to the Amendment.
Acceptance of the Report means acceptance of this, the Commission's most important conclusion. It means the rejection of the Opposition contention—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) will have a chance to make his own speech—put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, that the

323
declaration of the emergency was at the instance of the Government of the Federation. It means recognition of the fact that the emergency had to be declared for the reasons given in the Report, and recognition of the fact that it was not true to say that the real position in Nyasaland was that
"…a few panic-stricken people are now precipitating trouble …"
We should welcome this belated admission of error on the part of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which appears to be implicit in the Amendment, but we are entitled to a clear and unequivocal statement from right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the declaration of the emergency was justified. In the Government's opinion, the Commission was right in this, its main finding, and the Governor was right to declare a state of emergency. Indeed, if he had not done so he would have merited the most severe criticism. In our view, whatever may be the attitude today of the Opposition, that finding will, as the Commission expected, be generally accepted every where.
It is true, as the Commission says, that no European was ever killed. But is this a ground for challenging the declaration of a state of emergency? Is it to go out from this House that in future no such declaration is to be made unless and until a European has been murdered? I do not think that anyone will seriously suggest that. Here there was at least
"a great deal of talk about beating and killing"
—I quote the words of the Commission—at the emergency conference followed, to use the words of Mr. Chipembere, by "action" in the real sense of action—with threats to murder and serious assaults. As I say, in my submission, the Governor would have failed in his duty if he had not acted as he did.
Some people seem to be under the impression that because the Commission found that there was no "murder plot" my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State put a false case before this House to justify the declaration of the emergency. Some may even think that this finding of the Commission
324
shows that there was no need for the declaration at all. What I have already said should put that right Whether or not what was decided on at the emergency conference amounted to a plot to murder, there was, as I have shown, and the Commission has found, abundant reason for the declaration.
There is, though, one passage in the Commission's Report which may be taken by some to support the contention that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend put a false case before the House. In paragraph 176, the Report says:
"In the House of Commons references to massacre and murder and to plots were being freely made on 3rd March, by yourself and by Mr. Amery, the Under-Secretary of State. We understand that you had received the intelligence report of 13th February. On the evening of 3rd March you said that a massacre was being planned. Later in the debate Mr. Amery said there was a conspiracy of murder and he referred to Mau Mau and to a blood bath."
Reference to HANSARD of 3rd March shows that references to plots were not freely made either by my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend. Neither of them referred even once to a plot. They never used that word. The phrase "murder plot" did not appear in the White Paper. It was never used by Ministers. It was, as the Commission recognise, an expression applied by others to the White Paper. It made a good headline. On 3rd March references to "massacre" were not freely made.
My right hon. Friend used the word once and I should like to remind the House of what he said. He said this:
"That information made it clear that plans had been made by Congress to carry out widespread violence and murder of Europeans, Asians and moderate African leaders; that, in fact, a massacre was being planned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday. 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 290.]
That is the one reference that my right hon. Friend made to that.
It is true that my hon. Friend described the meeting of Congress on 25th January as a conspiracy to murder. If killing Europeans was then decided on—and the evidence available at that time was all one way in favour of that conclusion—that was a correct description. He, too, used the word "massacre" once. He said that if we had not taken appropriate action at the right moment there may well have been a massacre of

325
Africans, Asians and Europeans on the Kenyan scale. He said, too, that if a state of emergency had been declared before there had been sufficient forces in the country there may well have been the blood bath which we feared. He made a reference to Mau Mau and said:
"We have had it all before. Remember Mau Mau."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 337.]
Mr. Chipembere it was, so the Commission says, who expressed the belief that to extract Nyasaland from the Federation they must have a plan which
"must include something quite akin to Mau Mau."
I cannot see that either my right hon. Friend or by hon. Friend used language on that occasion which was in any way exaggerated or unjustified, bearing in mind the information then in their possession.
I have dealt with this at some length, for though the Commission may not in this passage have intended to criticise the language used by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend some might infer that it was doing so. I want to make it clear that on the information then available what was said was fully justified. What was it that was called a murder plot? It was a summary of the intelligence reports published in paragraph 24 of the White Paper and also in paragraph 152 of the Report. In that paragraph of the White Paper the Governor after drawing attention to the secrecy of the emergency conference, wrote:
"By the 13th February, however, the Government was in a position to assess reports of the proceedings at this meeting. According to these reports agreed at the meeting …"
and then follows the summary.
The summary begins by stating that unlawful meetings and processions should be held throughout the Protectorate. That was done. The Commission held that the greatly increased number of illegal meetings held by the conference
"suggests the execution of a deliberate policy."
The summary goes on to say what was to happen if Dr. Banda was arrested. If Dr. Banda was arrested, his lieutenants, Mr. Chipembere, Mr. Chisiza, Mr. Chiume and Mrs. Chibambo were to inform all branches of Congress of his arrest, and that violence was to begin on a day fixed by them called R-day.
Contrast that with the notes printed in Appendix II, a document which the Commission regarded as giving
"as good an impression as can be got of what went on on the 25th February."
These notes say that if Dr. Banda was arrested
"Word will issue from the Central Body telling all"—
and "Central Body" is, perhaps, not an accurate way of referring to Dr. Banda's lieutenants—
"people to start war after two days."
There is, it is true, no reference to R-day, but both the summary in the White Paper and in this document state that violence or war was to start after information had been received from Congress headquarters. Both the summary and the document specified sabotage—of the very nature that occurred before Dr. Banda's arrest.
The summary names certain officials who were to be killed, Europeans including missionaries, and Africans classed as "quisling". The document states quite shortly that Europeans were to be hit or to have their throats cut, and that
"people who discredit Congress should have their names written down."
The Commission found that during the period 25th January to 3rd March
"branches were sending up suggestions for the black list"
which was to consist of Africans,
"and that suggestions for their treatment varied from deportation, when self-government came, to killing."
Comparison between the summary of the reports contained in the White Paper and this document does not, I submit, justify the conclusion that the summary should be rejected out of hand. That there were discrepancies between the summary and the document in Appendix II—the document which gives as good an impression as can be got of what went on at the conference—is only to be expected.
But the salient fact remains; both the document and the summary support the view that the policy of violence adopted by Congress did not exclude murder if Dr. Banda were arrested. That there was great talk of beating and killing at the conference the Commission finds as a fact. It says that with all that talk
"it is certainly conceivable that some Africans were thinking about murder".

327
But the Commission did not think that there was anything that could be called a plot; it found that there was talk of beating and killing Europeans, but not of cold-blooded assassination or massacre. It attached importance to that. I am sorry, but I cannot appreciate the significance of this distinction. It is too subtle for me. As the Governor says, massacre may be a matter of numbers, but murder is murder whether it is called killing or assassination.
The Commission says that it does not think that there was,
"except in a very loose sense".
a plan, but, whether loose or detailed, or whether called a plot or a plan, the important question is: did Congress, at the conference, decide on not just a policy of violence short of murder, but a policy which contemplated and did not exclude murder? What I submit is very significant is the fact that the Report summarised in the White Paper came from seven separate and independent sources. That would appear to indicate a general and widespread belief, even if ill-founded, that Congress had adopted a policy of violence which included killing.
The document in Appendix II supports that conclusion. The writer of those notes must have believed that after Dr. Banda's arrest they were to kill Europeans. Taking full account of what the Commission has said, for the reasons I have given and for the reasons the Governor gave in his dispatch, the Government cannot come to the conclusion that what happened on 25th January at the emergency conference did not constitute a very real threat to the lives of Europeans and those Africans who had incurred the enmity of Congress. But whether the Government are right about that is really of little consequence for, as the Commission recognises, even if there was no policy of murder, conditions were such that the Government had to resort to emergency measures.
The Commission criticised the White Paper in other respects. It criticised the passage dealing with Dr. Banda's speeches, and it clearly subjected that dispatch to a meticulous examination. The Governor has made his reply to those criticisms and I do not think there is any need for me to take up time by
328
reviewing them and the Governor's replies. The Government, having considered the criticisms, hold the view that, in general, the dispatch published in the White Paper conveyed a true picture of the situation in Nyasaland.
It is always easy to be critical of someone else's choice of words, and I hope that I shall not be thought unduly critical in expressing the view that the choice by the Commission of the expression "police State" to describe Nyasaland after the proclamation of the emergency was singularly unfortunate. During an emergency many of the freedoms normally enjoyed have to be restricted. We found that here, during the war years, and I think we should have been very angry, and justifiably angry, if anyone had described Great Britain during the war years as a police State. These words carry a very unpleasant innuendo.
Mr. William Blyton: Gestapo.
The Attorney-General: The Governor points out that "police State" is not a correct description.
The Commission says that the reason why it had to hear witnesses in private was that under these conditions many Africans would rightly have declined to testify in public. The Commission goes on to say that the authorities had made it clear that no African ran any risk of prosecution or detention as a result of what he said. It is my right hon. Friend's warrant of appointment which required the Commission to sit in private. He imposed that requirement for two reasons.
The first was that it would protect African witnesses from intimidation by the supporters of Congress—and the Commission records that intimidation was one of the weapons of Congress—and the other was that it would enable those in the Government service to speak with greater freedom than it was desirable they should do in public. It is, indeed, unfortunate that the Commission should put forward a wrong reason for my right hon. Friend's decision, and that it should have based that assertion on calling Nyasaland a police State.
I now come to the measures taken on and after the declaration of the emergency. First, there was "Operation Sunrise", in which 263 persons were arrested

329
before 6th March. The Commission says that it thinks that unnecessary and, therefore, illegal force was used in making a number of those arrests. The Governor's dispatch shows that he does not condone the use of illegal force; nor do we. The Commission refers to the arrest of 10 individuals out of 263. It sets out, without comments, the facts in relation to eight of them. It is not clear in how many of those eight cases the Commission thought that illegal force was used, or whether it thought that it was used in a number of cases to which it did not specifically refer.
The use of illegal force is to be regretted, but it must be remembered that the situation was critical. I quote the Commission's words. It said:
"The Government were right in thinking that the arrests would be strongly resented. The trouble came later in the day: and that it did not come at the time of the operation was no doubt due to the speed and secrecy with which it was carried out."
Later, the Commission says:
"They were carried out in the main by small groups of inexperienced officers, operating often in unfamiliar terrain to arrest people they did not know personally and whose arrest they feared might provoke violence by the local population."
In the circumstances it is to be regretted, but it is not altogether to be wondered at, if, in some of the 263 arrests, more force was used than was strictly necessary.
The Commission says, too, that illegal measures of restraint were also employed. That, too, is very regrettable, but again, perhaps not to be wondered at, bearing in mind the fear that the arrests would immediately provoke violence and also bearing in mind that attempts had been made, sometimes successfully, to release prisoners before the emergency was declared. The Commission investigated every incident in which firearms were employed. I must say that I doubt whether its views on all the incidents will be universally accepted.
It says, for instance, that it is not satisfied that the man who came out of the crowd and walked after the District Commissioner, whose back was towards him, brandishing or pointing a spear, was really going to attack the District Commissioner. It says that it was not satisfied, that the inspector thought that the District Commissioner was in immediate danger. If he had it appears
330
to think that he would have shouted to the District Commissioner rather than to the man. He did shout, as the Report says, to the man before he fired. Surely that shout would have warned the District Commissioner, if he had heard it.
The Commission does not refer to the coroner's verdict, which was that the shooting was entirely justified to prevent the rioter from attacking the District Commissioner. The Commission says that, having seen all who were responsible for the shootings, it was satisfied that each man did what he did because he honestly felt he could not discharge his duty in any other way. I propose to leave this matter there.
The Commission made further criticisms with regard to the subsequent operations, to the burning of the house, the confiscation of implements, and the use of force. The Governor has replied to them, as the House will see in paragraphs 48 to 51 of his dispatch, and I need not detain the House to remind Members of what the Commission or the Governor has said on these matters.
I now come to Dr. Banda. He was detained on 3rd March, and I should perhaps point out that the making of detention orders is a matter for the Governor alone. His power to do so derives from the proclamation of an emergency under the Emergency Powers Order in Council, 1939. The constitutional position is this. My right hon. Friend has no power to order the detention of anyone in Nyasaland, nor has he power to order the release of anyone detained. He can, of course, inform the Governor of his views, but he cannot direct the Governor to detain or to release from detention. I thought that it was desirable that that position should be clearly stated.
Two views can be taken of Dr. Banda. One that he is more or less a figurehead and that Mr. Chipembere, Mr. Chiume and Mr. Chisiza ran Congress and were responsible for the adoption of the policy of violence. That appears to be the view taken by the Commission. The other view is that, though he chose to dissociate himself so far as he could from any public association with the policy and acts of violence, in fact he connived at, and was a party to, that policy. These are, as I say, two possible views.

331
I should like to remind the House of the facts which were found by the Commission. Dr. Banda was elected President General of Congress in April, 1958. He was given sole power to appoint the other officers of Congress. He appointed Mr. Chipembere, Mr. Chiume and Mr. Chisiza. The first two, the Commission says, were extremist in their views, and Mr. Chisiza was introduced and commended to Dr. Banda as a man of extreme views. These were the three that Dr. Banda appointed to the high offices of Congress. It is not, I suggest, without considerable significance that Dr. Banda should have appointed these three extremists.
The Commission found the following facts. In paragraph 93 of its Report it states that it was the extremists who, at the beginning of 1959, had made up their minds that they would get Congress to adopt a policy of violence. I do not find it easy to believe that Dr. Banda can have been ignorant throughout of their intentions. In paragraph 95, it is recorded that at the beginning of January Mr. Chisiza asked Dr. Banda's consent to the holding of the emergency conference. In paragraph 97, I think it is, it is recorded that Dr. Banda received delegates at his house. He did not attend the meetings to discuss the agenda at the conference, one of which took place, so the Commission records, in his own house. One wonders why he did not. It was, apparently, at this meeting, during discussion of the secret items, that Mr. Chaluluka began to falter, and on 25th January Mr. Chaluluka was thrown out of Congress.
It is surely very difficult to believe that Dr. Banda was ignorant, and remained ignorant, of the secret items to be discussed at the conference, secret items which were apparently discussed at the meeting of the Executive Committee in his House. He was, the Commission says, the undisputed leader. I find it very difficult to believe that he really did not know what went on in his own home. That conference adopted, so the Commission says, a fresh policy of violence, an all-out campaign to defy the Government, violence not being excluded There was a great deal of talk about beating and killing.
The Commission was invited to believe, as it says in paragraph 102, that
332
between 25th January and 3rd March the decisions taken at the conference were not mentioned to Dr. Banda, despite, as it says, the fact that branch meetings were taking place all over the country at which the delegates were reporting what had happened. If he, the undisputed leader, did not know what had been decided upon, then he must have been about the only member of Congress who did not. Surely it is not without significance that shortly after the conference Dr. Banda told an audience that moderate leaders were no use. Hon. Members will find that in paragraph 141.
Dr. Banda addressed a public meeting at Zomba on 20th January and spoke about the arrest of 50 women. He was followed by Mr. Chipembere, who told the crowd, "If we are men, not women, we must see that the women are released now, this very instant", and a crowd of 400 or 500 rushed to the police station, shouting and waving sticks. The police drew up a cordon and were heavily stoned. There was Dr. Banda on the spot. He did nothing to stop the crowd. The Commission says that Mr. Chipembere was afterwards rebuked by Dr. Banda—one assumes that was the evidence of Mr. Chipembere or Dr. Banda—but Dr. Banda did nothing at the time. He made no attempt to stop the crowd. Indeed, the Commission says that he never did condemn violence categorically.
These facts, which are all recorded in this Report—these statements which can be found in the Report in different paragraphs; these facts found by the Commission—create a strong probability, nay, I would say a strong presumption, that Dr. Banda, the undisputed leader, was a party to this policy of violence. The Commission was impressed by his charm. It thought that Dr. Banda was a frank witness, and it made it clear that its view of him depended very largely on the impression that it formed of him as a witness.
The Commission posed the question: was his absence from the meeting on 25th January deliberate and did he know what was going to be decided and discussed? It says that its answer to that depends on its impression of Dr. Banda as a witness and what it knew and had been told about his character. It dealt with

333
this in paragraph 166. One wonders who its informants were. It says that it accepts Dr. Banda's account—but it does not. unfortunately, tell us what it was—of how and why he was absent from the meeting of 25th January.
The Commission does not, in fact, answer the question: did he know what was going to be discussed and decided? except by saying that it found the relationship which Dr. Banda's evidence shows to have existed with his lieutenants quite a convincing one.
The Commission thinks that he would never have approved a policy of murder and that he would have intervened decisively if he had thought it was so much as being discussed. I would be interested to know—so would we all—what grounds it had for deciding that. Dr. Banda never raised his voice against violence. If he had condemned violence, the Commission says that Congress would never had adopted that policy. The Government find it impossible to acquit Dr. Banda of responsibility for the policies of Congress and of complicity in them.
There are occasions in my profession when one argues in the Court of Appeal that the decision of a judge on a question of fact is wrong. Here, to adopt the phrase we sometimes use in the courts, I submit to the House that the Commission's decision with regard to Dr. Banda was against the weight of the evidence which the Commission itself found, and that its impression of him as a witness is wholly insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the facts which the Commission found and to which I have referred. The Government regret that they cannot, in the light of the facts to which I have referred, take as favourable a view of Dr. Banda as that taken by the Commission, based, as the Commission frankly says, on its impression of him as a witness and on what it knew and had been told of his character.
It was the Congress policy of violence which led to the declaration of the emergency, and violence had started before 3rd March. To adapt the language used by the Commission, how far would it have gone? What form would it have taken, if it had not been checked? No one can say, for it was checked. But surely the Commission was right in
334
saying that it might have gone very far. In the light of our knowledge of what has happened in the countries close by, can one safely assume that, if it had not been checked, there would not have been great suffering and loss of life?
The Report shows the strong reaction to the arrest of the leaders of Congress and a series of disturbances all over the country. They had to be firmly and speedily dealt with. I am sure that the House will recognise that. We greatly regret that, in dealing with these disturbances, 41 lives were lost and injuries were suffered.
Mr. William Hamilton: How many whites?
The Attorney-General: We deeply regret that, after the adoption by Congress of its policy of violence, 51 people died and 79 were wounded. But one wonders what the roll of casualties might have been but for the prompt action taken. An hon. Member opposite talks about the lives of Africans. It was not only the lives of Europeans which were threatened. The lives of Africans and Asians as well were threatened. While we regret the loss of life, we are thankful that the prompt action taken and the loyal service of the security forces did avoid all risk of a major catastrophe.
I ask the House to consider with me, calmly, the position in which Sir Robert Armitage found himself at the end of February. It was a difficult position for any Governor. There were the acts of violence. He had before him the information which the Commissioner of Police told him must be treated seriously. If he ignored it, he did so at his peril and at the peril of Europeans, Asians and Africans. If he delayed too long, the delay might lead to great loss of life and suffering. If he had delayed too long and that had resulted, he would have been responsible, and rightly held responsible, for the deaths which occurred.
In my submission to the House, the Governor made, as the Commission found, a right decision. But where there is prompt action which averts danger, there are always some who say that, but for the declaration of the emergency, there would have been no violence. They say, "You acted unnecessarily, and

335
that is shown by the fact that no European lost his life". The Commission endorsed the Governor's action. That is its most important conclusion. The Opposition ask us to accept the whole of the Report. That we cannot do. We simply cannot accept, for instance, the Commission's view that the man with a spear was really not going to attack the District Commissioner and its implied criticism of the inspector who shot. I have, in the course of my speech, explained why we cannot and do not accept all the Report.
In conclusion, I wish only to add that it is our hope and, I am sure, the hope of all of us, that, now that this policy of violence has been frustrated, conditions in Nyasaland will soon so far improve that it will be possible to release those now detained without risk to law and order and security. How long it will be before that can happen, I cannot say. It depends, of course, on conditions in Nyasaland. Law and order must be maintained, and on the maintenance of law and order depends the prospect of continued constitutional and economic progress for the people of Nyasaland.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"accepts the Report of the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry (Command Paper No. 814)"
Nyasaland today lies under a state of emergency. The Congress is disbanded and outlawed. It is forbidden to become a member of it. It is forbidden to import certain publications into the territory. Its principal political leaders are under arrest. There is, in the words of the Commission, "a deep and bitter" gulf between the Government and the people. What contribution does the Attorney-General think that he has made to this situation?
Mr. John Eden: What contribution has the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made?
Mr. Callaghan: I relish the opportunity of answering the Attorney-General immediately. There are many people in Nyasaland who will not look favourably
336
upon the lawyer's speech which we have just heard. It is commonly said that, of course, all the Europeans support the Governor and the Government in this. That is not true. There are many people, many Europeans, and there would be more if it were not for the subtle pressure—I use the Commission's words—which the Administration has used against them, who would like to declare themselves against the Government's policy.
Fortunately, there are some interests at work, business interests in Nyasaland, which are so big that they do not have to yield to subtle intimidation or pressure. They can speak their minds. They are European interests. If the Attorney-General would like to hear the first verdict on his speech and upon the stand that the Government are taking, I will give it to him now. It is in the form of a cable received from the general manager of the Blantyre Company, in Nyasaland, Mr. P. Howard, sent to Sir Jock Campbell. I have his permission to quote it:
"Very important to all future developments that African confidence in Her Majesty's Government be re-established and strengthened. To this end essential that Government honestly and openly accept full implication Devlin Report and take appropriate action. This would provide foundation for new approach from which reasonable solutions could be found Gravely concerned if Report is sidestepped or rejected."
That is the view of someone against whom subtle pressure has no effect.
As I listened to the Attorney-General's speech it was quite clear to me that we are all wrong—the Devlin Commission, Congress, of course, and myself—and that the only people who are right in this matter are the Government. The only mistake that the Government have made throughout the whole of this long and tortuous history is to appoint the Devlin Commission. The Commission saw 455 individuals and 1,300 people in groups, read hundreds of memoranda and travelled thousands of miles, and spent weeks upon it. This was the Government's Commission, selected by them, the terms of reference decided by them. [Interruption.] I do not know whether they were all Tories, but I know that the Colonial Secretary, when he set it up, invited us to give it our full confidence.
This was a unanimous Report, "but", says the Attorney-General, "we do not

337
have to accept the findings and conclusions of any Commission that is set up. We are always entitled to reject what it says". That is not what the Commission was trying to do. Paragraph 4 makes clear its task and the boundaries which it set itself. It says:
"But the task with which you entrusted us was to report and not to make recommendations. We have aimed at setting out all the relevant facts as objectively as we can, in order that those whose responsibility it is to approve or disapprove may be provided with a firm basis of fact for their deliberations."
That is what the Commission set out to do.
What the Attorney-General and the Government are doing is not rejecting conclusions, but rejecting the "firm basis of fact" which the Commission endeavoured to provide. As I said, this was a unanimous Report, but what the Government have done with it is to winnow through it, sieving out, dredging out, everything that would support their case and averting their eyes from anything which might be in the slightest degree embarrassing to them.
We do not believe that such an approach to the Devlin Commission's Report will fulfil our aim of restoring peace and tranquillity in Nyasaland, and for that reason I am moving the Opposition Amendment. In our view, the Government have failed to take the opportunity that the Devlin Report provided of reconsidering their policy and methods in order to make a fresh start. The Government remind me of the witness who was giving evidence at an inquiry at Little Rock. He was being subjected to severe cross-examination, and he said; "Facts? Don't confuse me with facts. I have already made up my mind". That is the approach of the Government to this problem.
No one can read this Report as it stands without reaching the conclusion that here are facts which are so well documented that any Government which were not set upon a policy and unable to escape from the groove in which they had got themselves, must reconsider their position and conclusions. The Government's attitude on this Report is in striking contrast to their attitude on the report of the Bank Rate Tribunal. The Home Secretary has left the Chamber; it was he who moved that the Report of
338
that Tribunal be accepted. He said on that occasion:
"It must be recorded that the Tribunal, having defined its terms of reference in the widest sense, has given us findings which, on all points, have been absolutely definite and unanimous. There can be no doubt about this. In the course of this two-day debate we shall no doubt see tremendous diversionary effort of one sort or another, for the limpid stream of justice must now pass through the turbulent rapids of politics in Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 816.]
On that occasion both sides of the House accepted the findings of the Tribunal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. I can assure Government supporters that I looked up the terms of our Amendment before I made that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it out."] The House is entitled to hear from the Government why the Motion on the Order Paper today accepts only those parts of the Report which the Government find palatable, and ignores the rest. I want to deal with some of the rest as well as with the points which the Attorney-General has made.
The Government invite us to declare that
"the state of emergency was fully justified,"
but not to accept the Commission's findings in which references were made to massacre and a murder plot.
"We have rejected the evidence, such as it is"
says the Report. Those are its disdainful words. The Government ask us to endorse the Commission's conclusion
"that a policy of violence was adopted."
We do so, but the Government fail to acknowledge that part of the Report which makes it clear that the policy of violence resulted from the mood of frustration felt by Congress because there was no constitutional way of making its views effective.
The Government ask us to acknowledge
"that prompt and effective action by the Governor prevented the development of a more serious situation,"
but there is no reference in the Motion to the fact that
"unnecessary and, therefore, illegal force was used",
or to the fact that
"houses were burnt simply because they belonged to persons who were thought to be Congress sympathisers".

339
or to the facts that agricultural tools and implements were confiscated, that tough, punitive measures were used by the Army against the population and that an aggressive and bullying attitude was part of the treatment to subdue troublesome areas. How can the Government ask us to adopt one part of the Report and not the other? Is that a basis on which to make a fresh start?
The Government invite us to look forward
"to the restoration of normal conditions in Nyasaland",
but pay no heed to the statement of the Commission that there is
"deep and bitter division of opinion separating the Government from the people.… Witness after witness appeared before us for the sole purpose of stating that the cause of all the troubles we were investigating was Federation".
There is no reference to that. There is no attempt to reconsider whether, in fact, that finding of the Commission is justified or not. That is what we should have heard from the Government this afternoon, if they wanted to wipe the slate clean and start again.
The Government ask the House to hope for
"continued constitutional and economic progress"
but, again, they make no acknowledgment of the fact that it is the Government and they alone who have delayed for years in bringing forward constitutional reforms that might have averted much of the mood of frustration which Congress felt. The Government, finally, ask us, in their Motion, for
"respect for law and order",
yet they propose to keep in detention a man of whom the Commission finds that the attempt to involve him in massacre and assassination
"is generally thought by those who have seen or heard him to be ridiculous,"
and fail either to release or bring to trial hundreds of others who, at the moment, are languishing in detention camps mainly because they have a fierce and passionate desire to be left alone and to keep out of federation.
On this side of the House we accept the main conclusions and findings of the Devlin Commission's Report. It is from that that we start. I want to ask
340
the Government this question: can the Africans be expected in future to trust commissions of investigation appointed by the Government to ascertain the facts, to bring their conclusions to the House of Commons if, when they have done so, the Government of the day merely select those parts that they like—findings of fact—and find every reason for throwing away the portions that they dislike?
I now come to the Government's White Paper. This is dealt with very critically indeed by the Devlin Commission. Let us look at some of the things that the Government said in reference to Dr. Banda's speeches, on which the Attorney-General said, I thought with a certain amount of delicacy, that he did not propose to linger. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper published last March reads:
"… Dr. Banda made plain his intention of forcing upon the British Government immediately and uncompromisingly the Congress aims…"
What is the finding of the Commission? It says:
"Dr Banda certainly said that he was going to press for self-government and secession. He said nothing about 'forcing'; on the contrary, he said that he expected to obtain it by negotiation and by peaceful means."
In paragraph 12 the White Paper states that Dr. Banda
"promised, at the same time … the removal of Government servants and others loyal to the Government…"
Paragraph 64 of the Commission's Report says that this statement
"is based upon a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what he said".
Paragraph 14 of the White Paper reads:
"Dr. Banda made it equally clear … in his talks with Government officials that he was not prepared to compromise".
The Devlin Report states:
"This last statement is not true".
Hon. Members Hon. Members: What about the Governor's White Paper?
Mr. Callaghan: I will come to that. Hon. Members need not worry. The White Paper states:
"As early as August Dr. Banda was publicly threatening members of the police who attended his meetings with victimisation".
The Devlin Commission says:
"On any view it is not a fair representation of Dr. Banda's references to the police as a

341
whole to say that he threatened them with victimisation"
Paragraph 16 of the White Paper refers to a quotation from a letter reading:
"You have heard about the riots. I have set Blantyre and Zomba on fire, I hope soon to set the whole of Nyasaland on fire".
The Devlin Report says that this passage is not correctly quoted. The Governor's explanation is this. He says: "We are sorry, but at the time we prepared the White Paper we had mislaid his letter, so we had to rely upon the informer's letter for the quotation". The correct quotation is given in the Devlin Report. It reads:
"You have heard of the so-called riots. Well, things are hot here. I have the whole of Blantyre and Zomba on fire. Very soon, I hope to have the whole of Nyasaland on fire."
The Devlin Report draws attention to the fact that this was a figurative statement, not an actual statement. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite have not had the advantage of talking to him, nor the chance of hearing what this man had to say. The Devlin Commission did. The Governor has not since, either. I have already given the Governor's reply, that he had to rely upon an informer's letter.
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I will not be like the Colonial Secretary. I shall give way.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was asked to read the Governor's reply, which means the Governor's reply in his despatch. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to paragraph 22, he will see that the Governor says:
"I am surprised that the Commission 'attach no significance at all to this letter'. While it may be that the expression 'on fire' is repeatedly used by Dr. Banda, the use by him of these words in their context in this letter, with particular reference to what had already occurred at Blantyre and Zomba, shows that it was Dr. Banda's hope that similar incidents, disturbances or riots, whatever they should be called, would occur throughout the whole of Nyasaland."
That was the reply which the hon. Gentleman dodged.
Mr. Callaghan: I shall come to the question of violence and riots later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I may, I shall make my own speech.
342
The point with which I am dealing at the moment is this. Here are five quotations culled from four successive paragraphs in a White Paper which the Government produced to convince the House and the country of the infamy of Dr. Banda which the Commission, having seen him, challenges and refutes and says that his views are either misrepresented or that the quotations are not true. That is the point that I am making at the moment.
The argument was frequently used, especially by the Colonial Secretary and by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate of 3rd March, to which I shall return later, and later by the Governor, in his despatch, that Dr. Banda did not want a compromise. The Commission does not agree with this conclusion, and it gives its reasons. I should like to add a further piece of evidence from a letter written to me by Dr. Banda on 9th January. It was marked "Very, very confidential" and I have not, therefore, felt justified in quoting it until this moment. Now I feel that I can do so.
This is what he says—and I ask the House to judge this before hon. Members grimace, as some hon. Members below the Gangway are all too ready to do about this man. This is the letter which he wrote to me about his approach before the state of emergency was declared. He details the political situation and says that he anticipates the forthcoming constitutional talks. The letter reads:
"You know, of course, what our terms are. They are for a majority both in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council. I have an idea as to what lines both His Excellency and Mr. Dixon"—
that is, the European leader—
"are likely to take. Therefore, the minimum I am prepared to accept personally and to recommend to my people are the proposals contained in the Labour Party's statement of last March or April, which called for a majority in the Legislative Council and parity in the Executive Council, with this difference: the parity must mean not between Africans and unofficial Europeans, but between Europeans and Africans regardless whether these Europeans are officials or not. I thought I should write and give you in advance in strictest confidence what my line would be. The meeting is to take place on the 20th of this month."
Does that sound like the letter of a man who was not prepared to compromise? He is putting privately and

343
in confidence a position below that publicly taken by the Congress Party in its negotiations. Before negotiations start, and as the Devlin Report rightly comments, is it not frequently the case that one takes up one position before negotiations start and then compromises on something less? Is not that the whole basis of negotiation?
Dr. Banda concludes his letter—and I ask hon. Members to listen to these words, written on 9th January:
"This is the political situation here now. But we are not at the parting of the ways yet. As long as I count with my people I shall do my best to let common sense win. I am against violence, whatever the papers may say. But I am an extremist in the sense that I will not betray the interests of my people just for the sake of being called a moderate or being popular with the Europeans."
This is the man whom the Government, according to the information we have from the Press, propose to keep locked up. They will do as they have done in other cases. They will lock up every moderating influence. They will remove them from any possibility of influencing their people, and in the end they will deal with them.
I now pass to the position of the Federal Government, about which I was challenged by the Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed the view that the Federal Government had exerted undue pressure on the territorial Governments. The Devlin Commission deals with this. It describes the situation and the precautionary measures taken by the Governor between 18th and 20th February. It states that by 24th February the Governor had not made up his mind whether to declare a state of emergency or not. The Report describes how, by 24th February, there had been a large number of further incidents in Nyasa-land, but the Governor, despite these further incidents, still had not come to any final decision. It describes how Sir Roy Welensky's intervention came on 25th February, six days before the declaration of the state of emergency in Nyasaland, but, I think, on the same day as the declaration of a state of emergency in Southern Rhodesia.
Sir Roy Welensky asked the Governor to give serious consideration to deferring Lord Perth's visit. The Governor considered that suggestion, and on the same
344
day telegraphed to Lord Perth suggesting that he should postpone his visit. The Report says that by this time, in the Governor's mind, the choice lay between carrying on with Lord Perth's visit, as a means of lowering the temperature, and declaring a state of emergency. While the Governor was still hesitating between these two, Sir Roy Welensky stepped in as the decisive factor. He made up the Governor's mind, but it was on that day, after his intervention, that the Governor decided to cable Lord Perth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member might wait to hear the whole of what I have to say.
I might well have over-estimated the part that Sir Roy Welensky played, looking back at the events which the Devlin Commission found, but that he did intervene is undoubtedly true. He made up the Governor's mind, or, at any rate, he was the final factor that made up the Governor's mind while he was hesitating between two courses, though, of course, it was the Governor's decision, and not that of Sir Roy Welensky. I am very happy to acknowledge that, and to allow the Government and the Colonial Secretary to share all the credit between them.
Now I come to the murder plot. The Devlin Commission examined the evidence concerning this plot, and in one simple sentence, in paragraph 174, reached its conclusion:
"For all these reasons we have rejected the evidence, such as it is, for the murder plot."
What gave rise to the use of this term? The Report makes clear that the Governor did not use it when making his broadcast at seven o'clock in the morning of the declaration of a state of emergency. He made no reference to it at all. Yet, as the Commission says, a major plot would be the best justification for the declaration of a state of emergency.
There is no record of the term being used in Nyasaland until 7th March, when a Government propaganda leaflet was distributed, which said:
"The Government has done this because these leaders have made a plot to destroy property and to murder many people both Africans and Europeans."
On 9th March, the Governor directed that no information should be disclosed of this master plan, but on 11th March, two

345
days later, and here I quote the Commission:
"He directed that action should be taken urgently to build up the full story of the Congress plan."
Why? Because he wanted to justify what had been said, not in Nyasaland, but elsewhere. The allegations did not arise there. They arose here, at that Box. At 3.30 on the afternoon when the Colonial Secretary came to the Despatch Box to make his statement, this is what he said, and I am quoting from column 216 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"… the situation continued to be so dangerous and there was such clear indication of the intention of the Congress to stir up further disturbances, involving widespread violence and murder of European, Asian, and moderate African leaders, that the Governor was compelled this morning to declare a state of emergency."
Then he endeavoured to pin the allegation of murder firmly on the shoulders of Dr. Banda. In his next sentence, he said:
"Leading members of the Congress, including Dr. Banda, have been detained—"
That is where the allegation first came in.
That is where it was made, and that is where it was started.
In my first question to the Colonial Secretary, following that statement, I said this:
"Is not … the real position in Nyasaland…that a few panic-stricken people are now precipitating trouble, and that all the poison gas of propaganda against the Africans, all the smears, all the denigrations, will now be used to justify an act that has no responsibility behind it and will merely foment further trouble in this territory?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 216–7.]
We have no gap to bridge on this side. It is right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have to make their peace with the Commission, and make their peace with public opinion in this country on this issue. I spoke on instinct and on impulse, but I have no cause to regret what I said about the poison gas, the smears and the denigration of those not concerned with this matter—no reason at all—but the Colonial Secretary was making a considered statement.
In the evening, he made a further statement, referred to by the Attorney-General, when he spoke of "a massacre plot"—a massacre plot! Apparently, if the right hon. Gentleman says it once, we are not to take it seriously. When
346
the Under-Secretary referred to Mau Mau, he said:
"We have had it all before. Remember Mau Mau."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March. 1959; Vol. 601, c. 337.]
We are not to take that seriously, either. That is, possibly, the value which one member of the Government puts upon the judgment of another member of the Government, but the newspapers took this seriously. This was the subject of the headlines in the newspapers the next day, but that was not the major trouble.
In my view, the major blunder—crime, almost—was not misleading the House of Commons but that the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary, in my view—and I think it is fair to say in the Devlin Commission's view—jeopardised the lives of those Europeans living in isolated homesteads, scattered, widespread, unable to be protected, and, what is more, jeopardised the lives and homes of those Africans who were arrested the following morning, because the police who made the arrests may well have believed that there was a murder plot. This is what the Devlin Commission says:
"If so, that fact might offer an explanation, if not an excuse, for some of the incidents which we shall record below."
I was not sure whether the Attorney-General thought that I was challenging the justification for the state of emergency. If so, I would refer him to the opening words I used at seven o'clock that evening:
"Since our exchanges earlier this afternoon, and the declaration of a state of emergency in Nyasaland, it has become abundantly clear that the powers which the Governor of Nyasaland asked for are necessary."
In my very first sentence, I said that it was becoming abundantly clear that the powers asked for were necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the next sentence."] Yes, of course, I will read the next sentence. I will read the whole speech if hon. Gentlemen opposite wish. I still think, looking back on it, it was a pretty good one.
"Since the declaration of the state of emergency, but not before, rioting has broken out,"
Is not that true?
"tear gas has been used"—
Is that untrue? [Interruption.] Tear gas had been used before the state of

347
emergency was declared? I yield to the Under-Secretary on that point. It may well be—
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Callaghan: One at a time.
It may well be that tear gas was used before and after, but hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot get away from the first sentence, in which I said:
"Since our exchanges earlier this afternoon, and the declaration of a state of emergency in Nyasaland, it has become abundantly clear that the powers which the Governor of Nyasaland asked for are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 279.]
Mr. Bernard Braine: I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me. He has asked a question. The answer is this. He is talking about what happened in this House on 3rd March. Surely he is aware that violent disturbances began at least ten or fourteen days earlier?
Mr. Callaghan: I was aware of that.
The Devlin Commission goes on to say that the publicity given to the murder plot has distracted attention from the real strength of the Government's case. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to listen to this, because they might agree with it—that this distracted attention from the real strength of the Government's case. I agree with that too.
I want now to turn—I think we have reached this point—to the use of violence. I apologise for keeping the House for a long time, but this is a most serious matter. There is no doubt of the Devlin Commission's finding that the use of violence was discussed at the meeting in the Bush on 25th January. According to the Commission's Report, there seems to have been no clear line drawn between discussion and decision. That is a happening from which British Governments are not always exempt.
"… there was to be an all-out campaign to defy the Government, violence not excluded."
That is what the Commission finds.
But the Commission draws a distinction between the violence that Mr. Chisiza and Mr. Chipembere sponsored and the violence with which they were credited. It was to be done in response to Government measures so that it could
348
be represented as an answer to provocation. In other words, it was to be a reaction rather than an initiative. Why did their thoughts turn to violence? Surely this is a question to which the Attorney-General could have directed himself this afternoon instead of proving so much of his case on the use of violence. Why did they turn to violence? It was not because they were bad men—at least the Commission did not think so. The Commission did not think that all the leaders of Congress had more than their normal share of personal ambition; no more than, say, the Prime Minister when he was struggling with the Leader of the House at the time of the disappearance of Sir Anthony Eden.
"They are first and foremost African nationalists"
says the Commission. It does not agree with the Government view, and the Colonial Secretary consistently acted on this view which the Commission decries, that these aspirations are the thought of only a small minority of political Africans, mainly self-seekers.
Why, then, did their thoughts turn to violence? The Report is quite clear. By the middle of 1958 Congress leaders were suffering from a feeling of frustration. They believed, and so does the Commission, that they had virtually unanimous support from the people of Nyasaland.
"The Government says, it cannot and will not go back on Federation; it treats the question as one that is no longer open."
The section of the Report which deals with the emergency conference makes quite clear that the growing mood of frustration deepened—I do beg hon. Members opposite to listen to this—because the fateful 1960 Conference was approaching and they would not be represented at this conference by people of their own choosing. That was why their mood of frustration deepened. And the responsibility for that lies here. It cannot be argued or shrugged off.
Then comes the significant sentence of the Commission's Report:
"… there is no way in which constitutionally it"—
that is, Congress—
"can make its views effective."
And so the extremists determined to persuade the rest of Congress to turn to

349
violence and the Government helped them in their self-appointed task.
There was pressure from district commissioners to prevent village meetings from being held if there was any prospect at all of views being expressed in support of Congress. Does the Government dispute that? Chiefs were subjected to financial pressure to dissuade them from supporting agitation against federation. This is not in the Commission's Report, but one district commissioner sent out a memorandum to local chiefs, a copy of which reached me and which I sent to the Colonial Secretary eighteen months ago. It told them that they should not get mixed up in political intrigues, which was another way of describing Congress,
"particularly against the Government from whom they derive their livings for to do so can invite very severe penalties."
One by one measures were taken which screwed down the safety valve. There was no reform of the constitution. There was subtle pressure on the chiefs and on Europeans who did not seem inclined to conform on the matter of federation. Is it remarkable that people who feel as deeply and passionately as the Nyasas do in their desire to be left alone should in these circumstances consider turning to violence? We must look at the causes as well as the results of this. The Commission states:
"They could make themselves felt only by some form of resistance, and the question was shaping itself—should resistance be active or passive?"
The prospect of collision sooner or later was almost certain. That was the state to which the Colonial Secretary's administration had reduced that territory. As the Commission said, there was a deep and bitter division of opinion separating Government and people.
What is the responsibility of Government when such a frightening gap opens up? Any Government will in these circumstances resist an attempt to turn to violence. They must do. They must either act or abdicate. This is what the Commission says. That may be the right of the Government, but rights bring duties with them; we are all well enough grounded in that. If one has a right to tell people that they must not turn to violence, one has the duty to assemble the circumstances in which reasonable, decent, ordinary men will not feel the
350
necessity or the temptation to respond to appeals to turn to violence.
But the Government were rigid about federation. They were clumsy in handling a proud and sensitive people. Is it surprising that we reached a position in which the extremists were able to persuade the rest of them that violence should be adopted? For these reasons, the Government and the Colonial Secretary cannot escape condemnation for what took place on 3rd March in that Territory.
I hesitate to remind the House about this, but we in the Opposition took this view year after year. We tried to point out what was happening, but we were told, as we were again told last week, "You are creating it". I must say that on few occasions did we get an adequate reply. There were so many occasions when a sneer sufficed instead of an answer. The point was made and reasonably put and we felt that it represented the known views of hundreds of thousands of people.
I turn now to the position of the Government in this matter. The Government bear a major responsibility for creating this situation. There has been a good deal of newspaper talk about the future of the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman set our doubts at rest in an interview which he gave to the Daily Mail. Mr. Terry tells us that when he saw the Colonial Secretary he was smiling, he was at ease, he had no great regrets. He was laughing at the coming storm and he appeared totally unmoved. But there was a paragraph in quotation marks in the middle of the interview which I assume is reliable:
"I understand"—
says Mr. Terry—
"that he was sufficiently taken aback by the Report to offer his resignation to the Prime Minister. But Mr. Macmillan dismissed the idea as ridiculous and pointless and unjustified."
That, of course, need not have prevented the right hon. Gentleman from resigning.
As I see it, the only conclusion one can come to is that he offered his resignation, not because he believes that he bears any real responsibility for the state of affairs which I have described, but because he thought he might be an embarrassment to the Government if he stayed with them and that, with an approaching General

351
Election, perhaps it would be better if he was out of the way. The Prime Minister has dismissed the idea. He is going to carry the Colonial Secretary on the Governor's back because a major resignation and reshuffle, perhaps three months before an election, would be too much, and that involves the Governor. Because whether the Governor has reached the end of his useful period of life in that territory or not, he cannot go if the Colonial Secretary stays. So it amounts to this, that Nyasaland gets no chance of new men, Nyasaland gets no chance of new methods. Nyasaland gets no opportunity to have its policy reconsidered. These are to be sacrificed by the Prime Minister. He is ready to sacrifice them to considerations of public honour. He is prepared to sacrifice the future of the people of Nyasaland for the sake of winning the General Election. The more outraged public opinion becomes, the more they cling together.
To sum up, the Government have failed to act in accordance with the principle laid down 100 years ago by William Harrison in his Inaugural Address to the American Congress in 1841:
"The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed."
The people of Nyasaland more than half a century ago entrusted to us responsibility for their government until they had prepared themselves to take over their own affairs. What our Government have ignored is that they did not take that step of entrusting us with that power in order that we might impose upon them an alien form of government against their will.
I regret very much that we have had to go over in this debate so many of the recommendations of the Devlin Commission Report. This should not have been the start of this debate. We should not have needed to have done this. If the Government had accepted the findings of the Devlin Commission Report, all of us could have made a fresh start. What should we have been discusssing?
The questions which the House of Commons ought to have been discussing today if the Government had been willing to accept the findings of fact of the Devlin Commission are these. First, how best are we to make that superhuman effort which is necessary to bridge the deep
352
gulf existing between the British Government and the people of Nyasaland? But there is no recognition so far that there is a deep gulf. Secondly, we could have had a calm reappraisal of the policy of federation, for federation is shown beyond argument to be the cause of this deep and bitter division. The Government should even now find out on what basis the people of Nyasaland can be reconciled to this idea or, as that seems unlikely, what alternative can be found. Thirdly, we could and should have been discussing today how best to make the transition from the paternalistic approach of a well-meaning Government to a situation in which a small but growing minority of Africans is as well equipped as the average European to take prudent decisions on policy. Finally, we should have been asking ourselves what is the best policy to pursue in a country in which the European population is fundamentally on the defensive and in which their safety defends on striking first.
Are not those the questions which ought to make the House of Commons feel anxious at a time like this? These questions will have to be examined by a new Government, because it is clear that they will not be examined by this Government. We can hope for nothing from this Government in the matter of a re-examination of these questions so long as these men remain there. It will be no good swopping the Colonial Secretary for someone else if the policy remains the same. But some weeks remain to this Government. If they care to try to repair some of the deep damage they have caused and the gulf which has grown up between our two peoples in Nyasaland and this country, I make three proposals to them.
First, release the men at present under detention or bring them to trial. Secondly, give a simple straightforward pledge to the people of Nyasaland that they will have the opportunity to secede from the Federation or to find, as I hope that they will, some more palatable connection with the other territories. Thirdly, begin at once constitutional talks with the chiefs, with the Europeans and with the men in prison so that Africans can assume more and more responsibility for their own Government in a territory which is overwhelmingly African. Do this in time for them to be able to control their own destinies

353
when the 1960 federal review comes round.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I want, therefore, to compress my remarks into a very short compass. I want, first, to deal with a point raised by neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is my usual complaint that the Press clearly have not read a Report before they comment upon it, but on Sunday, 19th July, it was very clear that the Press had read the Devlin Report. It was not published until late on 23rd July, four days later.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend why that was, how the leak took place, whether it took place in this country or in Africa, or in transit on the plane, and, if he does not know the answers, what steps he is taking to ascertain those facts. This is a matter of very considerable public importance. I cannot think of any occasion in the history of Parliament when a commission of inquiry or a Royal Commission has had this advance Press comment. This is not a matter on which we shall be joining issue later. I cannot think that any hon. Member will tolerate this. It is extremely embarrassing for my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, who cannot answer the complaints, and even more embarrassing for those officers who are serving this country overseas who are getting adverse Press comment without even knowing the charge that is laid. I beg my right hon. Friend when he replies to give the House all the knowledge that he has about this.
I turn now to the Devlin Report. I found myself at times not quite understanding the viewpoints of my right hon. and learned Friend and, more especially, of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I regard this as a very able report of an inquiry conducted under extremely difficult circumstances, because two of the four members of the Commission had no knowledge at all of Africa or African conditions before they left this country. One of the remaining two had had knowledge of North Africa, as I well know.
Mr. Callaghan: East Africa.
Mr. Turton: I am speaking of Mr. E. T. Williams, who is the Warden of Rhodes House and was a distinguished officer under Field Marshal Montgomery. He had great knowledge of Africans. That means that only one member of the Commission had knowledge of Africa, and no member of the Commission had knowledge of Central Africa.
Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Wyn-Harris had been a district officer in Kenya for twenty years.
Mr. Turton: None had had knowledge of Nyasaland. I am speaking principally of the two having no knowledge of Africa, which made their position extremely hard when judging issues.
Secondly, as was laid down by the procedure, they had no opportunity of cross-examining witnesses. I thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was perfectly right in directing us to paragraph 4 of the Report. It is rather a pity that the hon. Member did not go on to paragraph 5, where the Commission quite frankly states:
"… we were not sitting as a court of law. We were holding an inquiry and not conducting a series of trials."
Later in that same paragraph it says:
"We have not written this Report in the form of findings for or against any individual; we have written it in narrative form as a statement of the facts for your use based on what we believe to be the balance of probabilities and not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt."
Reading the Report, I feel that the Commission has put the probabilities before us in a form that I cannot accept. I cannot accept its conclusions, for instance, in regard to the very clear example given by my right hon. Friend when he talked about the African brandishing and pointing a spear against a district commissioner at Rumpi. The Commission said it felt that the inspector ought to have shouted rather than shot. That is the sort of occasion when I find a balance of improbabilities in the conclusion that the Report has made. But they are not findings.
This Report is not condemning or acquitting anybody. It has done very well, I think, and it is extremely able. In narrative form it has set down the occurrences that happened in a riotous atmosphere in Africa. The Commission was, of course, considering these things

