Sitting of 3 November 1959

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

    Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a full list of the mills where machinery is to be scrapped, and a full list of the firms who will qualify for compensation under the terms of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): No, Sir. Under the Cotton Industry Act, information about applications from individual firms may not be published except with the consent of the firms concerned.
    Mr. Thornton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this secret list is a scandal and is grossly unfair to the operatives concerned? Does not he agree that it is also very unfair to firms remaining in business and those which have publicly announced their intention to close down? Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with this discrimination, or with this preference for private interests as against the public interest?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly examine the matter with the Cotton Board, but I should point out that this is laid down in the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, which continued in this respect the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947.
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms which qualify for compensation for redundant machinery under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, have applied for, and how many have been granted, permission
    824
    to keep such redundant machinery running after 31st March, 1959.
    Mr. Maudling: The Cotton Board has received four applications and granted one. The others are still under consideration.
    Mr. Thornton: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that in granting permission to anyone to continue after 31st March, the main weight will be on social considerations and factors and not on the private profits of the firms concerned?
    Mr. Maudling: This is a matter which Parliament left to the decision of the Cotton Board, I am sure wisely. The Cotton Board has a high position in the cotton industry and in Lancashire generally, and I am quite certain that it will bear in mind the important point which the hon. Member has made.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are two very important points here which are neglected in his Answer? The first is that it is unprecedented—does he not agree?—for millions of pounds of public money to be distributed to people without the public or Parliament having any right whatever to know who is getting it and why? The second point is this. Is it not monstrously unfair that people whose livelihood is being taken away in this way should have no proper opportunity of knowing well in advance that their livelihood is being taken away, so that they may seek to make alternative arrangements? Is not the whole thing becoming a public scandal of the gravest kind?
    Mr. Maudling: No, it is certainly not becoming anything of the sort. I think the hon. Member's question is really addressed to Question No. 1, rather than to Question No. 2. I did say that I would talk to the Cotton Board about the matter. I agree that it is important.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing, in the most general terms, some kind of interim report on how the scheme is working? There are some people who think that too few firms are closing, while others think there are too many, and it would be of interest to hon. Members and to the public if we could have, if only in

    825
    general terms, a report on how my right hon. Friend sees the course of the scheme at this stage.
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly consider that suggestion. My impression is that so far the scheme is working out much as Parliament intended.
    Mr. Jay: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to these responsibilities, may I ask him if he is satisfied with a situation in which, apparently, this list is known to the managements of firms and even to trade associations, but not to any of the operatives?
    Mr. Maudling: It is not true to say that the list is not known to operatives. I think it is right to say that the Cotton Board has urged firms to tell their people what is happening. I am saying only that we are unable to publish the list because the information we have cannot be published by reason of the operation of the 1947 Act, which was passed by the party opposite.
    Mr. Haleasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that many workers in the cotton textile industry find that, having sought temporary alternative employment when threatened with the imminent closure of a mill, they have become disqualified for compensation because they did not have the consent of the employer; and, what steps he intends to take to remedy this hardship;
    (2) whether he is aware of the hardship to cotton textile workers whose mill is about to be closed because they are unable to seek temporary alternative employment without losing their compensation rights unless the employer's sanction has been previously obtained; and what steps he will take to remedy this hardship.
    Mr. Maudling: It is for the trade unions and the employers' organisations to settle in the normal way questions arising out of the compensation agreement between them. I understand that the two sides are in touch about the matter to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Hale: The two sides have been in touch with each other about this matter for a long time and nothing has been resolved. Is the Minister aware of the operatives' position? First, if they leave a firm without written permission
    826
    they may forfeit the whole of their right to compensation, even if they leave because they are told that the firm intends to close. Secondly, if they want to leave and have another job, the employer is entitled to refuse them permission to leave. Thirdly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am asking a supplementary question on two Questions which were answered together. Thirdly, the Minister has announced that the employee has no right to know whether a firm is closing down or whether he has a possible right to compensation.
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member misinterprets what I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question. The fact in this case was that these arguments were worked out between the employers and the unions, and the Government are not a party to them. As the Government are not a party to the agreements, it would be wrong for us to intervene in them.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we cannot deal with human problems of this kind in the House of Commons by referring to some outside agreement made by somebody else? We are responsible, and he is responsible. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great many of these firms are applying for permission, on the one hand, to exercise their right to obtain compensation and, on the other hand, to go on working after the statutory date of 31st March? The men employed in the mills, whose whole livelihood is at stake, are given no information about it at all. How can he justify that by referring to some negotiations outside the House of Commons?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is harking back to an earlier Question.
    Mr. Silverman: No, I am not.
    Mr. Maudling: The Cotton Industry Act made it clear that the Board of Trade must be satisfied that arrangements have been made for compensation but that details of those arrangements were to be worked out between the unions and the employers. I should have thought that it was the function of the trade unions, which they can discharge very well, to look after the interests of their members.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is the Minister aware that since some of these firms have made the arrangements to close down and have not done so, the value of their shares on the Stock Exchange has increased by 100 per cent.? If safeguarding the interests of the shareholders is important, I reckon that safeguarding the interests of the workers is more important still. Why should it be that this ridiculous arrangement makes it possible for the shareholders to know that they are getting 100 per cent. profit on the deal while the man who is to be displaced does not even know that he is to be displaced?
    Mr. Maudling: I quite agree that the interests of the workers must clearly be safeguarded in these matters. This has been and remains the function of the trade unions, which they are carrying out.
    Mr. Jay: Surely as the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, passed this Act, and as he is spending £30 million of public money—
    Mr. Rhodes: It is £60 million.
    Mr. Jay: —or perhaps £60 million, he must take responsibility for what is going on.
    Mr. Maudling: I can take only the responsibility which Parliament has placed on the Board of Trade. I have said that the two sides to this agreement are already in touch and are discussing this matter.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. I beg to give formal notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to Question No. 19, I shall raise that matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity and that, in view of the still more unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to Question No. 20, I shall raise that matter on the Adjournment at a later opportunity.
    Mr. Haleasked the President of the Board of Trade his present estimate of the number of firms which are closing down mills under the Cotton Industry Reorganisation Scheme; how many employees are involved; and what arrangements have been made for the provision of alternative employment.
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that some 500 firms have applied for compensation for scrapping, but it is not possible to estimate the number of people who will lose employment as a result. There is a widespread shortage of labour in the cotton industry and many who are affected by scrapping should be able to secure alternative work at other mills. The Cotton Board has informed the Ministry of Labour of the firms concerned and the Ministry will do everything it can to help.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that twelve huge mills in the Parliamentary constituency of Oldham, West alone have announced their intention of closing between now and Christmas, that at least 3,000 workers are involved, that no one locally can tell me what alternative employment is available and that, so far from there being a shortage of workers, there is considerable unemployment in Oldham, already?
    Mr. Maudling: I know that conditions vary from place to place. Of course, that is true, but within the cotton industry and the cotton area as a whole there is a great shortage of labour, of which there is very clear evidence.

    Cummins Diesel Engine Company, Shotts
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade the causes of the delay in the commencement of the extension at Cummins Diesel Engine Company, Shotts; and when this work will begin
    Mr. Maudling: Difficulties have arisen over acquisition of the land required, in the light of which the firm is again considering its forward plans. I am not yet able to say when work will start.
    Miss Herbison: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this matter has been going on for a very long time and that there have been serious frustrations over the acquiring of the land? Should not the President of the Board of Trade immediately make a compulsory purchase of the land, so that work can be brought to an area which is badly in need of work?
    Mr. Maudling: No, I do not think that compulsory purchase should be

    829
    applied in this case. Here is a case where negotiation is going on between a firm and the farmer who owns the land, and I do not think we should interfere.
    Miss Herbison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many hundreds of people involved as against one farmer and his desires?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think the fact that a person is in a minority means that he should be denied his proper rights.

    North Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the President of the Board of Trade his plans for alternative industry for the Shotts, Harthill, Salsburgh, Cleland area which has suffered from colliery closures.
    Mr. Maudling: We have given wide publicity to the fact that in all suitable cases factories will be built, or grants or loans considered, for firms willing to go to North Lanarkshire.
    Miss Herbison: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the area specified in the Question has been the worst hit by colliery closures in the whole of Britain, and that it will possibly be hit again under the new plans? Does he realise that what his Department has done so far has brought no work at all to this area and that he must show a greater sense of urgency than his predecessors have shown in this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept that my predecessors have shown anything but a sense of urgency in this matter. I agree that the difficulties are very considerable in this particular area. I certainly accept that, but so far there has been no firm and eligible application for assistance from D.A.T.A.C. I hope that the development of the strip mill at Ravenscraig may help, and we are doing what we can to persuade industry to go into this part of Scotland.

    Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that unemployment in Aberdeen is still high, and that this affects not only the major industries in the city but also the
    830
    related industries in the county and in the Highlands, and that discontent and distress continue to grow in these areas; and if he will now specify as a matter of urgency the additional steps he has taken, is taking and intends to take to solve the relevant problems.
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of the level of unemployment in Aberdeen. The Board of Trade is continuing its efforts to persuade new industry to go to Aberdeen, as to other places affected by unemployment.
    Mr. Hughes: As the Minister is one of the survivals on the Front Bench from the last Parliament, he will realise that I have been pressing this matter for years without result, but does he realise that Aberdeen and the North-East of Scotland are facing a hungry winter? In conjunction with the Board of Trade, cannot something be done to bring advance factories into North-East Scotland?
    Mr. Maudling: I quite accept the difficulty of the situation in the Aberdeen area. I understand that so far twelve firm and eligible applications for assistance have been received by D.A.T.A.C.; two have been approved, two rejected and the remaining eight are still under consideration.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his Department has direct contact with the chambers of commerce in Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen, and also whether his Department has in any way had difficulties put in its way by the closure of certain branches of the Board of Trade in the North?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that closures have caused any difficulties. I am sure the contacts are considerable. I am not aware of the exact details, but will look into the point made by my hon. Friend. I am certain that no difficulty has arisen from that source.

    J. H. Jasper and Co., Ltd. (Investigation)
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of Mr. Faulks, Q.C., on some recent take-over bids.
    Mr. Maudling: Mr. Faulks, Q.C., was appointed to investigate the affairs of J. H. Jasper and Co., Limited, on 25th September. He has a great deal of information to sift and more is still coming in. I know that Mr. Faulks will submit his report as soon as he possibly can.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to publish the report or send it to the Director of Public Prosecutions or refer it to another committee of inquiry? Is he aware that this is a problem which must be tackled with urgency and not with the long-drawn-out, languid approach he has manifested in reply to previous Questions today?
    Mr. Maudling: I am sure it must be tackled with urgency, but we must get the report first.

    Trade Exhibition Centre, London
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the inadequacy and relative obsolescence of major trade exhibition sites in London, and to the need for further expansion of export trade for British manufactured goods, what action he proposes to take in connection with the report sent to him on this subject by the Federation of British Industries, urging immediate steps, and a £10 million exhibition centre in London; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the Federation of British Industries' report. I am considering the proposals, but it is too early to express a considered view on them.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that our present West European industrial competitors, notably the West Germans, have already installed during the post-war years exhibition sites fully equipped which are very much more spacious and generally superior to anything available in London? Would he, therefore, show some urgency in considering the report and have it debated in this House?
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware also that there are considerably divergent views on the question of trade fairs, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    New Zealand (Import Restrictions)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what further conversations have been had by his Department with the Government of New Zealand concerning import restrictions upon British goods entering New Zealand; what relaxations have been achieved since last summer; and what effect these have had upon exports of British manufactured carpets, notably carpets manufactured in Kidderminster.
    Mr. Maudling: We are in frequent touch with the Government of New Zealand about their import restrictions. They have recently announced certain relaxations which will allow more imports in total in 1960 than in 1959. The quota for carpets will remain the same but, as orders outstanding since before the restrictions were introduced have been worked off, the whole quota will be available for new business.
    Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend observed that the Prime Minister of New Zealand—a freeman of the Borough of Kidderminster—Mr. Walter Nash, arrived in London this morning? I sent him a greetings telegram of warm welcome, drawing his attention to this Question. Would not my right hon. Friend take this unique opportunity to discuss with Mr. Walter Nash the complete removal of all import restrictions on Kidderminster carpets entering New Zealand, thereby enabling this Kidderminster-born Commonwealth statesman to assist the carpet weavers in the town of his origin?
    Mr. Maudling: Once again, I shall take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that the name "Kidderminster" is written on Mr. Walter Nash's heart as it is now graven on the heart of the House of Commons.

    Employers' Liability Insurance
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and subsequent amending Acts, fail to require a financial deposit to be made by a company where the carrying on of employers' liability insurance is not the main business but is only incidental to the business of marine insurance, and that, on liquidation of

    833
    such a company, loss and injustice are thereby inflicted on insured persons, and other creditors; and if he will take steps so to amend the law as to prevent such loss and injustice.
    Mr. Maudling: This deposit requirement was abolished by the Assurance Companies Act, 1946, now consolidated as the Insurance Companies Act, 1958. It was replaced by a solvency margin requirement which applies to employers' liability insurance as to other classes of insurance, whether or not it is subsidiary to other insurance business. Accordingly the question of amending the law does not arise.
    Mr. Hughes: If that is so and there is no gap in the law in this respect, how is it that the case concerning which I have written to the right hon. Gentleman, which is mentioned in the next Question, has not been satisfied? Why is it that this gentleman suffers from the wrong about which I wrote to the Minister?
    Mr. Maudling: I am not necessarily admitting that it is a wrong, but I should point out that the Act I referred to was passed in 1946 and the company in question went into liquidation in 1938.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the correspondence lasting over a year which he has had with the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, about the case of Mr. Robert Walker, of Aberdeen, insured with the United Kingdom Steam Tug and Trawler Insurance and Indemnity Association Limited, registered under the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and now in liquidation, what steps he is taking to ensure that insured persons, such as Mr. Walker, an insured person, and other creditors will be paid by the liquidator of that company.
    Mr. Maudling: This is a voluntary liquidation and my Department has no powers to expedite matters. If the creditors are dissatisfied with the conduct of the liquidator it is open to them to apply to the Court under Section 304 of the Companies Act. It is also open to creditors to petition the Court for a winding up order under Section 310. I understand that the liquidator has found the liquidation anything but straightforward.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman send the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that arises at all. As I say, the creditors have power under the Companies Act which they can exercise if they think fit.

    Sunderland
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the movement of new industries into Sunderland.
    Mr. Maudling: One firm which hopes to employ 60 people immediately, rising to 100 in two years, has recently moved into the area. In addition, industrial buildings recently completed, under construction or due to be started very soon should provide additional employment for some 900 people.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while this will be of some assistance, there is still considerable disquiet in the North-East in general, and not just in Sunderland, about the need for getting new industries into areas concerned with coalmining and shipbuilding? In view of this, will he give an assurance that the new Bill which is being introduced will give assistance to areas such as Sunderland and the North-East?
    Mr. Maudling: I agree that this is a very important and urgent question, but probably the general discussion on these problems had better take place on the Second Reading of the new Bill, which I think will not be long delayed.
    Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that this area will be included among the list of areas of high unemployment to be scheduled under the new Bill?
    Mr. Maudling: No. It would be quite obviously wrong for me to pick out individual areas until the whole list is published.
    Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the list will be published, because otherwise it is extremely unsatisfactory to have all these discussions without any idea of the areas?
    Mr. Maudling: We have not yet got to the Second Reading of the Bill which authorises the procedure.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to provide a new trading estate for Sunderland.
    Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this? Does he realise that we have had a site in the town surveyed and that there is a site just outside the town which ought to be surveyed? Does he realise that we cannot expect new industries to come to Sunderland until there is a site which is attractive to them? Is he aware that at present the Pallion Estate offers no opportunity for further expansion?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that there is still room for further expansion on the existing Pallion Estate.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Willey. Question No. 13.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that there is no—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member to ask Question No. 13.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade how many people, men and women, respectively, were employed in the factories in Sunderland administered by the North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited, on the latest available date.
    Mr. Maudling: At August, 1959, 2,452 males and 2,948 females, in total 5,400, were employed in these factories.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not sufficient scope on the North-Eastern Trading Estate Company's estate for the expansion required, and that this is generally conceded by his Department, which has made it clear in discussions which it has had with the bodies concerned in Sunderland? Will he, therefore, look at the need for providing further space either in a new estate or through individual sites in Sunderland? Does he also recognise that the present estate is employing far fewer than it did five or six years ago?
    Mr. Maudling: In fact, employment in the existing estate is up by 330 on last year. I understand that space is still available on the existing estate. As
    836
    to the provision of a further estate, we must, I think, leave open the consideration of that until we have the new Bill.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the proposed new factory in Sunderland to be built for the Sixty Minute Cleaners.
    Mr. Maudling: Since erection of the factory was approved in July, the firm has discussed its requirements in detail with North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited. I understand that plans and estimates have now been drawn up and the work will be put in hand as quickly as possible. I cannot yet give a starting date for construction. It is estimated that the factory when completed will provide 170 jobs, and there will also be additional employment for about 140 people in the firm's various depôts in the north-east.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome this new factory but, at the same time, that we regard it as disgusting that the trading estate is employing fewer than it employed four or five years ago? In these circumstances, is it not essential to expedite the provision of such new factories as that about which I was given a specific assurance in June that it was proceeding? Months have gone by and unemployment has increased.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that I can add any more to the answer given in reply to the supplementary question asked earlier.

    Paper Making
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade what further talks he has had with representatives of the paper industry in the last three months concerning the possible effects of the agreement to establish an outer free trade area in Europe; and whether he is satisfied that the safeguards for the industry are adequate to guarantee its future prosperity.
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what further proposals he has to make to safeguard the employment of those engaged in the paper-making industry, when the proposals for the Outer Seven free trade area come into effect.
    Mr. Maudling: Representatives of the industry have had further discussions with officials of my Department. I do not consider that any safeguards beyond those already proposed are required in the European Free Trade Association arrangements.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are particular problems attached to the Scottish paper industry and that the statement which the former President of the Board of Trade made just before the Recess did nothing to allay its fears? Will he give an assurance that in the event of the paper industry declining, provision will be made before the event takes place and not afterwards, because that is the main point of the grievance of the paper trade in Scotland?
    Mr. Maudling: The paper trade in Scotland, I agree, is likely to face increased competition, but I think that the degree of it can certainly be exaggerated. In the Free Trade Association there will be provision for what can be done if an emergency arises, and there will also be the provisions of the Bill which will be before the House in the near future. Beyond that, clearly we cannot claim special protection for any one British industry.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the assurance failed completely to satisfy the industry, the local authorities and the workers in Scotland? Is he not aware that we cannot afford to allow unemployment in the industry before taking further steps to deal with it? Will not he give this matter further consideration?
    Mr. Maudling: I have given it a great deal of consideration, but the object of this Association is a great expansion of our export trade, in which Scotland will share. If we are to sell more abroad, we must expect to buy more from abroad. We must certainly face that.

    Government-financed Factories, North-East Development Area
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Government-financed factories are empty and under-occupied in the North-East Development Area, giving separate figures for Stockton-on-Tees.
    Mr. Maudling: Nine factories are empty, of which two are on the North
    838
    Tees Estate at Stockton. I have no information on the extent to which factories are under-occupied.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a very serious state of affairs that nine factories in a Development Area are empty, that many have been empty for a very long time and that, in spite of the efforts of the trading estates company to get tenants, nothing seems to be done? What steps is the Minister taking to find tenants for these factories?
    Mr. Maudling: We are doing all that we can. This shows the difficulty of any policy of this kind under any Administration. However hard we try to find tenants for factories or to get firms to go to the areas, very great practical difficulties will be involved.

    Canning Factory, Bridgend
    Mr. Padleyasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he pro poses to take in the case of the proposed closure of the Goldhanger Fruit Farms Canning Factory on the Bridgend Indus trial Estate, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Ogmore.
    Mr. Maudling: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Padley: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for promising to look into the matter, may I ask him to bear in mind that there are special features attached to this case of the closure of a factory in a Development Area, in so far as this is the result of a take-over bid of a firm under-employed in the London area which seeks to acquire the trade name, Kingsmere, which can be seen in any of the Woolworth shops throughout the country? In so far as this take-over bid is contrary to the policy of successive Governments, will he press the matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look into the details, but I must point out that the Board of Trade has no power to order a firm to continue in business if it does not want to do so.

    Aycliffe Trading Estate
    Mr. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade the prospects of developing new sites on the Aycliffe Trading Estate; and what consultations

    839
    have taken place between his Department and the Newton Aycliffe Development Corporation regarding sites for industrial development in the new town.
    Mr. Maudling: Sites are available on and near the trading estate for development by suitable industry. No consultations have taken place between my Department and the Newton Aycliffe Development Corporation about sites for industry within the new town.
    Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great concern is being felt within the area of the new town of Newton Aycliffe? Is he aware that in reply to a Question from me the Minister of Labour said yesterday that there are only forty-four unfilled vacancies on the trading estate? Is he aware that, as a consequence, people from the new town, including young people leaving school at the moment, cannot find employment in the west of the County of Durham?
    Mr. Maudling: I gather that over 150 acres of land for industrial development are available in or around the trading estate. I should be happy to see the corporation of the new town if they wish to discuss the matter with me.

    Under-developed Countries (United States Loans)
    Mr. Oramasked the President of the Board of Trade what effect on this country's trade he estimates will arise from the United States decision to require that United States loans to underdeveloped countries, a proportion of which has in the past been spent in the United Kingdom, shall normally be spent in the United States of America; and what steps he proposes to take to counter any adverse effect which may arise.
    Mr. Maudling: The effect of the United States decision to tie Development Loan Fund advances will be to reserve for United States exporters certain orders paid for by the United States that have hitherto been open to international competition. I cannot estimate the likely impact on our export trade.
    Mr. Oram: If there should appear to be an adverse effect on United Kingdom trade, does not the President of the Board of Trade agree that in these matters of aid to under-developed countries
    840
    it is highly desirable that there should be as much freedom from restriction as possible? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that, if action is called for on the part of Her Majesty's Government, it will be in a positive direction of giving further loans to cover our export trade rather than in a negative direction of putting on restrictions against those of the United States.
    Mr. Maudling: I quite agree that we do not want to see unnecessary restrictions. Some of our own loans—for instance, the loans under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act—are tied. We should not forget the very large extent to which the United States has made available dollars to under-developed countries throughout the world which have been used for buying goods not produced in the United States.

    Jarrow and Hebburn
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the substantially higher than average unemployment obtaining in Jarrow and Hebburn, what steps he is taking to find a tenant for the factory vacated by British Celanese; and what he is doing to attract additional industries to the area.
    Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade, North Eastern Trading Estates Limited and British Celanese, Limited, are all seeking a new tenant for this factory. It has been shown to several inquirers, but so far without success. As the hon. Member will know, D.A.T.A.C. assistance is available to firms willing to set up or expand in Jarrow and Hebburn.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When D.A.T.A.C. was introduced we were given great promises about what its effects would be. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since D.A.T.A.C. came into operation, unemployment in Jarrow and Hebburn has never been less than 6 per cent., which is about four times the national average? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to bring work to areas such as those? What is his policy?
    Mr. Maudling: This Question was about the British Celanese factory, and we are doing our best to dispose of it.
    Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. My Question asked:
    "and what he is doing to attract additional industries to the area".
    Mr. Maudling: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, that is fair enough. On the second part of the Question, I can only say that we are applying in this area the same policy as we are applying in other parts of the country—the availability of factories on special terms and the availability of D.A.T.A.C. loans. The whole question of the general system of assisting any areas of special unemployment will come up for general review in the House in the near future.
    Mr. Nabarro: It is not everybody who wants to go to Jarrow.

    Oxygen
    Miss Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Monopolies Commission reported in 1957 that the British Oxygen Company was abusing its monopoly position by charging unjustifiably high prices and by indulging in objectionable business practices; and what further action he proposes to take under Section 12 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, to satisfy himself that the recommendations of the commission have been complied with.
    Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade obtained from the British Oxygen Company in 1958 undertakings on a number of matters covered by the Commission's Report. I have no reason to think that the Company is not carrying out these undertakings and there is therefore no occasion for a Section 12 inquiry. The Board did not accept the recommendation that it should keep the company's profits and prices for oxygen and dissolved acetylene under review.
    Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Monopolies Commission reported, the profits of this company have risen by 50 per cent.? Can he explain to me what purpose is served by the appointment of a public committee and the expenditure of public time if we are treated in this offhand manner? Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us what practical steps will be taken?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Lady is beside the point on this. As a result of the Monopolies Commission's Report, a number of undertakings were obtained from the company. If she has any evidence that these undertakings are not being carried out, I should be very happy to look into it.
    Miss Lee: I can give the right hon. Gentleman a piece of very concrete evidence. That information was collected, as the Minister knows, up to the end of 1956. At the beginning of 1957 further public statements were made. Since that time higher profits have been made by a monopoly that was condemned by the Commission, both for profiteering and for undesirable business practice.
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the hon. Lady's assumption that higher profits are a sign of iniquity.
    Mr. Jay: As the President of the Board of Trade says that he has no reason to think that these undertakings are not being carried out, will he tell us whether he has reasons to think that they are?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, because if they were not the customers would soon complain.
    Mr. Speaker: Miss Jennie Lee, Question No. 25.
    Miss Lee: On a point of order. Before we go on to Question No. 25, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance on Question No. 24.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady rises to a point of order. What is it?
    Miss Lee: Yes, Sir. I rise to a point of order, and I shall be corrected by you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a correct point of order; but it is a correct statement of fact. You, Mr. Speaker, will guide me on this. A Committee was set up to investigate a monopoly. That Committee reported that this monopoly had been guilty of profiteering. Will you then, Mr. Speaker, tell me if you think that the Minister is treating the House with proper respect when he replies to my Question by saying that he sees no iniquity in a company condemned for profiteering now extorting still higher prices?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that hon. Members will be careful about that, because a large number of hon. Members desire Oral Answers to their questions. I now call Miss Jennie Lee to ask Question No. 25.
    Miss Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will safeguard the public interest by introducing legislation to bring oxygen under public ownership and control.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Miss Lee: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that a great deal of publicity has been given to the unofficial strike in the British Oxygen Company? Would it not be a good example to all employees if steps were taken to see that British Oxygen was brought under public ownership and control so that profiteering could be controlled?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that experience will confirm that nationalisation stops unofficial strikes.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that is far too dire a threat to hold over the heads of the employees of this country?

    European Common Market
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries or proposals from American sources for the building or leasing of factories in the United Kingdom have been cancelled since the operation of the European Common Market.
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of one American firm which has decided, since the beginning of the year, to establish a manufacturing unit in a Common Market country rather than in the United Kingdom. There has, however, been no falling off in the number of inquiries from American firms considering manufacture here.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does not that statement conflict with reports from the United States Office of Business Economics, which definitely state that American capital investment is being switched to the Common Market countries from this country? Surely, if his own office is up to date, it must have more accurate information than that coming from this source?
    Mr. Maudling: We are up to date, and possibly more accurate. This is a very important matter and has caused me very considerable concern, but our figures show that the number of new American manufacturing projects that have received exchange approval is about as high this year as it was last year. We know that about twenty American firms are considering establishing themselves in this country. That is very encouraging, but me must watch the matter very carefully.

    Light Industries, Ross-shire
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to bring light industry into Ross-shire, and particularly to Invergordon.
    Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade is anxious to see the introduction of suitable industries in the Highlands and will continue in its efforts to this end.
    Mr. MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Highlands are far too dependent upon public works, and that in this area public works are coming to an end? Is he satisfied that his office in Inverness is doing all it can?
    Mr. Maudling: I recognise that the provision of employment in the Highlands, and in Scotland generally, is a most important and urgent responsibility of my Department, and I very much welcome any advice or suggestions on this subject.

    Kilwinning Industrial Estate
    Mr. Manuelasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the total cost of site preparation and servicing of Kilwinning Industrial Estate; (2) the number of people who are employed at the Kilwinning Industrial Estate.
    Mr. Maudling: The cost of site preparation and the provision of services on this estate was £81,251. As there is only one firm on the estate, I am not at liberty to give details of the numbers employed.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that very few are employed on this estate in relation to the capital outlay, and in relation to the number of unemployed at Kilwinning? Is he now prepared to ensure

    845
    that industry is attracted to that estate, which can take many more factories, particularly in view of the lamentable complacency shown by his Department with regard to this estate over many years?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that either party has ever proposed to take steps to order industry to set up factories in particular areas.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dodds.
    Mr. Manuel—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?
    Mr. Manuel: Yes, Sir. My point of order is that I had two separate Questions on the Order Paper. The President of the Board of Trade has taken it upon himself to telescope them, and I want to know whether I may ask two supplementary questions to clear up the point I have in mind.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot on this occasion, because I have called the next Question.

    Weights and Measures (Legislation)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade when legislation is to be introduced to amend the law relating to weights and measures.
    Mr. Owenasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement of general policy concerning the Report of the Hodgson Committee on weights and measures.
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce new weights and measures regulations for pre-packed foodstuffs and other articles on which the appropriate trade associations have been consulted.
    Mr. Maudling: Preparation of a comprehensive Bill is in hand, but I cannot yet state definitely when it will be introduced. I am not proceeding with the proposed regulations about pre-packed foodstuffs, which were intended only as an interim measure.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not regrettable that it has taken such a long time to take adequate action to protect consumers? The Hodgson Committee reported as long ago as 1951. Does it not emphasise the ineptitude of successive Tory
    846
    Governments that a Bill is now before the American Senate, and likely to become law, to set up a Ministry of Consumers, with a Cabinet Minister in charge, whilst here all we do is to pay lip-service to and tinker about with this vitally important matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that the pattern of American administration would suit this country in every case, but I agree that this is a very important matter. An immense amount of consultation with representatives of consumers, traders and local authorities has been necessary, and we are now preparing a Bill which, inevitably, will be rather big and complicated.
    Mr. Darling: Will the Minister clear up the confusion now surrounding the Government's intentions? Is he aware that the Minister of State told a meeting of retailers in London only a week ago that regulations in regard to this matter would be introduced? We are now told by the President of the Board of Trade himself that we are to have a Bill. Is he aware that this legislation is not foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech or elsewhere, and can he now tell us precisely what the Bill will cover?
    Mr. Maudling: The Bill will be a comprehensive piece of legislation on the subject. What my right hon. Friend said was entirely right. We cannot yet give an exact date for the introduction of the Bill, but it is now being prepared, and we will introduce it as soon as we can.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides will be delighted to hear that a Bill is being prepared? Will he give an assurance that there will be a minimum of delay in its introduction, as it has waited in the Parliamentary queue for a very long time?
    Mr. Maudling: That does not rest entirely with me, but I certainly accept the importance of this legislation.

    Tobacco Industry (Monopolies Commission's Report)
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive from the Monopolies Commission its report on the tobacco industry.
    Mr. Maudling: I hope to receive the report by next autumn.
    Mr. Rankin: Next autumn? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tobacco was referred to the Commission in November, 1956—three years ago? Now, it seems, it will be four years before we get the report. Does he not think that that is an extraordinarily long time, in view of the fact that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act ought to be lightening the work of the Commission?
    Mr. Maudling: The average time taken by the Commission on reports is from two to three years. This one, I agree, is taking longer, but it is a very complicated matter and it is most important to get it right. I do not want to hasten the Commission, but I know that it realises how important it is for it to get its report out as soon as it can.

    Ayrshire
    Mr. Rossasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new projects with the number of employment places they will provide, have been introduced into Ayrshire in the last twelve months.
    Mr. Maudling: Since 1st November, 1958, five projects have been completed in Ayrshire which should provide employment for 280 people. In addition, four projects are under construction or have been approved, which should provide 355 jobs.
    Mr. Ross: As figures given yesterday showed an increase in unemployment of over 1,000 in the period of the last month, is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that his predecessor and his minions have been sufficiently organised to cope with the problem, and have done enough to satisfy the people of Ayrshire that they are really interested in this question?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that all has been done that could be done under existing legislation. It is because we think that the legislation could be improved that we have recently presented a Bill to do so.

    European Free Trade Association
    Mr. Rossasked the President of the Board of Trade the industries he
    848
    expects to be subjected to increased competition as a result of the proposed Outer Seven free trade agreement.
    Mr. Maudling: The effect of free trade under this agreement will be to increase competition for manufacturers here of all the goods produced by our partners. Amongst the most important are paper and board, dyestuffs, fine chemicals and a wide range of engineering as well as consumer goods. Our partners will, of course, have equally to expect increased competition from the wide range of our exports to them.
    Mr. Ross: Will the President of the Board of Trade undertake to look at where these factories that are to be subject to this increased competition are sited? There is more than a feeling in Scotland that we are to bear in a very large measure the losses to be suffered, whereas the gains will be in another part of the country altogether.
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of this feeling. I have looked into it very closely, and I think that it is not justified. There certainly will be great competition for many Scottish industries, but I think that, on the whole, people tend to underestimate the increased opportunities for Scottish goods to be sold in the area covered by the proposed European Free Trade Association.

    Shopping Habits (Survey)
    Mr. Darlingasked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the survey of shopping habits is to be published.
    Mr. Maudling: A draft Report on the survey has been received. It is now being examined and I shall shortly decide about publication.
    Mr. Darling: Now that we have the proposed Bill dealing with weights and measures, and the Molony Committee dealing with a wide range of shopping problems, what is the purpose of this survey? What is it to do?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that the tabulated results of the survey were available in August and they have been taken into account in preparing the Bill which will be presented to Parliament.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Retail Prices
    Mr. Collickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why there has not been a fall in prices and in the cost of living having regard to the drop in import prices; and what steps he proposes to take to bring this about.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Imports account for only one-fifth of the total costs entering into consumer prices, and there has been no substantial fall in import prices since March, 1958. Wages and salaries, which form a much larger part of the total, have risen considerably. In these circumstances I regard it as not unsatisfactory that the retail price index has been approximately stable for eighteen months.
    Mr. Collick: Does the Chancellor remember that he himself, six months ago, said that there ought to be a reduction in retail prices in the shops? How can he come to the House and give a reply like that, in view of his own speech?
    Mr. Amory: I have stated the facts here. I should like to repeat my hope that there will be further reductions in many prices.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) published in yesterday's Guardian showing that, in the case of raw cotton, there has been a fall of 16 per cent. over the past 12 or 18 months, while the price of cotton cloth has fallen by only 1 per cent.? Since similar figures could be shown for a large number of other industries, will he, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, make a survey industry by industry of what has been happening?
    Mr. Amory: I very much doubt whether that would produce useful results. Far and away the best answer to this problem is to encourage the widest possible amount of competition.
    Mr. Collick: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Chancellor—
    Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order? If not, I call the next Question. Mr. Brewis, Question No. 40.

    War Loan Stock
    Mr. Brewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the extra annual cost of raising the rate of interest on 3½ per cent. War Loan from 3½ per cent. to 3¾ per cent.
    Mr. Amory: About £4¾ million.
    Mr. Brewis: That seems a comparatively small sum. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many patriotic people bought this stock when it was a 5 per cent. stock in the First World War, and that it was subsequently reduced to 3½ per cent.? Will he consider whether these people, as well as holders of postwar credits, should share in any increased national prosperity?
    Mr. Amory: I must remind my hon. Friend that there was an option in respect of this stock for redemption at par in 1932. The present holders are either holders who did not avail themselves of that option or who have bought the stock since.

    Income Tax (Schedule A)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to extend the ownership of houses, he will take steps to reduce or abolish Schedule A tax.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, for the purpose of Schedule A tax, he will disregard the first house owned by any one person up to the value of £3,000.
    Mr. Amory: My hon. and gallant Friends will not expect me to anticipate next year's Budget statement.
    Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action would go a long way towards creating a property-owning democracy such as we all desire?
    Mr. Amory: I will take note, as I always do, of my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that a much more effective method of helping people to buy their own houses would be for the Government to take the necessary steps to reduce drastically the very high interest rates?
    Mr. Amory: The Government have done, and are doing, a great deal to encourage private house ownership, with very spectacular results.

    Income Tax (School Fees)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage higher education wherever possible, he will take steps to relieve the burden of taxation on parents paying school fees.
    Mr. Amory: I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend agree that action such as this would make university education available to many more people?
    Mr. Amory: There was a very considerable increase in the Income Tax personal allowances made by my predecessor in the 1957 Budget.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Are we to understand from the Chancellor's statement that he has gone into voluntary purdah rather earlier this year?
    Mr. Amory: The season does seem to be opening a little early.

    Post-war Credits
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the danger of growing unemployment this winter and the need to expand the home market, he will now consider extending the provisions for the repayment of post-war credits.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now extend the payment of post-war credits to the long-term sick and unemployed.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider the payment of post-war credits to people who have had long periods of sickness and unemployment.
    Mr. Amory: As was promised when the Post-War Credits Act, and the Regulations made under the Act, were before the House earlier in the year, I am noting the various suggestions made for further payment of post-war credits, but I cannot make any statement at present.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not there a case here for action now? Does the Chancellor deny that there is a real danger of growing unemployment? As the Government are forced to introduce a special Measure to deal with the high level of unemployment in certain areas, is not this the best time for the Government to pay their debts to some of those who need the money?
    Mr. Amory: That is exactly the problem. I have to consider this very desirable action against the national economic situation.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Chancellor give urgent consideration to the position of the long-term sick who are, perhaps, the hardest hit section of all?
    Mr. Amory: I rather agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will certainly agree to give very careful consideration to that category.
    Mr. Manuel: I am very pleased that the Chancellor has made that slight concession in his thinking, but will he include also in his consideration the long-term unemployed? I have written to him about one case involving people who could have qualified for N. A.B. payments, but the family would not do that and they are, therefore, having a very much reduced standard of life. I feel that they should qualify, and I hope that the Chancellor will look at the matter again.
    Mr. Amory: Again, I think that there is a good deal in what the hon. Member says.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I welcome what the Chancellor said a moment ago about the long-term sick and the injured, but will he bear in mind that all of us, probably, in all parts of the House, have received information about really tragic cases of long-term sick who are caught up by the rule about the unemployability supplement? This test is far too harsh in respect of people in real hardship. Will he look carefully at this matter of the unemployability supplement?
    Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, when I announced these repayments in my Budget, I said that we had to limit ourselves in the first place to certain definite categories but, as soon as they had been completed, we would look at further categories and we should

    853
    hope to make such further repayments as we could, but against the background of the national economic situation.
    Mr. Wilson: But is the Chancellor aware that I remember also that, during the passage of the Bill, we pressed him hard on this very point? If he had yielded to us then, might he not have avoided a great deal of the hardship which has, I think, been evidenced during the months since?
    Mr. Amory: I will say to all hon. Members that I will pay very great attention to any illustrations of hardship which they care to send me.

    MINISTER OF POWER
    Mr. Peartasked the Prime Minister, in view of the position of the coal industry and the need for a national fuel policy, if he will reconsider his decision not to include the Minister of Power in the Cabinet.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): It is no longer practicable to include in the Cabinet all Ministers in charge of Departments; but the hon. Member will be quite mistaken if he supposes that, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is not a member of the Cabinet, the Government will fail to give due attention to the problems of fuel policy and the position of the coal industry.
    Mr. Peart: Why should the Minister be excluded? Surely, the Prime Minister is aware that there is a very serious position in relation to the contraction of the coal industry and that there is an urgent need for a co-ordinated fuel policy. Would it not be wise to have a Minister in the Cabinet responsible for industries which are our main concern?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that all Ministers charged with Departments can be in the Cabinet without its becoming too large. The fact that my right hon. Friend is not in the Cabinet and is not, therefore, sharing in the general work of the Cabinet will not, I think, make it any less possible for him to deal effectively with these problems. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Fuel and Power. He was
    854
    not then made a member of the Cabinet, although his immediate predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), was a member of the Cabinet.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I recognise that these things change from time to time, but does not the Prime Minister agree that the present difficulties through which the coal mining industry is passing, particularly the problem of contraction which weighs so heavily upon it, provide a special reason for including the Minister of Power in the Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has as much knowledge of the work of the Cabinet as I have, but I do not honestly think that to burden a Minister with all the other responsibilities of the Cabinet would really help him in dealing with this particular Department with which he is charged.

    MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
    Mr. Peartasked the Prime Minister if he will state the functions of the Lord Privy Seal in relation to science.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 30th October.
    Mr. Peart: While it is true that a Written Answer was given, will not the Prime Minister agree that it is important that we should be able to have Questions and Answers in the House? In the Written Answer on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the responsibility of the Minister for Science in relation to the Atomic Energy Acts. Is there now to be divided responsibility in the Government between the Minister for Science and the Minister of Power? In addition, will the Minister for Science co-ordinate research and also deal with scientific policy in universities, or is he to be only the "Minister of Drift"?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has taken a long time to come to the point of his supplementary question. I would only refer to the very long statement, which I do not propose to read again, but I should be glad to answer any Questions put down about it.
    Mr. Peart: May we have a statement about what the Minister's responsibilities will be in relation to atomic energy? Will we be able to ask Questions of a Parliamentary Secretary in this House who will be directly responsible to the Minister for Science, or will we have to ask the Minister of Power?
    The Prime Minister: For the last three years the Atomic Energy Authority has been under my direct responsibility. I have transferred that matter to the Minister for Science because I think that it was a burden which it was unnecessary for me to continue. However, there are three Questions on the Paper which I was about to answer in order to state exactly how the matter would be dealt with in this House.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, Mr. Speaker, may we ask whether he would be prepared to make a statement? There is a great deal of confusion about this, and I think that it is in the interests of all of us that we should know which Minister is responsible in this House for which subject.
    The Prime Minister: Questions Nos. 47, 52 and 56 are concerned with this subject, and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and if it is the wish of the House, I will answer them, although unfortunately my Questions were reached rather late.
    The following are the Questions:
    Mr. PEART: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will be responsible for questions in this House concerning atomic energy development.
    Mr. ALBU: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will answer in this House for the Lord Privy Seal in his capacity of Minister for Science.
    Mr. CHETWYND: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will be responsible for Parliamentary Questions on the use of nuclear power for military and peaceful purposes.
    The Prime Minister: The arrangements for answering in this House Questions which fall within the responsibility of my noble Friend the Minister for Science will be as follows. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health
    856
    will answer Questions about the Medical Research Council and about radiobiological hazards; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture Questions about the Agricultural Research Council—subject to the above—and Nature Conservancy; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education Questions about atomic energy—subject to the above—the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and general scientific matters; and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Questions about space research. In each case the Minister will answer "as representing the Minister for Science."
    Where Questions about atomic energy development relate to matters for which some other Minister is responsible, that Minister will, of course, answer them. For instance, Questions about nuclear-powered merchant shipping will normally be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and Questions about nuclear power stations by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Unhappily, we are long after the time prescribed by the Standing Orders for further supplementary questions, and we must get on with the other Business.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, was kind enough to make a statement, as we had rather anticipated confusion over a number of different Questions on the same subject. It is surely usual for us to be allowed to put one or two supplementary questions in relation to such a statement.
    Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman desires to put a supplementary question, I will allow it, but, in accordance with the rules of the House, I do not think that I can allow full rein.
    Mr. Peart: You were kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to call Question No. 46. As my name is down to Questions 46 and 47, am I not entitled to ask a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He is perfectly right about Question No. 46. I had forgotten that he had not asked his supplementary question in relation to it.
    Mr. Peart: May I ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for atomic energy development and to whom he will report? Will he report to the Minister of Power or to the Minister for Science? I think that it is very important that we should have this matter cleared up.
    The Prime Minister: This is a question which has arisen for a very long time in this House. The Minister for Science is responsible for that part of atomic energy development for which I had direct responsibility for the last three years. It was, therefore, necessary to find a Minister to answer, not as the Minister responsible, but to answer for him in this House. I have tried to set out all the different work of the Minister for Science and which Ministers will answer on his behalf. This always happens when a Minister is in the other House. I think that this will work quite satisfactorily in the future, as indeed it has in the past.
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is a great deal of confusion on the point about what the Minister of Education will answer for. Could the Prime Minister explain why he has selected the Minister of Education to deal with questions of atomic energy? Are there not important industrial issues involved here? Would it not have been more appropriate that either the Minister of Power or the President of the Board of Trade should have dealt with these issues?
    The Prime Minister: We will see how this works. I think that it will be convenient. The Questions which he will answer will fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Science, apart from questions of health or radiobiological hazards, which I thought would be more appropriately answered by the Minister of Health. He will, therefore, be limited to certain questions of a purely technical kind which I think he will be well qualified to answer on behalf of my noble Friend.
    Mr. Peart: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply—
    Mr. Chetwynd: On a point of order. The Prime Minister said that he would answer my Question No. 56 with the other two Questions. But for that, I would have withdrawn my Question today and would have been able to ask
    858
    a supplementary question on it another day. As it is, I am now deprived of that opportunity to ask a supplementary question. May I ask one now?
    The Prime Minister: Questions on Government policy concerning nuclear weapons will be answered in this Parliament, as in the last, by the Minister of Defence or by the appropriate Service Minister. Questions dealing with the research and development of such weapons will now be answered by the Minister of Aviation, either on his own account or as representing the Minister for Science.
    Mr. Chetwynd: I am grateful to the Prime Minister, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer all these Questions, because he dealt with them so well in the last Parliament.
    Mr. Peart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, particularly about responsibility for atomic energy development, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: I freely acknowledge to the House that it is all my fault for allowing the rules to be broken.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Collick: On a point of order. I had a Question down today to the Prime Minister, but I received a letter from the Prime Minister's Secretary telling me that the Question had been transferred to the Home Secretary. I presumed from that that the chances were that the Prime Minister would not be able to be in the House today to answer my Question. I therefore want to raise this point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The transfer of Questions is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Collick Mr. Collick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The transfer of Questions is not a matter for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman has another point to raise, let him do so.
Mr. Collick: My point of order is this: is it in order for the Prime Minister to transfer a Member's Question to a Departmental Minister unless some

859
overwhelming Departmental interest is involved, which there is not in my Question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's point of order is not a point of order.
Mr. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Suppose that the hon. Member puts down a Question to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister transfers it to the Minister for Science, who is not in this House. What happens then?
Mr. Speaker: That still would not be a point of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  QUEEN'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [SIXTH DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27th October]:
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    Question again proposed.
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: We have now reached the final stage of the debate on the Address. As has been recognised in the course of the discussions on the Address, this is a somewhat unusual occasion, because we are not only engaged in what has been described on many occasions as the grand inquest on the condition of the nation, but we are also to some extent taking a backward glance at the results of the Genera] Election. Perhaps it is inevitable, therefore, that those two things will be intermingled in what I have to say.
    I would like, first, to make a reference to the results of the General Election in what I hope will prove to be a non-controversial spirit. I recall an incident in the life of Abraham Lincoln, when somebody made charges against him of being concerned in some army contract scandals and an officer serving under him asked leave to surrender his commission in order to allow him to give evidence before the Congressional Committee. Abraham Lincoln replied, in characteristic manner, "My dear young friend, if the mercy of Almighty God falls upon our banners and we are victorious, I shall require nothing but that to defend me; but if, on the other hand, He frowns upon us and, in His infinite providence, we are defeated, ten thousand angels pleading for me will not suffice." There has been no evidence of any angels rushing to our defence on this occasion. On

    861
    the contrary, there has been an enthusiastic rush forward of a number of little devils turning us around on a spit to make quite sure that we are done well on every side.
    In addition, the air has been full of advice from those who worked hard to bring about our defeat, advising us how we can win on the next occasion. It has, therefore, been suggested that we ought to spend time in saying what we should do about our defeat. We shall discuss that in other places and, probably, the discussion will be prolonged and penetrating. I suggest, however, to the House at the beginning of this Parliament that there is another question and one which is even more important: that is, what the Government party does with its victory. It must not be thought that a party victory is necessarily a national victory.
    It must not be understood always that the success of the party opposite has been consistent with the national well-being. The party opposite has won victories before and the consequences for the nation were calamitous. It won in 1931 and its massive majority here presided over massive industrial decay in the country. The party opposite won in 1935 by a very large majority and made its peculiar contribution to the policies that led to the Second World War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I had not thought it necessary to arm myself with the quotations, because I thought that the speeches of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) were familiar to Members on both sides of the House. I could also have armed myself with the speeches of the present Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite are so thin-skinned in victory, how thin-skinned might they be in defeat? They might listen to my arguments with the equanimity which comes from self-satisfaction. I am merely pointing out to them today what, I should have thought, was quite obvious: that they should be asking themselves my second question, what do they propose to do with their victory? A heavy responsibility now rests upon them.
    It would not be an exaggeration to say that the way in which the party opposite uses its victory and the large Parliamentary majority that it now commands
    862
    may be responsible for the future of democratic government in the Western world. There is no reason whatever why we in this House should be complacent about the situation. Democracy is not very powerfully established in Portugal or Spain, and in France it could hardly be described at present as a classic form of Parliamentary government. I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite, therefore, to reflect about how they are prepared to use the power which the electorate has conferred upon them.
    There is one important problem facing representative Parliamentary government in the whole of the world where it exists. It is being asked to solve a problem which so far it has failed to solve: that is, how to reconcile Parliamentary popularity with sound economic planning. So far, nobody on either side of this House has succeeded and it is a problem which has to be solved if we are to meet the challenge that comes to us from other parts of the world and if we are to grout and to buttress the institutions of Parliamentary government in the affections of the population. Therefore, although hon. Members opposite are entitled to their pleasure at the electoral results, nevertheless responsibility falls upon them now to justify their success.
    I would describe the central problem falling upon representative government in the Western world as how to persuade the people to forgo immediate satisfactions in order to build up the economic resources of the country. Let me put it another way. How can we persuade the ordinary men and women that it is worth while making sacrifices in their immediate standards or forgoing substantial rising standards to extend fixed capital equipment throughout the country? This is the problem and it has not been solved yet.
    We failed to solve it. We frankly admit that. In the years immediately after the war we made very great efforts to build up fixed capital equipment and sacrificed our Parliamentary majority. Our name became identified with greyness and dullness, frugalities, shortages. Hon. Members may not agree at all with the measures which we took, but I think there are very few people indeed in any part of the world, especially here, who would say that any Government who

    863
    had the responsibilities of immediate post-war construction were entrusted with a popular job. We spent five years in doing what we thought was right, holding back present consumption, holding back immediate satisfaction, holding down the standards of living, to canalise and divert resources into building up the economy.
    Hon. Members may not agree at all about how it was done, but I think that there is no one on that side of the House who would deny that it was necessary to do that somehow. It would not have been possible—I am sure that I am stating an obvious truism—in the years immediately after the war to have handled the affairs of a bankrupt nation, as it was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, and, at the same time, given immediate satisfaction to the wants of the people at that time; and if any hon. Member takes the contrary view he is not fit to represent his people in this House, because all that would have happened after the 1939–45 war would have been a repetition of the catastrophes which happened after the 1914–18 war.
    I thought that I was stating something very obvious indeed. I am not attempting at all at this moment, because it would be repetitive and wearisome, to defend the policies that we carried out. All I am saying is that it was absolutely essential that personal consumption at that time should hold back so that we could try to build up the resources of the nation.
    So the problem for us today, as it is the problem for right hon. and hon. Members opposite, is to try to reconcile popular representative government with setting aside sufficient of the national income in order to expand productive resources. I say at once that the party opposite has failed as signally as we failed because its Parliamentary majority has been consistent with industrial stagnation. It has solved half the problem. It retained political popularity at the expense of the industrial resources of the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. This is the problem. It is the problem of persuading people to hold back personal consumption. If hon. Members do not want to believe that, let them read the
    864
    speech of the President of the Board of Trade last Wednesday, in which he pointed out that now production is rising, as, indeed, it should rise after having been held back two or three years. The problem is: how can we prevent increased consumption from being entirely used up in rising personal consumption? That is exactly what he said, as I am pointing out today, and it is the dilemma for modern representative government, and it is a very difficult one.
    It is especially difficult for other nations which have adopted democratic constitutions and are not enjoying our industrial resources. For nations like India, for example, and Pakistan it is a cruel problem. As a result of attempting to solve it, democratic government in Pakistan has collapsed, and democratic government in India, faced with exactly the same difficulties, is assailed by enemies from without and from within. It is, therefore, a very, very cruel dilemma that representative institutions have to face, especially in backward parts of the world.
    Therefore, we ourselves in this House, in the coming five years, have to face this problem, and I shall be interested to see the way in which the Government are prepared to face it, because so far we on this side of the House have seen no evidence whatsoever that they have any special ideas or new plans to meet the dilemma.
    Personally, I think that one of the problems is democratic education. One of the most remarkable differences between the climate of opinion, for example, in the Soviet Union and in Great Britain is the extent to which economic education has proceeded there as against here. Whatever its defects—and there are many—there are very few citizens in the Soviet Union who are not aware of the relationship between personal and public consumption and who do not realise, grimly and oppressively, that it is necessary, if the economic foundations of society are to be expanded, that the basic industries must first have their share of the national income before personal consumption can rise very much.
    That process of education has not gone very far in this country, and in the last few years I am afraid that it has not

    865
    proceeded to any extent at all. Indeed, there has been recently a disposition on the part of the people as a whole to take the cash in hand and waive the rest. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that this is the main problem we have to face.
    I know that it will be said that a certain amount of expansion can and will take place and that political popularity will not be very much affected by if but I am not speaking about pedestrian expansion, I am not speaking about a very small percentage added to the national industrial equipment. I am speaking about a degree of expansion and a degree of scientific application to our resources which will, in the course of the next five to ten years, meet the challenge which we are to have from other parts of the world. As the years go by that challenge will increase, and that is why I suggest that it is first a problem of education, and I want straight away to offer one or two observations about that.
    It was said last week that there was a considerable gulf growing between this House and the nation. I believe that to be absolutely true. There is a lessening interest in our discussions. We are not reaching the country to the extent that we did. It can no longer be argued that the national newspapers are means of communication between the House of Commons and the public. The fact is that Parliamentary reporting has become a sheer travesty. Apart from a few responsible, solid newspapers with small circulations, the debates in this House are hardly reported at all, and such reports as take place are, as hon. Members on both sides know, a complete travesty of our proceedings.
    I am not making a special attack upon the newspapers. It may be that the demands of circulation make it impossible for them to report our proceedings at any length. I am merely calling attention to the fact that there do not exist at present in Britain the normal processes of democratic education that make the people aware of the problems which lie ahead of us, and of their own responsibilities.
    The same can be said of the radio and even more can be said of television. Recently, and not only recently but for some years now, there has grown up
    866
    what I consider a most humiliating state of affairs in which Members of the House are picked out to take part in television broadcasts at the ipse dixit of the bureaucracy at Broadcasting House. In fact, there has been nothing more humiliating than to see Members of Parliament in responsible positions selected by unrepresentative persons to have an opportunity of appearing on the radio and the television.
    In my opinion, there is something essentially squalid—I use the term "squalid"—in Members of Parliament beginning increasingly to rely upon fees provided by bureaucrats in the B.B.C. [An HON. MEMBER: "And I.T.V."] Yes, and I.T.V. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] It is no use speaking for myself. I rarely appear and do not want to appear too much, and for many years I did not appear. I am only saying this and hon. Members know in their private hearts that what I am saying is correct. It is also, I believe, inconsistent with the dignity of a democratic procedure that such a state of affairs should be allowed to continue.
    Also, what is almost worse, political alternatives are not placed before the people in a realistic fashion because of the selection of speakers that takes place. I have complained about this on many occasions. I wish, therefore, to make a suggestion. I have not consulted my right hon. and hon. Friends about it. At the beginning of this Parliament I am going to suggest that a serious investigation takes place into the technical possibilities of televising Parliamentary proceedings.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Oh, no, Nye.
    Mr. Bevan: I know that hon. Members shake their heads, but why should they be so shy? Would it not be an excellent thing if, instead of speeches being made in comparative obscurity, and, in fact, never heard at all except by the few Members who assemble here to hear them, they were heard by their constituents? I am not saying for a moment that the electoral results might have been different. Indeed, they might have been confirmed or might have been reinforced. I do not know. All I am suggesting is that in these days when all the apparatus of mass suggestion are against

    867
    democratic education, we should seriously consider re-establishing intelligent communication between the House of Commons and the electorate as a whole. That, surely, is a democratic process.
    I have never looked at television very much, but I have looked at it recently and I have been impressed by it as a medium of communication. There is no doubt at all that it is a very powerful medium, but I think that the time has come when people should be able to switch over to a Parliamentary debate. After all, they are not compelled to listen to us. There ought to be a special channel that they can turn on and listen to us at any time. I am not arguing that we should have only special debates televised, but that there should be a special channel for the House of Commons itself, and, so that its position may be consolidated in the public esteem, there is no reason why the other place also should not be televised.
    I therefore throw that out on my own responsibility. I have not consulted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about it at all—for one good reason that when one makes a suggestion, either here or there, it passes through the interstices of the party machine so slowly that by the time it emerges it has only a meagre resemblance to its former self. It seems to me, therefore, that the time has come for us seriously to consider this suggestion. I know that it is not novel. It has been mentioned before, but has been brushed aside as something so unorthodox and unconventional that we ought not to think about it at all. But I suggest that the time has come when we should give it serious consideration. I hope that the Prime Minister will look at it seriously and take technical advice and, I imagine, appoint a technical committee before we decide the principle, so that we can find out what are the scientific and technical possibilities.
    I now come to the main theme of my address. I suggested earlier, and I come back to it, that we have not seriously faced the problem of how we are to have expanding production, stable prices and, at the same time, an equitable distribution of the national income. I have been making some investigations into past debates on the Address, because I recollect
    868
    very well that when the Prime Minister was on the back benches he used to make a series of very interesting speeches. I have a copy of one here. I can remember listening to it. It could almost have been said in relation to the present Address.
    On 14th November, 1938, speaking about the party to which he belonged—I am not certain whether he had not resigned from it at that time—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] No, I was chucked out; I was never guilty of such treachery—the Prime Minister said:
    "From 1931 to 1937 they"—
    that is, hon. Members opposite—
    "trusted to the stimulating effects of tariffs, of currency depreciation, of the normal rise of the trade cycle, and did not think it worth while to bother about doing very much. It has been what I might call 'the slag-heap period' of our policy."—
    Even then the right hon. Gentleman had this touch—
    "A few minor Bills, little tinkering Measures, to deal with the problem of the Special Areas and the unemployed were considered to be sufficient,"—
    Mr. William Ross: The tinkering Tories.
    Mr. Bevan: The Prime Minister then went on:
    "and the chief anxiety of those Ministers has been directed towards not carrying out the recommendations of their own Commissions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1938; Vol. 341, c. 590.]
    The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the Rushcliffe Report. That is a very good speech. It completely describes the Measures which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested in the present Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Osborne: It is a different world altogether now.
    Mr. Bevan: The Prime Minister has just interrupted me to say, and I want to give the House the benefit of his interruption, that there were then 2 million unemployed. Well, of course, there were, but in a statement which he made at that time, speaking on 24th June, 1938, he said:
    "A properly organised system, under whatever party, whether capitalist, Socialist, or a mixture of both, should be able to see that the necessary reserves of unemployed labour for industry should not be 13, 15 or 20 per cent., but something like 5 or 6 per cent.,

    869
    or 7 per cent. at the highest figure. I cannot believe that after this Debate the House will not demand as serious application to these problems as we are giving to others in the realm of Defence and Foreign Affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1938; Vol. 337, c. 1442.]
    In other words, even in his most radical mood, when he was a rebel inside his own party, the right hon. Gentleman still thought that it would not be bad if we has an unemployed reservoir of 1½ million. That is what he said. I am not speaking at the moment about what the percentage is today. I am saying that the Prime Minister said at that time that the unemployed reserve should never be more than 5 or 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. at the highest figure.
    Mr. Osborne: It is not 2 per cent. today.
    Mr. Bevan: Of course, we know that it is not 2 per cent. The hon. Member really must try to follow the argument. I am merely pointing out that the Prime Minister, in his most radical moods, did not think that 7 per cent. was excessive. We now, therefore, are faced with the problem of how we are to deal with the situation created by the fact that there exists a Parliamentary majority and production is rising, and how we are to meet the challenge I have mentioned.
    The right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) made a very interesting spech last week in which he pointed out that one of the main challenges to Western democracy coming from the Soviet Union was economic and social. I have said in this House over and over again that I regard the challenge from the Communist world as not being primarily military, but social and economic. I believe that to be more true today than it was then. The expansion of the Communist world is proceeding forward dramatically, and we have to ask ourselves how the Government propose to met the challenge.
    We have had one instance of it today. I am quite certain that when Mr. Khrushchev heard that Lord Hailsham had been made responsible for the British answer to the Russian scientific challenge, a chill went right through the Kremlin. Here, at last, we have found the answer. The Prime Minister's choice fell upon the obvious person—a man of detached judgment, of objective thinking, with his emotions under control
    870
    all the time, able to appraise in a mood of cold austerity the claims of science. We are not quite certain what it is he is going to do. We are not quite certain who he is going to do it to. If I may be allowed a colloquialism, the Prime Minister's suggestion for the organisation of science in this country read like a dog's dinner. I never heard of such a muddle. I understand why—because he is not really serious. The Prime Minister has an absolute genius for putting flamboyant labels on empty luggage. Of course, we are able to guess what is in his mind. He had to do something with Lord Hailsham. He had to do something with him during the General Election. What was he to do with him afterwards? It is a problem that he is in the process of solving.
    I remember a similar problem facing Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, when Prime Minister. For some reason, he detested the family of Cecil almost as much as the Prime Minister appears to do. He had not included Lord Eustace Percy in his Government, and I remember the noble Lord making a series of speeches from the back benches which impressed his own colleagues very much. He did not impress me very much, but he impressed his own colleagues. He had a Churchillian command of English, if he did not have any ideas. Then, it was suggested to Mr. Baldwin that a job ought to be found for him; that, after all, he ought not to have his talents wasted. Mr. Baldwin listened to the advice—
    Mr. Osborne: Deal with today's problems.
    Mr. Bevan: —and he was appointed a member of the Cabinet.
    When Mr. Baldwin was asked to describe his functions, he said that he was "Minister for Thought". His special job was to produce new ideas. He had no Department, but, of course, he did not want to have a "Department for Thinking". I believe that a cartoonist at the time caricatured him by drawing him in the rôle of Rodin's "The Thinker"—and he went on thinking for about six months. Then, I believe, he resigned, even before the normal period of gestation had expired.
    I warn Lord Hailsham that that is the fate reserved for him, because he is a man without function, a man without a

    871
    Department, a man without precise responsibilities, who will be flickering from Department to Department, interfering with everybody, making an enemy of every Minister in every Department in turn and, when he has covered himself with sufficient unpopularity, will either resign, or the Prime Minister will remove him as a piece of useless Ministerial rubbish—such is the malignity of Prime Ministers.
    The fact is, of course, that the world of science and scientists is deeply disturbed at present by the extent to which scientific resources are wasted in this country. There is a duplication of scientists doing the same work and a duplication of apparatus. I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a leading article which appeared in the New Scientist last week, speaking of this particular appointment, and saying that it did not consider that the scientific resources of Britain were at present utilised to their full by present organisations.
    We on this side of the House—and, I think, hon. Members opposite—see no prospect whatsoever of a more coherent organisation of our scientific resources under the scheme which the Prime Minister has announced to the House today. Therefore, we say here at once that if we are to make our contribution to our own technical development and the assistance that the Western world ought to be giving in increasing measure to the uncommitted nations, then our scientific resources ought to be better organised than it looks as though they are being at present.
    There is another aspect of this matter that I want to put to the House. The election called our attention to a very significant change in the atmosphere of British political life. I believe that it is now said by every student that the electoral campaign itself hardly changed any votes. It is now beginning to be accepted that elections harvest votes already determined, and that the political parties themselves probably wasted a considerable sum of money in trying to persuade the people who had already been persuaded.
    In other words, the elections are determined in between elections. This has not gone unnoticed. It has not gone unnoticed
    872
    not only on this side of the House, but also by the industrial population of Britain, that for many months, if not years, employers' organisations, associations and their employees in high places have conducted intensive and expensive political propaganda. In fact, the limitations which the law sought to impose upon election expenses to try to bring about some equality between the parties in the State have been completely nullified and rendered nugatory by huge sums of money which have been diverted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests of the return of the Conservative Party.
    I say that this has not gone unnoticed and that it will have a very important bearing upon industrial discipline. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the facts. I know some of these are unpleasant, but they will have to face the facts more and more. Industrial organisations all over the country, and the membership of the trade unions in particular, have taken their own note of what has been happening. If employers are entitled, in effect, practically to set aside the law of electoral expenses then they themselves are entitled to hit back in their own way.
    I am bound to say it. I know it is unpleasant. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is nothing new."] But there will be something new in what happens, because the fact is that it is the function of democratic politics to try to raise the stresses and strains of society to a level where they can be solved politically. But if it does not represent them adequately, if representative institutions fail, if the Opposition fail to bring to the Floor of the House of Commons the stresses, problems and strains of contemporary society, people will seek to solve them elsewhere.
    If Parliament itself lacks vitality, then those problems will not remain silent, they will be articulated elsewhere. They will find expression in other directions, and they will essentially find expression in this country in attempts to raise the standard of living by direct action by the trade unions themselves. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite frowning. These are the ineluctable features of the situation.
    Unless some efforts are made, unless some action is taken to improve the climate of opinion, we must expect a period of considerable difficulty. I say again that if Parliamentary institutions

    873
    fail to bring industrial problems in contemporary society to the level where they can be solved, attempts will be made to solve them elsewhere. We have before us today the picture of a steel strike in the United States that has gone on for fifteen weeks. It is one of the most ruinous strikes in American history. In other words, what we have got, because of the political failure of parties to represent the alternatives in the community in a realistic fashion, is a species of syndicalism. We do not have Marxism, we have surrealism. We have people attempting to solve their problems in their own way by such means as lie nearest to their hands.
    Therefore, it is essential, if we are to solve our central problem, if we are to persuade the industrial population to exercise sufficient self-restraint so that we may do our national job, to create a climate of opinion in which that becomes possible. Indeed, we have passed to the trade union leaders an almost impossible task. Therefore, I will make one or two suggestions to the party opposite.
    It is no use speaking about wildcat strikes unless some of the major problems are intelligently tackled, and there is one contribution the party opposite can make at once towards sweetening the whole atmosphere. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have got their power, they have got their victory. No one will suggest that the electorate in this country really elected the party opposite, with its great Parliamentary majority, in the belief that old-age pensioners ought not to get an increase. Do they really think that? Would it not be a gesture of magnanimity, as well as of political prudence, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were able to announce in the first debate of a new Parliament that the prosperity which they claim has been produced should now be shared by the weakest members of the community? This would go a very great way indeed towards sweetening the political climate.
    It is financially possible, so we are told. It really is rather monstrous that we should have a continual appreciation of equity shares on the Stock Exchange, an overworked Stock Exchange, a boom without parallel in the history of the institution we are informed, and yet, at the same time, members of the community are suffering quite unnecessary privation. If hon. Gentlemen opposite
    874
    wish to assist trade union leaders in maintaining discipline inside their own ranks, they could make a real and substantial contribution towards that by announcing today that they will use their political power in this House to give justice to the old-age pensioners and those on social insurance.
    Furthermore, I am convinced that we shall not be able to manage our resources, or to expand them, unless we are prepared to take unconventional action. I will quote again from the Prime Minister. I am hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will read his own speeches and writings, because there he will find a great deal of inspiration. He stated:
    "The economic policy of a nation cannot be made up of a conglomeration of policies pursued by separate units of industry, commerce, or finance operating in isolation from one another. However well organised the separate units may be they can only contribute to general welfare and stability, on which they themselves depend, if each of their plans or policies is modified by a knowledge of what others are doing. The next step forward, therefore, in our social thinking is to move on from 'piecemeal planning' to national planning—from the consideration of each industry or service separately to a consideration of them all collectively. But before we can pass on to a consideration of the different lines of action which will be necessary to extend the principle of rationalisation from single industries to the general economy, it is necessary that we should formulate some theory of the society of the future."
    This was a very interesting quotation. I could give a number more, but I do not want to weary the House. I will give just one more, to show how far the Prime Minister went in thinking in his rather freer days:
    "I believe there is an increasingly important contribution which private competitive enterprise can make in new industry and in all those enterprises where great risks are taken; but. I believe equally"—
    Hon. Members should listen very carefully to this—
    "that for the purpose of obtaining stability, order and co-operation in the new society, we shall have to place the organisation of the great basic industries and great basic utility services under some form of public control. That is the first object at which we should aim—the organisation of the production of goods and services upon the most effective methods open to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March 1938; Vol. 333, c. 1312.]
    I think that the Prime Minister was right I believe that what really separates us from the party opposite is the fact that

    875
    we believe that the rational organisation of economic activities in society demand that the nation should have the control of the commanding heights of the economy, and that otherwise we shall be unable to solve our main problems.
    Indeed, the Prime Minister called attention to one of them with which we are living even today. In the House of Commons, in my presence, he made a statement about the drifting of industry from the North and West to the South and South-East, pointing out that Metropolitan London was a great ulcer sucking in the vitality of the rest of the country, and giving lists of industries established here, as against the North and the West. In those years which ha spoke about, the population of the South and South-East of England increased by 12 per cent. as against the rest of the country.
    We do not want to interfere with the movement of private industry. We do not want to plan, but leave it free for everybody, and today we have not interfered with them, but anybody who goes out into London in the rush hours and sees the pallid faces of the workers who spend two or three hours in getting to and from their work, and sees the complete stagnation of traffic that occurs today in our great cities, must realise that these are the fruits of failure to plan the movement of industry in the inter-war years. In the South and South-East of England, we are only meeting the consequences of the behaviour of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they commanded great Parliamentary majorities. I am not saying this to go back over the past too much, but these are the consequences.
    The congestion in the South and in London is a direct result, partly, of the migration of workers and industries from the North to the South, and we expect, therefore, that the statement in the Gracious Speech referring to the direction of industry shall be tackled realistically. After all, it does not depend so much, as The Times pointed out, upon legislation, but upon the vigour of the Administration. To what extent are hon. Members opposite prepared to interfere with private enterprise in order to plan the location of industries? Are they prepared to stand
    876
    up against private vested interests to secure the intelligent ground plan for the economy of the nation as a whole? If they are not, then we shall have an aggravation of the problems, with all the social and economic consequences involved.
    Unless we plan our resources purposefully, unless we are prepared to accept the disciplines that are necessary, we shall not be able to meet the challenge of the Communist world. As the years go by, and the people see us languishing behind, trying to prevent the evils of inflation by industrial stagnation, trying all the time to catch up with things because we have not acted soon enough—when they see the Communist world, planned, organised, publicly-owned and flaunting its achievements to the rest of the world—they will come to be educated by what they will experience. They will realise that Western democracy is falling behind in the race because it is not prepared to read intelligently the lessons of the twentieth century.
    I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
    "but humbly regret the omission of any effective proposals for achieving continuous industrial expansion without rising prices; for dealing adequately with the problems of industries facing special difficulties such as coal mining, cotton and shipbuilding; or for assisting old people and widows, those who are sick, disabled or unemployed and others still living in poverty and hardship."
    4.36 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Right hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me if I say that the criticisms advanced in this Amendment come ill from that Bench, with such a dismal record of performance in this same field when in office. I thought that, to adopt the metaphor of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), 10,000 angels cannot erase that record.
    I think that we all found the speech of the right hon. Gentleman an interesting one; certainly we listened to it with attention. With the problems posed by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech, I personally have no quarrel at all. These are two of the most difficult and important problems with which we are faced—how to attain a high rate of investment and how to secure expansion without rising prices. I

    877
    think that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that his party had not been successful in solving that problem.
    Mr. Bevan: I said no such thing. I said that my party—and I admit this, and I want to get it right—had not been able to reconcile economic expansion with Parliamentary popularity.
    Mr. Amory: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at his speech, he will see, I think, that he went rather wider. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office their policies went far to kill incentive to earn and to save, and in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the General Election, I would ask him which party promised the most to the consumer.
    We were also very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's quotations from some of those far-seeing speeches made before the war by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Of course, what my right hon. Friend was referring to is something that we all believe in here—the advantage and importance of strategic planning—and the kind of body which easily comes to mind is the Iron and Steel Board.
    We believe in strategic planning, but we believe that the tactical execution is far better left to private enterprise. Have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite forgotten that when they were in office their economic policies of expansion were wrecked by rising prices, and that during that period the old, the sick and the unemployed suffered a continuous reduction in their standard of living, in sharp contrast to their more fortunate experience during recent years?
    I propose to devote most of my remarks to the first half of the Amendment. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I did not think that very often in his speech he got at all close to it, but I make no apology for confining myself largely to the first part of the Amendment, for I am sure that the strength of our economy is basic to the security of our social services. That, of course, is one of the things that right hon. Gentlemen opposite omitted to remember when they were in power. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal faithfully with the other parts in the course of his speech.
    878
    The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues failed because so often they got their priorities wrong and forgot the importance of a firm base and the essentials of a sound economy. I wish to remind the House of what I think are those essentials. For Britain, at any rate, they are a sound balance of payments, a reasonably stable price level and a high rate of savings. With all those things forming a secure base, it is then possible to plan with confidence for full employment, a high rate of national investment and expanding production, but not otherwise. Without that solid foundation those three main aims are not for long maintained.
    I wish to make very clear at the outset that I do not regard our present position and problems with any sense of complacency. There are plenty of formidable problems ahead, but I believe that we can contemplate them with a feeling of robust confidence because our present economic position is certainly stronger than it has been for a generation. We have got ourselves into a better posture, and with good sense and good will, and sound and careful policies, we can continue to thrive. But there are no grounds for sitting back and taking things easily. That was the note which I tried to sound throughout the recent election.
    First, the balance of payments. In framing the Budget I had, of course, to satisfy myself that the considerable expansion of purchasing power which it involved would not threaten the satisfactory position on the external side. Looking forward at that time, last April, it seemed likely that we should continue to earn a respectable surplus on our current balance of payments, though we have reason to expect some falling away from the figures which resulted from the abnormally favourable circumstances of 1958. It also seemed likely that the position of the outer sterling area would improve with the revival of world activity and trade which was already then in progress.
    Expansion at home would, we knew, increase our bill for imports, but I judged that we could afford this and, indeed, that it was our duty to make some contribution to the increase of world purchasing power and so to recovery in other countries including our sterling area partners. Broadly speaking,

    879
    these expectations have, so tar, been borne out by events. Our imports have increased quite sharply this year, but our exports also increased well in the second quarter, and if we allow for seasonal factors, they are still doing pretty well.
    The out-turn of the balance of payments in the first half of this year was published last week in a White Paper. The results were satisfactory. The reserves rose by £37 million, after allowing for large gold and dollar payments totalling £129 million which we had made to the International Monetary Fund. The sterling holdings of overseas countries showed little change and the surplus on current account in the first half of the year is estimated at about £140 million. The reserves have continued to rise in the third quarter of the year, although, in the past, that period has usually been a season where it has been normal to expect a fall. This strengthening of our position has enabled us to make an early repayment to the Export-Import Bank, which was announced last week, amounting, with interest, to £91 million. There has been a corresponding fall in the reserves last month of substantially the same amounts.
    The same White Paper gave revised figures for 1958 and earlier years. The most important revision was a reduction in the estimated surplus on current account by about £100 million, which, I agree, is a very big adjustment. For the most part this was due to new information coming in about shipping earnings, which showed that previously these had been considerably overestimated. This, as hon. Members know, is a case where we have to work on estimates and not, as it were, on bookkeeping figures. These revisions were published in the United Kingdom quarterly balance of payments on Thursday, 1st October. However, I can well understand that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was at that time too busily concerned with more desperate matters to notice this.
    I am glad to say that these revisions do not make any important difference to the view that we should take of our balance of payments for 1958. The important and reliable figures are the
    880
    monetary reserves and liabilities, which are unchanged; and these improved in 1958 by £200 million. The reduction in shipping earnings has, therefore, to be offset by an increase in the item which represents the unknown part of the balance of payments. We still know that we improved our position by £200 million, but we know less about how we did it. As I informed the House last April, further steps are being taken to improve our knowledge by asking for more information from trade and industry.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the Chancellor clear up this point? As I understand, despite the qualifications which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, the fact is that the surplus of our balance of payments was £100 million less than he originally estimated and to that extent we are worse off. Will he confirm that?
    Mr. Amory: No, it is not quite as simple as that. The fact is that we do not know the composition of this £100 million. Therefore, we do not know what part of it is represented by the resulting current transactions and how much by capital movement. All we know is that our reserves and our monetary position was improved by that amount. What it comes to is that part of this amount—what part we cannot say—may be represented by capital movement and not current earnings.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: In rough terms, is it not the fact that figures published earlier in the year showed a surplus on current account of about £450 million last year and that the later figures, which were published a few days ago, show not £450 million, but £350 million, as a surplus on current account?
    Mr. Amory: The point I am making is that it still remains an estimate and we are still faced with the position that we do not know the composition of this very large balancing item.
    The period of normal seasonal pressure on the £ has caused us no anxiety so far this year, despite the fact that it coincided with the election campaign, so at present the external position may, I think, be regarded as sound.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: When the Chancellor was interrupted he

    881
    was on the point of saying that he proposed to ask for information from elsewhere, but he has not had an opportunity to say from where. May I ask him where this information is to come from?
    Mr. Amory: We are asking for more information from industry and commerce generally to help us, if possible, to reach a more accurate assessment of current earnings as against the overall result.
    Now let me turn to the cost of living. The stability of prices which, at Budget time, had lasted about a year has now lasted for eighteen months. Some prices have been falling, though as yet not as many as I would have liked to see. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton is always talking as though price stability was merely the automatic effect of the drop in import prices. I have always acknowledged the important contribution that lower import prices has made, but alone that would not have sufficed. The average import element in the final price of consumer goods is only about one-fifth, so that a drop of 10 per cent. in import prices would account for only about 2 per cent. in the final prices paid by consumers.
    A far more important element is the impact of home costs. The main factor in the rising cost of living has been the rising prices caused by increases in money incomes, and particularly in wages, far in excess of increases in production. A very considerable factor in the achievement of greater stability in prices lately has been the fact that money incomes have not been rising so fast in relation to production.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman referred just now to what I said last week. As he will recall, I said that the main element in price stability was the fall in import prices. The exact words that I used were a direct quotation from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he opened his Budget on 7th April last.
    Mr. Amory: I agree that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman quoted me. In the early part of the period I think that that was so. The reduction in import prices was then the main part. It has become a less important part as time has gone on.
    882
    Another error of the right hon. Gentleman is his tendency to imply, as he did on Wednesday last, that, because the reduction in our import bill was about equal in the aggregate to the increase in the surplus of our balance of payments, therefore it was the sole cause of that surplus. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that if import prices had not dropped our level of exports to the countries supplying those imports would almost certainly have been higher, and during this period might well have been 4 to 5 per cent. higher. The fall in import prices has certainly been an important factor in our improved position, but that is quite a different thing from saying that it was the direct cause of the improvement in our balance of payments.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: By what percentage have import prices fallen over the past eighteen months?
    Mr. Amory: Very little indeed. Without notice I could not say exactly how much, but the percentage has fallen almost insignificantly over the past eighteen months. However, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know the position. Before that, there was a very substantial fall.
    I come now to the third of the three requirements for a sound basis for the economy. What about savings? I agree that this certainly is the real factor behind the problem that the right hon. Gentleman posed to us earlier. It is very difficult to over-estimate the importance of a high rate of saving. So far this financial year National Savings have continued at a very satisfactory level, and a level which has exceeded our expectations. If they continue in this way we hope that they will do as well as they did last year, when the result was excellent. Other personal savings, too, seem to be maintaining their recent buoyant level.
    Mr. Bevan: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to set that off against anticipated earnings and hire purchase?
    Mr. Amory: I am not quite sure that I—
    Mr. Bevan: There is an absolute saving to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring, but there is a dis-saving in anticipated future earnings. The net result ought, therefore, to be given.
    Mr. Amory: I am allowing for the fact that the hire-purchase debt has been growing. I am talking about net savings after allowing for that growth in the hire-purchase debt.
    Mr. Bevan: These are net savings?
    Mr. Amory: Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, until the end of the year comes we are never able to calculate precisely the total net figure of personal savings as a whole, but there are many indications of the rate that it is going at and the level that is being achieved. The trend of savings is encouraging, and, as I have said, it is very difficult to exaggerate its importance.
    I turn to full employment and production. When I analysed the economic situation last April I called attention to the existence of unused resources of manpower and capital. It was a basic assumption of the Budget that the physical possibilities existed for an appreciable increase in production. To fake advantage of those possibilities the Budget provided a substantial stimulus to purchasing power through the accelerated repayment of post-war credits and the reductions in Income Tax and indirect taxes. The effect of those measures has been seen in the period that has elapsed since the Budget. They have not been acting alone, of course, because other measures of an expansionary kind were taken well before the Budget, in particular the decontrol of bank and consumer credit and the acceleration of the public sector investment programme.
    In addition, the recovery in exports that we had expected would occur as time went on came rather sooner than we anticipated. All these forces, working together, produced a rise in demand which has called forth quite a striking increase in output. The Index of Industrial Production, which reached its low point at 105 in the third quarter of last year, rose to 111 in the second quarter of this year and to 113 in August. On the basis of the partial information so far available, it is expected that the figure for September will be about 112 or 113. I think that the House will agree that this is a satisfactory trend.
    Mr. H. Rhodes: In which year was the index figure 100?
    Mr. Amory: It was 100 in 1954. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it continued to
    884
    grow and then levelled off for part of the year and has since risen again.
    The increase in industrial activity has brought about a welcome reduction in the number of registered unemployment of 95,000 over the year and of 202,000 between January last and the present month. The unemployment percentage is now 1·9 per cent. compared with 2·8 per cent. in January and 2·3 per cent. a year ago. That is an improvement in which I know we all rejoice.
    Mr. H. Wilson: As the unemployment figures of last year were put up by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, will he now say how the present unemployment figures compare with those of two years ago before the Government put them up?
    Mr. Amory: I have no doubt whatever that the security of those employed is better today than it has been for many years.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: In shipbuilding and mining?
    Mr. Amory: In the country as a whole. There is still great unevenness in the incidence of unemployment in different parts of the country and the Government intend to ask for additional powers to bring about a solution of that problem.
    It was our expectation, and, indeed, our hope, that the expansion of the economy would bring with it a considerable rise in productivity, and this is now occurring. In the industrial field the increase in production since the third quarter of last year has been about 7 per cent. while the increase in the numbers employed has been less than 1 per cent. So far the greater part of the growth in production has come from an increase in output per man. An increase in production brought about by this means is a valuable thing, because it means a real increase in our national wealth which can be shared by all sections of the community.
    We are now reaping some of the advantages of the big industrial investments of the last four years, and also, I am confident, the fruits of the necessarily unpopular measures which my predecessors felt bound to impose during the period when the investment boom was at its height. It is true that not all industries have shared in this recovery. In particular, coal and rail transport are

    885
    suffering from an insufficient demand, while the prospects for shipbuilding are cloudy. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about these industries later.
    On the whole, then, the hopes and expectations of the Budget have been fulfilled so far, with production and productivity rising, unemployment down, the external position continuing strong and prices remaining stable.
    Now what of the future? Some of the forces which have been stimulating consumer expenditure—and that has been the biggest element in the recovery so far—will probably lose some of their strength from now on. The rate of increase of hire-purchase lending must be expected to decline as the volume of repayments increases, and the addition to purchasing power resulting from the Budget was higher in the last few months than it will be from now on.
    In the field of investment, public sector investment expenditure should continue to increase somewhat, but probably not at the same rate as in the last twelve months, while in the private sector investment expenditure looks like remaining stable.
    Mr. Bevan: Suppose that we did not have the public sector at all?
    Mr. Amory: For our sins—not for our sins, but owing to our misfortune—we have responsibility for rather more of it than we should like to have.
    Mr. Bevan: On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted now, and admitted in 1958, that were it not for the existence of the public sector he would not have been able to stimulate the private sector.
    Mr. Amory: If I could be relieved of a big part of my responsibility for the public sector, my job would be a great deal easier.
    There are various signs that an upward trend in private industrial investment is beginning to develop, though not at a spectacular rate so far. We have there provided incentives for expansion by the various actions which we took last year, including the restoration of investment allowances.
    One of the greatest unknowns, as always, is the future movement of stocks,
    886
    and a sharp acceleration in the rate of investment in stocks is the most likely way in which the total pressure of demand could be built up to excessive levels. But, allowing for a continuing upward trend in exports, it seems likely that the total demand will go on increasing in the near future, but at a somewhat lower rate. That seems about right.
    We have been expanding recently at a rapid rate, and we must at all costs be careful to see that demand does not reach a point at which it again overloads the economy. In particular, we must see that home demand does not interfere with exports or create an increase in imports heavier than we can carry. So I shall continue to keep a very close watch on this development and on the volume of available productive resources, and if the need arises I shall not hesitate to take action to check the build-up of an excessive demand.
    I should perhaps mention here that since we last met we have had the Report of the distinguished Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Radcliffe, about the operation of monetary policy. No doubt hon. Members are studying that Report with the careful attention which it deserves. We hope to find an early opportunity for a general discussion of this important Report, so I do not propose to deal with it today.
    I hope that exports will continue to respond to the general world recovery, with an expansion in our sales to the sterling area countries and other primary producers without losing the gains which have already been made in trade with the industrialised countries, especially, of course, the United States. We also expect the fortunes of the sterling area countries to go on improving. So with one vital proviso, that we remain competitive—that is the most important thing of all—in price and in delivery, the immediate outlook for our external monetary position and for the reserves seems sound. That, of course, is by far the most important sector of the whole field.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday, we have been devoting a very large proportion of our overseas earnings to investment and aid within the Commonwealth and to playing our part in

    887
    strengthening the resources of the international financial institutions. We have agreed to participate fully in the proposed International Development Association. It is our strong desire to go on giving all the assistance we can, particularly to the less developed countries of the Commonwealth.
    The point I want to emphasise today is that our ability to do so will be proportionate to our success in further strengthening the essential bases of our own economy. Trade alone can provide the means for aid.
    Mr. Paul Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the proposal for a Commonwealth Bank, a matter raised last year and which appears to have been shelved ever since?
    Mr. Amory: That matter received some further discussion at the recent Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting, but the general opinion was that in present circumstances it still does not afford a means for increasing the resources available for total investment in the Commonwealth.
    It must, therefore, be the right policy for us in the United Kingdom to do everything we can to help promote the highest possible level of international trade. It has been our policy since 1952 to work steadily towards the full convertibility of sterling and the removal of discriminatory restrictions on trade. We have made many advances towards that goal over recent years.
    In view of the increase in our export trade to North America we have been able, in particular, to make several moves in the direction of ending dollar discrimination. I was very glad recently to be able to announce the removal of restrictions on expenditure on foreign travel. I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes tomorrow to announce the removal of quantitative restrictions on a substantial list of imports. This will include many goods the import of which has been restricted or totally prohibited from dollar sources.
    We are very glad to be able to make this further very practical contribution towards expanding world trade and to the fulfilment of the policies agreed on
    888
    at the Commonwealth Economic Conference at Montreal.
    It is right, I feel, that we should take this opportunity once again of paying a tribute to the invaluable help that we and all other countries in the free world have received from the United States in economic aid during the difficult postwar period. I hope that we shall never forget that good neighbourly attitude and how much it has meant.
    Summing up this assessment of our prospects, I believe that our primary needs for the future are these. First, a substantially rising trend in our exports. That is really the prerequisite of all progress. Its importance is paramount. Without it we should be bound to restrict the rate of our expansion, and, therefore, it must be our first priority. The key to success here is that our costs and prices should be competitive. That, in turn emphasises the importance of stable internal prices, and that, in turn, the importance of avoiding inflationary increases both in wages and profits.
    So our second need for the future is stability of costs and prices. It may well be that before long, if world economic expansion continues, the prices of raw materials and some foodstuffs may rise somewhat against us. A more important determination, however, of prices will still be the movement of internal costs, and that is something which is within our own control.
    The responsibility for price stability lies on us all. I should, therefore, like to say something to all those concerned in industry who determine prices and the costs that lie behind them. We have as a country, as a result of a combination of good fortune and good management, at last managed to reach a position that every party and every Government have been striving for ever since the war—a stable cost of living. Let us now stop arguing about how it has come about and devote our efforts to ensuring that it continues. Everybody wants it to continue. It is a matter largely within our own control. All that is needed is that we should all behave sensibly, realising that if we throw away this opportunity it may well be long before we get another anything like as favourable.
    As everyone knows, there are technical reasons which make the growth of productivity very uneven as between various

    889
    kinds of activity. Broadly speaking, it rises most slowly in services and most rapidly where there are the biggest technical improvements, which are in manufacturing. It follows that stable prices can be assured only if there are price reductions in the field where progress is fastest; that is to say, if the benefits of progress, for which the whole community is responsible, are shared by the community. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that where output is rising and costs are falling the gains should not be taken entirely in higher wages or bigger profits, but should also be shared far more widely in the form of lower prices.
    The present time must surely offer great opportunities for this. As I pointed out earlier, industrial production is now running at about 7 per cent. above the level of a year ago. Productivity per man is also rising in many industries, import prices have shown little change, and the index of wage rates is little more than 2 per cent. above the level of a year ago.
    The conclusion seems to me inescapable that there is now some margin for price reduction at both wholesale and retail levels. I am well aware that a number of firms have made such reductions, and I am glad to recognise the excellent example which they have set. I look forward with confidence to seeing their lead followed by others who are in a position to do so.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It has taken them a long while.
    Mr. Amory: I know that people are apt to get impatient when Ministers lecture them, and, in particular, when they are pressed to do things which seem to them to be contrary to their own economic interest, but in this case I have no hesitation in making an appeal for moderation and a special sense of responsibility, because, in doing so, I am convinced that what I am urging is in the true long-term interest of everyone concerned.
    Some businessmen may feel that it would be wrong to neglect a possible opportunity for cashing in on a firm demand for their products. Some trade unionists may feel the same about using their bargaining power in relation to a strong demand for labour. But short-term
    890
    interests are often a bad counsellor, and the exploitation of temporary advantages is seldom good business.
    What I am asking for is nothing less than a combined effort on the part of businessmen and those employed to turn the present exceptionally favourable circumstances to good account for the future. We ought, I am sure, between us all to be able to consolidate our recently achieved stability in a way that will put full employment and a rising standard of living on a far more secure basis than ever before. I ask businessmen, first, to continue to give an absolute priority to export business, whether that is immediately the most profitable course or not, because in the long run it will be good business to do so. I ask them also to use any increases in profits primarily for two purposes: for strengthening their business through investment for still more efficient production, and for reduction in prices to their customers.
    I ask those concerned with the negotiation of wages on the employees' side to remember the importance of not defeating the mutually desired objective of price stability. I am not saying that there ought to be no increases in wages and salaries. I am not proposing a wage freeze. The truth is that the safe rate of expansion will depend on two things—the rate at which exports can be increased and the moderation with which demands for higher money incomes are pressed; and the two are closely linked together.
    But the Government could not possibly be indifferent to a recurrence of the situation in which there was any danger either of our pricing ourselves out of our international markets or of creating an inflationary pressure of demand. If these dangers appear, then the pace of expansion would have to be abated.
    The third essential if we are to succeed in our object of combining expansion with price stability is vigorous competition. The Government have shown the importance which we attach to such competition by the introduction of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, while the Monopolies Commission also remains in being. I hope that the House will not forget the excellent work which my right hon. Friend the Member for

    891
    Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) did in this field when he was at the Board of Trade.
    That, then, is the picture which I have to give today of our present economic position, and I believe that if we continue to manage our affairs with care and a sense of common purpose it is an encouraging one.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: The Chancellor said that the Monopolies Commission was still in being. Has he nothing further to say? Some of the decisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court have tended to encourage some firms to choose amalgamation amounting very nearly to, if it is not actually, monopoly, so frustrating the original purposes of Parliament. Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say about monopolies and how he intends to curb this?
    Mr. Amory: I have no time to go fully into the points raised by the hon. Member. I would however, remind him that our view is not necessarily that monopoly itself is a bad thing, but it is a bad thing if it abuses its powers as a monopoly. That is what the two Acts are intended to deal with.
    I was proposing to refer to—I shall not now owing to lack of time—the various problems which have shown themselves in certain cases in events connected with companies. I would only say in that connection that the Government, as the President of the Board of Trade has made clear, propose to set up an inquiry into the Companies Act which will cover questions of fraud. We shall also introduce legislation to deal with building societies, and here I should like to say once again that a very big majority of building societies conduct their business in a thoroughly respectable way and earn well of the country. Thirdly, there is the question whether the interests of depositors will require any further protection. Again, we think that that is a subject which justifies examination, and that examination has been in hand for some time.
    The Opposition Amendment regrets the omission of effective proposals for helping the old and needy. I shall refer to that very briefly indeed. The Gracious Speech states that the Government will
    892
    give close attention to social welfare, and we are entitled to claim that those words are backed by the weighty authority of a good record. I do not intend to go over this well trodden ground which members of the Opposition like to forget, or to remind them of our record which they vainly try to belittle. I simply remind the House that under our policy since 1951 pensioners and other beneficiaries have not only had the purchasing power of their benefits maintained, but have shared in the increase in national prosperity.
    This remains a key feature in our policy and we intend to ensure that as our prosperity increases pensioners and others will continue to have a share. I remind hon. Members opposite once again what the facts have been. During the last five years when they were in office the cost of living rose 30 per cent., but pensions were raised only 15 per cent., and then only for some pensioners. Since we have been in office—
    Mr. Michael Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to make a comparison with when we were in office and hon. Members opposite were in opposition, ought he not to take the whole period? What he is doing at the moment is to start the Labour Government's record in the year 1946. That is to omit from its record the major step it took to improve the position of old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Amory: Yes, but it was agreed by all parties that after the war a major step forward was justified—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not mind. I would pay any tribute they like to hon. Members for that step. What I am criticising them for is that, having taken that step, they allowed the ground gradually to come away from that time onwards from under the old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far from the rise from 10s. to 26s. a week in 1946 being agreed by all parties, it was criticised at the time from the Conservative Front Opposition Bench as being over-hasty?
    Mr. Amory: Here I am only comparing records. In those five years, from 1946 to 1951, the position of the old-age pensioner was allowed to deteriorate. Against that position since we have been

    893
    in office we have increased the pension three times, and each time by more than the increase in the cost of living, with the result that the pension buys today for a single person 11s. a week more than it did in 1951 Let us not forget that the best help of all that can be given to the elderly is to stabilise the cost of living.
    Finally, it is right that I should stress the fundamental economic aspect of social welfare. None of these services I have mentioned—cash or kind—can develop in real value unless sustained by a soundly managed national economy. This is a lesson which members of the Opposition refuse to learn. Their thinking on social welfare is not a policy, but an aspiration. The Opposition learn nothing. Hon. Members will remember the dismal forecasts they made in 1951 about what would happen to the social services with the Tories in power. Precisely the reverse occurred. Under the Conservative Government the social services have developed steadily, with better service and the value to the public and to beneficiaries. A larger percentage of the national income is being devoted today to social services than in 1951.
    Now members of the Opposition, in their black despair, are falling back on the same melancholy predictions with even less chance of getting the country to pay the least attention to them. The fact is that we on this side of the House are proud of our record and have every intention of continuing to live up to it in the future. The difference between us and hon. Members opposite is that we believe in action rather than in promises. The truth is that members of the Opposition are in a hopeless state of confusion in the economic field and have no agreed policies to put forward. They know this. We know it and the country knows it. Until they can make up their minds whether or not they want to be the good Socialists they thought they were, they have no effective advice to offer.
    The most painful differences appear to exist between right hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition declared, after the election:
    "At the end of it all I am more than ever convinced that the policies on which we fought are the right policies for Britain."
    894
    But the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said:
    "We lost because our policies measured up too closely to Macmillan's Now there will have to be some changes."
    The right hon. Gentleman, of course, does not invariably make the right forecast—the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale I mean—because he is also reported as having said, on 5th October:
    "It looks as though the Election is in the bag. Of course, I may be wrong. I may be forming a wrong estimate of the intelligence of the British people."
    It really is as when Horatius kept the bridge:
    "But those behind cried 'Forward!'
    And those before cried 'Back!'"
    Most serious of all, the trumpet of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale gives forth "an uncertain sound". In those circumstances who, indeed
    "shall prepare himself to the battle?"
    In the meantime, while these burning issues are being fought out upstairs and at Blackpool, and casualty after casualty is carried through the stricken field, we shall go forward with our policies united and fortified by the approval which the country has so clearly given us.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mrs. Judith Hart: I hope the House will be kind enough to exercise its usual tolerance to a speech from a new Member. It is with very real humility that new Members like myself rise to address the House for the first time, conscious and keenly aware as we all are of the traditions and the history both of this place and of the constituencies which have sent us here.
    I hope I shall not strain that tolerance too much or for too long. I am sent here by a Scottish constituency and it is, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, rather difficult for a Member representing a Scottish constituency to take part in a debate on this subject without appearing untraditionally controversial. After the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is particularly difficult to observe the usual courtesies of being uncontroversial. I shall, however, do my best to remain moderate.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great case for saying that the nation had recently been reaping the

    895
    advantages of industrial investment. He went on to say—and he repeated this several times, as, indeed, many hon. Members opposite have been doing—that on the whole things are much better now than they were some months ago. I cannot understand the logic of a position where it is claimed that because only a minority are suffering from injustice it becomes less necessary to take social action necessary to protect that minority. In Scotland we are amongst the minority which has suffered from the injustice of the last few \ears and we are among those who hope very much that the Government, having won this election, are not going to be satisfied only to reap further popularity by inactivity, but are going to take very seriously their responsibility towards the people of those areas where unemployment has been growing.
    In my constituency, we have two very different kinds of community. In the constituency of Lanark, there are mining villages and a new town. The underlying problem of both these types of community is exactly the same. The mining villages are very much afraid of what may happen as a result of the next pit closures soon to be announced. We have suffered very grievously from one pit closure in the last year and, since our villages are on a declining coalfield, we are afraid of what may happen in the future. I beg hon. Members opposite to consider, in relation to the future of the mining industry, not only the salvation of the individual miner, which to some extent can be achieved by moving the miner away from his former home to a new and developing coalfield elsewhere—although there are growing fears that even this may no longer be possible in the next twelve months—but also what will happen if the whole social fabric of community life is grievously disturbed. We must think in terms of communities and not just of individuals.
    In the mining villages of Lanark, there will be a threat of decay to the community if miners are moved away from the area when a pit closes. Young lads of nineteen or twenty are moved into lodgings and away from their families. That cannot be regarded as a good thing. If elderly grandparents are left alone, to
    896
    fend for themselves without the care and protection of the sons and daughters they brought up, that is not a good thing.
    The miners in my constituency, as all over Britain, know exactly what they want the Government to do. They know that fundamentally the problems of the coal industry cannot be solved unless, instead of merely talking about achieving a higher rate of industrial expansion, the Government actively pursue the social and economic policies which will achieve this aim. They also know that if that is done there will still be a need for a rational, integrated fuel policy. Many of them find it very difficult to understand how we could have reached this point of crisis in the mining industry without having had a national fuel policy long ago.
    The miners in my constituency go beyond that and know precisely what they want the Government to do for them. They want to see—and I hope that they will see, as a result of the Government's new Bill on local unemployment—economic aid given to their area, and new industries brought into an area where industry is declining, by means of an industrial estate in Lanark serving the needs of all the mining communities there. I suggest to the Government that as a measure of their determination to act rather than merely to talk, they should give us that industrial estate as soon as possible and demonstrate their good faith.
    We know what we want on that estate. We should like to see the kind of industry of which Scotland is in such great need—industry based on science and on modern technological developments. I have no need to say this to hon. Members, for the claims were so frequently made in the last Parliament and are constantly being made by people outside Parliament, but it is well known that Scotland needs the lighter, modern industries, such as chemicals and plastics, in order to balance its dependence on heavy industries. We want that kind of lighter industry in the Lanark area.
    I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should not be doctrinaire in their attitude towards the provision of new industries. I venture to suggest that where private enterprise is unable or unwilling to move rapidly enough to those places where it is needed, they

    897
    should consider publicly sponsored industry on a small scale as a means of solving the problem.
    Elsewhere in my constituency we have a very different kind of community—a new town. The Prime Minister said in the House last week that perhaps we ought to stop calling the new towns "new" and to regard them in the same way as we regard other towns. I hope that this in no way indicated that he believes that the period of hard thinking about the future of the new towns has passed, because, if the new town of East Kilbride, in my constituency, is typical of the other new towns of Britain, I am certain that we are entering a period in which a great deal of hard thinking must be done if we are to avoid a crisis threatening their whole future development.
    The theme is just the same: it is one of providing employment where it is needed. Here, however, we are not considering people displaced from a declining industry but thousands of boys and girls growing up and leaving school. I do not want to elaborate this point, although it is one in which I am very interested, but there has been much discussion of the lack of balance in the populations of our new towns. I believe that a great mistake is being made in the attitude taken towards the lack of balance. It has been generally argued, frequently by chairmen of Development Corporations and others interested in the subject, that the lack of balance concerns social classes and occupational groupings, and great efforts have been made by some of the new town development corporations to bring in more and more white-collar workers, middle-class people, with some effects which we have recently seen very clearly.
    The balance of population which is important is not that of occupation or social class. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous in a new town which has a high proportion of middle-class people in it. The lack of balance which is important, particularly for the future, is a lack of balance in the age structure. This lack of balance in East Kilbride means that within the next ten to fifteen years between one-third and one-half of our population will be leaving school and needing jobs. This will provoke a recurring cycle of crises as these young people grow up, marry and have children.
    898
    The problems of the new towns are just beginning, but if they are to be solved, and if the new towns are to achieve their aim of being places where people go to live and to work, a tremendous move forward must now be made by the Government in planning to bring new industry into them at this time, when it is needed. I hope that they will do so. I hope that they will consider more adequately than they have in the past the need for much greater research about the future not only of the new towns but of all new communities and new housing schemes as we develop them. We need far more research to determine precisely what the problems are and how they can best be tackled. I hope that the Government will consider setting up a research unit in one of their Departments and that they will give money to the universities to sponsor research on these subjects.
    There are many other aspects of the new towns on which I could dwell, but they are not entirely relevant to the debate. As the Schuster Report said a few years ago, planning is now a social and economic activity, and it is the economic aspects which in the years to come will be most important for the new towns and for the old communities. Early in his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we on this side of the House had tended to get our priorities wrong. We are quite certain that our priorities, in so far as they concern people first and foremost, have never been wrong. They are certainly not wrong today. We hope that we can persuade hon. Members opposite to share our point of view that dynamic social action must be taken in the next year if our people are to be saved from economic disaster.
    5.39 p.m.
    Mr. R. H. Turton: Making a maiden speech in the House is always an ordeal. Perhaps one of the most difficult parts of that ordeal is to be stimulating without being provoking. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has, with little difficulty, managed it extremely well. I should like on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the hon. Lady upon her success. We on this side of the House look forward to the day when she can speak without inhibition and can be both stimulating and provoking.

    899
    The hon. Lady talked about the problem of new towns. I want to talk about a rather similar problem which no Government have yet tackled and that is proper accommodation for elderly people. Old people want a front door of their own, not a place in an institution. It would be a very good thing if the Ministers involved put up that saying at the entrance to their Ministries in the same way as Lord Woolton put up the slogan, "We not only cope but we care," at the Ministry of Food. I am afraid that that aspect is forgotten far too often.
    We do not yet know, and no Government Department knows, how many old people are living behind their own front doors, nor do we know how many people would so live if the front doors were provided. One of the first questions I want to ask the Leader of the House is whether an effort is being made to discover by a proper survey how many old people are living behind their own front doors and how many would so live if they were available.
    I remember that in 1956 the present Minister of Aviation, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, initiated a survey of the housing of old people. We have never had a view of the report of that survey. I do not know what the results were. They have been kept extremely quiet. Perhaps it was an unsatisfactory and incomplete survey. If so, there should be another one.
    We must work on the census Report of 1951, which is now eight years out of date. That showed that at that time there were 550,000 people of pension age living alone, and there were 1 million married couples who were pensioners. Since that date, the number of people of pension age has risen. By 1961 there will be 800,000 more, and by 1971 there will be a further 1¼ million. That is the size of the problem which we must tackle. I am told that it is estimated that at present there are 100,000 one-bed-roomed flats which were built previous to the war and that in the fourteen years since the war 180,000 one-bed-roomed flats or bungalows have been provided. That makes a total of just under 300,000 for a need which I put at what I believe to be a conservative estimate of 550,000 today, and of 1¼ million in 1971.
    900
    That is the problem which we face today. It is quite true that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has done all he can to encourage the building of more dwellings suitable for old people. It is true also that in 1945 we were providing for old people merely 5 per cent. of the total building, whereas in the second quarter of 1959 that proportion rose to 21 per cent. I warn my right hon. Friend not to overlook the fact that the overall figure for those fourteen years is still only 8·8 per cent. of the total houses built; that is, 1 in 12. Old people are now 1 in 7 of the population. In a short time they will be 1 in 6.
    Percentages distort the problem. The figure which counts is the number of one-bed-roomed bungalows and flats being provided. Last year the figure was, I think—I am allowing a little for Scotland—22,000. I should like the Leader of the House to tell us when he replies to the debate what he estimates the figure of completions will be for 1959. If my estimates are right—that we want by 1961 800,000 and by 1971 1¼ million—we should be building not at the rate of 22,000 per year, but at the rate of 75,000 to 80,000 a year.
    This argument clearly hinges on how far I am accurate in my figures. I will try to explain them not only from the work I know outside my constituency, but by quoting the case of a normal rural market town in my constituency with a population of 6,000. It happens to have a rather good record for old people's housing, but that does not make any difference, except that it gives the true value of the waiting list. That authority has built 50 old people's houses or bungalows since the war. It has a waiting list of 35. That shows that my figure of a national total of 600,000 is just about right.
    The other factor to be noticed is that this local authority finds that it is impossible to build an old people's bungalow or flat with the help of a £10 a year grant without overcharging the pensioner on his rent or subsidising old people's housing out of council house rents. All of us on both sides of the House agree that it is undesirable to subsidise the rents of old people's houses out of council house rents. It may be fair to do it out of the general rates,

    901
    but not out of council house rents. It is, therefore, necessary for this local authority to combine its old people's housing with slum clearance and thereby to qualify for the £22 a year grant. That is obviously a reasonable thing to do, but I do not believe that from the Government's point of view it is desirable. The drive to provide suitable housing for elderly people should not be mixed up with a slum clearance plan. It may well be that in certain areas there is not the need for slum clearance, but there is a great need for old people's housing. Why in those areas should old people's housing be starved?
    It is noticeable that in Scotland the grant for old people's housing is £24 per annum, as compared with the grant in England of £10 per annum. The time has now come in the economy of the country as a whole when it would be a wise policy to increase the grants to local authorities for one-bed-roomed dwellings for old people in order to deal with this major problem.
    Old people require not only accommodation, but companionship. That is why it is very important that old people's houses should be built either near council house estates or, in the case of older parts of a town, by taking one or two houses in a street and converting them, as the Abbevfield Society has been doing in its experimental work in Bermondsev. This has the dual advantage of enabling old people to be visited by their families and neighbours and of retaining them in the community. We do not want them segregated in rather the same way as that in which, in the last century, people segregated those suffering from mental illnesses. We want the old people right in the community.
    That brines me to the very valuable provision of the 1948 Act by which there is a maximum grant of £30 per annum for caretakers' houses in groups of old people's bungalows or flats. I am quite certain that many local authorities are making full use of that provision, but more should be done to bring to the attention of all authorities the valuable work that can be done by providing a caretaker for those old people who have not a family near them or who sometimes need emergency attention.
    902
    Accommodation for old people is not, of course, purely a matter of providing old people's flats or bungalows. What accommodation are we giving to those who are very frail and old, or ill and old? First, we have to look at what are called the Part III homes. There are 60,000 people of pension age in those homes and 35,000 of them are living in large old buildings inherited from the Poor Law—buildings that are completely out of touch with all modern conception of where old people should live. Of those, 10,000 are living in institutions where there are more than 200 beds.
    That brings me right back to the beginning: old people want a front door of their own, not a place in an institution. I beg the Government, when considering the frail old people—some of whom should certainly be in some small homes—to review the whole question of the Part III homes. There must be a complete divorce between those homes and National Assistance. We must realise that, as the years go by, the old people who are in those old homes will be more frail than the type of person who was there some ten years ago. In other words, we must ensure that in those homes these old people get, not merely attention, but simple nursing.
    Both the Part III homes and old people's housing have an effect on the problem of old people in hospital, about which I want to say just a word. It is quite clear that the position of old people in hospital has not yet been solved by any Government. At the moment, there are 125,000 people of pension age in hospitals—about a quarter of them all. In mental hospitals, the figure is as high as 40 per cent.
    Why are so many old people in hospital today? I wish to quote from the Ministry of Health publication "Survey of Services available to the Chronic Sick and Elderly." The author, Dr. Boucher, writes, in page 19:
    "…it was clearly established that the inability to discharge patients no longer in need of hospital treatment resulted in beds being blocked and a mounting waiting list."
    The cause of this large proportion of our old people being in hospital is that we have not sufficient one-bed-roomed dwellings for them, coupled with the fact that, at the moment, the Part III home is not a satisfactory or proper alternative to hospital. Therefore, we have not only

    903
    to tackle the two problems that I have already mentioned but that of the old person in hospital.
    When old people are acutely ill it may well be wise to send them far from home and family to be looked after under a consultant and to get the best treatment in a central hospital, but when they are convalescent, or chronically ill, I believe it to be a very grave mistake to send them far from their homes and environment. Where they should be then is in small wards, in small hospitals, near their own homes, and under the care of the family doctor. I do not believe that, as at present constituted, the National Health Service can provide that sort of treatment for the old people—
    Mrs. E. M. Braddock: It can, if it will.
    Mr. Turton: It is very difficult. Not only that but, in many cases, such treatment is very expensive.
    For the convalescent, and the chronically ill elderly people, we need to get back much more of the spirit of the old cottage hospital, where they were looked after by their own family doctors, and where there was the interest of all the neighbours. That is what we lack now. I know that some regional boards are trying to recapture that spirit, but the Ministers responsible should see whether we do not need some new machinery to deal with the needs of old people.
    I have talked on these three aspects because I believe that they are probably the most important of all in that field. But I have been dealing with a problem that concerns two separate Ministries, though it is quite clear that it is interconnected and inter-related. It is a great defect in the machinery that the accommodation of the elderly should be under two Ministers of the Crown, but also in many areas of the country we have three authorities dealing with the matter, and when we come to the wider problem of the care of the elderly we find the responsibility fragmented among five different authorities.
    I beg the Government, in the lifetime of this Parliament, to get the machinery necessary for looking after the old people properly coordinated—I never know, at present, how old people know to whom to turn to deal with their many difficulties. I also hope that, in the life-time
    904
    of this Parliament, many more old people will be living happy and healthy lives—behind their own front doors.
    5.59 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Mapp: Addressing this House, as I do, for the first time, I ask hon. Members to extend to me that indulgence that I gather is traditionally afforded on such occasions. It may be that some previous experience of local government and magisterial work will help me the more quickly to fall in with the procedure and routine of the House.
    The constituency of Oldham, East includes the small urban district authority of Lees, where textiles and paper manufacture are the main industries. Of course, nine-tenths of the division is part of the township of Oldham, where textiles, in particular, are a conspicuous industrial product. I shall return to textiles in a moment or two.
    Oldham is a typical early industrial town, one of many, as it were, cradles of the Industrial Revolution. The town today bears many scars, and here and there one sees much beauty in a town like Oldham. Trying to analyse the conflicting impulses in our mixed society, I see a struggle going on all the time in the life of the old order, the old industrial and social arrangements being pressed forward, with great handicaps, to attach themselves to the new conception. As I see my task in this House, it is constructively to help so that the transition period in Oldham and other similar old townships shall be short and effective. There is considerable leeway to be made up.
    Although, as I said, my remarks will principally be devoted to textiles, I heard with great interest the comments of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I felt that, to some extent, he captured in his discussion of the position of the elderly my philosophy and approach to the problems of old-age pensioners. The Chancellor spoke of statistics and figures in justifying the existing arrangements for them. I have spent a good deal of my life working with figures, in management and so forth, but I believe that there are some things in life, and one of them is poverty, towards which we must never condition our thoughts in terms of statistics.

    905
    I gather that each of us here has, within the last few weeks, had the experience—my own experience in this respect has covered many years—of going into homes where this small increment comes in each week, where there is perfect cleanliness and the greatest dignity, but where, underneath, there is all the evidence of poverty. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that there are certain things, and this is definitely one, which cannot be subjected to the cold analysis of accountancy. If we were to go to an old couple, a Darby and Joan, and put before them the kind of reasoning we hear here about the relative advance of old-age pensions between 1945 and 1959, they would probably say, "And what next?" Most of them do not understand—perhaps it is a good thing that they do not—the technicalities of figures, but they do understand what a good society should be. I beg the Government to consider the matter in that way and not always to approach it in terms of figures.
    In Oldham, the problem of the old town and its old housing is, perhaps, the most heart-breaking problem facing the local authority. I have been a member of a local authority for some time, and I am acutely aware of the difficulties which local authorities have in regard to the decisions which the Chancellor has already made. One of the questions to be decided in the future will be whether usury as such should have an equal application for social purposes as it would have for ordinary commercial purposes. A very powerful case can be made for the preferential hiring of finance when it is used for social purposes, and at some later date this will have to be borne in mind.
    I am, however, primarily concerned with the unfolding of the reorganisation scheme for the cotton industry. We are now told that £50 million or £60 million is involved. I do not wish to be unduly discourteous—I have tried fully to understand the basic arguments in favour of the system of private enterprise, and I can see here and there that there is some merit in those arguments—but I can never bring myself to believe that, if, on the one side, the gains of private enterprise are legitimate, we should, on the other, ask the social conscience to accept and carry the losses. One thing in the Cotton Industry Act which has
    906
    appalled me is that, generally, on the Government side of the House, the approach has been to ask the social purse to cover up the omissions of the industry.
    After all, the Measure now unfolding is first-aid treatment for the cotton industry. I am concerned with what is happening now. I have in my hand a list of 24 mills closed during a recent period. Six thousand people are involved. I was told two or three days ago that, for the majority of mule spinners, it will not be possible to find employment, and this number will be approximately 1,500. Further, in connection with other sections of the trade, I am told that it is expected that about 25 per cent. of the workers will be absorbed into the industry as a result of shift work and existing vacancies.
    Mule spinning is now practically nonexistent in the Oldham area. Twelve months ago, there were over 100 mills with mule spinning, and there will be approximately 30 when the reorganisation scheme is completed. The majority of spinners employed at these mills will have great difficulty in obtaining new employment because their average age is 54. That is one of the problems.
    Reference has been made this afternoon to the understandings come to between the Cotton Board and the trade unions. At a meeting of one trade union in the textile industry in Oldham a few days ago—I shall not give the name—the question of compensation was raised, and it was stated that the workers at a certain mill in Chadderton, which is in Oldham, West, which had ceased working twelve weeks ago and at another mill in Lees which had ceased working ten weeks ago, had not yet received compensation although it had been said that workers would receive compensation within a fortnight of the mills closing.
    I ask that, in one way or another, the President of the Board of Trade should make an early interim report to the House so that the operatives in the industry may be able to share the knowledge which is now available to one side of the industry only. The situation is creating unnecessary anxiety. If public money is involved, I believe that there should be some accountability of how the Act is unfolding in the areas concerned.

    907
    When reading an Oldham newspaper dated 31st October I was disturbed to see that in his annual statement the chairman of one of the major mills said:
    "The number of spindles submitted by the group is 153,108 out of a total of 367,712 and when settlement has been made it is expected that the cash resources of the company will justify a special distribution to the stockholders."
    This seems to me to be an alarming state of affairs. This House is endeavouring to effect first-aid treatment for one of its oldest industries, yet one of the major minds in the industry, within a matter of a few weeks, is thinking in terms of increased dividends, which is a rather disappointing arrangement.
    I am concerned that in the first-aid treatment that the Act is rendering there should be greater consultation, but I want now to direct my remarks to the principle with which I am mainly concerned. On the one hand, we have an old industry, fragmented in hundreds of directions, horizontally organised, fossilised if one likes, with each stratum keen on belonging to combinations of its own to preserve its trading arrangements and with none of them ever anxious to develop amalgamations in order to give prosperity. On the other hand, there is the Cotton Board without, in the main, any major powers and purely advisory. In addition, the industry has no purchasing agency in connection with its major raw material and no sales policy in regard to its output. I should like to direct the attention of the House to the question whether these sets of arrangements, having effected first-aid treatment to the cotton industry, are such that in future the industry will be able to do its job.
    I cannot see, fair though I want to be, that the industry, as now organised, will repay to the nation through this House the investment that we are making in order to get it over its temporary difficulties. I urge the President of the Board of Trade, in so far as he can without legislation, although I would welcome legislation, to ensure that the cotton industry is urged to reorganise itself in whatever way it thinks fit. There are other possible ways that I will not discuss today. I invite the President of the Board of Trade to let the industry take advantage of 1960 methods of organisation, of management and of
    908
    policy in connection with purchase and sales.
    To wind up, I beg the industry to get off its knees in terms of the public purse and to remember that the utility which it develops is unexpendable. There is no point in having first-aid, of which I had some knowledge some years ago, unless the patient, in a serious injury—and there is a serious injury in the cotton trade—takes advantage of the surgical and the hospital treatment which is available to him.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. David Webster: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) on a most successful maiden speech. Throughout his measured and thoughtful contribution he discussed with great feeling and considerable thought the grave problems which he sees in his constituency, and he went beyond mere statistics to the human problems.
    At the same time, I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. Member's predecessor, who sat on a different side of the House. He was a most courageous politician and never modified his words to court popularity. I can see that, although probably their opinions would differ on the grave matters which we discuss in this House, there is the same determination to speak up and to get issues thoroughly cleared.
    The hon. Member gave no sign of the ordeal which it is to all of us. One is told that the first speech is the worst, but I do not know whether that is the general consensus of opinion in the House. I took great interest in the problems of transition which the hon. Gentleman discussed, and, if I may, I should also like to discuss problems of transition.
    I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the Bill which, with commendable promptitude, has been presented to the House to help to cure local unemployment, to make these powers anticipatory and to give to local authorities powers to clear sites in order to build. It is right that the first major Measure of the new Parliament should be to prevent local unemployment becoming a chronic problem.

    909
    I think that we should go a little deeper into the causes of localised unemployment, apart from the transitional problems which the hon. Gentleman discussed as they apply to his own constituency. Many of the pockets of unemployment, as they are known today, although some of them are now so big that I would prefer to call them sacks, contain industries which we all know are of a most cyclical nature. Today, there are many aspects of the steel industry in which there is expansion. The expansion of need and of production has grown greater than the capacity, but there is one part of the steel industry, namely, that supplying the needs of the shipyards for heavy steel plate, where the capacity is much greater than the need at present. Every time that freight rates rise slightly, it means that more vessels are taken out of the estuaries where hitherto they have been laid up. As long as these vessels remain unremunerative, one cannot see any increase in the number of orders on the order books for the shipyards. Therefore, people in the North-East and in Scotand, where they are used to the tradition of feast or famine, do not want the famine to be too prolonged and want to get back to feasting as quickly as possible.
    I think that the problem is likely to persist if we do not go further than the steps set out in the Bill. I cannot discuss the Bill, because I would be out of order, but there is a great need for many of the products of the heavy industries of the North-East and Scotland and there is today a great threat to one of our traditional types of trade.
    Very few people seem to be aware of the nature of this threat. It is that the great trading centres of Western Europe will take away from this country a traditional British trade, shipping and transport into and out of Europe. As one sees the Rotterdam—Rhine—Meuse water and pipeline network and docks build up, it is absolutely essential that those who in this country are responsible for the docks and for communications leading to and from them should get a move on and modernise equipment and all the ancillary services which are required. If they do not get on with this problem immediately, they will find that they will be competing in the most adverse way with the trade and competition from overseas. A major drive to
    910
    modernise these port installations would take up a considerable amount of slack in the heavy aspect of British industry and go a long way to curing many of the problems of local unemployment.
    In the more remote areas, one would wish to do something to help the pockets or sacks of unemployment. We heard the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) describing eloquently the problems of her constituency. While one would wish to help Scotland, one would not go quite so far as to suggest that a strip mill should be set up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, although, possibly, the hon. Member might welcome a few extra radical thinkers into his constituency.
    The core of the problem, which so far has not been mentioned, is the high cost of the transport of materials and of the finished article from the sources of supply and back to the markets. Until that problem is tackled, all these other methods of transitional subsidy and aid deal only with the problem at the periphery. What we must do is to drive as hard as we can to improve our communications, including road, rail and bridges, in the remoter parts of the country, because until we do this we will never get rid of the fundamental problem which lies at the root of this unemployment condition.
    To talk about my own part of the country, I found it rather ironic when in Cornwall recently to recall that about a year ago it was declared to be a D.A.T.A.C. area. At the same time, however, the Ministry of Transport cut down the major road improvement grants to the area. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the South-West is only an area where people go for their holidays. We would not direct industrialists to set up industries in Cornwall any more than we, or hon. Members opposite, would direct labour to various parts of the country. We do not, however, see how any industrialist would consider it economically feasible to set up business in an area in which communications are so extremely poor. When one thinks of holidays and realises that this area is a major gold and dollar earner for the country, when one thinks of the communications to the area and

    911
    of the annual funeral procession to the South-West as we see it for four months of the year, it is high time that something was done about this drastic problem. We should be careful to ensure that the goose that lays the gold and dollar eggs is not strangled in the highways and byways of Somerset.
    I welcome the activities of my right hon. Friend the new Minister of Transport, and his predecessor, in all that is being done in the development of transport and the building of roads and I wish the maximum speed to my right hon. Friend's efforts. It is, I consider, altogether a good thing that Miss Jayne Mansfield opened the Chiswick flyover. It gave the occasion a bit of publicity and introduced a controversial note. Now, Mr. Dayton has made the matter even more controversial. It is right that these matters should be brought before the public eye and interest concentrated upon them.
    One of the activities of my noble Friend the new Minister for Science should be to consider the science of road building, in which art we are far behind European standards, as many of us who visited Germany recently have discovered.
    At the same time, I did not think that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), when he referred to a certain lady whom I have mentioned, were particularly flattering, either to himself or to the West when he was comparing the aims of the West and of Russia. Our function as politicians is to ensure that when we leave this House, we leave the conditions of the people better than we found them when we came in. Although we may not yet have put a sputnik round the earth or a lunik round the moon—we might yet be able to do these things—it is true to say that we have improved the conditions of the people to a stage very much in advance of conditions in Russia today. It is a paradox that in Russia, with its tremendous scientific developments, so little has been done to help ordinary people.
    There is, however, a danger that we might be beguiled simply by material things. What we want to cherish and maintain is a spirit of voluntary service to the community and a spirit of voluntarily
    912
    giving up one's spare time to get education to improve our ability to serve the community. When we have to compete with States which have compulsory powers, as there are in Russia and China, it is essential that this individual spirit and desire to serve should prevail. As long as we maintain and insist upon these things, we will ensure that we compete successfully as a free nation against the competition of others of an alien type of thinking.
    6.26 p.m.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: I am not unmindful of the generous consideration which this House extends to its new Members, and I am deeply conscious that I, too, need the indulgence of the House. Remembering that I am the first new Member from the Principality to speak in this House this Session, I trust that I shall receive special indulgence.
    The Gower constituency, which I have the honour and the privilege to represent, has been associated in this House with another name for thirty-seven years. I refer, of course, to the name of Mr. David Grenfell. I should like to pay tribute to him for his great services to this House and to its debates and discussions and also for his contribution towards those movements leading to world peace. He also achieved another distinction in becoming the Father of the House. Whilst I cannot hope to follow him in that direction, I can—and indeed, I shall—always endeavour to the best of my ability to follow his example in his great regard for Parliamentary democracy and also for his love and affection for the traditions of this, the Mother of Parliaments, the greatest legislative assembly in the world.
    The Gower constituency is also well-known to hon. Members for another reason and that is its natural beauty. In 1949, this House passed the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which led in 1956 to the Gower Peninsula being recognised as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Indeed it was the first area to be so designated in the country. It has been a great pleasure for me to meet many hon. Members in the Lobbies who have confessed to me that they have been invigorated and have gained new health to return to their arduous labours here

    913
    after a holiday in that beautiful part of the country.
    My home looks out upon that natural beauty, but it also looks out upon another view. It look out upon obsolete mills and exhausted pits, a view which some of my hon. Friends know well. I can see the villages of Gorseinon, Pontardulais and Pontardawe, which have been household names in the tinplate industry in South Wales, and I see the mining communities of Cwmllynfell and Gwauncaegurwen, where the miners are facing a grievous situation. Indeed, the National Coal Board, in its revised "Plan for Coal", refers to the probability of further pit closures in the South-Western Division.
    To these areas, I would remind the House, the fears of insecurity have returned, not recently but a few years ago. The Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, will vividly recall his visit to the Pontardawe obsolete mills earlier this year when I had the opportunity of accompanying him. In these areas the unemployment figures are three and four times, and even more, higher than the national average, and the problem of youth is also a very grave one indeed.
    The Gracious Speech now promises urgent attention to areas such as these, but the Amendment rightly states that there has been a failure to deal adequately, and, indeed, to deal in time, with the problems of these industries.
    I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) emphasise the importance of community life. I too live in the centre of these communities where so many old people, as the Amendment says, are living in dignified poverty and extreme hardship. I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point, having regard to his remarks today. I hope it is not yet too late in the day possibly for an announcement to be made that something will done very soon for these old folk. But I must not, in accordance with tradition, be controversial today, so I must content myself with reminding the House that action at all times speaks louder than words.
    These communities to which I refer are very rich indeed in cultural activities. Indeed, the Festival Hall of this capital city has heard great music sung by the Pontardulais and Penclawdd choral
    914
    societies, and the trumpets have sounded here, too, of the Ystalyfera brass bands. The valleys, too, have produced their scholars, their poets and their bards. These communities, I would say with great respect, must not be allowed to die, and their vigour must be restored, and it is, if I may say so, the responsibility of the Government of the day to see to it that new industries are brought to these valleys.
    Despite their economic difficulties, however, these people are not Luddites. They are ready to co-operate in technological developments and the onward march of automation, but in return they demand the right to work. I commend their urgent needs particularly to the attention of the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and I hope he will respond to this appeal on behalf of these communities. I would ask this new House to remember Milton's great invocation in the Areopagitica which, I personally believe, is still up to date:
    "Consider what Nation it is whereof ye are, and whereof ye are the governours: a Nation not slow and dull, but with a quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit, acute to invent, suttle and sinewy to discours, not beneath the reach of any point the highest that human capacity can soar to."
    Indeed we had an example of this national characteristic at the Box today by the deputy Leader of the Opposition.
    If I may have the indulgence of the House for a few more minutes, I would refer again to the Gracious Speech which also recognises the place of science and technology in the modern world. But I should have liked to have seen also equal recognition of and emphasis on the importance of human relations in industry. This is one of the most urgent tasks confronting the industrial world. I recognise that much has been done. The T.U.C. has consistently advocated the introduction of joint consultation in the real sense and the Minister of Labour's personal Management Advisory Service has also rendered good service, and, again, the Duke of Edinburgh's Oxford Conference on human problems in industrial communities was a most notable recognition of the gravity of this matter, but we have touched only the fringe of the problem. Industrial disputes are constantly in the news. It is not my intention today to analyse

    915
    the causes of industrial discontent, but I would respectfully urge the need for a more human approach to our industrial problems.
    As one who has been connected for many years with industrial relations I have met in industry many people who have displayed a remarkable intelligence when the problems concern machines but who are pathetically unintelligent when the problem concerns human beings. It must be realised that industry is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. It is people who come first. Their life in and out of working hours is the only really important thing, particularly in a country which professes to be democratic. Science and technical efficiency, though essential in modern industry, should be used as the servant and no amount of it can in any way be a substitute for a profound interest in and understanding of the individual and his industrial problems.
    Man has simply got to remain in charge of the industrial monster which he is building. I hope, therefore, that the new Minister referred to in the Gracious Speech, entrusted with the task of co-ordinating and promoting developments in research and other scientific activity, will make sure that science and technology remain the servants of man and not his dictators.
    I thank the House for its indulgence.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: It is my privilege, and one I accept most gladly, to thank the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) and congratulate him upon his maiden speech. He showed what we would expect from somebody born amid the valleys and mountains of Wales, a great sense of beauty. He is a patriot—we would always expect that from the Principality; but, above all, what struck me and I am sure must have struck the House was his real sincerity and the way he spoke from the heart, and that, in this House, is always the most acceptable quality of all.
    I cannot follow him into Wales and I would, therefore, like to turn to the question of pensions and pensioners, which has been touched upon earlier today. I should like to take it up from a different angle. I would draw the attention of the House and the Government to the
    916
    necessity of studying this matter of old-age pensioners in a far wider aspect, not limiting it to the question of housing or an extra 10s. or an extra £1 a week. The Gracious Speech touches upon the relaxation of the earnings rule, and it is that point I should like to enlarge upon for a short while.
    In March we had an interesting debate on the re-employment of the elderly, and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said:
    "I fully accept the need for further research and greater contact between research workers and industry. It is really a question of deciding what is the best machinery to adopt … I believe that the best means of providing a link between the research departments, on the one hand, and industry on the other would … be … from time to time, to call a conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 6th March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 837.]
    In his speech when he opened his Budget about a month later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
    "It must be our unceasing endeavour to get every person we can into productive employment without putting at risk the stability of the foundations of our economy on which the prospects for full and steady employment must rest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 41.]
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn) and I felt very encouraged by those words. I am anxious to recall to the mind of the Government, now that they have been reorganised, what was said at the time and I want to enlist the interest and sympathy of new Members in an inquiry as to what can be done to re-employ elderly people and so put off the pension problem.
    By all means let us start with a conference, but do not let us stop there. Publicity is enormously needed on this question, both among the potential employers and among the potential employees. I would differ from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour who spoke just of getting into touch with industry. I believe that local and government authorities have possibilities of offering elderly people employment which have not been explored. I know that there is the difficulty of pension schemes, but I think that it should be overcome.
    As to the potential employee, we must get our old people out of the desperate outlook and the feeling that they are heading for the rubbish heap. We have an

    917
    ageing population. The expectation of life and the expectation of health in old age are increasing very rapidly. We must face competition with the United States and with the U.S.S.R. with a very small population, and I was struck by the sentence spoken by the deputy Leader of the Opposition when he said that the expansion of the Communist world is proceeding dramatically.
    I believe that to be true. I believe, therefore, it to be equally true that we should use to the fullest extent our capacity for work at every age. Something could be done at the labour exchanges in specialising in re-settling elderly people somewhat on the lines of the Youth Service set up to help the young when they first begin.
    A very wide look at this subject is necessary. Interesting research is going on and the Nuffield Trust has published certain interesting conclusions. If we do not take up this matter very radically and examine every possibility we shall find in the next twenty years that three-fifths of the population has to support the other two-fifths. I understand that the Beveridge Report expected that by 1979 there would be between 8 million and 9 million elderly people in this country.
    Tied up with the employment of middle aged and elderly people is the question of restrictions on earnings. It is time that these restrictions were reconsidered. I know that that is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech and I am very glad. They were originally instituted for economic reasons and in order to encourage people to retire. I believe that that attitude now is disastrous. I do not think that we should encourage people to retire. If we could encourage them to remain at work we could save a great deal of ill-health and unhappiness in old age.
    Quoting from memory, I believe that the cost of abolishing these restrictions on employment would have been about £100 million a year ago. I am convinced that the greater productivity which would result from keeping elderly people in employment, the economy on the higher pension rate and, above all, the increased happiness of our old people, which would contribute to better health, would make a very big dent in the £100 million which we are told this would cost.
    The Nuffield Report states that many
    918
    workers stay on up to 70 years of age in jobs for which they are totally unfit. It would be very much better if they could be transferred to an easier job, with the old-age pension at an earlier age. Also the present Regulations, as we all know, lead to evasion and cheating. I have always found it a great difficulty to explain to an old-age pensioner the difference between the Service pension or the civil pension and his old-age pension, and why the civil pensioner can work without restriction on earnings whilst the old-age pensioner cannot. Old-age pensioners cannot understand this and they do not like the explanation when it is given to them.
    At this stage, I should like to make a special plea for complete relaxation of the earnings rule as applied to widowed mothers. They should be exempt from this rule altogether. One of the greatest disasters that can befall anybody is for a woman to be left a widow with young children to be brought up. It is an immensely hard task and there is always the haunting fear of what would happen to the home if she were ill or incapacitated. If we can encourage her to earn as much as possible, and even perhaps put aside something for a rainy day, that is the least that we can do for such a case.
    I am confident that the Government will implement the promises which they have made about the relaxation of these restrictions but, quite frankly, I should like them to abolish them altogether the moment it is economically possible to do so. They would not only earn the gratitude of the widows and the approval of elderly people but, far more important, they would greatly increase the happiness of the older generation by doing this and also encourage them to stay at work for which they are fit.
    As an hon. Member opposite has said, sometimes in examining these social problems we take the matter in too piecemeal a fashion and tend to think too much of the pounds, shillings and pence and forget the mental and spiritual side of the people whom we are trying to help. If the Welfare State is to justify itself, it must think not only of the material side but of the character and spiritual outlook of the people for whom it is working. What a condemnation it is when we look at China in these days,