355
when the riots had subsided, thanks to the state of emergency having been declared, and when men and women were no longer in peril of their lives.
As I see it, there is a great deal of disagreement between the two sides of the House on the matter of what was actually planned or plotted in the meeting of 25th January and what caused the state of emergency on 3rd March. Here, again, the Commission makes quite clear to me how this difference of opinion took place between it and the Governor. The Commission says in paragraph 161 how exactly it treated the evidence. It had four types of evidence before it—the evidence of informers, the evidence of detainees, some of whom later recanted and withdrew their evidence, documentary evidence and the evidence of events up to 3rd March.
It is quite clear that Sir Robert Armitage, when ordering the state of emergency and when in consultation with my right hon. Friend, could quite clearly not have been aware of the two series of evidence, the documentary evidence and the evidence of events subsequent to 3rd March. The Commission has said that it attaches very little value to the evidence of informers and has also rejected the evidence of detainees who have later withdrawn their evidence.
In my judgment, the Commission was led to that decision because, with the exception of one member of it, it had very little knowledge of Africa and of the intimidation that goes on in such circumstances. Really, I think that the Commission has misjudged what is the evidence of informers. It is very difficult for a judge who normally practises in courts in this country to accept the evidence of informers, who are considered to be reliable in Africa.
As I see it, the weakness of the Commission's appreciation of the evidence put before it lies in paragraph 161, and therefore, in my view it certainly weakens the Commission's conclusions on that point. But when we turn to documentary evidence which we have got and which the Governor had not got at that time, it is surprising in that no one expects men who are planning or plotting a riot normally to put their plans and plots into writing. Yet here we have the notes of the meeting of 25th January saying that
356
directly Dr. Banda was caught the people would start war after two days and that they would hit Europeans or cut throats. Again, we have in the letter of Mr. Chipembere the following statement:
"The agenda was secret and I am afraid I must avoid committing it in writing just now. In short, I can only inform you that for the first time, Congress adopted 'action' as the official policy…"
Thinking on these events that happened in Nyasaland, I am forced to consider the events that happened ten years ago in Kenya. I wonder what would have happened in 1950 if the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who was then at the Colonial Office, had declared a state of emergency and had taken similar action during the time of his Government to what the Governor of Nyasaland took on 3rd March and then appointed a commission of inquiry. I remember very well in October, 1952, the then Colonial Secretary, who is now Lord Chandos, stating in the House:
"Early this year Mau Mau attacks began in the Nyeri District and then spread to the Kiambu and Fort Hall Districts in the Central Province."
He then detailed the measures he was taking and said:
"These measures proved insufficient because African witnesses were afraid to come forward and give evidence in face of the brutal methods and vicious reprisals of the Mau Mau against them. Africans who refused to take a Mau Mau oath have had ropes tied round their necks and have been strung up from rafters until they were unconscious. Those who have informed the police have later been found murdered. Charges against over 100 persons for administering or participating in the administration of Mau Mau oaths had to be withdrawn, because the witnesses had disappeared or been intimidated into changing their story."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 388–9.]
In the period 1951–52 there was the same pattern of intimidation and of the withdrawal of evidence as we had quite clearly in Nyasaland at the time the Devlin Commission was examining the witnesses after the riots. Had we taken that action in 1950 or 1951 a great many lives would have been saved. We might well have been able to claim that no European had been killed, as the Opposition were remarking rather scoffingly earlier this afternoon, and a great deal of misery would have been avoided.
My chief reason for rising in the debate is to make this appeal to both sides of the House. I feel very strongly

357
that as Members of Parliament, as hon. and right hon. Members, we must conduct ourselves in this debate so that the path of those who are administering our colonial policy in Nyasaland is made easier and not harder.
Mr. W. Griffiths: What about the Africans?
Mr. Turton: I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting that by making it harder for our colonial administrators, who in every Commonwealth and Colonial country that I have visited have been beloved by those whom they serve, we can make it easier for the Africans.
Mr. Griffiths: I have no desire to make things difficult for our colonial administrators. I only like to hear an occasional word in the House in behalf of the Africans.
Mr. Turton: I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite can fail to appreciate how difficult conditions have been for those officers who are now serving in Nyasaland, and for those in the police force, who have been subjected to this very detailed inquiry in the Devlin Report. I do not think the Opposition realise how often in their attacks on the Government in power, which they believe to be their right as an Opposition, they are in fact making the lot of the colonial administrator, the man on the spot, very much harder.
Mr. James Johnson Mr. James Johnson (Rugby) rose—
Mr. Turton: I cannot give way now. I will do so later if the hon. Gentleman wishes. As was made quite clear in paragraph 257 of the Devlin Report, having had this detailed examination of every shot fired during the whole course of the campaign,
"As we have said, we saw everyone responsible for the shooting … we have not found anyone who was 'trigger happy'."
They then say,
"… we are satisfied that each man did what he did because he honestly felt that he could not discharge his duty in any other way."
On one occasion one sergeant and four men faced a crowd of 1,000 advancing against them. There was a time when men serving in Colonial Territories and Protected territories in the Commonwealth could feel that they had the confidence
358
of the House of Commons. I appeal to the House not to say anything that reflects upon those men. I have always taken the view that colonial policy and foreign policy should be above party politics. I realise perfectly well that others may take a different view, but I think it is a great pity that these attacks on colonial policy have developed into long marathons at this stage. I do not believe they do the party opposite any good at all.
I believe that the vast majority of those who will vote for the party opposite at any future election will deplore many of the things which have been said, not least by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who has now left the Chamber. In his attack on my right hon. Friend he suggested that he should resign, but I believe that with the departure of my right hon. Friend from that office which he has held with such distinction—indeed, I believe he has been the best Colonial Secretary since Joseph Chamberlain—a light would be extinguished from the Commonwealth which would be very hard for anyone to light again.
5.35 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has asked that we should do nothing to make more difficult the lives of those who administer the Protectorate of Nyasaland. I would suggest that what makes their lives difficult is the fact that they are being asked to carry out a policy which has no hope whatever of success, and that the basis of their difficulties lies precisely and simply in that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) early in his speech read a telegram to which I hope every hon. Member opposite who will speak in this debate will pay great attention, because that telegram was sent from the representative of a large industrial firm, not in any way connected with politics. I happen to know that the African employees in that firm, almost without exception, apart from those doing the most menial jobs, have been arrested and are now in detention, but the firm itself has such confidence in them that it wrote to every one of them to say that if he was not charged and convicted in a court of law he

359
could be perfectly assured that his job would be kept for him by his employers.
Those are the people who work day after day with these men, and not people such as we have in this House who may be called theorists or party politicians. They are the employers of these people, who see them every day and who surely can judge their quality, character and integrity. It is only right that the House should know these facts before giving judgment on this matter.
We had from the Attorney-General the kind of speech which we expect from him. It was the worst kind of lawyer's speech. This debate is worthy of something much better, because surely we are all concerned not with laying the Blame here or there, but primarily with what is to be the solution of the problems which are so imaginatively described in the Devlin Commission's Report. I myself have been concerned and interested in Nyasaland for many years and I found that the description and the analysis of the political situation at the beginning of the Report and in the concluding sections carried complete conviction.
The various incidents described, important as they are, in perspective are of less weight than this exceedingly important question of where we go in Nyasaland if we are to have a constructive and peaceful solution. I believe that the Colonial Secretary is reaping where he sowed. He is now reaping the results of the policy which has been pursued under his administration in Nyasaland, as we on this side of the House have said on one occasion after another, misguidedly and mistakenly.
I will not weary the House by going over too much of the past history, which one can read with extreme lucidity in the Report. I would simply remind the House that in June, 1955, the Colonial Secretary, I believe, took far too timid and weak a step forward in the direction of constitutional advance, by allowing only five African members, and those indirectly elected, to be associated with the process of government.
The consequence of that, as Mr. Justice Devlin and his colleagues point out, is that there was not adequate opportunity offered to those who are politically conscious in Nyasaland to make
360
their wishes and aspirations felt effectively. They had quite inadequate representation and it was concentrated on far too few people and depended, therefore, far too much on the temperament of a handful of persons who were the only ones with direct access to the seat of government.
At the time I approached the Secretary of State about this matter and said that I thought that he was mistaken. But far worse, to my mind, than the timidity shown on that occasion was the incident in April, 1957, when Sir Roy Welensky came to this country. I do not believe that we should have had the present troubles in Nyasaland if, at that time, the Government had spoken courageously, strongly and frankly to Sir Roy Welensky. In the Report it is stated that what finally determined Dr. Banda, who was then in practice as a doctor in Ghana, to return to Nyasaland was the impression given that Her Majesty's Government had at that point of time virtually capitulated to Sir Roy Welensky.
I do not think that one can blame Dr. Banda for having that impression, because following these discussions with Sir Roy Welensky it was announced that the 1960 conference, then still three years away, would be held to consider a programme for the attainment of Dominion status by the Federation as a full member of the Commonwealth. Three years before the conference was to be held the impression was given to the Africans in Nyasaland that the pass had already been sold and that Sir Roy Welensky had secured assurances from Her Majesty's Government that, in Dr. Banda's words, he would get amalgamation by the back door.
It is only since then, in the last year or eighteen months, that there have been significant moves of policy on the part either of Sir Roy Welensky or of Her Majesty's Government. This is the tragedy of our colonial administration in one territory after another: it is only when there were apprehensions of violent action and organised pressure that we had the slight change which has occurred in the policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the Federation. In the last few weeks we have had various assurances concerning the future of Nyasaland, not by any means full or

361
adequate assurances but assurances which, had they been given in April, 1957, instead of the statement made then, might have produced a very different course of events in Nyasaland.
As the Devlin Commission rightly points out, the problem is one of complete lack of confidence and lack of communication between the people in Nyasaland and their Government. As the Commission says, they are speaking and arguing on two different planes which never meet. It is, therefore, the business of the House to consider what steps can be taken to enable the people concerned to speak the same language and to understand each other and to work together towards the same end.
This morning a leading article in The Times set out a number of considerations—not one of which, needless to say, was mentioned by the Attorney-General—as to the points which must be decided and implemented if we are to have anything other than either a police State or civil war in the Protectorate. The Times said that the constitutional changes announced fall very far short not only of what Congress has asked for, but also of what other persons in the territory have considered reasonable. They fell far short of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, more than a year ago, stated that we believed would be the proper advance to be made constitutionally in Nyasaland. The franchise is another matter which will have to be considered. The Times points out that the reasons for the hesitation on the part of the Government have no doubt been because in the other territories of the Federation a qualitative system has been adopted which has very little validity in a territory such as Nyasaland.
More important than these details, significant though they are, is the vital question of what are the guarantees which are to be given to the people of Nyasaland as to their ultimate future. Are they to be given a timetable of progress? In many circumstances a timetable is not advisable, but in the state of affairs which has been reached in Nyasaland, even The Times, which is usually extremely cautious in these matters, says that it will be better to take the risk of giving some kind of timetable towards independence than to continue in the present state of despondency, mistrust
362
and complete lack of confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
Very firm guarantees of future progress must be given, and I believe that one of those guarantees must be that the people of Nyasaland shall have the right to secede from the Federation if they so wish. It need not necessarily be an immediate right. It would be more statesmanlike to put it to the people of Nyasaland that when the time comes they will have that right to secede but that it would be in their own best interest to have some experience of internal self-government before the moment comes when they exercise that right. Nevertheless, the right should be guaranteed to them. I am firmly convinced that unless we give the guarantee that, ultimately, they will be allowed to decide for themselves whether they will stay in the Federation or not, we shall not have the co-operation of the people of Nyasaland, and to delude ourselves by thinking otherwise is folly.
Granted that such guarantees are given, what is to be the political development in Nyasaland? One of the most serious sections of the Devlin Commission's Report, to my mind, is the paragraph in which the Commission describes the Government's action towards the complete breaking up of the one effective indigenous political organisation, the African National Congress. We are smashing the one organisation which the people of Nyasaland have managed to form for themselves. We have seen the effect on people, only the very smallest minority of whom had, I believe, even considered violent action, of having their organisation broken up, their leaders detained and people sentenced to imprisonment for periods of six months to two years for the mere possession of a card of membership of an organisation which at the time they were members was perfectly legal. We here much talk from hon. Members opposite about retrospective legislation. This, indeed, is retrospective legislation.
The people of Nyasaland have also seen imprisonment for a period up to five years for someone who is accused of no more than being an active member of Congress in the sense that he collected subscriptions. They have seen force being used not merely in the districts where there had been violence, but, as the

363
Devlin Commission sharply points out, in other areas where members of Congress had not taken violent action, where they were still peaceably inclined but where, suddenly, they had this bitter experience of arrests, searching and confiscation. Nyasaland had never had this kind of experience before.
For many years past there have been areas in Africa where there has been trouble of one kind or another, but what has distinguished Nyasaland among all the territories of Africa until the last few years has been precisely that it has been a peaceful country; that it has not been rent by civil disobedience, dissentions or actions against the Government. Nyasaland was not taken by conquest—there was no question of the kind of war that we had in Southern Rhodesia, for example.
Those who have any knowledge whatever of territories in Africa under British rule have always said that until the last five or six years Nyasaland was a country in which the people trusted the Administration, and in which one did not have the kind of difficulties that one has had from time to time in other territories. Do we really intend to throw away the good will of these people? I believe that even now we could rescue the situation if we had a positive approach to it.
I have known Dr. Banda fairly well personally for some years. I would agree very closely with the estimate made of him by the Devlin Commission. It was not an entirely favourable estimate. None of us is perfect, and anybody placed in Dr. Banda's position on his return to Nyasaland would obviously be faced with a very difficult situation. But that he is essentially a peaceful and reasonable man. I have no doubt.
I believe that it is possible to cooperate with him, given the conditions—including, in particular, the guarantee that I mentioned earlier—to work with him, and to negotiate with him. There was no feeling of bitter enmity between himself and the Governor—quite the contrary. And I say to the House that in spite of all the criticisms of the Governor's policy and actions—which one would naturally expect from Africans who have been associated with Congress—the Africans have told me
364
that, as a person, they respect and like Sir Robert Armitage, and it is only right that that should be said. They have told me that on purely personal grounds he was, and still is, well liked. One has, therefore, a basis on which one could proceed.
I hope very much that the Colonial Secretary will reply in a tone befitting a Colonial Secretary who is not trying to make party capital out of this debate, but is really concerned for the future of this territory. The Government's attitude has made it very difficult for us on this side to take a constructive line. The manner in which they have dealt with this subject is entirely beneath the dignity of this House of Commons.
The Government themselves chose this type of Commission—it was not at the request of the Opposition. It was their decision to have this type of Commission, and they appointed the members—persons of standing, of very great ability and of a variety of experience. Anybody who has read the Report must find it a remarkably competent and imaginative document. Yet, when the Government have the Report, they ask the House to accept only those parts that are convenient to themselves.
To my mind, that is a thoroughly despicable way of dealing with a situation that is extremely difficult, and that requires great statesmanship, great forbearance and imagination if Nyasaland is to be rescued from a state of frustration and misery. I therefore hope that during the remainder of our debate we shall not try to make the sort of cheap points that were made by the Attorney-General, but that we shall follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and look to the future and consider what conditions we can suggest for the constitutional and political development of Nyasaland. We owe it to the people of Nyasaland, who have a poor country but a very proud tradition, to see that we in this House do not betray their interests or their future.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Douglas L. S. Nairn: I am very pleased indeed to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) as I feel considerable sympathy with a great deal that she has said. As my right hon.

365
Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, we want to see how much common ground we can find between the two sides of the House. I am quite sure that there is a great deal of common ground, although it often gets hidden—particularly, I must say, in speeches like that made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
He said that from this side he always got a sneer instead of an answer, but it seemed to me that his speech in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was one long sneer, with no attempt at all to answer the Government case. He did, however, at the end of his speech, make one remark with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and in spite of falling out with the hon. Gentleman on everything else that he said I will come back to that later.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from a confidential letter that he had received from Dr. Banda. I cannot agree with either the hon. Gentleman's or the Commission's assessment of Dr. Banda, much as I would like to. I listened to Dr. Banda before he left this country, and it was the force of his personality rather than his charm that struck me. A confidential letter having been quoted, I would say that I got the definite impression listening to Dr. Banda that even before he left this country he reckoned that he would have to resort to violence to get what he wanted.
If we had been sitting on the benches opposite and the Opposition had been on this side, perhaps we would have got the sort of letter that the hon. Gentleman said he had received from Dr. Banda, and the hon. Gentleman would have been locking up Dr. Banda just as hon. Members opposite found they had to do when they were in power. One cannot accept at it face value everything one receives from people who are trying to get something out of one, particularly if one is sitting on the Opposition benches.
I think that Dr. Banda is a gentleman who, rather like a film star, is quite capable of turning on the charm when in front of the cameras, or when he wants something, but who can be equally ruthless and relentless when not getting his own way. I hope very much that in the
366
course of time—and I trust that it will not be very long—his charm will come to the top, and that he will realise that ruthlessness and a failure entirely to condemn violence is not the right way to get what he wants.
Whatever may be said from time to time, both sides of the House want to see full co-operation and harmony reestablished between all Europeans and all Africans whose homes happen to be in that part of the world. I think that hon. Members opposite know as well as I that that is the goal for which my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has always worked, and we know that it is also the goal for which the Governor, the district commissioners, the police and all the forces that are or were under the command of the Governor—and whose actions are now in question in the Report—have always worked.
I have said before when speaking on Central Africa that I voted against federation in 1952 because I was not satisfied that it was the right vehicle for creating mutual confidence and respect. I agree that there is no doubt that federation has played a big part in creating the present disturbances. There could be no doubt about that. It was with those thoughts in mind that I read carefully through the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. I am afraid this is a little bit of repetition, but my first conclusion after reading it was that the Governor was absolutely justified, on the information he had and on the circumstances in Nyasaland, in taking the action he did.
My second conclusion is that the facts brought out in the Report do not justify many of the criticisms made in the Report. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East when he opened the debate said that we accepted the bits in the Report which we liked and did not accept the bits we did not like. I accept nearly all the facts that the Report brings out. but what I cannot accept is the conclusions that the members of the Commission came to on those facts. I do not feel that the Governor took any unreasonable action at all.
The Commission made two main criticisms. The first was that it was not possible for it to confirm the existence of an actual murder plot. The second was that in some instances unnecessary

367
force was used both in quelling disturbances and in arresting people who were suspected of inciting, shall I say, disturbances with violence. I find it quite impossible to accept either of those criticisms as valid on the facts as brought out in the Report, particularly in the circumstances as they existed in Nyasa-land.
In a place like Central Africa we simply cannot draw a hard and fast line between what is a plot or a conspiracy and what is not and say which it is. Does there have to be a military order laying down who is to kill whom before we have a plot or conspiracy, or is it enough to say that it has been agreed to allow indiscriminate and unorganised killing? What happened in this case was that there was an agreement for indiscriminate killing and the Commission was entirely satisfied that this violence had been agreed on. The fact that there was no operation order setting out how it was to be done seems in this case to be entirely irrelevant.
As for the actions of individuals in making arrests or other things, I say only this. I should like to congratulate them on the coolness and courage they showed and their presence of mind all through these operations. There is not one vestige of evidence anywhere that anything was done out of panic or by any of them losing their heads. The Commission said that they all acted in the way they did because they believed there was no other way of carrying out their duties.
One other thing came out in the Report which I believe, if understood properly from the beginning, would never have divided the House as acutely as it has been divided. I know hon. Members opposite are highly suspicious of me as a Southern Rhodesian citizen, and the thing which created suspicion in this House, from the beginning, was an absolutely firm conviction that what the Governor of Nyasaland did was not done on his own, but at the instigation of the Federal Government, the Southern Rhodesian Europeans and Sir Roy Welensky, who is a Northern Rhodesian. This Report clearly demonstrates that this action was taken by the Governor on his own initiative in the interests of Nyasaland. I hope that at last that
368
suspicion will be completely and finally removed.
It would be wrong in a debate of this sort to end without some reference to the future. For everyone in Africa, if not here, the future is vastly more important than what has happened in the recent past. We must have absolute, complete confidence re-established and developed between one race and another. Here I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East. Last time I was in Southern Rhodesia I asked my friends—I admit that they are only a small cross-section—"Do you, or do you not, believe that in the end the success and permanency of federation must depend on consent?" They all said, "Of course it must".
The other day, in order to emphasise something which people have not already realised, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister again emphasised that the Government intend fully to implement all that is in the Preamble to the Constitution. I should like to see the Federal Government recognising that and saying they have no quarrel with that statement but support it entirely. I should like them to go one step further and say that the Federal Government realise and appreciate that in the long run federation can depend only on consent. The hon. Lady very fairly said that the Federation as it is now may well be the best means, the best umbrella, under which these people can develop. We do not know how long it may take, but once they have got their own established Government, then is the time for them to decide whether they are going to give their consent or not. Of course, if it is going to be by mutual consent it must cut both ways and all three partners should have the same opportunity at that particular time. I believe that if that were once said publicly in the Federation then there would be a good basis on which we could re-establish understanding and mutual trust and create a real hope than when the time came the Federation would not break up but would become vastly stronger.
I speak in this debate with some little advantage, having lived in the area for seven years. I know that gives one no extra wisdom, but, having lived there and now being able to look at the problem from outside, I believe that gives a

369
reasonable background against which to form a sensible judgment of what might happen in the future.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) will allow me to tell him that he has made an admirable speech. He is both a Southern Rhodesian who has lived in the Federation and a Tory. He has made a good speech because it was not a typically Southern Rhodesian nor a typically Tory speech. He has told us of his anxieties and fears about federation even in the 1950s and now seven, eight or nine years later we are seeing some of the difficulties which flow from the settlement made at that time.
In this Chamber we constantly hear a cri de coeur from the benches opposite for a bipartisan policy and how much that would help. I am perfectly sincere in believing that that would help the administration in Lusaka or elsewhere, or Tanganyika or Nyasaland, and would help the Europeans who are settled there.
There are Europeans in the Federation who have allegiances to both sides of this House or to none. No monopoly of white settlers or of any other Europeans belongs to the Tory Party. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to have joint agreement in this House when we get the sort of Motion that appears on the Order Paper today. Here was a magnificent chance of accepting the findings of the Devlin Commission. Together, we could have accepted them as being given to us by four honourable men specially picked for the job. Instead, however, the Government have to put down a niggling Motion whereby they pick here and discard there what they favour or dislike in the Commission's findings.
What is the reason for that? The Colonial Secretary is shocked by many of the statements made and the facts outlined by the Devlin Commission. Secondly, many Europeans in Nyasaland are worried about the effect of the Commission's findings upon their own people inside the territory. The Sunday Times had a somewhat harsh gibe about the peoples in Zomba being "between Devlin and the deep black sea". That
370
is a most unfair comment. It was a fair and honest finding by the Commission.
I agree with nearly everything in the Commission's Report. I quite agree that the Governor had either to take action upon the position in the territory or to abdicate. I have been in the protectorate since the emergency, and have spoken and listened to people there. In my opinion, the Governor had to take action or to abdicate. I agree with paragraph 149 of the Report, which says much the same thing. I make no special pleading on my side of the House about the facts and I do not intend even to mention Sir Roy Welensky as a villain in disguise in this particular act.
The second thing about the Commission's findings which I echo wholeheartedly is the overwhelming opposition of the Africans to federation. This lies in the background of the whole situation. It is no good hon. Members opposite making spurious agitation about the rôle and the past performance of Labour Members of Parliament in those territories or, indeed, of present day hon. Members on these benches. Nationalism exists, as does opposition to federation. Had there been no Socialist Party, whether in Denmark, Sweden or this country, all this would have happened as it has happened now. These African people wish to look after their own affairs. That movement has to come sooner or later. The Conservative Party here must be blind to that, because it applies to all Africans, whether Zanzibari, Somali or anyone else. It is a natural, inevitable feature of the dynamic development of the continent.
Thirdly, I agree with the Devlin Commission that there was no massacre plan in the sense in which hon. Members opposite talk of a "plot" in the territory. On 3rd March, in that beautiful land which has often been called an African Switzerland, the security forces went out. They swarmed all over the place. Africans were arrested, on the whole quietly, but where there was any opposition guns were used and something like fifty Africans were killed. I went there a few weeks afterwards, in April. I found the Government and the Governor dispirited and clueless. They were in a vacuum. The Governor was ill at ease. All African leaders who were outside the detention camps were vehement

371
against any association with Southern Rhodesia.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was correct about their views regarding those Europeans who live south of the Zambesi. One can describe the African opposition as pathological, but it exists. It is as much a physical factor as Mount Kenya, Mount Zomba or any other mountain in the continent. This political vacuum in Nyasaland still exists. I asked all members of the Government out there, "How can you govern without the consent of the governed? It is quite impossible that these conditions can continue. You cannot sit upon bayonets." None of the members of the Government had an answer to that perfectly simple question. Like Micawber, they were sitting and waiting for something to turn up. So were the Government here. They then appointed the Devlin Commission. Today the Government Motion by picking and using the facts provided by those four gentlemen and by selecting the bits they like and discarding those they do not like is an insult to the members of that Commission.
I am reminded of a famous cricket match in Yorkshire. A well-known Leeds batsman went down to play at the local village. He went into bat. The local fast bowler came down to the wicket, the ball beat against the pads of this famous visiting Yorkshire batsman and the bowler said, "How's that, Dad?" The umpire said, "He's out, son." That is the psychology of the Government here. They want the umpire and the odds always on their side.
No doubt, there was an increase in lawlessness, as the Report states in paragraph 99, and a policy of sabotage was pursued, instances occurring in Karonga, Fort Hill, Livingstonia and elsewhere. I do not believe that Hastings Banda, who is the undisputed leader of his party, was a willing or, indeed, a knowing accessory to the plot, plan or campaign. I believe that Chipembere had much more knowledge of what was happening. Indeed, Chipembere's speech at Zomba on 20th January was no help whatever, in the way in which 400 people went down to the Boma after hearing it. He was reproved by Hastings Banda.
I am willing to concede that in Africa there is intimidation, but there has been
372
intimidation in the United Kingdom, particularly of farm workers by their employers. It is not unknown for people to apply pressure upon their neighbours or employees here or, in this case, upon fellow Africans. It must not be forgotten, however, that when we talk about intimidation and violent action we are speaking about men who are thwarted and sour because of the policy of the party opposite. It stands out a mile that people like Chipembere and Hastings Banda, as well as some who are not behind bars, are thwarted and sour men. They are unbalanced because they did not know what their future is to be. They still do not know. It is their country, but the Colonial Secretary has been fearfully dilatory and has not given them any definite future of constitutional advance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said that way back in 1955 the Colonial Secretary had a glorious chance of giving these peoples an opening towards the end of the tunnel. He could easily have had parity between Africans and Europeans among the elected members in Legco, but he did not do that. Then, to the dismay of all the Africans, he gave the Africans five seats as opposed to six non-Africans in Legco. That was a big mistake, as we told the right hon. Gentleman at the time. It was a big psychological blunder, and we are now paying for it. What difference would one more seat have made in Legco with the Secretary of State's officials in the majority sitting on the benches with the Governor in case of any difficulty through one-quarter of the Assembly—Africans—causing trouble? This was one of the many factors which has disturbed these people and made them so bitter.
Now, we are to have constitutional advance, but again the Africans have been in two minds because of the action of the party opposite. The Governor, Sir Robert Armitage, talked in June of last year of advance early in 1959. But the Secretary of State himself spoke to the Africans when they came over here and said he hoped to have proposals—when? Was it late August or early September? That was the time that was indicated to them. Here we had the Government speaking with two voices. Even then—and I must say this about Hastings Banda, not against him—Hastings

373
Banda as late as the end of January was saying to his own people, "You must be patient." He was willing to go on negotiating with Sir Robert Armitage, the Governor.
We now have a new statement about the next stage for the advance of the 2½ million Africans in this Protectorate. What does it amount to? They are to be given more members in the Legislative Council. They are to be given two more in the Executive Council but they are not to be Ministers. Why cannot we find one African in 2½ million who is able to do a Ministerial job? Why not? It would be a magnificent gesture, as it has been in neighbouring territories, to indicate to those people that we mean what we talk about. Not to do it shows a lack of imagination, and it is lack of imagination which one finds in a colony of this kind. Can one wonder that they are soured, as sometimes they appear to be?
Thirdly, there is the question of this alleged plot. We had sinister overtones way back on 3rd March when the Under-Secretary of State talked about the "massacre" and "plot", etc. He wanted to indicate to us that this was almost a Mau Mau meeting in the bush, as in Kenya. Has he been to Blantyre? Has he seen the place where the meeting took place? Anyone can go past it. It is almost an open glade, just off the highway as one leaves the town of Blantyre. There was nothing at all like a cooking up of conspiratorial and sinister work in the depths of the bush.
This abominable campaign about a "massacre" began in this House. Do Dot let us in any way delude ourselves. There is a lack of synchronisation between the speeches in this House and the Governor's statement in Zomba. He said nothing in Zomba about this sort of plot until 11th March. We were talking about it in this House on 3rd March.
We heard earlier about Mr. John Howard of Blantyre who sent that cable to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I attended a number of cocktail parties and talked to people like Mr. John Howard and other businessmen in Nyasaland. I found at those informal meetings heavy sarcasm but very light amusement by Europeans about the alleged massacre plot. They were
374
exceedingly sceptical about this long before the Devlin Commission. Why? Because much of the evidence which the police have is based upon what is told by the police informers. It is not so many months since the time when Lord Malvern flew to London and in another place told us what prevaricators—I put it politely—Africans can be, and, in his view, always are. I saw the European population laugh at this evidence. These Africans are paid informers, paid by the police to tell the police the kind of things the police wish to hear. This was the evidence they were dependent upon. There was, as I say, heavy sarcasm and light amusement at the parties in Blantyre and Limbe a few weeks ago. Here in this House we have had presented the Governor's case, which was based upon this sort of thing.
The behaviour of the forces has been mentioned. I think that the behaviour of the forces has caused intense concern among many people. The Devlin Commission gives a number of examples. I have not time to quote them all, but there was the incident involving Chikafa. They burst in upon this gentleman who is aged about 40, a God-fearing man—a Christian—well known in the local church; they burst in upon him at night, beat him upon the head, bundled him up and whipped him out of the way. That was not untypical of incidents which have happened in this territory.
There have been incidents in Southern Rhodesia, but no one was killed there and everything was done with the minimum of physical force even though people were also picked up; and I would ask the Secretary of State to compare those incidents with some of the incidents in Nyasaland mentioned by the Devlin Commission.
I come to two other matters, the Governor and his officials and the chiefs. It is said by the Devlin Commission that conflict over federation has led to a
"deep and bitter division of opinion separating the Government from the people."
That means that in Zomba they must win the confidence of Africans which they have not got now. How are they going about it? Sir Robert Armitage in his speech from the Throne on 6th July said that he would not allow Hastings Banda or any other leader to return to Nyasaland in a time of danger; and, in

375
his view, this was a time of danger to law and order.
Here again we get this image given to the Africans of Europeans who are unimpeachable and infallible. At least, that is the image they wish to give, but I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that often to Africans they merely give the image of stilted despots—may be benevolent, but stilted—when they talk in this way. That is not the way to go about it, nor is the attitude of our Ministers, European Ministers, in the Chamber in Zomba.
I have here—the Colonial Secretary must get a copy of it—a copy of HANSARD of Nyasaland, and it shows the Form II behaviour in the debates in the Chamber. I do not like to say this, but it appals me. I turn to page 57 of the proceedings of the first meeting of the Seventy-fourth Session of the Legislative Council on 7th July, 1959, and I find there an African named Chijozi speaking, and he is interrupted nine times in one page. Seven interruptions are the word "Nonsense" uttered by the Chief Secretary of this Protectorate. That is not the best way to give Africans the picture of Westminster democracy or the working of a tolerant, dignified two-party system. It is not good. I hope no one will laugh at this sort of thing, because we should set the best example possible.
We talk of taking to the Africans our superior culture. We should always give the best possible example we can inside or outside the Chamber. We do not want this superior and patronising manner shown towards African men who have been elected by their own people and are there, obviously, to put the case for their own people. That is not the way to win good will or the way to bring together people of different colours in this mixed society. That is not the behaviour of the standard bearers of Western democracy; not by any means.
The last point is a very difficult one and one I have talked of before to the Secretary of State, about the chiefs and their place in politics. There is a clash in Africa. We have seen it in Ghana, of course; there it is all over. First it is between the new young politicos coming up and the older, traditional, tribalistic chiefs. It is very difficult to find adjustment. We have seen what has
376
happened in Ghana where the Africans themselves are in power and have settled in their own house the relationship of the older and the new powers.
But what is happening in our Central African territories? All too often we use the chiefs—this is not in this Chamber an objectionable word—as "stooges", and use them to carry out our wishes in disciplining the people. This is a most objectionable habit. I could give numbers of examples of where this is happening in Africa. In Northern Rhodesia the African Congress leaders, Kenneth Kaunda and Harry Nkumbula, have been banned in their provinces by the local chiefs acting on the desires of the Chief Secretary or Provincial Commissioners.
It is happening in Nyasaland now, and happens in many places. I should like to quote something which was written, following a Second Devonshire Course at Oxford, by Mr. I. Woodroffe of Tanganyika as reported in the Journal of African Administration about this difficult problem of moving out of an African tribal society. In the past and today we as the European overlords, as it were, use and manipulate the old chiefs to get what we want from the Africans.
Mr. Woodroffe, writing of the old days of Lugard and Cameron in Tanganyika, referred to the continuance today of
"… the equivocal position of the chief, unable to represent honestly either government to the people or the people to the government and, secondly, the growing practice of using the native authority's legislative power as a means of shifting the odium of restrictive and compulsive measures from central government."
This is the important point and we are doing it in Nyasaland. I am thinking, for example, of Chief Chikowe in Zomba Province. We are using chiefs of that kind to do the job, instead of working with the only genuine indigenous national party, the Nyasaland African Congress. This is not a good thing at all and is merely piling up future trouble.
What of the future? We are to have an interim constitution for Nyasaland. Belated, but nevertheless welcome, changes have been made, but will the Colonial Secretary have as nominees people like Mr. Wellington Chirwa and others outside detention, who are as adamant against close association with

377
Southern Rhodesia as are Dr. Hastings Banda and others now in prison? All African leaders are quite clear on this issue. Therefore, the present arrangement is merely a shock absorber. Where will the right hon. Gentleman go next beyond this stage in his constitutional advances? What is to be the future of Dr. Banda? Is he to come out of prison in the next six months, or perhaps twelve months? What will be the future of this man who, by common consent, is the only democratic leader that the Nyasas possess?
We are merely postponing the day of judgment. I beg the Colonial Secretary to think of this and give us something definite soon which will be a target towards which the Africans themselves can aim. The planning of an African constitution is like designing a modern jet aircraft engine. A new constitution is established, but while the first few months of the Legislative Council are being worked out one is thinking of the next stage and the one after that; just as designers have to think of the next jet engine to be used in 1961, 1963 and 1964.
We must look ahead. European leaders like Sir Roy Welensky, Mr. Dixon and Michael Blackwood all say that Nyasaland is to be an African State, but our timing is not theirs. Blackwood talks of 1970, which is quite absurd. I ask the Colonial Secretary to treat this matter as one of urgency and to give the Africans something to look forward to in the future. If he does not, it will have been a waste of taxpayers' money to send out able men like Mr. Justice Devlin to Africa, and the findings of his Commission will be as naught.
6.33 p.m.
Brigadier Sir John Smyth: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) speaks with great knowledge of the area which we are considering. Therefore, his views must carry a great deal of weight and interest even though we may not all agree with him. I intervene briefly in the debate because I happen to have a good deal of experience of civil disturbances, unfortunately from the receiving end and not from the calm atmosphere of the House. I have also experience of the working of the Hunter Commission, which was very similar to the Devlin Commission.
378
Today, we are discussing the Devlin Commission's Report and I want to bring the debate back to that Report. The hon. Member for Rugby has been giving us some interesting points of view on the general political philosophy in Nyasaland, but we are debating whether or not we shall accept the Devlin Report in toto, as the party opposite wants, or whether we shall accept the greater part of it.
The first point that strikes anyone reading the Report—and it certainly struck me—is how different the Report itself is from Press reports of it and from some of the earlier speeches made by hon. Members opposite. In fact, the Report supports the Government without any doubt on the major issue, and it makes quite clear that both the Colonial Secretary and the Governor acted with only one end in view throughout, which was to ensure the safety of the people of Nyasaland, black and white, and the maintenance of order and responsible government.
Mr. John Hynd: Nonsense.
Sir J. Smyth: Had they not taken the steps which they did, the situation in Nyasaland today would have been very much worse than it is. Forty years is quite a large slice in the lifetime of one person but a very small period in the history of our Commonwealth.
I want to refer back to the Punjab riots in India in 1919 and the Hunter Commission which followed. I do not want to say much about the riots except that I believe that, had they been handled as promptly as the disturbances in Nyasaland were handled by the Colonial Secretary and the Governor, they would not have assumed anything like the dangerous proportions they did and the casualties would not have been anything like as great.
Those disturbances were followed by the setting up of the Hunter Commission. I had certain experience of the workings of that Commission, which was very similar to the Devlin Commission. Lord Hunter was a Scottish judge, as opposed to Mr. Justice Devlin, who is an English judge, otherwise the composition and the procedure of the two Commissions were fairly similar. The Hunter Commission sat in Lahore,

379
where I was stationed as a brigade-major and I was ordered to give evidence before it, but by the time the Commission arrived there I was on a frontier campaign. I did not give evidence, but I saw enough of the proceedings to form an opinion on how the Commission worked.
It was quite obvious that any commission like that in a country like India or Africa is up against a tremendously difficult job in sorting out the mass of evidence that comes before it, a great deal of it, of course, given in a foreign tongue. The Hunter Commission heard the evidence in open court and was given power to summon witnesses, which, I think, was an advantage, because it could pin-point the various people whom it wanted to question and could ensure that they came before it and gave their evidence. It was suggested at the time that the majority of the witnesses, quite naturally, were "agin the Government." Witnesses who supported the Government did not trouble to come before the Commission. They left it to the Government to fight their own case and I think that that would be the position with any commission of this sort.
It was extraordinarily difficult for the Hunter Commission to come to correct conclusions on every fact. It came to a certain number of correct conclusions, but to those who knew the people and the locality some of its other conclusions were quite obviously not correct, through no fault of the Commission's but simply because of the inexperience of the people who gave the evidence. I think that the Devlin Commission was much better managed. First, the Commission was appointed much more promptly by the Colonial Secretary, who was anxious that nothing should be hidden, that everything should come out into the open, and, secondly, I think that it came to sounder conclusions on the major points.
I would stress again the great difficulties which the Devlin Commission was up against. The members of the Commission were only five weeks in Nyasaland, during which they travelled extensively. They heard 455 individual witnesses and 1,300 witnesses in groups. They had to study 585 memoranda and a mass of other literature. Unlike the Hunter
380
Commission, they heard all their evidence in private. I do not know whether that was better or not. Certainly, the people who were accused had no right of cross-examination, nor were they allowed to hear the whole of the evidence. This was simply because a tremendous lot of work had to be done within a short time.
The Report acknowledges this and states that the Commission heard a great deal of criticism of the Government. This bears out what I have said already, that in such commissions the majority of the witnesses are against the Government since, if they are for the Government, they leave it to the Government to make their own case. The Report states emphatically, and, I think, fairly, that in view of the conditions I have outlined it would be a great injustice if anyone, whether European or African, were to stand condemned as a result of any finding in the Report. I think that we should dwell on those words.
The Hunter Commission, on the other hand, demanded sacrifices. It demanded resignations and it demanded that heads should fall. I have never found anyone with experience of India at that time, and of the Punjab disturbances and of the Hunter Commission, who did not come to the conclusion that the Commission, and all the sacrifices it demanded, did more harm and put progress towards the self-government of India much farther back than the actual disturbances.
As has been said, the Devlin Commismission Report supports the Government on the main points. It states that in the situation which existed on 3rd March, the Government had either to act or to abdicate and had to resort to emergency powers. It also states definitely that the grave situation which arose was the result of the policy of violence adopted by the Nyasaland African Congress.
The Commission disagrees with the Governor on the point of the plot or massacre. I shall not dwell on that, because it has been brought out clearly on both sides of the House, but the Report states that there was talk of beating and killing Europeans. That, as I well know, in such a situation is very inflammable stuff indeed; and a lot of inflammatory speeches were made. I

381
believe that the Governor's action in the circumstances was absolutely correct and that he would have been guilty of criminal folly, in the face of what had happened and the information that was given to him if he had not taken that action and there had been very much more serious rioting.
Now I want to say a word in support of the people who were engaged, whether as district commissioners on the civil side or as armed police or as the military, in a very difficult job. The most difficult and unpleasant job any soldier can be ordered to perform are the duties in aid of the civil Power. We all avoid them like the plague if we can, but sometimes we cannot do so. This is a tremendous test in many ways. There is always the fear at the back of everyone's mind of what will happen if the troops or the armed police are allowed to come to close quarters with the mob. There is the question of whether one should fire at all, when one should open fire and, if so, who should be fired at and how many rounds should be fired. In my experience, in every case where no action has been taken and an inflamed mob has been allowed to come into close contact with the troops, great confusion has always resulted and there have been many casualties. One must remember that these things take place in conditions of hysteria and fear.
I will give the House an example from my own experience. In 1930, in Peshawar City, there was a riot in the Kabuli Gate, and the Deputy Commissioner refused to give the order to fire, even to fire one shot. The troops and the mob came into close contact and 70 people were killed. My Deputy Commissioner and I, when I had to take over Peshawar City shortly afterwards, were determined not to allow this to happen again. We felt that it would be better to fire one or two early shots at the people who were doing damage rather than to allow such a situation to be repeated.
Another riot occurred from a most extraordinary circumstance. It was the kind of thing that happens on such occasions and for which the troops are apt to be blamed. There was at the Kabuli Gate a small British guard. Everything was tense, as it is on those occasions, and while I was inspecting the guard the corporal, whose fingers were all thumbs,
382
was struggling with the bolt of his rifle which had stuck. When I lifted the curtain he slammed home the bolt and quite forgetting he had then got a round in the chamber he pulled the trigger.
There was an appalling bang. I did not know where the bullet went. No one really believed afterwards what actually happened, because if the soldier had tried for a hundred years to do what he did do, he could not have done it. Outside was an Indian cart with an Indian woman and two children in the back. The bullet went through the door, hit the first child and went through the woman. By that time the bullet had formed into a lump of lead and it blew the other child's head clean off. From that occurrence, which I knew no one else would believe was a pure accident, a violent riot broke out.
I hope that we shall extend our sympathy to the troops and the police in Nyasaland who were confronted with the same kind of situation, since whatever they did it would probably be the wrong thing. From the security of this Chamber we should not condemn lightly any action which they might take in good faith, so I want to associate myself with what the Governor said at the end of his Report, namely, that he wanted to pay a tribute to the way in which all ranks had carried out their duties.
Mr. W. Griffiths: I realise that the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) has had a very distinguished career as a professional soldier, but is he really saying that when there is a Commission, of this kind and the House is considering its Report, we should not occasionally find it necessary, on the evidence, to criticise subordinates?
Sir J. Smyth: I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it is not possible always to get absolutely right in the minds of a judge and a Commission the true facts of these little riots, these little situations, which have occurred in conditions of great fear and hysteria, and that it is rather harsh sometimes for the subordinates to be condemned on those grounds.
Mr. Charles Pannell: To be fair, the Devlin Commission is quite emphatic on the subject of the troops. It said that no one was trigger-happy. It

383
would be unfair to suggest that the Governor himself had paid that tribute without admitting that the Devlin Commission took the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated.
Sir J. Smyth: If I did not mention it, I will do so. I believe that the Devlin Commission did an extremely good job. I do not agree with every conclusion that it reached. Nevertheless, I think that it did an extremely good job.
Mr. William Yates: With regard to the composition of the Commission, was not Mr. E. T. Williams a professional soldier of good standing?
Sir J. Smyth: He was a professional war soldier. [Laughter.] He was a very distinguished war soldier in North Africa, but he has, I think, reverted to his civil rôle and is at the moment a professor at one of the universities. Therefore, I should call him a temporary professional soldier.
I hope that there will be a change of heart on the part of the Congress leaders and that it will be made absolutely clear between them and the Governor that any amount of criticism of the Government is in order, but that violence is not. I hope that the Colonial Secretary and the Governor will give confidence to those in Government service in Nyasa-land that we shall support them provided that they have acted correctly. Otherwise, we shall get no volunteers for Government jobs in Nyasaland or any other Protectorates.
We are extremely lucky that we have a Colonial Secretary and a Government who have the deepest sympathy with African opinion in its struggle towards self-determination and independence but are, at the same time, absolutely firm that no progress can be made in an atmosphere of violence and civil disturbance.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, which was very largely devoted to his experiences in India. I know something about Africa, however, and that many peaceful people often gather
384
together when they are in a state of confusion without desiring in any way to cause unrest, without inviting disturbance and without wishing in any way to participate in a riot. I know that many African people are peaceful in their intentions, but when their leaders are arrested without any cause being given it is understandable that those Africans will go to the district commissioners or the bomas to see the officials and inquire what has happened to their leaders That point had been brought out only too clearly in the Devlin Commission's Report.
One thing that has struck me during the debate has been the appalling complacency of hon. Members opposite who have spoken. We started off with a very suave, self-satisfied speech from the Attorney-General, a disgraceful speech which did not rise to the occasion in any way. It was a lawyer's brief, as it was so rightly called by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
As I listened to the debate I remembered the one that we had in the early hours of this morning on Hola. I wonder whether there is an hon. Member for Wolverhampton on the other side of the House who will speak in this debate. Is there not a single hon. Member opposite who is prepared to judge the Report objectively and realistically, instead of hon. Members getting up one after the other to make their little party political pieces? Is there not a sincere and honest Member on the other side of the House who is prepared to come forward and judge the Report objectively and trust the members of the Commission, honourable, eminent men who were appointed by the Colonial Secretary himself?
One interesting speech has been made from the other side of the House, that by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). However, he had not read the Devlin Report as thoroughly as he perhaps should have done before he spoke. Reading from page 128 of the Devlin Commission's Report, he gave the impression that the Commission had reported that the security forces concerned had not in any way been trigger-happy, but, as a sentence which I will quote demonstrates, the Commission was there referring to

385
incidents which took place before 3rd March. The Report says:
"In the incidents that we have so far recorded we have not found anyone who was 'trigger-happy'."
A great part of the speech of the Attorney-General was devoted to referring to some incidents which took place before the state of emergency was announced. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I draw attention to an incident which took place after the state of emergency was announced. Paragraph 274, on page 136 of the Report, refers to an incident at Chiwaliwali. It says:
"On 19th March an extensive operation was going on in the Central Province to surround three villages in the Kota-Kota district, of which Chiwaliwali was one. The plan was that the troops should take up their positions at dawn on the hills on all four sides of the villages and then move down into the villages searching the bush on the way, and, it was hoped, driving into the villages anyone who had gone into hiding outside of them. Just after 5 a.m., while it was still half light, a warrant officer in command of a R.R.R. platoon got his men to the top of the hill, where they were to spread out. Although in a territorial battalion, the warrant officer was a regular soldier and had had previous experience in Malaya. As he got to the crest, he saw four figures crouching down, moving up the hill towards him. When they got close to him, closer than 20 yards, he called on them to stop. They turned and ran back towards the villages. He called out a warning a second time and then fired. He had a Sterling gun which was supposed to be on repetition, but which was actually firing automatically. Altogether he fired three bursts of three shots each. After the first burst he was aware it was not firing on repetition as it should have been. In the half light he assumed that the figures were men, but, in fact, one was a woman with a baby on her back. The woman was killed, but the baby was unharmed. We do not think that this shooting was done wilfully; but we are clear that it was not necessary."
An Hon. Member: Read the last sentence.
Mr. Storehouse: The last sentence is:
"The party had been turned back so that they were running in the direction towards which it was intended to drive them, back into the villages which were being surrounded."
Obviously, that platoon was not carrying out its instructions. It was trigger-happy. If the state of emergency had not been announced in the way that it was, in this House by the Colonial Secretary, that woman could be alive today to take care of her baby. As it is, she and 50 other Africans are dead. It is impossible for us to judge whether there
386
would have been more killings and exactly what the circumstances were. But we say that the Government consistently misunderstood, misrepresented, and wholly messed up the situation in Nyasaland. They brought the state of emergency and the deaths upon themselves.
In this debate we may well mark the words in this morning's editorial comment in the News Chronicle. It says that the issue goes beyond the result of a General Election—which we are all expecting in October—and continues:
"It is not confined to Central Africa, but involves the whole Commonwealth and the position of Britain in the world.
The kernel of the Commission's report is not the innocence of Dr. Banda, the nonexistence of the 'massacre plot' or the brutalities which accompanied the mass arrests of Africans. It is that a British Protectorate has become a 'police State' because the British Government has refused to accept the passionate opposition of the Nyasa people to the idea of Federation.
It may be that this opposition is based partly on ignorance. It may be that the advocates of Federation have a better case than their speeches suggest. What is a fact is that opposition to Federation in Nyasaland is 'deeply rooted and almost universally held'.
The British Government has said that 'it cannot and will not go back upon Federation; it treats the question as one that is no longer open' states the Devlin Commission. On the one issue which matters in Nyasaland the Government is totally divided from the governed.
Nyasaland may be temporarily compelled to stay, gagged and bound, in the Federation. But the trend of events will break the Government's policy even if conscience is ground into dust and promises treated as mere tactical devices."
The News Chronicle continues with a most damning indictment of the Government.
The Government stand condemned for their deliberate and calculated attempts to impose federation on the unwilling Nyasa people. This is apparent from the Report by four impartial witnesses, men of outstanding merit who were appointed by the Colonial Secretary. These men have now confirmed that almost unanimously the Nyasaland people are opposed to federation with the Rhodesias. It is because the Colonial Secretary and the Government have ignored the pleas of the Nyasa people that, in desperation, they turned to Dr. Banda and asked him to return to Nyasaland to lead them in their campaign.

387
If the pleas of the Nyasa people had been heard in 1953, 1954 or even in 1956 and 1957 it is possible that Dr. Banda would never have returned to Nyasaland. The Commission confirms that Dr. Banda did not want to foment opposition to federation. He was willing to give it a chance and he went to Ghana to settle down and follow a practice there. But such was the insistence of the Nyasaland people that he eventually agreed to return to take over the leadership of Congress.
The Commission confirms the widespread opposition to federation. It also confirms that the Nyasaland Government took steps to inform the Secretary of State of the extent of the opposition to federation. Did the Colonial Secretary consider the information which he received from his own Governor, information which is now confirmed in the Devlin Commission Report that the people of Nyasaland were strongly opposed to federation?
Notwithstanding this opposition to federation, the Government have proceeded in their callous plans to disregard the wishes of the Nyasa people and steamroller that country into federation with the Rhodesias. Such enforced federation is almost without precedent. The secret agreements made with Sir Roy Welensky in 1957 confirmed the suspicions of Dr. Banda and the Nyasas. Promises were made about the date of the constitutional conference and perhaps other arrangements were made which have not yet been revealed to this House. The Government were willing to make these concessions to Sir Roy Welensky, but they were not willing to make any announcements about the Nyasaland constitution, which were anxiously awaited by the Nyasa people.
When the story of the Government's handling of the Nyasa constitutional arrangement is examined, we will find that it is a story of delay, procrastination and still more delay. The Government knew of the temper of the Nyasa people. They knew how desperately anxious the Nyasas were to have a properly representative legislative council before the constitutional conference took place in 1960. The Nyasa people knew that without their legislative council it would be possible for the British Government to sell them into federation
388
against their will. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, the Nyasa people were so insistent that before the 1960 constitutional conference took place they should have a properly representative legislative council.
On 6th March, 1958, the Colonial Secretary said that an announcement on constitutional reform would probably be made in the late summer. On 13th June he saw the delegation from Nyasaland which was led by Dr. Banda. The right hon. Gentleman told the delegation that he understood their anxieties about constitutional reforms and that he was expecting recommendations from the Governor of Nyasaland. In fact, although the Colonial Secretary said that he understood the anxieties of the Nyasa people, he took no account of them, because when the Governor of Nyasaland returned from leave on 15th August he said that he had no announcement to make on the constitutional changes at present. The delays and procrastination continued until, on 21st November, Dr. Banda made it clear that he was anxiously awaiting the proposals for constitutional reform.
It is against this background of enforced entry into federation of the Nyasa people, the continued denial to them of democratic representation, the promises made to Sir Roy Welensky about the future of federation behind the backs of the Nyasa people and behind the backs of hon. Members in this House, the fraud of the Federal Constitution which the Government pushed through against Liberal and Labour opposition, the tearing up of the African Affairs Board and the safeguards which it was supposed to represent, that we must judge the development of the Congress campaign against federation and the Government itself.
Who are we to judge? Which one of us put in that position would not have considered making the most vigorous protest possible against the repressive measures adopted by the Nyasaland Government. The restrictions on meetings were yet another annoyance to the Congress organisers, as were the restrictions on the Nyasaland chiefs who wished to support the Congress because Congress was expressing the desires and wishes of the Nyasa people, as is confirmed in the Devlin Report.

389
We on this side of the House believe that the Colonial Secretary is largely responsible for this background of events which has led the Nyasa people right over the brink of frustration. By his policies and his actions the Colonial Secretary has been inviting disaster. He has been slamming doors in the faces of the Nyasa people and he must not be surprised when they, in their turn, try to knock those doors down.
Faced with the criticism in the Devlin Report, is the Colonial Secretary still prepared to defend his actions? Apparently he is. I should like to ask the House to consider the action of the Colonial Secretary a little more closely. The House will remember that the Colonial Secretary returned from a visit to the Aden Protectorate and Cyprus on 1st March. On 2nd March, he was helping to guide through the House the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill.
He therefore had a very short time to examine the intelligence report of 13th February which was waiting for him at Church House when he arrived back from his visit to Aden, but on 3rd March, without adequate consideration of that intelligence report, on his own responsibility—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said—he announced the murder plot in the House. He announced it in a statement, when he said:
"… there was such clear indication of the intention of Congress to stir up further disturbances, involving widespread violence and the murder of European, Asian and moderate African leaders."
He also referred to it in his speech, when he said that
"information made it clear that plans had been made by Congress to carry out widespread violence and murder of Europeans, Asians and moderate African leaders; that, in fact, a massacre was being planned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 216–290.]
Why did he refer to a murder plot and a massacre? In this connection, I want to put three points before the House for its consideration. It was not necessary for him to do this to justify the announcement of the emergency. In other territories and in other circumstances states of emergency have been announced without murder plots being produced. Secondly, he knew that the Governor of Nyasaland was not going to refer to a murder plot in the broadcast
390
taking place that morning Thirdly, he knew that the Governor of Nyasaland had already advised him—and this is the most important point—that the Government of Nyasaland thought that the murder plot was a possibility rather than a probability. This is pointed out in the Devlin Commission's Report and was rather obviously excluded by the Attorney-General when he was reading extracts from that Report.
I would ask the House to consider paragraph 177 of the Report. It says:
"The Government view"—
that is, the Nyasaland Government—
"as expressed to us, was that the murder plot was a possibility rather than a probability …"
Why did the Colonial Secretary, on 3rd March, announce the murder plot as a definite fact when he had been advised by the Governor of Nyasaland that it was only a possibility and not a probability? These facts were well known to the Colonial Secretary. At that time he had the intelligence report of 13th February to go by.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Why does the hon. Member say that the Colonial Secretary was so advised?
Mr. Stonehouse: He must have been so advised, otherwise there was negligence on the part of the Governor of Nyasaland in not so advising him, and negligence on the part of the Colonial Secretary in making his announcement in the House on 3rd March without making any further inquiries of the Government of Nyasaland. He could have got in touch by radio-telephone to check the facts. Surely the Government of Nyasaland would have told the Colonial Secretary that they considered the murder plot to be only a possibility and not a probability.
The intelligence report of 13th February is based upon information provided by one main informer, who is supposed to have obtained information from a branch chairman of Congress. As the Commission says, this sort of information is subject to a double danger, first, that the story is exaggerated by the original informant, and, secondly, that it is exaggerated by the informer himself.
These points should have been well known to the Colonial Secretary. Why

391
did not he bear them in mind before he made his announcement in the House? He decided to rush in where angels fear to tread and to announce from the Dispatch Box a massacre plot. He had two quite legitimate courses of action open to him, yet he chose to take neither. He could have ignored the plot altogether in his public statement, checking it behind the scenes. Alternatively, he could have been quite frank with the House and told hon. Members what information he had available, explaining his difficulty in interpreting the intelligence report and asking the House to follow him in his difficulty in interpreting it.
Mr. Bernard Braine: Later in the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies laid before the House detailed particulars of disturbances which had resulted in deaths, stretching back thirteen or fourteen days before 3rd March—before the emergency was declared. Such facts were laid before the House, and, in the opinion of the Devlin Commission, they fully justified the declaration of the emergency.
Mr. Stonehouse: Those deaths arose because the Government prevented Congress from holding illegal meetings, then arrested some leaders, and were then unwilling to give suitable assurances to the people. The result was that the people, being confused, gathered together in crowds to seek an explanation. Then, as the Devlin Commission describes, certain incidents took place. But that was no justification for declaring that there was a murder plot. I will come to what the Under-Secretary of State said in a few minutes.
The Colonial Secretary deliberately decided to announce in this House a massacre plot, and the only reason he had to do so was that he wanted a good political trump card to play. At that time he was under bitter attack from hon. Members on this side of the House. All sorts of things had been going on. The Colonial Secretary had been acting in collusion with Sir Roy Welensky, the Federal Prime Minister—against the advice of his own Governor of Northern Rhodesia—to have me forcibly removed from a Protectorate for which this country is responsible.
Mr. Braine: Quite right.
Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member may say "Quite right", but I can tell him that the Governor of Northern Rhodesia made the strongest representations to the Federal Prime Minister about the order to declare me a prohibited immigrant. At no time was the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, or the Governor of Nyasaland, consulted about the action to be taken by the Federal Prime Minister. When the Governor of Northern Rhodesia heard there were rumours about this action he made the strongest possible protests to the Federal Prime Minister. But the Colonial Secretary, speaking in this House, supported the Federal Prime Minister against the advice he must have had from his own Governor.
The Colonial Secretary was under attack, and he had to produce a political trump card. He chose the massacre plot. I say that the Colonial Secretary is a card sharper and a confidence trickster.
Mr. Braine: On a point of order. We have suffered a great deal already from the hon. Member's strictures, but is it in order for him to use an expression of that kind against my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Speaker: I could not make out what the hon. Member said. I could hear the sound he was making, but I could not distinguish the syllables.
Mr. Stonehouse: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the trump card was not in the pack of cards which the Colonial Secretary could legitimately use when he made his speech that afternoon. But he chose to use it for political reasons—squalid, party political reasons.
Mr. Braine: I thought that you said that you did not hear the expression used, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member accused by right hon. Friend of being a confidence trickster and a card sharper. I would have thought that in any assembly of this kind those were most offensive remarks, and that the hon. Member should have the decency to withdraw them.
Mr. Speaker: It is very unusual for hon. Members to call each other card sharpers and tricksters. It is hard language, but it cannot be meant literally. No one has ever seen the

393
Colonial Secretary perform feats of prestidigitation with cards, and the remark must have been meant in a metaphorical sense. But it is not an expression the use of which raises an hon. Member in the eyes of his fellows.
Mr. Stonehouse: I use a term like that because the actions of the Colonial Secretary are deservedly criticised in the Devlin Commission's Report—a Commission set up by the Colonial Secretary himself.
Not only did the Colonial Secretary make that statement in the House; he also got the Under-Secretary to add weight to the points he had made, later in the evening. I would ask the Under-Secretary what rôle he was cast to play that evening. Did he know the contents of the intelligence report of 13th February? Had he examined it, or was he merely cast in the rôle of his master's voice, or, perhaps, "Little Sir Echo"? Did he know the contents of the Report? The responsibility is on his shoulders as well as on those of the Colonial Secretary. He is just as responsible for misleading the House. It was not until 7th March that the Nyasaland Government referred to the murder plot.
When the Colonial Secretary had made his speech, and the Nyasaland Government had realised that they had already been committed to justifying the murder plot, all the researches and resources of the Special Branch were recruited to build up the evidence for this plot. The methods which the police used should be referred to in this debate. I want to refer to the case of Thomas Karua, who was one of the Congress officials responsible for taking care of tape recordings and films.
On the afternoon of 25th January he was busy taking a film of the so-called secret meeting. I cannot for the life of me understand why Congress should want to make a film of a meeting if it had wanted that meeting to be secret. Obviously, it had no wish to make this meeting purely a secret one. This man Karua was arrested, along with many others, and flown to Bulawayo. In a Press statement and also in a long statement to me, which I had recorded on tape, he said that he was approached by Mr. Hodder and by an inspector of the
394
Special Branch and invited to make a statement about the massacre plot.
Mr. Karua was told in Bulawayo that Dr. Banda and the others would be kept in prison for seven or even ten years. As Karua had a pregnant wife and was a businessman who understood the advantages of having his freedom, they made a special appeal to him to cooperate with them in building up the massacre plot story. Karua went back to his cell and talked to some of his fellow detainees, and they advised him, because he had a passport from Tanganyika, where he had lived a year or so earlier, before he had gone to Blantyre, to accept the invitation to co-operate with them so that he could escape to Tanganyika—escape to the outside world—and tell his story fully and frankly.
Mr. Karua agreed to co-operate with the police. He told them everything that they wanted to know, although the police knew that because Karua had spent only a year in Nyasaland he could not understand the vernacular in that part of Nyasaland. In fact, he could not understand either of the two languages used at the meeting on 21st January, so he could not possibly have been in a position to understand what was going on on that date. The police knew that, but, nevertheless, they prepared a statement for Karua to sign and they encouraged him to put his name to these forged documents. In fact, he did so under pressure, because he knew that unless he agreed he would be kept in detention for a long period.
Not only did they do that, but they also set up a model court consisting of Mr. Finney, Mr. Roberts, the acting Solicitor-General, and Mr. Lomax, of the Security Branch, so that Karua could practise giving his false evidence to this court and so that he could perform properly when he arrived before the Devlin Commission. In fact, Karua was seen by the Devlin Commission on 12th May and the Commission asked to see him again. He was again seen on the 21st May, and it was then that particularly Mr. Williams realised that Karua was not telling the truth. He indicated to Karua that he understood, as he said—we come back to the card game again—Karua was playing with cards. Karua was not in a position at that time to tell the truth because in the room with him was Mr. Roberts, the

395
Acting Solicitor-General, who was listening to what Karua was saying. So Kama, being kept under duress by the police, was unable to tell his full story.
Eventually he got out and his fare was paid for him by the Nyasaland authorities as part of his reward for his co-operation. Eventually he got to Tanganyika and flew to Britain. He appeared again before the Devlin Commission in this country, and told the Commission the full and shocking story. There needs to be a very full investigation into the circumstances under which Karua gave his evidence and I am quite sure that he would be very willing to co-operate very fully with those conducting such an investigation. I wonder whether the Colonial Secretary or the Governor in Nyasaland or the Special Branch officers there are themselves suitable people to carry out that inquiry. If Karua's story is correct then they are, indeed, guilty of very serious practices.
The Nyasaland people are told that they should not worry about political advance and should think only in terms of economic advantages coming from federation. I am glad that the Under-Secretary is here because he is well aware of the aspects of economic development with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which are also known to the Nyasa people. Many of the Nyasas go to work in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia. They go to work in the Northern Rhodesian copper mines, for instance, but they know that much of the economic advantage from the development of the resources in the Federation flows not to Africans but to investors, in fact, to capitalist companies investing from the outside.
Indeed, in the case of the British South Africa Company, which is interested in the royalties of the Northern Rhodesia copper mines, the Under-Secretary must know well that the Northern Rhodesian copper mines give more in royalties to the British South Africa Company than they do in payments, wages, food allowances, and so on, to the total African working forces on the copper belt. About £8,800,000 goes to the British South Africa Company and only £7 million to the 38,000 Africans who work in the mines in the Copper Belt. These facts are well known to the Nyasas and that is why they look askance to
396
the case for economic advance so often put forward from the benches opposite. That is one of the reasons that they are so determined to get political advance as well as economic advance, so often promised to them, but which actually does not mean much in practice to the Nyasa worker or peasant.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I apologise to the House for having spoken at such length, but hon. Members must appreciate that I have not spoken in a major debate at all this year, nor have I spoken since my return from Africa on the circumstances in which I was involved. I think that the House will agree that I have not spent an inordinate amount of time talking about my experiences, although I could have perhaps done so with some advantage to hon. Members opposite who are suffering from so many misapprehensions.
This problem rises above party considerations, but we have had a purely party political approach to this problem by the Government. The Government think more in terms of winning the next General Election than about the future of Nyasaland. This problem concerns the fundamental relationship of Europeans and Africans who should be helped to live together in friendship and equality. But by their actions the Government are all the time making it more difficult to reach that position in Central Africa. This issue is even more important than that, even more important than the future of Central Africa. The Government set up a Commission and now they refuse to accept the facts which are related in the Report of that Commission.
The Colonial Secretary has been found guilty by the jury which he himself set up, guilty of misleading this House. Yet the right hon. Gentleman refuses to withdraw. His decision to cling to office strikes at the roots of our constitutional practice and undermines the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. The only honourable course for the Colonial Secretary to adopt is to resign.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I saw you nodding agreement when the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was saying that in this House we should

397
set an example in good manners to those people overseas who are attempting to adopt some of the forms of government which we practise in this country. I shall attempt to follow that course. Though hard-hitting in his speech the hon. Member for Rugby did keep within the limits of good Parliamentary manners. What he said and what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) included the presentation of constructive arguments such as we used to hear from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). The former Member of Parliament for Wednesbury, Mr. S. N. Evans, occupied a special place in the affections of hon. Members of this House. He spoke with authority, although many hon. Members disagreed with him from time to time. I am conscious of the loss which we suffered when he ceased to be a Member of Parliament.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wednesbury say at the conclusion of his speech that this issue should be set above party politics. I am prepared to leave it to history to judge whether hon. Members opposite or hon. Members on this side of the House have done more to keep the issue of Central African Federation, and the future of so many people of all races who live there, out of the discussions on domestic political issues in this country. Certainly in anything which I say I shall endeavour to do so.
I do not think it much good to job back too far. The hon. Member for Wednesbury went back to 1953 and 1954 when Central African Federation Measures were going through this House. I wish to refer to the happenings of 1951, which the Prime Minister mentioned last week, when this issue first came before the House as a practical proposition. I think it was in 1950, during the second Attlee Administration, when the first conference of officials was called which put forward a unanimous recommendation that federation should be proceeded with. That was followed later by the Victoria Falls Conference when the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was the chief Government spokesman and leader.
We do not know what happened after that Conference, but it has always been said, and I have never heard it denied,
398
that after the Conference no lead was given to the district officers to go to their people and tell them that federation was a good thing. Despite the fact that the first Conference had agreed unanimously that it was a good thing, after the second Conference the then Government did not give the lead which might have made a difference to the whole of this problem from 1951 onwards.
I wish to take this opportunity to say that I believe that if the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) had remained as Colonial Secretary he had the knowledge and the courage to have given such a lead which might have altered the history of Central Africa. I was one who was in the House in those days and I wish to pay a tribute to the work which the right hon. Gentleman did when he was Colonial Secretary. He came to that office with knowledge and experience of the personalities and problems, and the quality of his work has been equalled and, I believe surpassed, only by my right hon. Friend who at present occupies that office. If the right hon. Member for Wakefield had been Colonial Secretary in 1950 and 1951 I believe, as I have said, that the course of history in Africa might have been changed. But that was not to be, and since 1951 we have had to face these difficulties.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is it not the case that the then Government decided that the people of Central Africa should make the decision themselves and that the district officers were given instructions to explain the scheme? Because we did not want to impose it on the Africans it was said that they should be free to make their own decision.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is exactly the line which I criticise. In the more remote areas of Central Africa individual Africans have been used to being told by the district officer whether a thing is good or bad.
Mr. Brockway: That is the fundamental difference.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think that a lead should have been given by the district officers, but they received no instructions from the Government of the day in this country, and the difficulties which have followed stem from that fact.

399
Despite the failure of the previous Government to that of 1951 it was decided to go ahead with federation. In this House we had, I think, eight debates in the period from 1951 to 1953 and the Central African Federation was established. I do not think that even today there would be a serious denial of the material advantages which flowed from federation, especially in Nyasaland, but there have been two great fears which have dominated the Africans since that time. The first one has been fear regarding land. That has been evidenced throughout the world, certainly in Africa. Land and the rights of people to land is one of the predominant problems. I think that fear led to the disturbances in Southern Nyasaland in 1954, but the public relations work being done by the Government there in putting across the fact that land is within the territorial jurisdiction is overcoming that fear.
The other great fear has been stressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the fear of racial discrimination. This also could be removed and a lot has been done to dispel it, but not sufficient. I think we may claim that because of federation advances have been made through federal agencies, such as the University, which have brought greater advantages over the federal area than would have been the case had federation not been a fact. In Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia there is still a great deal to be done to conquer this fear, which I believe to be greater even than the fears of the past regarding land.
I have had the opportunity of studying these problems for some years and I have read the Devlin Commission's Report. I believe that they have been exploited by certain extremists in the colonies who took Dr. Banda as their leader. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General dealt in some detail with the Devlin Commission's Report and the part played by Dr. Banda. I do not wish to add anything to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend beyond these two points. Dr. Banda was the leader of his party when he did not speak the vernacular. I do not know how hon. Members of this House would fare, particularly
400
the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), if we had to make our speeches with the aid of an interpreter. It was difficult for Dr. Banda to check how far his speeches were exaggerated, and obviously it was difficult for him to check his followers in any discussions there may have been.
I do not think Dr. Banda would deny that, as leader of his party, he must clearly be responsible for the failure to control his followers. I do not think that he would disclaim responsibility for the meeting on 25th January. It is fair to say of the Commission's Report that we can accept facts which have been usefully put forward and established and yet disagree with some of the inferences and conclusions drawn by the authors of the Report from those facts. It does not take a lawyer to produce different conclusions from the same set of facts. That happens in many instances in this world.
The difference between the Commission and my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, with all respect to the Commission, is that my right hon. Friend is responsible for the good government of these territories. Therefore, we cannot afford to take the risk which some hon. Members apparently think that the Commission, by inference, suggested that he might have taken. The incident of the district commissioner with somebody waving a spear behind his back has already been gone into in sufficient detail. On Dr. Banda's part in all this and the description of a police State—which, taken out of its context, can be used unfairly—there are different conclusions which I, for one, would draw from the facts which the Commission has so usefully put forward.
I do not think that sufficient benefit of the doubt has been given in the Report to the people who are undertaking in Nyasaland the tremendous task of administering that country. Sometimes, the language of the Report seems somewhat patronising in regard to their "paternalism". We tend in this House to think of all these African territories as being the same. It is some years since I was in Nyasaland, but it is only since 1945, or even more recently, that modern communications have opened up that country and have brought to the central and northern areas some degree of stability, and something like that of

401
the more civilised areas I do not think we can say that the paternalism of the administration there is out of date. District officers must, for some time ahead, assume great responsibility in advising their people in those parts of Nyasaland.
The Report gives very little idea of the sense of responsibility for scattered communities, particularly in the central and northern areas, which the Governors have held. We in this House are particularly conscious of Mau Mau and we have had a number of debates on it. We are more conscious than is the general public outside. Even more so are those in high positions in these territories overseas conscious of these things, and they occasionally see the threat of danger and difficulty. In this case, an adequate information service succeeded in nipping in the bud what might otherwise have become a very dangerous situation.
The best summary of the situation was that which appeared in the Sunday Times this week and which said:
"… one cannot but be struck by their interest in the legal defensibility of official conduct rather than its necessity in the circumstances as they appeared to the officers on the spot."
That is my view of the Devlin Report as a whole. The Report says that the Governor and the Government had no alternative but to "act or to abdicate". I am glad that the Government acted in time. By pointing out the faults and the consequent difficulties the Report does not give the matter in full perspective.
The Governor, in his dispatch, Cmd. 815, says, in paragraph 41, on page 13:
"The facts are that in the original operation, up to and including 5th March, 263 arrests were made. In seven of these medical examination showed that the force used had inflicted injuries. The Commission discuss six of these cases.…"
I did not get the impression on reading the Devlin Report, and the criticism the Commission made in these cases, that they were only six cases out of 263. That is an instance in which the Report shows a lack of perspective. I do not believe there are many hon. Members who would have acted differently from the way in which the Governor acted, faced with the problems which confronted him and with his knowledge that the situation could easily get out of hand in such widely scattered communities. The Nyasaland
402
Government faced the alternative of acting or abdicating, and they acted with the necessary speed and secrecy, and within resources which were obviously not as great as they would have liked.
We all regret on both sides of the House that in some instances there was misjudgment and illegal use of force, but in the circumstances which faced the Government of Nyasaland we should congratulate them on how little went wrong rather than criticise them for their shortcomings. Any Commission reporting as the Devlin Commission does in Parts I, II and III cannot disagree that the Nyasaland Government averted a serious threat to the lives and freedom of many people. Though it does not say so specifically, the Commission gives the impression of disagreeing with that.
I am glad that on three points it confirms what my right hon. Friend said or implied on 3rd March. Those points are that in the first case, and in general terms, no one was "trigger-happy". The second is that there was no plot by white opponents of African nationalism to justify the detention and removal of the leaders of the Africans; thirdly, that there was no pressure by Sir Roy Welensky to get the Government of Nyasaland to take the action which was taken.
I hope that one day the part played by Sir Roy Welensky in the very difficult transitional period in Central Africa will be fully appreciated on both sides of this House. I have had the privilege of knowing him for some twelve years and I have great admiration and respect for what he has contributed in that time.
The Governor's reply should have been printed with the Devlin Report, but probably there is some technical reason, apart from the printers' strike, why that was not done. It would have put the Report into better perspective. I do not know whether it is yet too late to do something about that now. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but we have to look at this matter fairly. This is a very serious issue for the people who are trying to grapple with these problems. I suggest that it would have put the situation into better perspective if an answer to the charges made in the Devlin Report had been embodied in the same document.

403
I have not, unfortunately, the document with me, but I hope that one of my hon. Friends may be able to quote in detail the remarks made by the chairman of the Nyasaland Railways about what happened there When intimidation was withdrawn, after action had been taken, and after thirty-six hours, when sixty out of the 7,000 employees had been detained. There was a tremendous uprising in morale which had been steadily falling among the 7,000 railways employees.
I come to my last point. We are all interested in the future and in what we are to do next. We must hope and pray that the emergency will be called off sooner than later and that things will quieten down in Central Africa. I do not think anyone will seriously deny that that decision can only be taken by those who live on the spot and who know what the consequences will be.
Secondly, the constitutional advances were adumbrated and detailed to a certain extent by my right hon. Friend on 22nd July when he stated:
"It is, therefore, our intention within the next few weeks to increase by nomination the number of African seats on the Legislative Council…. We also propose at the same time to appoint to the Executive Council two African members taken from the Legislative Council. These will be interim arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1403.]
I hope those advances will be properly explained to the people in Nyasaland and that they will accept this as a very genuine advance towards the goal at which I believe we are all aiming.
It is interesting to see that Dr. Banda says there will be a necessity for European civil servants for as long ahead as virtually he cares to look. It is interesting, looking round the world, to see what a demand there is for personnel, civil servants—technicians as they are called these days—teachers and so on from this country. It is beyond the capacity of this country at the moment to provide all that is required in these territories, but unless there is a certain political stability in these countries and a strong framework of civil servants there will not be that stability which we want to see. We must try to get these people to work better together so that European and, in future, Asian civil servants may remain
404
to help build up that wonderful and delightful country of Nyasaland.
Finally, I do not believe it is beyond the genius of this country, of both sides of the House, of both Houses and of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, with our friends in the Commonwealth themselves with federal experience of these problems—Canada, Australia, India, Nigeria and Northern Ireland are instances which spring to my mind which might usefully be brought to bear with their experience—to work out an acceptable solution for an African State within the Federation.
I make a final appeal to hon. Members opposite. If they really believe, as I think they believed in 1951, that federation is in the interest of all those who live in Central Africa, I appeal to them to stress that, while, of course, still maintaining the right to disagree with the steps the Government of the day may take. Secondly, I ask them to co-operate in the constructive proposals which we believe will come from the Commission to be established. There are a number of right hon. Members opposite—I had better not mention names at this point—who I believe could most usefully contribute towards working out these problems. I believe it would be a very useful contribution needed greatly in the years immediately ahead. It would also give them something to enliven the many years in which, I am afraid, they will remain on the benches opposite.
7.54 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I think that when most people in this country, and perhaps in other countries, saw the Motion which the Government put on the Order Paper for this debate, they were very shocked. I am certain that when they hear the report of the speech made by the Attorney-General today they will be much more shocked.
The Government appointed a Commission and, when that Commission was appointed, the Colonial Secretary was questioned about it and said he was certain that the Commission would take every appropriate step to arrive at the truth and accuracy of the facts put before it. I am sure that was accepted in this country. When the Report was made by the Devlin Commission it was read with the greatest interest. In Edinburgh, never at any time was there such

405
a run on the Stationery Office to get copies of a Report. That was because it is of particular interest to Scottish people.
Now we have the Government presented with an opportunity of accepting the Report and deciding where we go from here, but letting that opportunity slip from them completely. The Government today could have done something worthwhile to bring about an easement in the tension in Nyasaland. They could have done something worth while today to make it possible in future to bring peace in that country, but unless the Colonial Secretary when he winds up the debate this evening makes a very different speech from the speech of the Attorney-General, it seems to me that in Nyasaland we shall not have peace.
We on this side of the House accept the Commission's Report in its entirety. We accept the point which was stressed by the Attorney-General—at one time he said it was the most important conclusion and at another he described it as the main finding—namely, the need for declaring an emergency. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who opened the debate on this side of the House, made that perfectly clear. The Attorney-General said that by doing this we avoided a major catastrophe, but I say to him that the end was not achieved in declaring the emergency.
The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that a petition was presented to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Commonwealth Relations. It was presented by a body of Scottish people. That body, the Scottish Council for African Affairs, has many eminent Scottish people on it and from them we have had very important statements. One statement made by Dr. Kenneth Little, Reader in Social Anthropology at Edinburgh University, should be a real warning to the Minister. It said that if the Government do not accept this Report and do not decide to make improvements from now on it might lead to a holocaust in Nyasaland. That is the feeling of many people.
In an Adjournment debate at Whitsuntide, I made a speech in which I carefully weighed every word because I wanted to say nothing which might worsen relations in Nyasaland. I was willing to wait until the Report was published, but
406
the attitude of the Government today so far has made it perfectly clear that they are accepting the parts of the Report that suit them and the parts of the Report that are critical of them or of the Governments in the Federation they are pushing completely aside. What do the Government think the effect of that attitude will be on Africans in Nyasaland?
In speaking of Dr. Banda, the Attorney-General referred to the Commission being impressed by his charm. He said that it had this impression from him as a witness and from other sources, but he did not know what those other sources were. Dr. Banda was, and still is, a member and an elder of the Guthrie Memorial Church in Edinburgh. Only last weekend, the present minister of that church said that although he was not the minister when Dr. Banda was there he had learned from his congregation that the impression that this man had left was of a man of great intellect and a man of peace. Here is a man whom the Government are doing their best to denigrate.
I have here a copy of the Nyasaland Information Bulletin of 6th May, and I want to quote from some parts of it. It was dealing with the events that led up to the declaration of the state of emergency. Here is one statement:
"To restore order the Government had to bring in troops and extra police and had to spend money on them that would normally have been used to improve our standard of living."
I think those words speak for themselves as to what their intention was. The second statement, which indeed shocked me, was this:
"Some people were hurt in the riots—a few even died."
Fifty-one people lost their lives. I should not call that a few. In another part, when telling the Africans and others in Nyasaland about those who had been put into prison, this document stated:
"Whether they are charged with criminal offences or not the Congress leaders are going to stay in prison for a long time, until they constitute no threat to the peaceful lives of the inhabitants of this country."
The last extract is a statement asking people to inform, and this is what it was advising them to do:
"Tell your District Commissioner or your nearest Government Officer the name of any Congress member who you know has not yet been arrested."

407
Yet, right up almost to the declaration of the state of emergency, it was legal to be a member of Congress. This was the one free political organisation for these people. The document goes on to say:
"You can either report personally to a Government Officer, or, if you prefer to remain anonymous, send an unsigned letter to your District Commissioner or Police Officer giving the name and address of any Congress member still at large. (There is no need to put a stamp on the letter.)"
This was the kind of bulletin that was going throughout Nyasaland.
Mr. William Ross: A police State.
Miss Herbison: No one is at all surprised that the Commission in its Report should say that it was a police State.
"Nyasaland is—no doubt only temporarily—a police state, where it is not safe for anyone to express approval of the policies of the Congress Party, to which before 3rd March, 1959, the vast majority of politically-minded Africans belonged, and where it is unwise to express any but the most restrained criticism of Government policy"
We did not hear a word about that from the Attorney-General today, and yet unless we discuss these matters, unless we deal with them, and unless we show these people in Africa that we do believe in political freedom for them, there is no hope at all of peace in that country.
It seems to me that ever since the emergency the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State, by their statements and innuendoes, have tried to bring discredit on the part which the Church of Scotland has played in Nyasaland. I have read every word of this Report carefully, and I say that the whole Report is a complete vindication of its attitude and actions.
Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
Miss Herbison: I do not want to take too long. I am sorry, but I cannot give way, as there are still many hon. Members who wish to speak.
If we turn to the pages of this Report, we can see the early part which the Church of Scotland played in Nyasaland. In paragraph 15 we find these words
"It is very largely to the credit of the early missionaries that peace was brought so rapidly to the Colony and slave trading was ended."
408
These were the efforts which culminated in bringing the territory under the protection of the Crown. Right from its earliest days, the Church of Scotland, in conjunction with the African Church and in unity with the three Presbyterian Churches, has played a very important part in the life of the people of Nyasaland.
If we turn to another part of the Report, on page 23, in paragraph 44, we find this:
"The Church of Central Africa Presbyterian preaches and practises complete equality between the races and many Africans are therefore high in its councils. It does not eschew politics and many of its ministers are also active members of Congress. On this issue, it feels that it is with the people and against the Government. The Church believes that it raises a matter of principle touching the dignity of man and therefore refuses to regard the economic argument as conclusive";
Hon. Members: Read on.
Miss Herbison: Certainly, I will read on. I was going to deal with it later. It goes on:
"it is not as sympathetic as it might be with the difficulties which its outspokenness can cause to the Government."
The Church of Scotland does not complain of that.
Mr. Ross: It is not a servile State Church.
Miss Herbison: The Church of Scotland is a democratic Church. Education in Scotland, which in its early days was so much better than in England, was due to this broad democratic basis of the Church of Scotland, of which I and many of my hon. Friends are very proud. I was going to deal with this matter, because the Church of Scotland is not ashamed of its outspokenness. When one reads this Report, one realises how important it was that there was at least one body of white people and coloured people in Nyasaland who were ready to stand up for the rights of Africans and other people.
I was shocked to read that sentence, but I will now read the following one from the Report:
"The Government on the other hand feels that it is the duty of all right thinking men to do their best to remove the African fears of Federation."
We talk about the economic benefits of federation, and I think that great

409
economic benefit can come from federation. I would have hoped that federation could have become a reality by the will of all the peoples in the country, but in 1953, when the Bill went through this House, there were grave warnings from the people in Africa. When we were talking about Nyasaland, we were told that almost to a man the Africans were against it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and myself at that time presented a petition on this question from the Church of Scotland.
From this side of the House, we warned the Government at that time not to push federation until perhaps more education on the question could have taken place. Since then, the fears of the Africans in Nyasaland have not been allayed. They have not been allayed by the actions and statements of the Federal Government and Sir Roy Welensky, nor have they been allayed by the actions of our own Colonial Secretary.
When we had the changes in the Constitution in 1955, we on this side warned that they did not go far enough. In 1956, the African Congress was very successful in the elections. The Colonial Secretary seemed to have been warned by the Federal Government of the attitude of these members of Congress, and in paragraph 25 of the Report we find these words addressed to the Colonial Secretary:
"The Congress party was immensely heartened by its great success in the elections. In Nyasaland people began to think that it might mean the end of Federation and you thought it desirable to make a statement in the House of Commons, which was given special publicity in Nyasaland"—
no doubt it was made so that it could be given special publicity in Nyasaland:
"that Federation had come to stay and that statements to the effect that Nyasaland's participation in it was not on a permanent basis were irresponsible and uninformed."
If that is still the attitude of the Government, then, no matter what may be the economic benefits that come from Federation, it will not be accepted by the people of Nyasaland. Before I leave this point, I make this plea to the Government. When the 1960 Conference takes place, let the African people be told that one of the items on the agenda is the discussion of secession. If we were to give them the right to discuss
410
secession we might do something to allay their fears. But if we continue to say to them that never, at any time, will they have a right to secede, then never at any time will we have peace in that land.
The Attorney-General today dealt with what happened from just a few days before 3rd March. He did not deal at all with the rest of the Report that speaks of what led up to the happenings of 3rd March. Yet, if the Government neglect that part of the Report that shows the deeply-rooted fears in the minds of the people of Nyasaland, then, again, they will be doing great damage to our good name and will not be giving the protection to those people that they ought to be giving.
There are many more things that I wanted to say, but I will content myself with making one further statement. If possible, we want to give constructive help in this debate. So far, I have made one constructive suggestion—that of the right to discuss secession. Another is that the Government ought to be strong and should say that the detainees should either be released or brought to trial. If the Government were to say that, it would do away with much of the damage done by the statement in the Nyasaland Bulletin that said, quite brutally, that these people would stay for a long, long time in detention, whether guilty of crimes or not. There is no doubt about it, it was a prejudging of the Report. That is my second constructive suggestion.
The Leader of the House was present at the debate in the Assembly of the Church of Scotland when this question of Federation and Nyasaland was being discussed. It was a wonderful debate, and I am glad that the Leader of the House heard it. I only wish that the hon. Member sitting on the Government Front Bench who seems a little amused to hear me describe it as a wonderful debate could himself have been present. He would have seen that it was a serious debate.
The deliverance was moved by the hon. Doctor George MacLeod but seconded also by a man who had spent almost the whole of his life in the Colonial Service; a man who knew the difficulties, and who did not underestimate the difficulties that there are in these colonial matters—as I do not

411
underestimate them—but was so certain when he made that speech that the Government was wrong in what they were doing in the matter of Federation and Nyasaland. I want to give a statement of Dr. George MacLeod to the Government. I hope that they will accept what he says.
When the Report was published he said:
"The outstanding issue—remains the future peace of Nyasaland."
That is my concern and the concern of all of us on this side—[HON. MEMBERS: "And here."]—but there was no sign of such concern in the speech of the Attorney-General. There was no discussion of what had led to the difficulties and no looking to the future to see how to overcome them.
Dr. MacLeod goes on:
"Hundreds of thousands of Africans have remained in quiet suspense awaiting this report and it will be a profound pity if they get the impression that it has simply been rejected by the Government."
Let the House note those words—"…have remained in quiet suspense.…" They are serious words.
He goes on:
"Now is the time for a generous gesture by the Government in the light of that part of the report that is critical and the release of all detainees whose only crime was membership in a party that was legal up to the time of their arrest. Nationalism is a world movement and not just an ugly factor in Nyasaland. If it is suppressed it is bound to breed racialism. There is plenty of hope in Nyasaland if the Government move generously and quickly. In such a move I am sure they would have the sincere co-operation of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterians."
I leave those words with the Government. I have made certain suggestions. My final suggestion is that the Government should move speedily in giving to Nyasaland a Constitution that would be a great improvement en the present one.
8.19 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rawlinson: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) always speaks with such grace and obvious sincerity that it seems discourteous to disagree with her, but now that the shadow—if I may say it with respect—of John Knox has been introduced into the debate I will leave all that I had to say in reply to her.
412
I think that it is true to say, in criticism of this side, that the remembrance of things past lurks too prominently in the minds of those who sit on these benches, but my criticism of the hon. Lady's speech, and of the Opposition generally, is that they ignore history. Whether or not we approve it, our forefathers gathered together—acquired by sense of adventure, if hon. Members like it, or by commercial greed, if they like it—an Empire, that unfashionable word that we nowadays so rarely use. They acquired an Empire which we and they have since served, for instance, by sending out to the Indian Civil Service the very best graduates we could find in this country and sending out as district commissioners the pick of many of the people in this country.
Looking at the record created by those men and women, and conceding that there have been errors and excesses, it is, nevertheless, generally accepted, as I am sure that it must be, that it is a great record of integrity and honesty, which has been the birthright of all of us here. We are the inheritors.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale) rose—
Mr. Rawlinson: The right hon. Gentleman will have time later to put the case for the Opposition. I shall not give way now.
We are the inheritors. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and all hon. Members are the inheritors. We have inherited the responsibility which has come down to us from those persons who acquired this Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Acquired?"] "Acquired" is the word I used. If hon. Gentlemen will remember, I stated the means by which they may have acquired. They may have acquired by the pursuit of commercial greed, or it may have been by adventure, or it may have been an escape from this country.
Abdication of the position at present would be utter cowardice. There is a great temptation to be a little Englander and to cast aside the responsibilities which have been handed down to us. One sees a tremendous difference between the Opposition and the Government about responsibility. Hon. Gentlemen opposite presumably have the idea that

413
we will ultimately hand over the responsibility in all these countries to, we hope, established institutions and mature people. We should remember that less than 130 years ago there was no representative House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) will not, I hope, think me ungracious, but forty years ago she would not have had a vote and would not be able to sit in the House of Commons. It is only very recently that we have received and obtained what is now suggested to be universal franchise. Nevertheless, it is still limited in this country. Skilled apprentices of 18 may not vote. Active service soldiers aged 19 may not vote. A wife and mother aged 20 may not vote. Presumably they cannot vote, though they may be skilled and educated, because it is said by hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies in the House of Commons that they have not yet reached the age of 21 and, therefore, have not the maturity to make up their own minds. That is the system in this country. If a person lacks maturity, expressed in this country by a lack of years, if he has not reached the stage when he can make a sensible judgment, he is not permitted to have the vote.
I only hope that we can learn something from the past and that, with the emergence of Africa, Africa will learn a lesson from Europe. Are we to go back to the small warring tribes? Do we want on the great Continent of Africa small nations split up into various pieces and kinds? Our responsibility is to prevent that. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently want that, but they seem to me to be continually going back to what happened in the past. Time is needed to see that Africa should develop in a way that Europe has not developed. Federation holds out a hope, if it is a true partnership, and if it is an ideal sincerely believed in, which I trust and believe that the people of Africa will take. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) keeps up a continuous commentary, no matter who is speaking. Perhaps he will be the next to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The troubles in Nyasaland arose because of the misundertsanding of what federation should be. So it comes about that we are debating the Report of the Devlin Commission. It is a Report
414
which some hon. Members think that we are not entitled to criticise, although I can remember other Reports when hon. Gentlemen opposite took pieces out of them and duly criticised them. The Report has certain passages in it which are extremely difficult to accept. However, it is important to note the complaint made by the Commission about the absence of any cross-examination of witnesses and the inability of having counsel present to cross-examine. That has always been the essence of the elucidation of truth and the testing of evidence.
If I was defending a man who had a spear raised at someone's back, can any hon. Member believe that, as defending counsel, I could submit, "Actually, there is no evidence that he was going to dig it into that man's back"? Would I for a moment be entitled to say that in a court of law in this country? An African lunged at a man with a rifle and grabbed at the rifle. It was said that there was no evidence that he wanted to take the rifle away and that he was acting only out of fear. The Commission said of the African who was swinging an axe in the Cholo-Luchenza Road that it did not think that he intended to attack. If a lawyer was defending a criminal in a court in this country would any of those matters be acceptable evidence?
Therefore, there are matters in this Report about which one is entitled to say that that is the evidence, but the inferences drawn from the evidence are unacceptable. We find them unacceptable because the truth appears to be that there has been what was described as a legalistic approach to these matters, which one finds difficult to accept. There is comment about the freer use of the baton in Africa than in the United Kingdom. There is criticism of the lack of exact guidance with regard to troops and the Nkata Bay incident, where the District Commissioner, who will have read this account, appears to have acted with remarkable courage, though he may have made every strategic mistake. It seems to be a very ungenerous criticism of him.
I cannot accept, either, what the Commission says about Dr. Banda. The establishment of the political Messiah is not an unknown technique—the saintly, if vain, leader; the demagogue, not himself advocating violence, but surrounding himself with extremists and appreciating

415
that violence must be inevitable. If Dr. Banda is an intelligent man, which I understand him to be, it is naive to believe that he did not know what was happening around him.
I am quite unable to see the distinction between beating and killing Europeans, on the one hand, and cold-blooded assassination, on the other. I do not know what would be the difference to the corpse. I should have thought that where there has been evidence of intention to beat and kill, that would be sufficient to say that there was a murder plot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was killed?"] I am surprised at this continual cry by hon. Members opposite, who seem distressed that nobody was killed. There is the evidence of what was said at the meeting on 27th January, that they would hit Europeans or cut throats, and when they were told to fight without fear. Was it to be war without casualties and cutting throats without bloodshed? It is not just the evidence but the inferences which arise with which I am concerned.
I know that there have been errors of judgment in Africa. There has obviously been the use of some excessive force. But the duty and responsibility still remains with this country, and the attitude of hon. Members opposite does great damage to this country and to the Colonial Empire.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: It is a somewhat odd comment for a barrister and learned Member of this House to complain that the Devlin Commission is a legalistic commission. This, surely, was the exact purpose of the Government in sending out the Commission, namely, to send out a judicial body.
I have listened carefully to all the speeches which have been made from the benches opposite tonight. In many ways, they were speeches arguing not with the Opposition here but with the members of the Devlin Commission. I can only say to hon. Members opposite, from the Attorney-General onwards, that I think public opinion in this country, faced with an argument between a judicial body of the eminence of the Devlin Commission and the kind of argument which we have heard from the
416
politicians on the benches opposite, will be bound to give much greater weight to the objective report in this remarkable document produced by Mr. Justice Devlin and his colleagues.
So far as I can understand it, the main reason which the Government supporters give for not accepting the Devlin Report, and in particular the suggestions that there was excessive force used and that there was no evidence to support the suggestion of a murder plot, is that there was a widespread plan for murder and violence. The Devlin Commission's findings exist for us to read. It has been widely commented that the killings and the injuries which occurred were carried out entirely at the hands of the forces of law and order and not at the hands of the rioters, with the exception of six Africans and Europeans injured. In addition, there is a very revealing sentence in the Report stating that
"Firearms were used unsuccessfully by Africans upon two occasions."
That was the extent of the organised violence and murder which hon. Members opposite think was a murder plot.
Mr. Nairn: Surely the recognised weapons of the Africans are not firearms but pangas and axes.
Mr. Thomson: I shall be coming to that point. In fact, the arms that were used by the Africans in cases of disturbance were pathetic objects like agricultural implements, sticks and stones. Scottish missionaries out there, many of them living in very remote areas, are able effectively to dispose of the allegation that there was a widespread murder plot by pointing out that they were living alone surrounded by Africans and that if there had been any organised campaign of violence there were bound to be Europeans and other Africans killed. The fact that this did not occur is itself sufficient evidence.
The Government argue that it does not matter whether there was a murder plot, since murder by any other name is just as serious. I invite the House to turn to the tragic story of Nkata Bay as told by the Commission in poignant prose with all the inevitability of a Greek tragedy. I would be the last one to utter any criticism of the district commissioner, who was placed in a difficult position

417
there, but almost half of the total casualties in the disturbances took place at Nkata Bay, and in paragraph 229 of the Devlin Commission's Report we find these words:
"But the safeguarding of the prisoners was not the D.C.'s real anxiety. From first to last his chief fear was for the European women and children. This is the only clear case we have come across of a belief in the murder plot having a significant effect on the course of events."
Mr. Braine: The hon. Member is misleading the House.
Mr. Thomson: In paragraph 239 the Commission goes on to say:
"It may perhaps be said on the one side that if he'"—
that is, the district commissioner—
"had not entertained unreasonable fears about the intentions of the crowd, there need have been no death roll at all."
Nobody can ever tell what is the real truth of this matter, but those who were in control of the policy in Nyasaland and allowed district commissioners to believe in this sort of organised murder plot—
Mr. Braine Mr. Braine rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Thomson:—for the assassination of European women and children certainly have a very heavy responsibility to bear.
Mr. Braine: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating statements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a point of order."]—which are deliberately misleading the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Thomson: I have very little time left otherwise I would gladly give way to the hon. Member opposite. I have been quoting directly from the Commission's Report and hon. Members can look up the references.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said in her very moving speech—
Mr. Braine: The hon. Member ought to speak up. What is he afraid of?
Mr. Thomson:—one of the most satisfying features of the Report is the way it vindicates the views which have been expressed both by the Church of
418
Scotland in this country and by Scottish missionaries who have played such a notable rôle out in Nyasaland. Some of those missionaries have conveyed to hon. Members on this side of the House, and, no doubt, to hon. Members on the other side of the House, reports during the period of the emergency of excessive force being used by the forces of law and order, and as a result there have been aspersions cast on the missionaries out in Nyasaland.
I quote what was said in the Devlin Commission's Report at page 98 where an account is given of arrests in the Mzimba district. It says that those arrested
"included a party of four, all of whom had come quietly on being arrested. They were handcuffed, trussed and gagged and then put into landrovers … "
They were carried a total distance of 120 miles. The Report says:
"One of the four was a Presbyterian minister.… The minister, who was also an active and outspoken member of Congress, was the Reverend Henry Makwakwa who had been arrested at his manse. He had been a chaplain in the K.A.R. for two years and he was described by the camp commandant at Kanjedza, who knew him, as 'a very good front line padre'."
I can hardly think of any action which is more likely to make the constructive work of reconciliation in Nyasaland more difficult than this kind of handcuffing and trussing and gagging of an African Presbyterian minister who had this kind of record. This fully vindicates the reports which have come from Scottish missionaries who have been doing such a fine job out there—reports which Ministers have from time to time, at Question Time and so on, in this House attempted to discredit.
Mr. Braine Mr. Braine rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Thomson: I want to turn from a consideration of these things to the real issue that faces the House in this debate and that is the issue of what will take place in the future. I believe that the real tragedy of the debate is that the Government have let go a priceless and perhaps never to be repeated opportunity of bringing about peace in Nyasaland. It seems to me that the Devlin Commission went out of its way with deliberate emphasis to try to make possible a new start by exonerating Dr. Banda of any