    919
    with its complete Communistic, totalitarian Government, a country which above all used to revere old age, where it was a privilege to be old and old age was esteemed. Now that has gone by the board, it has been all trampled on and thrown away in revolution and in the hard-hearted Communistic outlook.
    We are a long way from Browning's verse, which all hon. Members know:
    "Grow old along with me!
    The best is yet to be".
    The deputy Leader of the Opposition asked what we on this side of the House were going to do with our victory. I should like to think, and indeed I feel certain, that we will try to make our victory also a happy time for our older people, so that our Welfare State may reflect the picture, first of all, of a happy childhood, of thriving middle life, and then of contented old age. In that way our generation will have justified their work for the good of mankind.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. Carol Johnson: In rising to address the House, I am conscious of at least three disabilities. As a new Member addressing the House for the first time, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), I share the diffidence which is expected of one placed in this position, although this is, of course, offset by the knowledge that the House is kindness itself on these occasions.
    Secondly, as the Member for Lewisham, South, I follow someone who is not only a great Parliamentarian but a national and international figure. All of us, I am sure, appreciate the very gracious reference the Prime Minister made to Mr. Herbert Morrison in opening the debate on the Address. Although I am very proud to be the Member for Lewisham, South, I am also gratified in following Mr. Herbert Morrison's steps. I am only sorry that he should appear to be engaged in something like a nomenclatural obstacle race in his passage to another place. Whatever title he may eventually assume, I am sure that he will make as distinctive a contribution to the life and work of another place as he made in this Chamber. Nevertheless, I have to recognise that for some time to come it may well be that references to the hon. Member for
    920
    Lewisham, South may cause some right hon. and hon. Members to look towards the third row below the Gangway where Mr. Herbert Morrison latterly sat rather than to the more humble place from where I am now addressing the House. I only hope that time will cure that disability.
    I suffer from what I think is an even greater disability. For many years past I have worked in the Palace of Westminster, and I need hardly inform right hon. and hon. Members that there is a marked and significant gulf between them and the very large number of men and women who serve them in various ways. Of course, that does not preclude us from criticising. For many years past, I have sat as a stranger in a seat under the Gallery and seen the House in its great moments, and, need I add, on occasions when it has not been so elevating. I have often found myself muttering under my breath, "Why doesn't he say this" or "Why doesn't he do that." Now that I have passed beyond the Bar of the House and find myself on these benches—and I feel it acutely at this particular moment—I feel that there is an answer to those two questions. In any event, the House will appreciate why I feel that the invisible cloak of the "stranger" may in my case take a little longer to become invisible to me, and meanwhile I feel that I should keep a weather eye open for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
    While my memory of working on the fringe of Parliament is still fresh in my mind, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not think me presumptuous if I remind them of a large number of people who in various ways play a useful part in keeping the Parliamentary machine at work. Some of the more important ones find a place in HANSARD, while, in the case of others a quirk of character or an outstanding personality attracts occasional attention in the Press. But, by and large, loyal and devoted service comes from many dozens of people who go on year after year unremarked and largely unknown.
    Some of the older Members may recall the inimitable Christmas greeting cards which used to come year by year from Mr. Stanley Evans when he was the hon. Member for Wednesbury, and I think all who knew him will agree that he was

    921
    a very great loss to the House. In some of those cards he lifted the curtain on various sections of people who mostly provide a silent service and told right hon. and hon. Members a great many things about them which they did not know. Indeed, I have often felt that in addition to the Journals of the House there might well be a place for a House journal which would keep all of us much better informed about the personnel whose work is done beyond the Bar of the House. In this Palace of Westminster we are all part of a great community. When I think of the many speeches which have been made in this Chamber about maintaining good relations in industry, commerce and other undertakings and the need for all people engaged in a common purpose knowing all about each other's problems, I have often felt that the House might sometimes turn its attention a little nearer home.
    There is one other matter which I should like to mention, and I hope that it will not be thought controversial. After a lifetime carrying on practice as a solicitor, working as a local government officer, or, more latterly, as a sort of political civil servant, I have had as a matter of course the normal facilities and help in carrying on these jobs, but in what is generally regarded as a much more important function, that of being a Member of Parliament, I am literally appalled not merely at the inadequate but non-existent amenities. I find that having moved from the facilities that have been provided for me in the past, I am now without a desk at which to sit, nor can I obtain any accommodation for a secretary, and when I compare that with what I have enjoyed in the past and with what I regard as essential, I think I am entitled to feel appalled. I hope that these matters will very early engage the attention of the House, because until that problem is solved it is impossible to expect the maximum efficiency from hon. Members in this House.
    There is one other matter to which I should like to refer before I sit down. Whenever any part of the country is afflicted by some great disaster, such as the colliery disaster in Lanarkshire, to which reference was made in the Adjournment debate last night, the whole country identifies itself with the smitten community, not only because of the loss of life it has suffered and the personal
    922
    tragedies that result, but because we appreciate that such a community may never recover from such a blow. Although economic setbacks are not so spectacular or sympathy-inspiring, they, too, may have a vital effect upon the communities affected. However much we may disagree about the methods for dealing with these problems, I hope that at least we all agree that the economic health of every industry in the country and the social well being of all our people are two of the major purposes of Parliament.
    There need be no apology at the opening of a new Parliament for the Opposition casting a searchlight on these two great themes, as we are doing in this debate today, and asking Her Majesty's Government to tackle them with urgency and great effort. The responsibility for so doing has been firmly placed on this Government as a result of the last General Election, and I feel that it is our task on these benches to see that the Government do so.
    6.59 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: It is always a very great honour to be the first to congratulate an hon. Member making his maiden speech in this House, and I have much pleasure on this occasion in congratulating the hon. Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. C. Johnson) on his contribution to our debate. He is quite right in saying that those of us who have been fortunate enough to have been here for many years naturally miss the perky atmosphere with which the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, whom we all know so well as Herbert Morrison, always enlivened this House. Not only was it a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion, but the attention paid to his speech in all parts of the House shows that we shall enjoy hearing him many times more. Incidentally, this is the first occasion on which I have listened to a maiden speech from a Member who is not a stranger to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points which may cause us considerable reflection.
    We are now concluding the final stages of the debate on the Gracious Speech, and in listening to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who opened the debate this afternoon,

    923
    I thought that in some way his was a slightly puzzling speech. Not only did it contain great wisdom at moments but it pinpointed the problem which concerns us all, since the problem of a sound economic policy and the difficulty of combining that with popular Government must concern every hon. Member.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the events between 1945 and 1951 proved his point, and that no hon. Member who was in the House at that time would argue that the difficulties which confronted the Government of the day were not considerable. That is true, but he did not mention that instead of concentrating on our economic difficulties the Government concentrated on the ideology of nationalisation and so disrupted the economic life of the country. The period after a war must be inflationary, but if at the same time there is a policy of divesting certain people of certain things and paying for them then the inflation must be heightened and, indeed, must cause the difficulties from which we are suffering even now.
    The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned certain speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at that time. It was a pity that he did not mention the book "The Middle Way". Most of us who have a great admiration for the Prime Minister, and who read that book in the 'thirties, found it very stimulating.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Gentleman praises "The Middle Way", but does he realise that in those days his right hon. Friend was a keen critic of Tory economic policy? Is he now suggesting that he would criticise the Tory policy as "The Middle Way" did?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. The primary difference between the Conservative and Socialist policies is that the Conservative policy is not static. Consequently the policy at one period is quite different from that at another.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said today that our economic position is better than it has been for a generation. He said that shortly we may be debating the Radcliffe Report. In this connection I make one
    924
    request to my right hon. Friend. I have read the Report, which is a voluminous one. Is there a possibility of producing a shortened version before the debate? This Report on monetary policy is extremely important, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it is fairly heavy reading.
    The Chancellor also said something which, instead of giving me great pleasure, caused me a great deal of anxiety. It was that tomorrow we shall hear from the President of the Board of Trade about abolishing a large number of the present quantitative restrictions. Now the Chancellor is concerned, as are the Government generally, with certain pockets of unemployment, or certain sacks of unemployment as one of my hon. Friends put it. Although the proposed Bill will help in that connection, nobody really considers that legislation will solve the problem overnight. Consequently, in connection with areas which have suffered high unemployment it is right to draw the attention of the Chancellor to what might be termed the indigenous industries.
    Consequently, I will grapple at once with a point which is causing me anxiety as regards south-east Cornwall in particular, although this applies also to the greater part of Cornwall. A large number of people there are engaged in the horticultural and fishing industries. Reference is made in the Gracious Speech to the promise of the Government that legislation will be passed giving grants to the horticultural industry in consultation with the National Farmers' Union. Now the protection of this industry is based upon the tariff and the Government gave a pledge on that point during the election. I do not know which restrictions are to be removed, but I want to make sure that under no circumstances will those removals affect that general policy about which the Government have given a pledge.
    Secondly, there is the question of the inshore fishing industry which, in the part of the country where I live, is dependent primarily upon the canning of its products and their sale. Already it has suffered a great deal from something which we cannot avoid, the import of South African canned pilchards. That country, of course, is a member of the

    925
    Commonwealth, but shall we, by some abolition of restrictions, by some agreement within the Little Seven, produce a position that will be hurtful to an industry which, although small, provides men and material that, when this country is in danger, we are only too thankful to have? I trust the Chancellor will not forget that.
    There are other matters which I wish to mention to the Chancellor in passing. First, I sincerely trust that he is looking into the whole question of the agricultural policy which the Government have put before the country. I hope it will not be forgotten that most hon. Members representing the area where the smaller farmers are are considerably worried and anxious about the pig position. I appreciate that no one can settle the problem overnight. It is a worry, and many of us believe that the solution lies in a Pig Marketing Board.
    I also trust that the Chancellor will give the whole of our shipping industry very serious consideration. I hope he will remember that when the shipping industry as a whole is not making any money questions of flags of convenience in order to avoid our taxation do not really matter, but they do matter when profits are again being made. The shipping industry must be given the hope that ultimately ships can be replaced. The shipbuilding industry must always operate behind the shipping industry in time, but one is part of the other. This is a problem that we have to face so that the shipping industry and the shipbuilding industry can attain full capacity and also earn the invisible exports which are attached to both industries.
    I hope that the Chancellor realises that there is something else which is very worrying in the areas of heavy unemployment, like Gunnerslake, where the figure has been as high as 15 per cent., which is an extremely heavy figure at any time. If one has not got light industry to take up the slack, it means that the unemployed and the employment exchanges must look for work at a distance. There comes a point, however, with bus and rail fares at a very high figure—they have just been increased—where it is doubtful whether a
    926
    man with a wife and two children is any better off by taking employment at a distance than he would be if he were drawing unemployment benefit and National Assistance. That is a problem which will have to be examined.
    The last point that I wish to make is something which the Chancellor has heard from me from time to time, but that does not mean to say that I will not repeat it. I have already said that the great thing is to look at the natural industries in areas where we have unemployment and see what can be done. There is an absolutely fantastic situation in regard to tin. The word "Britain" comes from the Greek and means "Island of tin". Special circumstances existed when tin mining virtually stopped in Cornwall, such as the developments in Malaya, the question of costs at that time, and so on. Yet those concerned in metalliferous mining know that there is a goodly quantity of this metal lying hidden now in our hills. Experts estimated that the total sum per annum which could be obtained from tin mining would be about £400 million.
    We are all anxious that the country's wealth should be harnessed to the greatest possible extent so that we can not only enjoy a rising standard of life but achieve the reserves which the Chancellor wants. It is an extraordinary thing that South Africa, Canada, Eire and Australia have all passed legislation which we had on our Order Paper in 1945 and 1946 with the object of giving an incentive to people to undertake mining, but that legislation has been consistently refused here.
    I appreciate that the Chancellor cannot at the moment speak about his next Budget, but I hope that he will look at this matter again and allow a tax holiday, for three or five years from the time of production, for metalliferous mining. If that happened, capital could come into the country to extract the wealth which lies hidden in our hills. If that were the case, it would be a considerable sum. If it were not the case, the Treasury would lose nothing. It is now a great many years since any mining adventure has occurred here, for very obvious reasons. Yet what lies in our hills might enable the Chancellor to achieve more of the things that he wants to achieve.
    7.16 p.m.
    Mr. John Morris: It is with considerable trepidation that I rise to intervene in such an important debate. I stand in the same place as other young men have done in the past, and I can only hope that they did not do so with as much trepidation as I do. I hope that the House, in putting me in the balance and weighing me, will not find me unduly wanting.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies), I should like to mention my predecessor, Mr. W. G. Cove, who, while the political tides ebbed and flowed, for 30 years represented Aberavon in this House, and before that he represented Wellingborough. While the tides ebbed and flowed Aberavon stood firm, even in 1931, when Mr. Cove's predecessor, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, stood in another light and, of course, for another constituency.
    I should like in the few minutes at my disposal to deal with that part of the Gracious Speech which concerns
    "the development of a sound system of communications throughout the country"
    and the Government's intention to press
    "forward with their policy of building new highways and improving existing roads."
    It would be presumptuous of me, as a new, young and inexperienced Member, to try to paint a broad picture of the country's system of road communications. I shall try to devote myself to a part of the problem with which I have tried to the best of my ability to familiarise myself in the last few years, and that is the transport system of South Wales, and, in particular, of Port Talbot.
    In recent years the problem of who will do something for the Port Talbot by-pass and for the inner relief road scheme for the town has been a burning question in South Wales. This is not a mere constituency matter. It affects the prosperity of the whole of South Wales. Indeed, whenever there is an international match in Cardiff, every sportsman in Wales has his own epithets for describing the Government of the day when he is held up at the Port Talbot bottleneck.
    The Minister of Transport said yesterday that he was appalled at the standard of driving on the new M.1 road from London to Birmingham. My sincere
    928
    hope is that he is equally appalled at the hourly chaos which exists at the Port Talbot bottleneck. Here is one of the greatest bottlenecks in the country. Hour after hour private vehicles and the great vehicles of industry are held up there, causing a tremendous waste of fuel, time and money. I shudder to think of the annual amount of wastage caused by that single bottleneck. The worst period is between five o'clock and six o'clock in the evening. It has been reported that on a recorded occasion 1,278 vehicles crawled through that bottleneck between those hours.
    The significance of the bottleneck is that while there is traffic from east and west, there is also traffic from north and south, and a railway crossing across that great highway. In the period between five o'clock and six-thirty it has been estimated that on recorded occasions the railway crossing gates have been shut for no less than thirty-five minutes. In any system of road communications I think that is a considerable time for the road between east and west to be closed.
    No doubt the Minister is aware of the controversy which has existed regarding which of two proposed improvement schemes should be carried out, an outer scheme of relief, involving the demolition of 260 to 270 houses, or an inner scheme. It has been stated that the schemes concerning Port Talbot have had a "chequered career," but it has appeared to me to be more like a game of snakes and ladders, with no one winning. Even though the Minister decided as far back as November, 1957, that the outer scheme should be carried out first, not a single brick has been laid up to now and not a single inch of tarmacadam has been put down.
    Local authorities have done their best to assist the Minister in this matter. I wish to stress that at the inquiry in November, 1957, the Minister did not decide against the local authority's scheme for inner relief; he merely said that he would not alter his order of priorities and that he intended to carry out the outer scheme first. But the problem of inner relief for the town still remains. On 10th March this year the local authority and the Glamorgan County Council resubmitted a scheme for the inner relief of the town. Even

    929
    on the most optimistic prophecy the outer scheme will not be completed before 1965, and, even so, it will deal only with 30 per cent. of the traffic which now comes through the bottleneck at Port Talbot.
    Traffic is increasing year by year by 10 per cent. I shudder to think what a tremendous bottleneck will exist in 1965 even with the construction of the outer scheme. It is absolutely vital that the Minister should decide to do something at the earliest possible moment regarding the inner road. In May of this year the local authorities requested a joint meeting with the Minister, but he regretted that the future of the inner relief scheme must remain in abeyance until after the election, as he did not consider that he should take a decision which would commit a future Administration. Now that the joustings at the hustings have been completed, I hope that the Minister of Transport will see his way clear to meet the local authorities in this matter at the earliest possible moment.
    There is also the question of re-housing the people whose homes are involved in the carrying out of the scheme. I said earlier that 260 to 270 houses will be demolished. I am informed that the Ministry has not encountered a demolition problem of this magnitude before, but the problem is one which eventually will affect the whole of the country. There are no houses for sale in this area.
    The majority of my constituents are steel workers and at the moment they are members of the most prosperous community in Britain. Many of these people are old and their houses are worth only £700 or £1,000. Where are they to find equivalent accommodation with which to replace their present homes? Those who are tenants will be re-housed by the council which will get a subsidy in order to do that. But the problem of where owner-occupiers will go still remains. Will the council have to re-house these people? Will it get a subsidy to enable it to rehouse owner-occupiers who cannot find other accommodation?
    This is a basic problem involving people who have worked all their lives and saved up to buy their house. Are they to be compensated with sums of
    930
    money which will not be sufficient to provide them with another house? There are no such houses available in modern housing developments. The cost of a new house would far exceed any amount of compensation which they might receive. Even were they re-housed in council houses, the £700 or £1,000 compensation which they might receive would soon be whittled away if they had to pay the economic rent of a council house, which amounts to £2 17s. a week. If they came within the differential rent scheme for council houses and the council received a subsidy for re-housing them, they would still have to pay a weekly rent of £1 6s.
    It is no consolation to speak of National Assistance for such cases; indeed it would be tragic, because these people would have to use up the compensation they had received before getting any aid at all. There is a basic principle involved here because the life of a whole community is at stake and if we continue with great plans of road development, in a few years other people will be put in jeopardy in the same way. It will need the wisdom of Solomon to dispense justice in such circumstances.
    How can we compensate people who have spent all their lives in a house of a certain type which cannot be replaced under modern housing conditions? Local authorities are anxious to obtain some indication of the attitude of the Government to these problems. Some of these houses are to be demolished as early as next March. The occupants are under notice, but the local authority has not yet been informed whether it is supposed to re-house those people.
    There is a tremendous backlog of road work to be done in the country. In Great Britain there are 29 motor vehicles for every mile of road. We have the most congested roads in the world, and if the number of vehicles continues to increase at the present rate it is estimated that by 1962 there will be no fewer than 10 million vehicles on our roads. This means that there will be a motor vehicle for every 35 yards of public road or street.
    Compared with twenty-five years ago the yield from motor taxation has gone up nine times, but the expenditure on roads today, even taking into account the

    931
    present plans, is running at only three-and-a-half times more. The fact that we have three times more traffic on our roads today than we had in 1939 is, in my opinion, convincing evidence of the growing dependence of our social and economic life upon road transport, and it has been estimated that road congestion already costs the country no less than £500 million a year. That amount accrues from delays, wastages, wear and tear and accidents.
    South Wales, and South-West Wales in particular, has suffered some hard knocks regarding unemployment in recent years. Industrialists—and who can blame them?—shy away when faced with the tremendous transport problems which exist in South Wales.
    After years of talk, of inquiries, of consultations and of conferences, the people of South Wales will hardly believe their eyes when the first part of any scheme for Port Talbot is completed. Good roads are the arteries of our economic existence. The developments at Milford Haven and Swansea and the bringing of new industries to Pontardawe and Llanelly are dependent on the development of a new life link to South Wales. The prosperity of the whole community of South and South-West Wales depends on a good system of communications.
    7.31 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: This is the first time that it has been my pleasure to compliment an hon. Member on his maiden speech. It has always been my fear that I should not be able to do so sincerely if the task fell to me. But I am sure the House will agree that the expert and eloquent way in which the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) discharged his difficult task makes us hope that we will hear him often in the future. The eloquence and assurance with which the hon. Gentleman spoke, and the obvious knowledge that he has of his constituency, makes us hope that in future we will have many opportunities of debate with him. One point that the hon. Gentleman made about National Assistance I should like to debate on a more suitable occasion.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) spoke about pensions. My right
    932
    hon. Friend spoke about housing old people. I want, with every force at my command, to re-echo the words that he used. Judging from my own constituency, I have the impression that, whilst the situation is certainly serious, if a determined attempt is made there is still time to shift the backlog in the provision of small dwellings for old people and find at the end of five or ten years that we have substantially removed this pressing and pathetic problem from the list of things that have yet to be done.
    I echo also the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead about the earnings rule, principally the earnings rule for widowed mothers. I should like to see the rule abolished because, in spite of the arguments which have been so ably employed, the rule has outlived its usefulness. I hope that shortly we shall be able either to raise the limit very high or abolish the rule entirely.
    I welcome also the economic facts set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, the implicit meaning of which was that the inhabitants of this country are now more and more able to make their own provision for the future. All hon. Members on this side of the House will agree that that in itself is a goal to which we should work so that everyone retiring may have the feeling that his own acts and qualifications have earned his pension.
    Having said that, I wish to return to what has, during the last month or so, been discussed—what should be the amount of the retirement pension at the present time? I want to talk about cash. A blatant offer of cash does not carry a great deal of conviction, or did not seem to during the election. I think some retired people were rather affronted with the suggestion that 10s. was the price of their vote. I am not suggesting that hon. Members on the other side meant it that way. It just happened to coincide with the election and was taken that way by some people. Others, while they would like to have an extra 10s., were not certain that the Labour Party, as a Government, would be able to deliver the goods if it were elected.
    Nevertheless, it is quite true, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said this afternoon, that nobody really suggests that the people of this

    933
    country are against the old-age pensioners having an extra 10s. There are a few people who object. After all, this money must be raised by contributions and there are some young people who will ask themselves whether, at the start of their careers and with the possibility of having to bring up a family—and people marry very much younger than they used to—they are in a position to have their contributions raised again to help people much older than themselves.
    In considering this problem of the retirement pension we have these two possibilities. Are we to put up the retirement pension for everybody whether they need it or not, or should we help only those who need help most? Put like that, I am sure there is hardly anybody who would disagree when I say that it is desirable to help those who need it and not those who do not.
    At first sight that answer convinces, but there are a number of difficulties to that. First, if we are going to put up National Assistance, however we may speak round it in this House, it imposes some sort of means test. I am not saying that the officers of the National Assistance Board are not sympathetic. I believe that they are amongst the most popular civil servants in this country. They are universally liked and everybody thinks that they do a wonderful job. They are most sympathetic, and the people with whom they deal have every confidence in the way that they do their job. Nevertheless, the bread of charity is bitter in the mouth. I believe that a lot of people who receive National Assistance take it unwillingly and regret that necessity compels them to do so.
    If National Assistance is increased, the people who have by their own efforts and privations during their working lives saved a certain amount of money are in a worse position, they think, than the person next door who has never taken any thought for the future but receives National Assistance to make his income equal to that of those who have attempted to save. It is against thrift and it is also a disagreeable feeling to those who have done their duty.
    On the other hand, we have the position that to give the old-age pension to everybody, rich and poor alike, wastes money and inhibits us from giving to
    934
    those who need it most as much as they should have. It is sometimes riposted to that: "But that is got over because of Income Tax. After all, if the gallant field marshal"—whom I can now call my noble Friend—"draws his retirement pension, he pays a certain amount in Income Tax, and so it is reduced." However, that applies to only a few people. The average person who received the increased old-age pension and was not receiving National Assistance would not pay tax. He would be below the level of Income Tax and above the level of National Assistance. We therefore do not get rid of the argument that to pay to all wastes money.
    If we put up National Assistance, some people in need would not get as much as others. On balance, it would be wrong to think about raising National Assistance and not concentrating on pensions. We ought to concentrate on pensions and not National Assistance. I realise that they must to some extent go up in step but the pension is the thing and not National Assistance. I hope that is the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister is thinking at the present time.
    I am not going to say the amount by which the pension ought to be raised. At the beginning of my speech I condemned the promise that was made to pay a certain amount. We ought to go as far as the country can safely do and still guarantee that our industrial and inflationary position is as healthy as it is necessary to be to safeguard the savings of the workers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see what can be done from the resources of this country to raise this pension in the not so far distant future.
    7.40 p.m.
    Mr. John McKay: If I understood the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), I think he was inclined to advocate the present system of pensions apparently with the idea that things at the moment are quite satisfactory because only 1 million people have to apply for National Assistance. I think he will admit, however, that where 1 million or so apply for National Assistance there is quite a possibility that at least another million have an

    935
    income much below National Assistance level but they do not apply for help. That is a tremendous weakness, as I think the hon. Member will admit.
    Another thing I understood him 10 mean was that the difficulty of adding 10s. or even more to the pension is that in doing so we should be helping people who do not require it.
    Mr. Kershaw: May I correct that? I did not say we should be helping people who did not require it, but that we should be helping principally the people who did not require it so much as those who receive a certain amount of National Assistance at present and who need help most. They are being helped, certainly, but the help is not going to the people who need it most.
    Mr. McKay: It is a matter of degree in any case. What I was puzzed about was that, while that kind of argument is made in relation to the poorer section of the community, it is not applied in the economics of industry. Investment allowances are made to various industries, yet we do not distinguish between the companies which do not require assistance and companies which, perhaps, do require it. If they make the investment they all get the allowance. Why is this sort of ambiguous argument applied to the poorest section of the community as a sort of excuse for not increasing the pension when millions of pounds go to companies which could well do without that assistance?
    Mr. Kershaw: I shall not interrupt the hon. Member again, but the tenor of my speech was that I want the pension to be increased and it seems rather unfair of the hon. Member to suggest that I do not want that.
    Mr. McKay: If the hon. Member wants pensions increased, his Government do not, and he is loyally adhering to the Government.
    That is not the purpose of my speech. I want to draw attention to the best of my ability to a rather difficult subject but one which, nevertheless, one ought to try to deal with. I want to indicate as best I can how I see the problem which exists. It appears that the Government of the day take up an attitude towards the coal mining industry which
    936
    in principle they do not accept for the country at large. If that be so the question is, why it should be. I want to try to indicate what I mean by dealing with some of the economic factors in the country as I understand them.
    I was reading a book published by the O.E.E.C. on the question of free trade and agriculture and that drew my attention to some of the facts of the situation. We find that in actual practice in this country there is not a free-for-all but any amount of various methods whereby industry and especially agriculture are helped. People at large are not aware of that and I want to draw attention to some of these things and to indicate the general principle in the United Kingdom relative to industry and the attitude adopted at the moment towards the coal industry.
    It is admitted that a tremendous subsidy goes to agriculture. I think about £272 million goes to agriculture and food. It is also admitted that, arising from that situation, a great benefit accrues to the country in so far as it helps the balance of trade because, as a result, production from agriculture has increased tremendously since before the war. Arising from that increase fewer imports of food are needed to meet the requirements of the country generally, and I think that represents £100 million or £200 million in the balance of trade. That helps the country in two respects. The country is prepared to subsidise to this great extent in order to help agriculture.
    Recently, the cotton industry was getting into a bad economic condition and the Government and the country decided that something ought to be done, some reorganisation should take place. They did not leave the industry to itself and say, "Carry on. It is a free-for-all, get on with the job", but they said, "We will give you £32 million to help your reorganisation". I understand that when the Cunard Company begins to build great liners it is to be subsidised. That is not the only way in which industry is helped. I understand, according to the reports, that we are getting £110 million from protective duties. What does that mean? It means that indirectly, in some shape or form and in varying degrees, we are protecting industry to the extent that we get £110 million in the form of protective duties.

    937
    All those factors indicate that the Government do not leave industry alone but view it from a national standpoint and at times consider that something should be done about an industry. There are other points in which industry is helped. We are told that in initial allowances and investment allowances £19 million goes to the farmers, £29 million to sole traders and partnerships and, I understand, £362 million to companies as a whole. Initial allowances are to all intents and purposes an interest-free loan. Investment allowance is supposed to be a gift.
    In all those directions we are helping industry because we think it expedient to do so. The question which arises is why at this time of great emergency in the coal mining industry we are not prepared to do anything for that industry? That seems rather peculiar when we are helping shipping and big companies which are to build the greatest liners in the world, when we are helping cotton and other industries. The mining industry within two years or so has become absolutely disorganised, not through its own fault but because of emergencies through which it has gone in the past three years and because of the policy the Government wanted to see pursued in the industry. The industry has been carrying on in accordance with the ideas and policies of the Government. Although it was organised and worked by the National Coal Board, nevertheless the Board was using industry to get coal because the Government wanted it to do so regardless of loss.
    The Government told the National Coal Board, "Get every ton of coal you can. The country needs it. We want to expand the economy and to create more wealth, but we cannot do this unless the mining industry provides the coal." The Government wanted every ton of coal out of the earth because of national needs. This arose from national circumstances and not from the needs of the mining industry.
    What had to be done because of this demand? The working of uneconomic pits had to be continued and more than £1 per ton was lost on the coal produced in many uneconomic pits. No private industry would have done it. Had the nation wanted it done in a private industry, the nation would have
    938
    had to pay. Because it was a nationalised industry, and because the National Coal Board were dealing with it, the Government said, "We want the coal and you must get it. Regardless of cost to the Board, it must be dug."
    The Board lost £70 million on importing coal from America. Would any private industry have done that? Of course not. No Government would have attempted to compel private industry to bring a commodity into this country at a loss of £70 million. The National Coal Board tried to meet the needs of the country and lost £70 million on imported coal and far more on working uneconomic pits to suit the nation.
    Suddenly, almost like something falling out of the sky, a change took place. Coal was no longer needed as much in this country and it was not needed abroad. We have seen that oil is beginning to replace it. The demand for coal has fallen enormously in a very short time. And the Government do nothing about it.
    Are the Government justified in taking that attitude? Are they dealing with a class of men not worthy of respect, honour and help? The history of the mining industry since 1945 is a typical example of a patriotic group of men who are prepared to do almost anything for the sake of the country and to meet the country's needs. The miners did not take longer holidays after nationalisation. For several years they remained satisfied with one week's holiday. This was because of the need for the coal which they could produce by working, for the sake of the nation. They worked extra shifts on Saturdays, beyond their agreement. Why? Because the country needed the coal. So great was the need that foreign labour had to be imported.
    Price control was exercised. It meant that because of price control imposed by the Government, the coal industry was often working at a loss when it could have demanded almost any price it liked for coal. As I have said, the Board worked many uneconomic pits at a considerable loss. American coal was imported at a loss of £70 million.
    That being so, the question must be asked: is there any obligation on the country to meet the critical situation which has arisen so quickly and unexpectedly?

    939
    The greatest specialists on this subject had no idea that such a situation was likely to develop, but we have seen it develop. The demand for coal fell and continued to fall. Its replacement by oil increased and is increasing. The Coal Board had to begin to stock coal, because we were allowing a free flow of oil into this country. Fifteen million tons of coal has been stocked this year, which means a tremendous loss.
    I have pointed out that subsidies and grants are provided for other industries. I have pointed to subsidies for shipping. I have pointed to the import duties. All these things indicate that in practice the Government make efforts to help industry generally when a case can be made for it. Is there a justifiable case, or are there moral grounds, which can be put to the Government to show that they should step in to help the coal industry to overcome this temporary but very critical period?
    I have outlined the patriotic actions of the miners. What I have said cannot be denied. They took these actions to help the nation. This great and unexpected emergency has arisen. In all logic we should look at what has been done in other cases. If we do, we see that there is a clear case for the Government to help the coal industry over this temporary emergency. Men have had to be dismissed. Men of 65, who could work for many more years with satisfaction to themselves, are being compelled to cease work. To all intents and purposes thousands of them are virtually unemployed because of the present situation, although they will not be counted in the unemployment register.
    Is this crisis being overcome? When we find that 15 million tons of coal is being stocked this year and that production is being reduced by 11 million tons next year, we can see how critical is the position. What I say may have no weight with the Government, but I emphasise that the position of the mining industry is becoming very serious. The Government will hear more about it. Something must be done about it. Opencast mining was developed largely on the Government's initiative, and it is still in operation in many parts of the country. The Government should seriously consider the future of opencast mining, because the miners are against it being continued.
    940
    If the Government recognise any obligation, they should recognise the duty upon them to try to take some action to alleviate, if not to overcome, these difficulties.
    Should the Government deal with opencast mining? Should they say that it is something apart from the ordinary mining industry and was simply an emergency measure? The fact that opencast mining is producing 11 million tons per year is causing a decreased demand for deep-mined coal. Permanent men in industry are being reduced because of it. There is an obligation on the Government to take over the capital liability of abolishing opencast mining. They should discontinue it, thus giving an opening for deep-mined coal to be produced to the extent of about 7 or 8 million tons more per year. It would help to give the mining industry a little more time to work out the organisational necessities of the situation.
    The coal mining industry should be placed in a position in which it can sell the coal produced without having to stock it and in which it can be worked on a profitable basis arising from increased productivity. If the Government cannot do that, it indicates that they have no feeling of obligation to the mining industry to try to organise the efforts of the country and provide a target for the consumption of coal by the various large industries. If the Government cannot do that, some effort should be made to meet and overcome the temporary difficulty in other ways, such as by having targets for gas, electricity and other large industries so that they would demand a given amount of coal for a given period, thus meeting a great national emergency.
    I have tried as best I can to draw attention to the seriousness of the situation and to the obligation of Her Majesty's Government to try to find ways and means to alleviate the situation, to help the mining industry and a great number of patriotic people who, in a number of ways, have made many sacrifices in the interests of national needs. If there is not in this respect some national obligation I cannot understand where there ever will be.
    8.3 p.m
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am glad to have this opportunity so early in the new Parliament to draw attention

    941
    to what is perhaps, if not certainly, the greatest problem in my own constituency of Nantwich and is also still, I am sorry to say, a serious problem in many other constituencies, namely, the supply of rural electricity.
    Everyone acknowledges that the Government have done a very great deal to ease the problem during the past few years. However, the problem has now reached a rather difficult stage, because the last 15 to 20 per cent. of connections have to be made. They are the ones which are the most difficult and the most expensive, and they probably produce the least revenue.
    In my own case in the south-western area of Cheshire we come at the end of a pipeline. The Mersey and North Wales Electricity Board—M.A.N.W.E.B., as we call it for short—has, as everyone acknowledges, done a very good job with regard to rural connections and the supply of rural electricity during the past two or three years. The trouble is that its programme, like the programmes of so many other boards, suffered so drastically because of the cuts which had to be made to face the national situation with which we had to contend in the middle years of the last Parliament that it has fallen very seriously behind.
    None of my constituents—and I am sure none of anybody else's constituents—will suggest that he should in any way jump his position in the queue. All that we ask is that the Government at this stage should try to do something to speed up the programme of the electricity boards. In particular I think that this is due to rural constituents.
    Since the General Election I have had perhaps as many as twenty letters on the subject. Indeed, they are the only letters of any importance which I have received. People are feeling very desperate about this subject. I ask the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whom we are all very glad to see on the Front Bench, to bring this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Power. I ask the Government to see if something can be done to speed up the programme upon which the boards have embarked.
    I know that what the boards worry about as much as anything is that the present additional money being made available to them may be cut off. They need not worry very much about that,
    942
    because I do not think that it will be cut off. I say with all the emphasis at my command that action should be taken to speed up the programme so that people who are told that they will not be connected until 1963 or 1964 can see that they will be brought a reasonable amount further forward than that.
    It is staggering that today a county like Cheshire, which is, after all, a thickly-populated county doing a splendid job in the agricultural sphere, should be without this service. I am continually receiving letters from farmers who do not know whether to renew their worn-out batteries, because they may be getting their supply sooner than they think. I am at a loss to advise them what is best for them to do. I hope that they may be given some assurances that the rate of connection will be speeded up.
    I have intervened in the debate merely to make that appeal, I hope effectively and sincerely, with all the emphasis at my command. This is something which the Tory Party should take to its heart. These people are by far and away its main supporters and they should be shown that we appreciate the work they do in the country. They should be given these amenities, which today are regarded as absolute essentials of our life.
    8.9 p.m.
    Mr. Alan Brown: It is with no small feeling of temerity that I rise to support the Amendment; that I rise to speak for the very first time in the somewhat awe-inspiring surroundings of this most venerable Chamber. I cannot be other than conscious of the fact that in this most august assembly there are numbered the most talented, the most learned and, indeed, the most famous philosophers, politicians and orators in the land. Such knowledge of itself is, indeed, sufficient to exert a most sobering influence on any new Member. Conscious as I also am of a regrettable lack of experience of the workings, procedure and traditions of the House, I crave your indulgence, Sir, and that of right hon. and hon. Members.
    I understand that it is customary that in his maiden speech a new Member should make some reference to the constituency which he has the honour to represent, and it is with the highest degree of pride that I speak of Tottenham.

    943
    It is a town of which I have the privilege to know a very great deal, born, as I was, within two miles of its boundaries, and living, as I do, in Tottenham today.
    During the course of the debate on the Gracious Speech right hon. and hon. Members in their turn, and very rightly so, have paid high tribute to the important part played in our economic life of our country, by the great industrial towns of the North. I, in my turn, Sir, would like to extend that high measure of tribute to cover also the great industrial towns in the South, of which Tottenham is one. In fact, I should like to pay tribute to all our great industrial towns, wherever they may be. Each and all of them make a valuable contribution to the financial and economic well-being of our country. Each one manfully plays its part. In that, we have just cause for pride.
    My mention of the word "play" brings me to something else that gives me pride in Tottenham. I refer, of course, to Tottenham's world-famous football team—the Spurs—whose brilliant record has placed it firmly at the top of the First Division. I seem to be one of the few hon. Members who is apparently allowed to mention his own football team. This fact gives me one point of advantage over all my right hon. and hon. Friends present here tonight, and as it is my only one, I trust that I will be forgiven for my blatant exploitation of this sole advantage, and for the intensity of the satisfaction which mentioning the Spurs gives me.
    There has been talk of the value of leisure and recreation to the well-being of the people. May I, therefore, pay tribute to that admirable company of sportsmen, the Spurs, who have for so many years turned out with unfailing regularity in fair weather and in foul to delight the crowds, not only in Tottenham but wherever good football is played.
    I have one disclosure to make about our famous football team which I know will highly delight hon. Members opposite. The records reveal that the Spurs were once defeated by the Old Etonians by 8 goals to 2. I am informed that not only was this defeat suffered on our own ground but that the visit of these gentlemen cost us a very handsome silver
    944
    cup. Lest I be accused of, perhaps, unduly raising Governmental hopes, I would add that this slip-up occurred very many years ago—in 1888. The moral, of course, is that we in Tottenham learned our lesson long ago, since when no Old Etonians, either singly or in a body, have been permitted to win anything in Tottenham.
    Tottenham is an industrial centre, but it differs from many other industrial towns in that it is not a product of nineteenth century industrial expansion. It is an ancient parish, nearly as old as the City of London, and it is certainly known to have existed in early Saxon times. The independence of spirit and the courage of its people has not changed over the centuries. It has played an important part in the course of English history.
    The chronicles recall that in those far-off days the inhabitants of Tottenham spent much of their time assisting the inhabitants of London to repel the invaders—the fierce and heavily-armed Danes and Vikings and the like. Their attacks upon London, launched mainly from Scandinavian places, took place with great frequency during the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries.
    The last was an all-out attack in 995. In that year, a powerful fleet of no fewer than ninety-four ships sailed up the Thames, burning and pillaging. They attacked London, and bitter was the fighting that ensued. London appealed to Tottenham for aid as, apparently, was then the custom. This aid was at once forthcoming. I recount this little piece of English history because, in the first place, it illustrates the loyalty, courage and spirit of the Tottenham people, which has never changed. Secondly, I have always considered the manner in which the ancient chronicler described the event to be a gem of reporting.
    I must here explain that London's call for aid came on a very cold winter afternoon. The army from Tottenham set off that same evening in a blinding snowstorm, and almost at once ran into the main body of the Danes, near Tottenham marshes and on the banks of the River Lea. What followed is, I think, best described in the words of the chronicler, who wrote:
    "Under heavy snow, with the whistling wind gathering strength in the darkness, the battle was commenced.