419
complicity in violence and emphasising his continuing good will towards the Government.
The Commission says:
"We think that Dr. Banda would never have approved the policy of murder and that he would have intervened decisively if he had thought that it was so much as being discussed. We think that he was quite honest in saying that he did not approve of violence in principle."
It also says:
"The Governor himself made an excellent impression on Dr. Banda when he met him and one which has not been effaced. Dr. Banda declined to believe that the Governor was himself the author of the White Paper and wished us to assure the Governor that even now he has nothing against him."
What folly it is, in the light of the opportunity offered by these words in the Commission's Report, for the Colonial Secretary and the Government to brush aside this possibility of peace by expressing a determination in advance of the Report to keep Dr. Banda in gaol and by repeating the allegations made in the White Paper of Dr. Banda's complicity in violence.
I can understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House find themselves uncertain about the particular weight to lay on each particular evidence produced by the Report, but I should have thought that everybody, on both sides of the House, would have been looking for every opportunity to try to bring about a reconciliation in Nyasa-land. I believe that these paragraphs in the Report were deliberately put in in the hope that the Government would seize upon them to allow a new start to be made.
There have been many speeches from the other side of the House saying that we ought to have much more common ground in these problems and that there ought to be a bipartisan approach. Hon. Members opposite must face the fact that there is material for a bipartisan approach in the context of the Devlin Commission's Report and in the kind of deliverance which has been quoted today by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. There is material for a bipartisan approach by both sides of the House to these complicated and difficult problems in Nyasaland and it is the Government,
420
and the back benchers opposite backing the Government, who reject out of hand this possibility of achieving peace and reconciliation there.
My hon. Friends and I from Scottish constituencies have tried to press on the Government during the long weeks of the emergency that in the Church of Scotland and the great missionary tradition out in Nyasaland they had an invaluable instrument for bringing about reconciliation between African and European communities in that part of the world. In the congregations of the Presbyterian Church out there, there is perhaps the finest example of multiracial partnership at work. I should have thought that the Government would have seized this opportunity offered by the Devlin Report, offered by the kind of non-partisan approach put forward by the Church of Scotland, to try to make a new start in Nyasaland. They have apparently decided not to do so. It seems to me that it is now too late to hope for a new start in Nyasaland without first getting a new Government.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: It was, perhaps, inevitable in a debate of this kind that so many speeches should have been overlaid by so very many quotations. There are many documents and statements involved. There is the White Paper from the Governor, there was a debate on 3rd March in this House, there is the Report itself, there are the Governor's comments on the Report and there are the comments of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the comments.
I shall not make many quotations, because quite enough have been made, and we are all rather familiar now with what the Report says. I think that everybody will agree that it is an excellently written Report and an exciting narrative. Indeed, the members of the Commission appear to have kept scrupulously to their original intention of only making comments in the course of the narrative itself and, as they say, not attempting a summary because that might have been a distortion of the facts.
After the Attorney-General sat down this afternoon I was strongly tempted to table a manuscript Amendment in place of the Opposition Amendment, moving a Motion of censure on the Government

421
for having appointed an incompetent tribunal. All the speeches from the other side of the House have been directed, in the main, to showing how unreliable was the Commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General himself spent a great deal of time in sneering at the chairman of the Commission. I thought that he ought to have left that to a member of some other profession, because when a lawyer sneers at the competence or the behaviour of another lawyer it makes a layman shudder to think that his destiny should be intrusted to such unreliable people. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments today are evidence of his own judicial objectivity, I hope that I shall never have to come before him when he is a judge.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have on this occasion done themselves even less justice than usual. In fact, it has been a most depressing occasion. I have never known any debate in this House where the argument was so obviously on this side as against that side, so obviously so. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies wishes to speak for three-quarters of an hour. What he will say all that time I do not know. I shudder to think that I shall have to sit here for three-quarters of an hour listening to another series of verbal adventures from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall confine myself to only half-an-hour and I shall not need any more. I am sure that every hon. Member opposite will be relieved.
The issue before us is an exceedingly simple one. It is not complicated at all. A Commission of Inquiry was appointed, in which the Government at first had every confidence. There might have been some reason on this side of the House for lack of confidence because the four gentlemen concerned are obviously pillars of the Establishment. I do not know what their political affiliations are. I have heard it said that they are Conservatives. At any rate, not one of them is an obvious Socialist. One, the chairman himself, is a distinguished jurist. One of the others served twenty years in Kenya. Another was a soldier and the other was a distinguished member of local authorities.
One could not have a Commission more skilfully handpicked. Its job was
422
fact-finding. Indeed, it was selected because it was believed that a body so composed would be accustomed to weighing evidence and to ascertaining the credibility of witnesses, and, because of the presence of the gentleman who had served twenty years in Kenya, against a novel background for the three other judges.
Therefore, one would have thought that it was not necessary for us to examine the Report to discover whether it was an objective document. The guarantee of its dispassionate nature was to be found in the character of the Commission in the first place. All that we needed to do was to read the Report, on the ground that we should have in it a statement of fact upon which we—as the Commission itself says—could formulate policy. Why has that not been done? Would it not have been much more dignified and honourable for hon. Members opposite for once to forget their party interests and remember the country? [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but they will be in very great difficulty when they go to the country in a few months' time.
This is a very serious matter. No one on this side of the House under-estimates for a moment the difficulties or the gravities of the administration entrusted to the Colonial Office in these territories. We all know that not yet, as far as I can recall, has a single modern Government succeeded in solving the constitutional problems raised by mixed communities, especially when one has Europeans from Europe settling down on the land in strange countries with what they consider to be backward populations—not a single one.
Nearer at home we have not quite an analogous example but, nevertheless, a near-enough one, because we had English settlers in Ireland, and the state of Ireland today is a monument to the incapacity of statesmen to solve problems of that sort. There is the tragic loss of life that goes on in Algeria. The extent to which France is being bled, and also Algeria, and the extent to which the whole of French politics has been poisoned by the Algerian conflict, and looks like continuing to be poisoned for a long time, is itself a warning to us that we should handle the problem of Nyasaland differently from the way the

423
French are trying to solve the Algerian problem.
These are very difficult questions, and no one on this side of the House pretends that they are easy to settle. What we do not want, therefore, is that we should embark on policies which are bound to fail in the end. That is why we are so anxious about the situation in Nyasa-land, Kenya, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. We are not considering a trivial matter. We are really trying to decide how to solve a problem which, if it is not solved, will continue to bleed us for many generations. That is the issue, and it is far too sobering for us to treat it in a trivial mood.
Why is it that the Colonial Secretary finds it impossible to accept the Report? For the life of me I cannot understand why. It would be easy for him to say that on 3rd March he really believed what he was told, and that goes for the Under-Secretary of State, too. They had information, and they are, I believe, honourable men, and they believed that the information was true. It is correct that the information was received from informers who were paid to give it. It is also true that one of the principle informers is a turncoat. Nevertheless, at that time the Government thought they had sufficient evidence to justify their belief that a murder plot was about to be set on foot in Nyasaland.
The Governor could easily say that he believed in the validity of the witnesses that he heard, or the evidence that he received. The same evidence has been investigated by this Commission, the same people have been cross-examined and after the most meticulous cross-examination the Commission says that it cannot find any basis for the assumption that there was a murder plot. That is all.
The right hon. Gentleman could properly say, "I accept what the Commission said. I accept that it has had more leisure, more opportunity and a much more favourable locale to find out how true the accusations were."
Mr. Sydney Silverman: And see the witnesses.
Mr. Bevan: Yes, and see the witnesses. The right hon. Gentleman could
424
have concluded by saying, "The information that I had at that time has been invalidated." Why could he not do that? He would not have lost anything by doing so. In fact, his position would be stronger than it will be if he accepts the advice which his right hon. Friend is giving him. If it is the same advice that the Colonial Secretary has been receiving from his right hon. Friend all the time, it is pretty rotten.
Why could not the right hon. Gentleman have said that? It would have concurred with the facts and sustained the authority of the Commission, as indeed it ought to be sustained. It is only on the gravest possible ground that a Government should turn down their own judicial instrument. Grave damage will be done to the possibilities of judicial investigation if we have repetitions of what we have heard from the other side of the House today. Judges will not want to serve. I believe that already there are complaints among lawyers about the way that this Report has been treated. It therefore seems to me that only on the strongest possible ground ought the report and recommendations of a commission of inquiry to be attacked in the way that this Commission has been attacked this afternoon.
There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not have accepted the Report of the Commission. If he had, his case would not have been gravely weakened. In paragraph 177 the Report states:
"The Government view,"—
that is, the Nyasaland Government—the Prime Minister must remember that these microphones are very sensitive and I have the misfortune of understanding what he is saying—
"as expressed to us, was that the murder plot was a possibility rather than a probability, but something which had to be treated seriously and taken into account."
The Report continues:
"We think that before there was any suggestion of a murder plot it had been contemplated that all branch officials of Congress should be arrested in the event of an emergency. The decision to suppress Congress we think, owed more to the belief that its continued activities were making government impossible than to the feeling that it was, or might be, a terrorist organisation."
In so many words, the Commission says that Congress had obtained such a hold

425
upon the affections and support of the people of Nyasaland that more and more authority was passing to it and less and less was remaining with the Government, and that if that situation went on deteriorating it would make the government of Nyasaland impossible.
That is a perfectly good reason for taking temporary emergency measures. It might also have followed that unless this was done the position would deteriorate even to the point where physical violence was offered to Europeans and Asians. That is a distinct possibility. The Government could have rested their case on that. They need not have rested their case upon a murder plot which does not exist and of which there is not the slightest tangible evidence.
We know that there was talk of violence, but there has been talk of violence in Africa for some time—
Mr. S. Silverman: And not only in Africa.
Mr. Sevan:—not only in Africa.
There was a long pseudo-philosophical argument at Accra the other day as to what extent subject peoples were entitled to use violence. It is not a new thing. Of course, it is a frightening and intensely alarming thing when such an argument is conducted in inflammable areas like Nyasaland, where small groups of Europeans and Asians are surrounded by large numbers of Africans. It is serious and frightening, but it is not new. It has been happening for some time. It would have been perfectly proper for the Government to have said this evening, "We accept what the Commission's Report has told us, that there was no murder plot in any proper sense of the term, and we have, therefore, decided to accept the Commission's findings in that respect."
Furthermore—and this point has not been answered—if there was a plot in any proper sense of the term, how does it come about that, for days afterwards, isolated Europeans who had no axes or other armed protection were not attacked by the Africans? How does it come about that the overwhelming majority of those who were arrested surrendered without offering any resistance? How does it come about that no lists have been discovered? How does it come about that even after the Governor's
426
assumption that there was a murder plot there was no addition to the list of persons to be arrested? The list had been drawn up before the allegations of the murder plot.
Mr. Braine Mr. Braine rose—
Mr. Bevan: I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would sit down at a quarter past nine. I am not going to give way. If I am compelled to give way it will be an invasion of the right hon. Gentleman's time.
Discussions of violence have been going on for some time, and not only in Nyasaland. Discussions about violence and threats of violence have come from the very persons to whom the Government propose to entrust the Nyasas. Lord Malvern, speaking in the Federal Assembly in September, 1956, said:
"We have complete control over our own Defence Forces. I only hope we shall not have to use them as the North American Colonies had to use theirs, because we are dealing with a stupid Government in the United Kingdom."
That is the Government sitting opposite now. There is the new George III. Sir Roy Welensky, in 1957, said:
"We go forward to the Conference Table in 1960 firmly believing that the achievements of the Federation fully justify the granting of independence. Should we fail to convince Her Majesty's Government of the justice of that, this will be the time to take stock and decide what other action is necessary. I personally, would never be prepared to accept that the Rhodesians have less guts than the American Colonists had."
That is Sir Roy Welensky; it is not Dr. Banda. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to mention anything that Dr. Banda has said which is more provocative than that. What Sir Roy has really said by inference to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he comes to London in 1960 and is not able to take home with him Dominion status for the Federation, he will take it by force. That is what he said, in effect. Indeed, why is he not in gaol? Why have not the Government seized him? Why have they not pounced upon him in the middle of the night and put him in gaol? Dr. Banda has not said anything as bad as that. Why have not they put him in gaol? It is—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own taunt to us—because they have not got the guts to do it.
It was only on 3rd March that the right hon. Gentleman said to my right hon.

427
Friends that we were in favour of federation, but were too cowardly to impose it. Of course, it is true that there have been right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House who believe in the wisdom of federation, but they have never said in my hearing that they wish to impose it against the wishes of the Africans. After all, the Africans themselves are a very important ingredient in the Federation.
What this Report brings out more clearly than anything else is that the people who have put the European population and the Asians in Nyasaland in jeopardy are the Government, not Dr. Banda, not the Congress Party, but the fact that it has now been shown after the passage of years that the Government embarked upon a policy which brings not less but increasing resistance from the people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. That is the situation. We are not dealing—I would beg hon. Members to realise this, because it is a very important element in the whole situation—with the fact, or the assumption, that, after the passage of years, the idea of federation is winning support among the Africans. There is less support now than when it started. That is the difficulty.
After seven or eight years, we have to adopt these emergency measures in Nyasaland because the idea is increasingly repulsive to the Africans, not more attractive, and for that some people in Southern Rhodesia have to accept the responsibility because very large numbers of Africans from Nyasaland travel to Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia and some into the Union and there they discover a social climate so disagreeable that they do not want to join it, in spite of economic advantages. Hon. Members ought not to rest too much weight on that frail vehicle, the economic advantages of belonging to the Federation. That is exactly the same argument that the Chinese are advancing in Tibet.
It should be obvious to everyone in this Chamber that in the modern world economic progress is absolutely impossible unless it is able to receive the co-operation of the people concerned. It is one of the facts of modern society, one of the facts which the Russians are discovering, one of the facts we all ought to have discovered by now, that to the
428
extent that people have to be educated to manage modern machinery, to the extent that they have to be taught the functions and the intricacies of modern blueprints and machinery, to that extent they become dignified individuals and refuse to accept political helotry.
That has been one of the assumptions on which our democracy is based. We have said here that if they are to be citizens in the round in order to manage the modern machinery they must be politically emancipated and not treated as second class. That is what we have said. That is what we are here for. That is why this great institution is here. That is the message we have been trying to teach the world for the last hundred years or so. I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite to set aside their prejudices for one moment and to ask themselves the simple question which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) posed this afternoon in what I thought was a quite unanswerable speech.
What was that? He said that if we deny people constitutional articulation how can we deny them the right to use force? That is a simple argument. It is a classic argument. We have always said that democracy is the answer; that there is no necessity to resort to violence if there are constitutional means of redress. But this is just what we have denied the Africans. They have not got it and they can see it nowhere. On the contrary, they see themselves under a threat of being swallowed up by a society which, to them, is intolerably repulsive. How, therefore, are we to solve that problem?
I agree entirely with what was said earlier by one of my hon. Friends about Dr. Banda. Instead of maligning him the Government ought to be pleased to have him. After all, he is a man of education, refinement and culture. He has consistently, in public, opposed violence and talked about negotiations. He has commended himself personally to the four gentlemen on the Commission. Surely the Government ought to be delighted that in Dr. Banda they have a spokesman with whom they can deal. They ought not to be undermining his position with his people. They ought to be building it up.

429
Now Dr. Banda is detained. In what circumstances is he to be released? I do not know whether he will be able to read my words, but I hope that he will not be too distressed by his situation because probably he will be sent to the Seychelles; from which, of course, he will be made an honoured guest in a London hotel and the negotiations about Nyasaland can continue in a much more amiable spirit. So he ought to look at Makarios before he becomes too distressed.
I wish to say to the Government in all sincerity that I have been in the House of Commons for many years now—I am becoming one of the oldest Members—and that this is the worst Parliament I have been in. Some Parliaments have been called "Long Parliaments", some have been known as "Rump Parliaments". This Parliament will be known in history as the squalid one. Actually, it reached its natural end in 1956. It has been kept going to try to revive the critical fortunes of the party opposite.
Hon. Members opposite have made mistake after mistake for which other people have had to suffer. There are Africans lying in their graves as a consequence of the conduct of this Government which did more damage to the reputation of this country in 1956 than any other Government have done for two or three centuries. If they pursue their present policies it will make it almost impossible for us to reconcile ourselves with African opinion. All we can say to the Africans in the meantime is, "For heaven's sake do not lose heart, because before very long the squalid crowd will be out."
9.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) for so scrupulously observing the request I made to him that I should have an unusually long time in which to reply. When I asked for that, I thought that this was to be the culmination of a rather bitter personal attack upon me. I have been reading for a long time that it would be impossible for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to remain in office after the publication of the Devlin Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,
430
hear."] Now however, the grounds of the attack seem entirely to have changed.
The right hon. Member has come to the House and said, if only I were prepared to say that the particular interpretation put upon the "conspiracy of violence", referred to in the early part of the Report, was correct, all would be well and we could go on living and working happily together—[An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that at all."]—in what the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to call, in one of his choicest phrases, this "squalid" Parliament.
I do not believe that this Parliament will go down to history as a "squalid" Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "Suez."] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now understand why I thought it desirable to ask for three-quarters of an hour. While not squalid in any particular field for which I was responsible with my colleagues, this Parliament and its immediate predecessor saw, in the colonial field, the creation of the Dominion of Ghana and the creation of the Independent Dominion of Malaya, both within the British Commonwealth of Nations. It saw also the steps leading to the creation, in October next year, of the independent Commonwealth Nation of Nigeria, with 40 million people devoted to the British Crown and the British connection within the Commonwealth of Nations. It saw also the steps being taken in the West Indies to lead them also to the same historic destiny. It saw in East Africa, if we can can keep our heads—and that applies to the Opposition as well as to the Government here—the chances of the creation of a non-racial society which will be an illustration of what partnership in practice can achieve.
If this is the right hon. Gentleman's conception of a "squalid" Parliament I await with interest to see what form Parliament might take if ever, which is most unlikely, the desiccated calculating machine on his right formed an Administration. If the right hon. Gentleman did not like to say so personally, after five years' experience of such an Administration he would no doubt arrange to do so through the columns of Tribune, and would probably call it "That dried-up Parliament".
The right hon. Member said at the start of his speech that he had had

431
enough of quotations, but he proceeded to give very lengthy quotations—[Interruption.]—one from Lord Malvern and one from Sir Roy Welensky—two quotations not, of course, from the Report, nor, above all, from the Governor's Despatch, to which neither he nor the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) nor scarcely any other hon. Member opposite has referred in the whole of this debate. May I remind hon. Members opposite that if ever the colonial empire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Empire?"]—should be so unfortunate as to find a change of government in the United Kingdom, it will be on Governors like Sir Robert Armitage that hon. Members opposite, like us, will have to rely, and they will be glad and happy to rely on such people.
The right hon. Member said that the idea of federation is becoming increasingly repulsive to Africans. I think that is a very reckless phrase. If the right hon. Member or his colleagues had any worthwhile alternative to offer, it would no doubt be possible to dismiss federation, although, I hope, not in language of that kind. Those who have studied Central Africa the most know, as I recognise and said last week, and as we all know, the idea of federation has not as yet captured the hearts and minds of Africans, but it must surely be the task of constructive statesmanship, whether on the Government or Opposition side, to try to get rid of the difficulties which are preventing its success and to make of federation a living partnership. If we do not succeed in achieving that it will mean that the whole of Central and probably Southern Africa, will either go over to black racialism or apartheid. If that happened, not only would the position of Governments in the United Kingdom be singularly unhappy, but the world would be a poorer place.
I recognise that one of the main causes of difficulties in Nyasaland in the last few months has been fears about the concept of federation. I share the view of the Governor that it is not correct to say, as the Commission did, that the Government of Nyasaland regard federation as the choice of only a small minority of political Africans. The Governor never left me in any doubt as to the strong opposition in Nyasaland, and I know it as well from my own contacts.
432
Both the Government of Nyasaland and Her Majesty's Government regard this opposition as ill-founded, but that is not to say that we do not recognise that it is of a widespread nature. We had a debate last week when I repeated certain assurances which we have always given to the people of the African territories. I followed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in clarifying a situation about which there was some doubt. It is our profound hope that that debate and the assurances we gave will do something to dispel the fears in Nyasaland.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Members with influence in Central Africa will see that those pledges and that undertaking are widely known, for if it is true, as I believe it is, that there has been a belief that in 1960 there would be a change in the political status of the Northern Territories without their consent, the sooner that fear is exorcised the better. I hope that this assurance will be one of the bridges—the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) spoke of bridges—across which the old relationship of trust and understanding with Nyasaland can be restored. I must make it clear that there have never been any prohibitions on constitutional opposition to federation, and this is going on now busily in Nyasaland. The emergency has been caused by turning over to violence in the early part of the year, and that attitude also must be exorcised.
The Report we are considering today makes it abundantly clear that the Government of Nyasaland, in the situation that existed on the 3rd March, had to resort to emergency powers. It had either to act or to abdicate. The Report also makes it clear that this situation was the result of the adoption of a policy of violence by the Nyasaland African Congress. The Report also makes it clear that, in the view of the Commission, the decision to declare a state of emergency, to postpone Lord Perth's visit and to ask the Federal Prime Minister, the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Tanganyika and the Government of Southern Rhodesia for military and police reinforcements, was the decision of the Governor of Nyasaland alone.
Many suggestions were made to the contrary in the debate of 3rd March.

433
Charges were made against me of cowardice, of yielding to the Federal Government, of abdicating my responsibility as Secretary of State by a disgraceful surrender to the Federal Government. I recognise that by the terms of their Motion, the Opposition might be said to have withdrawn those charges, and I should not, therefore, have referred to them today, since I certainly do not want to add any unnecessary partisan difficulties, were it not for some curious observations made today by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East on the r61e of the Federal Prime Minister in influencing, it is suggested, the Governor of Nyasaland.
The hon. Gentleman started by making a rather inaccurate reference to the debate on the Bank Rate Tribunal Report. It is quite true that the Opposition Amendment did not dissent from the Tribunal's Report, but the Opposition thereafter divided against it on the main Motion, and the whole of the Socialist Party voted against it. I was not then conscious of any suggestion being made that by action of that kind it would be more difficult to get a judge to take the chair at a tribunal of that character. The hon. Gentleman moving the acceptance of this Report tried to get it both ways. The Report makes it absolutely clear that in the three actions of the Governor of Nyasaland he was acting on his own initiative alone. It was said today, or at least hinted at, that of course it was the Governor's formal decision, but that this—this was the innuendo with which he left the House—was a sort of rubber stamp decision, the real decision being the decision of the Prime Minister of the Federation.
Mr. Callaghan: If I left any impression of it being a rubber stamp decision, I should like to make it clear that I had no such intention; but it seems to me that if the Colonial Secretary will read paragraph 160 of the Report, he cannot reach any other conclusion but that the intervention of Sir Roy was decisive on a Governor who was hesitating between two courses.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is wholly untrue. I have read the whole Report a number of times, and I hope the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has done the same. I need no reminding of that
434
paragraph, as I know perfectly well what it says. The impression which it conveys is that this decision was that of the Governor alone. In fact, that very paragraph says:
"… the only contribution which Sir Roy made was the expression of opinion which we have set out in the preceding paragraph."
I think that it is the height of hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition to give the impression that they are accepting the Report and then, by innuendo, to leave the idea about that, in fact, they do not accept one of its very important conclusions.
It has been said that it is wrong for the Government to have tabled a Motion that does not accept all the opinions and conclusions at which the Commission arrived. The Commission regarded its task as a fact-finding job to be used as a basis for administrative and political decision. But it also drew inferences from the facts, and it has been said—although I realise the Commission's difficulty in this matter—that it did not find it easy to separate its opinions from the evidence it collected.
Such views or opinions or inferences are certainly not sacrosanct, and cannot be so regarded. It must be open to any Government—indeed, it is the duty of any Government—to say what they think of inferences, opinions or views of that kind. There is nothing whatever improper in commending to the House that broad endorsement of the Government of Nyasaland's policy which the Report contains and not commending inferences or opinions with which, after careful consideration, Her Majesty's Government do not agree.
At this stage I must say that the appointment of the Commission itself seems to me to be wholly inconsistent with the suggestion that Nyasaland
"… is—no doubt only temporarily—a police State. …"
Would a Government responsible for a police State have appointed a Commission of this kind, composed of people who could wander freely throughout the country, speak freely to whomsoever they liked, speak to men who are detained, or to their counsel, speak to men whose identity I do not know—and will never know?
I must remind the House that, with my full approval, neither I nor the

435
Governor have been told whom the Commission saw. I have no idea when the members of the Commission saw members of Congress who they were seeing or what was said to them. It was with my full approval that this drill was arranged. Would a police State have agreed that no action could subsequently be taken because of anything that might have emerged from the Report of what had been said to the Commission? I cannot imagine a police State conducted on such lines.
It is also said in that Report that it
"… is unwise to express any but the most restrained criticism of government policy."
It said also:
"The Government on the other hand became increasingly intolerant of any opposition on western and democratic lines because it considered it tantamount to the setting up of a rival authority."
I would ask the House to remember that in that last quotation the Commission was referring to the situation in July, 1958. In December, 1958, the situation had deteriorated considerably. None the less, on 4th December, replying to a Motion moved by Mr. Chipembere in the Legislative Council to the effect that Congress should be given the right of freedom of operation and speech, the acting Chief Secretary said:
"The Government agreed that it was essential that someone or somebody should be able to express disagreement, even acute disagreement with the Government. Big Brother beyond the reach of public opinion is a thing not to be contemplated and would indeed be the personification of tyranny."
That assertion of a constitutional right is, and remains, absolutely legal, but to attempt to assert contrary views by force of arms or by violence creates a wholly different situation.
I must apologise to hon. Members for my voice. I hope that all hon. Members can hear me. It would be easier if I had a little more silence for what is, after all, judging by the newspapers, a very important day in my life. I ask hon. Members to be a little quieter. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for passing me a pastille.
I will now say a word about what has come to be called "the murder plot". I returned to London on Sunday, 1st March, from Aden and Cyprus. I had
436
been kept in close touch with events in Nyasaland while I was away and I had agreed to the postponement of Lord Perth's visit for constitutional talks. On my arrival in London that afternoon I found, among other information, a Special Branch report on the situation in Nyasaland. It had been prepared from a number of sources, including seven people whose identity was unknown to each other. It referred to the bush meetings on 25th January and decisions stated to have been taken there involving violence and murder. When I received that report, the Governor had already been told of the views of the Commissioner of Police.
On that Sunday evening and throughout Monday I was very conscious of two things: first, the serious nature of the information which I had received, and, secondly, the fact that the disorders had already for days justified the declaration of a state of emergency and that it had not been declared. I was very concerned lest there should be murder of Europeans, Asians and loyal Africans, and also that, if this should happen, it could and would be suggested that the Governor and I, there being a clear case for declaring a state of emergency earlier, had failed in our duty to take action in time. This last fear, though a secondary one, was none the less a very important one.
The reason why the state of emergency had not been declared was that the Governor wished to get enough security forces into the country to provide some protection to scattered farms, believing as he did that with the detention of Dr. Banda, which the state of violence itself would make necessary, there was a very real risk of violence, including murder.
It was with these thoughts in mind that I made my statement to the House and spoke in the subsequent debate, as did also my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Time will not allow me now to say again what I said then, but I was conscious of these two anxieties in all that I said, and in the evening I was particularly concerned to make it clear that the reason for the postponement of the state of emergency was the existence of this information which had been brought to me.
I ask the House to remember that from the report in early 1959 the extremists

437
had made up their minds that they would get Congress to adopt a policy of violence. Paragraph 166 of the Report is very relevant to that matter. The Commission publishes a document at Appendix II in the Report. The Governor said that that document revealed that not merely was there talk but that decisions as to the course of action to be followed had been reached. I had not then, nor do I have now, the slightest doubt that some people went away from that meeting with the belief that decisions had been taken and that they included under certain circumstances the murder of Europeans. The Commission itself said that the greatly increased number of illegal meetings held after the conference suggests the execution of a deliberate policy. The Commission also says that during this period the branches were sending up suggestions for the black list.
I do not believe that anybody engaged in practical administration would have anything but sympathy for the Governor in his inability to distinguish between talks of beating and killing Europeans and talk of cold-blooded assassination or massacre. The test for the Governor was, as he says, whether there was a real threat to the lives of Europeans and Africans as a result of the adoption by Congress of a policy of violence. From the Report of the Commission it is quite clear that there was.
I do not believe that enough attention has been paid in this debate, or indeed enough credence placed on it in the Report, to the strength of intimidation in Africa today. All hon. Members who have worked and served there know this to be unhappily true, and I agree that it is not limited to Africa.
I had intended to give a number of references from the Report, but I do not think that time will allow. All hon. Members can read the Report, and there are many significant paragraphs relating to intimidation, including in particular the quotation from a letter from one Congress member to another, referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend earlier today. I ask the House to consider the Nyasaland Railway Company, a very large employer in Nyasaland. Hon. Members may know something of Nyasaland Railways and of their plans for African training and housing, and of the recognition of the need to help
438
the emergent supervisory type of African. What does the chairman say in The Times of 24th July? He said:
"Altogether we employ some 7,000 Africans of whom approximately 3,000 are employed at Limbe where our central workshops are situated. When the emergency was declared all but about 200 of our African employees in Limbe stopped work. Out of the whole of our staff about 60 were detained under the Emergency Regulations, of whom 27 were employed in our workshops at Limbe. As soon as these few men had been removed, all our staff returned to work; and our officials have told me"—
this is the chairman of the company speaking—
"that with the threat of intimidation lifted, the whole atmosphere regained 'the cheerfulness which had been strikingly absent during the preceding months of fear and uncertainty."
I have been asked a number of questions about the detainees and about the future of Dr. Banda. I am afraid that time will not allow me to go into these important matters with the detail that I had hoped, but my right hon. and learned Friend has already touched on them and I hope that if time does allow I shall be able to return to these matters before ten o'clock.
There is one point which has not been touched on and which seems to me to be also of the first importance, and that is the criticism of the operations. Four main criticisms of action taken by the authorities and by the security forces appear in the closing paragraphs of the Report. I should like to take these briefly one by one, and examine how far they are justified in the context of the initial operation in the first few days of the emergency, and in the subsequent operations to deal with the centres of trouble and violence. The third criticism of the Commission that unnecessary force was used in making arrests is connected with the initial operation to detain Congress leaders, and I should like to deal with that straight away.
The Commission, while agreeing that the use of unnecessary and illegal force was never expressly authorised, says that individual officers were given too much latitude and that their illegalities often went unnoticed or unchecked. The Commission considered in its Report only six cases in which force was used while effecting arrests. This must be set against no fewer than 263 arrests made in the original operation up to 5th March

439
and a further 900 unhappily necessarily made later. I cannot accept that the reports made by the officers concerned in these arrests made it clear that illegalities occurred. I would, if there were time, give an account of those reports, but it would take too long. I shall, however, be ready to do so on another occasion.
There are, however, two special points with which I must deal. The first is the use of handcuffs and gags which were referred to by an hon. Member opposite as restraints. Handcuffs are, as the Report points out, ordinarily used in Nyasaland in making arrests. The instruction given by the Operations Committee only referred to their use in Central and Southern Provinces when those arrested were being transported in aircraft. In the Northern Province, where wide areas were under Congress control and gangs were perpetrating arson and sabotage, those arrested were to be handcuffed when being transported from place to place. No instructions were given for the use of gags. As far as I know, gagging only occurred in the Mzimba area, and the facts revealed in paragraph 198 show on the face of it that it was excessively and unnecessarily used.
These facts only emerged as a result of the Commission's own long inquiries, and that was one of the reasons why we set up the Commission. The Government had no reports of gagging being used except in one arrest. He was picked up in that particular district. Without knowing the full facts no action could have been taken. Now that they are revealed, I and the Nyasaland Government are very sorry indeed and deeply regret what occurred. [Interruption.] I must remind the House that one of the purposes of appointing the Commission was to see if there were incidents of this kind and to have all the cards laid on the table so that proper remedial action could be taken. I remind the House that action cannot be taken against individuals, as a result of the undertaking given with my authority by the Attorney-General, with the full approval and at the request of Mr. Justice Devlin.
The second point I should like to mention is the other three criticisms in paragraph 285 of the Report which reflect on the conduct of the security forces and the authorities. The first is
440
the unauthorised burning of certain houses by a District Commissioner. In his Despatch the Governor has made some comments on this. I would add to those comments only this, that instructions were given as soon as this incident was discovered that in no circumstances should punitive action of this kind be repeated, and I repeat here the regret which I expressed in regard to the previous incident.
Mr. Bevan: No action?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No action can be taken because of the agreement that what emerged from the inquiry and was reported in the Report of the Commission should not be made the subject of any criminal charges, and this was at the wish of the inquirers and with my full approval.
The next criticism made by the Commissioners related to the confiscation of implements. This is, of course, very regrettable, but it is an undeniable fact that implements of this kind though necessary for agriculture were also used for many purposes of sabotage and road blocks, and they were confiscated in the districts where incidents of that sort occurred.
Lastly, I come to the Commission's more serious allegation about the use of force by the security forces in villages in areas where Congress was receiving much sympathy and support and their gangs were most active. The Governor has already and rightly indignantly repudiated any suggestion that he expressly or impliedly authorised the use of any illegal force in those areas. He has pointed out that the Commission's criticism of what happened in the villages is general and is based on evidence not known to him. I must make it perfectly clear that where specific allegations and serious complaints of assault were made to the authorities they were thoroughly investigated and action was taken to deal with them when they were found to be justified; and indeed, the Nyasaland Operations Committee sent a directive to all provincial committees on 24th March in connection with complaints which they had received and were being investigated, insisting no possible excuse could be given, despite the difficulties in which the forces found themselves, for further similar complaints against the security forces.

441
In short, while we all deeply regret any incident which the Commission's work may have uncovered, the conclusions do not lead to the inference that illegalities were expressly or impliedly authorised from the top, and, indeed, the facts which I have given to the House, though not as fully as I should have liked to do, bear that out.
It is also important to make this clear. The House may not have realised, and not much attention has been paid to it in the Press, that the Commission has investigated mainly action and the use of firearms by the security forces with consequent loss of life or the inflicting of grave injury. I do not in the least quarrel with this, but the Commission did not interpret its terms of reference so as to include the many occasions which can rightly be called disturbances in which firearms and other weapons were not used. Had the Commission given an account of these, its Report would have been much longer. The omission of successful dispersals of crowds and other operations from its examination might lead the unwary reader to imagine that the use of firearms and of excessive force was characteristic of operations carried out by the Nyasa-land security forces. This is not a fair conclusion from the Report when all the facts are taken into account.
On this we had a very moving speech from my hon. and gallart Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), who has been at the other end of operations of this kind. We are entitled to take great satisfaction from the conclusion of the Commission that on one was trigger-happy and anyone who took firm action of any kind was confident that that was the only way to deal with the situation.
I should like, as I draw inevitably to a close, to say a few words in reply to questions which I have been asked about constitutional advance in Nyasaland. A great deal of play has been made in the debate of the delay in bringing into operation constitutional changes. I made an announcement a day or two ago as to our plans which I hope will be implemented in a few weeks' time, some time during August. In answer to questions over the last few months, I have made it clear that the existing Constitution, which came into being in 1956, would run till 1960 when the life of the present
442
Legislature was coming to an end. It was my intention to bring the discussions on the new Constitution to a conclusion during Lord Perth's visit at the end of February. I had hoped that there would be full agreement well before May, 1960, as to what the changes thereafter were to be. It was my hope that the proposals which had to be worked out, as the Commission, recognised was desirable, would be acceptable to all concerned.
I have been very much concerned at the suggestions made by a number of hon. Members opposite, whose interest in and zeal for Nyasaland I know very well, that the fact that the new Constitution was not agreed to was a contributory factor to the state of tension and of violence. But I ask hon. Members who are asking us to accept the Report in full to look at paragraph 94 of the Report and also earlier paragarphs.
As early as September, 1957, it was clear, according to the Report, that what Congress wanted was an all-African Government before 1960. By May, 1958, it seemed clear to Congress that it was not likely to make much headway with its demands for an African majority and it is said that the leaders were then suffering from a sense of frustration. At a meeting in Government House with the Governor in January, 1958, Dr. Banda said that he was prepared to reconsider the exact number of African seats but he could not be shifted from his demand for an African majority.
I ask hon. Members to look at paragraph 94. In this the Commission examines the various allegations made of undue delay in launching a new Constitution in Nyasaland and also suggestions that I and the Governor had different impressions of what was intended. The Commission made little of these suggestions, and it brings out the point that both of us needed time to work out proposals acceptable to all concerned, which was, of course, the difficulty then. The Commission says:
"However this may be, we do not think that the delay was a factor of any great weight in the deliberations of Congress. Whatever may have been said in public, the Governor had made his position perfectly clear in private discussions…. The truth, we think, is that the Congress leaders, certainly the extremists, had practically given up hope that anything satisfactory to them would come out of any more constitutional talks; if they had believed

443
that it would, we cannot think that just before the talks were coming to maturity, they would have abandoned the way of peaceful negotiation."
I hope that hon. and right hon. Members in reading these words will acquit me of responsibility in the constitutional field, for it is an exceedingly difficult task to devise changes acceptable to all those concerned. The Commission realises the need to do so, and it does not attribute to the delay with the Constitution the sinister consequences which hon. and right hon. Members opposite draw.
Now in the future of Nyasaland I see, as I said in the debate last week, a steady movement towards internal self-government, bearing in mind the predominantly African population—the overwhelming majority of all the people being African—but a scheme so devised that, as in Northern Rhodesia but not the same scheme, those who stand for election to Parliament in Nyasaland, as in Northern Rhodesia, must pay some regard to the interests of other races. If we do not devise schemes of this kind, and they are extremely difficult to devise, then I believe that partnership in the constitutional field cannot become a reality. So in commending the proposals that I announced last week to the House, I will repeat once more that they are only interim proposals, and I am deeply anxious to see them changed into more permanent proposals when the situation allows.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) referred to the two members of the Executive who will be appointed from the Legislative Council. The hon. Gentleman thought it was a great pity the they were to have no association with Departments. It is certainly my hope that all the unofficial members of the Executive Council, African and European, will have such an association with Government Departments, and it is the Governor's intention to press on with that urgently as soon as he returns to Nyasaland. For I quite agree that without that special link with day to day work, membership of the
Executive Council cannot provide the proper return that it should.
Finally, may I say this. I have heard it said by the Opposition—
Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan rose—
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite ready to say it. I had hoped to be able to develop at length an argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is nobody's fault, it is merely that there is such a tremendous amount of material I wanted to convey to the House. I am not blaming anyone. I had hoped to develop at greater length the arguments used by my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon in regard to the close association of Dr. Banda with the extreme elements of Congress. It is, of course, possible to draw a picture of Dr. Banda as being a dupe of his own extremists. I do not believe that this is so, and I believe that a careful study of the Report will show that somebody who was, as the Commission says, the unquestioned leader of Congress could not possibly have been left in ignorance of what was, in fact, agreed at the meeting of 25th January when, as paragraph 166 disclosed, the extreme elements in Congress went over to a policy of violence.
Under those circumstances, there can be no possible suggestion of treating Dr. Banda differently from other detainees—[HON. MEMBERS: "Police State."]—and I am pleased to say that the Governor, who is responsible in these matters, will have my full support in ensuring that, while we are all anxious to bring the emergency to an end as soon as we can, there cannot be releases of detainees who are dangerous to the State until that danger has been withdrawn.
At the start of my speech I said the Government had either to act or to abdicate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Abdicate."] We have acted and we will not abdicate.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 254.

Division No. 175.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Aitken, W. T.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Atkins, H. E.

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

Arbuthnot, John

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Alport, C. J. M.

Armstrong, C. W.

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Balniel, Lord

Banks, Col. C.

Glover, D.

McAdden, S. J.

Barber, Anthony

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Barlow, Sir John

Godber, J. B.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Barter, John

Goodhart, Philip

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Batsford, Brian

Gough, C. F. H.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Gower, H. R,

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Graham, Sir Fergus

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Green, A.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Gresham Cooke, R.

McMaster, Stanley

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Bidgood, J. C.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Gurden, Harold

Madden, Martin

Bingham, R. M.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Bishop, F. P.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Black, Sir Cyril

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Body, R. F.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Marshall, Douglas

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Mathew, R.

Braine, B. R.

Harvle-Watt, Sir George

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Braithwaite Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hay, John

Mawby, R. L.

Brewis, John

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Moore, Sir Thomas

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hesketh, R. F.

Morrison, John (Sallsbury)

Bryan, P.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Nairn, D. L. S.

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Neave, Airey

Campbell, Sir David

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholls, Harmar

Carr, Robert

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Channon, H. P. G.

Hope, Lord John

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hornby, R, P.

Nugent, Richard

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Cole, Norman

Horobin, Sir Ian

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

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Ormsby-Goro, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Cooke, Robert

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Cooper, A. E.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Howard, John (Test)

Page, R. G.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hughes Haliett, Vice Admiral J.

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Corfield, F. V.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Partridge, E.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Peel, W. J.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, w.)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hyde, Montgomery

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Cunningham, Knox

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Pitman, I. J.

Currie, G. B. H.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Dance, J. C. G.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pott, H. P.

Davidson, Viscountess

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Powell, J. Enoch

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Deedes, W. F.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

de Ferrantl, Basil

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Profumo, J. D.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Ramsden, J. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Rawlinson, Peter

Doughty, C. J. A.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Redmayne, M.

Drayson, G. B.

Kaberry, D.

Remnant, Hon. P.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Renton, D. L. M.

Duncan, Sir James

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Rippon, A. G. F.

Duthie, Sir William

Kershaw, J. A.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Kimball, M.

Robertson, Sir David

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Kirk, P. M.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Lagden, G. W.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Roper, Sir Harold

Errington, Sir Erie

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Erroll, F. J.

Leavey, J. A.

Russell, R. S.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Leburn, W. G.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Fell, A.

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

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Finlay, Graeme

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Sharples, R. C.

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Shepherd, William

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

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

Forrest, G.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Foster, John

Llewellyn, D. T.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

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

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Froeth, Denzil

Longden, Gilbert

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Loveys, Walter H.

Speir, R. M.

Gammans, Lady

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

446

447

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Webbe, Sir H.

Storey, S.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Webster, David

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Turner, H. F. L.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Vane, W. M. F.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Teeling, W.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Wood, Hon. R.

Temple, John M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Woollam, John Victor

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. )

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Wall, Patrick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Mr. Heath and Mr. Legh.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Foot, D. M.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Ainsley, J. W.

Forman, J. C.

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McCann, J.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

MacColl, J. E.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

MacDermot, Nlall

Awbery, S. S.

Gibson, C. W.

McInnes, J.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Gooch, E. G.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Baird, J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McLeavy, Frank

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Greenwood, Anthony

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mahon, Simon

Benson, Sir George

Grey, C. F.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Beswick, Frank

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

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

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Blackburn, F.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Grimond, J.

Mason, Roy

Blyton, W. R.

Hale, Leslie

Mayhew, C. P.

Boardman, H.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mellish, R. J.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Hamilton, W. W.

Mitchlson, G. R.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hannan, W.

Monslow, W.

Bowen, E. R (Cardigan)

Hastings, S.

Moody, A. S.

Boyd, T. C.

Hayman, F. H.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Healey, Denis

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Brockway, A. F.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Mort, D. L.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Herbison, Miss M.

Moss, R.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Moyle, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hilton, A. V.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Burke, W. A.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Holman, P.

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Holmes, Horace

Oliver, G. H.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Holt, A. F.

Oram, A. E.

Callaghan, L. J.

Houghton, Douglas

Orbach, M.

Carmichael, J.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Oswald, T.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Owen, W. J.

Champion, A. J.

Hoy, J. H.

Padley, W. E.

Chapman, W. D.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Paget, R. T.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

Cliffe, Michael

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Coldrick, W.

Hunter, A. E.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Pargiter, G. A.

Cronin, J. D.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Parker, J.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Parkin, B. T,

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Paton, John

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Janner, B.

Peart, T. F.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Pentland, N.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Popplewell, E.

Davies, Harold (Leak)

Jester, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Deer, G.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Probert, A. R.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Proctor, W. T.

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Diamond, John

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Randall, H. E.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Rankin, John

Donnelly, D. L.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Redhead, E. C.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Reid, William

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Reynolds, G. W.

Edelman, M.

Kenyon, C.

Rhodes, H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

King, Dr. H. M.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lawson, G. M.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Ledger, R. J.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Evans Edward (Lowestoft)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Fernyhough, E.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Ross, William

Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Royle, C.

Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

Lindgren, G. S.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Fletcher, Eric

Lipton, Marcus

Short, E. W.

448

449

Silverman, Jullus (Aston)

Sylvester, G. O.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Symonds, J. B.

Wilkins, W. A.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Willey, Frederick

Skeffington, A. M.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Williams, David (Neath)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Snow, J. W.

Thornton, E.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Sorensen, R. W.

Tomney, F.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Sparks, J. A.

Usborne, H. C.

Winterbottom, Richard

spriggs, Leslie

Viant, S. P.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Steele, T.

Wade, D. W.

Woof, R. E.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Warbey, W. N.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Stonehouse, John

Watkins, T. E.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Weitzman, D.

Zilliacus, K.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mr. Bowden and Mr Pearson.

Swingler, S. T.

Wigg, George

Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 254.

Division No. 176.]

AYES

[10.13 p.m

Agnew, Sir Peter

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Aitken, W. T.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

Corfield, F. V.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Alport, C. J. M.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Arbuthnot, John

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Armstrong, C. W.

Cunningham, Knox

Hay, John

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Currie, G. B. H.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Danoe, J. C. G.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Atkins, H. E.

Davidson, Viscountess

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Deedes, W. F.

Hesketh, R. F.

Balniel, Lord

de Ferranti, Basil

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Banks, Col. C.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Barber, Anthony

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Barlow, Sir John

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Barter, John

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Batsford, Brian

Drayson, G. B.

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

du Cann, E. D. L.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Duncan, Sir James

Hope, Lord John

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Duthie, Sir William

Hornby, R. P.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Horobin, Sir Ian

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle uponTyne, N.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Bidgood, J. C.

Errington, Sir Erie

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Erroll, F. J.

Howard, John (Test)

Bingham, R. M.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Fell, A.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Bishop, F. P.

Finlay, Graeme

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Black, Sir Cyril

Fisher, Nigel

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Body, R. F.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Forrest, G.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Foster, John

Hyde, Montgomery

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Braine, B. R.

Freeth, Denzil

Iremonger, T. L.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Brewis, John

Gammans, Lady

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Glover, D.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Bryan, P.

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Godber, J. B.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Goodhart, Philip

Joseph, Sir Keith

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

Gough, C. F. H.

Kaberry, D.

Campbell, Sir David

Gower, H. R.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Carr, Robert

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Cary, Sir Robert

Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

Kershaw, J. A.

Channon, H. P. G.

Green, A.

Kimball, M.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Kirk, P. M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lagden, G. W.

Cole, Norman

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Langford-Holt, J. A,

Cooke, Robert

Gurden, Harold

Leavey, J. A.

Cooper, A. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Leburn, W. G.

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

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Nugent, Richard

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Llewellyn, D. T.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Storey, S.

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

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Longden, Gilbert

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

Studholme, Sir Henry

Loveys, Walter H.

Page, R. G.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Partridge, E.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Peel, W. J.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Peyton, J. W. W.

Teeling, W.

McAdden, S. J.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Temple, John M.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Pitman, I. J.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Pott, H. P.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Powell, J. Enoch

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, w.)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

McMaster, Stanley

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Turner, H. F. L.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Profumo, J. D.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Ramsden, J. E.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Rawlinson, Peter

Vane, W. M. F.

Maddan, Martin

Redmayne, M.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

Remnant, Hon. P.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Renton, D. L. M.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Robertson, Sir David

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wall, Patrick

Marshall, Douglas

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Mathew, R.

Roper, Sir Harold

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Mawby, R. L.

Russell, R. S.

Webbe, Sir H.

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

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Webster, David

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Sharples, R. C.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Shepherd, William

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Nairn, D. L. S.

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Wood, Hon. R.

Neave, Airey

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Woollam, John Victor

Nicholls, Harmar

Speir, R. M.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Heath and Mr. Legh.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Chapman, W. D.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Ainsley, J. W.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Cliffe, Michael

George, Lady MeganLloyd (Car'then)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Coldrick, W.

Gibson, C. W.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Gooch, E. G.

Awbery, S. S.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Cronin, J. D.

Greenwood, Anthony

Baird, J.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Grey, C. F.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Benson, Sir George

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Beswick, Frank

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Grimond, J.

Blackburn, F.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hale, Leslie

Blenkinsop, A.

Deer, G.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Blyton, W. R.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hamilton, W. W.

Boardman, H.

Delargy, H. J.

Hannan, W.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Diamond, John

Hastings, S.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Dodds, N. N.

Hayman, F. H.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Donnelly, D. L.

Healey, Denis

Boyd, T. C.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Herbison, Miss M.

Brockway, A. F.

Edelman, M.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hilton, A. V.

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Holman, P.

Burke, W. A.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Holmes, Horace

Burton, Miss F. E.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Holt, A. F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Fernyhough, E.

Houghton, Douglas

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Gree

Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Callaghan, L. J.

Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Carmichael, J.

Fletcher, Eric

Hoy, J. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Foot, D. M.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Champion, A. J.

Forman, J. G

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

452

453

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mort, D. L.

Snow, J. W.

Hunter, A. E.

Moss, R.

Sorensen, R. W.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Moyle, A.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Meal, Harold (Bolsover)

Sparks, J. A.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Steele, T.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Oliver, G. H.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Janner, B.

Oram, A. E.

Stonehouse, John

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Orbach, M.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Oswald, T.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)

Owen, W. J.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Padley, W. E.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Paget, R. T.

Swingler, S. T.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

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

Sylvester, G. O.

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Symonds, J. B.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parker, J.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Parkin, B. T.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Kenyon, C.

Paton, John

Thornton, E.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Peart, T. F.

Tomney, F.

King, Dr. H. M.

Pentland, N.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lawson, G. M.

Popplewell, E.

Usborne, H. C.

Ledger, R. J.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Viant, S. P.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Wade, D. W.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Probert, A. R.

Warbey, W. N.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Proctor, W. T.

Watkins, T. E.

Lindgren, G. S.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Weitzman D.

Lipton, Marcus

Randall, H. E.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Rankin, John

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Redhead, E. C.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

McCann, J.

Reid, William

Wigg, George

MacColl, J. E.

Reynolds, G. W.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

MacDermot, Niall

Rhodes, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

McInnes, J.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

Willey, Frederick

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, David (Neath)

McLeavy, Frank

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Mahon, Simon

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Ross, William

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

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

Royle, C.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Short, E. W.

Winterbottom, Richard

Mason, Roy

Silverman, Jullus (Aston)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mayhew, C. P.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woof, R. E.

Mellish, R, J.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Mitchison, G. R.

Skeffington, A. M.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Monslow, W.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Zilliacus, K.

Moody, A. S.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry and the Despatch from the Governor of Nyasaland thereon, and extends its thanks to the Chairman and members of the Commission for their work; endorses their conclusion that a policy of violence was adopted by the Nyasaland African Congress Leadership and that the declaration of the state of emergency was fully justified, deeply regrets the loss of life that
454
occurred but acknowledges that prompt and effective action by the Governor prevented the development of a more serious situation; expresses its gratitude to the Administration and to the Security Forces for their loyal service in circumstances of great difficulty and looks forward to the restoration of normal conditions in Nyasaland and to the continued constitutional and economic progress of its people on the basis of respect for law and order.

IMPORT DUTIES
10.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order, 1959 (S. I., 1959, No. 1215), dated 14th July, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
This Order amends some of the rates of import duty which were imposed under the United Kingdom Customs tariff which came into operation on 1st January, 1959. This is the new "Brussels Nomenclature" tariff and it is working very smoothly. But as I warned the House at the time of its introduction, it is necessary to ask the House to make certain amendments in accordance with the transition from one nomenclature to another. All these have been brought to the attention of the trade organisations concerned.
In accordance with the general policy that we have followed in preparing the new tariff, the amended rates are substantially the same as those charged before 1st January under the old tariff. The new tariff has now been in operation for seven months and, inevitably, a changeover of this magnitude gives rise, as we expected it would, to cases where adjustment proves necessary. Three earlier amending Orders have already been approved by the House.
I have to tell the House that there are one or two further cases still under consideration, but the number is declining. It is very likely that the House will be asked to approve some other amendments in due course, but we have to bear in mind that in relation to the task we undertook, and a number of headings in the tariff as a whole—about 3,400—
456
the number of items where amendments have been found necessary remains very small.
This Order may seem rather long, but it requires an affirmative Resolution only because of one of the amendments, that in relation to
"glass barrelled hypodermic syringes",
increases the rate of duty while in all the other cases the present charges are reduced. It is obviously for the convenience of the House that these should all be grouped in one Order. They constitute a fascinating tariff hors d'œuvre. They range from frozen or dried shellfish, dental alloys and fillings, whip centres of leather, aluminium milk churns, to electric hair dryers and mother-of-pearl discs, to take a mere selection from this anthology.
I have said that all of these duties, with one exception, are lowered. I therefore ask the House to approve the bringing into effect of these minor amendments, all of which have been agreed with the trade interests concerned and will ease the working of the new tariff.
Question put and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

LEGITIMACY BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
Consideration of the Lords Amendments in the Title, lines 1 and 3, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Lords Amendments.—[Mr. Renton.]

LEGITIMACY BILL

  Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF LEGITIMACY ACT, 1926.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Are we not to have any explanation of these Amendments? I do not think that the House should agree to them without knowing what they do.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  New Clause A.—(LEGITIMACY OF CHILDREN OF CERTAIN VOID MARRIAGES.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 13, after Lords Amendment last inserted, insert:
  A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the child of a void marriage, whether born before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be treated as the legitimate child of his parents if at the time of the act of intercourse resulting in the birth for at the time of the celebration of the marriage if later) both or either of the parties reasonably believed that the marriage was valid.

  (2) This section applies, and applies only, where the father of the child was domiciled in England at the time of the birth or, if he died before the birth, was so domiciled immediately before his death.

  (3) This section, so far as it affects the succession to a dignity or title of honour, or the devolution of property settled therewith, applies only to children born after the commencement of this Act.

  (4) This section does not affect any rights under the intestacy of a person who died before the commencement of this Act, and does not (except so far as may be necessary to avoid the severance from a dignity or title of honour of property settled therewith) affect the operation or construction of any disposition coming into operation before the commencement of this Act.

  (5) In this section the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them, that is to say—

  "void marriage" means a marriage, not being voidable only, in respect of which the High Court has or had jurisdiction to grant
  458
  a decree of nullity, or would have or would have had such jurisdiction if the parties were domiciled in England;
  "disposition" has the same meaning as in the Legitimacy Act, 1926;
  and any reference in this section to property settled with a dignity or title of honour is a reference to any real or personal property, or any interest in such property, which is limited by any disposition (whether subject to a preceding limitation or charge or not) in such a way as to devolve with the dignity or title as nearly as the law permits, whether or not the disposition contains an express reference to the dignity or title and whether or not the property or some interest in the property may in some event become severed from it.
  (6) In subsection (1) of section seventeen of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 (which enables an application to be made to the High Court for a decree declaring that the applicant is the legitimate child of his parents, and that the marriage of his father and mother or of his grandfather and grandmother was a valid marriage or that his own marriage was a valid marriage) for the words "and that" there shall be substituted the words "or that".
  Motion made, and question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I shall take only a few moments of the time of the House and I do not want to go into the merits of this very long and somewhat complicated new Clause, nor even to ask for an explanation. I am quite satisfied that the two halves of this new Clause, taken together, do not amount to very much more than rather complicated drafting, but I object to this Clause, either in its old form or its new form. I do so for the same reason as I objected to Clause 1, on which I did not think it appropriate to address the House, having regard to the fact that the Amendments to it were purely of a drafting nature.
  In each case, the Clause shifts the line between legitimacy and illegitimacy to a new place and, I think, in each case a completely illogical place. I do not want to go into the merits of that, but I want to register the fact that I object to this new Clause just as I objected to the old one. I should like to see the legal status of illegitimacy abolished altogether. There, I think, I find myself in agreement with the promoters of the Bill. I do not believe it would be controversial to do that, but it would, of course, be far beyond the means of a private Member.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member will appreciate that we are discussing the Lords Amendments to the Bill.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not want to go into that at all, but I think it a necessary preliminary to what I want to say. It could be said that Clause A, which we are now considering, and Clause 1, with which we have already dealt, are a step in the right direction, that is to say, in the direction I have indicated that I wish to go. It is true to say that the vast majority of those who support the Bill do so because they regard it as a step, or a series of steps, in the right direction. To my mind, it is a step in the right direction in the same sense as a man desiring to land from a ship steps half way and finds himself in the sea. It is not anything like half way.
  There are 2½ million people of illegitimate birth in this country. I do not believe that this Bill will affect more than a few thousands of them. So far as I know, it does not deal specially with the most deserving cases.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can deal only with what is dealt with in the Amendment.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when I have dealt with the point you will see that it is in order.
  I put down a Question, to which I received a Written Answer. The Question was addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and asked whether he would
  "… propose the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire into the law relating to illegitimate children and to make recommendations for its amendment"—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is going far beyond the Lords Amendment.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With respect, I am objecting to this Amendment on the grounds of the Answer I received, and I must give the Question so that I can relate it to the Answer:
  "… to make recommendations for its amendment …"
  I received the following reply:
  "No. Sir. We have the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and that of the Committee on the Law of Intestate Succession, and if the Legitimacy Bill now
  460
  before Parliament passes into law we should give the new provisions "—
  of which this Clause is, of course, one—
  "a little time to operate. These and other considerations point to the postponing of further inquiry."
  There will, therefore, be well over 2 million people whose cases will have to wait simply because of the passing of this Clause, and the previous one, and it is right that the House should understand that. One of my hon. Friends says "Many more." I agree. Very nearly the whole 2½ million will have to wait. In those circumstances, we might be well advised to discontinue consideration of this Bill in order to have the whole question properly thrashed out.
  I considered my attitude to these Amendments, and it seemed to me that as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) and I divided the House on Second Reading, and had thereafter accepted the provisions without any further Divisions, we ought not at this stage to divide the House again on this Clause. But, in saying that, I make it perfectly clear that for my part I do not accept the principle embodied in this Clause, and that in letting it go I do not accept the principle in my right hon. Friend's reply to my Question. I hope that well before there is any question of trying the effect of this Clause, or any of the Clauses of the Bill, there will be a thorough inquiry into the matter, with a view to the revision of the law generally.
  Mr. John Parker: I suggest that the House accept the Lords Amendment. A complete redraft has been made of Clause 2—it is very much longer—but I should like to thank the Parliamentary draftsmen for rewording it. In substance, it is exactly the same Clause as passed this House, but it is adapted to meet the needs of the law. One or two small points have been introduced. For example, it provides that a person benefiting under it must be domiciled in England. That provision was left out of the original Clause, and as the law of Scotland is somewhat different from ours, and Scottish domicile produces or might produce rather different results, it is important that it be included.
  I should like to press the point that there is no substantial difference between

  461
  this Clause and that which passed this House. That Clause was itself the result of a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. In this matter it brings English law into line with that of Scotland and also with canon law generally in Western Europe. Their Lordships enthusiastically accepted the Clause largely because of those two aspects. I therefore recommend the Lords Amendment to the House, and ask the House to accept it.
  Mr. Philip Bell: After the ordeals we went through last week, I apologise to the House for keeping it now, bur. nothing that can be said will stop me from exercising the rights that all hon. Members claim and insist on discharging—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This seems to have very little to do with the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. Bell: I had, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, observed a certain restiveness of the House which, I was endeavouring to point out, though it might disturb me, would not prohibit me from exercising my rights as an hon. Member.
  What I wish to point out to the House is that this Clause 2 which has been produced by the House of Lords introduces something quite new which no hon. Member, and certainly none of the hon. Members who have spoken so far, has indicated at all. It introduces into the country for the first time in our history a form of polygamy. Polygamy means bearing legitimate children by more than one wife. That is what it is, and that is what Clause 2 means.
  As was pointed out by Lord Denning in another place, under the Clause a man can polygamously marry an innocent girl, himself being already married. The children of that polygamous marriage, whether the girl has one child or whether, giving way to circumstances and afterwards knowing the truth, she has eight children, will, under Clause 2, be legitimate. But there is nothing in Clause 2 to prevent this man, who, by my description, is a rogue, going back to his wife, for she may have the power of the purse, and having more children by her.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: On a point of order. I am trying to follow the hon. and
  462
  learned Gentleman. He seems to be talking about Clause 2. I understood that tonight we were supposed to be discussing the Lords Amendment to Clause 2, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman does not yet seem to have referred.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It proposes to leave out Clause 2.
  Mr. Bell: I am not quite sure whether this is a serious intervention. It is true that I have referred to Clause 2, but the new Clause A is to take the place of Clause 2. I must have been more incoherent than usual if the hon. Lady honestly did not understand me.
  I was explaining that under Clause 2 a man can have an unlimited number of children by his bigamous marriage and can, in fact, have, at the same time, an unlimited number of children by his legal marriage. If that is not polygamy then I shall be grateful to hear whatever description is true of it. It may be that hon. Members think that what they believe sincerely in the interests of the children justifies the building of a new system in this country. I do not myself believe that is the balance of the argument for the welfare of either the children or the family.
  In another place, when dealing with Clause 1—I am not going to deal with it—Lord Denning introduced it rather attractively, saying that it was, in effect, the last step in amending our laws of marriage and legitimacy. He was talking about Clause 1, but he changed his view when this Clause 2 was introduced. It was he himself—I am only adopting his argument—who pointed out that this new Clause was for the first time introducing polygamy into our Constitution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is easy, of course, to say "Nonsense." It is easy to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General talks nonsense.
  I do not know whether hon. Members take the same view as their right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) who was a Law Officer at the time that this question was dealt with during the Socialist Administration. Hon. Members say, "Nonsense." They should hear the "nonsense" that was spoken by the Solicitor-General of the Socialist Government. This is his

  463
  "nonsense," not mine. He was speaking on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1949.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of order. Is it in order to quote speeches from another place?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member intends to quote from a past Session in this House it would be in order.
  Mr. Bell: If the hon. Gentleman would listen he would realise that I was talking about a former Solicitor-General. Also, we would get to bed a lot earlier. The Solicitor-General for the Socialist Government, who, if I understand the observations of hon. Members opposite, talked nonsense, said this:
  "Take the case of duress or fraud. The effect of the Clause is this. If the marriage becomes subject to a decree of nullity the children of the marriage are, nevertheless, if it could have been dissolved, to be deemed to be the legitimate issue of the two parties of that marriage. I should have thought that, much as one desires to afford every kind of protection to the unfortunate innocent children of any union, it is going too far to say that if a person has been trapped or forced or threatened into the union, which he would never have entered into, or intended to enter into, or knew that he was entering into, he should have the issue of that union declared the legitimate issue of himself and the person with whom he was forced to enter into a spurious bond of marriage. I should have thought that was going a great deal too far."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1654.]
  Is that nonsense?
  Let us stop there. If hon. Members find the question of legitimacy funny, they are entitled to their sense of humour, but this proposed new Clause does not stop there. In fact, as any lawyer will realise, it has in it great mischief. Let us pause for a moment from thinking of our beds and look at subsection (1). It says:
  "… the child of a void marriage, whether born before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be treated as the legitimate child of his parents if at the time of the act of intercourse resulting in the birth.…"
  Let us reflect for a moment, and ask how anybody is to say that a particular act of intercourse has produced a particular child. That is a fact which has to be decided before this Clause comes into operation.
  464
  The subsection goes on:
  "… both or either of the parties reasonably believed. …"
  Who is to say what is reasonable in a matter of that kind? How long after is this issue to be tried? The parties concerned may well be dead. It is, in fact, impossible, except by guesswork, for any impartial tribunal to apply subsection (1) of this proposed new Clause to any facts. It would be a sheer guess. And that, in my view, is bad legislation. Whatever the intention is, however we may differ about the dangers of what I call the polygamous system as weighed against the so-called benefit to the child, whatever that may be, this Clause by itself is ineffective, because it is a Clause which puts upon the persons claiming under it a burden of proof they can never discharge.
  Therefore, I submit, even though it be at the end of a Session, which should not make hon. Members, though perhaps it does, less discreet, that we should give it careful, judicial consideration. Let hon. Members consider for one moment how evidence is to be produced. The proof that the child was legitimate at the time of intercourse as the result of that, the parties' state of mind, whether they reasonably believed that they were free to marry—which is the sense of the Clause—is, in fact, impossible.
  But it does not stop there. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who so courageously brings forward this Clause, brushes off subsection (2) as some idea that we should be consistent with international law. If it be right, if subsection (1) be right, I fail to see the logic which says that if the father happens to be domiciled abroad the Bill shall not apply to the child. If it be so good, it should be good even for that child. Not only that, but let us look at subsection (3). Why the distinction? Why should the Bill apply only to children born after the commencement of the Measure while the other subsection deals with the ones before? We find that in subsection (4) the ugly note of property—as hon. Members opposite would call it—creeps in to alter the provisions. If property is attached to the title different provisions are to be brought into play.

  465
  I suggest, as my hon. Friend said, that this unhappy accident of time and place and circumstance, this Bill dealing with a very vital problem in human relations, the relations between married people and their children, this Bill for unfortunate circumstances, came too late. I wish quite sincerely that the hon. Member who proposed it had had another opportunity to bring it forward earlier, so that we could have had it fully discussed. I deprecate that something dealing with the family, to which we all give lip-service, should be brought forward at this late stage in the Parliament and at this late hour; and brought forward against a good deal of opposition, because you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was with difficulty that I got a hearing from the House. I have had it, and I am grateful to the House, but I am unutterably opposed to this Clause—not because I disregard the interests of these unhappy children who are to have a title they did not earn but which their parents disgracefully earned. I am indeed sorry for them.
  The larger view of the family is the thing which influences me, and I believe this sincerely, if it is proper to talk about sincerity in this House, for I understand one of the most popular debating things is to say. "One cannot answer him: what he says is insincere." I can assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—perhaps I anticipate an unkindness which may not be given—that it is not because of what may be called religious prejudices that I am opposed to this Clause. It is because I sincerely believe that the Clause will have a detrimental effect on the family. It introduces for the first time into this country the idea that a man can have legitimate children at the same time from two different women. That is more than a Christian civilisation can stomach.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), I find it rather shocking that Amendments of this importance should come before the House in this rather casual way at this stage of the Session. No explanation is being offered to the House, either from the Government Front Bench or from the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). What is the meaning of these Amendments? If my hon. and learned Friend the Member
  466
  for Bolton, East had not made his speech, I imagine that these provisions would have been allowed to pass on the nod, although Clause A has never been before the House at all.
  Mr. Parker: Yes, it has.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Clause 2, which has been omitted, has been before the House, of course, but the Lords Amendment, which is Clause A, has not. Therefore, no explanation of its meaning has been given or was being given, yet the Clause makes most important changes in the law of England. These changes in the law on marriage and the family are far more important than most of the legislation that receives a great deal of discussion and time spent on it in the House. These things change the whole shape and character of society.
  I think that I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East were the only two in the lobby who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not of the same religion as my hon. and learned Friend, but, nevertheless, I find it difficult to understand how, in a Christian society, the proposal embodied in Clause A can find acceptance. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Archbishop?"] I am also not of the same persuasion as the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  My hon. and learned Friend has rightly said that the new Clause comes down to this: that if a man who is married seduces a woman, giving her to believe that he is not married, and then has children from that union, both the children that he is having by his wife and the children from that union are legitimate. That is what the Clause says, without any more ado about it, because the woman who is seduced is under the impression that the bigamous union is a genuine marriage and she falls within the definition in the new Clause A.
  Therefore, we have a man procreating legitimate children at the same time from two different women. It is possible for hon. Members on either side of the House to take the view that the whole conception of legitimacy and illegitimacy should go by the board. That is a perfectly possible point of view, but I put it to the House that hon. Members who support the Clause should logically and

  467
  quite frankly adopt that point of view and say, "We do not believe in a distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy." Once that is said, we have knocked the bottom away from marriage. There cannot be a marriage except in an exclusive sense.
  11.0 p.m.
  The whole point about marriage as distinct from concubinage is that it is exclusive in its nature, and if one believes in monogamy, which I take it most of us do, then one has to have this distinction between legitimate and illegitimate. What legal consequences one attaches to that distinction is quite another matter. One may have all sorts of ideas in the realm of property, succession, and so forth. What legal and social consequences one attaches is a very different question. But to keep the doctrine of legitimacy and draw the line here is crazy—pure nonsense.
  I would ask hon. Members to look at the details of the Clause. According to subsection (5) the Clause applies only to a marriage which is void and not to one which is voidable. So we have the ridiculous position that if a man enters into a bigamous union with a woman, those children are legitimate, but if he enters into a marriage which is only voidable, the children apparently are not legitimate.
  Mr. Philip Bell: To get the record straight, the child of a voidable marriage is legitimate if it is born beforehand—under the 1947 Act.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: That would not, I suppose, oddly enough, cover the case of a child born after the decree of nullity in a voidable marriage if there had been fecundae verbera dextrae. That is a rather rare thing, but it illustrates the extraordinary illogicality of a provision of this kind.
  We find from subsection (4), reasonably enough, that if this change in the law is to be made the Clause
  "… does not affect any rights under the intestacy of a person who died before the commencement of this Act, and does not … affect the operation or construction of any disposition coming into operation before the commencement of this Act."
  468
  The words in parenthesis are:
  "except so far as may be necessary to avoid the severance from a dignity or title of honour of property settled therewith".
  Here again, there will be a double standard. If one has a dignity or title of honour one law of succession will apply. If not, then another will apply. It is a very odd provision to make in the law. It is as though those who are proposing this change in the law can say that one result of it might be that under a settlement made by a testator the property will go to one child but the title will go to another, and, therefore, in that case the operation of the rule will be altered ex post facto by this Bill, which seems rather a strong measure. But if, on the other hand, there is no question of a title or honour being separated from some property, then subsection (4) will apply and the interpretation will not be altered. I find that indefensible.
  The comment that I want to make is that the Clause is put before us at a quarter to eleven o'clock at night. It has never been before the House of Commons before. It is an absolutely radical change in the law, and nobody rises to say a word about it. There is a certain amount of impatience on the part of hon. Members opposite that anyone should dare to say a word about a provision like this at this stage of the proceedings.
  I am certainly not going to withdraw from the debate. If anyone were willing to divide the House on the Clause I should be willing to divide. I have opposed the proposal in the past, and I still oppose it on the same grounds. I hope that I have said enough already to indicate to hon. Members that my hon. Friends and I are not making any frivolous opposition at this stage. We feel quite strongly about this. We feel that it is a drastic and fundamental change in the law of England, being made in a most casual and informal way, and I record my protest at this proceeding.
  Mr. John Hobson: I rise with great diffidence at this late hour, but we find ourselves in great difficulty over the Clause when we consider the history of the matter. First, the Royal Commission made a recommendation, without giving any reasons, or, as far as I know, examining the question. The hon. Member for

  469
  Dagenham (Mr. Parker), in introducing the Bill, incorporated Clause 2 originally to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission. From the debates in another place it was made clear that the Clause as it first came before us was quite unworkable. Many things were left in the air.
  In those circumstances, the other place has sent back this intricate and extremely important Clause for our consideration at this late stage It places hon. Members in the very difficult position of detaining their hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite at this hour of the night, and also in the very embarrassing position of deciding whether or not to divide on the Clause, with the risks to the Bill itself from such a Division.
  I have the greatest sympathy for many cases where a void marriage occurs through a technical defect which neither party to the marriage foresaw or understood. Neither may have known that the person who conducted the ceremony was not authorised to do so. Neither may have known that they were within the degrees of consanguinity. There are a hundred and one other technical details which may destroy the marriage and render any children illegitimate.
  But the Clause goes much further, and the House should understand what is being done by it as it now stands. It provides that the test of whether a child of a bigamous union shall be legitimate or not depends upon the question whether one of the parties was deceived. We are considering the question whether the offspring of a union that was thought to be a marriage but never was a marriage—and could not be a marriage in law—should be legitimate. In bigamous marriages which form the vast majority of all cases where marriages are declared void, the question whether or not the offspring will be legitimate depends upon whether the parents were honest with each other about their respective positions. If they were, and they both knew that one or both of them was already married, the unfortunate children of the union will remain illegitimate, despite the Bill. But if, by deception, a man has tricked a woman into going through a bigamous ceremony of marriage with him, she thinking that he is a single man, the offspring are legitimate.
  470
  It seems very odd that the line should be drawn in favour of the children of a bigamous marriage induced by deception and not a bigamous marriage entered into by two people who are frank and open with each other. That is one of the matters which lead me to the conclusion that further consideration should be given to this Clause by everybody concerned.
  Although the supporters of the Bill honestly think that they are conferring great benefits by it, in my submission it will do very little for the ordinary offspring of bigamous and other void marriages, because it will not be possible for these offspring to register themselves as legitimate, as could be done by many persons under the 1926 Act. They will be able to register themselves as legitimate children, once the marriage has been declared void, only if they can produce to the Registrar a declaration by the courts under the Legitimacy Act of 1858, which means litigation. It will not automatically confer a benefit on children and enable them to say, "Despite the fact that it has been discovered that the marriage of my parents was void, I am legitimate." The question will still remain: did one or other, or both, parents know at the time of intercourse whether the marriage was void?
  No automatic registrations will be possible and, therefore, the unfortunate offspring will be in the position that they alone, unless a question of succession to title or property arises, can bring the necessary action to seek that declaration. One can imagine that a person in such a position would not wish to rake up the unhappy past history of his parents. One remembers the litigation, a few years ago, of the Fitzwilliam family and the unfortunate elder brother, Mr. George Fitzwilliam, who had been looked upon as a member of the family and accepted by the friends of the family. The last thing that he would wish would be that the unhappy past history of the family should be litigated in the courts. He and the members of that family and other families would surely prefer to let such matters lie.
  It is only when a question of the succession to a title or property arises that the matter has to be litigated and not until such a matter arises will

  471
  people seek an approach to the courts with the attendant expense and publicity to find out whether they benefit by this legislation. Such a person will be litigating the question of whether his mother was gullible, or whether she was deceived. Until that happens no benefit will be derived by any of the unfortunate children of such a marriage.
  Because of such reasons I feel in a difficult and embarrassing position. I wish that we had longer in which to consider the very important implications in this new Clause. I felt impelled to make those remarks and I apologise to hon. Members for detaining them.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): This new Clause was first added to the Bill during the Committee stage proceedings in this House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General then advised the Committee against its acceptance and gave his reasons for so doing. Since then the principle of the new Clause has been accepted by the House.
  In spite of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), no Amendment was put down on Report to alter the position reached in the Committee. Not a single speech was made against this new Clause, or against the Bill, so far as I remember, during the Third Reading debate. I should have thought that if the House wished to challenge the principle of the new Clause, the right time to have done so was either on Report or Third Reading. That was the position reached at the end of the proceedings in this House.
  11.15 p.m.
  In another place the principle of the new Clause was not challenged, but the Clause was greatly amplified. It was the subject of various Amendments, some moved by the noble lord, Lord Chorley, and some by my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor. The objects of those Amendments were these: they did not attempt to alter the principle of the Clause, but they were designed to make sure that the Clause dove-tailed with other provisions of the Bill, and dove-tailed with previous legislation, especially the Legitimacy
  472
  Act, 1926, and the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950.
  Further, there were various consequential Amendments thought to be necessary, and with great respect to those of my hon. Friends who have addressed the House tonight, challenging the principle of the Clause, I would have thought that the right thing for me to do now is to attempt to explain the form in which the Clause has been sent to us from another place so that such changes of detail made in another place may be understood. I would have thought it would be wrong for me now to attempt, as some have done, to argue the principle.
  I will make only one comment on the principle, based on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), because he is in the strange position that he welcomes the Bill as far as it goes, but is against the Bill because it does not go nearly far enough. In the difficult political world in which we live, there are times when, I suggest, we should be thankful for small mercies, and say that a small bird in the hand is worth a very big bird in the bush.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that my hon. Friend is imputing thoughts to me which never entered my mind at all.
  Mr. Renton: Knowing my hon. Friend as well as I have done for so many years, I did hope that on this occasion, at least, I understood his mind fairly well, and thought that what he was regretting was that the Bill drew artificial distinctions instead of going what he considers to be the whole logical way to abolishing the distinction between letigimacy and illegitimacy. If I misunderstood, I apologise.
  The advice of the Government to the House is that as the principle of the new Clause, which was added in Committee and is now before us as amended by another place, has been accepted by both Houses we should accept the new Clause in the form in which it has come from another place. So that I may assure hon. Members who have any doubts about the changes in the form of the new Clause, changes more of detail than of substance, I will explain the changes made.
  The Clause is based on the recommendations made by the Royal Commission, but it was defective in a number of respects in the form in which it left this House. It implied that a void marriage could be treated as a nullity only when a decree was obtained; it was not clear at what moment the ignorance of the impediment to the marriage must exist, or whether the Clause was intended to apply to children born before the commencement of the Act. Further, no provision was made for succession of property or to titles of honour. The new Clause, while dealing with these points, has given effect, with minor modifications, to the principles underlying the Royal Commission's recommendation.
  If we turn to subsection (1) of the new Clause, which was criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), we find that in a slightly different form it restates the principle of the Clause. Subsection (2) says:
  "This section applies, and applies only, where the father of the child was domiciled in England at the time of the birth or, if he died before the birth, was so domiciled immediately before his death."
  That follows the precedent of the 1926 Act. It is one of the attempts made by another place to ensure that this legislation does dovetail properly with the 1926 Act. I should point out that the 1926 Act, in its turn, followed what in most countries is the generally accepted view of private international law in deciding that a person's legitimacy is normally governed by the law of the domicile of one or both of the parents at the time of his birth.
  Subsection (3) also follows, and follows fairly closely, a precedent in the 1926 Act, which is to be found in Section 10 of that Act, so also is subsection (4), which deals with the rights of intestacy. Subsection (5), although it is the longest subsection in the new Clause, is really drafting and contains definitions which clearly indicate the scope of the Clause. Subsection (6) is of some importance because under the existing law there is some room for doubt whether a court has power to grant an applicant a declaration of legitimacy without, at the same time,
  474
  declaring the validity of the parents' marriage. This, obviously, is inappropriate where a person would be made legitimate by virtue of Clause 2 of the Bill and the subsection makes the necessary amendment by reference to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) raised a point that I should like to answer, because it is most strictly relevant to the application of this new Clause, that is to say, the way it will work in practice. He has pointed out that there is no automatic registration of legitimacy and has suggested to the House that in every one of the cases which might be beneficially covered by the new Clause it will be necessary to get a declaration from the court.
  I am able to set his fears at rest because nearly all births which could conceivably come within the scope of the Clause, that is to say, the births of nearly all children of void marriages, will, in the nature of things, be registered in the normal way in the first instance and will appear to be the registration of children born of lawful normal marriages. At first sight, the position will be that the child is always legitimate.
  It is only when a doubt will arise—and, of course, doubts could arise for various reasons—that it will be necessary for the child or the parents of the child to go to the court for a declaration. Therefore, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will feel consoled by the thought that it will be only in the more exceptional cases that it will be necessary to go to the court for a declaration.
  I hope that it will not be counted as a discourtesy against me if I do not deal with all the other points which have been raised because, I say in all sincerity, I believe that I have dealt with all the points which are strictly relevant to the Amendments from another place. For these reasons, my advice to the House, given on behalf of the Government, is to accept this new Clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 6.—(EXTENT, SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, at end add:
  (4) It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This subsection has been added to place beyond all doubt the fact that the Bill does not affect the succession to the Throne. However unlikely it may be that the circumstances contemplated in the Bill will, in practice, be met with in the line of succession to the Throne, it is essential that there should be no room for argument or speculation whatsoever.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Title
  Lords Amendment: In line 1, leave out "and to improve" and insert:
  476
  "to legitimate the children of certain void marriages and otherwise to amend."
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment, and that in line 3, leave out "in other respects," stand together, and the Title of the Bill has to be amended so as to refer expressly to the object of Clause 2, which, as the House now knows, legitimates the children of a void marriage if either parent was ignorant that the marriage was void.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Remaining postponed Lords Amendment in the Title, line 3, agreed to.

  Title

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Youth Service (Consultative Council)
  Youth Service (Consultative Council)
  Hospital (Maternity Beds)
  Hospital (Maternity Beds)
  Trades College, Dundee
  Trades College, Dundee
  Licensing Law (Committee)
  Licensing Law (Committee)
  Criminal Offences (Costs on Acquittal)
  Criminal Offences (Costs on Acquittal)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  B.O.A.C. SERVICES (TOKYO—UNITED STATES)
  B.O.A.C. SERVICES (TOKYO—UNITED STATES)
  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION (SPEECHES)
  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION (SPEECHES)
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (CHAIRMANSHIP)
  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (CHAIRMANSHIP)
  ZETA PROJECT
  ZETA PROJECT
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Financial Year
  Financial Year
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Parliamentary Questions (Cost)
  Parliamentary Questions (Cost)
  Earned Income Allowance (Maintenance Payments)
  Earned Income Allowance (Maintenance Payments)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Radcliffe Committee (Report)
  Radcliffe Committee (Report)
  Tax Arrears
  Tax Arrears
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Coal (Exports)
  Coal (Exports)
  Free Trade Area
  Free Trade Area
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Private Street Works
  Private Street Works
  Sewage Disposal
  Sewage Disposal
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Teachers' Salaries (General Grant)
  Teachers' Salaries (General Grant)
  Strontium 90 (Wales)
  Strontium 90 (Wales)
  Business Premises
  Business Premises
  Old Town Hall, Chesham (Tower)
  Old Town Hall, Chesham (Tower)
  Factory, Willenborough (Waste Waters)
  Factory, Willenborough (Waste Waters)
  Buckland Woods, Dartmoor
  Buckland Woods, Dartmoor
  R.A.F. Married Quarters, Biggin Hill
  R.A.F. Married Quarters, Biggin Hill
  Braintree Water Scheme
  Braintree Water Scheme
  Detergents
  Detergents
  Cement Dust, West Thurrock
  Cement Dust, West Thurrock
  Land, Hounslow
  Land, Hounslow
  Coast Protection Scheme, Selsey
  Coast Protection Scheme, Selsey
  Coast Protection Act, 1949
  Coast Protection Act, 1949
  Water Supplies, Ripon and Pateley Bridge
  Water Supplies, Ripon and Pateley Bridge
  Brewery Site, London
  Brewery Site, London
  Caravans (Report)
  Caravans (Report)
NYASALAND
  Banned Newspaper
  Banned Newspaper
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  University Facilities, Middle East
  University Facilities, Middle East
NORTHERN CAMEROONS
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
NYASALAND
  Dr. Hastings Banda
  Dr. Hastings Banda
  LEGAL AID (ALLOWANCES)
  LEGAL AID (ALLOWANCES)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Nos. 10, 11 and 12, Downing Street
  Nos. 10, 11 and 12, Downing Street
  Parliament and Grosvenor Squares (Grass)
  Parliament and Grosvenor Squares (Grass)
  Brick Supplies, Swindon
  Brick Supplies, Swindon
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Air Pollution (Diesel Engines)
  Air Pollution (Diesel Engines)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Lincolnshire
  Lincolnshire
POST OFFICE
  Postal Services, Aberdeen
  Postal Services, Aberdeen
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crime (Statistics)
  Crime (Statistics)
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Medical Auxiliaries (Registration)
  Medical Auxiliaries (Registration)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pig (Grading)
  Pig (Grading)
  IRAN (SOVIET PROPAGANDA)
  IRAN (SOVIET PROPAGANDA)
EMPLOYMENT
  Stornoway
  Stornoway
  Remploy Factories
  Remploy Factories
  Government Orders (Priority Suppliers)
  Government Orders (Priority Suppliers)
  National Service Liability (Dismissals)
  National Service Liability (Dismissals)
ROADS
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Road Works (Shift Working)
  Road Works (Shift Working)
TRANSPORT
  Continental Touring Coaches
  Continental Touring Coaches
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Sewing Machines
  Sewing Machines

Preamble
The House met at half past eleven of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

COTTON WEAVING REORGANISATION SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1959
11.35 a.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE) rose to move, That the Cotton Weaving Reorganisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved; and I have no doubt that your Lordships will wish me to explain this Order and the two following Orders together, although I understand that they have to be put separately. As I explained to your Lordships during our debate on the Second Reading of the Cotton Industry Bill, there are two things on which the President of the Board of Trade has to satisfy himself before he approves these draft re-organisation schemes and submits them to both Houses of Parliament. One is that arrangements have been made, and agreed between the employers and the trade unions, for compensation to displaced operatives. The agreement for compensation, of course, does not come into the Orders: it is relevant to them only because the President has to satisfy himself that an agreement has been made before submitting the Orders. In fact, the agreement on compensation is exactly what I indicated to your Lordships during the Second Reading debate, although at that time it had not been finally agreed to in all its details. There is a sliding scale depending on the age of the displaced operative; and it has been agreed that half the compensation is to be paid in a lump sum and the other half in weekly instalments.
The other matter on which the President has to satisfy himself is that the minimum number of machines—looms, spindles, or whatever they may be—to be scrapped under the scheme
634
is enough to justify the expenditure of public money upon it. Your Lordships may remember that in the White Paper certain tentative estimates were given, not on the authority of the Government, but as informed guesses which had been provided by the trade itself—the Weavers' Association and the Spinners' Association. In the case of the weaving section, the manufacturers thought that it might be necessary, in the interests of the industry, to scrap as many as 70,000 looms. I indicated to your Lordships on Second Reading that that figure was only an initial guess, and that it might well have to be revised. The figure which has now been worked out by the special committee of the Cotton Board, after careful consultation with the industry, is 45,000 looms. That, of course, is a minimum. We hope and expect that it will be exceeded; but the President is satisfied that if this minimum figure is reached, it will get rid of enough redundant capacity to justify the expenditure of public money under the Act.
In the case of the spinning section, the minimum figure is 6 million mule equivalent spindles. If there are any ring spindles, which of course will be included in the scheme, a ring spindle will count as 1½ mule spindles. That is to say, if they were all ring spindles, 4 million would be a sufficient minimum; if they were all mule spindles, the figure would have to be 6 million. This figure is actually in excess of what is regarded as the true idle capacity in the industry at the present moment. The figure of idle spindles given in the White Paper was 7½ million, but from that you have to deduct 10 per cent. of the total existing capacity of 24 million spindles, which is the percentage normally idle at any one time. That gives you a true idle number of about 5 million. This minimum of 6 million is, therefore, in excess of that estimated idle number, although it is less than the figure given by the Spinners' Association and quoted in the White Paper, where they estimated that they might want to scrap as many as 12 million. But the 6 million figure now put in the scheme is, again, a minimum which it is hoped will be exceeded.
In the case of the doubling section, the minimum is 400,000 spindles. A

635
considerably larger figure, as your Lordships will remember, was given in the White Paper, but that included a number of firms making sewing thread who are not now included in the scheme at all.
The rates of compensation are, I think, very easily understood. There are in every case three rates: standard, premium, and discount. The standard rate is that which is payable to a firm which scraps a certain number of its spindles or looms but continues in business with what is left. The premium rate is given to a firm which scraps everything and goes out of business. The discount rates are given in respect of looms or spindles which were idle before April 24 but which could have been brought back into use without undue expense, if they had not been scrapped.
In the case of the spinning section, the standard rate of compensation is 8s. a spindle, the premium rate is 10s. and the discount rate 6s. The compensation for carding engines will be found in paragraph 7 of the Reorganisation Scheme, where it says that the standard rate of compensation shall be

"(a) in respect of any number of carding engines not exceeding 1/600th of the number of mule equivalent spindles in relation to which the participant is eligible for compensation at the standard rate, £250 per carding engine;

(b) in respect of any additional carding engines. £50 per carding engine;"

In paragraph 8, your Lordships will see that rates are payable in respect of various types of carding engines and that the whole scale of possible compensation ranges from £50 to £406 according to whether it is premium, discount or standard rate.
Then, in every case, there is a bonus of 5 per cent. if the application is made before August 31. In all three schemes, applications must be made before September 30, but naturally we want to encourage applications to be made as soon as possible, because it is a good thing that the industry should know before September 30 that the minimum number of applications has either been reached or is certain to be reached, so that firms which are doubtful about making an application or not and which would not want to make an application if they were afraid that the minimum might not be reached and the scheme
636
might fall through, may be encouraged to make their applications. Therefore, to promote early application a 5 per cent. bonus is being given for applications made before August 31.
For the doubling section there is a slightly more complicated scale of compensation for spindles. The standard rate is 10s., 12s. 6d., or 14s., according to the size of the spindle. Your Lordships will find the scales set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Scheme. Here again the same conditions apply: bonus of 5 per cent. is being given for applications made before August 31 and the latest date for application is September 30. In all cases, the latest date by which the scrapping has to be finished is March 31 of next year.
In the weaving section, the rates of compensation for looms are again divided into three—standard, premium and discount. The figures are set out in paragraph 7 of the Weaving Reorganisation Scheme, where it provides that looms not stopped at April 24, 1959, receive £60 if the reed spaces do not exceed 48 inches, £70 if the reed spaces exceed 48 inches but do not exceed 72 inches, and £80 if they exceed 72 inches. Those which were stopped at April 24 receive £45, £52 10s. and £60 respectively. The premium rates are set out in paragraph 8 on the next page.
I think that perhaps the only ground for doubt which your Lordships may have is whether the stated amount to be scrapped in these schemes is enough to make them worth while. On that point, I would remind your Lordships that in all cases the amounts given in these schemes are minima and we have every hope that they will be exceeded. After the most careful examination, the special committee of the Cotton Board feel that these minima are the right ones. May I conclude by saying once again what was emphasised on the Second Reading of the Bill? It is very important to the future of the cotton industry that all sections should take advantage of the opportunity which they now have to make their applications and get these schemes into operation by applying before September 30, because if they do not reach the minima by that time the schemes will fall to the ground and this opportunity of getting the industry reorganised will have been lost.

637
I beg to move that the Draft Order be now approved.
Moved, That the Cotton Weaving Re-organisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
11.40 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl for his detailed and clear explanation of the three measures which we are asked to approve. On the Second and Third Readings of the Cotton Industry Bill, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, we on this side did not oppose the Bill and we shall not oppose these Motions this morning, but in view of the very large sum of money involved, I do not believe that it is right that we should let these Orders go through formally. I think to be on the safe side I should declare a personal interest. I am a director of a company within a group which actually owns a weaving mill, and it may be affected by these Orders. I should like to make it clear, however, that I have no direct control or connection with the weaving mill.
I congratulate the Government and the Cotton Board upon producing these measures in a language which I may say is recognisable as English: it has not got all the legal jargon. I was wondering whether the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, a Scottish Peer, had anything to do with this. However, in spite of the simple language, the provisions are complicated, and I believe that there will be certain points which the cotton industry will need clarified. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would draw the attention of the Cotton Board to the need for an information centre to which the various sections of the industry and various firms may go for speedy and expert advice.
If I had had the opportunity of speaking on the Second Reading of the Cotton Industry Bill, my main criticism would have been that, while we are being called upon to agree to a large ex gratia payment to an industry which, on all the facts, has failed to meet the changing circumstances of its trade we have not been told at any time into what form or structure the industry will be converting itself. In fact, we have
638
no indication that the industry will take advantage of this scheme. Bearing in mind those two criticisms, I cannot help feeling that the Bill and these Orders are remarkable pieces of paper. We on this side of the House have never objected to the use of public funds to assist private industry. What we have objected to is the method the Government have adopted. It is not so long ago that the Government made a grant of £50 million to Colville's in Scotland. We did not object in principle to the advancing of this money, but in that case we knew what the end product of the grant was to be: it was to be a modern steel mill. In these measures, however, we are called upon to approve a grant of £30 million to £40 million without any idea that the industry will take part, or, if it does take part, what will be the end product.
It is true that the Minister has power to rescind one or all of these Orders if, in his view, the section has not met its obligations or has acted against the public interest. What I am not clear about is this. If one section fails to satisfy the Minister, will the whole scheme collapse? Even if the other sections are permitted to carry on, failure of one will have a very serious effect on all the other sections of the industry. I am loth to suggest that the Minister should take compulsory powers, but I believe that he should have some powers to deal with a section whose actions may jeopardise the whole future of the cotton industry. There is far too much at stake, apart from public money, to permit the selfish interests of one section, particularly with so many people employed.
The noble Earl in his speech drew our attention to the dates by which firms will have to apply to participate. I can well understand the desire of the Government that early action should be taken by the industry, but I am wondering whether September 30, which is the date by which applications must be made by the spinning section, is not a little too close. Companies, as we know, are controlled by directors; but they have some obligation to their shareholders, and we are giving them only approximately two months to make up their minds whether they stay in business or go out. I question whether two months is really sufficient for a board of directors responsible

639
to their shareholders to make up their minds. I would ask the noble Earl whether the Minister will consider an extension of this date, because I should not like it to be a case that firms might go out but cannot make the decision within the required time.
Anyone knowing the cotton industry well knows that it is divided into watertight departments. Yet each is dependent on the other. But there is nothing in the original Bill or in these Orders to indicate that the interests and requirements of one section have been taken into account when the plans of the other sections were prepared. Can the noble Earl say whether consultations have taken place between the various sections, and whether the Cotton Board are satisfied that the individual schemes of each section will not have an adverse effect on the others? Personally, I have no concern about the three Orders we are considering to-day, but later on in the year we shall be having Orders concerning the printing and finishing section. That section is the end of the process of textile manufacturing, and if there is any serious reduction in printing capability this will have a serious effect on the whole industry. I hope that before that Order is laid before Parliament the Cotton Board will carefully consider the requirements of the weaving section.
One obvious point to which the noble Earl drew our attention was the difference between the elimination target in the White Paper and the elimination required in the Orders. I listened carefully to his explanation. I hope it is not a case that the Cotton Board have set these limits, which are very low, in order that there should be no risk of any of these schemes failing. I am quite sure that the figures in the Orders for elimination of production are far to low, and even if these figures are attained, or anything near them, the industry will not be a great deal better off than it is today. Elimination of production is vital—and there I agree with the Government—but I believe that the key to success is the total elimination of units, and in particular the acknowledged and known inefficient and ancient mills of which there are far too many in this country. It is true that the Government have given various rates of compensation, and they have given a high rate for those
640
firms which are going out of business completely, but I question whether they have given high enough rates, bearing in mind that many of the small firms who will go out of business—or which we hope will do so—will have considerable difficulty in selling stocks of grey cloth finished goods, and disposing of factories and of their other assets. I am wondering whether, in the smaller firms, the inducement that is being offered is really sufficient.
I should like to go one stage further when talking of elimination of units. I personally believe that we must have complete reorganisation in the industry. I believe that at least 80 per cent. of our industry must be what we call vertical—that is, under one roof. You have the whole process from raw cotton to the finished grey cloth or, in some cases, where you are dealing with woven goods, to the finished cloth. I have travelled around, and it was only a few weeks ago that I was in Hong Kong. When I saw the new mills that have been built in Hong Kong and I compared them with some of the ramshackle buildings that one sees in this country, I could well understand why they are so competitive. There they have these modern factories, built within the last five years, where there is no handling other than moving the finished part of the production to the next section. In this country it is a question not of moving it from one factory shed to another; it is one of moving it from one town to another. Having regard to all the handling charges, I do not think it can be denied that we are very inefficient. I hope that the companies will amalgamate so that we can get these large, vertical units, cutting out all the minor profits that at present arise between spinning, weaving and finishing, and having only one profit, and that is the final profit on the grey cloth. If we do that, I am certain that we shall be able to compete, at least with our competitors in Europe.
There is one last point that I wish to make in regard to compensation. I believe it is the case that a firm may receive compensation and go out of business. But there is nothing within these Orders or the Bill to prevent such a firm, after a reasonable time—I have no idea what is the time—from starting up again in the textile business. I do not believe

641
that that is the desire of this House or of the Cotton Board. If the Cotton Board and the Board of Trade see any, shall we say, redevelopment of firms who have taken compensation and appear to be re-entering the cotton business, they should take steps to prevent it. What we have to do, if we are to get an economic price, is to eliminate excess production; and that can be done only by limiting the number of units while at the same time working at full capacity those retained.
I have nothing further to say, at least this morning, except to wish the cotton industry success in its undertaking, and to emphasise what the noble Earl has said. This is possibly the last opportunity of the industry to put its house in order. The industry is extremely fortunate that it has a Government who are prepared to come to its assistance in such a way. It is a remarkable assistance, when we consider the way the Government treat the Colonial Development Corporation—a Corporation which brings help and assistance to our Colonies and yet has to pay a high rate of interest and has to pay back the money. This industry, with all its failures, is getting a very large sum of money, and for many it will be tax-free. I hope that the industry will lake advantage of it and that, with a smaller industry, it will be prosperous and happy
12.5 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, your Lordships have a great deal of Business before you to-day, and I propose to make only a few brief remarks on the Orders and ask one or two questions. When I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the Cotton Bill, in common with other speakers on this side of the House, I expressed a good deal of misgivings. For one thing, I thought the Bill was very vague. But I am greatly reassured in reading through these Orders, which I find give substance and detail to the powers that have been granted under the Bill. Moreover, they seem to me to be well devised and open to little in the way of criticism. I think the Cotton Board is to be congratulated in succeeding in recruiting an excellent team, and that team, in turn, has succeeded in getting the best kind of co-operation from the
642
employers' federations and the unions. This reflects credit on all.
When I first read the Orders, I was considerably perturbed at the very low minima. I am still not satisfied, in spite of what I have heard fall from the noble Earl, that these minima will be sufficient to make the scheme workable. On the other hand, I am convinced that the Government's reason for fixing or agreeing to the Board's very low figures are excellent. I think they are good reasons, and they convince me. I take the view that the scheme would not achieve its object if these minima were not, in fact, exceeded. That means that the Government are taking a gamble; but in my view they are perfectly justified in taking such a gamble—indeed, in fixing or agreeing to these low minima they are, I feel, taking the wisest possible course. A strange situation will, of course, arise if the number of applications is very large. This could mean that the advantage to those electing to remain in the industry would be to a great extent offset by the corresponding heavy burden of the two levies—one for scrapping, and the other for compensation. So we have a possible situation arising that the more select the industry, the more contracted it becomes, the greater the burden of the levies falling on the privileged few who remain.
I have made my comments. I come now to my questions. The first question I should like to ask the Minister is this. In the spinning industry spinners are to be compensated for scrapping preparatory machinery, that is to say carding engines. No such allowance is to be made in the weaving industry for their preparatory machinery, such as winding machines, pirn winders (which are a relatively modern type of machine), warping mills and tape machines and sizing machines. All these are expensive items of machinery, more expensive than the looms themselves, and I wonder whether it would be correct to infer that compensation for these machines is included in the loom rates. The second question is: what measures do the Cotton Board propose for ensuring that machinery on which claims are made is, in fact, capable of being made operational without undue difficulty or expense? That concludes what I have to say.
12.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I take Lord Darwen's questions first? He wanted to know how we should ensure that a loom or a spindle in respect of which a claim was made could be made operational without undue difficulty or expense. That is a decision which, in the last resort, the special committee of the Cotton Board would have to judge, and I think they might judge either by examining the history of the machine or by inspection. They have an expert staff who could be used to inspect the machinery, and I have no doubt that that is the course which they would take if they considered it necessary. They are the authority who would have to decide that question. The noble Lord also asked about preparatory machinery. In the case of looms, we feel that if the loom is scrapped our objective will have been achieved, whatever happens to the preparatory machinery. I think he is right in saying that the compensation agreed on in respect of the looms is calculated with some regard to the other machinery which will have to be dispensed with at the same time.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the support which he gave to these Orders, and I will try briefly to reply to one or two of the particular questions which the noble Lord asked. The last one of all was about firms re-entering the cotton business. There is no method by which one could stop a firm from coming back and starting all over again; but, of course, in the first place, in order to go out of business it has to scrap the whole of its machinery. And we shall therefore have gained our objective of eliminating redundant machinery so far as that firm is concerned. If, much later on, the firm decides to start again from scratch with new machinery, which of course is very expensive, that is entirely its own affair. I do not think we ought to make a rule preventing a firm from coming back again later on entirely new conditions. What we are concerned with here is to get rid of redundant machinery now.
The noble Lord also asked whether, if one scheme failed through the minimum not being reached, the others would fall to the ground. The answer is that they would not; they all stand on their own feet. If one failed and the
644
others achieved the necessary minimum, the others would go on. But that is a position which we very much hope will not arise. I think it would be a very disastrous thing for the industry if any one of these schemes were to fail through there not being enough applications.
The noble Lord thought that in some cases September 30 might be a little too soon for a firm to decide whether or not it was going to come in. When the White Paper was explained, and when the Bill was discussed, we always emphasised—and the industry has agreed with us—the necessity of doing this thing quickly. The period was settled in agreement with the industry, which has always felt that a long period would be inimical to the success of the scheme. The industry has known about the schemes since they were published on July 13. It will have had two and a half months to consider them, and that period is regarded as sufficient, both by the industry itself and by the Cotton Board, which has discussed the matter with them. I will take note of what the noble Lord said about the need for an information centre, although I do not know how far the Cotton Board fulfil that function already.
Then the noble Lord asked whether there had been consultation between the sections. I do not know if there has been consultation between one section and another; but of course these schemes are all prepared and drafted by the special committee of the Cotton Board, which is the Government's agent in this matter. The Cotton Board, moreover, are equally in touch with all three sections and would naturally consider the interests and position of one section in preparing their scheme for another.
With regard to the future reorganisation of the industry, of course that does not arise at all on these Orders, since their only purpose is to secure the preliminary object of scrapping excess machinery. The subsequent re-equipment grants do not come into these Orders, except very indirectly on the point about "claw back," which I explained on Second Reading, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with it again. Whether or not many firms will later on proceed to reorganise themselves vertically I should not like to say. I think the noble Lord is probably right in thinking

645
that in many cases that is the right way of doing things; but there are two opinions about it in the industry, and whether it will be done in a large number of cases I do not know. But the first thing, the essential thing, is to get redundant machinery scrapped and that is really all that these Orders are concerned with for the moment.
12.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, might I, before the Motion is put, say that I told the House when the main Bill was going through what my sort of political interest had been in this matter since 1939, and I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd that we cannot at this stage oppose these Orders, and we do wish that, as this policy has been settled, it may come to success, However, I want to stress, and I am sure the noble Earl will agree, the importance of the industry as a whole taking its chance now; otherwise, we may be only beginning the feasts at the funeral of an industry instead of seeing a real reconstruction. The highly free trade competitive basis upon which cotton was built in the early days of the industry, around the sacred phrase of the division of labour in the world and very cheap cotton (involving very bad conditions for overseas workers—and not very good conditions for people here, either) has in the end brought its own results; and the only real way the industry will be able to compete in the future is to reorganise its basis. If the Government can do anything now, as a halfway step, to promote the amalgamation of those who control these different sections, even though they cannot at the start get all things from the raw cotton to the finished article, under the one roof, it will at least be a start to reducing the overall cost to be charged against the final product before settling the price—because at present we are being priced out of a great many markets. I hope that something will be done in that direction.
In the meantime, the Government having gone as far as they have done, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in this hurried period of the last few weeks during which he has endeavoured to give us all the information he can. We still do not think this policy goes really far enough in recon-
646
struction, but we hope that it will bring a change for the better.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

COTTON DOUBLING REORGANISATION SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1959
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Cotton Doubling Re-organisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON SPINNING REORGANISATION SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1959
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Cotton Spinning Re-organisation Scheme (Confirmation) Order, 1959, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think it would be convenient for the House to know that, as we have to adjourn at about one o'clock, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has agreed that when his Motion is called it will be dealt with only formally. No doubt there will be an opportunity to debate the matter further when we return.