    945
    It begun in twenty paces, as it were.
    We rose up mightily to stem the flood of the savage Danes.
    The cries of battle and death came quickly under the blinding snow. For an hour victory rested evenly between us. Near midnight, the Danes were fleeing.
    Hundreds were slain in that awful night, and the snow was red at Tottenham in the morn."
    I do not know whether there is any significance in the fact that close by the very site upon which this battle was fought so long ago there now stands our municipal piggery. Here we follow the more peaceful pursuit of pig farming, though not, I must point out, even now entirely free from Danish intervention. The industrious and hard-working people of Tottenham enjoy a very hearty breakfast, and bacon features high upon the menu—that is, when we can afford it.
    It seems to me to be little short of a scandal that the housewife should have to pay such an exorbitant price for bacon, a commodity which used to be both plentiful and cheap. The Tottenham piggeries, in company with the other 150,000 pig producers of Britain, do their best to supply the British breakfast table, but, of late, they have received very scant encouragement. The Danes already have a 43 per cent. hold upon the British bacon market. Denmark's pig industry is rapidly expanding, the Danish output this year is likely to exceed 8 million pigs, the highest on record. On the other hand, Britain's output will be down by 1½ million pigs this year.
    Britain's producers were considerably discouraged by the reduction in subsidy last year. They were given further cause for anxiety by the Government's recent concession to the Danes, that they would undertake to remove the 10 per cent. import duty on Danish bacon within two years. The dropping of the tariff could well convince many British producers of the hopelessness of continuing pig production. Then, with the Danes firmly in control of the bacon trade, the British housewife could assuredly be held to ransom. I remember a similar situation once occurring in respect of Argentine beef. The British producers and curers urgently ask for an assurance from the Government that they will be able to compete with the Danes on level terms. I humbly plead that such an assurance will soon be given.
    946
    I turn now to certain aspects of the welfare service. I should like to see very much more residential accommodation provided for people who, by reason of age or infirmity, are in need of care and attention. The fact that there are about 600 persons in this category already on the waiting lists of Middlesex County Council, the county authority governing Tottenham, must surely be a matter of concern. Moreover, the fact that some people have, to my knowledge, been on the lists for as long as three years and are still awaiting admission is disquieting. The further knowledge that the future working of the Mental Health Act must inevitably add substantially to the number increases my anxiety.
    More temporary and intermediate accommodation for homeless families should be provided. Nowadays, there is an ever-increasing number of families who, for a variety of reasons, lose their homes. Most of these unfortunate people look to the county authority to provide them with temporary accommodation. In Middlesex, about forty families per month apply to the welfare department for temporary accommodation. Of this average of 40 families only 10 are successfully accommodated, and then only on a day-to-day basis, thanks to the many voluntary welfare organisations on which Middlesex County Council so largely depends.
    The county council has just not got the temporary accommodation to meet the demands now being made. Surely, we must all hate to see things done by halves, especially when welfare work is concerned. If it be right, let us do it boldly. If it is wrong, it is better that we leave it alone.
    In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to my illustrious predecessor. It is right and just that I should. For twenty-seven years, Sir Frederick Messer performed his duties in the House and in the constituency of Tottenham. Never was there a time in the history of the country when moral heroes were more needed, and never, in this respect, did Fred ever fail us. His life has been devoted to the service of others, particularly the sick, the aged and the physically handicapped. His sole ambition was the betterment of the lot of his fellow creatures. Of personal ambitions he had none. A simple back bencher

    947
    he remained until the time he retired. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish Fred well in his retirement.
    8.26 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am sure that I express the feeling of the whole House when I extend congratulations to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) on the speech he has just delivered. I am but a modest Member in the history of the House, having been here for about ten years only. This is the first time that I have had this privilege, and I enjoy very much the opportunity of exercising it, quite apart from the fact that I have learnt from the hon. Gentleman a tremendous amount about Tottenham which I did not know before. I doubt that many of us could give quite so much history about our own constituencies; I know that I myself could not. Also, I am sure that the House would like very much to record its own appreciation of the fact that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Frederick Messer, who has always been very high in the affection of all hon. and right hon. Members on both sides.
    We have been discussing matters of hardship, and I wish to mention one particular form of hardship. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall omit a good deal of what I had in mind to say. The hardship to which I wish to direct attention arises from the existing rules governing compensation for property compulsorily acquired, notwithstanding the 1959 Town and Country Planning Act which was passed in the last Parliament. There has been some confusion in people's minds, and it has been thought that all was well. Indeed, all was not well, for two reasons, first, the date-line which the Act introduced, which was, I think, 30th October, 1958, and, second, the fact that compulsory clearance orders invalidated much of what it provided.
    Speaking in the Third Reading debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
    "Though none of us claims that this legislation is necessarily perfect, I am convinced that it brings us a great deal nearer to doing justice.."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 1288.]
    I want to pay a tribute to him in that regard. It certainly does. It is only
    948
    exceedingly unfortunate that, in trying to bring about justice, we did not go further than we did on that occasion.
    I have drawn attention, not only in this House but in some measure through the Press, to what is known as the Bingley case, which was confirmed before the date-line to which I have referred and therefore suffers from that difficulty, but, more so, it suffers from the difficulty with regard to the clearance order procedure. I tabled a very strong Motion before the House rose for the Summer Recess, which I will not read because of the time, but which is to be found in column 1528 of HANSARD for 23rd July, in which I asked for justice to be done by amending legislation. I looked forward to it in the Gracious Speech, but unfortunately it was not to be.
    The property in question is quite substantial and consists of a number of offices and, in particular, two shops. That is a subtle point. The compensation which was offered for the whole of this property, which is on the main highway leading to Keighley and Lancashire, was precisely £200. For years, the rent roll had been in excess of £300. Moreover, £1,000 had been spent in recent years on improvements—five times the amount of the compensation. Even the 1958 valuation for Estate Duty was about £5,000, and, in fact, Estate Duty was paid on that figure. This, or most of it, can be recovered as a result of the confirming order, but it indicates only too clearly how far short of what we hoped the 1959 Act fell. I claim that this is one of the clearest and most unambiguous cases of wrongful classification under the rules that permit such legalised robbery, for legal it is, and therefore there was great injustice on that account.
    Apart from the argument over the original nature of the office accommodation, which is debatable, it is clear that no one, except the Minister, disputes the fact that it has been shops for a great number of years—in fact, always. I think that that is a serious point in this matter to which I should draw attention.
    In July last, I wrote a letter to the Minister in which I said:
    "The question as to whether the whole of this property was 'houses' within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1957, is not, in your words,

    949
    'a matter of opinion' seeing that part of the premises in question have always been fully constructed shops."
    This sort of thing is going on all over the country where property, sometimes quite substantial, has been bringing in large rents, is taken over by a local authority under the rules, which I think come under Section 4 of the 1957 Act, which enable, by classification, injustice to be done on many occasions. I feel that this matter can be corrected fairly easily. There are one or two ways of achieving it. We could do away with the clearance order procedure, which I think was advocated by many of my hon. Friends when the 1959 Act was under discussion in the last Parliament, but I should like to put forward a much simpler way. If property has been rated for commercial purposes for a minimum period of, say, three years, it should receive compensation as commercial property and not as houses unfit for habitation, which is often the case. To my mind, that would be perfectly just. If it is considered that year after year rates can be obtained from a property for commercial purposes and that they are paid for that purpose, it is absolute nonsense to say that the property is not worth anything at all purely because of a technical classification.
    I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has appeared in the Chamber, because I recollect well his kindness to me in the last Parliament in seeing me during the last few days in an endeavour to do all he could in this matter, but he could not do anything for the simple reason that the law as it stood made it impossible. I am sorry that he could not use his persuasion and great authority to underline the need for what I asked, namely, amending legislation in the Queen's Speech. I hope, however, that he will at least be able to say that the matter is not closed, because it is a matter of hardship up and down the country to people of very moderate means who have put their money into houses, who are not owner-occupiers and therefore do not benefit materially from the previous legislation and are treated most unkindly and in a way which I do not believe the Conservative Party would wish.
    I hope that when my right hon. Friend speaks tonight he will be able to tell us that he will reconsider the matter. I
    950
    have been exceedingly short in the knowledge that my right hon. Friend understands the case so well, and his coming in at this moment has enabled me to cut my speech very materially. I know that my right hon. Friend has a kind heart. I hope that he will be able to tell us something which will give a little hope to people that this injustice, which I am sure the Conservative Party regrets, will have consideration in the near future.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has raised an important issue which one would hope to pursue on another occasion when we have a debate specially concerning the matter to which he referred. I think that we all agree about the need to consider very carefully the law as it stands because it affects a number of people in the same position who suffer under that legislation.
    In the short time at my disposal, I should like to direct the attention of the House to another matter on which, I believe, in this immediate post-election period, not enough has been said. Perhaps this is the best possible time to approach the problem of old-age pensioners, away from the election altogether. I should like to devote my remarks to a rather detailed examination of some of the problems which arise when one maintains close contact with old-age pensioners, as I am sure many hon. Members do. I am glad to see the right hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance on the Government Front Bench, and I hope that, with the new atmosphere that to some extent always seeps in when there are new personalities in office, we shall proceed a little further with some of the matters that I and many of my colleagues have at heart.
    I was much encouraged by the speech made earlier this evening by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) when he insisted more than once that in spite of all the arguments to the contrary which have been put forward, there is now a good case for an increase in the basic old-age pension. I particularly welcomed the fact that that speech came from the other side of the House I am, of course, only a recent Member of the

    951
    House, but I have been for many years a student of its history. I have always found that the House of Commons has done its work best when, on a number of important policies, there has been pressure from more than one side.
    I therefore welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Stroud dealt effectively with the important argument against us—by "us" I mean not only my political friends on this side of the House, but anybody, including social workers and people with no direct connection with political parties—and against an increase in the basic old-age pension, that is, the argument that we would be handing out money to people who do not so very much need it or who do not need it at all.
    Surely, the whole basic principle which is the philosophy behind the social services that we have built up and of which we are so proud, is that we do not always use the services that are available. The National Health Service is based upon that principle. Is it not equally true that if we examined the percentage of people among old-age pensioners who today badly need an increase in the basic pension, we should certainly find that there was an overwhelming case for an advance?
    I turn now to a personal experience over the last six years. From time to time, I have selected a number of old-age pensioners in South Yorkshire and have followed their fortunes. I have never published the results and I shall never do so; I am not entitled to publish them. I have followed the fortunes of this number of old-age pensioners because I felt that we must get away from statistics in this matter.
    I have found that over these six years there has been no change in the major basic needs of these people. From time to time I have added a few additional pensioners to my survey, and I find it still to be basically true that the essential food requirements are the first main problem in many of these families. As most of us realise, the interim index, and now the permanent index, of the cost of living, which is useful in many other fields, is often not at all relevant to the outgoings of the home of an old-age pensioner. I find that there are still serious discussions, as there have been
    952
    in recent years, on the number of eggs that the family of an old-age pensioner can buy. I am certain that there is an immediate and absolute need for an increase.
    The second major problem is that of clothing. Whenever a decision has to be made in the home of many an old-age pensioner, when the head of the family, for example the husband himself, needs an item of clothing, it is a matter of consideration for many months. Being in close touch recently with a great many pensioners as well as those to whom I have referred earlier, I have been deeply moved to learn what a problem it is for elderly people to decide on an item of new clothing. Many of them are precisely the kind of people who, whatever we might think about it, find it extremely difficult to go to the National Assistance Board.
    The third item of need which I have found is anything that might be needed in the home. This is particularly relevant in those cases in which a move has taken place from a larger home to a smaller one. Often the furniture and other things that were useful in the old place are not suitable in the new place. This means the acquisition of new or, possibly, secondhand items involving additional expense and often, in the end, the decision has to be a negative one. This causes the kind of discomfort that is close to hardship. "Discomfort" is not really the correct term for it. An overwhelming case could be made for an immediate increase in pension on strictly humanitarian grounds for the large number of pensioners who are in this position.
    I should like now to turn to a second and ancillary problem which arises out of the position of the National Assistance Board. Over recent years, I have often discussed with a considerable number of old-age pensioners their attitude to the National Assistance Board. I have found almost complete unanimity that an increase the Board's rates can never be a substitute for an increase in the basic pension. I do not say that there are not a great many people, in all political parties, and, indeed, in none, who in recent years have regarded the method of dealing with the position by an increase in the rates of the Assistance Board as socially useful. All I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of people—

    953
    in fact, almost all of them—are against an increase in the National Assistance rates as a substitute for an increase in the basic pension.
    Over the years, long before I thought of being considered to represent a Parliamentary constituency, for altogether different professional purposes I frequently attended trade council committees and committees of that kind when an inquiry was being held into the conditions of old-age pensioners. I have sometimes appeared as the friend of an old-age pensioner when there has been a dispute between the pensioner and the National Assistance Board. The experience I should like to relate to the House is the extreme nervousness of the person concerned whenever an appeal had been made and an old-age pensioner was about to appear before the appeal tribunal.
    When I had no experience of this at all I was always slightly shaken by the attitude of a man of 71 or 72 when he was about to face a tribunal. It took a great deal to reduce that nervousness. Once the man was before the tribunal, many of the members of the tribunal did their best to dispel that atmosphere, but I cite this experience—and I am glad that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is with us at this moment—because it means that a great many people never appeal at all.
    The second point I want to mention in that connection is that there are considerable difficulties in many cases before an appeal is allowed. I think it is far too difficult for an appeal to be obtained. Sometimes there has to be considerable pressure before an appeal is allowed.
    I want to raise a third point in connection with that, and I very much hope that the Leader of the House may find time to say a word about it when he replies to the debate. It is true in my experience that very often a National Assistance Board appeal tribunal wishes to give a favourable decision, but it has its hands tied by what it regards as the Regulations. The point I wish to put to the Minister is this. Has he given any instructions for these appeal tribunals to be liberal in their attitude? What is his view on the rigid figure which is sometimes trotted out at these tribunals, and which may be just 1s. the wrong side of a possible payment? Is there any chance
    954
    of getting a tribunal to reconsider the case and to be more liberal in its final decision?
    I have deliberately dealt with the practical aspects of the National Assistance Board procedure, but I should like to say immediately that no matter what effort is being made in the Ministry to change the name, to change the form, there are a great many of our old-age pensioners who are not prepared to go to the National Assistance Board. I think it is essential to realise that there is here involved an element of elementary justice.
    I turn to a general point which concerns the philosophy behind this disagreement. I do not believe it is at all necessary to come to large-scale agreements on the position of our pensioners at the present time. I do not think that it is altogether essential at this moment to expect that we shall suddenly completely change the attitude of the Government overnight, but I would plead for this sort of approach. Would it not be possible for the Leader of the House to make a start tonight by holding out some hope for the country that while the Government are reconsidering, as any Government are bound to reconsider, all their policies after a General Election, the policy of an increase in the basic pension will be allowed to enter the door? I can see no reason why that should not be so.
    In the discussions, I think last June, when the Minister introduced the Bill containing the new National Assistance Board scales, I detected a certain unnecessary sense of achievement in the fact that we have now such a large number of people who use the National Assistance Board.
    I had always thought that when we built our social services the National Assistance Board would be a last resort, and that the only important contribution which the Board would make would be in helping people who had fallen by the wayside or were in temporary difficulties, and perhaps a larger number of people who were in difficulties which might last a long time. I have spoken to many pensioners in recent weeks and months and I see a great danger of a new philosophy replacing that point of view, which would make us look more and more to the Board as an authority

    955
    to which elderly people are advised to go because they simply cannot make ends meet on the basic pension.
    It is the Government's duty to dispel that. The best way of doing so would be for the Leader of the House to begin tonight by making some advance on the position which he has held in recent weeks and to give the House and the country some indication that an increase on the basic pension will be on the agenda for consideration when the new Cabinet gets to work on this problem.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: It must be wonderful to be a Privy Councillor and sometimes to be called to speak before a quarter to nine and not have to sit in the Chamber from half-past two. I hope that if I am lucky enough to be a Member of the House for a further fifteen years I may one day be called before this late hour and not be instructed by the Whips to sit down by nine o'clock and not dare keep another Privy Councillor waiting a moment.
    In the nine minutes I have, there are three brief points which I should like to make on the Amendment. I am surprised that so few hon. Members have even mentioned the Amendment today. The Amendment, among other things, regrets the omission
    "of any effective proposals … for assisting old people and widows, those who are sick, disabled or unemployed and others still living in poverty and hardship."
    I do not deny the sincerity of the feelings of hon. Members towards old people. I readily recognise them, but hon. Members should bear three things in mind. The first is that there can be no substantial or quick increase in social services unless we have big cuts in our armament expenditure. When I talk of big cuts I am thinking in terms of £500 million a year. That, in turn, is not possible unless there is an easing in world tension.
    I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on his successful visit to Moscow. Mr. Khrushchev's speech only a few days ago showed that Anglo-Soviet relations have materially improved, partly as a consequence of my right hon. Friend's visit to Moscow. But one visit is not enough. I should like
    956
    to see all Ministers, and especially those representing the Board of Trade, the Exchequer, the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Education, visit not only Moscow but Prague, Warsaw and East Germany as freely and naturally and as often as visits are paid to Paris, Bonn and New York. I should like to see Communist Ministers from those countries welcomed in this country as we welcome Ministers from the other Western Powers.
    I should also like to see the Prime Minister, if the opportunity comes, go to Peking and also the Chinese Ministers invited to come to this country. It is unrealistic to pretend that the Formosa Government represents China. It does nothing of the kind. There can be no substantial cuts in armaments until we have Peking's co-operation.
    Firstly, therefore, there can be no material improvement in the position of old-age pensioners unless we get a better understanding which would lead to real disarmament and thus save a great deal on our arms bill. Secondly, there can be no real improvement in the position of the old-age pensioners and sick persons unless the real value of social benefits is maintained by keeping inflation at home in check. If we allow inflation to return there is no hope of the old people getting really substantial benefits.
    I would draw my right hon. Friend's attention to these three facts. There are ominous signs appearing on the economic front. The West German bank rate was increased last week. The Canadian bank rate is 6 per cent., the highest that it has been for years, and the American bill rate is today higher than it has been since 1931, all acts which result from the fear of inflationary forces.
    If we couple this with the position at home, what do we find? The hire purchase debt has increased by £800 million since the credit squeeze ended, which should be a warning signal to us all. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through my right hon. Friend, whether, if inflation really starts again in this country—and I fear it—he will reimpose credit restrictions and increase the Bank Rate.
    Hon. Members: Why did not the hon. Member say this before the election?
    Mr. Osborne: If hon. Members will be fair to me, I have been saying this for the fifteen years I have been in the House. I ask the Government to take the steps necessary, however unpleasant, to defeat inflation even before its starts. I want to see the Chancellor take action too soon rather than too late.
    There is a third point which I want to make regarding the old-age pensioners' position. There is no possibility of doing what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire if they continue, as they do in the Amendment, to try to bribe themselves back into power by offering more for nothing to the old-age pensioners. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who opened the debate—and the first part of his speech was the finest part of any speech I have heard him make since I have been here—said to both sides of the House that we have not solved the problem of how to keep popular favour and yet say to the electorate, "These are the hard tasks and sacrifices which we are going to demand of you." That problem has not been solved, and the prospect of offering something extra for nothing to the old-age pensioners was rejected at the last election.
    I appeal to hon. Members opposite in this way May I put this to them and to the right hon. Gentleman? His party will never get the ear, the voice and the vote of the people of this country until it can recapture its earlier idealism. [interruption.] That is perfectly true—and until it can recapture the zeal which it had at the beginning of this century. A great many hon. Members opposite—and I hope they will forgive me saying this to them—want to give to the old-age pensioners something for nothing and then to play the international Good Samaritan without costing the people of this country anything at all. That just cannot be done.
    They are always talking about international fair shares. They are going to help the underdog and help the coloured person. What they have to do is what the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening speech—tell the people of this country what it will cost to implement that good neighbour policy I will give two figures The United Nations, in its latest statistics, estimate the income
    958
    per capita in this country to be 780 dollars a year. India—to take one country in order to make a comparison—is estimated at 60 dollars. Thus, the Indian standard of living is estimated to be one-thirteenth of what it is in this country. Therefore, every shilling a person in this country is willing to give up to help the Indians will represent less than a penny to each Indian. If on the United Nations figures the wages of India and of this country were pooled, the wage level would be less than 2s. a week. I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to be honest with their own supporters and to say to the old people, "If we are to help our coloured, distressed brethren overseas, we cannot help you nearly so much."
    Finally, since my time is up, I will conclude by saying that I hope both sides of the House will follow the wise advice given by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in the opening part, the serious part of his speech, before he tried to play the game of the "crazy gang" with us. If we do so, we will tell the people who sent us here that we cannot help them unless some other section is prepared to make sacrifices, and that the old people and the unemployed in this country are a great deal better off than a man who works a full week for a full wage in a place such as India. We must say that to them. If we say that to them there will be some justification for this Amendment, but because until today I have never heard that said by any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite, I shall gladly vote against the Amendment tonight.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: This debate on the Motion for a Loyal Address has been notable for a great many maiden speeches. There were no less than fifteen, all from this side of the House. Why it was that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not make their maiden speeches, I do not know. If it was out of politeness to us, of course, we are grateful for it. If it was because the Whips had told them already to turn up and shut up, I deeply regret it and hope that they will soon break out into open revolt.
    I should like to compliment all my hon. Friends who have made these maiden speeches. They displayed a wealth of experience and interest and

    959
    ability, covering many different subjects. One of my hon. Friends spoke about the National Health Service, another about industrial relations, another, in a notable speech, on agricultural matters, another about Africa. I was sorry to miss the last few speeches while I was desperately trying to prepare my own, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. I. Davies) made a particularly impressive speech derived from his experience as a personnel officer.
    It will not have escaped the notice of the Government that several of my hon. Friends from Scotland expressed great anxiety about the employment situation there, and that other hon. Friends of mine drew particular attention to the situation in the mining industry. I think this underlines the point we have tried to make in this debate, and to which I shall be returning in a moment or two, about the neglect to mention in the Gracious Speech certain of the major industries and the difficulties they are facing.
    Another feature of this debate is that it has been a relatively quiet one. It may be that that was because there were so many maidens and they were so modest. It may be, of course, that it was just exhaustion after the General Election. Be that as it may, there was not much tendency to look to the past. I think there was a general inclination to look to the future, although that is not inconsistent with bringing up issues raised at the General Election, since the election was, at least in part, about the future as well as the past.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) took a special look into the future when he suggested that we might televise our debates. I have no very strong views on this matter. I do not think I should have argued with him at great length to try to persuade him not to say this, had he approached me. I was rather flattered when he suggested that I might have induced him to put the whole business through the ordinary channel of the party machine. I am not sure that I have so much authority as that.
    However, it occurred to me as he was speaking that there was a difficulty, something that he himself referred to only the other day when he warned hon.
    960
    Members, and particularly new Members of the House, of the:
    "… endless hours of infinite boredom, almost limitless stretches of arid desert …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 215.]
    stretching in front of them. I think it is a little unfair to unload all that on the general public. [HON. MEMBERS: "They can switch off."] I appreciate that they can switch off, but, after all, one wants to have something to which somebody will listen, and I do not think that "limitless stretches of arid desert" are very encouraging.
    This leads me to say one other thing, if I may for a moment keep away from the Amendment. I detect in this new House a freshness, a feeling that we do not necessarily want to be tied down by all the conventions and the rules that we have had in the past. That came out very clearly in the debate the other day on private Members' time when the Home Secretary was good enough to take the feeling of the House and indicate that he would discuss the matter further, and we hope that results will come from that after Christmas. I noticed also that there was a considerable demand, to which the right hon. Gentleman also conceded a certain amount, that we should be able to ask questions more freely about the nationalised industries.
    Reflecting on this, I could not help feeling that it was a pity that the Select Committee on Procedure met and reported in the last Parliament. I have the feeling that if it were meeting now it might produce a rather different sort of report.
    The right hon. Gentleman is in the fortunate position of having a larger majority than he has had before. Let us at least get something out of this. I ask him to use the luxury which he has received, which he is enjoying, of this larger majority for a little experimenting in our procedure. I would suggest that he might give this matter some thought. What my right hon. Friend has said on more than one occasion is perfectly true In the last Parliament the situation was not satisfactory. The attendance was bad. People were not interested. The reputation of Parliament in the country was deteriorating. This is something which we must all consider pretty seriously.

    961
    There is another thing which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will during this Parliament really make a great effort to improve the working conditions of Members of the House. I know that he is not unsympathetic to that idea, and I know, too, that even during the last Parliament some efforts were made, but, unfortunately, they did not come to much. I beg him to give this matter serious attention together with the question of procedure so that we may be able to do our work better and so that that work may be more interesting both to ourselves and to the general public.
    I turn to the Amendment, and I should like to begin by referring to the passage which complains that the Gracious Speech has omitted the problems of some industries facing difficulties today. I have not time to mention more than one of these industries, but I think it would be right to pick on coal as the one which probably causes more concern than any other, taking the country as a whole. There is, I think, common ground between us that the trouble in the coal mining industry and the difficulties which it is facing are due to two things.
    The first is the industrial recession from which we have been suffering these last two years, which has damped down the demand for coal by industry and by the power stations. We can only hope that the expansion which is now taking place, and about which I shall say more in a moment, will produce a certain cure for that.
    The second reason for the difficulties in the coal mining industry is unquestionably the greatly increased consumption, chiefly by industry but also by the power stations, of fuel oil. We do not take the view that no fuel oil can be consumed here or that some rigid protectionist attitude should be adopted, but I think we are entitled to say two things and, in a sense, to ask two questions of the Government.
    There seems to be no doubt that the price of fuel oil is extraordinarily low. I have had some figures given to me which quote prices per ton ex-refinery as being actually lower than the cost of crude oil. In other words, it is treated as purely a residue product. I have not had time to investigate whether this
    962
    falls within the definition of dumping, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is at least some danger that this situation may continue; and we should find ourselves in a very stupid position if, after having allowed a substantial contraction of the coal mining industry because oil was so much cheaper, it then became much more expensive. We cannot turn coal production on and off like a tap, it needs lengthy preparation and lengthy investment.
    The second question I must put is the strategic one. I do not imagine that any of us really wish to be wholly dependent on oil and surely there is a point where the situation is liable to become dangerous. I do not attempt to try to answer the question, it is a difficult question, but I think that one has to bear these things in mind. We have borne them in mind in the case of other industries and we must do so in the case of coal as well.
    It may be that even when these questions have been answered satisfactorily, some contraction is inevitable, as is indeed planned. I would say frankly that in itself, that may not be a bad thing. For there is one thing about the coal mining industry, that with a contraction in that industry, unlike certain other industries, it is virtually certain that productivity will rise and the cost per ton will go down. Naturally, we should be closing pits and seams which were least economic in the first instance. But while that may be so, and while that in a sense may be satisfactory, with far better prospects for those remaining in the industry, we should insist that if there is to be a contraction, it must be a properly planned contraction done with due care, and not in such a way as to render whole communities derelict and unemployed and destroyed.
    I think we have reason for anxiety here because, as I read in the newspapers recently, unfortunately a very large proportion of the pits to be closed are in two areas alone, in Scotland and in South Wales. Therefore, it is particularly urgent that the Government's attempts—of which we shall hear more when we come to debate the Local Employment Bill—to introduce new industries into certain parts of the country should be dovetailed with the

    963
    plans of the National Coal Board, in conjunction with the National Union of Mineworkers, for the industry itself. Finally, I will only repeat my regret, in view of the very difficult situation facing the industry, and its immense importance, and the importance of the fuel policy generally, that the Prime Minister decided not to put the new Minister of Power into the Cabinet.
    Of course, it is not only the publicly-owned industries which are in difficulties. We are continually being asked to find money and assistance for privately-owned industry. There is, I do not know how much it is, now being spent on the cotton industry—
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is £60 million.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Sixty million pounds one of my right hon. Friends says—
    Mr. Wilson: The Prime Minister said it.
    Mr. Gaitskell: —and there is the large figure for agricultural subsidies. To morrow we shall be discussing a Bill to maintain and I think to extend subsidies to the fishing industry. Regarding the shipping industry there is much talk about the need, not only for a Government subsidy, but virtually for the Government to provide all the money to build two new liners. Finally, there is the aircraft industry which we all know perfectly well could not have survived without an immense amount of Government expenditure in the last few years—
    Mr. Sydney Silverman Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have so little time in which to make my speech—
    Mr. S. Silverman: I only wish my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that in the case of the cotton industry the money is to be spent not to provide increased production, but for destruction.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and had I the time, I would gladly go into that matter.
    I wish to make the point that it is quite wrong to assume that the nationalised industries are the ones which are always coming for help. Private industry is very much holding out its hand at the present time.
    964
    I now turn to the first part of the Amendment to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted the greater part of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman criticised our temerity in questioning the ability of the Government to maintain at the same time full employment and stable prices. He said that when we were in power we had killed all incentive to earn. The simple answer to that is to compare the production figures when we were in power with the production figures since then. The increase in output was twice as fast between 1946 and 1951 than between 1951 and 1955, and some five times as fast as it has been between 1955 and 1959. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, I would refer him to the Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation which stated clearly that there was no shadow of evidence to prove that the taxation of earned income had a serious effect on output.
    The right hon. Gentleman complained about our record on prices. I am perfectly prepared to set our record side by side with the record of the Conservative Government. While we were in power import prices doubled, and home prices went up by one-third. They have gone up by about one-third since 1951 as well, but during that period import prices have not been doubled; they have fallen. There is the difference.
    I now come to the claim which was made by the Government during the Election and which was repeated by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, what is called "bringing off the double", that is to say, achieving both price stability and full employment. What exactly does this mean? So far as price stability is concerned, it is certainly true that for the past eighteen months the Retail Price Index has, broadly speaking, been stable. I admit that straight away.
    What is the position about full employment? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he speaks about "bringing off the double" in the case of full employment? Does he mean that full employment has obtained during the whole of the last eighteen months? Does it apply when the figures in January, 1958, showed that 395,000 were out of work, or in April, 1958, when they had risen to 443,000; or in September with 476,000; or January, 1959, with 620,000; or even in April this year with 530,000; or in September with 420,000? We should

    965
    like to know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he claims that the Government have brought about full employment. Does he mean that that is the position now? I would willingly admit having gone through a recession, which in our opinion was largely created by Government policy, but the Government have now reversed their policies and we are getting out of the recession.
    I admit that and go further. I think it likely that for the next two months expansion will continue and it is quite likely that it will be accompanied—and I hope and believe that it will be—by further expansion and stable prices for the time being. However, I do not think that we can leave the matter there. We cannot accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman not to inquire why there is price stability. That really is rather an obscurantist point of view. If we want to find out how to achieve these objects, surely we want to know whether this is an accident, or whether in some way the Government have found a magic formula for achieving what everybody agrees to be necessary.
    I venture to say that there are two reasons why we have had price stability. First, there is not the slightest doubt that the fall in import prices by about 10 per cent. since 1957 has played the major part. It is absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deny that that is so. Of course there has been a time lag, because the fall was in 1957, but equally it has been affecting us ever since. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it would have made no difference at all if, instead of a fall of 10 per cent. there had been a rise of 10 per cent. in import prices? Does he think that there would be no difference if we woke up tomorrow and found that because of some world incident there had been a sharp increase in world prices? Of course these things affect us as a trading nation.
    The other reason why I think there has been price stability is, quite frankly, the trade recession. We have never denied that if we have unemployment and damp down production there is a very real prospect that if we are prepared to make that sacrifice and pay that price we may in time get a certain degree of price stability. I do not deny
    966
    that probably the increase in wage rates has not been so great as a result of this. I freely admit, too, that while productivity first of all fell, as one would expect during the recession, in recent months it has been rising.
    All that is perfectly true, but what is the lesson of it? Surely it is that at the moment we have a very favourable situation because we are recovering from the recession, because, therefore, productivity is going up, because we still have the benefit of favourable terms of trade and low import prices. But we have to face the question, how long are we to maintain the expansion without inflation as soon as we have got back to full employment again, because the problem is not just to get expansion to full employment, but to get expansion with full employment.
    What do the Government think has really altered? They speak as though something fundamental has changed in the last two years which enables us to view the future with a great deal more confidence than we had in the past as far as this problem is concerned, but I cannot myself see that there is any reason to believe that underlying causes have been affected at all. Why should we, why can we, why dare we assume that as we come back to full employment, as the slack is taken up, costs will not begin to rise again? It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indulge in pious exhortations—which, incidentally, is a sign that he is not quite so confident of the situation as he appears to be. Pious exhortations no doubt are appropriate enough, but they are not sufficient by themselves. When the right hon. Gentleman begs firms to use their profits for reinvestment, I would ask him why he altered the system of taxation so as to encourage them to increase dividends.
    The real key to this—and I am very surprised that he made no reference to it at all in his speech, or only a bare reference—is, of course, whether we are to have rising productivity. Here I must again remind the House how deplorable our record has been over the past years. I will give one quotation from the Financial Times of 16th January this year. It states:
    "The problem still remains that the long-term rate of progress of the British economy is too low. Between 1953 and the third quarter

    967
    of 1958 industrial output per man-hour increased by 41 per cent. in France, 37 per cent. in Italy, and 32 per cent. in West Germany, but only 11 per cent. in this country."
    It cannot be denied, as hon. Members must see, that during virtually the whole of the last decade this country has been lagging behind almost every other industrial country in the world.
    The key to this, I have little doubt, is a high rate of investment, and it is unfortunate that this is the feature where, I think, the Government themselves admit that the prospect is least good. The Board of Trade, as recently as just over a month ago, published a survey on investment intentions in private manufacturing industry, a survey which shows that business men expect to spend about 10 per cent. less in 1959 than in 1958, and their forward estimate for 1960 indicates a further fall of 5 per cent. in investment as compared with that in 1959. This is the Government Department's own survey. There is nothing amateur about it and the plain fact is, whatever hon. Members may say on the hustings, that if it had not been for public investment—and they are relying on that—we should be in a very much worse position today than we are.
    We have doubts about the claims of the Government to achieve prosperity, expansion and higher investment without rising prices, unless they are prepared to adopt much firmer economic priorities and to give investment a much higher priority than it has so far had. We must also take issue with them over social priorities.
    It is our view that the rest of us in the community have a special obligation to those who are living in less fortunate conditions than we are. I know that this was sometimes described in the Election battle as a bribe. I cannot see that. I can only say that in most of my speeches on the subject I simply put it that here are a minority who are decidedly worse off than the rest of us, for no particular reason, and that we therefore owe them a certain debt and should help them as one of the first things to be done. It has been estimated, by the way, to be a minority of about 8 million people; that is to say, between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total population.
    I have no time to go into this in detail tonight and I will say only one thing
    968
    about one class: one of these classes of people living in less fortunate conditions than the rest of us are those who are living in bad housing conditions. Here I must point to the slow rate at which slum clearance is proceeding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members want the figures they can have them. The local authorities' estimate of the number of unfit houses was 850,000, and their plan was to demolish about half that number, 375,000, in five years between 1956 and 1961. That is at a rate of 75,000 a year. In the three years since this programme was started the rate has been not 75,000 a year but 45,000 a year. I can only say, as a Member who sits for an industrial constituency, that all of us in that position are tired of having to meet our constituents who have housing problems and to tell them again and again that we can do nothing for them. It is not good enough that the rate of council house building is falling steadily year by year. This afternoon we heard that the rate of fall is continuing even in the latest quarter of 1959.
    There is also the question of the other classes specifically mentioned in the Amendment—the old people, the widows, the disabled and others who are suffering from some hardship. The Government propose to review the earnings rule. I am glad that they intend to do this, but let us have no illusions about it: out of 5,400,000 retirement pensioners, only 80,000 will be affected by this, and out of 386,000 widows, only 60,000 will be affected by it. In round figures, only one person of this class in forty will be affected by a change in the earnings rule.
    That is, therefore, not the answer to the problem. Our view is simple. The more that hon. Members opposite talk to us about prosperity and the more they hold out hopes, which in the immediate future I concede are quite reasonable, that living standards will continue to rise, the more we shall insist that something better must be done for this large minority. I know that hon. Members opposite may think that it is enough if we raise the National Assistance scale, because that will take care of the people who are living in the most extreme poverty, and that we need not bother about the rest. We differ from hon. Members opposite on that. We certainly think that those who are living

    969
    in the worst conditions need help, but we also believe that the greater part of this large minority of 8 million people are living in circumstances so much worse than the rest of us that the whole level should be raised and not only that of those who are living at the margin.
    My right hon. Friend this afternoon made a plea to the Government, which I reinforce, to do something about this. It does not matter that in a sense the election was largely fought about it and that at the time hon. Members opposite would not pledge themselves to make an increase. I hope that they will put that out of their minds and that they will approach this matter anew and look at the facts as they are. If we have this prosperity, as I think we can have and for the immediate future shall have, then I beg them to do something to ameliorate and improve the conditions of our fellow citizens living in these conditions.
    I will not delay over the familiar argument on the cost. I will only say that everybody who has studied this question knows perfectly well that if we have anything like the rate of increase in production to which hon. Members opposite are themselves committed, there will be no difficulty about raising the revenue for this without any increase in taxation.
    Hon. Members opposite have won the General Election; but, as my right hon. Friend said, they as well as we must look to the future. The great test which they face, as indeed do the Government of any democratic State today, is whether we under democratic conditions can achieve as rapid an economic progress as the Communist bloc is achieving and whether at the same time we can apply the right social priorities. This can be done only if we have both economic and social priorities decided by the Government. On our ability to do this, on our ability to jack the economy on to a higher level, on our ability to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves, we shall judge the Government; and I believe that history too will be their judge.
    9.31 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am sure that the first thing the House will wish me to do before I mention the maiden speeches is to say with what
    970
    pleasure we listened to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). If there is one matter upon which we can all be agreed as the result of the General Election, it is that by retaining the right hon. Gentleman in opposition we keep him free to make speeches of a high Parliamentary quality which he would be quite unable to make from the Government Front Bench. If I may look back on a very distinguished predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, one of our great patriots and one of our great Englishmen, he once said to me after a few years at the Foreign Office, "Them tours d'horizon I cannot stand". If the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to make the tour d'horizon of a Foreign Secretary, the House of Commons would be a poorer and a cheaper place.
    I shall be referring again to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but before I do so I should like to refer to some of the maiden speakers. I am afraid that on this occasion I am unable in the tradition of the Leader of the House to refer to all of them, because there are so many. I should like just to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson), whom we knew in our corridors before, who spoke from the other side and made a most graceful tribute to his predecessor, which I am sure we would all wish to endorse. I should also like to wish him well now that he is a real Member of Parliament. As to his reference to accommodation, which was referred to also by the right hon. Gentleman, by all means let us get together. There is a great shortage of accommodation, and sometimes that shortage of accommodation is spoken of in terms of a restriction on the accommodation provided for yourself. It is therefore a very controversial matter which, I think, we should look at together in the coming Parliament.
    I should like to refer to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who made a speech in which she referred not only to the older parts of her constituency but also to the new town of Kilbride. I should also like to mention with what regret we notice that her opponent at the General Election is not now on our benches. We hope that at an early date he will find an opportunity

    971
    of returning to us. At any rate, the hon. Lady has the power of speaking freshly and without notes. We hope that she will take part in our debates again.
    The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) referred to the Spurs, and, I think, thereby gained his own spurs. I hope we shall hear him again.
    I should like to refer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), who spoke in moving the Address on our side, but I am afraid that I cannot refer to all the other many maiden speakers who contributed to the debates on this occasion.
    However, there was one speech made from our side of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). I refer to it in the traditional manner, because he has an Amendment on the Order Paper. The abuse to which my hon. Friend refers was put to me and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government before the election and since. My hon. Friend made a speech today on the subject. We have taken note of it. While it is difficult to find an immediate solution, we are glad that he took part in the debate, and we have registered what he has to say.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to this debate as being a debate on the state of the nation. This was certainly the position in the last century, and the first point I make is that on this occasion the state of the nation is pretty good. If we had listened, as many of us did, to the account given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think we should have been satisfied that the country was right in preferring a continuation of the policy of free enterprise, of increased savings, of more competitive exports, of expanding production, and greater hope for us all, on the understanding—I accept the view of the two right hon. Gentlemen—that we should accept our victory in a proper spirit of humility, take advantage of the occasion to serve our country, watch all tendencies towards inflation, and deal with the situation in the interests of all classes.
    At the beginning of this Parliament, I must, as Leader of the House, take up some of the points raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen. We naturally desire the maximum freedom of opportunity for debate. My right hon. Friend the Patronage
    972
    Secretary and I have already noticed a certain freedom of expression amongst hon. Members, which does not frighten us, and of which we hope to take full advantage. We entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons should be the centre of the country's important matters; that there is a gap between us and the public, and that there is a fault in public relations, of which we are well aware. Provided right hon. and hon. Members will respond occasionally to the bridle, if not necessarily to the whip—which is not a very good Parliamentary instrument—we will be able to occupy this Parliament by giving it a freedom of expression that perhaps was not present, at any rate in the last months of the last Parliament.
    I would say this to all hon. Members in relation to private Members' time. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the last Select Committee on Procedure. It is quite true that that was at the end of the last Parliament, and I should like to invite right hon. and hon. Members to express their opinion in the next few weeks with a view to a proper assessment being made of the future of procedure before the time comes for laying any Motions which, as I undertook to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, should be after the Christmas Recess. If hon. Members will accept that invitation, we may be able to improve the procedure of the House. We can only go bit by bit. It is a great mistake in Parliament to think that one can make a great revolution, but one can go bit by bit, and if hon. Members will get in touch we shall be able to discover their opinions.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the revolutionary suggestion, which has often occurred to us before, that Parliament might be televised. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend was not consulted. The right hon. Gentleman very wisely said that this might involve a completely new channel. That is a fact that we must face, because one of the great problems that has always interested us in considering the televising of Parliament is the problem of who is to edit the business. If there is a completely independent channel to be turned on and off the public can do as they wish, but whether an independent channel is physically possible, I do not know. There are great physical difficulties

    973
    in this proposal. It will certainly be looked at in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman desires, but there are great physical difficulties, and it will be necessary to get voices from all sides of the House before we come to any conclusion—
    Mr. Bevan: Would the Leader of the House give an undertaking, however, that before he collects uninstructed voices here about the desirability of this he will, in fact, obtain technical advice on the difficulties of doing it?
    Mr. Butler: I will add any new advice I have on these matters to the experience I have gained from contact with the friend of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject in our discussions hitherto. Then, perhaps, they will compare notes. But the right hon. Gentleman apparently wants to create a new channel for the usual channels and, therefore, in my future discussions with the right hon. Gentleman and his friends I will always preserve an independent channel for the right hon. Gentleman himself. Then, at any rate, absolute amity and concord may be started on the Front Bench opposite at the beginning of this new Parliament.
    I wish to strike a more sombre note for a moment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's references to the possibility of direct action by the trades unions in certain circumstances are also an individual view of his own and are not an expression of collective irresponsibility by the Opposition. I consider that while the right hon. Gentleman in a free Parliament is entitled to say what he likes, it is important to stress what he said earlier in his speech, namely, that if we can amass and collect in this House the expressions of opinion of the country, no such threat or no such danger need meet the body politic in our country. Let us hope that that was the intention, and let us hope that that was the meaning of what he said.
    Mr. Bevan: That is the whole point.
    Mr. Butler: There is one other small matter to which I wish, as Leader of the House, to refer, namely, the relationship of the House to the nationalised industries. This will be a difficult matter. I have before me the Final Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. The Committee indicates the
    974
    difficulties of questions of any sort on the nationalised industries. We have our own Select Committee. While I have not time to go into this in detail tonight, I hope that if we do have conferences on it we shall realise the importance of the nationalised industries being allowed a degree of independence in the normal control of their day-to-day affairs. Otherwise, we shall have the greatest difficulty in finding the highest-class people to look after them. Subject to that, any reasonable Parliamentary interest in the nationalised industries ought to be encouraged.
    With regard to nationalisation itself, I do not want to embarrass the Opposition further by making other references to it tonight. It is only right to make quite clear, however, that, in our view on this side of the House, we hope to concentrate in this Parliament on solving the problem of existing nationalisation and having no more of it whatever. We mentioned in our manifesto at the General Election that there may well be improvements by way of decentralisation and further opportunities for commercialisation in the organisation and structure of the nationalised industries. All I want to do this evening is to say that no such reforms should, in my view, be brought in without proper consultation with the interests concerned. If that be a feature of the new Parliament, then there must be consultation.
    A word now about the future programme of Parliament. We have published several Bills. I shall in a moment or two, in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about coal, refer to the Local Employment Bill. We published a Bill yesterday on betting and gaming which, I hope, will keep us bright and occupied in the present Parliament. I have been asked by many people outside why we have not introduced a Bill to reform the licensing laws, which was referred to in our manifesto. All that is in a manifesto cannot be brought in in one Session of Parliament, and there is no question of introducing a Bill on the licensing laws in this particular Session. It must be kept for another Session.
    We propose to publish a Bill and a White Paper on horticulture, a subject to which one or two of the maiden speeches have referred. Later on, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General

    975
    will publish proposals for the future of the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman has, in the past, referred to abuses in the private enterprise system. I would merely say that we propose to introduce legislation to deal with building societies and their problems, and we propose also to institute a thorough inquiry into the Companies Acts and various aspects of company law.
    The Opposition Amendment regrets
    "the omission of any effective proposals for achieving continuous industrial expansion without rising prices."
    Let us look at the Amendment last year.
    That referred to
    "the omission … of any measures directed towards the expansion of production and employment while maintaining stable prices."
    During the past year, since the Opposition moved their last Amendment, in terms almost identical with the present one, production has increased by 7 per cent. That is good. Over the past year, since they moved their Amendment, unemployment has fallen from 2·3 per cent. to 1·9 per cent. I presume that that is also good. When they moved their Amendment last year, the Index of Retail Prices stood at 109·8 per cent. Now it is 108·7 per cent., and that is better still. The moral of all this seems to me that the more the Opposition move Amendments the merrier we shall be. It is surely time, therefore, to get away from this endless complaint by the Opposition which each year is refuted by events.
    I studied the sayings of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) in the New Statesman of 17th October this year. He wrote as follows:
    "In this era of Tory prosperity, a Labour Opposition has to run very fast in order to stay where it is. Each year which takes us further, not only from the hungry 'thirties but from the austere 'forties, weakens class consciousness. And if nothing is done to stop this national tendency, more and more Socialist voters turn first into don't knows and then into active Tories."
    I should like to ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite what is the interpretation of this article. Does the hon. Member mean that he wishes to revert to class consciousness or to torpedo Tory prosperity? As Shakespeare said:
    "Welcome the sour cup of prosperity! Affliction may one day smile again, and until then, Sit down, Sorrow!"
    976
    It is perhaps appropriate that this quotation should come from "Love's Labour's Lost". I have always believed, although I am no musician myself, that all speeches, however short, should have movements, and, if they are not symphonies, at any rate they should differ between the light and the dark.
    I now want to try to deal seriously for a few minutes with the coal industry and with one or two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We fully realise that our victory has left us very severe problems, and in applying our minds to them, which I am trying to do at this moment, it will be our endeavour through the Local Employment Bill to help redundancy wherever it may occur. This will apply as much to the pits as to black spots of unemployment wherever they may arise.
    It is interesting to note from the terms of the Local Employment Bill, which I have, that it is a Measure with anticipatory provisions. This enables us to look ahead to foresee where unemployment may arise. This applies particularly, I think, to the shipbuilding industry. This industry has been helped by the investment allowances, which I originally introduced and which my successor increased, and it will be improved by the three-prong advance in trade referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon.
    I should next like to refer to the position in the coal industry. Unemployment in the industry at the moment runs at about 1·08 per cent. of the industry's labour force compared with the national average of 1·9 per cent. That is something, but, of course, there is grave anxiety, as the right hon. Gentleman said, about redundancy. It is, however, interesting to note that, of the 10,000 miners displaced in 1959 by the closure of pits, 9,000 have already been placed in other employment.
    Before I go on to discuss the coal industry, I should like to make a passing reference to the Local Employment Bill in reference to Northern Ireland. As Home Secretary, I have a special responsibility for Northern Ireland. This Bill has taken advantage of some of the methods used in Ulster, and I should like to say to Northern Ireland Members that we propose to encourage the

    977
    continuance of these policies in Northern Ireland with a view to assisting foreign firms to settle there, which I think may be one of the best ways of dealing with the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    In relation to the coal industry, I cannot be expected in a winding-up speech, which is always a rush, to go into great detail about the industry, but I would like to say this. We shall hope to discuss the problems of the coal industry and the new revised Plan for Coal before Christmas, perhaps in connection with our borrowing powers legislation which we have in mind. If hon. Members are interested, perhaps they will keep me up to that and remind me of that undertaking.
    Meanwhile, the Government are taking three measures to help the coal industry. The first is to provide finance to enable the stocks of coal and coke, which are very considerable, to be held. The second is to re-examine the power stations' oil contracts, which will lead to an extra 1·7 million tons of coal consumption next year and 3·9 million tons in 1965–66. The third measure is, in collaboration with the National Coal Board, to check opencast production and virtually to eliminate it by 1965. Those are three undertakings, and it is our intention to work with the National Coal Board and with the National Union of Mineworkers.
    In a memorandum which I have read today, submitted by the National Union of Mineworkers, I have noticed the point made by the Leader of the Opposition about dumping. We are taking that up with the National Union of Mineworkers and we shall work with the union and the National Coal Board and attempt to try to deal with the problems of our oldest and greatest industry.
    Hon. Members know quite well, however, that this is not only a local national problem. It is a problem of the whole of Western Europe. It is a problem of the rivalry of the various different forms of power, including oil, and other problems which affect the coal industry. It is something which cannot be dealt with as a purely domestic problem alone.
    In the last few minutes, I want to deal with the latter part of the Opposition Amendment, which challenges our policy
    978
    for assisting the old, the sick, the disabled, the widows and others still experiencing poverty and hardship. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). With great forethought, he considered how housing and other amenities can be provided for the old. Before the election campaign, we had the benefit of the advice of my right hon. Friend. There is no man who has taken more trouble than he to consider amenities for the old, particularly in respect of housing for them. We should like to tell my right hon. Friend that his speech will have been carefully noted by the Government and I hope it may lead to further progress, if not this Session, at least during this Parliament.
    The first thing that one has to say about the old, the sick and those who are in need is that the best way to assist them is to maintain the value of money with a constant and non-rising price level, as we are successfully doing. During the General Election, I was visited by two particularly old old-age pensioners of great distinction who did me the compliment of saying that hitherto they had voted Tory. They said to me, "Now, we are very much tempted by the Labour programme. We know what we might get if we vote for it, but one thing we do know for certain is that if we vote Labour the economy will go bust." What they added was rather disconcerting to me, and it was this: "But we shall be dead before that." They were very old indeed. I was able to persuade them of the ill-advised course that they might otherwise have adopted.
    I believe that we were right not to make specific promises of increased rates for old people or others during the General Election. I believe the public realised that the pledge we gave during the election was an undertaking to old-age pensioners, not only that we would maintain their rate of pension in relation to the cost of living, which we have done up to date—and more—but also that they would take their share in the rising prosperity of the country, which could be assured only by the pursuance of Conservative policies and by the continuance of the betterment which we have brought about. I believe that that impressed the people, and that certainly

    979
    is the policy which we intend to pursue in this Government.
    That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) who made a thoughtful speech on this matter in the latter part of the debate today. As mentioned in the Gracious Speech, we propose to go forward with the relaxation of the earnings rule. The regulations for which we will ask the approval of the House by affirmative Resolution have first to be submitted in draft to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. We shall keep the House informed of the steps taken and their timing.
    Now in concluding this debate I should like to use these words. At the beginning of this Parliament we must be clear that there is an immense task of social reform still to be carried through. We must think not merely in terms of eliminating patches of poverty and strengthening the basis of our social securities, but we must think also, not only in terms of expanding the economy, as the Opposition have said, but in terms of expanding the human mind and the human spirit.
    We must certainly go on building. We have a plan, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, for a million people to be moved from the slums in the course of the five years of this Parliament, at the rate of 200,000 at least a year. We must also have a policy for the young, a policy for the young offenders, a policy for leisure, and we must be unselfish and
    so use our patrimony that we can send some of our wealth overseas.
    This debate will have been worth while if it helps us to project our ideas of social reform and social responsibility into the wider world overseas. The gap between the industrialised and the underdeveloped countries in terms not only of economic advance but of basic living conditions, mortality rates and income per head, is a challenge to our conscience and our humanity. We must provide social capital and social expenditure for the poorer countries analogous to that we have provided in bridging the gulf between the extremes in this country at home.
    This will demand sacrifice, but we shall gain three great rewards. First, we shall match the patient diplomacy of the past years by recognising that the challenge of Communism is now in the realm of ideas and economics. Secondly, such a course will accord with and give firm direction and purpose to Britain's special responsibility in the Commonwealth. Such a policy will perpetuate and symbolise the generosity and selflessness of spirit which must find expression in Britain. We must make sure in this Parliament that mere materialism is not to be the barren product of our increased solvency and prosperity.
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 348.