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BILL [H.L.]
12.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The idea about leasehold enfranchisement embodied in this Bill simply means the right of a leaseholder to purchase the freehold of the land on

647
which his home has been built, and of course it is not a new one. This is the 25th Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill which has been introduced to Parliament in the last 75 years, and it differs from its predecessors merely in that it is more comprehensive and that it is the first which has come in the first instance to your Lordships' House.
Of course, leases as a means of conveying an interest in land, as distinct from ownership, have been known in England for more than a thousand years. Their use was encouraged by the peculiar requirements of an English land law which prohibited certain ecclesiastical and other corporations from selling the fee simple of their land. This practice differs widely from the land system in the rest of Europe, with the result that the English law of leasehold is without parallel anywhere else in the world. Private landowners soon saw the advantages of a system whereby they could not only always eat their cake and have it, but also have it returned to them with full possession, together with all the embellishments made and paid for by others. It is small wonder, therefore, that leaseholds increased as towns expanded and populations grew.
From the beginning, the leasehold system has been harsh to tenants. In theory, of course, while the lease endures, the holder should enjoy similar rights to the freeholder. In practice, the status of the leaseholder has always been inferior. This arises from the feudal conception of land ownership. The landowner and the leaseholder were regarded as entering into a personal contract; so that leasehold land was treated as personal property, in the same way as cash or stocks and shares. But freehold land was "real" property, surrounded by a complete system of succession based on law and custom. From this inferior status of leasehold possession spring the anomalies and injustices which this Bill seeks to redress.
The injustices are not only financial. The Industrial Revolution, of course, compelled people to live in the expanding towns, and in most cases, the land available for building was in one or two hands. The owners refused to sell the land, but agreed to grant building leases. They drew their ground rents but took little or no interest in the buildings on
648
the land or the people in the houses. Thus, in 1884, the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes reported that
"the evils of overcrowding, especially in London, were still a pious scandal."
Ten of the fifteen members of the Commission, including Cardinal Manning, signed a supplementary recommendation saying that the system of building on leasehold land was a great cause of many of the evils of which they were complaining. And the recommendation concluded with these words—and remember that they were written 75 years ago:
"Legislation favourable to the acquisition on equitable terms of the freehold interest on the part of the leaseholder would conduce greatly to the improvement of the dwellings of the people in this country."
In that same year, 1884, Mr. Henry Broadhurst introduced in another place the first of the 25 Bills which I have previously mentioned. It was entitled the Leasehold (Facilities or Purchase of Fee Simple) Bill. Its main features were that it applied only to leases with at least 20 years unexpired; that after acquiring the freehold the leaseholder must continue the use of the premises for the same purpose, and that in disputed cases the county court should decide on questions of prices and covenants. In his Second Reading speech Mr. Broadhurst who was a Liberal, said:
"Those in favour of the existing system argued that leaseholders had no just cause for complaint, as they were free to decline entering into the contract. That was an absolutely misleading view—landlords possessed the monopoly of a commodity, which could not be enlarged, and the use of which was essential to the human race. Therefore he dictated his own terms to the house occupier, who was bound to accept them or go homeless. It was a mere fiction to call that state of things freedom of contract. The only freedom that existed was for the landlord to impose such terms as he thought proper; and generally those terms were limited only by the highest price, and the most irksome conditions for the use of the land which he could find a desperate people willing to submit to. He contended, therefore, that the theory that the leaseholder was a free agent would not hold water."
I have quoted that argument, my Lords, not only because I entirely agree with it, but because it effectively disposes of the one argument which has always been advanced against leasehold enfranchisement—namely, the sanctity of contract. In this particular case, to call such contracts sacred is humbug. There can be nothing sacred about a contract which

649
is harsh, unconscionable and extortionate, and which was, moreover, frequently imposed on persons whose poverty and ignorance prevented a clear understanding of the limited character of the interests they were acquiring and of the obligations involved. English law has not, like Shylock, always enforced every contract, however harsh. The equitable doctrines of the Court of Chancery spring from the desire to modify harsh bargains, especially where the parties did not start on equal terms; and in any case, the present Government disregarded the so-called sanctity of contract in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which, in certain circumstances, permits tenants to stay on after leases have expired.
Mr. Broadhurst's Bill was strongly supported by Lord Randolph Churchill who, for his pains, was described by the Attorney-General of the day as "the first bud of democratic Toryism," and by another Member as having uttered "rank Socialism." But, of course, we are familiar with the truth of the fact that language of that kind was uttered seventy-five years ago about many things of which we are all to-day the staunchest supporters. So I am quite sure you will not be put off by the fact that seventy-five years ago the Bill failed to get a Second Reading. But it induced the Government to appoint another Committee, which sat for no less than eight years. It is true that the whole seventy-five years' history of this effort has been one of delaying tactics and inaction, despite many impartial confirmations of the inherent injustices of the leasehold system.
In 1912 the Liberal Government of the day set up yet another Committee but, although its recommendations would have revolutionised leasehold tenure, the First World War intervened before they could be implemented. In 1920 the first real advancement came when the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act was passed. By this Act, retrospective in effect, trustees have the right to enlarge their leasehold interest into a fee simple, and obtain the freehold and any intermediate reversions. The Act applies irrespective of any purpose for which the building was originally let and irrespective of whether the buildings are used exclusively as a place of worship. The lease must have been originally for at least twenty-one
650
years but it applies irrespective of the term unexpired.
But perhaps most important are the provisions for compensation. These stipulate that the value of buildings erected, or improvements made, by the trustees, are excluded from the price of the freehold, even if they were originally erected as a condition of the lease and even when the reversioner had bought the reversion at a price which included the value of the buildings. Therefore, in its most important provisions the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act is identical with my Bill. If it is argued that the amount of land is small, I would mention that in 1920 the Attorney-General said that a single one of the four religious organisations in Wales had, on leasehold land, 347 chapels, said then to be worth £730,000. For nearly forty years this Act has worked well, and remedied undoubted grievances affecting religious communities. That fact is a convincing and final answer to any suggestion that may be made that leasehold enfranchisement is not completely practicable.
Unfortunately, no further progress was made during the inter-war years, despite the introduction, or attempted introduction, of fifteen Bills. But after the war it was found that the problem in some areas had become acute. In 1948 a Departmental Committee was set up under the late Lord Uthwatt, to consider whether and in what circumstances an occupying tenant of residential property should be given the right to purchase the freehold compulsorily. When it reported in 1950 the Committee spoke through the divided voices of a Majority, two Minority and one Supplementary Reports. The Majority Report rejected enfranchisement and its advice was accepted by the Government in 1953, mainly because of the alleged difficulties of application; difficulties which, as I have already indicated, were satisfactorily solved thirty-nine years ago. I would say also that the Government confirmed this by offering to Scotland what is the equivalent of leasehold enfranchisement. One of these days perhaps we shall have a debate and list things where in Scotland they enjoy so very much better rights and advantages and amenities than in England and discover what the reason is. Unquestionably, a similar formula

651
could have been found for enfranchisement in England and Wales had the Government wished.
Instead they introduced the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act which, for residential property, gave the sitting ground lessee, subject to certain conditions, the right to remain as statutory tenant. In addition, the protection of the Rent Acts was extended to cover tenancies previously outside the Acts because the rent was less than two-thirds of the rateable value. The chief weakness of the 1954 Act, however, lies in the severe qualifications on the lessee's right to remain as a statutory tenant. Indeed, there is far more protection for leaseholders of business premises, which is not dealt with in this Bill. For example, if the freeholder requires the property for his own or near relatives' use, or if he requires it for re-development, he can obtain possession; or if the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement, he can be deprived of possession. I could quote many cases illustrating the unreasonable nature of many of these agreements.
But the prime difficulty for many of the kind of people—old age pensioners, for example—who live in these old leasehold properties is that they simply cannot afford to pay the vastly increased rents which can be demanded if they are to exercise their right to stay on. As "new" tenants, although they may have been there fifty years and the property will never be theirs, they are called upon to pay hundreds of pounds for so-called "initial" repairs. These can be paid by instalments, which may amount to £1 a week in addition to a rent of £3 a week: and all this is paid to an owner who neither built, maintained, nor even bought the dwelling as such.
These are the conditions in which the occupants of some 700,000 dwellings find themselves to-day—chiefly in South-West and North London, Wales, especially Cardiff and Pembroke, Lancashire and some Midland areas. All their families are in a state of acute anxiety, particularly during the last few years of their term. Will the freeholder grant a renewal, and, if so, can they pay his price? If not, can they stay as tenants, or will the freeholder be able to take all—house and improvements? They are absolutely
652
at the landlord's mercy and are often made acutely conscious of it. Often they are told that they cannot buy or let at any price. Everything will be taken away lock, stock and barrel. Everything they have done and their father has done before them is the landlord's according to the law.
To give just a single example, in the Pembroke Dock area about 75 per cent. of the houses are leasehold. Prior to the 1954 Act they were estimated to produce in ground rents a gross income of £5,190 a year. Under the 1954 Act—and at no cost to the landlord—they would yield, at a low estimate, £69,000 a year. Surely this sort of thing is offensive to the public conscience. Surely after seventy-five years it is more than time we ended it and gave nearly three-quarters of a million families surcease from anxieties.
The Bill now before your Lordships will give it to them and, in my submission, will give justice to all concerned. May I briefly recount its provisions? Clauses 1 and 2 confer on tenants of dwelling-houses let on leases of more than twenty-one years at a rent less than two-thirds of the rateable value, or statutory tenants under Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, the right to purchase the freehold, including any reversions, at any time before their lease expires. In order to be in a position to exercise that right the tenant or a member of his family must be residing in the house or prove to the satisfaction of the court that he intends to do so.
I would point out particularly that the restriction of this Bill to properties let at less than two-thirds of the rateable value means that we are dealing only with properties where the building content of the rent is very small indeed, or where there is a special reason for that low rent. If it were found that there were any cases of harshness, borderline cases, I am quite sure we should be prepared to find a formula to deal with them, but not a formula which allowed so many years' purchase and would only be an encouragement to speculators who chase after the "fag-end" of leases. Under Clauses 3 to 6 the tenant will exercise his right of purchase by giving six months' notice in writing, which notice shall serve as a contract. The purchase price will be settled by agreement between the parties

653
or, failing agreement, by the court. In cases where the rateable value is less than £100 that means a county court; in cases above £100, the High Court.
Where the court has to decide the price, It will fix a just price for the restricted value of the site only and exclude the value of any buildings standing on it and exclude also the rent of the tenancy, any consideration paid at its commencement or any term unexpired. The court may, at the tenant's request, decide that the price shall be paid by instalments. It is also provided that, if the tenant does not exercise his right of purchase, his lease on expiry will be replaced automatically by a lease for a term of 999 years, and he will be able to exercise the right of purchase at any time. During this period the landlord's right to enforce covenants is restricted to the obtaining of an injunction, and the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, applies irrespective of the length of the unexpired portion of the lease.
Under Clause 8 the tenant is permitted, subject to planning permission, to alter, demolish or erect buildings without the consent of or giving notice to the landlord. He is also allowed to insure with a responsible fire office of his choice, subject to production on demand of the receipt for the annual premium. Finally, Clause 10 excludes from the provisions of the Bill Crown properties or those belonging to Government Departments in cases where they are reasonably required for the exercise of their distinctive public functions; and in all such cases the Minister's certificate to that effect will be deemed conclusive evidence.
My Lords, I hope that, as briefly as possible, I have indicated not only the need for this Bill but also its purpose and that I have made the intentions of the Bill clear. Its language, I believe, is sufficiently straightforward for my lay understanding, and I hope it will commend itself to you, my Lords, above all, for its justice; because when it reaches the Statute Book this measure will remove an injustice which has marred our law of property for hundreds of years. Above all, it will remove the anxieties and hardships suffered, or likely to be suffered, through no fault of their own, by hundreds of thousands of people. As such, it not
654
only deserves but will, I am sure, receive your sympathetic consideration and support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
12.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for that very clear enunciation of his point of view. With many important matters before the House to-day, I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me if I reply rather briefly and confine my remarks to pointing out what, to my mind, are the defects in the approach to leasehold enfranchisement which the noble Lord has chosen in this Bill, without entering on a more general discussion of the merits and demerits of the present leasehold system. The noble Lord is, of course, conscious, as I am, that at this late stage in the Session a Bill introduced can have no prospect of success, but I should not be doing justice to the trouble he has taken in bringing this Bill before your Lordships if I did not examine its provisions and point out my objections to them.
As the noble Lord told us, the Government's policy on leasehold property was set out in the White Paper entitled Government Policy on Leasehold Property in England and Wales, which I presented to Parliament in 1953, following the very full examination of all aspects of the problem undertaken by the Leasehold Committee between 1948 and 1950, whose majority recommendations as the noble Lord said, were generally accepted. My Lords, the two points which struck the Government at that time were, first, that the predominant need of the long leaseholder at the end of his lease was for security of tenure; and, secondly, that the difficulties of enfranchisement were many and we could see no easy way to overcome them. May I say, in parenthesis, that I hope we shall continue to examine these difficulties? I am grateful for any suggestion. I do not want to close the door, but I want to maintain certain principles which I shall put, very shortly, to the House.
I should like just to say one word on the working of the 1954 Legislation. Your Lordships will remember that by

655
the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954 we conferred security of tenure, and I have every reason to believe that it is working well. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that it was severe on the tenant, and I should like him to consider the figures that have been given to me, because they are rather striking. The House will remember that under the terms of the Act a ground lease does not come to an end on the expiry of the term, but runs on until the landlord either obtains from the county court an order for possession or settles terms for the continuation of the tenant's occupation on a statutory tenancy. The grounds for possession are the same as those under the Rent Acts, with an additional ground where the landlord wishes to demolish or redevelop the premises.
In the four years to the end of 1958, only nine orders for possession were made in the whole of England and Wales; so very few tenants were dispossessed at the end of the ground lease. If the landlord wishes to convert the ground lease, on or after its expiry, into a statutory tenancy he must take the initiative and seek to agree the terms with the tenant, and in default of agreement refer the matter to the county court. The number referred to the courts are very small: 27 in 1955; 20 in 1956; 12 in 1957, and 4 in 1958. So here again the indications are that landlord and tenant have no difficulty in coming to amicable arrangements. No case has been brought to the notice of my Department, to which all complaints relating to the law of leasehold are channelled, where a tenant has been forced to leave his home because he could not afford to remain on the terms of the statutory tenancy.
I have mentioned those figures because leasehold enfranchisement is often put forward as a means to protect the leaseholder against the risk of losing his home and I wanted to show that that risk is very slight indeed. If, on the other hand, the object of leasehold enfranchisement is only to enlarge the occupying tenant's rights into complete ownership, or, in other words, to make it easier for some persons to acquire the freehold of the house they live in, one is entitled to demand that the method of doing so should be one which is, first, fair to the interests of landlord and tenant alike;
656
second, which does not produce gross anomalies; and, third, which adequately safeguards the interests of the rest of the community. When I apply these tests I am driven to the conclusion that the Bill offends against all of them.
To my mind, the most important provision of the Bill is Clause 7, which automatically turns every lease to which the Bill applies into a 999-year lease when the ground lease expires. Converssion into a 999-year lease cannot be excluded by agreement, and in fact can be prevented only by previous enfranchisement. The effect of the clause is to expropriate the reversionary rights of the landlord and to present them, free of charge, to the tenant who occupies the house at the time of the enactment of the Bill. Such a result is bound to be unfair, and I should like to illustrate it by examples which would be by no means uncommon.
First, a tenant who happens to have bought the "fag-end" of a long lease—perhaps the last two to five years, which can often be bought for a mere token payment—will be presented with a long lease of a considerable capital value. He could sell it immediately at a large profit. Now let us take the case of a landlord who has bought the property near the end of the lease and has probably paid a sum approaching the vacant possession value of the house. He would lose the greater part of his asset; if he sold it, he would obtain only the capitalised value of the rent. My Lords, in my view the automatic conversion into a 999-year lease under Clause 7 leaves little point in providing for a purchase price for enfranchisement in Clause 5, which takes into account the value of the site and other terms of the ground lease. As the value of the tenancy to the landlord is the capital value of the ground rent, and no more, a tenant would surely be able to strike a bargain by paying that capitalised value and paying nothing for the value of the site.
However, assuming that the house was enfranchised at the price provided in Clause 5, the price would still be very unfair, because the Bill provides that the value of the buildings is to be ignored. The erection of the building, as Lord Stonham mentioned, way well have been, and probably was, part of the original

657
bargain, and may well account for the smallness of the ground rent. The ground rent is made smaller on the condition that the building is erected on the ground. Moreover, it may be that the landlord has only recently bought the reversion at a price which included a large sum for the value of the building; and he would now be compelled to sell it to the tenant at a price ignoring that value. I also consider the guidance which the clause gives to the court for fixing the price too uncertain and ambiguous to be workable.
I should like to put this point to Lord Stonham, because, if he remembers the events of six years ago, I think he will do me the justice of agreeing—and so will the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West—that I tried very hard to deal with practical points; and these are the points that we have got to meet. In fixing the price, regard is to be had, inter alia, to the rent reserved by the terms of the tenancy and to the length of the unexpired term. Now, frankly I do not know the answer to this. Where the rent is large, should the price be larger, reflecting the value of the rent, or smaller because the tenant has already paid more? Taking my other point: if the unexpired term is long, should the price be higher because the landlord can expect to receive the rent for a long time, or lower because lie will have to wait a long time before the reversion falls in? My Lords, these are not debating points. This is an instruction to the court. I frankly do not know the answers to these questions, and they are very difficult ones.
Then there is the question of the late purchasers. I have already mentioned the arbitrary results which spring from leasehold enfranchisement if there is no provision to exclude the late purchaser. Allowing for the cost of dilapidations, there is little difference between the man who buys a seven-year lease of a house and the man who buys the seven-year remainder of a ground lease. The price would be the same, apart from dilapidations; and there is no reason why the latter should have a right to enlarge his lease into a 999-year lease or to buy the freehold at an artificially low price. I would put it to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the need to exclude late purchasers was recognised by the minority of the Leasehold Committee who advocated enfranchisement. I will
658
not mention names, but they were colleagues of ours in another place for whom we have great affection and respect. They recommended the exclusion of persons who had bought the "fag-end" during the last ten years of the lease. In our view, it would also be unfair not to protect the landlord who has bought his interest in the last ten to fifteen years of the lease against enfranchisement because he will have paid a substantial sum on account of the reversion. The Bill, my Lords, contains no exclusions at all.
Now, my Lords, time is going on. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to believe that I could deal with the other points very fully; but I only want to put them in his mind. First of all, in regard to repairing covenants, I think the Bill would lead to undesirable results, because subsection (3) of Clause 7 provides that a landlord may not enforce the covenants of the lease (other than covenants for payment of rent, or against user for business purposes or illegal or immoral purposes) by forfeiture, reentry or an action for damages. The right to obtain an injunction is preserved, but as this will not avail to enforce positive undertakings like covenants to maintain and repair, these would in effect become unenforceable.
My Lords, the second point is that the Bill contains no exclusion in regard to flats. As noble Lords will know, it has become a well-known method of dealing with flats to sell them on long leases containing covenants for the maintenance of the building, surrounding ground and gardens, the cleaning of staircases and windows, and the upkeep and repair of drains, water tanks, et cetera. That method operates to the benefit of all concerned. As I say, the Bill has not the exclusion which has been recommended, as noble Lords are aware, by those who have considered the subject.
The next difficulty is the difficulty of apportionment. I found that that was a great difficulty when I was examining the problem six years ago, because a ground lease frequently covers more than one house; and if each tenant is to be entitled to enfranchise his home it is necessary to apportion the various interests—and it is almost impossible to devise a formula which will fit the infinite variety of tenancies which may

659
have been created. There is also the question of the break-up of larger estates. This is not from a feudal point of view, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested: it is from the point of view that there are often covenants designed to preserve the amenities of the estate for the benefit of all the tenants; and it would be most unjust to his neighbours if one leaseholder were to be allowed, as he would be under the Bill, to enfranchise his house and to extinguish the covenants. I need not go into the other problems presented by large estates. I set out these difficulties in the White Paper, and I am sure that the noble Lord has them in mind.
I do not want to tire your Lordships with further objections, but I could not devise a scheme of enfranchisement which would operate fairly, overcome the many difficulties, some of which I have stated, and still be sufficiently simple in its operation and general in its application to be worthwhile. Regretfully, in my view, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has not found a solution. I was in charge of operations in 1953 and 1954 and I do not want your Lordships to think that I have any amour propre in the matter; nor am I saying that, because I produced that legislation it is the last word. I hope that your Lordships know enough of me to know that among my many faults, that is not one. I would be pleased to consider the difficulties and try to find a solution.
Therefore, in the particular circumstances, I suggest that we adjourn the debate on this Bill, so that the noble Lord will have an opportunity of dealing fully with the many difficulties. I should like to have a general debate, not only on the points the noble Lord mentioned to-day, but on other aspects of the problem, which I should like to hear debated and which I am thoroughly ready to examine. I hope that the noble Lord will not take what I have said to-day as the end of the story. What I said was bound to be negative, because I was bound to produce the difficulties I saw in the way of this Bill in the shortest time I could. But let us continue to examine the problem, to consider my points, and the answers which the noble Lord will no doubt have to them, and any alternative suggestions which he may think may
660
fit the difficulties. I hope that the noble Lord will believe that it is in a mental attitude of reasonableness, though my words may seem negative, that I approach his problem. If I may say so, I am truly grateful to the noble Lord for the able, clear and restrained way in which he deployed his argument. I suggest that a convenient course is that the debate on this Bill be adjourned sine die.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may be allowed, with leave, to acknowledge the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion, I should like to thank him for the manner in which he has dealt with this subject. I think that his suggestion is the only possible one in the circumstances. This discussion has been of great value. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Granville-West, because of lack of time, could not reply to some of the points made by the noble Viscount. I am sure that his suggestion is the only one possible and I accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned sine die.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned sine die.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned sine die accordingly.

AFTER-CARE SERVICE FOR THE SICK
1.3 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE had given notice of his intention to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to defects in the care and after-care service for the sick, especially the elderly sick, in the London area; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the time, and after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, I do not propose now to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before we adjourn, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for adjourning this debate. I am sorry that we did not have the time. The noble Lord has been courteous enough to send me a letter setting out fully the matters he had intended to raise, and I assure

661
him that I will write to him in reply to his letter, doing my best to answer him in writing what I would have answered from this Box. If the noble Lord wishes to raise the matter again when we come back after the Recess, I shall be pleased.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move chat the House do now adjourn during pleasure until the hour of two-thirty this afternoon.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until the hour of two-thirty this afternoon.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned during pleasure accordingly until two-thirty o'clock.

COLONIAL SERVICE PENSIONS
2.30 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the policy of Colonial No. 306 of 1954, which states inter alia that members of Her Majesty's Colonial Service have rightly regarded themselves and have been regarded as belonging to a general Service under the Crown, is still that of Her Majesty's Government.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the answer is Yes: the policy remains unchanged, although Her Majesty's Colonial Service referred to in the Question has been superseded by Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that satisfactory Answer, even if it does comprise all that I hope it does, I would ask this supplementary question. In that Paper, Colonial No. 306, it says that Her Majesty's Government will give every consideration to seeing that the Colonial Service does not lose in the future, and it also includes the continuing payment of pension already awarded. Would that include any consideration or any moral liability to try to get for those pensions which have already been awarded similar
662
increases to those recently awarded under the Pensions (Increase) Act in this country?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think the answer is that, while Her Majesty's Government would certainly do all that they could in that respect, if the territory concerned did not listen to their representations, there would be no obligation for Her Majesty's Government to do any more. In that connection, I think I should tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend is about to address the overseas Governments for whose affairs he is responsible, drawing attention to the provisions of the new Pensions (Increase) Act and asking them to consider whether further improvements in their own schemes are now desirable.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, perhaps I may ask this further supplementary question. Does that include widows' and orphans' pensions, as well?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not know whether it specifically does, but I see no reason why the point about widows and orphans should not be drawn attention to at the same time as the other.

TELEPHONE CREDIT CARDS
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUM-OCHTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce arrangements so that calls can be made from any telephone and charged to a private or office telephone account.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to inform the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Postmaster General proposes to introduce this facility. The idea is that subscribers who wish to use it would be issued with telephone credit cards. Each card would have a special number and by quoting this to the telephone operator the caller would be able to make inland or overseas calls from any telephone, including call offices, without payment at the time. The calls would be charged to the account of the credit card subscriber. It

663
is hoped the system will be ready for introduction by the end of this year for early next. My right honourable friend will present Regulations to Parliament as soon as possible.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUM-OCHTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this news, which will be very much welcomed by the business community as well as by private individuals. I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, will this system be on similar lines to the telephone credit card system operating in the United States; and secondly, may I take it that this new facility will be available for local telephone calls and trunk calls, including calls to overseas subscribers, and that instead of having to find the actual coins representing the cost of the call—which is often a great nuisance—in future a subscriber will be able to quote the credit card number and will then be connected to the subscriber at the other end?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, generally speaking, the system will be similar to that which is used in the United States of America and Canada, although I should not like to be pressed to-day for actual detailed information about the scheme. So far as calls are concerned, it will be possible with the aid of the credit card to make any call to any number, local, trunk or any form of inland or overseas call.

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF AND POLITICS
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE had given Notice of the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Lord Taylor in this House on July 13 implying that members of the staff of the Medical Research Council are cross-examined on their political affiliations before being permitted to serve as Justices of the Peace.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, on a point of order, may I ask the Leader of the House what he thinks about the next Question on the Paper? I have been in Parliament for a long time and I have never seen a Question of this
664
kind on the Paper before, inviting the Government to make comment on a debate they have read—and we are constantly told that they give the most intimate attention to everything that is said. Now they are invited to make comment on what was said. If the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has a complaint to make, he should make that complaint plainly; and if the Government wish him to ask a Question in order to invoke a reply, let them make their reply on their own responsibility.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not see anything wrong with the Question or anything unusual about it, if my noble friend wishes to put it down. He has drawn attention to a statement made and asked if it is true, and, as the matter falls within my Departmental responsibility, I propose to answer it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is not this just a continuing of the debate in a one-sided way, in which one person makes a statement and no one has a chance to reject it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think so. Serious allegations were made, one relating to a particular case, by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, without previous notice, certainly to the responsible Minister. It seems to me perfectly proper for my noble friend to inquire whether there is substance in the charge.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the Question put down at Lord Hailsham's request?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
A NOBLE LORD: That is a shocking suggestion.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, my Lords, and I have naturally inquired of the Medical Research Council concerning the truth of this allegation. I am glad to learn that the Medical Research Council would consider it wholly improper to question a member of their staff on his political affiliations in this or

665
any other context. I am informed that the Council regard the duties of a J.P. as fully compatible with service on their staff and would put no obstacle in the way of anyone wishing to undertake such work. I understand that the individual to whom the noble Lord alluded has been personally much distressed by the entirely false impression that the speech created.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his statement, which I think quite evidently clears the Medical Research Council of the unfortunate imputation which the noble Lord made, and while not wishing to stand between the House and the statement that I have no doubt the noble Lord will wish to make on this matter, may I ask my noble friend whether he has actually seen evidence from the doctor concerned as to the correctness or incorrectness of the speech——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD COLERAINE:—and whether the doctor was made a Justice of the Peace with the approval of the Medical Research Council? May I ask, finally, when this alleged incident was supposed to have occurred?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as regards the last point, I understand that the incident referred to took place nine years ago. The member of the staff of the Medical Research Council was made a Justice of the Peace. I do not think I should say more about the first part of the matter than that I have satisfied myself that the research worker concerned did, in fact, categorically deny what the noble Lord attributed to him.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, nobody knows anything about the case except the two noble Lords who have trumped up this Question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House whether the noble Lord who made this statement did not know something about it before he made this allegation?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I certainly knew something about it, and in view of the allegations made by the noble Viscount, I think the proper course for
666
me to take is, with your Lordships' permission, to make a personal statement to-morrow.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

THE COMMON MARKET AND PROPOSED FREE TRADE AREA
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON THE EARL OF SWINTON rose to call attention to the problems of the Common Market and the proposed Free Trade Area; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it will be generally agreed that this Motion which has been standing in my name on the Order Paper for a long time will now give rise to a singularly well-timed debate. It is a supremely important subject, and in recent weeks a great deal has been happening. Almost as soon as the long-drawn out negotiations with the Rome Powers, as they are called—the European Economic Community—broke down, negotiations started between the seven other free European countries. They have now come to a conclusion—I am glad to say a satisfactory conclusion—and only this morning (it has not given noble Lords much time to study it, but that is no fault of the Government; they produced it as quickly as they could) we have had the White Paper giving the Stockholm draft plan on which an international Convention is to be based. It may also be a well-timed debate because this may well be, or at any rate may possibly be, the last occasion on which the Government will be able to expound their policy to Parliament before they return after the next General Election to implement it for another period of five years.
Let me deal first, as the Motion does, with the Common Market. What I would say to the House, speaking in the light of to-day, is this. When we come to consider the Common Market we really must be realistic. It is no good any of us arguing whether we think a Common Market is a good or a bad thing; whether, if it had rested with us, we would have had a Common Market in Europe. To day that is all quite beside the point. To-day the Common Market exists: good or bad, whether we like it or not, it is there. I think there would be general agreement in the House—except possibly among one or two Liberals—that we

667
could not have joined the Common Market as full members. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Henderson concurs in that. It would have been wrong from a domestic point of view. It would have made it, I think, impossible, or certainly would have greatly handicapped us in carrying out what is an agreed agricultural policy between the two Parties, and it would have been quite wrong vis-à-vis the Commonwealth, because it would have involved us in breaking or altering those agreements which have subsisted for thirty years ever since Ottawa, and to which we and the Commonwealth attach great importance.
At the same time, I think there will be equally wide support for the view that it is in the interests of this country and the Commonwealth that we should be associated with the Common Market in a Free Trade Area. That is not a matter of speculation. Fortunately, the Commonwealth were able to consider this, and to consider it exhaustively, at the Conference at Montreal last year. In the Report of the Montreal Conference (Cmd. 539) all the countries asserted this:
"It"—
that is the Conference—
"reaffirmed the conviction of Commonwealth countries that an outward-looking Free Trade Area in which trade would be increased rather than merely rechannelled would contribute to their common objective of an enlarging world economy."
May I consider for one moment, and ask the House to consider, why a Free Trade Area in which we should be parties is, as I think, so enormously important to this country? It is axiomatic to say that we live by export; that we have to export, and shall have to do so more and more, at strictly competitive prices. I do not want to lecture the House on economics—I am not competent to do so. But even as poor an economist as myself knows from business experience that costs and prices depend upon the volume of sales that you have, and the amount you can produce and sell. Therefore, we need the widest possible market.
As I see it, there would be a serious danger to our trade if the European Economic Community pursued a protective policy which increasingly excluded the United Kingdom from the six European markets. We should suffer in at least three ways. In the first place, our
668
trade would be increasingly cut out of a market of 160 million of the richest customers in the world. In the second place, the industries within this Customs Union, and particularly the West German industries, would have the benefit of their great protected home market; and with that protection they would be able to reduce their costs and undersell us, not only in that protective market, but in all the other markets of the world. The third way in which I think we should be injuriously affected is less apparent, perhaps, but I think the House will accept it as obvious and important—indeed, the Government will know more about this than I do. From what I have heard, there are already evidences that this risk to which I am going to refer is already more than theoretical.
In the past, Americans, whose costs of manufacture in the United States are high, have constantly established factories or associations in Europe in order that they could manufacture in Europe for sales to the whole Continent of Europe and, indeed, for export to many countries outside Europe. Fortunately, in a great many instances the American firms have come to this country, and have either established subsidiary companies here or, which is even better, associated themselves with a British firm, to the great advantage of both. That is the very best way in which we can get American capital into this country, because it is not loan capital which can be taken away or called back as a loan if the industry gets into trouble: it is equity capital, which is put there and stays there, for better or for worse. It brings us dollars. It brings great employment to this country. It promotes Anglo-American goodwill, and for every reason it is a movement which I think we should all agree is all to the good.
If the most lucrative set of customers in Europe are within a protective enclave which it will become increasingly difficult for exports from this country to enter, it stands to reason that American industry seeking to establish itself and manufacture in Europe is going to be much more likely to establish itself inside the Customs Union of the six countries than to come to this country. Those are three pretty good reasons why a Free Trade Area is important to us. I think there is another reason. We should also suffer in finance and merchanting at a time

669
when the strength and convertibility of sterling is making such a marked contribution to our trade balance and to the strength of the pound.
So much for the economic side. But the danger is not only on the economic side. I am not sure that an even more serious danger is not what I may call the political, the international, side. I do not think anybody in this House will deny that more and more the cold war will intensify itself on the economic front. We are seeing it already. I am sure that more and more the combined security of free Europe is going to depend quite as much on economic co-operation as on combined defence. I do not think it is too much to say that the whole structure of European defence—built up by Ernest Bevin, carried on by successive Governments, brought to so successful a state in recent years—would be weakened and in time might be, I think would be, completely undermined if free Europe were to be divided into two opposite economic blocs.
That does not mean that we should, or could, have remained impassive. I am sure it was right that the other countries in Free Europe should form their own trading area and make their own reciprocal trade arrangements. I know that some industries are anxious whether they will be able to stand up to the increased competition which a Free Trade Area will bring, and they may look to me as one of the formulators and protagonists—I have to admit it; I think I wrote most of it—of the general tariff; it was behind that tariff that they sheltered. It was not meant necessarily to be a shelter for all time, and, broad and large, I believe that British industry, given a great expanding area, is strong enough, active enough, inventive enough and resilient enough to stand quite a lot of competition.
But there are some industries which will be up against peculiar difficulties. There are the paper-makers, who are quite an efficient industry, if I may say so respectfully; there are probably one or two of them in the House. They are, as I knew when I was Minister of Materials, quite efficient. But, apart from the fact that I think that in the Scandinavian countries there are some cartel agreements which probably would not be allowed here, the Scandinavian paper manufacturers, by reason of the con-
670
tiguity of the forests to the factories, enjoy a peculiar advantage, in that they can bring the raw material very easily to the factory. Not only that; they can, rather like running a steel mill or strip mill, run a continuous process of pulp-making and paper-making in the same place. That is a serious matter.
I have been looking—hurriedly, because I had it only for an hour or two; I could not have had it earlier—at the Stockholm draft, and I see that there are provisions made for industries that are, or may be, particularly hard hit. If your Lordships look at paragraphs 19 to 24 of the draft you will see these provisions. There is one provision—I think it is the one at the end, probably paragraph 24—which suggests that in special cases the rate of reduction of the tariff might be slower. The general plan is that in the first year there shall be a 20 per cent. cut in all the tariffs, and then that that should go on by, I think it is, a 10 per cent. or a 5 per cent. cut in subsequent years. But there is the provision that it might be arranged in particular cases that the initial reduction should not be as steep as 20 per cent. There is also a provision that an industry which is very hard hit might protect itself, at any rate for a period of eighteen months, and then it would be subject to consideration by what I think they call the institutional authority, whatever that is.
There is rather an odd phrase. It speaks about the possibility of a "spectacular decrease" in domestic demand due to foreign imports. I put some very odd words into Acts of Parliament; my noble friend, Lord Taylor—or was it the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough?—was reminding me about safeguarding industries, in a rather more kindly way, I must say, than I remember at the time when I was piloting these Bills. I did put some rather odd phrases in about employment. On the whole, they worked very well, or fairly well. But I never put the word "spectacular" into an Act of Parliament, and I should rather like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he would, by an intervention or after-thought, tell us how he would construe "spectacular" as regards imports if he found it in an Act of Parliament. At any rate, there are these provisions.
But, my Lords, all economic policy involves a balance of risks; indeed, I am not sure that all policy to-day does not involve a balance of risks, and competition is a risk which has to be faced in any Free Trade Area. I am quite sure that it is a risk which this country, to whom export to the widest possible market is more vital than to any other country, must accept, because against the risk of competition there is the certainty that if you do not accept it there will be less trade all round and we shall be increasingly pushed out of these common markets.
As Montreal affirmed, we have to safeguard our agricultural and Commonwealth interests. Fortunately and wisely, this country—and it has been common policy between our two Parties—has based its agriculture on a system of guaranteed prices, and that enables us to harmonise our agricultural and industrial and trading interests. Your Lordships debated the pig agreement the other day. You will find various references to agriculture in the Stockholm draft, and you will also find at the end a document, put in, I think, by the Danish Government, a sort of statement of what the Danish Government would like to see in what they consider a perfect world—something that few of us will see on this side of the grave; therefore I take it that it has not necessarily got binding force. I think that the pig agreement is all right in itself—and a much better authority than I supported it in this House, and he is a great addition to our membership—and it is certainly all right as a price we have to pay, because when you make bargains you cannot have everything entirely on one side, unless you happen to be making a trade treaty with a satellite State, and we have not got any satellites in Europe.
I think we want to make quite sure—and I am sure the Government will; perhaps the noble Earl will say something when he replies—that the Convention which is to be drafted, and which will come up some time in the autumn, does not in any way hamper our agreed agricultural policy, and that it does not go beyond the bilateral agreement which we have made with Denmark and which I think most of us are prepared to accept. Fortunately, we can also make satisfac-
672
tory mutual arrangements with European countries without sacrificing or prejudicing our Commonwealth interests. I do not propose to argue that point, but I think that the Commonwealth have accepted it; and the Danish agreement is so skilfully drafted that it scarcely touches the cheese which we get from the Commonwealth. Therefore, I would say that we should welcome the Stockholm agreement and encourage and support the Government in their further negotiations. In passing, I should like to say that I am glad that the seven countries on the Stockholm side include our old Ally Portugal, which has recently had such a successful trade exhibition in Lisbon, and which I think will be much to our mutual advantage.
But let us just look at the alternative if we did not join the Stockholm countries. There would be a second large Customs Group in Europe from which we were also excluded, and we should be reduced to living not on each other's but on our own washing. I do not think that that would greatly raise the standard of life in a Welfare State or any other State. The detailed arrangements of a Free Trade Area would, of course, be most complicated. One has only to read the Stockholm draft—and it does not cover everything—to see what a number of things have to be provided for. One thing I would say, as an old negotiator of commercial treaties, is: whatever you do, for Heaven's sake write it in clear language which everybody can understand! Those on either Front Bench who have had to deal with American tariffs know the hopelessness of the situation when the question of some new commodity arises. For months, probably for years, you do not know under what section of that odd tariff the commodity will come. Let us be so clear that he who runs, he who competes, and he who trades, may read.
I do not want to get bogged down by a lot of particulars; but there are some matters which are of such importance that I think they ought to be mentioned, even in a general debate. In the first place, there must be clear rules as to what goods are to be entitled to free trade area treatment. That has given rise, even under most-favoured-nation clauses, to all sorts of difficulties in the past, and I see that a pretty good attempt has been made at Stockholm, in, I think, paragraph 25,

673
to deal with that matter. Your Lordships will see the criteria which are proposed for testing what are goods of the home country's origin; and special provision, incidentally, is made about textiles.
The next thing I would say is that there must be clear and promptly effective rules about export subsidies and dumping, otherwise the whole Free Trade Area may be undermined, and instead of the maximum of goodwill you will get a maximum of ill-will. In paragraph 44 of the Stockholm draft, an attempt is made to deal with that. It is not very informative, and I do not know whether or not it is adequate. What I am quite clear about is that the Government ought to go into that question. Therefore I am glad that they are negotiating to get the matter perfectly clear, and to see that the rules are prompt and effective. I do not want to raise controversial issues, but if it is merely that it would be permissible under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, I am not sure that I am very happy about it. Because while G.A.T.T. may have all sorts of virtues that I have been only partially able to appreciate, I do not think that it is much good when it comes to dealing with dumping. We are making a new start in this Free Trade Area; and the whole idea—it goes through both the preamble and all the details—is that we really are going to deal with each other absolutely on an equality basis. If that is so, and we want a fresh start, let us have some simple practical definition of dumping and a way of preventing it quickly as soon as it shows its ugly head. If we have that, then I am not afraid of any competition that we may have to meet.
There are two other points. As I read the draft, I think every attempt is being made to provide that all the members must be given access to raw materials on non-discriminatory terms. Finally, I would say that the timetable of the reduction in tariffs, and the reductions in quotas and other discriminations, should be reasonably flexible, not to enable any of us to get out of it, but to permit of a. mutual alignment between the reductions of the Stockholm Powers and the reductions of the European Committee who are associated under the Rome Treaty. I welcome this scheme and the full association. I welcome it for its own
674
sake. Above all, I welcome it because I believe it will be easier for the Seven together to negotiate, as a team, with the Six than to try to make a great many bilateral agreements with an individual Power which may be determined not to make any agreement if it can possibly avoid it, and because I am quite certain that a wide Free Trade Area must be our constant aim, not only in our own interests but in the interests of the whole of free Europe. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.8 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I feel that I myself, and I think the whole of the House, are greatly indebted to the noble Earl who has brought forward this Motion, because it is most timely and it coincides, first of all, with the ending of this part of the Session and, secondly, with the exceedingly interesting White Paper which was put into our hands only to-day. I should like, speaking not only for myself, but I think in the main for all those who sit behind me, to say that, in broad outline at any rate, we are in full agreement with the point of view put forward by the noble Earl. If I have one slight difference from him—it is probably more a difference of degree than of essential—I think he under-stressed a little the semi-political side both of the Common Market and of this agreement. It is quite true that both the Common Market provisions and this new proposal for the union of the seven countries are primarily economic; but I think that behind or beyond the economic objects in both cases a political element was there, and is there, and will I think be more noticeably so in the days to come.
When it came to the Common Market, with which I shall deal only briefly, it became increasingly clear, I think, that what was aimed at was an end to the political animosity in Western Europe which had bedevilled European affairs for the last thousand years. I think it was because a number of peace-loving people in France and Germany felt so deeply that they never wished again to have a conflict along the Rhine that this Common Market bit so deeply into their humanity and made them desirous of seeing it an accomplished fact. I think there is a little more of a political

675
character in the present proposals than perhaps the noble Earl did justice to.
Coming to the economic side, I have had a good deal of experience of the battles between protection and free trade. I go back to the days when the famous saying of Benjamin Disraeli was current, that "Protection is not only dead but damned". Then I saw the tremendous campaign of Joe Chamberlain for an Imperial Zollverein. I remember very well the first and second Labour Governments, who were then strongly for free trade, fighting losing battles to protect the tradition that Great Britain was the great free trade area of the world in opposition to the other countries of Europe. I remember Mr. Baldwin saying that it was no good pottering along until he could have the opportunity of bringing in protection. We have had this protectionist doctrine for the last twenty to thirty years and we are now beginning to see that old free trade which was buried in the middle years of the first half of this century coming back into its own again; and I am very glad to welcome the noble Earl as a recruit to the cause of free trade.
What does it all amount to and what are we trying to do? The Common Market, composed of the six countries, set out to reduce their tariffs against one another and to have a kind of Zollverein in which those six countries would have no tariffs against one another but would have a tariff against the outside world. We tried to get—not exactly inside the fence, but we tried to be lookers-on through the interstices of the fence, and get some of the crumbs thrown out from The bread inside. I should like, at this juncture, to pay tribute to Mr. Maudling. I think he has tried very hard. I remember his addressing a body of members of my Party and getting a great cheer at the end for the work he was doing. I think we are to-day providing a consolation prize to Mr. Maudling and I am sure he is quite welcome to it.
This is something which is, to my way of thinking, of very great importance and worthy of our full support, with one or two small reservations which do not detract at all from the spirit of it. I am very glad that it is getting forward. I particularly welcome what the noble Earl said, and I believe it would be the view of all of us. I think it would be
676
unfortunate if this new body were regarded as a rival and antagonistic to the Common Market. I was very glad to see in the White Paper the statement that the intention was that this should lead up to negotiations. I will read the actual words:
"Ministers affirmed that in establishing a European Free Trade Association it would be their purpose to facilitate early negotiations both with the European Economic Community and also with other members of the O.E.E.C. who have particular problems calling for special solutions. These negotiations would have as their object to remove trade barriers and establish a multilateral association embracing all members of the O.E.E.C."
That is on page 3 of the White Paper.
I welcome that because I think it would indeed be tragic if Europe, already split by those countries on the East side of the Iron Curtain being cut off from the West, were to be split again by the Western countries dividing into the Common Market and the Free Trade Area. But I do not think that that is the intention in forming the Free Trade Area. I think it is intended to have two groups of countries who will be friendly to one another and may possibly come into federation with one another before many years to come.
There are one or two points on the purely economic aspect of this matter. The noble Earl, I thought, brought forward some very good arguments. They were the arguments free traders have used for years and I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will have something to say about them. They have been persistently pursued for generations, and it would be quite foolish for anyone except the Liberal Party to enunciate them all again to-day. Pulling down tariff walls does expose people to competition from other countries. On the other hand, it exposes other countries and their manufacturers to our competition, and we hope to gain as much on the swings as we lose on the roundabouts.
But there is this great difference in the modern outlook on this question of competition from what it was sixty or seventy years ago. Then people said, "Competition is competition, and if you can win your way, well and good, but if you cannot you can go to the wall. Everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost!" But it is not the attitude to-day: certainly not in this country.