    Division No. 2.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dodds, Norman

    Ainsley, William

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Albu, Austen

    Callaghan, James

    Driberg, Tom

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Carmichael, James

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Chapman, Donald

    Edelman, Maurice

    Baird, John

    Chetwynd, George

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Beaney, Alan

    Collick, Percy

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Evans, Albert

    Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)

    Cronin, John

    Fernyhough, E.

    Benson, Sir George

    Crosland, Anthony

    Finch, Harold

    Bevan, Rt. Hn. Aneurin (Ebbw V.)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Fitch, Alan

    Blackburn, F.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Fletcher, Eric

    Blyton, William

    Darling, George

    Forman, J. C.

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Bowles, Frank

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Boyden, James

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Galpern, Myer

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Brookway, A. Fanner

    Deer, George

    Ginsburg, David

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    de Freltas, Geoffrey

    Gooch, E. G.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. p. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Dempsey, James

    Gourlay, Harry

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Diamond, John

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Grey, Charles

    McLeavy, Frank

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Mahon, Simon

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Gunter, Ray

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Small, William

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Snow, Julian

    Hannan, William

    Mapp, Charles

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hayman, F. H.

    Marsh, Richard

    Steele, Thomas

    Healey, Denis

    Mason, Roy

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Stonehouse, John

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mellish, R. J.

    Stones, William

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Millan, Bruce

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Holman, Percy

    Moody, A. S.

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Houghton, Douglas

    Morris, John

    Swain, Thomas

    Howell, Charles A.

    Mort, D. L.

    Swingler, Stephen

    Hoy, James H.

    Moyle, Arthur

    Sylvester, George

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Symonds, J. B.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Neal, Harold

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Oram, A. E.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Owen, Will

    Thornton, Ernest

    Janner, Barnett

    Padley, W. E.

    Tomney, Frank

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Paget, R. T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jeger, George

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Walnwright, Edwin

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Warbey, William

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Watkins, Tudor

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

    Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

    Weitzman, David

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Paton, John

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Peart, Frederick

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pentland, Norman

    Whitlock, William

    Kelley, Richard

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Wigg, George

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    King, Dr. Horace

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lawson, George

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Willey, Frederick

    Ledger, Ron

    Probert, Arthur

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Randall, Harry

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Rankin, John

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Upton, Marcus

    Reid, William

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Login, David

    Rhodes, H.

    Woof, Robert

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    McCann, John

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Zilliacus, K.

    MacColl, James

    Ross, William

    McInnes, James

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Mr. Bowden and Mr. Short.

    Mackie, John

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Allason, James

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Bossom, Clive

    Chataway, Christopher

    Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Box, Donald

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Braine, Bernard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Barlow, Sir John

    Brewis, John

    Cole, Norman

    Barter, John

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

    Collard, Richard

    Batsford, Brian

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Cooke, Robert

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Brooman-White, R.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Bryan, Paul

    Cordle, John

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Bullard, Denys

    Corfield, F. V.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Costain, A. P.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Burden, F. A.

    Coulson, J. M.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Toxteth)

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Bidgood, John C.

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Critchley, Julian

    982

    983

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Curran, Charles

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, Graham

    Dance, James

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Partridge, E.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheros)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Jackson, John

    Peel, John

    de Ferranti, Basil

    James, David

    Percival, Ian

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Peyton, John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Doughty, Charles

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    du Cann, Edward

    Johnson Smith, G. (Holb.&S. P'ncr's, S)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Duthie, Sir William

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pott, Percivall

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Kaberry, Donald

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Eden, John

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Elliott, R. W.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

    Emery, Peter

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kimball, Marcus

    Profumo, John

    Erroll, F. J.

    Kirk, Peter

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Ramsden, James

    Farr, John

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Fell, Anthony

    Lambton, Viscount

    Rees, Hugh

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Renton, David

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Forrest, George

    Leavey, J. A.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Foster, John

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Roots, William

    Gammans, Lady

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Gardner, Edward

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

    Russell, Ronald

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Longbottom, Charles

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Seymour, Leslie

    Godber, J. B.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Sharples, Richard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Shepherd, William

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Gower, Raymond

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    McAdden, Stephen

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Smithers, Peter

    Green, Alan

    McLaren, Martin

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

    Grimond, J.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    McLean, Nell (Inverness)

    Speir, Runert

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Gurden, Harold

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McMaster, Stanley

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. John

    Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Storey, S.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maddan, Martin

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

    Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Talbot, John E.

    Harvie, Anderson, Miss

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hay, John

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Head, Rt. Hon. Antony

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marshall, Douglas

    Teeling, William

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Marten, Neil

    Temple, John M.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Hendry, Lt.-Col. A. Forbes

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Mawby, Ray

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hiley, Joseph

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

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Mills, Stratton

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Hobson, John

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Turner, Colin

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Morgan, William

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Morrison, John

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Holland-Martin Christopher

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hollingworth, John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Holt, Arthur

    Neave, Airey

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hopkins, Alan

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Hornby, R. P.

    Noble, Michael

    Wade, Donald

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Nugent, Richard

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    984

    985

    Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Woollam, John

    Watts, James

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Webster, David

    Wise, Alfred

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Whitelaw, William

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.

    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
    WAYS AND MEANS
    Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, Tomorrow—[Mr. Redmayne.]

    ROAD JUNCTION, CROYDON
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
    10.15 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: One of the remarkable features of the House of Commons is the speed with which it can turn from debating great affairs to the consideration of comparative details. Unfortunately, the process is one which is accompanied by a certain amount of noise. However, I hope that I have positioned myself close enough to the Government Front Bench for my points to be heard.
    I rise to call attention to certain difficulties which have, unfortunately, arisen in my constituency in connection with the control of traffic. Although the examples which I shall give are taken exclusively from my constituency, I have no reason to doubt that similar problems arise in any urban area, or, perhaps I should say, any suburban area.
    Perhaps I might at this stage say that I wonder whether to congratulate or to commiserate with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his having exchanged the exciting realm of air traffic for the tremendous drudgery of administering the roads and the traffic connected with them.
    Under the existing law the responsibility for establishing such things as traffic lights, roundabouts or pedestrian crossings is one that is shared between the Minister of Transport and the local authority. I dare say that my right hon. Friend would prefer to have a more centralised arrangement. However, that is something which cannot be pursued tonight as it would involve legislation. We have to take the law as we find it and do our best to make it work.
    My first complaint is that the existing machinery is not working at all satisfactorily. Indeed, I submit that the degree of control which the Ministry of Transport is seeking to exercise is excessive and unreasonable. It seems to us in Croydon that the Ministry officials wish to have it all their own way and to override or ignore the views of the local councillors who serve on the highways committee.
    988
    I do not know whether it is generally realised, but not even a halt-sign can be erected without permission from Whitehall, and I am advised that such permission is not willingly or quickly given.
    The consequences that follow this reluctance to delegate to local authorities have been most strikingly illustrated in the case of a single road junction in my constituency. For the sake of the record, and for that only, I am referring to the junction between Spring Lane and the Lower Addiscombe Road.
    The story, which began over five years ago, can be briefly summarised. It was in June, 1954, that the accident prevention committee of the council instructed the borough engineer to prepare alternative plans for a roundabout or traffic lights at the junction. There followed informal discussions, I understand, between the council's officers and the Ministry, as a result of which plans for a roundabout only were submitted. However, in April of the following year the council gave instructions that proposals for traffic lights were to be submitted to the Ministry, and in May, 1955, the Ministry was informed that the council was not prepared to accept a roundabout.
    Then a very considerable delay followed, partly, I think it fair to say, due to financial restrictions which came into force about that time, and it was not until July, 1957, that the Ministry's formal approval was again sought for traffic lights. In November, 1957, the Ministry replied suggesting that there should be a roundabout. In January, 1958, the council reiterated its preference for traffic lights. It followed that up in May of the same year by more detailed proposals accompanied by estimates of the cost.
    In September, 1958, the Ministry again suggested a roundabout. In October, 1958, the council again confirmed its preference for traffic lights and it was in January of this year that the town clerk wrote to me and asked if I could persuade the Minister to receive a deputation.
    As a result of this, in February of this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), who was then the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in fact received a deputation of the councillors concerned. As anybody who knows my hon. Friend will realise, he

    989
    listened with the greatest patience and courtesy to all the arguments, which I may say, were deployed at considerable length. But all to no avail because, after four months had rolled by, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me, in June of this year, to confirm that the Ministry still insisted on a roundabout. In the following month the Ministry was informed by the council (hat it did not intend to construct a roundabout and there the matter stands to this day. So we see that a period of live years' argument has resulted in nothing whatever being achieved.
    This is not an entirely isolated case. Similar difficulties are occurring both at another junction a short distance away and just outside my constituency and with regard to certain additional pedestrian crossings which the council would like to erect. More than that, no less than 500—in fact more than 500—of my constituents recently petitioned the council for the establishment of two additional pedestrian crossings in Long Lane. But, as far as I can understand, the council is afraid even to suggest that to the Ministry because the yardstick of the number of people who cross the road at a given time is much higher than actually prevails.
    Unless and until the law is changed I respectfully submit that my right hon. Friend ought to be more willing to defer to local opinion, to the opinion of the local authority. By all means let his officials warn, by all means let his officials advise. Let us also ensure that the views of the Ministry are laid clearly and properly before the council before it takes a decision. But after all that has been done, and if a local authority still sticks to its particular project, I submit that unless there is an overriding reason to the contrary, the Ministry should agree. We on this side of the House stand for greater local authority in local affairs.
    My second point concerns the nature of the policy on which the Ministry often insist particularly with regard to a preference for roundabouts over traffic lights. The Croydon Council in its final letter in connection with the junction to which I have been referring told the Ministry it felt that
    "the desire of the Ministry is to speed the flow of traffic at all costs."
    990
    That is to say, regardless of safety. Let me say at once that I do not believe that to be so, I would not accept that for a moment. But at the same time it is undoubtedly the fact that the dangers which local councillors apprehend from establishing a roundabout at this type of junction has been recently and tragically illustrated at another junction not more than a mile from the one to which I have been referring. It is a junction where, I think, three roads meet the Addiscombe Road and where a roundabout has been established. Already there have been a number of accidents, one, unhappily, a fatal accident. I have no doubt that had a properly worked out scheme of lights been fitted at this junction it would have been cheaper and safer.
    It only remains to ask why it is that the Ministry's experts insist on roundabouts rather than traffic lights and so rashly oppose the establishment of additional pedestrian crossings when these are asked for. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the reason may lie in an altogether false assumption about the speed of traffic. Can it be that because these roads lie inside a controlled area the Ministry's experts imagine that the traffic proceeds at a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour? I assure the House that that is not the case. Everybody must recognise that a 30 mile per hour limit is not seriously enforced—one might almost say not enforced at all—in areas of this sort.
    In suburban areas, especially during the silent hours, the bulk of the traffic proceeds at what I think is commonly called the speed of the road, which is much nearer 50 miles an hour than 30. That being so, roundabouts which were established in comparatively narrow roads, and at junctions where there would be no concensus of opinion as to which was the major road, become exceedingly dangerous when entered by vehicles travelling at high speed. In the same way, pedestrian crossings which might not be needed if the speed of the traffic was limited to 30 miles an hour become essential for elderly people and children when higher speeds are used on the roads.
    I do not make any pretence of being any more law-abiding with the speed

    991
    limits than the average motorist. After all, the time that one wastes on the roads in the more central districts, which as a rule are choked by parked cars, naturally induces a certain sense of impatience and tempts people to speed up when they get to areas when the roads are clearer. Nevertheless, I will support any decision to enforce speed limits rigidly, provided the enforcements are universal and uniform. Although it does not lie with my right hon. Friend and his Department to see that the law is enforced, I beg him to accept traffic lights in urban districts rather than roundabouts because they are very much safer.
    I very much regret that the first intervention that I have made in a transport debate since my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) became Minister should be in such a critical vein, but I know he will acquit me of any intention to attack him personally in any way. Having said that, I repeat that these matters are causing grave concern to the public and a growing sense of dissatisfaction among the councillors who give their time to this sort of work. I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring this matter to the notice of Parliament. Indeed, when I was canvassing during the recent election I found that the danger on the roads was the biggest—and I would almost say out and away the biggest—issue which is troubling the average elector in a place such as Croydon.
    10.29 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I rise to say a few sentences in support of what the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) has said. I agree that the officials in Whitehall exercise too strict a control over the local authorities. They ought to rely more on the judgment of the people in the local areas who understand the position, who give their minds to it all the time, and whose duty it is to protect the public of their towns and boroughs from dangers which arise. I hope that the Minister will look into this in the spirit which the hon. and gallant Member has suggested.
    The hon. and gallant Member has told us a tragic story about a certain road junction in Croydon. I could give a
    992
    story almost identical about a road junction on the Nottingham road in Derby, and there are other junctions in my constituency and Derby, North where, in my view, traffic lights are most urgently required.
    I could tell a story about the Ashbourne Road, which came to be known as the "Murder Mile" before certain engineering works were carried out after a long period during which I agitated on the question in the House. We were promised a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. on that road eighteen months ago. Still nothing is done. I know, if I may use the term, the bureaucratic reason for that delay, but the delay is wholly unjustifiable and the Ministry ought to do what all the local authorities, including the chief constable, still desire, namely, impose not a 40 m.p.h. but a 30 m.p.h. as they have requested.
    On the question of traffic lights, the hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right in saying that death and injury on the roads is becoming one of the gravest social evils, quite as grave an evil today as the slums of which the Home Secretary spoke so eloquently a few moments ago. I hope very much that the Ministry's policy will be changed, that it will no longer consider the question of traffic lights in terms of the few thousands of pounds it may cost but rather in terms of the lives and injuries it may save.
    10.31 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) was kind enough to refer to the fact that this was my first appearance at the Box in this capacity, and kind enough also to say that he was not sure whether to congratulate me or commiserate with me in having to deal with these complex problems. In the very few days that I have been looking at these matters I have noticed that every man is his own traffic expert. We do not lack good advice, given from the point of view of those who give it. I would say on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself that we shall value very much the views of hon. Members on these problems, particularly when they deal with local difficulties in their own constituencies.

    993
    My hon. and gallant Friend drew attention to a number of matters concerning traffic in his own constituency, which is a highly built up suburban area where the traffic passes along main arterial roads often quite quickly and in excess of the speed limit. He has drawn attention to the fact that we have a difficult problem to face in reconciling the expert views of our own engineers, who must necessarily look not merely at the local problem but also at the national situation, with the views of local people who may have entirely different ideas of what is necessary. All I can say, with my very short acquaintance with these problems, is that we shall certainly look at all the points made and that if there is any way in which we can reconcile the claims of these two distinct types of people we will certainly want to do it. My right hon. Friend, who comes fresh to these complex problems, is anxious to get progress, and I shall refer to that later.
    As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, one of the main problems that we have to face in dealing with these comparatively small matters—I am not talking now about the great major road campaign—is how we deal with the installation of some of these traffic control devices and with works of minor improvements. As a consequence of legislation over the years, we have an extraordinary combination of different possibilities when it comes to installing different types of traffic devices. Reference has been made to traffic lights, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings. The situation simply is that if a local authority wants traffic lights it proposes that to the Minister, and the Minister, on the advice of his divisional road engineer, may authorise the installation of traffic lights. If he does so, he is obliged to pay the local authority a 75 per cent. grant if it is a Class I road or a 60 per cent. grant if it is a Class II or Class III road.
    In the case of a pedestrian crossing, the divisional road engineer must be consulted and must authorise the installation of a crossing, and a grant follows. For a roundabout the situation is entirely different. Here it is entirely within the local authority's own discretion whether it has a roundabout or not, because the local authority pays for it. On the other
    994
    hand, if the divisional road engineer recommends that there should be a roundabout, we pay a grant. Take, again, the problem of traffic signs. The installation of a "Halt" sign must be authorised by the divisional road engineer, but if it is a "Slow—Major Road Ahead" sign, there is no need for authorisation. These are examples of the very confusing pattern which can lead, and I am afraid often does lead, to deadlock and delay.
    The case mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend of Lower Addiscombe Road and Spring Lane is by no means unique. Here our divisional road engineer suggested that this T junction—it is that type of junction—should be served by a roundabout. The council preferred traffic lights. We could not agree to traffic lights because it was our advice—and I ask the House to accept that our engineers give the best advice they can—that traffic lights would slow the traffic at this point and that what was necessary was a roundabout, where traffic would not be slowed to such an extent and where safety would be equally assured.
    It is undoubtedly the case that where traffic lights are installed on a fairly fast road, as those of us who have personal experience as drivers know, the change in the traffic lights causes a driver to apply his brakes quickly, whereas he sees a roundabout a good way ahead, for it is usually fairly well signed, and he therefore has a greater opportunity to take the necessary action to slow down. Another point, on which I need not delay, is that with traffic lights there is a temptation for many drivers to try to jump the lights as they change to amber.
    This argument in the Croydon case went backwards and forwards for some time, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, but I am glad to be able to tell him that we have resolved it. It is always painful and tedious to have differences of opinion with local authorities on how best to impose the traffic control which the growing traffic makes necessary at a difficult point. To cut a long story short, we have agreed with the Croydon County Borough Council to approve a traffic light installation at this junction. We have received the full details of the intended lay-out and the method of operation so that it can be approved for

    995
    financial grant, and I hope mat the installation will be successful.
    I want to proceed further, because this story highlights the appalling problem which we face in the Ministry of the fragmentation of powers over traffic between different authorities. My hon. and gallant Friend said that this attitude of the Ministry is somewhat excessive and unreasonable in some cases and that we try to do too much. Let me remind the House of the position in London. In London we have what is called the London Traffic Area, within 25 miles radius of Charing Cross, and in this area the Minister of Transport is the traffic authority. This goes back to an Act of 1924 which, incidentally, we promoted mainly to get rid of the pirate bus. The Minister is the traffic authority.
    Let no one imagine that he is the executive authority. He is hampered in acting with any speed or vigour by statutory obligations to consult at least three bodies on every traffic matter, however trivial. He must consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. He must consult the police. He must consult the local authority concerned. There is often a whole host of other bodies which also have to be consulted, and even the simplest traffic matter takes an inordinate time to put into effect.
    We are looking at all this because our belief is that what is needed in London at any rate is a uniform traffic policy for the main built-up area of London.
    In the evidence that we have submitted to the Royal Commission on London Government we made a number of suggestions. Anyone who wants to examine those suggestions can find them in the memorandum of evidence from the Ministry of Transport, which has been published, and I shall not go into all the detail of that now. As I have said, what we are anxious to do is to obtain if we can, a special executive agency to deal with London's traffic, and it may well be that as time goes on we shall have to try to get similar executive agencies for others of the main conurbation areas.
    My right hon. Friend is looking into the whole problem as a matter of urgency because this is a matter, frankly,
    996
    that will not wait. We cannot wait. We have to move.
    Perhaps I may now turn to the point of the speed limit which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) mentioned—my hon. and gallant Friend certainly did. The fact is that the 30 mile an hour speed limit is frequently not observed by motorists. As will be realised, the question of enforcement is not for me or for my right hon. Friend but for the police, but perhaps I may be permitted tonight to give the House some news about the 40 mile an hour speed limit experiment.
    The House will recollect that under previous legislation my right hon. Friend's predecessor instituted the experiment of a 40-mile limit on a number of roads on the periphery of London, and the Minister has powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to bring a general 40 mile an hour limit into use after the Departmental Committee on Road Safety has given its views on the results of the experiment. This experiment was begun in March, 1958, and while it has been in progress, the Road Research Laboratory has been conducting a series of traffic engineering surveys, and the police have also very greatly helped and cooperated in carrying this out. The general picture we now have from the detailed statistical and analytical reports from those bodies is that the experiment is proving very successful, indeed.
    The results have been looked at by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and it has endorsed the reports. The next step is that the reports will be considered by the Road Safety Committee early next month, and if that Committee, too, endorses the experiment the Minister will report to Parliament, as he is obliged to do by Statute, with the views of the Road Safety Committee and tell the House what he proposes to do.
    I myself believe that it is perhaps in this field of adjustments of speed limit that we can get over a number of these problems, because, undoubtedly, where we have a limit of 30 miles an hour it is not being observed by the motorist. The results of the experiment so far show that if, instead, there is a 40 miles an hour limit the motorists observe it, and

    997
    there has already been a very appreciable reduction in the accident rate as a consequence. It may sound a little paradoxical to say that that occurs if the limit is raised but, oddly enough, by putting it up by 10 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour the accident rate is reduced somewhat, and that limit is observed.
    In conclusion, I may say that my right hon. Friend, to whom very generous references have been made tonight, has been in office for only a fortnight or so, and has made it perfectly clear in a number of statements to the Press and to others that he does not intend to pronounce in detail upon all these traffic and highway matters until he has fully examined this situation and has made up his own mind as to what should be done. When he has done that, he will move—and he will move fast.
    My right hon. Friend is well known in this House for his vigour and originality,
    998
    and, goodness knows, we shall need vigorous action in this traffic matter. We may be unpopular in a number of quarters as a result of what we shall have to do. We shall have to use unorthodox and original ideas. We shall have to be imaginative, because nothing less will do. This problem in our cities and towns has to be beaten before it beats us and, Mr. Speaker, beaten it will be.
    I am quite sure that, however difficult the problems may be, or however many differing views there may be as to the solution of this or that part of the problem, we shall carry both this House and the public with us in these matters if we show vigour, imagination and determination. That is what my right hon. Friend intends to do.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Safety Boots (Tax)
  Safety Boots (Tax)
  Government Office (Durham)
  Government Office (Durham)
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION (ADVISORY COMMISSION)
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION (ADVISORY COMMISSION)
  MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
  MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Tower Hill Development (Model)
  Tower Hill Development (Model)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Liver
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Liver
  Broiler Houses
  Broiler Houses
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Owner-Occupiers (Compensation Payments)
  Owner-Occupiers (Compensation Payments)
  Protection of Householders (Factory Noises and Fumes)
  Protection of Householders (Factory Noises and Fumes)
  Rent-controlled Houses
  Rent-controlled Houses
MALTA
  Merchant Ships (Repairs and Refits)
  Merchant Ships (Repairs and Refits)
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
  Constitution
  Constitution
KENYA
  Land Tenure
  Land Tenure
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
WEST INDIES
  Emigration (United Kingdom)
  Emigration (United Kingdom)
  Citrus Industry
  Citrus Industry
NIGERIA
  Constitution
  Constitution
FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Ice-breaker
  Ice-breaker
NYASALAND
  Commission of Inquiry (Report)
  Commission of Inquiry (Report)
  State of Emergency
  State of Emergency
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
  Trusteeship
  Trusteeship
TANGANYIKA
  Employment
  Employment
BAHAMAS
  Co-operative Societies
  Co-operative Societies
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Nos. 10 and 12 Downing Street
  Nos. 10 and 12 Downing Street
  The Serpentine (Dell Bridge)
  The Serpentine (Dell Bridge)
  Hyde Park (Temporary Closures)
  Hyde Park (Temporary Closures)
  Chiswick House
  Chiswick House
SCOTLAND
  Muirhead and Chryston (Population)
  Muirhead and Chryston (Population)
  Hydro-Electric Board (Power Line)
  Hydro-Electric Board (Power Line)
  Potato Harvesting (Schoolchildren)
  Potato Harvesting (Schoolchildren)
  Clyde Tunnel
  Clyde Tunnel
  Church of Scotland (Public Funds)
  Church of Scotland (Public Funds)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Mental Hospitals (Aged Persons)
  Mental Hospitals (Aged Persons)
ROYAL NAVY
  Mental Patients (Officers)
  Mental Patients (Officers)
EDUCATION
  Public Library Service (Report)
  Public Library Service (Report)
HOSPITALS
  Beds
  Beds
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Firearms (Accidents)
  Firearms (Accidents)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Call-up
  Call-up
EMPLOYMENT
  Shotts, Harthill, Salsburgh and Cleland Area
  Shotts, Harthill, Salsburgh and Cleland Area
  Collieries, Lanarkshire (Closures)
  Collieries, Lanarkshire (Closures)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Industrial Development, County Durham
  Industrial Development, County Durham
ROADS
  Bridges (Design)
  Bridges (Design)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell
Several noble Lords—Took the Oath.

POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make permanent the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, and to make further provision as to matters with respect to which particulars may be required under that Act and as to certificates to be produced on the registration of stillbirths. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Earl of Onslow)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:—

M. Salisbury,

E. Attlee,

E. Dundee,

E. Home,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Crookshank,

L. Amulree,

L. Hylton,

L. Layton,

240

L. Pethick-Lawrence,

L. Rea,

L. Wilmot of Selmeston.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Reading,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Hall,

L. Amulree,

L. Ogmore,

L. Silkin.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Home,

E. Lucan,

E. Onslow,

E. St. Aldwyn,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough.

V. Bridgeman,

241

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Stansgate,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Rea,

L. Saltoun,

L. Silkin.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices he appointed and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Norfolk,

D. Wellington,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Attlee,

E. Crawford,

E. De La Warr,

E. Dundee,

E. Halifax,

E. Home,

E. Iveagh,

E. Limerick,

E. Lucan,

E. Munster,

E. Onslow,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Scarbrough,

E. Swinton,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Crookshank,

V. Esher,

V. Gage,

V. Goschen,

V. Hall,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Simonds,

V. Soulbury,

V. Thurso,

242

L. Ammon,

L. Amulree,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Bridges,

L. Burden,

L. Chorley,

L. Henderson,

L. Killearn,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Macpherson,

L. Mancroft,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Nathan,

L. Ogmore,

L. Pakenham,

L. Pethick-Lawrence,

L. Rea,

L. Reid,

L. Saltoun,

L. Shepherd,

L. Sherwood,

L. Silkin,

L. Terrington,

L. Wise,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Reading,

M. Willingdon,

E. Buckinghamshire,

E. Hardwicke,

E. Iveagh,

E. Munster,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Ammon,

L. Birdwood,

L. Blackford,

L. Cawley,

L. Faringdon,

L. Glyn,

L. Goddard,

L. Hindlip,

L. Jessel,

L. Kershaw,

L. Latham,

243

L. Meston,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Stonham,

L. Strang,

L. Terrington.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Buckinghamshire,

E. Munster,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Ammon,

L. Amulree,

L. Archibald,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Tweedsmuir.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion in my name.
Moved, That the Personal Bills Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Macclesfield,

V. Simonds,

L. Cohen,

L. Grantchester,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Silkin.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.41 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Hastings—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved as an Amendment to the Motion to add at the end of the proposed Address:
"but humbly regret that the gracious Speech contains no proposals for ending the state of emergency in Nyasaland, for the release or trial of political prisoners; or for an early and substantial extension of the franchise in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia so that the Governments of these Protectorates may truly represent their peoples at the proposed Conference on Central African Federation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the problems which confront this Government in Africa are numerous and serious, and it would be well worth the time of the House to spend a day or more in discussing them. But I am moving a censure Motion on the Government, and I propose, therefore, to confine myself strictly to the terms of the Amendment and to forgo the privilege of speaking over a wider field. We have put down this Motion because we genuinely believe that the course the Government are about to embark on, coupled with their policy in the past in Central Africa, will have disastrous effects in the Commonwealth and create grave repercussions throughout all its territories, more particularly in our relations with the African people throughout the Continent. I am astonished that the Government have been deaf and blind to all the indications around them, against which they have been repeatedly warned both by the Opposition in the last Parliament and by most observers, and by a good deal of the Press.
We have to-day a new Minister and a new Government, and we feel that it may well be that both the Government and the Minister will find themselves able to be less committed to the policy of the past and able to review the whole position once more objectively; that they will have the courage to break with the past and put forward a new policy if they are convinced it is necessary. We have high hopes that it will be so, and especially after the very reasonable and conciliatory speech which was made yesterday in another place by the new Secretary of State.
The facts as regards the Central African territories are well known. They were discussed in this House on a number of occasions shortly before the end of the last Parliament; they were discussed in another place, and they have been extensively discussed in the Press. It is therefore not necessary for me to cover the ground in any detail, but I would state a few facts which I hope will be found to be not too contentious. First the Federation of the three Central African States has existed for nearly six years—that is non-controversial. It was carried into effect in the face of intense opposition from the Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and in the face of opposition from the members of the Opposition in this place and in another place. It is true that federation has been accompanied by economic advantages to both the Africans and the Europeans, and yet, in spite of these economic blessings which federation is supposed to have conferred on the Africans, they are more opposed to federation to-day than they were in 1953.
It is not easy to fathom the minds of the Africans and to ascertain all the reasons which have created this increased hostility, but I think we may assume that fear of increased domination by the Europeans is a factor, and particularly consequent upon the encroachment by the Federal Government upon some of the rights of the separate nationalities. There is also a growing desire on the part of the separate nationalities—and I refer particularly to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—to manage their own affairs; and, as we are successful in our efforts to provide them with more education and more understanding of events, this feeling will grow, and we ought not to discourage it. There is also a feeling
246
that they cannot now rely on our protection and impartiality. That I deplore, but I believe it to be a fact. There is a loss of confidence, as The Times put it in a leading article yesterday, which has been caused, among other things, by our setting aside the advice of the African Affairs Board that certain amendments to the Federal franchise which were introduced in 1957 discriminated against the two territories.
I should like to draw attention also to the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation which visited these territories in 1957. This delegation consisted of four Conservative Members of Parliament and three Labour Members, and was led by Mr. Richard Wood, who is to-day the Minister of Power. That delegation issued a unanimous report, which I should like to read. This is what it said:
"It is quite clear that to the Africans and to the Asians"—
and we must not forget that the Asians, too, form an integral part of the population—
"the term 'partnership' is not yet a reality. In our view, if the races in the territories are to live together in amity the African community must be made to feel that it has a high political stake in the Federation. This would mean an increase in representative government in the territories, together with a substantial widening of African interests in the election of members to the Federal Assembly. These steps appear to us to be essential if African opinion is to be won over to full support of the Federation".
No action has been taken on this recommendation. I should like, by the way, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that recommendation of this Committee is exactly one of the points that we have put forward in our own Amendment this afternoon.
It is a fact that during the whole of the six years of federation there has been no worthwhile advance in African franchise, nor any really serious attempt to give the Africans participation in the management of their own affairs. Now I am not saying that there has been nothing—that would be wrong—but I do emphasise that it has been no worthwhile advance and that the Africans are in no stronger position to-day as regards the management of their affairs than they were six years ago. It is not surprising, therefore, that the opposition to federation has become increasingly vocal.
A state of emergency was declared in Nyasaland in March of last year, under which there were restrictions of the liberty of a number of people there as well as certain restrictions in Northern Rhodesia. The leaders of the Congress Movement have now been imprisoned for nine months without trial or any prospect of trial, and the state of the whole Federation has become restless and uncertain. I think that these facts are virtually incontrovertible. There may be a difference in emphasis. The noble Earl may say that there has been some advance. But, broadly speaking, I think that I have painted a not exaggerated picture of the situation.
It is against this inauspicious background, my Lords, that the Government propose to set up the Commission of twenty-six to advise the five Governments in the preparations for the 1960 Review of the constitutional programme and the framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953. I am going to leave to some of my noble friends our criticisms of the number and composition of the Commission. We think that it is too big, and we have considerable criticism of the way in which it is to be composed. But I say at once that no criticism is intended to be directed against the noble Viscount who is designated as the chairman of the Commission. In his ability and impartially we have complete confidence.
I should like to make some comments on the terms of reference and on the advisability of having a Commission at all at this moment. First, I am puzzled to know why it has been left to the eve of the Review to consider the question of the Constitutional Review and its framework. Surely those should have been considered from time to time right through the period of the Federation. If we were desirous of winning the confidence of the African people, right the way through the six years we should hav been making the necessary appropriate constitutional advances; we should not have left it to a Commission to go out just before the Review and consider what alterations there should be. Furthermore, the terms of reference to the Commission imply, or assume, that federation must continue. If the
248
terms of reference are to be taken literally, there is no scope for proposing any alternative, possibly a more acceptable form of association between the three categories. After all, it may become clear from the evidence that federation is still wholly unacceptable to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and may involve the use of force to maintain it. Still less do the terms of reference leave the Commission free to say, if they are of that opinion, that for the time being federation should be abandoned. If the Commission are to go out and consider these matters freely and objectively, they ought not to be tied down to accepting federation as a fact which cannot be altered in any way.
My Lords, we have to face this unpalatable fact: that what the Africans appear really to want, it seems to me, is to put an end to the Federation. We all wish—and I say this with all sincerity, on behalf of my noble friends—that the Federation could become acceptable. We are all very much alive to the economic and other advantages that Africans, as well as Europeans, could gain by a restoration of confidence and by the opportunity of working together under federation. But we are bound to recognise that it would be a great mistake to impose a Constitution on a people, and to impose it for an indefinite period. We all know that repressive measures have never resulted in success, and there is no reason to believe that repression at the present time would meet with any better fate.
So, having regard to the circumstances at present prevailing in Central Africa, we must ask ourselves the question: is this the right moment to send out a Commission, probably to create positions which will tend to become hardened and rigid on both sides? We take the view that before the Commission is appointed, an attempt should be made to improve the atmosphere in order to give it a reasonable chance of success. That is why we have this Amendment down on the Order Paper.
We propose, as a preliminary, the early release, or the placing on trial, of all political prisoners, and the early removal of all restrictions. We are not complaining of the original detention. In reply to a supplementary question the other day, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that the Devlin Commission

249
had reported that the Governor had to "act or abdicate"; and we fully agree. But that was in the light of the information then at his disposal: the facts which were brought out in the Devlin Commission's Report indicate that there is no justification to-day for this continued detention. We feel that after the new Minister has had a reasonable opportunity of looking at the position for himself (I understand that he is to see the Prime Ministers of the various Federated States, and that he may even have an opportunity of paying a visit to the Rhodesias and Nyasaland himself) it would be right to release these political prisoners or to put them on trial, and that the Commission should not go out until that has been done.
We think also that the leaders of African opinion should be represented on the Commission as free men, or alternatively—and this in my view would be vital—they should be enabled to give their evidence as free men. I observe that in another place it was stated that they would be free to give their evidence. That is quite a different thing from giving their evidence as free men. To have evidence given under duress is not the most healthy circumstance in which to get reasonable evidence from men whose views you want to get.
We also ask that the Government should introduce an early and substantial extension of the franchise and of representation in the Legislative Council of both the Northern Rhodesian and the Nyasaland territories, even if it should come into operation at a fixed and definite time not too far distant ahead, so that the Africans may know that at a certain date they will get considerable advances in their status. We must not make the mistake we made in Cyprus, of being indefinite about the time at which we will give the people of these territories their freedom.
But if this is done I recognise that it will involve postponement of the Commission and of the Review. What harm would come if that were so? I recognise that it has for some time been accepted that the Review was to take place in the year 1960. But the Constitution under which the Federation was created does not say that at all. It says, under Clause 99, that within not less than seven years nor more than nine years from the date of coming into force of the Constitution there shall be held a Review;
250
and there is nothing sacrosanct about holding this review at the earliest possible date. I should have thought that it would be well worth while postponing the date of the Review, and consequently the date of the Commission's going out, until such time as we had reasonable hopes of being able to carry out both the Inquiry and the Review under more favourable conditions. It is our view that if the things which I am advocating this afternoon could be done they would undoubtedly create the greater confidence and the better conditions which we all desire to see. It is better to hold up this examination and review in order that it should take place in a harmonious atmosphere with a hope of success rather than in a discordant and rebellious one.
Many speakers in another place and in this House, including the Prime Minister and many noble Lords opposite, and none more so than the noble Earl who leads this House, have spoken in eloquent terms of the object of United Kingdom colonial policy as being to create a multiracial society in which the three races should be able to live and co-operate together in complete confidence and security as equal partners, and that each of the two territories, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, should work towards becoming eligible for full membership of the Commonwealth. These are indeed praiseworthy objects, and I believe they have been put forward by those who have stated them in complete sincerity. But my noble friends and I are sincerely convinced that their present course of action is calculated to prevent and frustrate these laudable objectives and to embitter increasingly the relations between the different races. It is because of this belief that we have put down this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, to add at the end of the proposed Address ("but humbly regret that the gracious Speech contains no proposals for ending the state of emergency in Nyasaland, for the release or trial of political prisoners; or for an early and substantial extension of the franchise in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia so that the Governments of these Protectorates may truly represent their peoples at the proposed Conference on Central African Federation.").—(Lord Silkin.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in a way, I suppose this is a third maiden speech which I am making: two in this Chamber and one in another place. Before I begin, I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and his colleagues for the welcome they have given me. May I also acknowledge the intimation, or the invitation, of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who suggested that this was a halfway stage to his own Benches. I should like to assure him that I shall not take advantage of that invitation to join the peace, perfect peace, of the Benches behind him. I do not leave the Labour Party to become less Radical, but to become more Radical.
I should not have inflicted a speech on your Lordships to-day were it not that the subject is one in which I have taken a great interest for many years and which I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, is one of the most important that faces us in this country. I want straight away to pay a tribute to the late Secretary of State, Mr. Lennox-Boyd. I want to pay that tribute particularly because he and I on many occasions over the years crossed swords; we did not see eye to eye on many matters. It is too early yet to say what his place will be in the long and distinguished list of Secretaries of State for the Colonies, but one thing we can say about him, and ought to say—because Parliament is a very hard place and public life is a very harsh life, and when a man drops out of it, he has gone—is that nobody who has occupied this position ever had a more sincere interest in it than Mr. Lennox-Boyd, who in his heart of hearts had a great desire to do his best for the people for whom he was responsible. I should also like to welcome the new Secretary of State, Mr. Macleod, and to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on at least remaining in the saddle and on not having been moved away from a Department in which I know he is deeply interested.
Years ago, just before he died, the late Field-Marshal Smuts said to me: "You know, Africa is the forgotten continent; nobody is thinking about it; but I am perfectly sure that in a very few years' time Africa is going to come into its own and is going to be the continent of which we are all thinking." I say that he was
252
right. Africa is now going through the same sort of upheaval as Europe went through in the sixteenth century: new ideas are fermenting and new forces are germinating, and when the drums roll in one part of Africa, as they are to-day at this very moment in the Belgian Congo, the voices of those drums are heard from one end of the continent to the other. The greatest challenge that face this country at the present moment is the challenge of Central and East Africa, and how we meet it is very largely going to mean whether we get a world in which Parliamentary democracy can exist and can rule rather than a world in which totalitarian Powers and totalitarian systems rule instead. The position is not yet lost, in my opinion, but the sands are running out at a terrifying rate and there is little time to lose.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, dealt with the background to this problem shortly, but quite adequately, in my opinion, and we might just bring it up to date. Since the statement by the noble Earl, Lord Home, on July 21, two things have happened: Mr. Chirwa, one of the leaders of the Africans in Nyasaland, has been released from custody—a fate which has not yet come to Dr. Banda or 458 colleagues of his who are still in detention; and Mr. Chirwa has founded the new Malawi Congress Party in Nyasaland. In addition to that, the officials who are obtaining the necessary information and material for the Parliamentary Commission that is to sit next year are now completing their inquiries. I regret to say that in Nyasaland the deadlock is almost complete. The Africans are sullen; the Government is aloof. The Africans have not been mollified by the tentative moves by the Government in the Executive and Legislative Councils. Strangely enough, in Southern Rhodesia the position seems to be more healthy, and there certainly has been a considerable move there in European opinion. In fact, steps have taken place in Southern Rhodesia which only a few years ago would have been thought to be quite impossible.
Of all theories in this world, I should have thought the most stupid was the theory of racial discrimination: that by reason of a person's birth—though, after all, our birth is one thing for which we have no responsibility whatever, and can

253
take neither blame nor praise—because of the place where he was born, the colour of his skin, the language he talks, in some way or other that person is of a higher or lower order than the rest of us. Unfortunately, this principle or theory is held in certain parts of Africa. One objection is that the Africans have black skins and a certain configuration of the face. The reason for this was brought home to me very clearly only last year in Port Harcourt. I was representing the East Nigerian Government before the Willink Commission, and we were carrying on our deliberations in a tin-roofed but without any fans, or anyway without ceiling fans, in a temperature which was indescribably hot and indescribably humid. It occurred to me that, of all the people there, we, the few Europeans, were the worst equipped with our pink cheeks and narrow noses. The Africans had been far better equipped by the Lord to deal with the sort of conditions with which they had to deal. Thai is the reason why some people have dark skins and some have pink skins, and some have broad noses and some have narrow noses. It is simply a question of conforming to the geographical and physical conditions in which we live—a very sensible decision of the Lord, if one may say so. But that is very different from saying that a person with a certain type of skin and facial description is not fit to rule himself, whereas others with other types of skin and colour are. When put in that way it is so absurd that none of us reasoning creatures can believe it for a moment.
The other objection is that not many of these people—and we shall probably hear this in the course of the debate to-day—or that at present not sufficient of them have been trained. Whose fault is that? We have been in these territories for many years. Whose fault is it that they have not been trained to undertake the responsible duties which are required of them? It is remarkable how quickly Africans can acclimatise themselves to their duties. Last year I sat in at the deliberations, being the only European there, of African Cabinets on two occasions, and I can assure your Lordships that those men, who have had comparatively few years in government or experience of that kind, carried on the Cabinet in a perfectly thorough and
254
efficient way. My experience of people in the Far East and Africa is that basically we are much the same. Basically our desires and limitations are much the same, and it does not really make very much difference. We can exclude, as I hope an objective audience looking at this problem purely objectively can exclude, any question of race from the consideration of this problem. The urgent necessity to-day is to restore confidence and to create a better climate of opinion in the Africans in Central Africa.
We on these Benches entirely agree with the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and we shall support it, if necessary, in the Lobby. In addition to the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which I hope the Government will accept—I really do not see why they should not—I would, if I were in their position, go to Dr. Banda, Mr. Chirwa and the other leaders and say to them: "Look here, mistakes have been made in the past on all sides. Let us forget the past. Let us tear it up. Let us start afresh. We will treat you as responsible politicians, and we have no doubt that you will behave like them." I would suggest to the extremists on both sides to keep open minds and closed mouths. Statements like that of the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, that, with a few minor exceptions, all Africans are liars, are not helpful, to put it mildly. Statements like that of the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, who in this House suggested Mat we should send out the British Army to teach the Nyasalanders a lesson are not helpful either. Because what does "teach them a lesson" mean?—shooting them, beating them? Perhaps that is the opinion of noble Lords who, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Winter-ton, in common with the rest of the Conservative Party, are now Left of Centre.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred to a Parliamentary Commission. This could create a better understanding of the problem, and it could find a common approach. There were three opinions on this matter in the beginning. There was the Government's opinion; there was Sir Roy Welensky's opinion, and there was the Labour Opposition opinion. The Government, to do them

255
justice—and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Home—did their best to find some sort of common ground between Sir Roy Welensky, who gave the Federal Government's opinion, and the Labour Opposition. The noble Earl worked very hard to try to do that. I think it is fair to say that he got Sir Roy Welensky about as far along the road as he would go. One must look at Sir Roy Welensky's problems. He has difficulties, as we have here. I think that he even had a Censure Motion put down against him in his own Legislative Council. He undoubtedly moved a considerable way towards meeting the point of view of the Labour Opposition. He said quite clearly that his people in his Legislative Council did not welcome Parliamentarians from the British Parliament coming to Southern Rhodesia and wandering around and making inquiries.
I feel that to-day the British Government's view, the Government's synthesis, as it were, between Sir Roy Welensky's opinion and the Labour Opposition's opinion, is not an unreasonable one, and I think we should all do well to accept it. It seems to me that the present framework of the Commission is reasonable in the circumstances, and is likely to be workable. I would therefore ask the Labour Party, as well as noble Lords in other parts of the House, to accept the Government's Commission as they propose it at the moment. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, is a good choice as Chairman. I feel sure that he will hold the balance in the best possible way. I hope he will not have the same sort of experience as Mr. Justice Devlin had.
The main point in all this, however, is: Who are to be the African representatives on this Commission? Your Lordships will remember that there are to be five Africans appointed as members of this Commission. Who are they going to be? That is really the key to the whole matter. We can assume that there will be distinguished people from this country, who will do their best in the circumstances, and that there will be distinguished people from the Federation, who will also do their best. But they will all be Europeans. I think there are to be two members of the Commonwealth who may not necessarily be Europeans,
256
and I hope they will not be; I hope they will be Indians or Malayans or something of that kind, as members of the Commonwealth. But it is mainly the Africans upon whom the success of this Commission will turn.
I would suggest that the Government consult Dr. Banda, Mr. Chirwa and the other representatives of the Africans, whether they are in detention or not, and do their best to get from them—and I think this is essential—a list of Africans who they will agree should be on this Commission. That may be impossible to do—I do not know—but I think it is well worth a trial, to try to get from Dr. Banda and Mr. Chirwa a list of people they would regard as suitable. Because unless both the Africans and the Europeans have confidence in this Commission, then the whole point of it will be gone. If the Africans reject these proposals completely, if the Europeans reject them completely, there is really no point in setting up the Commission. I do not think the proposal which I make to the two noble Earls who are going to reply is at all unreasonable, and may well sow the seed of a satisfactory solution to this problem.
Talking about solutions, I would remark that it is rather early at the moment to suggest firm solutions to this problem, but we can at least be talking about them and thinking about them. In the first place, I think there are certain definite principles which this Commission, and we ourselves as Parliamentarians who will ultimately have to decide the problem, ought to bear in mind. The first is the need for political advance in the three territories to democratic self-government, and that within a reasonable time. Once this principle is acknowledged and acted upon, then the Africans will co-operate in becoming trained to take their share in the running of the three territories. Furthermore, they will then, I feel certain, be prepared to carry out their responsibilities to the Europeans and the Asians who have played such a vital part in the development of these territories. They will realise the immense contribution that the Europeans and the Asians have made and will be prepared to acknowledge that contribution and, as it were, to incorporate it into the framework of their future lives in Africa.

257
I must say, having regard to this point, that I have been most concerned at the attitude of the present Tanganyikan Government. It is all right, you may say, to kick Asians around; there are not many of them, comparatively speaking. But if you start kicking any race around as a race, you never know what will happen and who gets kicked around next. I have been most concerned at the attitude of the Tanganyikan Government in its treatment of some of the Asians in its territory.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): I think the noble Lord means Uganda, not Tanganyika.
LORD OGMORE: No, I have no complaints about the Uganda Government. It is not their fault that the Asians have had such a bad time in Uganda. I am talking about the Tanganyikan Government. The Asians are having a bad time in Uganda, but it is not the fault of the Government but of the Africans. But in Tanganyika the Government itself has some responsibility for what has happened, and that is a very bad precedent to follow. On the question of African rule and what is going to happen when the Africans—as they will; there is no question about it—get majority rule in all parts of Africa, I wish some people who talk so despondently about this would go and visit Nigeria. There is a good example. There are no Europeans in the Governments; they are all-African Governments. They have, of course, a certain number of Europeans in the administrative services and the technical services, and they are recruiting more. This is the point I want to make. Here is a country with an all-African Government—in fact there will be four African Governments soon, when they have independence. Nobody is refraining from putting capital into Nigeria for that reason. In fact capital is pouring into Nigeria—British capital, American, German, Italian and Israeli capital. I have never seen the figures, because no one has ever computed them, but I guarantee that if the figures were computed of the capital being poured into Nigeria anti the capital in Nigeria at the moment, it would be as much as, if not more than, the European capital in Kenya; and soon it will be more than the European capital in the whole of
258
central Africa. What are we afraid of? No one worries about the risk to capital in Nigeria. Why should there be any worry about the risk to capital in Central Africa?
Yesterday in another place on this point about the representation of Africans, which is one of the key questions in this whole problem, the new Secretary of State, Mr. Macleod, said he did not want representation in the Legislative Councils of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland by races but as a result of a common roll (I am not quoting him literally; this is a digest of what he said); in other words, he did not want the Legislative Councils to represent races but to be returned, as Members of another place are in this country, from a common roll, from electors from constituencies. I entirely agree with him on that; he is perfectly right. Such advice as I gave years ago in Africa and Malaya was to do this very thing, to get away from this racial representation.
There is, however, a curious anomaly in this case. The Secretary of State does not want racial representation; he wants a common roll. But he wants the common roll with a very limited and qualitative franchise. You cannot have both; this makes nonsense. You can either have racial representation or you can have a common roll, with everybody on it. You cannot have half and half, because then you are trying to have racial representation with a common roll; and that, surely, must be nonsense. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he comes to reply, will tell us how this dangerous illusion came into the mind—because I have never heard anyone say this before—of the Secretary of State after only a week or so in office. I would ask the noble Earl to do his best to scrub out from the mind of his right honourable friend this thinking, which is both dangerous and incorrect.
I would also ask the noble Earl why the Nyasaland Africans are so different from the Africans in other parts of Africa, in West Africa and North East Africa, Somaliland, and particularly in Basutoland. I want to compliment the noble Earl, Lord Home, on his recent action in Basutoland. He has been very shy over this; he has not told us anything about it, so far as I recall. There in Basutoland, in the very heart of the

259
Union, surrounded by Union territory on all sides, an island in the heart of the Union, the noble Earl, Lord Home, has arranged for an electoral roll, for elections in January next and for an elected Parliament for the people of Basutoland. That surely is a very courageous thing to do in the heart of the Union of South Africa. And now that he has done that courageous thing, perhaps he will tell us in what way the people of Basutoland differ from the people of Nyasaland. If he can bestow this system upon the people for whom he is responsible in Basutoland, why is it that his colleague the Colonial Secretary cannot bestow the same system immediately on the people of Nyasaland?
The second principle (and I shall say very little about the second and the others) I think we ought to bear in mind is the need for a great deal of economic assistance by us to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. I should like to ask the Secretary of State, when he comes to reply, what specific proposals he has in this regard. In respect to the gracious Speech, the noble Earl referred to the fact that the foundation of peace lies in bringing the standard of living of underdeveloped nations nearer to that of the industrial nations. We all agree with those sentiments and we welcome them. Perhaps he would tell us precisely how he intends to bring them into being in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia—in other words, what developments are going to take place there so as to bring this most desirable future state into being? How are they going to be brought nearer to us so far as their standards of living are concerned?
The third principle is that we must not stop short at Central Africa in our genius for constitutional development of various kinds. We have the most diverse constitutional arrangements in the world. We have in our Commonwealth a non-elected Queen, the Queen of Tonga; we have an elected King, the King of Malaya. We have a republic in India and we have a republic in Pakistan. We have other countries in various states of constitutional development and having various constitutional forms. Surely, with that genius of ours for applying Constitutions to fit the particular standards of the time, we can create some form of Constitution in Central Africa that is going to meet the needs and
260
desires of the people. At the moment, it is quite clear that federation as it has been conceived does not suit the bulk of the people; and at the moment—I say "at the moment" —there is no possible likelihood that it will. So is it not possible for us to consider other forms of association—confederation, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, customs unions, and the like? There are all sorts of ways in which we can achieve the object we have in mind—namely, to have some kind of economic relationship between these three territories.
The fourth principle is that it is essential for us here to make social contacts with the people of these territories. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will go out soon to Nyasaland. Will he see not only the present leaders of African opinion, who unfortunately are mainly in detention—he can go and see them, certainly—but will he not also see the future leaders? At the present moment they are much more difficult to get hold of, but they can be got hold of if you know where to look for them. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that, on occasion, he should slip away from the cavalcade that always accompanies Ministers on these occasions; that he makes his own investigations, that he walks alone in a bush shirt and a pair of slacks—they will not recognise him; they never recognise anybody in these places—and that he goes around the streets, to the bazaars and to the coffee shops, and sits down and listens. Probably he will not understand what they are saying, but he will gather what they are saying; he will learn what the ordinary man on the street is saying and thinking in these places, and he will find out that there is not a great deal of difference between that and what the ordinary man in this country thinks.
My Lords, in conclusion, may I ask the Government, and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Home, who has vast responsibilities in this area, without a moment's delay to take the initiative in this whole problem—the initiative such as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I have suggested; and as an earnest of their good intentions may I strongly recommend that they accept the Amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I welcome—I think I speak for all of your Lordships—the speech of the mover of the Amendment, and that he should have done so in such a nice and reasonable way, even although I think he strayed a good deal from the Amendment as it is written and argued perhaps more generally—though there is no harm in that. I welcome still more the "third maiden speech" of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I welcome it because he himself supports the idea of a Commission and because he paid such a warm tribute to my former Secretary of State. The noble Lord's wisdom and his valuable suggestions on African and Colonial affairs will be of the greatest value to all of us, wherever he may sit, even if he does not come the whole way round.
There is one point that I must cake up which, quite frankly, I do not fully understand, and that is when he made an attack on the qualitative common roll, which is a policy which we have adopted, I think with great success, in Northern Rhodesia. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his speech referred to how things in Northern Rhodesia were going better. It is no negation of the idea of a franchise that it should be qualitative. The idea of a qualitative franchise is something which was a common thing to find in this country until a short time ago, and it is the best way of getting all the races to take their part in political life without questioning whether they may be African or white.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I did not make it clear to the noble Earl. What I meant was that if you decry the idea of having racial representation—which I think is the right thing to do—then you cannot at the same time have a qualitative roll, because that is a way of getting racial representation in by the back door.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, you can and you do have a common rôle. As I have pointed out, in Northern Rhodesia we have had success in getting one and all to play their part in the work of government when they are up to it.
Before I deal in some detail with the Amendment, I have it in mind, with your
262
Lordships' permission, to roam a little wider on colonial matters. I shall not roam too wide. In particular, I want to touch on two subjects. One is my former Secretary of State, and the other is my recent trip to Nigeria. Just three months ago in this House, and also in another place, there was a strong attack on the Government for the tragedy of Hola and on the Devlin Report. I am not complaining that there should have been such an attack on either subject, but, in a way, it was so unlucky that the tenure of office of one who, am sure, is one of the greatest Colonial Secretaries should, as it were, end on this note.
His achievements in office—he was Secretary of State for over five years—are apt to be taken for granted, though I am confident that in fact they will always live. To name a few: independence for Ghana and for Malaya, and in 1960 for Nigeria; Federation of the West Indies set on its path, and great constitutional and other progress in many other territories. Of course, his alone is not the credit for all this. It is, too, the work of countless others in the Colonial and Overseas Service, some of whom sit now in your Lordships' House, and, of course, of many past Governments. All the same, his was a very personal contribution—ask the Prime Minister of Ghana, Dr. Nkrumah, or the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman; or, again, ask the Prime Minister of Nigeria, Alhaji Abubakar, or the Premiers of the Regions, or indeed any of those who were fortunate enough to take part in the Nigerian Constitutional Conferences of 1957 and 1958. One and all of them, and many others, know his devotion to the colonial peoples and to their wellbeing, whether of things material or things of the mind. Colour and race did not and do not enter into his concept of relations. It has been a great inspiration and a great privilege for me to have worked under him and I shall never forget it. And now I have a new boss, and already I know that to work under him is going to be good and to be fun.
Let me now turn for a moment to my Nigerian trip. I spent an all too short time there—three weeks to be exact. Let me take this opportunity of thanking all my friends in Nigeria, and particularly the Federal and Regional Governments,

263
for all their kindness and the trouble they took with my visit. What I saw fully confirmed my belief in the great future that lies ahead for that country, a country with a population of between 35 and 40 million people, nearly one-fifth of all the peoples of Africa.
This great population is in, for Africa, a relatively small country—something only about four times the size of the United Kingdom—but the very fact is indicative of the richness of its soil and its climate. Not only can its people grow enough to feed themselves but they also produce about £100 million of cash crops for export—such things as vegetable oils, cocoa, cotton and rubber; and with improved methods of agriculture and improved strains of crops I am quite sure that these figures will soon be largely exceeded. Now they have discovered oil; how much it is early times to say, but it is in important quantities.
The economic outlook is good. Nigeria can, in the main, pay its way and finance its hugh development programme. Roads and railways (it is one of the few countries, I suppose, where railways are now being built), huge power projects and harbours, as well as industrial plants, are fast progressing. And the people look to us, above all, to help them not only with money but also, and most important with industrial skills and experience. There is, I am sure, a great opportunity for our industry, and we, and they, must think not only in terms of exports but of setting up in the country and of training its people—who are quick to learn—both on the spot and in this country, so that they can go forward on their own. Everywhere there you feel the bustle and awakening of the country. I have spoken of economic matters but equally help is needed in the schools, in the Health Service, and so on—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What about Nyasaland?
THE EARL OF PERTH: —and there is room, and more, not only for help from us but for help from others of the outside world. But Nigerians look first to us as their tried and trusted friends and we must not fail, for I believe that if Nigeria goes forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said as I am sure she will, her peoples' influence for good in Africa will be decisive.
264
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has asked that I should turn to the Amendment and Nyasaland. I will try to be not too controversial, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who raised the matter first did not stick very strictly to the terms of the Amendment; rather did he range widely and question the whole policy on the Federation. It is, of course, very helpful to get some of these ideas, and one is always open to consider them, and has no closed mind. When the noble Lord puts forward the suggestion for the postponement of the plan we have launched to get on with the development of the Federation or whatever it may be, then I feel that that suggestion is a difficult one and is not one about which I can give him much encouragement.
Three months ago we had a debate on the Devlin Report and it is now the first subject on which the Opposition challenge Her Majesty's Government. In the meantime the Government have had a resounding vote of confidence from the country, and at least that vote can be interpreted as not disapproving of our policy in Africa. Why, then, it may be asked, do the Opposition raise the issue again so soon? I believe the answer is to be found in the speech of the Mover of the humble Address to Her Majesty, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. He showed how there have always been two streams of thought and action on colonial policy: that of Warren Hastings and the great colonial administrators on the side of law and order, and that of such as Wilberforce and Burke on the side of individual liberty. Sometimes the streams diverge, sometimes they run parallel and sometimes they merge.
I believe that those who move the Amendment do so in the belief that they are pleading the cause of individual liberty—and what is more important? The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said the other day, "This is a matter that really touches our heart". But while I respect their belief and sincerity, we are not behind them on this matter, and I believe they are in danger of being led astray. If we follow their Amendment we might get exactly the opposite to what they and we want, namely, liberty of the individual. I believe that if conscience is allowed to overrule reason, what they and we deeply desire will be lost and there

265
will be great suffering for the people who are entrusted to our care.
I should wish to take the Amendment as it stands. It is divided into two parts. The first is that we should end the emergency with the release or trial of individuals. As your Lordships know, ending the state of emergency is the responsibility of the Governor, just as is its declaration. If it is ended too soon, or if individuals are released too soon, then, again, we may have violence, and his would be the burden and the blame for the suffering of the people. Unhappily it would seem (and it is only eight months since the emergency was declared) that violence threatens still. Mr. Andrew Kayira, a distinguished African, a short while ago was appointed to the Legislative Council. Within a day or two of his appointment his house was burned; and since then there have been several other cases of arson. Intimidation, which is so often referred to in the Devlin Report, is unhappily still a weapon in that country and points to the continuing necessity for some emergency powers for Nyasaland.
Neither the Governor nor Her Majesty's Government wish to see these powers retained for a moment longer than is necessary, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place yesterday told how the whole of this question of emergency powers in the Colonies has been specially considered. The aim of the Governor of Nyasaland and ourselves is, of course, to get back to normal and legitimate political activity in Nyasaland. Some indication of this is to be seen in the growth of the Malawi Party of which Mr. Orton Chirwa is Chairman; until recently he was a detainee and he had been legal adviser to Dr. Banda. The Malawi Party policy is strongly opposed to federation and the policy of the Government; but legitimate opposition—and I would stress the word "legitimate"—has nothing to fear.
Again, on the release of detainees I would point out that the Governor has already managed to reduce the number detained to well under half of those who were detained at the time when the emergency was declared. It is not enough, but it is progress, and, as all your Lordships will know, he is constantly reviewing cases to see whether he can cut down
266
the numbers still further. But to go too fast may ruin everything, and would take this opportunity to reiterate our complete confidence in the Governor and in his judgment.
Last week the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised the question of Mwenya and his application for habeas corpus. That. My Lords, is a very complex legal question, and I am happy to say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to deal with this matter so that I shall not have to travel into these difficult and uncharted seas.
I would now turn to the second part of the Amendment, which is a call for an extended franchise for Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia so that those taking part in the 1960 Conference may be truly representative. Before I touch on that, I think I must refer to a red herring which I felt the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, drew across in his speech on this subject, when he said that it was necessary because we had made no progress for six years in bringing Africans into Government in those two territories. My Lords, that simply is not the case. If your Lordships look at the record, even in Nyasaland to-day, you will see that Africans are in the majority in unofficial members. It is true they are nominated rather than chosen by election, although until recently they were so chosen: that is a state of affairs which is due to the emergency. Again, we have two Africans on the Executive Council in Nyasaland, and in Northern Rhodesia there are many Africans who are in the Legislative Council. So to say that there has been no progress is just, as I said before, not the case.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I intervene just to correct the noble Earl. I did not say that there has been no progress; I said there had been very little material progress.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not want to become too controversial on this matter, but when one recalls how many Africans had the vote or a seat in the Legislative Council in the days of the Labour Government, one would say perhaps that the progress is very marked, because in those days there were none.
I believe that the second part of the Amendment, to which I have referred, is based on a misunderstanding of the position. If without an extension of the

267
franchise the people of the territories would not be well heard, I myself would support the Amendment; or again, if, but for such an extension of the franchise, the protected status of peoples were endangered, I would support the Amendment. But neither of those things is so. Let us consider first the protected status. In this I cannot do better than quote what my right honourable friend said in another place yesterday. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 612 (No. 8), col. 692]:
"… the pledge in the preamble"—
that is, to the 1953 Constitution—
"is absolute, and I repeat the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in this House on 22nd July;
"'The British Government will certainly not withdraw its protection from Nyasaland and Rhodesia in the short run, and in the long run our object is to advance these Territories to fully responsible government'.
"The Prime Minister went on to say that while the Legislatures of the two Northern Territories were constituted in their present stage to conduct their ordinary affairs, they would not be more than one element in the machinery which might be devised for the purpose of obtaining the views of the inhabitants."
These pledges make it plain that changes in the franchise before the 1960 Review are unnecessary if the proposers of the Amendment had in mind that such changes would be a necessary safeguard against any change in the protected status of the Northern Territories.
Let me return to the proposition that without the extension of franchise the peoples will not be well heard: that their opinions before the Commission, or before the Conference, more importantly, will not be properly represented. In fact there are two avenues open to them. One will be the 1960 Conference, and the other is, of course, the Monckton Commission. This Commission will hear representatives of all the Parties from Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, representatives of any significant branch of political opinion, whether or not they are in detention when the Commission is operating; and for those who so wish it, the Commission will be ready to publish their statements for one and all to know and to see. Could anything be mare fair?
This, my Lords, is one of the things which make the Commission and its
268
composition of such importance, bearing in mind its purpose—namely, to try to create both here and in Africa a common mind on the next stages of the political evolution in the Federation. We have made a great and fortunate start in having Lord Monckton of Brenchley as its chairman, and I know that all your Lordships join with me in expressing our gratitude to him for accepting this post. We—and I know that this also is true of the Federal Government and other Governments as well as ourselves—mean to have a Commission of the same high quality (if I may so put it) as the chairman, drawn not only from this country but also from the Commonwealth and the area of the Federation. For us all and when I say "all" I think of the Parties opposite, as well as others in this country—to support the Commission in every way, to ensure its best membership is, I believe, the best way to contribute to African confidence, which we all desire, and to the future wellbeing of the peoples of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and to hasten the return to happier things in Nyasaland.
As for the other avenue for the peoples of the Northern Territories to make known their views, again I will quote what was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State yesterday. He said (col. 692):
"The Amendment presupposes that the Conference in 1960 will be between Governments, but that is not what Article 99 of the Constitution says. It is more explicit than that. It says that at the appropriate date: 'There shall be convened a conference consisting of delegations from the Federation, from each of the three territories, and from the United Kingdom Government chosen by their respective Governments for the purpose of reviewing this Constitution'.
"… at this distance of time it would … be premature to indicate how the delegations from the Northern Territories to this Conference may be chosen. But I think it is equally premature to assume, as the … Amendment did … that any such delegations would be drawn solely from the Government Benches in the Legislatures of those two Territories."
My Lords, it has been a little difficult to know where to begin or where to end on this matter, because one might again go all over the ground on Nyasaland which has been debated so often recently in Your Lordships' House. I have therefore tried in the main to stick to the points raised—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Earl this question, because it is rather important. He said the representatives of the 1960 official Conference would not necessarily all be drawn from members of the Governments in these countries. Could he say whether the actual appointments here will be made by Her Majesty's Government here, as it was in the earlier ones, in both our time and in the Labour Government's time? Will the delegations which come from the Federation and the three territories be appointed by the respective Governments of those territories?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think the answer to that is, "Yes". Perhaps I might read just once more the actual sentence in Article 99. It says:
"There shall be convened a conference consisting of delegations from the Federation, from each of the three territories, and from the United Kingdom Government chosen by their respective Governments for the purpose of reviewing this Constitution".
THE EARL OF SWINTON: That is it, yes.
THE EARL OF PERTH: As I said, my Lords, I have tried in the main to deal in detail with the Amendment as it stands, but I should not wish it to be thought that we are not constantly seeking new ways to improve the situation and to return to more normal times. As your Lordships know, it was announced yesterday that the Governors of both the Northern Territories are shortly to come back to this country for consultation, and our aim, with them, is not only to get political life going again but, in conjunction with the Federal Government—and let us never forget our debt to the Federal Government—to improve in every way possible the lives of the people of Nyasaland, whether materially or in health and education.
I remember how, a short while ago, there was a good deal of surprised comment in the newspapers about the job that the Colonial Administration had been doing in Cyprus during the emergency, and how, despite all the difficult times, the real work of developing the country was going on. My Lords, this is, of course, true also of Nyasaland at the present time, and I should like to pay my tribute to the overseas service who are doing just this in Nyasaland at this
270
difficult time. Our hope is that, with such steps as the appointment of the Monckton Commission, and with the constant reiteration of our pledges that we stand by the people of the two Northern Territories, they will come to recognise that they have nothing to fear and that the way to progress is not by violence or by intimidation. Then, together, we can all go forward to the constitutional development and fully responsible self-government of Nyasaland that is our avowed aim and purpose.
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have listened to a speech from the noble Earl which I think might be summed up as striving to put the best possible face on a bad case; and I must say that he certainly has not done anything towards convincing me, at any rate, that the excellent case put by my noble friend Lord Silkin has been properly answered, nor has he in any way avoided the final Division to which we must carry the House at the end of the debate. It is a pity he saw fit to chide my noble friend for not sticking to the Amendment. He seemed to me to wander very far from that in the first ten minutes of his own speech to your Lordships' House. Perhaps one part of it, referring to his personal friend the late Secretary of State, might well have been rendered direct to the Prime Minister before the decision to drop his Secretary of State, as he was then, altogether. However, we say that in the case of Nigeria no doubt great progress has been made.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is being a little unfair. He is suggesting that my noble friend the late Secretary of State was dropped. I think the noble Viscount knows quite well that the late Secretary of State retired entirely of his own wish.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps it might have been more truthful to say that there was a lack of pressure on him to retain his very successful management of the office. Apparently there was not very much pressure.

271
Now I will stick to the Amendment, if I may. I want these points in the Amendment really answered, and I feel certain that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will try to deal with them. On the general question, all sides of the House poured their hearts out in July. We on this side of the House were taking a very different view from some noble Lords on other sides of the House. We poured our hearts out, but we have not got any further on the way of getting our point of view met. For example, even in the last few days we have been told that Dr. Banda and other notable Africans of Nyasaland are to be kept interned indefinitely at the instigation of the Governor of the Protectorate only, until he is of the opinion that there will be no danger to law and order upon their release. I find that an astonishing conclusion to arrive at, in view of the terms of the Report of the Devlin Commission. They can find no case in fact to be delivered against this Christian African, Dr. Banda. It is an amazing thing that, in the year 1959, we should have wandered so far away from those democratic principles of liberty and justice that the British people have been brought up to know, to understand, and to work for at all times. My Lords, the state of emergency has been described as having lasted seven months. I correct the noble Earl on that. It is practically eight months now. I think it started on March 9: it is November 3 to-day; and still there is no move in this direction.
Might I ask the noble Earl who leads the House (whose genuine desire for the welfare of the Commonwealth we all know, and whose personal attitude to matters of religion and freedom we have always welcomed in this House) one very personal Scottish question: have the Government sent an answer yet to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland about Dr. Banda? Considerable pressure was brought upon them. I think the Duke of Hamilton went up to talk to them, and there was a good deal of pressure brought on them. Are they satisfied? It does not appear from the results of the Election in Scotland, whatever happened elsewhere, that on either unemployment or upon Nyasaland the Scottish elector is completely satisfied; and we are making no real progress in that matter.
272
The second point I would make to the noble Earl is this: that we are asking for the release or the trial of those who are incarcerated. Now the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the fact, as if it was a matter of very great achievement, that, of the persons who have been treated as detainees, less than half remain in detention. From one point of view that is very good. I am speaking only in round numbers, but my recollection is that the number of people interned was between 1,300 and 1,350; that about 134 only of those have been the subject of a charge and a trial; that others have been let out at different times for all kinds of different reasons, but that to-day there remain in custody something like 560. Am I right?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think very nearly right.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: As I said, I am speaking from memory. I must say that, after eight months, that is the most extraordinary position to be in; and I suggest that if you go on pursuing this kind of policy in Nyasaland then, instead of having an emergency period of eight months, you may get much nearer an emergency period of seven years, as in Kenya. I thoroughly believe in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said: you simply cannot deal with these matters by repression. For example, if you read the leading article in the magazine Eastern World, you will note that in all parts of the world to-day the attitude of the British people and of the British Parliament to this problem of Africa is being watched very closely indeed. Asia, as well as Africa, is on the march: and to-day, in those countries where they are not Communist-controlled, they know that the only possible defence against Communism, and the only chance of getting anything like a free State for themselves in the future, is to see the success of social democracy—and they believe that they have as much right to it as anybody living in the United Kingdom. Therefore what we are doing in this matter is likely to be of vast importance to us, not only in Africa but also in the Eastern world with which we shall have continually to deal. When will the charges be made against these persons in

273
custody? Will the noble Earl please answer that for us? That is vastly important.
The third point is that we ask for an early and substantial extension of the franchise in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, so that the Governments of these Protectorates may truly represent their peoples at the proposed Conference on Central African Federation. If I understood the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, aright, what he is suggesting is that there is no need for that; that we do not need to do anything before the 1960 Conference. What sort of actual representation will the 2¾ million of Africans in Nyasaland get in the Conference of 1960? There are certainly some Africans in the Legislature to-day, but how many of them are there by a vote which is in any way indicative of the feelings of the 2¾ million Africans?
Should I not be right in saying that you have only 8,000 whites in the Protectorate? What is the position of the balance of power in that Protectorate of the Crown? Apparently you want to drive the Africans into the Central Federation in pursuit of what is now called "the multi-racial policy." I must say that if you think you will ever get lasting peace from action of that kind, you are very wrong. I should have thought that by now the Government would have learned the lessons of the past, and the lessons of their own failures as well as of their successes. They have had both in their colonial policy during the last eight years.
What are we asking for? We are asking for an immediate—perhaps I am putting it too strongly—an early and substantial extension of the franchise in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. In another place yesterday it was pointed out that in the Federation at the present moment Sir Roy Welensky, acting as Premier of the Federation, is accorded, in that extraordinary qualitative vote you have in those areas, 37,000 votes out of 64,000, which gives him control of 44 seats. This is equal to the Prime Minister's controlling 45 per cent., or little less than half, of the total population of the territory. Is that the kind of basis on which you want to march forward towards social democracy in Central Africa? Apparently you have not learned anything from the attitude
274
of the Africans themselves. The Devlin Commission were perfectly clear about the view of the majority of the African people in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, although, of course, they were not talking in the main about Nyasaland. Therefore, it seems to me a very reasonable request to the Government to take steps now, in view of the ascertained facts, to so extend the suffrages of the people in these two Protectorates of our Crown that they may get a reasonable approach to representation in the Conference which is to take place, as at present suggested, in 1960.
It seems to me that at the present moment the African population has little foundation to rest upon in the different statements which have been made from time to time on behalf of the Government. I feel that it would be a good idea if the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply to the debate later on, would give us some clarification of the statement he made to the House on July 27, 1959—not merely in order to give us clarification but perhaps also to bring to the African population, a little more faith in what is really intended in the future, if that is possible.
The quotation I take first of all is from column 596 [Vol. 218] of our own OFFICIAL REPORT for July 27. It says:
"The conception is that as power is transferred from the United Kingdom in respect of the two Northern Territories it will be transferred not to the Federal Government but to the Governments of the two Northern Territories, which will progressively become more and more representative of Africans until they have African majorities."
Later [col. 597], the noble Earl said:
"So it is clear to me, and I think it will be clear to your Lordships, that both here and in Africa there are the most widespread misconceptions, and that the process of public education is essential to enable people to have confidence in the action of Governments when the time for the review comes in 1960."
I remember saying at the time that I found it rather difficult to follow what the noble Earl really meant to establish.
When we turn to the Observer of August 29 last—the House was in Recess and I way away then, and I had my attention brought to this only recently—it appears that Mr. Roberts, Minister of Labour and Mines in Northern Rhodesia, and spokesman for Roy

275
Welensky's United Federation Party, called Lord Home's declaration
"… a blast at the very foundations on which the present Northern Rhodesian Constitution has been built."
That shows pretty clearly to me that we do need clarification of the situation in your Lordships' House, so that the African people may really understand.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I wonder whether I can straight away clear up that point. I was not talking about African majorities in Legislatures. Of course, the whole object is that there should not be racial distinctions. That is what we have in mind: that in the Parliaments of these two territories there should be candidates from all Parties representing all races. What I had intended to convey was that the time was bound to come at some time in the future when there would be a majority of Africans exercising the vote in both territories. But I did not intend to talk about African majorities in Parliament.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that seems to me to be what was concluded by the correspondent of the Observer when he wrote:
"Although Africans will in time constitute a numerical majority of Africans, Lord Home says that this is not the same thing as an African majority."
Well, it is obvious why we differ so much at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, should remember, when he asks us to state immediately our support of joining in the work of the Commission, that this is quite contrary to what the Africans are asking for and to what we ask for on their behalf, in the light of British experience—that is, to move at the earliest possible time to universal suffrage. We have not asked for that to be made in one immediate act. But if you could make, as my noble friend Lord Silkin clearly indicated by the terms of his speech, the first big approach to extending the suffrage of the people of these Protectorates, so that they might have a real voice in their Legislatures, who will be called upon to make their nominations to the Congress, whenever it is held, then you would be going a long way to achieving what every Party in this House agrees is necessary: that is, to restore confidence in the African popula-
276
tion as to what is going to be done in the future. Let the African have some confidence in the statements and the acts of the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, quoted the statement of the Prime Minister in another place about the protection of the people in the Protectorates. It is quite unclear to me at the moment how that protection is going to be exercised if at every stage you give way to the present Legislature of the Central Federation, which is dead against the progress that is the basis of the agitation and organisation of the African Congress in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia. I do feel that the Government really must face up to the fact of this.
We are very desirous that we should be able on this occasion, as we have on so many previous occasions, whether foreign or colonial, to join in on a nonpartisan basis discussions for the purpose of advancement of the Commonwealth and for the growth of international peace. You force us by your attitude on these matters into a doubt and a withholding of our support, because you do not speak plainly and do not seem to feel and act in the human way which would bring justice to Africans, such as you would be expected to do for your own people. That, it seems to me, is really quite fatal. If you are going to get peace in these two Protectorates; if you are going to get peace in Africa as a whole; if you are going to get a real appraisement of the British position throughout the Eastern world, then you have got to come to that. When will you begin?
I hope that, as a result of this debate, when we have been forced to put down this Amendment to the loyal Address, the House as a whole will ask the Government to reconsider the position. Do not, for pity's sake, go and rush this 1960 Conference now, knowing what the native feeling is, before you are ready for it, and before the Africans have been given an opportunity to take part in making themselves ready for it. Give them their chance. Postpone the Conference for a couple of years; take your further soundings; and may the Legislatures then be able to give adequate nominations for the Conference which will make the recommendations for the

277
final decisions to be made! I do beg of the Government and the Whole House to take this into consideration.
I welcome the speech of my noble friend Lord Ogmore (I still call him my noble friend until he gets into other aspects of Liberal policy; and probably we shall always remain political friends—he has not been such a political enemy to-day—though I assure him that when he experiences the pursuit of the Manchester economy school of thought by the Benches up there he will not hold his radicalism very long), always full of information and of fine thought about the future. But I think he is making a mistake if he will not go as far as we want to go and get the decision made now for extending the suffrages of the people and giving them a real foothold in the climb they have to make, step by step, to their particular summit of independence and liberty.
LORD OGMORE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I hope he does not suggest that I am not accepting the Amendment; and that includes the early and substantial extension of the franchise.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not thinking of that. What I am thinking of is the noble Lord's special word to the Government: that the Members of the House for whom he speaks to-day will be glad to co-operate even if they go only this far, or that far, or the other far. We want what is on the Paper; and I hope that, as he has given his generous assent to the movement of the Amendment, he will see the deeper and wider case we are putting to the House than that which he has already put on behalf of the Amendment.
I hope that, when we come to take the vote, we shall vote with our hearts as well as our minds. I am not at all sure where I would follow with all kinds of philosophy, such as religion and so on, the sort of conscience statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he said that when conscience is matched against reason, reason must prevail. I thank God for the Wilberforces and the William Knibbs and all those who have led the common people over the years against those who have been holding
278
them down by reason and not by conscience.
"He hath put down the mighty from their seats: and hath exalted the humble and meek.
"He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away."
That is the song of those who really hold to the full principle of human liberty.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: Before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him whether he has ever been to Nyasaland?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I could ask the noble Lord all sorts of questions of the lands he has been to. He has been to many; and so have I. I have not visited Nyasaland—
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: I thought so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: —but I know enough about the facts of life to understand the case that intelligent Africans put to us. Do you despise them?
4.27 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I follow four such distinguished and learned speeches as we have listened to this afternoon. I assure your Lordships that I shall not detain you long and I trust that you will feel that, although I am talking op a very wide aspect, it is to the point of the Amendment that we are debating. I am aware that, just as it is the duty of a Government to govern, so it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. But I would humbly submit that that dictum is valid only when we are discussing our own affairs. When the matter under discussion is the welfare of the millions of Africans and the very many Asians and Europeans who live in Central Africa, then it ill becomes us to indulge in the pleasure of squabbling among ourselves. I feel that this is additionally so because I do not think that there is any deep point of principle dividing the two sides of this House; and that feeling has been much brought home to me in listening to the speeches we have heard so far this afternoon. After all, surely the Leaders of both Parties have exactly the same aim: they want to see these territories, Northern Rhodesia and

279
Nyasaland, brought fruitfully and peacefully to progress towards the eventual aim of self-government. They want to see those countries developed to bring their natural resources to their optimum and to see that peace and tranquillity prevail within the borders of those countries and above all else, they want to see a truly multi-racial society built up in those territories.
There are bound to be grave difficulties arising from the differences between these territories, both political and economic. Indeed, to my mind it is the very fact of these differences that makes it so essential there should be a Federation that really does work. To take one example, in theory no one would wish to deny to Nyasaland the right of eventual self-government. But, in point of fact, can that country economically ever develop itself as a viable State? I feel sure that the Leaders of both Parties are most anxious to achieve conditions under which these territories do advance at once towards a political independence, and eventually have that as their aim and goal.
LORD REA: If the noble Duke will forgive me, he mentions these ideals as being of both Parties, with which I quite agree. But I think we ought to include the Conservative Party as well.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I thought the noble Lord was going to say that we must include the Liberals. What is vitally important in the development of these countries is that all races, European, African and Asian, should be adequately protected, and no one race should have undue advantage over any of the others. At the same time as the multi-racial society is developed, with goodwill and self-respect to each other, the rest should be built up, so that black may look to white and white to black for help and encouragement towards the achievement of what must be, if it is to be successful, a common aim. We cannot divorce the interests of one race from another in this problem.
I would repeat that the differences are those of degree and not of principle. There are differences as to how rapidly the rate of political advancement for the African should develop. But that is a matter of degree. There may be differences as to what safeguards should be
280
taken to see that the interests of the African are properly protected from being over-managed by the European. But again that is a matter of degree. It is not, after all, as if one side of the House wants to see a policy of apartheid, and the other side wants to see every European driven out of Central Africa. There is no basic difference of principle. Therefore I think we should be very ready to sink our Party differences so that those who live in these Territories may gain.
I am well aware that there are real difficulties in reconciling these Party differences, because people of genuine good faith and genuine integrity and ability do hold different views. But I think the goal is worth substantial sacrifices, because I feel that for these territories to have peace and progress it is essential that the political Parties in this country should agree. I can see no hope of any permanent settlement and permanent peace in Central Africa so long as there are differences of opinion in this House and another place.
After all, my Lords, let us look at it this way. Just as there are differences in this country, so are there grave differences between the factions in Central Africa, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Surely, those factions in the territories will argue like this. They will say: "There is a Conservative Government in Britain at this moment, and we do not like their plans for the development of our territories. But let us wait. Let us adopt the tactic of prevarication, causing difficulties. Let us do anything, in fact, so long as we do not agree to these proposals, because we do not like them. In four or five years' time there will be another Election, and possibly the Socialist Party will be elected to office." I personally do not subscribe to that view, but that is how the Africans may well argue. They will say: "So long as we prevent any permanent settlement from taking place now, there may be a change of Government in Britain and we shall have a Government whose ideas for our future we find much more acceptable." Four years go by, and there is another Election, and by some remarkable achievement the Socialists are elected. Those factions in Central Africa who do not agree with this present Government's point of view will adopt exactly the same tactics, and so ad

281
infinitum, while all the while feeling in the territories gets worse and worse; and the longer the delay there is in creating a permanent settlement, the less likely chance there is of that settlement ever being achieved.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask whether all that means that the noble Duke is prepared to enforce this Federation upon them? We do not want to force them either one way or the other. We want the African people to decide for themselves.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Very much the contrary. I am urging, to the best of my rather indifferent ability, a genuine wish to see a bipartisan policy for Central Africa which would require sacrifices from all sides.
Let us look at what the advantages would be if we could have a policy for Central Africa, for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, with all Parties subscribing to it. In Africa, just as in this country, no-one might think it ideal, but all political factions in the Central African Territories would realise that it was the best they could possibly hope for, because it was underwritten by all the Parties in this country. Once it was put over to them, as it would be very quickly, that they could not hope for anything better, no matter which Party in this country was in office, very soon a climate of opinion would be created in which all people who wished for the success of their country would sink their own differences and would work together for the successful conclusion of that policy. The example in this country, fashioned by all Parties, would soon be copied by the territories and all Parties there would support it, knowing that it was the best they could possibly hope for, and that if they did not work towards it they would be in a minority.
Before I close, I should like to say a word about the Conference which is to be held next year. Here we have a golden opportunity in which the blue print for the future of Central Africa may be written. We cannot afford to let that opportunity be wasted, because should that Conference fail then the opportunity may well not arise again. I say that, unless the British delegation to that Conference represents all views
282
and all Party opinions in this country, the value of the Conference will be seriously, if not disastrously, weakened.
Even more immediate is the question of the Commission to be presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley. This country's delegation to that Conference is to be eleven men. I think it is essential, if that Commission is properly to carry out its vital work in preparing the way for next year's Conference, that those delegates should represent all aspects of all British opinion in this country. Not only that: those delegates—as their leaders will, I hope, instruct them—must work out a common policy, so that when that Commission makes its Report there is not a Majority Report and a Minority Report. If that happens, then again, going back to the point I have already made, those in the Central African Territories who do not like the Majority Report will cling to the Minority Report and hope to get the Majority Report overruled at some future date.
Finally, I should like to refer to a point I made at the beginning of this speech, the great difference between squabbling about our own affairs and squabbling about affairs in which other people have a primary interest. In so far as Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are concerned, we in this country are in the position of parents or guardians of a growing child. I do not have to remind your Lordships of the disastrous effect upon that child if its parents are continually squabbling in its presence. It has an even worse effect if the cause of those squabbles should be in the child's own future career. I can only describe it as an extremely unbecoming sight to see these Houses, the Mother of Parliaments, continually squabbling about the future well-being of millions of Africans, large numbers of Asians and Europeans, for whom they are in the position of trustees. After all, the well-being of those people in those territories is the first charge on the conscience on the people of this country, whether they be Conservatives, Socialists or Liberals. Therefore I would ask the Leaders of both Parties, very humbly but very sincerely, to remember that they are statesmen rather than politicians, and to sink their differences so that future generations living in Central Africa will have every reason to be

283
thankful to them for the way in which they have been guided to nationhood.
4.40 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to offer a few comments on the Amendment before the House, I should like to say, to begin with, that I intend to confine my remarks entirely to the Amendment which is before the House. It is a great temptation, I know, to range more widely but I think time does not permit me. I would at the start say in a general way that I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, tended to exaggerate very much indeed what they were pleased to call the state of unrest in Central Africa and the lack of confidence which they stated was general in the British Government and the British people out there. I notice on the list of speakers that there are speakers with a more recent knowledge of Nyasaland than mine, and I will leave it to them to say how mistaken that view is. There was one other general point, and that was the idea that the time for this Conference and the Inquiry was not now and that it would be better to postpone it. I am confident that if half the things that noble Lords opposite say are true, the sooner this sort of Inquiry and Conference takes place the better, in order to dissolve the doubts which seems to be left, according to those noble Lords.
LORD SILKTN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, in view of the question which was asked my noble Leader and which I think ought to be asked of every speaker henceforth, when was the noble Lord last in Nyasaland?
LORD MILVERTON: Five years ago. I listened with intense interest to the speech of the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this House, and I appreciate that, holding the views that he does, he no doubt felt impelled to unload them at the earliest possible moment. Whether this is a suitable opportunity, and whether an Amendment to the humble Address to Her Majesty is really a suitable channel, is not a matter for me to say. I recognise the sincerity with which he speaks and I hope that nothing that I am about to say will be felt by him as impugning that sincerity. What I want to question very much indeed is the underlying idea in those speeches that
284
Protectorates should be governed from Westminster and that the moral responsibility of Parliament should be extended to executive control by a body totally unqualified to exercise that control. A state of emergency cannot be ended by mere words; nor can it be dissolved by just releasing the human causes of it. That, to my mind, would be a negation of government. I seems to me to be easy for the Opposition to slip into the fallacy that controls which are exercised by their Party when in office are a reasonable use of the power of government, but controls exercised by the Conservative Party when it happens to form a government are repressions. After all, there are fundamental principles of government which apply whichever Party may be in charge of national affairs, and there are controls which in the interests of law and order must apply if those forming a Government are not to betray the very foundations of authority itself.
The second part of the Amendment before the House contains a very questionable assumption. The kind of early and substantial extension of the franchise as envisaged by noble Lords opposite would be far more likely to ensure that the Governments of these Protectorates did not truly represent their people than that they would so represent them. I know that the noble Lord and his Party really believe, apparently, that Central Africa is peopled by millions of black Africans who have reached the same standard of enlightenment as the people in this country, who have the same standard of values and the same belief in freedom under the law. That, my Lords, is simply not true. Noble Lords opposite would, unwittingly no doubt, open the floodgates of every kind of intimidation from witchcraft to personal violence, and if they had their way they would find themselves in bewildered contemplation of the chaos they had created.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I suppose the noble Lord's answer is that it is quite right to exercise intimidation by locking up for months, without charge and without trial, the intelligent ones among them.
LORD MILVERTON: I appreciate the noble Viscount's comment, but it contains so many assumptions which I consider to be false that perhaps I should