677
We say that if it is good for the country as a whole, let us have it; but let us take some steps, at any rate, to prevent suffering and misery to the people for whom it is not a good thing. They may be on one side of the social fence or the other. They may be employers and manufacturers or the workers. Taking trade unionists as a whole, one found that a little while back they were rather unfavourable towards free trade. Some of their trades had been built up under protection and they were a little unwilling to have the walls of protection pulled down. They have now come along and seen that it is the interest of the whole that matters. They must subordinate individual sectional interests. As we say in our prayer, "Putting aside all partial affections"—not "Party affections" as I was reported the last time I quoted that. We must do things for the expansion of trade and the furtherance of the life and strength and health of the community as a whole. But we must not forget that, if there are individuals who suffer in consequence of this, we have to do what we can to prevent their suffering and make up to them in some way. There is not only this great difference to-day in this matter, but in many other things our outlook is different from that of sixty or seventy years ago.
I have said almost enough about the economic position. I want to say a few words about the more general position. I will begin by reading, also from page 3, this sentence:
"The object of this association would be to strengthen the economies of its members by promoting expansion of economic activity, full employment, a rising standard of living and financial stability."
That, I think, is of supreme importance and, as I gathered, the object both of the Common Market on its side and of the Free Trade Area on this new side of ourselves and six other countries which are coming in is to build up prosperity generally, not through economic means alone but by some form of integration of our constitutional existence. I use the word "constitutional" because I want not to overstate the thing. I do not think it is an integration of our polities; I think that would be putting the matter too high. This thing does not go so far as to attempt to
678
make a federal government for these different countries, but it goes some little way in that direction. It tries to integrate social and economic life.
In that connection I should like to read this paragraph, paragraph 60, of the White Paper. It says:
"With regard to capital movements, some delegations suggested that Members might be in a better position to surmount difficulties which were a consequence of the Association if they could be given freer access to the capital markets of other Members."
There we have a sort of suggestion that it will not be merely a matter of free trade that is involved, but some help from other members of the Association towards capital difficulties. It is in integration in that sense that I believe this matter has a potential future of very great importance.
Of course, equally with the pulling down of economic barriers, so the reduction of the political barriers carries with it an element of grave difficulty; and it is that reservation, as I said at the beginning, that some of my Party had and, only naturally and correctly, have. There are grave dangers involved. To take a simple illustration which is familiar to all your Lordships, we know the phrase "exporting unemployment." A country that is in difficulty itself tries to export its unemployment to other countries. So a country that is getting into financial difficulties or anything of that sort may try to export its financial difficulties and make other countries suffer. We have to guard against all that. We have to guard against unemployment being produced in this country because of the flood gates of relationship to the other countries of Europe and the world being opened wider. We have to prevent the dangers of monetary instability, the pound being injured because of the too great freedom of dealing throughout the world.
All those are dangers which are felt both by the well-to-do and the employing class on the one side and also by the workers who might suffer unemployment as a result. That is where I say we have reservations. All those things have to be watched; but, granted that all those things are watched, I am quite sure—and my Party agree with me—that this new scheme is a thoroughly good one which has to be supported.

679
Just one word more relating to two of the paragraphs in the later pages of this Paper. In paragraph 61 it is stated:
"It has been found premature at this stage to make recommendations on the question of voting. The present draft plan has mainly been based on the principle of unanimity."
That word is a nicer word that "veto", but it means the same thing. I am not suggesting that this proposal is wrong. I think that certainly in the earlier stages it is essential that everybody who comes in should be in agreement, and if one country is not in agreement its grievance should be met. At the same time, I think we ought to have a word of caution, because if "unanimity" does mean "veto", and if some one country chooses to stand out on some point which is not vital to that country but just because it is pig-headed, that presents a considerable danger and has to be watched. But what is important is what is said in the next paragraph, No. 62:
"The Board should also keep under review the operation of the Convention and make such suggestion to the Council in commercial, economic and financial matters, as may be useful to ensure smooth administration and to intensify progressively co-operation between the Members."
If that spirit is really carried out—and there are paragraphs in this White Paper which indicate that that at any rate is the present intention of the members—I believe this will be a most beneficent association; and speaking, as I say, both for myself and for my Party, I give it our sincere and fervent blessing.
3.26 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Earl for raising this subject and it has come at a very appropriate time. Speaking personally, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by speculating what might have been if soon after the war a British Government had played a more direct part in laying a foundation for European unity. But I will go this far with the noble Earl who introduced this Motion: that, given the background and the tradition in this country of political non-commitment in Continental Europe, the hesitancy of successive British Governments can be understood.
What is interesting and very pertinent to-day is why, when the initiative in Central Europe has produced the Treaty
680
of Rome, the very genuine and, I am sure, sincere attempts to reach an agreement for a wider association with "the Six" have so far failed, and failed equally with two quite different types of French Government. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said when he referred to the political aspect of this matter. My own feeling, after listening to many people involved in the discussion on these matters, is that the British and French have not been speaking the same language. I do not, of course, mean the difference between French and English; but all through the British approach has been in terms of economics or trade, whereas quite different considerations have prompted those who drafted the Treaty of Rome. They were ready to sacrifice economic advantages for political gains, and in spite of the change of Government in France I think the French still believe that in the economic field they have made sacrifices. Until they see, in practice, the extent of these sacrifices, they are unlikely to be willing to go further.
We ought not, I think, to underestimate the service which France has rendered to Europe in bringing about a political association and such a close economic tie-up with Western Germany. It is regrettable that this has not yet extended into the military operational field as well as to the supply field as was proposed in the European Defence Community. It is perhaps natural that the outward signs of national prestige will be the last to go and that this must follow and not precede the integration of foreign policy among "the Six". My impression is that, on the political side, steps to union—or perhaps I should call it "thinking to union"—has progressed further than anyone would have expected, even when the Treaty of Rome was signed. We have to convince the French that our entry would not be a disturbing and distracting influence on European political development towards political unity.
It is no doubt true that, in the long run, there are economic gains to be derived from a Common Market in Europe; but there is no gainsaying that some of the consequences, in the short term, will be uncomfortable for some people. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has already mentioned this

681
aspect of it; and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, when he asked a Question on behalf of some Scottish paper firms, was not half as vocal as have been the paper manufacturers in France to their own Government. As your Lordships well know, I am a convinced free-trader, but I have no illusions about the creation of a Free Trade Area causing disturbances. So did the Government's restrictive practices legislation. So does competition always. But, as a free-trader, I believe that free competition is in the interests of efficiency and so of the consumer. I also believe that stability for the producer is possible only when production is based on natural, rather than artificially created, advantages. I think that has always been the case for free trade. I emphasise the inclusion of this element of stability for the producer, which was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence.
The French have always been very conscious of the disturbances to their manufacturers to which they would be subjected in an extended Free Trade Area; and I think they rather resented the emphasis we put on the economic advantages of a Free Trade Association. The difference is, perhaps, some-what psychological; but there is, I think, an inherent difference in the approach of our manufacturers, among whom no one likes to be dubbed "inefficient". The efficient are prepared to go out and meet competition; and with the right of establishment embodied in the Stockholm Agreement, as it was in the Treaty of Rome, most efficient British manufacturers will probably be satisfied that they can meet the competition they have to face. The French manufacturer, on the other hand, has always tended to look to a protected home market, without much interest in establishing himself outside French territories.
I will not presume, my Lords, to offer any advice to Her Majesty's Government, but I would suggest that if any new approach is made to the Common Market countries, that approach should be on a political level and not on economic grounds. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Maudling's handling of the economic negotiations, and for the ingenuity he has shown, so what I am saying is not intended to be any criticism of this Minister: but I suggest that any new attempt should be handled by a
682
Minister more directly concerned with the political aspect rather than the economic aspect. Nor should it be assumed that only France is difficult in this matter. It seems to me that all the members of the Six are very conscious of their aim and of the political considerations involved; and though their ideas on an economic association may be less rigid than that of the French, I am sure that they will not wish to play with countries outside the European community at the price of weakening their new community.
In time, no doubt negotiations on a wider economic association may be possible between the Six and the Seven; but I very much doubt whether negotiations are likely to be welcomed by the Six until they have settled down as a community, and until they see how their new community and how the new association of the Seven develop. I think a start in what I believe is being called to-day "bridge-building" between the Six and the Seven could begin most fruitfully in the field of European foreign policy, to secure a common outlook and united action.
I always welcome the prospect of an extension of the area in which tariffs and other barriers to the free movement of people and goods are to be removed, so I welcome the Stockholm Agreement and congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their success. They have been helped greatly by the long drawn-out negotiations and discussions which took place in Paris under the aegis of O.E.E.C. I welcome particularly the provision that any member may, if circumstances permit, reduce its tariffs more rapidly than is provided for in the draft agreement before us. I hope advantage will be taken of this provision, particularly by this country.
I have already said that I expect political integration among the Six to proceed much quicker than expected; and, if so, the pace of economic integration may also be quickened. If Europe is not to suffer from conflicting blocs, it is important that the level of external tariffs, the external tariffs of these blocs, should be kept low. This is desirable for other reasons also—for instance, in determining the relationship between a European bloc and other parts of the world. I should like to see the Seven set

683
an example in this matter. Such groupings as the Six and the Seven are not so detrimental to other nations if their external tariffs are low. It is quite a different matter if the level of their external tariffs is high.
The Danish Agreement has high-lighted the whole question of the sub-sidisation of agricultural production. This was the basis of New Zealand's complaint against the Common Market countries. It would be possible in the Common Market countries so to sub-sidise agricultural production as to exclude almost all agricultural imports. Sooner, rather than later, surely, European producers will have to adjust themselves to free competition, for high tariffs and high subsidies are incompatible with the interests of developing territories. This is very much a Commonwealth problem, and we shall be continually pressed about it by Commonwealth territories. It is beginning to be clear to the most ardent protectionist that if the poorer and developing countries are to be included, as they must, in the general drive for prosperity, the barriers must come down. Pious resolutions to assist development in the less developed countries make nonsense if the results of that development are to be excluded from the markets of the world.
I am a little disturbed to read in the White Paper that every member remains free to retain its own fiscal system. These words appear under the heading "Revenue Duties", and may not be intended to be of general application, but I think it is important to foreshadow in an agreement like this that consultations should produce, for instance, some standardised common form for the presentation of national accounts. Nor should the door be closed, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has already indicated, to some form of federal institution assuming all-over responsibility in defined areas of activity. I should like to know at some time the names of the senior officials referred to in the last paragraph on page 3 of the White Paper, who are drafting the Convention and will become (and it is because of this that I am suggesting that we may know their names) an official Committee to advise Governments on questions affecting other countries and
684
on negotiations with the European Community.
May I add one final word? We have recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the Council of Europe. The members of that Council are now split into three groups—the Six, the Seven and the Five. The O.E.E.C., the instrument of eighteen Governments, has been left abandoned without direction, because its directors are split. Difficulties must soon arise also upon the working of the European Monetary Agreement. What are the ideas of Her Majesty's Government about the future of O.E.E.C.? There is another point I should like to make. The citizens of the eighteen countries represented in the Council of Europe still face the same old delays, the same frontier formalities, as they did ten years ago. European unity, in the eyes of many, has become but the concern of experts and the subject of speeches by politicians. The ordinary man does not believe that we are sincere and he is not impressed. I never cease to wonder why the queues of tired travellers at European frontiers do not decide to take our professions at their face value and refuse to comply with the nonsense of recording their birth dates at every frontier.
We are now preparing a Convention for the removal of barriers between seven like-minded European peoples, with a common tradition and a similar way of life. How soon will anyone be able to move from one of these countries to another without a passport? How soon will the irritating Customs examination which travellers experience when travelling from one of these countries to another be dispensed with? How soon will anyone be able in one of the universities of these seven countries to do a little study and at the same time earn a little money in his spare time to help to keep him while he is studying, without the gracious permission of some authority? Remember that we could have done just that four of five hundred years ago before so much so-called progress had been made in Europe. Shall we still be restricted in where we can spend our own money, or may it be moved from one of these countries to another?

685
It is questions such as these that will be the test by which the ordinary man will judge the Stockholm agreement. He is getting a little impatient. Even the delegates to these European meetings are getting a little impatient of the way their efforts are thwarted. When the Convention is presented to us in a few months' time. I suggest that it must not only provide for the free movement of peoples and goods in ten years' time; there are also many little annoyances and restrictions which could be removed at once in order to demonstrate to the ordinary man and woman that something real has been achieved, that the peoples of the seven countries have been brought nearer together as kinsmen. I earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that these important and practical aspects of this matter are not overlooked.
3.47 p.m.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, the Motion put down by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is
"To call attention to the problems of the Common Market and the proposed Free Trade Area."
I should like to speak specifically about one problem. The most vocal objection to the proposals has come, so far as we know, from the pig and its parents, some members of the agricultural industry. I could say a lot about the effects of the suggestion we have heard concerning the free importation of Danish bacon on the small farmer and small bacon producer, but a junior member of my family has already burst into print on that matter and has been summarily dealt with in your Lordships' House. A squeal from the pigs has produced a guarantee from the pockets of the taxpayer. I am just wondering whether we may take it that an anguished cry from another industry will produce fair consideration, even if no monetary compensation.
To-day, I have a serious task. As an employer of labour, as an industrialist and as a Member of your Lordships' House, it is my bounden duty to speak to your Lordships about the paper and board industry in this country. I shall try to explain to your Lordships the implications, repercussions and possible serious effects that this little Free Trade Area may have upon this industry. But let me say at once, and make it quite
686
definite, that we in the paper and board industry understand the political and economic case for a general and complete European Tree Trade Area on the lines that were originally proposed by the British Government.
I suppose that, before I speak to your Lordships, I should, as all directors are bound to do, declare my interest, as chairman of one of the greatest paper, board and packaging groups in the United Kingdom. It is with that background that I wish to express to your Lordships a few doubts regarding the potential value of the little Free Trade Area not only to the paper and board industry but also to our general British economy. I have only this morning seen the White Paper, and I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government will confirm in quite definite language the safeguards on special sections and dumping. I would again stress that any criticisms that I may make refer not to the general all-embracing European Free Trade Area, but only to the Outer Seven.
I think we all realise that the economic effects of this little Free Trade Area will be a diversion of trade, rather than reduced prices to the consumer, large-scale production, specialisation or even a better division of labour. The market open to us internally in the little Free Trade Area will be no more than 88 million, as compared with the United. Kingdom population of just over 50 million. By contrast, the population of the Common Market is 165 million, and the population of a general, comprehensive Free Trade Area would be 280 million. We know the object of this Outer Seven, and it does seem that this is really a case of a sprat to catch a mackerel. It must be obvious that, relative to the size of their domestic economies, the other countries of the Outer Seven must gain considerably more than Britain. Gains to the United Kingdom in exports may not be very significant, because the area of enlarged market is very limited, and, since our tariffs are higher, the sacrifice that we make for entry is considerably greater. In view of this, are we, at least on economic grounds, quite so certain that the little Free Trade Area would facilitate the formation of the general Free Trade Area that we all want?

687
The paper industry is a case in point where exactly the opposite is likely to be true, for the following reasons. First, the adoption of a common external tariff by the Common Market will lead to increased protection in Germany and the Benelux countries against Scandinavian exports at the same time as British protection is taken away. Secondly, the Scandinavians will therefore have a golden opportunity to divert their exports from the Common Market to the United Kingdom, with considerable benefit to themselves. It follows that both inside and outside the Common Market there will be built up important interests that will not readily wish to see the situation changed later on. No doubt there are political considerations, as we have heard to-day, and they may be the main motive for the establishment of this little Free Trade Area. If they are the main motive, it is, I feel, not only fair but essential that no single industry should be sacrificed on such dubious grounds and for such limited compensating benefit. Distortions may arise in the intra-European trade structure. Once those distortions are there, it may be very difficult to correct them; and, I again emphasise that, if they cannot be corrected, they will reduce the chances of successful negotiations for a general Free Trade Area.
I must give your Lordships a brief synopsis of the status of the paper industry. The imports of wood pulp and paper into this country are the largest single industrial item, representing nearly 30 per cent. of our total industrial imports from the little Free Trade Area countries. It must be known to those who have considered the implications that the paper and board industry is a very substantial employer of labour (and I would emphasise this to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence; I think it was he who mentioned it), particularly in certain areas. Moreover, it is the very small paper makers who create the employment in certain specified areas; and speaking from my own knowledge I can say that local effects from any serious setback to this industry in certain parts of England and Scotland could be very serious.
The approximate capital investment in this industry at replacement values is no less a figure than £350 million, and
688
investments in additional fixed assets in the eight years between 1950 and 1957 inclusive was of the order of £130 million. I should at this stage warn your Lordships that if any substantial part of these assets were to become redundant, they are so specialised that they could not be converted to other uses and would constitute an absolute capital loss to this country. I do not think anybody in this House will realise—there is no reason why he should—what it costs to put in a new paper machine: it is of the order of £5 million, and probably means five to seven years' planning in advance.
The potential tonnage of paper and board available for diversion to the British market is as much as 17 million tons—and that is without any increased production on the part of the Scandinavian countries. British output of paper grades based on imported wood pulp, excluding newsprint, which bears no tariff, amounts at the present time to 14 million tons. As the total output of paper and board in the United Kingdom is about 3·4 million tons, the tonnage that it has been shown possible to be replaced by diversion to this country, of no tariff, is no less than 40 per cent. of the total output.
In spite of an article in the Financial Times which accuses the paper trade of exaggeration, I hope that your Lordships will realise that if this little Free Trade Area comes into being on the present suggested terms, there will be nothing to stop the imports of wood pulp being replaced by the imports of finished paper. If this should become a fact, the additional cost in imports to this country could be as much as £60 million. When you consider that the total estimated exports gain to the United Kingdom is probably no more than £150 million, the paper and board industry could represent an offsetting factor of more than one-third of this figure. I think your Lordships will feel with me that this establishes for the industry the very strongest claim for insisting that its case should receive proper and detailed attention from the Government before—not during or after, but before—any final conclusion is reached on this proposal.
Now let me come back more to home. I was talking the other day to a very

689
distinguished Member of your Lordships' House who asked me whether it would be possible for the leading paper and board makers in this country to use the substantial amount of wood which will be available from the forests in Scotland in 1965. That could well be impossible if we were to allow finished paper and board from Scandinavia to replace any substantial part of the paper at present manufactured in this country. In that case, all ideas of pulp development in Scotland and other areas, and the opportunities for employment that have been envisaged, may well be frustrated. We should realise that the very large amounts of wood which will result from the forest developments that have been and are being promoted—which have been and are still being encouraged—can effectively be used only if the paper and board industry is prepared to develop pulp mills in this country.
It has to be realised that the formation of a little Free Trade Area would not provide any compensating benefits by way of improved access to Continental Europe, such as the British paper and board industry might enjoy in a general Free Trade Area. For this reason, and also in order to reduce to a minimum any trade diversion effects that might ensue from a smaller Free Trade Area, this particular British industry is on firm ground in asking for certain provisions to be made. In order to allow the industry sufficient time to plan and to re-align resources, the proposed transitional period should be extended from ten to twenty years (twenty years is only just sufficient time for us to lay down our great big machines, if it has to be done), and the initial tariff reduction should not exceed 10 per cent.
In order to avoid the distortionary effects that would result, from the diversion of Scandinavian sales from other countries to the United Kingdom, a tariff quota should be established, based in the first instance on, say, the amount of 1958 imports, but to be gradually relaxed thereafter. In order to ensure the same access to raw materials—and this is a serious point—even to the extent of allowing British firms to undertake operations in Scandinavia (I do not know whether that is wanted), specific rules should be introduced to ensure freedom of establishment, liberalisation of capital move-
690
ment and fair competition. These, I promise your Lordships, are not just safeguards. They are amply justified in that they would remove some of the inequitable features of the present proposals. They are the minimum required if you are to preserve this great industry within the little Free Trade Area, thus enabling it, at the appropriate time, to utilise and develop the forest resources of this country about which I spoke earlier. They should be acceptable to the Scandinavians, because they will still benefit very considerably from the proposals.
The paper industry, the sixth largest in monetary value in the United Kingdom, is not one that sits down and weeps over its sorrows. It is one that has a tremendous amount of use for the natural assets of this country. Its planned expansion implements and necessitates a great deal of capital expenditure. It is a go-ahead industry which continuously intensifies its research for new methods of using paper and board of all kinds, and to meet the incessant demands for paper products. If some of your Lordships would come with me to visit some of the mills, you would be astonished at what is being made out of paper. It certainly is not an industry that should be sacrificed for political expediency without considerable investigation. I would emphasise that we are quite prepared—the noble Lord, Lord Grant-chester, mentioned this—to meet any competition if the quite objective claims for the little safeguards that I have made are met.
There is one other point that I want to stress to your Lordships, because I know that there have been put about rumours which are not correct. I should stress that the whole industry is united in its fears against the treatment that is suggested for this industry. We ask the Government seriously to consider the implications of what they propose to do, and to find out from those who know the possible repercussions on this very efficient industry before they sacrifice it to such a doubtful advantage
4.7 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, like many of your Lordships I was brought up as a free-trader, but we must all recognise, whether we like it or not, that we are now living in a protectionist world. The

691
Common Market is now an established fact, and we must face up to its implications. Its success, by the way, is by no means a certainty. They are strange bed-fellows, the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Italians. The present impasse in the coal trade in Belgium is a sample of the kind of troubles which lie ahead.
The Common Market itself is not exactly a closed shop with the same hard and fast rules for all its members and the products it deals with. Like the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, I take comfort from the fact that the Common Market arrangements are full of reservations, special arrangements, exceptional conditions and qualifications. I hope also that he and his great industry for which he has been speaking will take comfort from the earnest plea made to the Government by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence to-day, to see that special consideration is given to special industries in special circumstances, and that what has happened in the Common Market will provide for the organisers of the Free Trade Area an example to do something similar. In my opinion, the worst feature, and one which put the possibility of our joining the Common Market out of the question, is the fact that, anyhow to my mind, the whole idea is the ultimate objective of political unity, culminating one day in a kind of United States of Europe. I may be old-fashioned, but I have never seen anything in Governmental or political systems in the Continent of Europe, or even in the United States of America, that I should like to see this country join in or change for their systems.
In present circumstances, we in this country must look after ourselves, and the Free Trade Area, I think, is something we should all support: first of all, so that we can do something to repair the damage which the Common Market is designed to do to our export trade to the six countries. We can do this to a certain extent by making arrangements with other European countries to join up with us to protect and further our mutual interests, as is proposed under the Free Trade Area scheme. Secondly, I support the project in the hope that when the Free Trade Area is well established we shall be able to negotiate from
692
a stronger position to create a Free Trade Area for all the members of both groups. The point on which our earlier negotiations with the six countries fell down was our commitments to the Colonies and to Commonwealth countries. But is it appreciated that the overseas territories of France, Italy, Belgium and Holland are all associated members of the Common Market, and with a few exceptions all the preferences enjoyed by the six countries are shared equally by their colonies?
I should like to urge the Government to try to persuade other countries, in addition to the proposed seven, to join the Free Trade Area with us. For example, I have in mind Yugoslavia, a young country courageously fighting to rebuild its economy, and hemmed in on its frontier by seven other nations, including Italy, which is in the Common Market, and four other countries adhering to Russia. Yugoslavia is eager and anxious to develop her import-export trade with the United Kingdom, and I shall be grateful if Her Majesty's Government will have a look at this suggestion.
In conclusion, may I urge the Government at all points in their negotiations to set up the Free Trade Area and, where the trade and commercial interests of our country are affected, to maintain the closest possible consultation with the organised trade and business interests concerned in the United Kingdom? There is some criticism that this is not always done. If the Government wish to take the goodwill of the United Kingdom trade and industry with them in this great new project, they will be well advised to watch this point carefully.
4.13 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Swinton moved his Motion and gave us the opportunity of this debate this afternoon, he prefaced his remarks by advocating a realistic approach to a situation that exists rather than debating the merits or demerits of a Free Trade Area—an approach with which I am naturally in entire agreement. But I must say that it did occur to me to wonder whether some of your Lordships have read Robert Graves's book, Goodbye to All That, because there are sitting quite near me in this House now those who

693
fought elections on the traditional Conservative policies—I fought them myself—maintenance and expansion of Imperial Preference, tariff discrimination for the home market, reserved first for the home producer, second for the Commonwealth producer and third for the foreigner, and the Ottawa Agreements that my noble friend did so much to bring about in 1932 and the results of which I believe pulled this country through the then depression quicker than any other country in the world. Even in 1950 and 1951 there were the brave words spoken in their Election literature by the Party to which I have the honour to belong as to what they would do to G.A.T.T. when they got into power. I think the thought of Goodbye to All That is not inappropriate, because little remains of that to-day except the shadow of Imperial Preference that is not to be extended; and of Ottawa little remains except the precious principle of free entry into our home market of Commonwealth production.
In place of this we have the biggest free trade Government there has ever been. We have an implicit belief to-day in the doctrine of non-discrimination in international trade. And let me remind your Lordships that at the same time we are about to enter one of the biggest areas of discrimination the modern world has seen, which I will say a word about in a moment. It is
"The old order changeth, yielding place to new ",
and it is no good jobbing backwards; but since 1946 successive Governments have followed in the economic footsteps of Mr. Gladstone. To-day I believe there should be alongside the statue of Mr. Cobden in Manchester a new statue. Your Lordships know that lovely statue The Three Graces; it would be The Three Graces of the Conservative Party—economic graces: Amory, Eccles and Maudling. It is indeed a change!
But, having said that, let us give credit where credit is due. The country rides high to-day in a turbulent world. Our currency is strong and our trade position is an improving one. If some of us have some back thoughts on the knife edge on which our economy rests in relation to the rest of the world, and some of us sometimes feel fearful at the narrow margin of our balance of payments posi-
694
tion, while we rejoice at what the economy is doing to-day, you can write us off as gloomsters and doubters. To-day we accept that now we are on the brink of big new developments brought about not only for our own economic needs but, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence said, for political unity in Europe, and I would also say for the questions of N.A.T.O. defence of Europe against the menace to the free world. Those are factors which to-day have an implication on economic policies. In the old days one could deal with economic policies in one compartment, political policies in another, defence policies in another; but to-day they are so interwoven that one cannot be separated from another.
Also we must remember another influence that has brought about the position that we are entering to-day, and that is the dominant influence of the United States, who have certainly since 1946 never ceased to urge on this country policies of non-discrimination while themselves holding very firmly to their own self-contained bloc and being very reluctant to relax the discriminatory position which they enjoy. I believe that this policy of Britain entering the Seven is justified only if it prises open to us an amalgamation with the markets of the Rome countries. It must lead to that or, indeed, it may lead to increased dangers of dividing Europe into two for all time. Therefore my support for the doctrine is based upon the conditional coming off, as it were, of the gamble. Bring off the gamble and it is well worth while; if we do not bring off the gamble we may find ourselves in a very difficult position. We have to remember that the Seven represent about 9 per cent. of our trade; the Rome Treaty countries represent about 13 per cent. of our trade and the Commonwealth represents about 50 per cent. of our trade.
We are told that there must be a price willingly accepted by certain industries for Britain's entry into the Free Trade Area. I should like to say a word about that. We are told that some may suffer. In modern government parlance it is called "readjustment"; but in fact it means that people may be put out of their traditional employment, as we have heard from the speech of my noble friend Lord Cornwallis. We are told that that is a price which must be paid

695
by specific industries in the general interests of great multilateral trade. It is all right to talk in general terms, but when you come down to a position such as that which my noble friend Lord Cornwallis deployed in regard to West and Central Kent, where the whole economy of the area depends upon that single industry, then indeed it is something more than can just be brushed off by the phrase "readjustment" or "re-deployment of labour." It must be measured in terms of loss of trade and of human tragedy for those affected.
There was a letter in The Times of to-day from the knitwear trade. We know that the optical industry and the cutlery industry are going to suffer. It may be that they are going to meet competition, but of course that can lead to dangers to those industries. There is agriculture. My noble friend will no doubt be speaking to your Lordships with far greater authority than I, but undoubtedly agriculture is going to run into dangers. I do not feel able to say whether they are going to be able to avoid them or not, but there will be new dangers. Then there is the Scottish timber industry. As a result of our policy of non-discrimination abroad, we are unable to help the West Indies any more with their citrus products. Equally, the Rhodesian tobacco industry may be in difficulties. We must be careful that we do not divide industry by this policy of multilateral agreement into victors and victims. Let us be very careful to see that those who suffer have a measure of protection that I find it difficult to read into the White Paper.
I hold in my hand the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. I want to ask the Minister a definite question, if he would be so good as to deal with it in his reply. It is: does this Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, apply within the free trade area of the Seven? Secondly, I would ask, can we apply the operation of this Act without having to get the permission of our partners in the area? If the answer to the two questions that I have put is "Yes", I personally shall feel that we have a degree of safety for the protection of those who are likely to suffer such as I do not feel at the moment.
Let me suggest to your Lordships that we rid our minds of the idea and the
696
fallacy that free trade areas mean free trade—they do not. They are merely the union of protected areas larger in size than we have been accustomed to. These areas reserve to themselves the internal trade of themselves, with little consideration of the effect of their policy on the outside world. In regard to the Rome Treaty, we felt our interest in Britain to be with those countries if we could have formed a common market. So we tried the common market proposals. But France, quite logically, felt that there was no reason why she should share with us and the O.E.E.C. countries the exclusive empire of discrimination which she had been helping to create. Therefore we could not try it. We have now got this little Seven. I repeat that the main point that I should like to suggest to your Lordships is that we are justified in going into this little Seven only if we obtain eventual amalgamation with the Rome Treaty countries.
My last word is this. We are told that the Commonwealth has been kept informed of developments. I would suggest that more should be done than that. As and when what I have called the gamble comes off and we get the Seven and the Five together, then let us call a Commonwealth Conference to see where we can bring segments of Commonwealth production of raw materials and industrial products into this vast area. So, while maintaining our preferential treaties—they are not much stronger than that, fine as they are to-day—we should at any rate arrest the worrying drop in Commonwealth trade which is going on at the present time. We all want all the trade that the world can produce. We all want to see that increased. So I would urge the Government to put into effect with the Commonwealth the strength and enthusiasm that they have so rightly put into bringing about the present Free Trade Area as a first step to larger moves.
4.26 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Polwarth had put his name down to speak on this Motion, but the change of date has prevented him from attending and has given me an opportunity of making at least one point that I know he proposed to make. I will not conceal from your Lordships my delight at the fact that the noble Lords,

697
Lord Cornwallis and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, have dealt far more ably than I could have done with the broad point of the paper industry's approach to the proposals as we have them before us to-day. I will therefore confine myself to two points.
The first is, as it were, to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" in regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, which applies particularly to Scotland—more so perhaps than to England; that is, that the paper industry there is situated in rural or semi-rural areas, and by virtue of that very fact, added of course to the specialised nature of the buildings and the plant involved, the industry as a whole is one which it is not possible to re-deploy in the event of difficulty. As Lord Cornwallis said, it is a total capital loss if it has to go under in the face of competition which it cannot meet.
The other point from the Scottish angle which I should like to make is that, important as the percentage of workers is in this industry in England and Wales, in Scotland the proportion is of even greater importance, in that the numbers are a higher percentage of the overall working population than they are in the South. Therefore, damage to that industry comes with greater impact upon the labour situation in Scotland, if it is to come at all. I think it is fair to say that, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am one who, in general terms, welcomes the breaking down of trade barriers. But it is clear that there are real reasons why a warning finger should be held up in order to make sure that the effect of these measures may not bring difficulty and distress to this country.
Then, also from the Scottish point of view, there is the question of the provision of wood pulp. I can see from the list of speakers that there are other noble Lords who are much better qualified than I to approach the matter of the potentialities of the wood pulp industry in the North, whose main consumer would be the paper trade. As I said to begin with, I am delighted that my main points on the subject have been made by other and more competent people than myself. But I would add, in broad terms, that I feel that, so long as industries which are likely to suffer inordinately are prepared, the prospect of the
698
breaking down of trade barriers is one which as a whole can be welcomed.
4.31 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the Stockholm proposals are presumably welcome to British industry as a whole. But among the less satisfactory problems likely to arise is the effect on British forestry and the post-war forestry programme. It may be too early to say much, but the dangers appear sufficient for it to be necessary to speak to-day on behalf of State and private forestry. If I should declare once again a personal interest in forestry, perhaps I may also say that I have worked hard and long for all who are in forestry.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: The policy of Parliament since the war has been one of expansion. I should like to refer to the large national and private investment in forestry. Successive Governments have invested big sums in the growing of trees, and woodland owners have been urged to do the same. We believe that the present Government will not wish to jeopardise the success of recent policy and to lose the money invested. The future of forestry, especially in Scotland, with the trend towards conversion into chipboard, hardboard and pulp, through various processing methods, will depend much upon sales of our produce for these purposes, as well as upon the vast sales which we make now, and hope to continue to make, to the National Coal Board.
At present, thanks to the helpful co-operation of the National Coal Board, a large and increasing volume of home-grown timber is being used in the mines. The Annan chipboard factory and the new Bowater pulping mill on the Mersey are amongst other great assets, and most helpful. In five years' time, and thereafter, forestry will be much more dependent upon new processing plants either for board manufacture or pulp. The official forecasts of the volume of conifer thinnings available for sale by 1965 and again by 1975 indicate a vast increase from Forestry Commission and private woodlands combined. For Scotland, the volume of under 12 million cubic feet in 1959 will increase to nearly 18 million

699
cubic feet by 1965, and to 28 million cubic feet in 1975. The Government and their advisers will have in mind the main purposes for which this can be marketed, and have probably been considering the proportion and volume which can be used by the National Coal Board and which will have to go into chipboard and pulp.
In view of the principles agreed at Stockholm, I feel bound to express concern on behalf of forestry and to ask whether there is serious reason for anxiety about increased Scandinavian exports. There will, in any case, be much increased competition to papermakers and board mills, and new ventures will be discouraged from starting. And how can we tell how much existing ones will be injured? I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for the way in which he brought forestry into his statement concerning the paper industry, and he, too, showed clearly how the forestry programme may be injuriously affected if the paper industry is also injuriously affected.
I should like to add a few words to support what has already been said on behalf of the paper industry. From my long family association with Midlothian I should naturally do all I can to urge upon the Government the importance of the wellbeing of the paper mills, large and small, up and down the little valleys in Midlothian and other parts of Scotland, and of the families dependent upon them. I was pleased to see a Report from Sweden yesterday that the outlook here should be better than was thought and that there is no intention in Sweden to injure our paper industry. I hope that is helpful. But I must also emphasise that the prosperity of these paper mills is very necessary to forestry, and will be more so if, as time goes on, a principal outlet must be for pulping. In many European countries the connection between paper mills and forestry is very strong, and we hope that one day it will be so here, too.
I am sure that my many timber-growing friends in Sweden, and also in Norway, do not wish to destroy a young, growing industry here by excessive interference with the sale of our produce. I feel that there is scope for useful conversations by our ministerial representatives with persons in those countries. I think that
700
there is provision for such conversations, and also for special cases of this kind to be specially considered. Examples can be given of other industries using wood, which are essential to forestry, and which are experiencing severe competition already and are anxious in case they may have to close down.
If some words about forestry itself are needed to support the claims for its future, I would say that now more than ever previously—perhaps partly due to Government encouragement in recent debates to growers to be more active in selling their timber, and to the principal consumers in this country to use it—we are making an increasingly determined effort; and the response from the National Coal Board, British Railways, Government Departments and the larger wood-using industries is very friendly. We find a readiness on the part of all to try to use more home-grown timber, provided that we produce it of the quality and specifications required. This is being developed, and at no time have the co-operation and willingness to buy and sell in this country been better. A setback now would be most unfortunate.
Apart from the forestry and industrial aspect, I feel that we can all agree about the importance to the people of Scotland, especially in the Highlands, and of those in many parts of England and Wales, that the expansion of forestry should continue successfully. Britain is not over-provided with these natural resources, which are most needed nowadays. We have land, parts of which, assisted by a favourable climate, can be developed to make a far bigger contribution for the benefit of our growing population and to provide more families with employment and a way of life out of the towns. I think that any of us could develop those few words much further, especially in regard to the Highlands where this is such an essential part of the life of the people. There is a tremendous amount of work continuously to be done in the woods, wisely directed and skilfully executed, in order to produce efficiently and economically timber of the quality and the sizes required. We are a small industry, as your Lordships know, and we should like to feel that the Government will give helpful consideration to any fresh problems which may now be arising and will

701
relieve us of worry and uncertainty. We are trying to recover from the war-time sacrifices and devastation of all the best trees, which certain other countries were fortunate not to suffer. I trust that I am justified in my remarks, and if the Government do see any danger I hope that they will find ways to overcome it.
Without going too much into detail to-day, may I suggest some of the ways in which they could help? If prices to growers have to be reduced further, in order to enable timber users to buy economically in this country, would the Government consider afresh the financial help at the planting end and during the thinning period, bearing in mind that the thinning grant was recently withdrawn? Will they also consider financial help, as I understand is done in Northern Ireland, for the provision of factories, ex cetera, for processing? And will they also in their negotiations endeavour, so far as possible, to slow down the pace of reduction of tariffs? My Lords. I believe that my remarks are understated. I know that many foresters to-day have cause for worry. I wanted to put on record some of the reasons and ask the Government to do all they possibly can—and even a bit more.
4.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for putting down this Motion, if only because it gives us an opportunity, which has already been taken, to point out the fears of some of the minor industries and some of the major ones, such as paper. The noble Earl rightly welcomed the formation of this "Outer Seven" Free Trade Area, and he welcomed it because he hoped it would be a bridge to a wider association with the Common Market. It is in that spirit that I make these few remarks, and in the spirit of acceptance of that, and I hope that the Ministers who are going to reply will appreciate that our remarks are made in that spirit. In the debate on the bacon agreement last week my noble friend Lord Waldegrave expressed surprise that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did not express anxiety or doubt but spoke of "disaster". I should like to reassure him that that is not my intention. I am sincerely expressing some of the anxieties and doubts felt.
702
I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for his very strong plea from the angle of the paper industry. In that plea he expressed the fear that is felt in a number of industries, such as his and my own, forestry: that if the Outer Seven do not join the Six Common Market members to enlarge the Common Market, certain countries may flood our country with such things as paper. My Lords, what has not been said yet is that the paper industry is the customer of a number of other industries, such as coal, transport and shipping. There are other industries, I believe, as well, which I will not mention to-day; and of course it is a very big customer of forestry. It is about this matter that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, made his few remarks, and I want to dot a few i's and cross a few t's.
As the noble Duke said, if the paper industry's fears come true there will be a very big effect on forestry which could be very serious. And not only that; we may get direct imports of timber as well. I sincerely trust that forestry is not just to be treated as a pawn for relatively modest gains to British industry. It would be tragic if that were the case. The duty on timber is very low, and I believe is non-existent for such things as pitprops, telegraph poles and pulp. I understand that it is 20 per cent. on wall boards; £2 15s. per ton on wood wool; 17½ per cent. on hardwood flooring blocks; 12½ per cent. on box boards and 20 per cent. on furniture. I live near High Wycombe, in a furniture trade area, and although all the firms are big importers of timber I am sure they would not wish the duty to be reduced any further.
I am also given to understand (I have this information secondhand, so it may not be correct) that timber merchants, particularly in the North of Scotland, say that only 5 per cent. of all the timber that is bought is from home-grown sources, and it would be of tremendous advantage to them if this 5 per cent. were put to the top. I regret that I did not give notice of the point that I have just made, as I heard of it only this afternoon; but I understand that is the case.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government three questions. The first is: what effect will this agreement have

703
on such industries as wood-turning, pulp and wallboard? Secondly, how will it affect the supply of timber for trunk-road fencing and sleepers for railways? And, thirdly, are there to be any safe-guards to British forestry such as have been made for bacon? In that connection, as other noble Lords have said, all of us have only just had the White Paper on the draft agreement, and it looks as though the answer is in paragraphs 19 to 24. I sincerely hope that that is the case, and I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will be able to assure us on these points. Timber growers stand to lose far more from the loss and the absence of markets if this Agreement comes about than they can gain from grants and subsidies, and we are very anxious to see that our markets, as the noble Duke said, are safeguarded. I hope that we may have some reassurance on these matters this afternoon.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, since I am not qualified to talk about the broader aspect of this matter, I hope that I may follow the invitation of the noble Duke and talk for a very short time on the Highland aspect of this problem as it is affected by the forestry troubles that we may perhaps expect as a result of this Agreement. Of course, my Lords, the further North we go, the further the trees are from people who are going to use them in manufacture; and notwithstanding the encouraging news that the noble Duke has given us about the increasing use of British timber, it is the people who grow it in the crofter counties in the North and West of Scotland who feel that added impetus less than anybody else.
I was reading the other day the new White Paper issued in June, Review of Highland Policy. In that White Paper I find that there are five basic industries which are described for the Highland area, and the second of those is forestry. The noble Duke has already emphasised its importance, and we find it there, second in the list. I should like to read to your Lordships what this White Paper says about the importance of forestry in the Highlands. It says:
"Forestry will continue to play an important part in the programme of Highland development. Apart from its commercial and economic value to the country as a whole"—
704
that is, supplying timber from the place where it can be easily grown—
"it is a means whereby viable communities are most likely to be retained and in some cases restored to rural areas. Moreover, the employment it provides is very often whole-time and includes specialised work such as operating and servicing mechanical equipment which may well appeal to the younger man."
In fact, my Lords, this is the question of preventing the depopulation of rural areas; and it is the same point as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. He said in the small rural communities which are set up around paper-making mills the very danger to their one source of employment is that much greater simply because it is the one source of employment. The same is true, in many parts of the Highlands, of forestry; and it is about the only industry that can be devised at the moment which will induce young men to stay there.
So, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have announced:
"As the forests mature every effort will be made to encourage the development in the Highlands of timber-using industries of which the recently announced chipboard factory at Inverness is an encouraging sign."
Then they go on to describe the Forestry Commission's proposals for the next five years. They say that this year the Commission are to plant 10,000 acres in the crofter counties—that means Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, and Sutherland, certainly; but not so much Orkney and Shetland, because trees do not grow there very well—and that, for the remaining four years, they expect to plant 11,500 acres in 1960; 13,500 acres in 1961; and 14,000 acres each in 1962 and 1963. They also say.
"In addition to this, it is estimated that private owners will plant a total of approximately 20,000 acres during this five-year period."
My Lords, what is going to happen to all that wood? There is no doubt that it is difficult to sell now; and there is a very distinct anxiety lest the introduction of the European Free Trade Area may make it even more difficult to sell what there is now, and quite impossible to sell what is about to be planted. The obvious thing to do with that timber in the far North is to use it on the spot in such projects as the chipboard factory in Inverness. But who is going to put up these projects? The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has already given a dire

705
warning that unless very favourable terms are made for his industry they will not be able to do anything very much about it: and I cannot see that the woodland owners themselves are going to put projects into effect when they know that they are up against this tremendous competition from the other side of the North Sea.
My Lords, that is the problem—what is going to be done with the wood? I cannot ask for any specific answers this afternoon, because this is not a forestry debate. But what I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to do—if not to-day, then very soon—is to give a lead for this area, in particular, and, of course, for the rest of the country. I hope they will be able to tell the Highlands that the programme as laid out in the June Review is not going to be altered: or, alternatively, if it has to be altered, let them say in what respect. And let them give as much warning as they can of the likely impact of this new association on the forests in the North—because, of course, forestry is such a very long-term project that, unless one has the most up-to-date information beforehand, a tremendous amount of money can be wasted very quickly indeed. Therefore, I hope that assurances—or, if necessary, discouragements—will come from Her Majesty's Government on this aspect as soon as possible.
4.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I think it might not be wrong to describe this debate as a "You have been warned" debate. Furthermore, a very reasonable proportion of the noble Lords who have taken part may be here in twenty years' time to tell Her Majesty's Government that they told them so. Nevertheless, I should like, in general terms, to welcome the "Outer Seven" Free Trade Association. I also have my warnings, which I will embark upon as shortly as I can.
Before I do so, I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which I think was rather unfair. I see he is not here, but I will make the point and hope that he will read it. He said, if I understood him correctly, that in his opinion very little indeed had come out of the Council of Europe, and such bodies as
706
that. My Lords, I travelled in a car from Norway through all the Scandinavian countries down to Germany, and back through Holland, and I was asked to produce only an international certificate of insurance, and no other car documents whatsoever. Five years ago it would have been necessary to have a whole ream of stuff. I do think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, should give credit for that. However, that scarcely comes into this debate.
One of the chief reasons why I welcome the formation of the smaller Free Trade Association is because the main Free Trade Area fell down on negotiation in O.E.E.C. largely owing to French fears, I think I am right in saying, on the certificate of origin, and one or two other points. There were only about three main points which really worried the French; we either would not or were unable to move on those points; and, therefore, we were out. Therefore, if, as I hope, we can make this smaller association work, the French will see that their fears were groundless; and in a few years' time we ought to be in a very much better position to negotiate with the main Common Market countries than we are at the present. But I think we should not endeavour to do so until we have made some successful working arrangements ourselves. Provided there are reasonable escape clauses, and clauses dealing with unfair competition—as, indeed, were envisaged in the main Free Trade Area, which did not come about—I do not think any permanent harm should come to any industry. Her Majesty's Government have all the experience of those negotations to go on, and I feel quite confident that they will not let us down.
However, I think it must be remembered, that the main products which the Scandinavian countries in the Outer Seven have to sell are timber, pulp, and agricultural products. They are not industrial countries, and we can hardly say to them, "You must buy all our machinery, but we are not going to buy all your wood, pulp, timber, and what-have-you". They must have something to trade in. Therefore, some method of operating must be found, taking account of those facts. It is no good thinking that we can impose terms which are entirely to our benefit and which are not,, at least on paper, equally to their benefit,

707
because they just will not agree. So much for the main point.
I want now to say a few words about Scotland, and particularly about the difficult employment areas. In a way, the whole of Scotland is a difficult employment area, but the remoter and more rural parts are especially difficult. These areas could be assisted by the two industries which have been thoroughly discussed this afternoon—forestry and paper-making. I must here declare an interest in forestry, as so many other speakers have done. Both of these industries could be hard hit by the Free Trade Association. Forestry enjoys very little protection. Wood pulp comes into the country free and the tariff on peeled round softwod is not much more than 1d. per cubic foot, which is a very small sum. If I am wrong in that figure, I should like to be corrected.
The timber trade is already being hard hit by the shrinkage in the box-making trade. One of the chief competitors is the paper-making industry itself, owing to the large expansion in the use of cartons. In this respect the paper-makers are hitting the timber growers quite hard. Then there is the disappearance of the railway wagon trade, because wagons are now made largely of steel. I suppose that that is inevitable. There is also the suspension of the railway sleeper trade. I believe that the Transport Commission are going over to concrete sleepers—certainly they will have to do so eventually. There is also the reduction in stocks of pitwod held by the National Coal Board, and the closure of small uneconomic pits which used to take a large amount of awkward sizes of pit woods. All these developments cannot be blamed on anyone, but they have to be reckoned with. Above all, there is the rise in transport costs, which hits us all.
As we have heard, we have a large number of growing trees but the point not always stressed is that we are starting largely from scratch so that the proportion of young trees to mature saw timber is completely out of balance. As a result, we have a twenty to thirty year period of what I may call extraordinary circumstances to cater for before we get a large production of mature timber. The figures that I am giving I have con-
708
verted into tons, because the paper-makers talk about the tonnage of wood required to make a ton of pulp. The combined approximate total of thinnings in Forestry Commission, dedicated and managed woodlands in Scotland alone in 1959, converted to tons, is expected to be 387,500 tons. In 1965, it is expected to be 590,000 tons and in 1975, 945,000 tons.
At the moment the paper-making industry is enjoying the expanding use of its products, which is very much to its credit. They are selling more products year by year and making bigger profits, as they themselves admit. It seems to me a possible solution to some of these troubles—or at least a point of discussion on them—if the Scandinavian countries would agree not to increase the ratio of their exports to this country of wood pulp and finished paper. If they kept their ratio the same, I do not think that the paper-makers would have the fears that have been so eloquently expressed this afternoon.
A modern pulp mill, on either the sulphate or sulphite process, produces about 100,000 tons of pulp a year. It requires three tons of wood to make one ton of pulp. That means that the 300,000 tons, the total of the Scottish thinnings this year, would be required to keep one pulp mill going on a profitable basis. On the other hand, if we are going to start thinking of building a pulp mill, it would be four years before that mill was turning out pulp. This underlines the urgency of the situation. In four years' time, the product of thinnings is going to be three times the amount required to keep a mill going at full blast. If a road were constructed from about the Linn o' Dee across to somewhere near Balnaspic—a matter of twenty miles—and a pulp mill set up at Fort William, where there is adequate clean water from the tailrace of the hydro-electric aluminium works, deep-sea wharfage available and access to the whole of the West of Scotland, that might be a possible plan to consider. I could imagine the coastal traffic building up, and all that area of Scotland, which is eminently suited to the growing of trees, could be exploited much better than it is at present. In addition, if that road link were built, it would be a great tourist attraction.

709
Suggestions have been made about chipboard factories, but development of that sort is limited. One pulp mill placed in the West of Scotland, with facilities of access, might solve the whole problem. Again it might not. I put out the suggestion as worth considering. I would also point out this consideration to paper-makers. They know that there are adequate quantities of timber available for pulping, which was not the case before, and I would say that instead of talking about the possibility of operating Scandinavian pulp mills, why not operate a mill in the West of Scotland and support home industry? When all is said and done, the paper-making industry is shouting loudly now, but they did not help us to grow trees to any noticeable extent in the past. Now there is the opportunity to do so. I feel that during the whole of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the paper industry, the part that the paper-making industry could play in helping the difficult areas of Scotland should be brought constantly to their notice.
5.10 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRI-CULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, it may be convenient if I reply at this stage in the debate to one or two of the forestry points that have been raised. We have heard some thoughtful and interesting speeches on this subject from noble Lords, and I would particularly mention the helpful and moderate speech from the noble Duke the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry and the interesting, challenging and energetic speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, containing many thoughtful ideas as to what can be done to help us here.
I think at the outset I must say that it is a false analogy to compare agriculture with forestry in this context. The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, said that what we had done for pigs—or some such phrase—we could do for forestry. I must point out that right from the inception of the Free Trade Area talks it has always been agreed that agriculture would have to be the subject of a separate agreement, as the Free Trade Area is concerned primarily with industry. Noble Lords will see from the White Paper, Section 4, that this concep-
710
tion still stands in relation to agriculture and bilateral talks have already been held with the Danes; and we had a full discussion on that subject on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, last week.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that I did not mean that we should have a safeguard as in the case of bacon. I was using that only as an example. It may be that in some different way a safeguard could be introduced.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I thought it was wise to allay any doubts on that matter at the outset. We must then really face the fact that forestry is not agriculture within this context; and there is no question therefore of forestry being able to contract out of this Free Trade Area and be protected by any system of tariffs, import quotas, restrictions or the like. This undoubtedly constitutes a challenge, and I do not attempt to burke the issue that competition may be, and probably will be, more severe. But I do not think that we ought to be pessimistic about the ultimate outcome of such competition. We must be realistic, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in some of the first words that he used. Home forestry has not been and is not now protected by high tariffs. It has been brought out by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, in his speech that there are no high tariffs on timber at the present time. Pitwoods from all sources have free entry into this country. The tariff on sawn and round softwoods is about one half of 1 per cent. of the current c.i.f. price. Wood pulp is free of duty. And even some of the end products of pulp are 'free of duty—for instance, newsprint.
Secondly, there has never been any system of assured markets and guaranteed prices for forestry products as there is for agricultural products, although we should remind ourselves that the home forester has assistance from Government grants. Your Lordships are familiar with the various categories—scrub clearance, planting and management grants—and they are due to be reviewed in about two years' time, or earlier if a case is made out. That, I think, is the point that the noble Duke the Duke of Buccleuch and

711
Queensberry had in mind when he was speaking. The management grant which is replacing the maintenance grant is probably the most helpful of these grants; and, in passing, your Lordships may like to know that the first payment of a management grant has already been made. The payment of these grants was contingent upon an effective Woodland Owners' Association being set up, and this has now been done. I feel that we ought to congratulate the woodland owners for having set up associations for England and Wales, and Scotland.
I fully realise that one of the fears of the home timber grower is that the end products of the timber he grows—chipboard, paper and so on—have up to now had tariff protection which will over a period of ten years, but not immediately, fall away in the Free Trade Area. My noble friend Lord Dundee will be dealing specifically with the paper industry when he comes to reply, but at this point of the debate I would say this: that it must be recognised that some of the British timber-using industries may well face powerful competition as the result of the formation of a Free Trade Association, and that this in its turn may have repercussions for forestry.
The draft plan for the Free Trade Association of the Seven does envisage the possibility of special temporary defensive measures which may include either temporary import restrictions or some slowing down of the process of tariff elimination in circumstances which would otherwise give rise to real hardship for particular industries or regions. One must, however, hope, taking into account the fact that the process of tariff elimination will be a gradual one over ten years, that none of these industries will in the event find itself in circumstances which would justify recourse to these special measures. It must always be recognised that the general interests of the United Kingdom will call for restriction in the use of any such arrangements by any country to the cases where otherwise substantial and demonstrable hardship—"spectacular" was, I think, the word used—would occur if the commercial advantages which we expect from the plan are not to be put at risk of being eroded.
Another point I must refer to in speaking of forestry is that there is a huge
712
market for timber and timber products in this country, and so far the home producer has touched only the fringe of it. For instance, home grown softwoods other than pitwood at present represent only 3 per cent. of consumption. Even in pitwood, where the total demand is admittedly falling, but where there is no protective duty, under 50 per cent. is home produced.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I was trying to make the point that one of the reasons why we were in such a state was that we had none of the kind of timber to sell, because it has not yet grown sufficiently big.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think it is a little inaccurate to say that in the United Kingdom we have none of that kind of timber. I admit the devastation that there was to our woodlands during the war, but there is a certain amount of mature timber in this country. I am sure we have great opportunities here with this vast market on our doorstep. And surely it is reasonable to expect that processers such as pulp mills, with the new and technically up-to-date factories that they have erected, or will be erecting, in this country, will be able to meet the challenge and take a full share of the vast market for these products which exists on their doorstep, and be able to utilise large quantities of the timber raw material which is grown in this country.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I have tried to point out that the danger is that we shall not be making paper because paper will come in here and take the place of what they send as pulp now. We shall not be requiring any pulp if all the paper is made for us.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I really cannot accept that all the paper will come into this country. Paper-makers (this is not really my side of the debate—my noble friend will be dealing with this much more efficiently) have a large and expanding market, and to say that all the paper will be coming in from overseas must, I think, be an exaggeration.
There are several most encouraging indications of progress in the home timber industry. I emphasised recently in a debate in your Lordships' House that

713
we must begin to learn to sell our products, and not expect to have a ready-made market provided for us on a plate. The organisations of the home timber growers are being formed. The Home Grown Timber Marketing Corporation Limited has already been set up and has secured a big success, which has confounded the pessimists. When the use of oak for railway wagons began to decline, there were those who said that there could be no other outlet for such timber, and that disaster was round the corner. But already a contract has been secured for the fencing with home grown timber of the new Doncaster by-pass, and I am sure everyone in this House will join in congratulating those who brought this about. There were those who said it was folly for us to have a motor car industry in this country, because we could never possibly compete with Detroit. People who said that look rather foolish to-day. We export motor cars to America.
Though it would be quite wrong for me to suggest to your Lordships that it would be possible to insulate forestry from the effects of Free Trade Area competition, I ask your Lordships to give full weight to the good effects for the country as a whole that this Free Trade Area will bring. This country lives by its exports, and can flourish only if there is a high level of international trade. A prosperous country will provide an expanding market, not only for other members of the Free Trade Area, but for home producers as well. Let none of us forget that it is not only our tariffs that are coming down but the tariffs, pari passu, of the other members of the Free Trade Area. Therefore, it is not only the home market that is available to the timber trade and those who use its products and, indeed, all traders in the country, but the whole vast market of all the seven countries.
5.22 p.m.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, I should not have presumed to intervene again in a debate so soon after my maiden speech were it not for the fact that I was sure a certain reference would be made to the agricultural industry during the course of the debate. The Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, refers to the problems of the Common Market and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Outer Seven. Agriculture has always been regarded as one of the
714
problems inherent in the early concept of the European Economic Community. I think it would be as well if we asked ourselves why this should be so.
Within many of the Western European countries there is a dominance of agriculturists in the population. Most of them are very small peasant farmers. By comparison, for instance, with the United Kingdom, which has only 5 per cent. of its working population gainfully employed in agriculture, something like 33 ⅓ per cent. of the population in France are so employed, and something like 45 per cent. in Italy. In consequence of that distribution of industry in relation to agriculture and the rest of the community, there has grown up a strong tradition of protectionism for their agricultural interests. They have resorted to methods of very high tariffs and quotas, as well as many other less obvious means of supporting their respective agricultures. By comparison, we in this country have, even in the eyes of a most independent body of world economists, under the chairmanship of Professor Harberler, had our system portrayed to the world as the best system for giving support to the agricultural industry against the criterion as to whether or not the system inhibits freer trade in agricultural and other products.
It has been said that if this world is to make progress and get away from the difficulties of the "isms" that are dominating it, we must have a dynamic and expanding world economy. Presumably that means an expansion of trade and of production, and in consequence, we hope, an improvement in the general standard of living of the community at large. If that be so, then it is almost axiomatic that inward-looking nationalism is the very negation of an expanding world economy. Therefore it is in that climate that we have to regard the present situation in relation to world trade and the development of trade associations of a free trade nature.
It was really in consequence of the real problems that beset the countries in Western Europe that the development of the Treaty of Rome carried with it the concept of free movement or freer movement of industrial goods within the European Economic Community, but never for one moment did it ever conceive free trade for agricultural products

715
within even the inner Six. Indeed, rather did it suggest that there should be a somewhat complex system of managed markets. That in no way gave us the impression, on examination at any rate, that free trade was intended even among those six countries. It was against this background that the early approaches for the European Free Trade Area were made by Her Majesty's Government; and they were based primarily on a different treatment for agricultural as compared with industrial products.
If there was any misfortune in those early discussions it was perhaps in the choice of the phrase, "exclusion of agriculture". I think it would have saved a lot of confusion if it had been readily conceded at the outset that there would have to be special treatment for agriculture, not for the United Kingdom's sake but because of the real complexities that existed in agriculture throughout the world, due to the nature of the support that is almost universal in existence though not universal in pattern. The special characteristics of agriculture which mean that the free trade doctrine is unsuitable are, first of all, that in agricultural commodities only a very small change in supplies can react in a disproportionate fall in price; and, secondly, that demand does not necessarily vary in direct proportion with the fall in price. Moreover, the low income of producers is generally relative to the income of the rest of the community. Therefore special treatment on that sort of ground for agriculture in any of these approaches is, I think, imperative. Indeed, when the right honourable gentleman the Paymaster General was having early discussions with the countries within O.E.E.C. with a view to creating a European Free Trade Area, it was in October, 1957, that he submitted a separate agreement for agriculture in order to make possible and facilitate progress in the negotiations for a European Free Trade Area.
The basic concept of that separate agricultural agreement that was put in parallel with the industrial agreement, was, first of all, that there should be confrontation; secondly, fair rules of trade; and, thirdly, commodity arrangements of a multilateral nature intended to create stability in agricultural pro-
716
ducts. But there was one very definite statement in that important proposal—indeed, it has been consistent throughout the submissions of Her Majesty's Ministers, both at home and in discussions with other Governments; and that is that there should be no tariff concessions within the agricultural agreement—at least, there should be no catering for tariff concessions.
What do we mean by "confrontation" in this context? We in the United Kingdom were certainly prepared to face up to confrontation as long as it was universal and two-way. Our experience has been, in fact, that where the system of confrontation of policies with regard to production and price and guarantees, and so forth, has been effected before the agricultural committee in O.E.E.C. its findings have certainly been used and represented to the agricultural industry in consequence. We have, however, had serious misgivings that the same did not apply to other nations' agricultural policies, and that they were not conforming to the spirit and intent of confrontation. So, if it is universally applied and literally implemented, then we have less to fear than some of the other countries may have, and perhaps that is why progress has not been made in this direction.
So far as fair rules of trading are concerned, I agree sincerely with the noble Earl that we must have the necessary safeguards that fair trading is, in fact, operating. But I would go further than the noble Earl, in that I am not satisfied, except in the extremity, that invoking the provisions of the anti-dumping legislation is enough. I think there have to be rules of fair trading even inside the provisions of this particular legislation which deals only with the extremity. I think it was inherent in the proposals that that would be so; if not it should have been so. The agriculturists within Western Europe looked at the Maudling proposals, the preliminary treaty proposals for agriculture, and by and large came to a measure of real agreement on them. Therefore, it could never have been said that agriculture was an obstacle to progress in the development of a European Free Trade Area. I think that is a very important point. We then, of course, had the breakdown in 1958 when the opportunity of prosecuting the European Free Trade Area in a wide sense was denied us by the break-off of the

717
discussions. In consequence, we have sought to develop a bridgehead in the little Free Trade Area or, as we call it, the Outer Seven.
May I say at this stage that I fervently hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it is a bridgehead, and that from it we can develop the concept of slowly coming to agreement on a much wider Free Trade Area than is conceived in the Outer Seven. I say that for this simple reason: that I believe the agricultural problem can never be resolved within the Outer Seven any more than it can be resolved in the United Kingdom alone. I believe that the multilateral trading association of the whole of Western Europe—and, indeed, with room left for the Commonwealth to market in Western Europe, too—is a "must" if we are to develop that expanding economy to which I am sure we are all dedicated. I can see the danger, for instance, of Denmark being shut out of Western German markets if the European Economic Community develops from strength to strength and becomes wholly inward-looking instead of outward-looking. Therefore, it is in my view imperative that we do all we can not to make a permanent rift between the two sections of Europe but rather to close the gap and try to see where our mutual interests lie within the Outer Seven and the Inner Six, or Seven if developments with Greece go on as they are doing.
The danger of not closing the ranks in this particular sphere is that Denmark's products may well have to go to the only other free market in the world, or the only free market for food—namely the United Kingdom. And if that happened the whole price fabric, in my view, would come tumbling around our ears, and theirs, and the ears of the Commonwealth; and instead of an expanding economy we should find the primary producers slowly being denuded of their purchasing power which we believe to be vital in an expanding industrial trade. For this reason, I personally regard it as imperative that the agreement should ever be regarded only as a bridge, and that we should work to the end of a wider Free Trade Area—that is, the one we aim at, coupled, of course, with the necessary negotiation of a broader-based agricultural treaty, to ensure markets for
718
the traditional suppliers into the potentially expanding markets of the industrial economies of Western Europe, including our own.
I should like, if I may, before I sit down, to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, if the policy that was declared by Her Majesty's Ministers at the very outset of the discussions on the European Free Trade Area with regard to the maintenance of the policy of tariffs on the agricultural and horticultural commodities applies equally to the Outer Seven arrangements of the smaller Free Trade Area. I think that some reassurance on that point at this moment of time is extremely important if we are not to create a feeling of mistrust and lack of confidence which is calculated to imperil the progress that I think is in the best national interests to achieve.
5.38 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, the whirligig of time in politics is a most interesting study. That the free exchange of commodities goes with logic and common sense is, I think, agreed on all sides of the House, and I support my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence in welcoming the Government's attitude to this proposal with regard to the bridge we have just heard about from the last speaker. But I, too, remember with Lord Pethick-Lawrence the time when we had a campaign in this country, a very fierce campaign indeed for tariff reform, with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at its head. In those days the Labour movement was solidly behind the Liberal Party in protestation for the principles of Free Trade. The Labour movement owes much to Henry George, and up to the days of Labour Governments protection was anathema.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, welcomes the Government's proposals but with a certain amount of reservation, which I think is quite understandable—as they say in the Mikado, a kind of modified rapture. As the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, reminded us in the pig debate the other day, the first Labour Chancellor, Mr. Philip Snowden, was almost fanatical in his defence of Free Trade, particularly what was then called the "free breakfast table". I remember a doggerel that used to be

719
chanted during the tariff reform campaign:
"Tariff Reform means work for all, work for all, work for all."
There was the ribald derision afterwards—
"Chopping up wood in the workhouse."
Our view of the whole tariff reform campaign was that it was a device to bring back protection in its worst form, to increase the cost of living for the people and generally to degrade their circumstances.
During the pig debate to which I have referred, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, from the Liberal Benches, put a question indicating his concern about the paper-making industry of South Scotland and the industry's fears with regard to the result of these free trade proposals. Of course, the paper-making industry is not only a Scottish one. It is a highly capitalised industry employing a great amount of labour. Later, my noble friend Lord Silkin defended the pig breeders and bacon curers upon the ground that he did not think that the imposition of a duty was the best way to protect a market; yet, the duty being there, its ruthless abolition could damage an industry. In my view, my noble friend was perfectly right on that point. It is because of the development of modern industrialism that we have, to-day, a different approach, not the simple, pristine conception which used to be called "Free Trade" in older days.
The matter does not stop at pigs and paper. Miners want protection. I know that I am going beyond the proposals of the White Paper, but the same developing idea is in the mind of the Labour movement and of the community as a whole. Miners want protection against their fear of oil imports. They want coal against oil as a kind of protection for their homes and their jobs. There are the paper-makers, too, with, as I say, a highly capitalised industry employing large labour forces. The paper makers want clauses safeguarding them against a flood of paper from Scandinavia which has behind it a kind of planned afforestation with which nothing in this country can be compared. All these people are right, as things are. Labour, Liberal and Tory agree that
720
laissez faire belongs to the past. It seems that there is in politics and economics a kind of Greek cycle as there is in civilisation and philosophies. One might even look forward to the Russians paying homage, as per instructions, to the animistic spirit of the universe.
One thing seems clear—at any rate, it is clear to me—that high-powered industrialisation on competitive lines and push-button factory systems are inconsistent with free trade in its pristine sense or with freedom of any kind. A nuclear-powered world cannot be a free trade world or a trading world. With nuclear power and automation in the ascendant, the mechanisation of exchange would require to be altered upon lines very similar to those of Socialist technique. Otherwise, each country must evolve a technique of its own on the basis of industrial regimentation on a vast scale, for the reason that power saturation is not finally exchangeable. In a power-drenched world, we can but exchange proper surpluses, on the basis of qualitative, not quantitative, factors. Those are fundamental principles which, I believe, have a great deal to do with the change of attitude towards this general subject.
In the meantime, we must protect the farmers and farm workers—that, I think, is accepted—paper-makers, cotton operatives and workers in other sections of our industry, or unemployment and revolt will become rife. That is the price which has to be paid for capitalism, the capitalism in which all parties believe and wish to expand. It is all very well to say that fundamental laws should be left to work themselves out. They are not left in any event, and it is not in- tended that they should be. It looks logically perfect, of course, like a demonstration in Euclid, that a free trade area, wide or restricted, can work, and even loss of employment, and capital, too, in one area or on one side will be made up in new outlets elsewhere. I beg noble Lords to remember that, when we talk about these things, we are not really speaking about statistics or figures. Injury done is injury not to figures but to human beings, their homes and their families.
What of the interim? Perhaps, in time, it will be true that the advantage to the

721
country as a whole will lead to the re-organisation on natural lines of industry so that there will be, both on the side of capital and on the side of labour, a reintegration. I believe in free trade. So do we all. But I believe also in peace, without necessarily accepting unilateral disarmament. This week-end, the Paymaster General said that:
"the fact is that the real protection of British farming and the bacon industry has always been the subsidy, not the tariff. So far as any additional burden will fall upon anyone, it will fall not upon the farmer but upon the Exchequer."
Is that policy to be applied all round? Are we to say to the paper-makers that real protection of their homes and jobs depends upon a subsidy and, if any burden falls on anyone, it will fall on the Exchequer? If that is the general idea, where will it stop? We cannot live by taking in each other's subsidies any more than the people of the Isles of Scilly could live by taking in each other's washing.
In the paper industry, it takes one ton of coal to make one ton of paper. Also, chemicals, china clay and engineering products—that is, paper making machinery—are used. All those industries are involved. Are we to tell the miners, for instance, that they should ignore the torrent: of oil because the Exchequer will see to it that their homes are not again broken up? If we are to take that line of argument about paper, about farming or about anything else, we must apply it logically all round when we come to consider the question of the fluidity of labour and uprooting the homes of the people. Some will suffer unless we write into the agreement—I believe that this is the point which the paper-makers themselves make—a period of grace during which capital can be written down and the employment pattern readjusted. That is the least that can be done. I do not for a moment suggest opposition to it, but, before advantages accrue from this free trade proposal, there will be, or there may be, at any rate, a time of great uncertainty and, perhaps, of acute suffering in many directions.
The dilemma which we face here in protecting people, their homes and their jobs, is the price we pay for running after false gods. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence eulogised Lord Keynes the other day, and he has done
722
the same on several occasions. I do not wish to criticise the Keynes theorem, but I believe that Keynes, more than anyone else, has been detrimental to Socialist thinking in this country, and he has made a great difference to the attitude of the Labour Movement towards fundamental principles. After all, his theorem is one of priming the pump. It does not touch fundamental questions at all. It is no alternative to a natural, economic law, and it is no substitute for Socialism. High wages, high profits, and high prices must, theoretically, cancel out in the long run. I know that they do not immediately, and I know that there is much to be said for encouraging here and there, for incentive here and there; but those things do not touch the fundamental issues of human life, human industry and human progress. The point is that that Keynes triology—that is why I introduced that as a last note in what I had to say—is incompatible with free exchange. So is high-powered industrialism; so is trade unionism. Free exchange is compatible only with world co-operation as Socialists used to understand it. It is the very antithesis of the competitive system.
That is all I wish to say. I do not pretend for one moment to be a master of the technical issues that are involved; that is why I did not intend to take up much time. I have read, rather sketchily, the White Paper because there has not been much time to analyse it. I think that that White Paper dispels some of the fears, although I am not quite sure. I agree with the principle of the Seven-Power agreement, and I wish the Government well. But I ask them to consider most carefully all that it may imply, especially in regard to the question of employment and the uprooting of families from their existence in any industry to which the effects of a free trade may apply.
5.52 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, enough has been said in this House this afternoon to impress on Her Majesty's Government the vital importance of assisting in every way members of the paper industry. I have no interest in the industry except that it seems to me to be the one which is really hard hit, or which may be hard hit, in this Free

723
Trade Area Agreement. I have had the advantage of talking to a few of its senior members, and there is no single one of them to whom I have spoken who has not said that it is quite obvious that for the benefit of industry as a whole this scheme should go through, and they wish it luck. But, they said, we do ask Her Majesty's Government to give us safeguards, and as much time as possible to write down our capital, to see what the situation is going to be in the future, and to avoid the inevitable unemployment among the smaller companies in the rural areas which may be hit the hardest and might, in the extreme, have to close down altogether.
The managing director of the Swedish paper mills said in an interview that there would be no question of the Swedish industry simply abandoning some of its major export markets in order to try to gain a monopoly position in the British market, and also that there were safeguards written into the draft agreement. Those are rather encouraging words, but we must look to the whole future and examine these safeguards most carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I think, said that future negotiations should be on political and not economic grounds. With due respect, I would say that economic grounds should come first. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to whom we are so grateful for initiating this debate, said, the whole situation must be put in good plain words which everybody can understand.
Perhaps I may look for a moment at the safeguards which are to be found at page 10. From the paper industry point of view that becomes the most important page in the whole of this document. Paragraphs 19 to 22 deal with such things as "an appreciable rise in unemployment" in any section, and they indicate that in this case quotas could, by agreement, be put on. This is the first point that I should like to make. What exactly is meant by "an appreciable rise"?—I emphasis the word "appreciable". We must not fall into the trap of shutting the door after the horse has fled. "Appreciable unemployment" may easily mean that several factories will have to close down, with the result that the unemployment will be fairly considerable. Let us remember that
724
once a factory has to close down it is almost impossible to get it going again at short notice. I think my noble friend will agree with that. Hence, I think we have to be most careful about the phrase "appreciable unemployment".
Throughout the transitional period Her Majesty's Government, I trust and hope—indeed, I feel sure—with the help of the industry itself, should gradually watch the situation as it develops and as the tariffs are reduced, and should look ahead; and if there is any chance in the near future—not after it has happened—of seeing that the smaller firms are gradually being overcome, then negotiations should be entered into with the various members in Europe so that time can elapse in which, as always happens with negotiations, the talk goes on, and quotas can be agreed before the actual crash comes.
Paragraph 23 deals with a slowing-up of the reductions in tariffs if, for the same reason, unemployment or hardship is being felt. But it is significant that although paragraph 24 allows for a review of these safeguards, the Agreement allows for the safeguards only in paragraphs 19 to 22 and not in paragraph 23. This leads me to believe that the quota system is thought to be rather more important perhaps than the slowing down, because the slowing down, under the rules, can be slowed down only to the degree of the transitional period. I personally believe that, of the two, the quota system is the better. I hope that this will be used should the necessity arise.
We must carefully consider these people. Let us remember one point which is of great importance to us all. Supposing many of these firms had to close down, though some of the bigger firms who, through their greatness, were, to a certain degree, able to come through the storm, the amount of paper actually made in this country would be very much smaller than it is at the moment; the remainder would come from abroad. In case of a war—which God forbid!—we must keep in mind that that supply might be cut off. I think that enough has been said to-day to see the danger of the situation from the paper manufacturers' point of view. It is a big industry with great potentialities. Let us do all we can to see that their trust, in the fact that they agree that this scheme should

725
go forward for the sake of the whole of British industry, is not betrayed. Let us be sure we do all we can to safeguard their interests in the future.
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, when he addressed us earlier, out of the wealth of his experience gave us a flashback to the old days before the First World War, of the conflict between the supporters of Free Trade and Tariff Reform. I thought he was trying to lead us to believe that now the free traders of these days have been proved right in the end. But his words brought back to me very vividly some words of my father, whom I heard quite often in those days answering questions at Election time. When asked his views about Free Trade and Protection, he said that Free Trade and Protection were not two religions between which one must choose, but were two expedients which one applied in greater or less degree in accordance with the needs of the time. That, I should have thought, was borne out very much by the situation we are discussing to-day.
One thing which I think is worth recalling in this context is that the technical means of regulating the amount of free trade or protection are infinitely better to-day than in the days of Chamberlain or the big and little loaf. It is very important and gratifying to see paragraphs 19 and 20 and others in this White Paper dealing with the expedients to be adopted if special difficulties arise. But I do not mean to take the time of the House in talking about the economic factors of this problem, because so much has been said this afternoon by so many who well understand it. But I was going to say one or two words about the strategic effect of these proposals. Although that is not referred to in the White Paper, it is one of the many golden silences, you might say, in the Paper.
There is a strategic effect and perhaps it would be worth while taking a minute or two on it this afternoon. When we are hearing arguments about the dangers of entering into an agreement of this sort—the dangers may be to a particular trade or industry—there always seems to me to be an underlying assumption that if we do not enter into these agree-
726
ments things will go on very much as they have done in the past. I believe that that is usually a very dangerous assumption, and certainly from the strategic point of view it is a particularly dangerous one to make. I cannot conceive anything more damaging strategically than for us to be odd man out both of the Six and of the Seven.
These agreements are being discussed at a moment when I think we should all agree that the position of N.A.T.O. is far from being as healthy as perhaps it was a little while ago and as we should all like to see it at the present time. I feel that N.A.T.O. is going through a time of very special difficulty and that these difficulties, however much they may arise from military or strategic considerations, are bound to be accentuated if, in the union of countries which compose N.A.T.O., there is not a sound economic and financial basis. Therefore this Agreement is one step towards developing that economic and financial basis.
Here I should like to say how whole-heartedly I agree with my noble friends Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Netherthorpe and others who pointed out that the full benefit of this agreement will be realised only if it is in fact a step towards union of the Six and the Seven. I only hope that we shall not succeed in reaching that very unlucky number thirteen; but perhaps some way can be found round that. We should regard this Agreement as a step towards the union of the Six and the Seven from the economic point of view.
If it is important from that point of view, then it is even more so from the strategic aspect, because a strategically sound N.A.T.O. could not really be built on two communities, the Six and the Seven; it must be developed on a community of economic interest between the whole of the European countries affected. If anyone were to point out that there are, in this present Agreement, three countries which are not in N.A.T.O. I would say, never mind, the greater includes the less, and if the economic base is broader than it needs to be for the N.A.T.O. countries, what does it matter? The damage would be if it were not broader but narrower. But

727
in a state of economic weakness and disunity how can there be any real incentive in the military sphere for the N.A.T.O. countries to put their best foot foremost and make the N.A.T.O. plans and arrangements worth something more than the paper they are written on, and a real plan to deal with possible threats, which we need not discuss this afternoon but which we all know about?
After all, N.A.T.O. was designed not merely to stand the test of a possible cold war, or a possible hot war, or even a possible Summit Conference; it was designed also to stand up to political pressures and economic pressures; and that is why I think that N.A.T.O. and the interests of N.A.T.O. are the gainers by what has happened over the Stockholm Agreement. If we were to go back a few years, I think that most noble Lords would agree that the real start of the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. was the moment when West Germany came in and we were able to take account of West German territory and West German manpower in our strategic plans. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, opposite would have a clear recollection of that. That step was really brought about, in fact, almost made inevitable, by the European Coal, Iron and Steel Agreement. It was that which really set the course for N.A.T.O. as it is now. In the same way I fancy that any future economic getting-together, or any arrangements that will make the currency of Western Europe more freely convertible, are bound to increase the strength of N.A.T.O. and therefore also, our strategic power to achieve the results at which we are aiming in the economic sphere by this Agreement. I feel certain that that is right.
I feel sure that unless we go on those lines, as I said just now, N.A.T.O. will become a pure façade, dependent more and more, or for all I know less and less, on shots in the arm from the Pentagon. Neither we, nor the French, nor any other country can escape the realities of this; and if, as other noble Lords have said, the agreement of the Seven leads to agreement with the Six, we shall be returning again to a realistic and sensible course in the strategic sphere.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before attempting to reply to the debate,
728
I am sure your Lordships would like me to thank my noble friend Lord Swinton for what I think was one of the most interesting speeches we have ever heard him make; and that is saying a good deal, because we have heard him make a great many, and I hope we shall hear him make a great many more. The first speech I ever heard my noble friend Lord Swinton make was in 1923, when he kindly came down as the guest of an undergraduate political club at Oxford. At that time I think he had just become President of the Board of Trade for the first time.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The fourth time, I think.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In 1923?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I thought my noble friend said 1933.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It was thirty-six years ago. I think it was the first time he held that office, an office which he often held again later. The main topic of interest at that time was Monsieur Poincaré's invasion of the Ruhr in order to seize German coal which was owed in kind in payment of reparations. There was a newspaper, I remember, which used to have a headline every day saying something about, "Hats off to France!" but the British Government and Great Britain did not join with France in entering into the Ruhr. My noble friend Lord Swinton spoke about this subject when he talked to us.
I could not help thinking as he was speaking to-day about the long tragic succession of events which followed from the attempt to extract impossible reparations from Germany, and I could not help thinking what a good thing it is now for all of us that France and Germany are co-operating, instead of trying to injure each other economically. So many of the most ravaging wars in Western Europe since the time of Charlemagne have been caused or aggravated by Franco-German antagonism. If they cannot co-operate, I think it is unlikely that the civilisation which they have both inherited from the Roman Empire will survive.
Under this Common Market not only are they now moving towards economic unity, but it seems possible that it will be accompanied by some kind of political

729
integration as well. I think that is one of the best things which has ever happened in the modern world, and I rejoice at it, even although our own country, for the time being, is excluded from its commercial benefits. As my noble friend Lord Swinton said, we could not join the Common Market for two reasons: one, because of our agricultural policy; and the other, because of our Commonwealth policy. As I believe my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, about half of our trade is done with the Commonwealth: we send about half our exports there, compared with only about 13 per cent. to the Common Market countries. It would be unthinkable that we should sacrifice our Commonwealth policy of Imperial Preference, but we felt it was perfectly possible to reconcile that with a European Free Trade Area in which the other members of O.E.E.C. would be associated with the Common Market. As I think your Lordships know, the Commonwealth was consulted about this as early as 1956, and all the Commonwealth countries heartily agreed with what we were trying to do. Though there has not yet been time to ascertain their reactions to the agreement with the Stockholm Group, the European Free Trade Association, I have not the slightest doubt that they will fully approve.
The reasons why we did not succeed in getting the complete European Free Trade Area, as again my noble friend Lord Swinton said, do not matter so much as the question: Where do we go from here? And I think we certainly do not want to have any recriminations about what has happened. We must recognise that the French were passing through a time of great economic difficulty; and now that your Lordships have listened to so many able speeches about the paper industry in Great Britain, you can no doubt imagine the feelings of the French Government when similar representations were made to them, not about one but about a hundred French industries which thought they would be ruined by the establishment of a European Free Trade Area. I think we must be patient with the French and persuade them that in the long run it will be to their advantage to join with us in an association of this kind. We must do it by persuasion and not by quarrelling with them.
What we have done now is to form an association with the Outer Seven, and
730
as many of your Lordships have said, and as is made plain in the White Paper, the primary purpose of this association is to provide a bridge which will make it easier for the wider object of a complete European Free Trade Area to be achieved as soon as may be practicable. If I may just try to assuage the superstitious fears of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, I would say that he may have noticed two days ago that Greece has now joined the European Economic Community so there are now Seven—it is now Seven-all—so that if they all dined together it would not be necessary for one of them to sit at a separate table.
We think that this European Free Trade Association, as the Outer Seven Association is called, will help in many ways to lead to the wider association which is our real goal. For one thing, it is much easier to negotiate with two parties than with seven or eight. If we have a whole lot of separate independent European countries carrying on negotiations with the Common Market Six—or the Seven, as they are now—it is much less likely to produce a quick and satisfactory result than if we have another organisation which is intended, not to divide Europe into two rival camps, but to help Europe towards greater unity. It will be much easier to negotiate all together than separately; and we also think that we may help towards the larger object by the example of this Outer Seven Agreement.
I think that when the rest of Europe sees how it works, suspicions which, as we all know, have been entertained among some people in the Common Market Area—suspicions that our real object in proposing a Free Trade Area was to upset the Common Market out of a commercial jealousy—may be removed when they see a Free Trade Association such as we have agreed on actually working; or the suspicion that we were trying to get the advantages of belonging to a club without paying our subscription; or the feeling, which was fairly widespread, I think, in some circles in France, that a Free Trade Area was much too complicated and would interfere with the simplicity of the Common Market arrangement.
It is for these positive and constructive reasons that we think that our E.F.T.

731
Association, which we are now forming, will help us towards the complete O.E.E.C. Free Trade Area. The last thing we are thinking of doing is to use this as a kind of threat against the Common Market to force them into negotiations, by threatening to injure them if they do not do it. What we want to do is not to start a trade war of any kind, but to help Europe to unite and to show the Common Market Powers by our example, by the way this Stockholm Free Trade Area works in practice, that they have nothing to fear and everything to gain by agreeing to the larger association which we all want.
But, my Lords, I could not agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that if we were to fail in that purpose there would then be no point in this Stockholm Agreement. On the contrary, I think that, even if we were to fail in our major object of a general European Free Trade Area, this more limited area which we have now achieved will nevertheless be of the greatest value to our trade. If I may take the least wealthy country first—that is, Portugal, with a gross national product of only about £40 or a little more per head of the population—as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, the Trade Fair which we have recently had there has been a success which has surpassed all expectations. Orders for British goods have increased very much indeed. Portugal is a country with whom we have long commercial and political associations, and we think there is a great field for export expansion there.
Then there is Austria, which has a larger gross national product per head than Portugal—about £200 per head. But, of course, the countries with the highest standard of living are the other four—Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland. Between them, these four countries have a population of about 20 million, and their gross national product is well over £400 per head of the population, rather higher than ours in Great Britain. The total imports of all these countries with whom we have formed this association amount to £3,000 million worth a year. We have only been sending them, up till now, about £300 million worth. And, of course, these high-standard-of-living countries with whom we are now associating have
732
a great propensity to import all the high quality goods which we can produce. I think, my Lords, that even if it were to lead to nothing more, this Stockholm Association will be of the highest value to British exports and to British trade.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not want to go on the record incorrectly. I do not dispute anything that the noble Earl says. The point I was trying to make was that if, in fact, the two groups did not get together, we should, I think, be doing something pretty dangerous—that is, ranging Europe into two opposing groups economically and, I am afraid, inevitably, later on, politically. That seems to me to be the danger.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if that were to happen, I do not think it would be the fault either of ourselves or of any other member of the Stockholm group; and I would again repeat that our main purpose is to lead to the larger association.
Now, my Lords, as for the possible disadvantages to British home industry, I think the only example which has been canvassed by your Lordships this afternoon is the position of the paper industry in Great Britain and the indirect consequences which that may have on home-grown timber. On both these things I am myself, naturally, very sensitive; because as my noble friend Lord Ferrier, I think it was, pointed out, in Scotland a higher proportion of people are employed in the paper industry than in England.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? I tried to make the point. I said the consequences would be indirect and direct from the forestry point of view.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I am afraid I was having a cup of tea when he made his speech, to my great loss. I would rather not go into that, because I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time on the question of whether there has been direct as well as indirect injury to the timber industry. But certainly I well understand the grounds for the concern which your Lordships have expressed.

733
Let me first say that we intend to do everything we can to ensure that there are fair conditions of competition. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, particularly, asked about dumping, and with your Lordships' indulgence I should like to give him a full reply on that point. There is nothing, my Lords, in the Convention of the Association which will prevent us from continuing to be able to use our own powers to impose anti-dumping duties on goods exported from fellow members. These are the powers under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act of 1957, by which we can take action against dumped goods where material injury is caused or threatened. We shall be able to act against goods from fellow members, where necessary, in precisely the same way as we can against non-members. Moreover, all member countries will be obliged to readmit to their own country without duty or other restriction any such goods which have been exported to another member; that is to say, the dumping country will be obliged to allow the dumped goods to be dumped back again if we want to do so.
LORD AMWELL: In this particular context, can the noble Earl give us any idea of the standard by which he defines the term "dumping"? I do not see how it is applied.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I prefer not to do that, because I think that what my noble friend wanted to know was whether there are any reductions in our powers under the Anti-Dumping Act, which powers are well known: and the answer is that there are not. Members of the group and non-members will be in exactly the same position so far as dumping is concerned.
Now, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, in speaking of the paper industry, wanted to know what conditions we should try to secure with regard to fair trading in the Convention which will be made in the Autumn; and he asked about our access to the raw supplies of pulp. What we intend to seek is rules of fair competition which will prevent exploitation of Scandinavian pulp supplies by restrictive practices or export controls or export taxes. These would safeguard on level terms the United Kingdom industry's access to supplies of Scandinavian pulp, to which
734
it normally looks for a substantial part of its raw material supplies. I would add that I do not think, so far as I know, that there is any reason to expect that the Scandinavians will not be perfectly ready to agree to these rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, also asked about the possibility of establishing new businesses. We intend to ask that provisions should be inserted in the Convention to ensure that the possibility of establishing new businesses in any part of the Free Trade Area would not be restricted in ways which might put the United Kingdom industry at a disadvantage. Now the paper industry may have had some apprehensions, but they were not the same kind of apprehensions as were entertained in regard to the former proposals for the larger European Free Trade Area. What they now feel is that, having this smaller limited free trade area, the Scandinavians will be obliged to divert their supplies from Europe to Great Britain, with deleterious effects on our homegrown paper industry. I have no figures about this, and I do not know what the Common Market tariff on paper from Scandinavia is going to be: it has not been decided yet. One would expect that it would be higher than the existing German and Dutch tariffs, but whether it would be less than, or the same as, the existing French tariff, I do not know. In other cases, they have usually taken an average as the Common Market tariff. But I do not know what it is going to be in the case of paper.
I would suggest that we ought not to assume that the tariff imposed by the Common Market against Scandinavian paper is going to be a prohibitive one. They are accustomed to taking a large quantity of their paper from this source, and I do not know of any reason to think that they mean to make themselves entirely self-supporting in paper production, or that the result of this tariff will mean a very large reduction of Scandinavian exports to the Common Market, though no doubt it will mean some reduction. I do not think that we should assume that the increased exports of Scandinavian paper to Great Britain will be so large that they will inflict ruin upon our home industry. After all, our demand is expanding and there is room for increased consumption.

735
I am reluctant to suggest to noble Lords that their fears may be exaggerated, because I know from my own experience how annoying it is to be told that when you are arguing the case of an industry in which you are interested. Nevertheless, I think it is possible that the position is not quite so gloomy as has been suggested by some noble Lords who have spoken. Newsprint, which forms about 10 per cent. of United Kingdom production, is already wholly free of United Kingdom import duty, and other types of paper and board are subject to duties ranging from 14 to 20 per cent. ad valorem. These would be removed only over a period of ten years.
Although it is true that the Scandinavians would have a strong competitive advantage in certain types of paper and board, they would not have such an advantage over the whole field. The strength of the Scandinavians lies in their ready access to ample supplies of cheap pulp-making timber and cheap hydroelectric power, and this favours them in the production of certain mass-produced types of paper and board that can be made in large integrated plants on high speed machinery. But for some other types, the United Kingdom producers have the advantage of proximity to a large consuming market and the possibility of integrating paper-making with the making of paper manufactures. The types of paper and board on which Scandinavian suppliers would be likely to have the most substantial competitive advantage, in the absence of a United Kingdom tariff, account for about one-fifth of the total United Kingdom paper and board production. It is also the case, I am informed, that the more expensive types of paper are the least vulnerable.
Several noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, spoke about the escape clauses, which are defined in Sections 19 to 24 of the White Paper. I am not going to try to define what is meant either by "appreciable" or by "spectacular", but I am sure that your Lordships will understand that these escape clauses are intended to be used only in really exceptional circumstances, and that if we were to start using them in circumstances which were not exceptional, then of course other members of the Association would be entitled to do
736
it too, and the whole purpose of increased free trade between us all would largely disappear. I think that it is perhaps appropriate to mention that, whilst we fully appreciate and will keep in mind the natural concern of this industry, when the Federation of British Industries sent out a questionnaire to their members about the proposed Stockholm Agreement, as it was then, the number of favourable replies they received from industries of every kind, who thought they would benefit from the proposal, was overwhelming—too long to read out to your Lordships. I am glad to say that it includes the Scottish woollen manufacturers, which may be of some interest to some of my noble friends from Scotland who are here.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, in a speech which your Lordships will agree was very helpful and moderate, talked about the possibility of helping factories to be established in the Highlands, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross asked whether the European Free Trade Association was going to make any difference to our Highland policy, as explained in the recent White Paper. I certainly hope that it will not make any difference, and I hope that concerns using timber which are thinking of establishing themselves in the Highlands will not be discouraged from doing so.
The noble Duke asked if we could help them in the same way as they have been helped in Northern Ireland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: If necessary.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that it would be right for me to mention a particular industry as a possible candidate for Government assistance in this matter, but I would say to my noble friend that I do not think that this Free Trade Area will make any difference to the traditional policy of all British Governments of helping to establish new industrial undertakings in areas of high unemployment, or potentially high unemployment, of which the Highlands have always been recognised as one, or in areas where it is considered desirable in the public interest that there should be a greater diversity of industry.
One or two of your Lordships have spoken about the general question of

737
free trade and protection, and have suggested that the Government are departing from the protectionist policy for which many of us fought politically for a long time. I always thought that one of the strongest arguments against British free trade was that it was always unilateral. We were the only free trade country, and were surrounded by protectionist countries, all of whom imposed duties against our exports to them. Surely one of the strongest arguments we all used to use in favour of protection was that we had nothing to bargain with, and that if we had protective duties ourselves we should be in a position to make reciprocal trade agreements with other countries for our mutual benefit. That is exactly what we are trying to do now.
I have already mentioned that we do not propose to make any change in the system of Imperial Preference. That, indeed, is the reason why we could not join the Common Market. The noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, particularly asked for assurance about agricultural protection. There is no intention of providing for tariff reduction on agricultural products as on industrial goods. In our view—we are not alone in this and I think that it is generally agreed—separate arrangements about agriculture will have to be made, such as the arrangement with Denmark, on which the noble Lord made such a fine speech to your Lordships the other day.
If your Lordships want to take a long view, as you probably will, of the purpose behind the projected European Free Trade Area, I think one of the strongest reasons for pressing on with that project is that it would enable Western Europe to export a great deal more capital to the more backward countries of the world which need it so badly. If you consider a great Free Trade Area like the United States of America, it is easy to see how the production of capital goods has developed and grown up there on a tremendous scale which would not have been possible if the United States had consisted of seven or eight different countries all of whom had had protective tariffs against each other. In a European Free Trade Area there is no reason why the production of capital goods should not be developed upon a scale fully comparable to that of the United States. Of course, the larger the scale of production
738
the greater the amount that will be available for export.
We have been so successful in fighting disease in the world that the world's population is now increasing more rapidly than it has ever done before. When some of us were at school the figure was 1,600 million; now I think it is about 2,700 million; and if we are spared extermination by nuclear war, I am told the figure may double again in not much more than a generation. But although the number of people in the world is increasing at this tremendous rate, their wealth is not increasing uniformly; indeed, hundreds of millions of people in the world now are actually poorer than they were in the same countries twenty or thirty years ago. When you have these teeming masses of people who are living in primitive and desperate conditions of poverty, they are very easily led into the belief that a totalitarian Government will remove their poverty much more quickly than a free Government can. The human values which we all want to prevail in the world are not, of course, material values, but they cannot be made to prevail if there continues to be so much poverty among so many people in so many parts of the world as there is now. They need a great deal of capital, and they need it soon. If they are to develop in the way of life which we believe to be right, then they will have to get a great deal more help than they are getting now from Western Europe, as well as from North America.
We mean to continue the work for the establishment of a comprehensive Free Trade Area in Europe, and, meanwhile, I think we can claim that this Free Trade Association which has now been agreed on is a most valuable advance towards our object of making Western civilisation economically strong so that it may be able to lead the rest of the world on the road to freedom.
6.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend for his frank and comprehensive reply, just as I am grateful to him for some very kind things he said about me at the beginning of his speech. I am proud to think that in his brilliant youth he was my political pupil; he has certainly profited greatly by it, as we have learned in this House.

739
I think the debate will have been helpful to the Government in the negotiations which will now go on in preparation for the draft Convention. I noticed that my noble friend was unwilling to define "appreciative" or "spectacular". He reminded me a little of the days when I was piloting the Safeguarding of Industries Act through the House of Commons in the early 'twenties (my noble friend opposite may remember it) and the Opposition tried to move the adjournment of the debate, because Sir Burton Chadwick, who was one of my Under-Secretaries, having been asked to define a blank, said: "Well, a blank is a blank." That was considered to be an insufficient definition.
I entirely sympathise with my noble friend in his unwillingness to define these words, but, after all, they are in this draft document; and this draft document is adopted as the basis on which the Convention will be drawn. I hope that we shall get to a little plainer language. Incidentally, I do not know that it would matter so much if we are the judges, or the country which is the aggrieved country is itself the judge, of whether it puts on the quota, which would then be on for the eighteen months, after which it comes up for review. But it is certainly better to have language which everybody can understand, because we then know where we are from the start and there is no ill-will. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, reinforced that point.
This Agreement is rather different. Hitherto in these trade matters we have made a commercial treaty, but in some sense each country has had its own tariff and we have remained a little on the defensive one against the other. Here we are going into what will ultimately become a Free Trade Area of the Seven, and we are going into it in a spirit of partnership. So it is all the more important that the fair conditions of trade—and we shall all want to trade fairly with one another, because unless we do
740
the whole business would break down, and I am sure that that is not the intention—should be as clearly defined as possible; and the more so because the clearer the language laying down what the practices are, the less necessity is there likely to be for any individual country to have to employ those sanctions or defences which have to be enshrined in these escape clauses.
One other word. I agree with the Minister of State that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, put it too high. Certainly we all want the Free Trade Area, but I think it would be quite wrong if we did not join this group of Seven. After all, that is going to be there whatever happens, just as the Common Market is there. We could not have a much more disadvantageous position than to be excluded from both great groups in Europe, as I think I said at the beginning. But I entirely agree—and I know the Government take this view—that the big Free Trade Area remains always the main objective.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said some wise things to-day about not rushing things too much and about letting the nations in the Common Market see how our association works. Above all, I do not want to have any threats in the matter. That is not the best way. But I am quite certain that we need not be anxious that every effort will not be made, because it is just as much the interest of every one of our partners in this grouping of Seven to get the Free Trade Area as it is ours. I am sure that some of the countries inside the Common Market believe it is their interest, too, and I think that, as time goes on, what I am sure is economically, politically, internationally, profoundly true will be realised: that the great Free Trade Area is equally in the interests of every single one of the countries which will constitute it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker That the Bill is a money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 16), Bill read 2a; Committee negatived. Bill read 3a, and passed.

CITY OF LONDON(VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.] LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.