285
be taking up too much of the time of the House in trying to answer them. These, at any rate, are my views, founded on some knowledge of Africa and of the practical importance of timing and education in applying the principles of Western democracy to people in whose past there has been so little practical experience of its meaning or its difficulties or of the training which only such experience can provide. I believe in freedom and high principles just as much as noble Lords opposite believe in them, but perhaps with more hard-won knowledge of the need for safeguards. I think I know that the greatest enemy of democracy is universal suffrage when it is applied to a people who have not yet the judgment and the knowledge and the education to use it for their own protection and for their own national interests.
May I go back to the superlative speech which was made in moving this Address by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings? He spoke, as has been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, already, in quoting it, of two distinct streams of thought and action which have influenced and guided our imperial policy over the last two hundred years, the one stream represented by soldiers and administrators, the maintainers of law and order, the supporters of economic development, as you will remember he said, and the other stream represented by the idealists and missionaries and champions of individual liberty and justice. If I may add my own gloss to this quotation, I would say that the first stream consists of men who have always had to work on the ground, dealing with facts and with human nature, whereas the others have only too often been men who live in the realm of abstract dreams, and who would apply principles regardless of the timing, circumstances or consequences.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, when he speaks of those who live in the realm of abstract dreams, those are the missionaries? He did refer to missionaries.
LORD MILVERTON: Yes, I did refer to missionaries. I think they are very appropriately named in that context. I think that only too often in recent times have missionaries trenched upon politics,
286
and they offer and preach policies which they have arrived at solely from their own high-minded point of view, without any knowledge of administration or of the facts of human nature which a Government have to take into consideration—at least, which Conservative Governments endeavour to take into consideration.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That sounds to me like the sort of attitude that the high priests adopted against the Master when they said:
"He stirreth up the people."
LORD MILVERTON: Well, perhaps noble Lords opposite will try to remember that the road to hell has always been said to be paved with good intentions.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is this road to hell being paved by the missionaries?
LORD MILVERTON: With the able assistance of the noble Viscount. Lord Hastings went on in his analysis to point our how sometimes the two streams have run parallel, have sometimes merged, but always quarrelled, and that their quarrels have formed the catalyst from which new policies emerge. Such a quarrel is in process to-day. I remember many years ago having a discussion in Ottawa with a leading Canadian civil servant about the difficulty of translating into practical human possibility some of the policies evolved by politicians in the vacuum of a perfection untrammelled by human frailty. He concluded by trying to reassure me, saying "After all, is it not one of our main functions to try to educate our masters?" I have spent a certain amount of my life in that kind of experience of trying to translate policies, founded on the highest principles, into practical human achievements.
My Lords, we agree on so much, even on the ultimate objective of self-government for the Colonies and their eventual independence. May I therefore, as an administrator myself, offer some criticism of the idealistic approach of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment? Surely, the franchise is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. The elector must be able to make an intelligent choice between the candidates soliciting his vote. That inevitably

287
involves the capacity to make an intelligent choice between the political programmes submitted by the candidates, including the question of whether or not they can be carried into effect. Surely the right policy is for the vote to be given to the greatest number of people who are able to exercise it rationally, while pressing on with the greatest energy towards educating the rest until they reach a similar standard. As I see it, that is the only hope for the emergent African States of to-day.
A Parliamentary vote is not a fundamental natural right in any country. It is, I suggest, a privilege of competent citizenship. In the course of dealing with this question some time ago in Salisbury, in an address to Africans, Sir Charles Cuming who, as your Lordships probably know, is a white African, born in Rhodesia, who has lived his life in Africa, which is his homeland—made these remarks:
"If universal suffrage were introduced in this country"—
that is, in Central Africa—
"the great bulk of the electors would not be able to vote rationally. The result of the poll would be no more sensible than if the candidates were to toss up for the seat. Indeed, it would be much worse, for leaving the election to pure chance would give the better candidate an even chance of success, but an election by an irrational electorate will ensure that the worst candidate gets in, the one who will go further in taking advantage of the ignorance of the electors in promising them the impossible or in rousing their passions for his own ends."
That brings me to another point. Anyone who knows Africa, and East and Central Africa in particular, knows that in their stage of political growth intimidation plays an important and highly objectionable part. Organised groups, such as the African Congress, bring pressure to bear on a voter to vote for their group by branding him as a traitor if he votes any other way; and, if he does so, he and his family live under constant threats of violent interference. That is not democracy; it is blackmail. In England, the principle of universal suffrage was not the foundation of our Parliamentary system. The franchise was extended to the people in this country as they reached the standards that we have laid down as necessary in theory for the proper exercise of the vote.
288
I do not think that anyone will deny that social, cultural and political progress must rest on a firm material basis. Dr. Banda and his associates maintain that it is better to be free than rich. It is easy to talk like that, especially when the price of such policy in poverty and stagnation is not going to be paid by the person who utters it. Too late the people who listen to that kind of talk will find that they have exchanged the guidance of Europeans and moderate Africans for indigenous oppression and will find that they have paid in poverty and stagnation for a spurious freedom which has undermined the last bulwark of their freedom.
My Lords, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, whose appraisal of the Central African situation has been stated with such brilliant clarity in recent speeches, has summed up in one sentence the main points. He says:
"The choice for Nyasaland and the African tribal areas, as a whole, is not between progress inside or outside the Federation, but between progress inside the Federation and stagnation and poverty outside."
I appreciate that beneath these simple generalisations there lies a most difficult and complex psychological problem, which ought also to be considered by us before we express any hasty opinions. Progress, the impact of Western civilisation and the undermining of the old tribal way of life, with all its familiar idleness and inefficiency, has left so many Africans adrift in a spiritual vacuum. With a vague unrest and a longing for the old traditional way of life they want also the material advantages of industrialisation and efficient agriculture, while inherently disliking the discipline and the regimentation which are the unavoidable concomitant of modern progress.
Dr. Banda and men like him have no wish to revive the old traditional way of life of the African, but they have a very lively appreciation of the motive power which lies behind this nostalgic regret for that life by the bulk of the people; and they have been very cleverly endeavouring to harness it to drive the chariot of racial nationalism to a destination of which their dupes—if I may call them "dupes"; their followers if your Lordships prefer the word—have no idea when they start on the journey. Doubt less these leaders think that it is better

289
to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven; but that should not be of any great influence in determining our policy. I think that any Governor or Government who released such men without some valid assurance that their activities would be confined to constitutional channels and exercised within the law would be false to their trust and their responsibilities.
If your Lordships will permit, I should like to make one final quotation from Mr. Oppenheimer which puts the situation very fairly and clearly. He says:
"The Rhodesias have comparatively large European populations with no other home. They are determined to stay in Southern Africa and to create conditions in which their children and grandchildren can stay there also. Any political approach which does not accept that fact is unrealistic and useless. Nyasaland is different from the other territories. It is an African country with a very small European population. The question there is not so much of building up a multi-racial country but rather of finding a fair way for an African territory to be associated with multi-racial territories in one political system. Whatever the material benefits of the association to Nyasaland, it is plainly not going to be workable unless the policy of partnership is honestly and intelligently implemented, not only by the Government but by individuals in the daily life of the two Rhodesias. It is not going to work either, unless African opinion and aspirations in each of the federated territories are fairly represented in the central Government. The question that must be answered is whether the Federal Government and Europeans in the Federation as a whole are sincere in the racial policy they profess. I am convinced they are. Criticism is easy, particularly for those without first-hand knowledge of the situation: but I think that any person with experience of conditions and prejudices in Southern Africa, and an understanding of the changes implicit in the racial situation, will give the Federal Government credit for a real desire to implement the racial partnership envisaged when the Federation was founded and for proceeding with courage and determination and as much speed as in the circumstances has been practical."
I, too, believe that the policy of partnership is being honestly held and carried into effect by Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues in the Federal Government. Common sense, patience and human sympathy are required, we know, from all sections in the Federation, and they are no less required here than there. To some of those who refuse to accept the integrity of the Federal Government I would say only that Christian charity was not only meant to be
290
reserved for black Africans alone. It should cover both black and white, and it is not too late, I hope, to remind the Church of Scotland of the old lines:
"Oh! for the rarity
Of Christian charity
Under the Sun,"
and respectfully to ask them to save a little for Sir Roy Welensky and the group of men who are so gallantly and so sincerely trying to build a new State on the principles of partnership which may yet be a model to the world. After all, the miracle is being achieved by Malays, Chinese and Indians in Malaya, and why should it not be achieved by Europeans, Africans and Asiatics in Central Africa?
I should like to make this appeal to noble Lords opposite. It is no use murmuring with Omar Khayyam:
"Ah Love! couldst thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits—and then
Remould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"
I have no doubt that noble Lords would find it easy to shatter it to bits, but I am equally convinced that if they proceeded with that method they would find it impossible to rebuild. I would also ask noble Lords opposite to consider whether acceptance of the conditions laid down by noble Lords in their speeches to-day would not prejudge and prejudice the unfettered study of the problems by the Commission under the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley. Why cannot the Party opposite, having made clear their apprehensions, assist in the appointment of men who will apply a keen intelligence to the study and perhaps be instrumental in handing down to history a model of what real co-operation, good will and partnership can achieve?
The cry is: "Come over into Central Africa and help us!" Will noble Lords refuse such an appeal and such a chance to make an outstanding contribution not only to Central Africa but also to the progress of mankind? Posterity, white and black, would not easily forgive the unconscious saboteurs of their salvation whose refusal, for however lofty motives, inevitably would hamper the search for means to ensure the racial peace and

291
partnership without which this Land of Promise can never fulfil its name. I hope, for the reasons I have given, that noble Lords will have second thoughts about pressing this Amendment to a Division.
5.9 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to rise to support the Amendment to the humble Address that has been moved this afternoon, and I do so without any word of apology to the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who felt that on an occasion of this kind it was not the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I do not rise in a spirit of opposition to Her Majesty's Government, I rise because the state of affairs as portrayed in the words of our Amendment is totally repugnant to members of my Party and, I believe, to the majority of the people of this country. I think Her Majesty's Government would be very wrong to believe that, because they have obtained an increased majority in another place, the country is satisfied with the management of affairs in Africa. I found throughout the Election a very deep concern for African affairs, not only for what was going on in Nyasaland and what went on at Hola, but for what, unfortunately, is going on throughout Africa. We have reports of trouble in the Belgian Congo; we have trouble in French Africa. My Lords, I believe that there is an explosive atmosphere throughout Africa, and that unless there is a safety valve Africa will explode; and that will bring great trouble not only to Europe but also in Asia.
We have had two speeches this afternoon from ex-members of the Labour Party. We had the speech of my noble friend Lord Ogmore. I thought it was a remarkable speech, an instructive speech, and I would earnestly beg the Government to consider all the points that he raised, because they are so very important for the welfare of Africa. Then we had a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I found his speech truly remarkable, coming from a man who at one time sat on these Benches. He sat on these Benches, after a long and distinguished career in the Colonies, and now we have a speech for all that we on this side of the House have always believed in no longer existing. He seemed to imply that those who have made our Commonwealth are
292
the administrators and not the intellectuals, the men of conscience—
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he intend to imply that an administrator may not be a man of culture?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rather gathered so from the noble Lord's speech. I would pay great tribute to the administrators, but I should very much like to be associated with the name of Wilberforce, the man who fought against slavery, the biggest blight on the white man's history, a history that the Africans still remember and resent.
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Silkin and Lord Alexander of Hillsborough fully satisfied me in the case they made against the Government this afternoon. I do not propose to go over that ground again. As one who has lived in two Colonies that are now multiracial societies, I should like to make an appeal to the white settlers and the African leaders in Africa, for I firmly believe that the society we want in Africa will not be achieved by any speeches that are made in your Lordships' House or in another place. In fact, I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government themselves will have a great effect. If there is to be peace, if there are to be prosperity and understanding in Africa, it will depend upon the white settler and the African leader. If I appear to stress my appeal more to the white settlers it is not because I believe there is greater blame on their shoulders for the misunderstandings, the bitterness, that now exist, but because it is they who will have to make the greatest gesture if the true multi-racial society is to be achieved.
The white settler has tremendous advantages: he can acquire great wealth; he can have a standard which he would never get, or would be very unlikely to get, in this country. Therefore it is natural that he should be reluctant to agree to any change that will weaken his position. We had that feeling in Asia; we had it in India; we had it in Malaya; we had it in Singapore. But there, my Lords, the Englishman has adjusted himself and is now happily living side by side with the natives of the country. But the story is not the

293
same in Indo-China; it is not the same in Indonesia, for the simple reason that the settlers, the Europeans of those countries, will not adapt themselves, will not concede to the native. I hope that in Africa the white settler will learn the lesson, for he can make or mar the future of his country. To the African leader I would say this: "You have a very great responsibility; you have probably suffered slights, perhaps innocent slights, which have created bitterness in your heart, but you have a lot to receive and gain from the European settler and from Europe with all its manufacturing capacity."
It is these people, my Lords, men and women, white and coloured, who can make the Federation. It is these people who can create peace in Africa. If the House would endorse my words we could send a message to our own people in Africa to draw their attention to their responsibilities and their dangers. If they are prepared to concede some of their privileges, some of their opportunities, to the African, we shall then be able to create, in the not too far distant future, the kind of society that we now see building up in India and Malaya, a society which will be instrumental in bringing peace in their part of the world.
5.20 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I do not think that the people of Nyasaland can complain that Nyasaland has not been debated in the Palace of Westminster, when on nine consecutive Parliamentary days, with the Recess intervening, Nyasaland has been discussed four times either in this House or in another place. I very much enjoyed the third maiden speech of Lord Ogmore, as indeed I enjoyed the other two. I do not know whether his immunity lessens as the number of his maiden speeches extends. He made one or two strange comparisons.
There are many other speakers coming after me, and I will detain your Lordships only for a few minutes, for I want to make one point, and one point only. Before I get to that, though, may I say that we have heard two very eloquent appeals from both sides of the House. The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, appealed for us to abandon our electioneering attitude to the problems
294
of Africa; and there was the appeal from the noble Lord who has just sat down, addressed not to those of us in this House but to the white settlers and their principal opponents on the other side of the African Apartheid coin, the African politicians. I can associate myself with both.
I am sorry that when we come to the fourth discussion on Nyasaland it should be on a Vote of Censure, and everyone knows what the wording of the Amendment is. In fact, we are censured because
"the gracious Speech contains no proposals for ending the state of emergency in Nyasaland."
Every Government, much to its regret, has had, at one time or another, to impose a state of emergency. It surely goes without saying that it ends that state of emergency as soon as it can. There is not one of us in this House, in any Party, who would wish to prolong it a day longer than is necessary. But it is on the responsibility of one man—the Governor, who, more than any other one man in that territory, is responsible for the preservation of life and order. It is suggested in some quarters that if we were to release Dr. Banda it would be a great act of faith. An act of faith is a rather better name for what one might call a gamble. And what would the Governor be gambling with? The lives of the men over whom he presides as Governor. If he felt there were no grounds for releasing Dr. Banda, would a man of conscience or integrity feel that he could take that gamble? My Lords, I will leave that subject.
Just before I get to my one short point, I should like to say a word about secession, which was mentioned just in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and which is frequently mentioned by publicists who write and speak about this matter in Britain. My Lords, when they framed those two pre-eminently successful Federations of Canada and Australia (which will probably, consciously or subconsciously, act as a model for any later Federation) they quite deliberately did not write in the right to secede. Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada, who framed this so far as Canada was concerned, was criticised for this, as Nova Scotia, you remember, had federation imposed on them. He said, "No, if you write into

295
the Constitution that there is a right to secede, it "—he was referring to Nova Scotia—" will live in a perpetual state of tumult and electioneering, and never will the Federation settle down and never will it succeed".
In Nyasaland, on top of the other difficulties, they have the troubles which always attend a country which is heavily over-populated. Malta suffers in precisely the same way; Barbados, Mauritius, and part of Nigeria all feel the same strain. If Nyasaland were to secede, she would fall to a degree of impoverishment which would arrest not only any kind of partnership but any kind of progress, as I see it. She would be dependent for her minimum needs on monies provided by the United Kingdom; and, great as is our will in this matter, and prosperous as we now are, our purse is not bottomless.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, "Well, if there are too few educated people in that country to set up a Government, whose fault is that? It is Britain's. We did not educate enough". That may be so; but, as I have said, with the calls on our purse during the last forty or fifty years we could not do everything. Now, as a result of the funds made available by the Federation, three times as much is being spent on education. It is a rather slow pipeline to fill. As your Lordships consider at what age one first started to get educated, compared with the age one set out on the world fully educated, it is not a matter of just one year or two. Then, you must, after all, choose your Government from a pool of educated men, and not from just a handful. An African speaking in London last July, talking about the Federation, of which he happened to be in favour (he was an African from Central Africa), said that in Nyasaland there were, I think, two doctors, one lawyer, and a handful of men with university degrees. My Lords, far and away the most important economic result of the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has been that funds are available to press on to produce these educated men whom they must have in order to form that Government which we all want to see them have. Otherwise, my Lords, what do you have? You may have some kind
296
of an autonomous Government of Nyasaland; the Government of the mud hut, below the intimidation level.
It is worth while looking around the world to see the interplay between politics and economics. If there is a clash between the two, politics will nearly always win. There are various countries in the world which are very highly furnished with national resources—Canada is one, and Australia is another—and they have made a great success of that; but that blessing was a rugged blessing, and they had to work hard to win those resources. One could point out a number of other countries in the world who were much more richly blessed in resources, having regard to the difference in size and the difference in population, whose subjects live in abject poverty because their economics have been bedevilled by their politics. These days, you cannot leave out the creditworthiness of a nation, and uness you are a Government which is regarded as stable you will not attract foreign monies. You have only to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, warned us of, that paper independence, independence without liberty, is not freedom. We cannot conceive of a democratic Government which does not embody the one real safeguard of democracy as we see it: government by respect for the other man's point of view.
Now Africa has been traditionally a continent of conquerors, and the conqueror has left his defeated foe on the ground and has seen that he stays there. There is no tradition of Opposition. Gradually, I believe, we are going to build one up. Already we see hopeful signs in Kenya, which has been at this process rather longer; but it is not a natural process. If you look at Liberia, you will see that the ruling Party, the True Whig Party, has been in power since 1877, so it does not look as if the Opposition there has had very much of a chance.
My Lords, this is my point, which I come to after some labour, regarding multi-racial governments. We have heard an eloquent plea from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and we have heard already a great deal which is interesting on this subject, but multi-racial government is nothing if it is not a just balance, and my plea is for a cool analysis of what amounts to a just Government. We in this House reject at one and the same

297
time both sides of the medal, of white domination and all-out black nationalism. We do, I think, realise why these things grow up, and it helps us to understand them, but we reject both. The whole pool is becoming harder to see into by the odd colours of black Africans and white Europeans beginning to merge.
I had a friend of about my age, who died last year, who was the son of a man who had entered Rhodesia, in the wake of the pioneer column. He had been educated in South Africa and become a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and gone out with the Colonial Service, and had only once left Africa again. What was that man if he was not an African? Many men have risen to positions of great responsibility in this country, when they themselves and their families have spent no longer in Britain than that man and his family had lived in Africa. I know one of the leading citizens in Tanganyika, who sits on the Legislative Council, whose family came from what is now Pakistan to Zanzibar, and thence to Tanganyika, in 1823. What is that man if he is not an African?
All these races have undoubted rights, but the two things they need is fairness under the law, and the fairness of the judgment of a man by merit and by no other consideration. If a job under the Government calls for education and experience, it must go to the man who has these, regardless of what colour he may be. Because many young Africans have got themselves educated, and have expected to be given jobs above their experience, they have doubts of what we really mean by partnership. Self-government does not grow from the ground. It is taking over a strong framework of government that we have built, and that framework is strong only if every man in the Administration is there by merit and by merit alone.
In the last few years we have seen to what heights Africans can aspire. Many of your Lordships besides myself will have known Sir William Coussey, Chief Tchekedi—who, although he had his political ups-and-downs, was undoubtedly the greatest expert on cattle in Southern Africa—and will have been extremely pleased to see a few weeks ago that it was announced that the first black African has won a Fellowship at All
298
Souls. That is a very difficult examination to pass—it completely shattered the only two members of my family who have tried. The college maintain their standards, regardless of who the candidate may be. If they were to lower them for anybody they would depreciate the whole standing of an All Souls Fellowship for those who hold them, and confer no great honour on the man they are admitting.
We are beginning to see some breakthrough on this question of merit alone. I see that African farmers who can prove that they are good farmers are being allowed into the White Highlands of Kenya. We must keep our eyes firmly on the standard of merit alone, and never subjugate it to considerations of race. If we are to remove these suspicions in the Federation, which we know to be groundless, we must realise that what is important is the differences which cause these suspicions and frictions between us. It is remarking the similarities and forgetting the differences that is responsible for much of the friction between us and the U.S.A. My Lords, I have been long in making what I said as a short point. May I repeat these words which Mr. Vincent Massey used about Canada, but which I think apply equally to what we are all trying to do in multi-racial Africa:
"Canada,"
he said
"is not a melting pot"
but
"an association of peoples who have and cherish great differences but who work together because they respect themselves and each other."
5.35 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence if in my opening remarks I stray somewhat from the specific terms of the Amendment; but I do so in the hope that thereby I may add a little to the background of knowledge of Nyasaland. I lay no claim to being an authority on this country, but I have been there on several occasions. In a sense I have lived with some of its problems for forty years, for the company which I serve have had their own organisation there, and I have kept in close touch with our people. We employ a great many Africans, both in Nyasaland

299
and in Southern Rhodesia. We have housed them, and we have given primary education to their children.
I was in Southern Rhodesia when the Devlin Report was published, and, more relevantly perhaps to this debate, I was in Nyasaland shortly after that, just two months ago. I should like to give your Lordships the impressions I gained. I may say that I have talked to our own Africans in our factories and villages, with other Africans in their villages and with some of the chiefs and their councillors, but in all these conversations, of course, I laboured under the disadvantage of having to talk through an interpreter, as I cannot speak Chinyanja. I have many friends who have lived there for many years and know the language, who understand the Africans and sympathise with them and want to help them, and on whose judgment I can confidently rely. It is on my observations and on these conversations that I base the impressions which I give to your Lordships, with a full sense of responsibility and without prejudice.
In the first place, I gained the impression that the people out there felt that the actual handling of the emergency by the Government on March 3 was astonishingly good: the marvel was that that very dangerous situation was brought under control with so few casualties and so little damage. I am sure that there is no Member of your Lordships' House who has had experience of dealing with that kind of situation who would not agree that had the action been less firm, the casualties and damage would have been much greater. The Governor's own despatch in relation to the Devlin Report was a complete answer, I think, to the accusation that had action been taken sooner the casualties would have been fewer. To have taken action sooner would have been to risk failure. In the second place, I had many evidences of the Governor's personal popularity among Africans and non-Africans alike after the emergency. The feeling of the great majority of Africans when I was there was clearly one of relief from tension. There had undoubtedly been a great deal of intimidation and of wild talk, amounting to incitement to violence, and threats of dire consequences to Africans, their families and homes if hesitation was
300
shown in resorting to violence. The majority were reluctant to resort to violence.
For the most part these people are, in a political sense, children. It is only a very small percentage who have any understanding of what federation means. Although it has been consistently drummed into many of them by Congress leaders that federation is a bad thing—and, regrettably, for reasons we all know, there was little positive assurance from those whom they were accustomed to trust that federation was a good thing—very few, as yet, have any conscious or rational view about federation. Their emotions can be easily stirred even to the point of fanaticism by those who know how to play on them. Yet there were many this last spring who feared the consequences of violence and instinctively distrusted those who sought to lead them along that road. Consequently, when the nettle was grasped and law and order were restored, there was a widespread feeling of relief and a feeling of admiration for, and gratitude to, the Governor himself.
I should be misleading your Lordships House if I gave the impression that such a feeling was universal, and that those who sympathised with Congress and subscribed to its views had changed their beliefs; but what I am saying was undoubtedly the prevailing feeling in the Southern Province, and I believe that to a large extent it was shared by the people in the Central and Northern Provinces. The last thing I should wish to do is to revive controversy about some of the events recorded and commented upon in the Devlin Report, but I would suggest to anyone who would like to know more of the aims and the methods of the African National Congress, and who has not yet read these documents, that he would do well to read the Beadle Report and the Ridley Report. These Reports have had little reference in the British Press. The Beadle Report was a Report of a Review Tribunal, under the chairmanship of the Acting Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia, to inquire into the activities of the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress and the justification for detention. That Tribunal had the power to examine and cross-examine, and some of the more important examinations and cross-examinations are reproduced verbatim in the

301
Appendix. The Ridley Report was a Report of a Commission set up by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to inquire into the circumstances which gave rise to the emergency regulations there and, in particular, the activities of the Zambia African National Congress. Both these Reports are very illuminating. In all three territories of the Federation it is established beyond doubt that the slogan was, "Self-government now"; and violent action to secure it was advocated.
Independence for Nyasaland now or in the near future is an economic nonsense and a grave political risk. Secession—if I may use the word in the sense in which the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, used it—may, as an idea, be held to be a legitimate objective. But until Nyasaland can, in an economic sense, stand on her own feet—and that is not yet—secession would have nothing to commend it as an alternative to remaining within the Federation under the specific assurances which have already been given by Her Majesty's Government, to the effect, first, that Protectorate status will not be withdrawn unless the people of the country show by their own free and unfettered choice that they want it withdrawn; and secondly, that an increasing measure of what they term home rule within the Federation will be given. If this debate results in a reaffirmation, in effect, of those assurances, it will serve a useful purpose.
Nyasaland is a poor country in a material sense. Numerous surveys have failed to disclose mineral deposits of any great significance; not much of the land is of high fertility; much of what is cultivated is not cultivated well; and, as is now well known, much of the political agitator's work recently has been to encourage resistance to the adoption of modern scientific methods of agriculture. Yet there are signs of progress. There are signs of the emerging of a class of master farmers, Africans with a kind of tenancy over ten acres or more, enabling them to employ other Africans and farm more scientifically—a development which is not easy to arrange within the tribal system; but here and there ways and means are being found.
There is some increase in industrialisation in the Southern Province, but it is handicapped by the low purchasing power of the country and by the high
302
cost of power and so forth. Economic assistance from outside is vital. Under federation, as we all know, Nyasaland receives by way of a subsidy from the Rhodesias a sum amounting to one-third of its total revenue; and under federation a great deal has been done in Nyasaland to improve communications, build hospitals, extend educational facilities and so forth. But there is room for more, and I hope that schemes such as the Nkula Falls hydro-electric project and the Polder Scheme, on the lower Shire, may come to fruition. They are both under active consideration now. The report of the civil engineers examining the practicalities of the hydroelectric scheme is due this month. Incidentally, electricity in the township of Blantyre Limbe is generated from coal which is hauled by rail from Wankie, 1,000 miles away. Such schemes, if approved by the experts, may well qualify for grants from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund or for Exchequer grants, to both of which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor referred last week; and they and others, perhaps, may also be helped by the Colonial Development Corporation.
These things take time to produce an impact on the economy of the country, but their being started can be a great encouragement to a country that badly needs it, and needs it now. At the best, only a very small proportion of the African population—and I imagine that this applies to some extent also to Northern Rhodesia—can be industrialised in the near future. And in both territories political evolution is confronted by the necessity to find a solution to this terribly difficult problem of adjustment between the tribal system and industrialisation. It is natural that the tribal African should be attached to his traditional way of life and should wish to preserve it; yet politically conscious Africans, who will rapidly become more numerous as education spreads, want their people, and quite rightly, to share in the benefits of industrialisation. I have heard it said that the chief need of Africans in that country is not advancement in politics or advancement in industry, but more food. Well, these things are not mutually exclusive and I think there is some truth in that statement. But even the production of

303
more food in Nyasaland requires the adoption of modern scientific methods of agriculture, which as we know are not easy to harmonise with the traditional African way of life. Yet I believe that, with good will, patience and understanding, these things can be done and a sure foundation for the future built. Unfortunately, these qualities of good will, patience and understanding are not those which predominantly seem to characterise the leaders of the African National Congress.
My Lords, I trust that these general remarks may help to fill in some of the background against which the Amendment may be considered. On the specific points of the Amendment, I believe that we should place great reliance on, and give evidence of, our trust in the judgment of those on the spot who are primarily carrying the responsibility. Sir Robert Armitage is a humane man; he has shown that he is not weak. He is, I am sure, fully aware of the risks involved in making martyrs out of these people who are still in detention. He has had, as we have heard, over 60 per cent. already released, and he has said that he will release others as soon as he can consistently with the maintenance of law and order. Nothing could do more in Nyasaland to impede real progress than a recurrence of disorder. Assurance to the people of that country that intimidation will not be tolerated, and that order will be preserved, is vital. And we have heard of the dreadful experience of the Reverend Andrew Kariya at Karonga, whose house was burned down so very recently.
As regards representation of the Africans, we know that Sir Robert Armitage has increased African representation on the Legislative Council, and that now, for the first time, Africans are in the majority among the unofficial members. We have also heard that he has added two Africans to the Executive Council. What has not, I think, been mentioned this afternoon, is that those two Africans on the Executive Council are attached to two branches of the Secretariat so that they may gain day-to-day experience of the machinery of government. The extension of the franchise is something that has to be done gradually. It surely would be quite unrealistic sud-
304
denly, and because of the imminence of the 1960 Conference, to impose the system of a highly civilised country on a territory that is still, to a large extent, primitive. But the determination to assist the African in every possible way to attain standards on which the privilege and responsibility of the franchise can be soundly based is, in my firm belief, there.
Against that background I do not regret that the gracious Speech contains no references of the kind specified in the Amendment. I hope the Government will give the greatest possible latitude and encouragement to those in authority on the spot to continue to deal with the situation and to develop their own proposals for the extension of the franchise under practical and realistic conditions. The principles underlying the Amendment can be readily appreciated in a well-established democracy. But might it not have been the precipitate or unrealistic application of principles that was in Lord Melbourne's mind when, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, reminded us last week, he said that nobody ever did anything very foolish except from some very high principle?
I submit that what is needed in Nyasaland to-day is practical progress, the securing of a sound material and economic basis on which political advancement with the active co-operation of qualified Africans can be attained. I hope that in years to come this debate, in spite of one or two things that have been said earlier this afternoon, and the debate in another place yesterday, may be seen as the first signs of a bipartisan approach to this problem—an approach, as I see it, which is vital to the future of the Commonwealth. I also hope, if I may say so, that it may be followed by a clear indication from all Parties that they are prepared to co-operate to the full in the work of the Advisory Commission. So, paradoxically, I am glad that this Amendment was put down, though I do not propose to vote for it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, on Wednesday last I raised the question of a Mr. Mwenya, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was good enough to say that the Lord Chancellor would deal with it to-day. Therefore, the wisest thing for me to do is to listen to what the Lord Chancellor has to say and then, if I wish to make any comment, with your Lordships' permission make it then.
5.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am happy, of course, to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, and I hope your Lordships will not hold it against me that I am making a speech to-day. I am simply going to give a factual account of what happened. In September, 1956, the then Acting Governor of Northern Rhodesia proclaimed a state of emergency in the Western Province of Northern Rhodesia, and promulgated Emergency Regulations under which the Governor had power, in certain circumstances, to detain persons without trial. Almost immediately a number of persons, including Mwenya, were arrested and detained in accordance with orders made by the Provincial Commissioner of the Western Province. Subsequently, an application for writs of habeas corpus was made to the High Court of Northern Rhodesia in respect of 54 detainees, including Mwenya. The application was successful because there was a technical fault in the delegation by the Acting Governor to the Provincial Commissioner of the Western Province of the power to make detention orders. The 54 applicants and all other detainees were released. But the Governor immediately made orders under the Emergency Regulations in the cases of the majority of the released detainees restricting them to various parts of the Protectorate outside the Western Province.
These measures enabled the situation in the Copper Belt in the Western Province to return almost to normal, except for the fact that, unless the restricted persons were prevented from returning to the Copper Belt, disturbances might be expected again. Therefore the Emergency Transitional Provisions Ordinance of 1956 was passed by the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council, which made provision regarding persons in detention or subject to restriction orders on the day on which the Emergency Regulations which I have mentioned might be revoked. The effect of the provisions of this Ordinance was that such detention or restriction orders would remain in force for a specified period by virtue of the new Ordinance.
Then there were these provisions for the review of the position of the detainees. First, that a Commissioner
306
would be appointed to examine each case; secondly, that the Government might make orders for the further restriction of such persons after having examined each case individually in the light of the report of the Commissioner; thirdly, that each case of further restriction would be reviewed by the Commissioner after six months; and fourthly, that the Ordinance would cease to have effect at the end of 1957 unless extended by the Legislative Council. The Ordinance was extended and is in force today. On January 1, 1957, the emergency procedures were revoked. The procedures under the new Ordinance were followed and Mwenya was one of those who remained under restriction; and although the details of the restriction have been altered by subsequent orders, the restriction remained until it was revoked by the Government on October 20, 1959.
In May, 1959, an application was made on behalf of Mwenya to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in London for a writ of habeas corpus. The main ground of the application was that the Emergency Powers Order in Council of 1939, relying on which the Acting Governor of Northern Rhodesia had made the Emergency Regulations in 1956, had not been published in compliance with the Rules of Publication Act, 1893, and was therefore invalid. I do not say anything about the merits of that or its legal power. That, in fact, was the ground, and the argument was that there was therefore no valid restriction when the Emergency Regulations were revoked to attract the provisions of the Transitional Provisions Ordinance of 1956, and therefore that the restriction was unlawful.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application against the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and the district commissioner on the ground, taken as a preliminary point, that the Court had no power to issue a writ to a Protectorate, which Northern Rhodesia is, and against the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the ground that he was not the custodian of the body of Andrew Mwenya. The decision of the Divisional Court was taken to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision but decided only that a writ might issue to a Protectorate in certain circumstances—I

307
quote my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls—
"If upon proper investigation of the facts it appears that the internal government of Northern Rhodesia is in legal effect indistinguishable from that of a British colony or country acquired by conquest …"
then he, the Master of the Rolls, can see no reason for denying jurisdiction. The Court did not decide that the writ could be issued in this particular case or even in any case to Northern Rhodesia.
Before the order of the Court of Appeal was drawn up, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia revoked the order against Mwenya because it was no longer necessary on the ground of public security. His action was in no way the result of the judgment of the Court. For similar reasons he had revoked the order against eighteen other persons before revoking the order against Mwenya, and in those circumstances on the 26th October the Court of Appeal made an order staying all further proceedings in the matter except in so far as might be necessary for the enforcement of the order as to costs.
The noble Viscount was therefore wrong in three respects—and I do not blame him at all, because the noble Viscount can see how much research I have had to do myself in order to satisfy him. The Court of Appeal did not decide that the Government had no power to do what they had been doing or that Mwenya must be released. Secondly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal had nothing to do with the eighteen other cases; and thirdly, the Attorney-General agreed that proceedings should be stayed merely because with the release of Mwenya the cause of action fell to the ground. I hope that the noble Viscount will realise that I have done my best to satisfy him and have given him the facts as I know them.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and I shall study and read to the best of my amateur ability what he has said. What I gather as a layman is this: that nineteen people were in fact detained since 1956, and in the end it appeared that the Government had no right to do that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wanted to make it clear that the Court of Appeal never decided that the Government were wrong in detaining these people. All the Court of Appeal said was that in certain circumstances a writ of habeas corpus could issue to a Protectorate. They never went beyond that. Neither the point of law nor the merits of this case have ever been pronounced upon by the Court of Appeal.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: By haw, coincidence, the emergency disappeared at the same time that the Court was about to say that a writ of habeas corpus may be issued. The second point is that it appears—I am speaking as an ignorant layman—that the Government of Northern Rhodesia claimed that in some parts of Her Majesty's Dominions it was impossible for one of Her Majesty's subjects to procure a writ of habeas corpus.
6.6 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I rise to make the last speech from this side of the House before the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, exercises his right of reply. The case for the Amendment has been put so well by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—and I know the old hands on this side will agree that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was particularly effective—and also, if I may say so, by my old friend Lord Ogmore, that it might be thought a mere formality for me to add a few words. They will not be many words, I can assure the House.
We should perhaps once again take note of the departure from his high office since we last debated these matters of the right honourable gentleman Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd, and certainly, whatever may be thought about the controversial aspects of his policy, we are all at one in saluting a Colonial Secretary who gave himself without stint to his duties over a number of troubled years. I know well that he was someone who set his political conscience above his own personal predilections. I have seen him little in recent years, but he was one of my oldest friends.
I remember that ten years ago he found it necessary to take a strong initiative in seeking to remove me immediately

309
from office because I had set aside the findings of a tribunal which inquired into an air crash. I remember, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has every reason to remember, too, the language that was used in another place on that occasion. Mr. Lennox-Boyd said, "There was the tribunal. It's findings have been overruled. That is the gravamen of our charge." He was supported on the highest legal grounds—the argument did not prevail there—by the noble and learned Viscount who looks after us in kindly fashion now as Lord Chancellor and who was then a leading spokesman on these matters in another place. He said, "We believe that the Minister should accept the findings unless he believes they have been made on no evidence at all." That was the doctrine expounded by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Lennox-Boyd and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I must say that they have learned from my example—if you like, my infamous example. Whereas I overruled a single eminent Q.C., Mr. Lennox-Boyd has set aside a judge of the highest standing and a strong tribunal. Therefore I feel that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would not actually stand up on the language he used ten years ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I want only to round off the story. Was that the occasion which convinced the noble Lord that he had been wrong all his life up to that time in thinking that the fox really enjoyed being chased?
LORD PAKENHAM: It is very kind of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to remember a joke of mine for ten years. Most of them, if they are tolerable at all, are forgotten after ten minutes, and I take it as a kindly gesture that the noble and learned Viscount remembers. I am sure the right honourable gentleman Mr. Lennox-Boyd will be glad to think that I followed his example before he left office in calling for his removal at the end of the last Session. Friendship has been maintained all round and I have the highest regard for Mr. Lennox-Boyd, as has everybody who knows him.
We have now a new Colonial Secretary. Unlike Mr. Lennox-Boyd he is not known to me, but I have been trying to find out a little about him. It is always well to examine a man's written words. He is the author of a book called Bridge is an
310
Easy Game. I hope that he does not think the same about Colonial statesmanship, because if he does, I think he may run into difficulties. But there in that book, towards the close, he uses this expression:
"It is in the end game that most of the big fish are finally landed."
Let us hope that before he leaves office he will land some very big fish, in the sense that he may pull off some quite big achievements. But earlier he warns us, as students of the game:
"Very rarely is it possible later to retrieve the consequences of a thoroughly bad opening bid."
I am not saying that the new Colonial Secretary has made a bad opening bid. I think on the whole he has made a promising bid; perhaps what he would call in his book "a light hid". At any rate, he made a good entry yesterday, although I am afraid his colleagues have dealt him a bad hand and it will need all his skill at bridge to secure the results that he has, and indeed in a sense we all have, in mind. We all certainly wish him well in his office.
We differ on certain points that have already been made plain by the authoritative speakers from this side, and before I conclude—I shall not be very long—the House will forgive me for just touching on them briefly again. In the first place, we criticise the composition of the Monckton Commission, though not its Chairman. I do not think that anywhere in this country there would be a voice raised against the Chairman. I do not say that merely because he is the chairman of a clearing bank—we do not stand together to that extent—but he has other great claims to distinction, and we all, on this side in particular, remember his remarkably humane, unbiased and tireless work as Minister of Labour. We admire the Chairman, but, for the reasons instanced, we are not at all happy about the composition in so far as it has been unfolded. We say that the leaders of African opinion should either be members or that they should, at any rate, be given the chance, as free men, to make representations. We do not say that that alone would be sufficient, because if they were not members we would insist, in any case, that any Africans who were members—of course there should be African representation—should be of a kind that the actual leaders of African opinion would regard as representative.

311
We say also that the Commission should be free to consider alternative solutions to federation. That question was pressed in another place yesterday. I do not think that we can blame the new Colonial Secretary for the type of answer he gave. He said he would look into the point and would be ready to discuss it with leaders of the Opposition. But that is a point to which we on this side attach great importance. Until the points that I have mentioned, and no doubt others, are cleared up, it is impossible for noble Lords on this side, and for the Opposition generally, to say whether they will or will not participate in the work of this Commission.
On general grounds, of course, we wish to participate. We are anxious—as anxious as any noble Lords or any men in public life—that the Commission should be a success; but we cannot, in spite of the argument submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I think it would be most unreasonable to expect us in the Opposition—say that we will participate in the Commission until we have attained at least a considerable measure of satisfaction on these disputed points.
However, it is not exactly those points to which the Amendment calls attention. As has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, there must be an immediate and speedy constitutional advance inside the territories, that if possible it should take place before the Constitutional Conference planned for 1960, and if that timetable cannot be kept to, then the Constitutional Conference should be postponed. Otherwise, we do not believe that there is any real chance of restoring African confidence. I think everybody here, in his different way, recognises, as did The Times newspaper in an important article yesterday, the need for restoring this confidence if disaster is to be avoided.
We say also—my leaders have said it this afternoon more than once—that those who are at present detained should be released or, where that is thought to be impossible, at least should be charged. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, but I followed his argument with close attention. I will not reply to it as I do not think he is in the
312
Chamber. We say that the Police State—a State at any rate described by one of Her Majesty's most distinguished Judges as a Police State—should be ended much more promptly in Nyasaland than now seems at all likely. I say "than now seems at all likely" in spite of the more progressive attitude which the new Colonial Secretary appears to be showing, and naturally we hope that we are rather pessimistic in regard to the intentions of the Government. We hope that in fact the Government intend to do better in this respect than we suppose.
My Lords, I do not intend to be very long, but when we draw close to a Division I think it is right that no one in this House—particularly noble Lords who have not heard all the earlier speeches—should be under any misapprehension as to where we stand in regard to principle. We do not say—I do not think it has been argued against us this afternoon in this House, although I am afraid it is of ten brought up elsewhere—that Britain is always wrong. We decline to put ourselves in the position of being professional enemies of this country. We do not say that the white man is always wrong and the black man always right. We refuse to accept any such label attached to us. We recognise the immense responsibilities that the Government carry, particularly in this House, where the Leader has been so tireless in pursuing the objectives we all have in mind, and we recognise the great complexity and delicacy of their tasks.
But there are certain positive principles on which we take our stand. We say, as our leading spokesman yesterday said in another place, that justice in Central Africa should be the same as justice in Britain; that anything approaching a colour bar is utterly evil; that the soul of each African is of the same infinite value as that of each white man, and that he should be treated accordingly. We do not say that human nature is perfectable here below, but we do believe in the vast possibilities of development contained in all human beings and in all races, and we believe that each people must in time be given the chance to govern itself.
We cannot say—perhaps it would be an impertinence to say, when there is a new Colonial Secretary—how far these principles are accepted, even in theory, as an aspiration by noble Lords opposite.

313
Certainly these principles have often been denied in practice, even by those who are, I am sure, completely sincere in preaching the ideal of multi-racial partnership. I remember that when we were debating Hola in the summer, or rather after that debate, several gentlemen, I think one or two of whom were Members of the House, came up to me at various times, when I had argued that each black man is of as infinite value as the white man, and said, "Of course, we know that that is only an expression; you were speaking on a political platform and you do not really mean that." We want to make it plain that we do mean that. If we did not mean it, we should not bother to come here at all, and certainly should not take up the time of the House by putting down Amendments which have very little chance of success.
When that very distinguished man Lord Malvern comes down to the House and says that, with a few exceptions, all Africans are liars, you would think that he would be denounced by the Government. You would think that the House would rise and say, "Why should this monstrous statement be made?" I was not in the House on that day so I cannot say what reception the noble Viscount got, but I am not aware that he was in any way dismayed by the reception he received in the House of Lords after making that outrageous statement. So it is perhaps not otiose of me to say exactly where the Labour Party stands on this question of principle.
When we come to federation, we say that this insistence on imposing federation on Africans who are violently opposed to it is, as the noble Viscount said earlier, in conflict with all our declared 'Western ideas of liberty and justice. I believe that the word "saboteur" was used at one point, though not in a particularly unfriendly way—that is if the word can be used in a friendly way; but certainly that word was used at one point in the debate. We have no intention of sabotaging the Federation, but we shall insist to the end that the peoples concerned in the last resort have the right to say whether or not they wish to continue with it or to secede from it.
Noble Lords opposite or their Party had not long ago a slogan which they made fairly popular—"Conservative
314
Freedom Works!" I am not sure whether that is the current slogan or whether it has not been superseded by something relating to prosperity; but at any rate that Conservative freedom works is the doctrine of noble Lords opposite. Why not give Conservative freedom a chance in Nyasaland? It may not be the best kind of freedom, but even Conservative freedom there would be better than none. One thing is sure: whether or not Conservative freedom works, Conservative dictatorship does not, or, if it does work, then it does a great deal of mischief.
We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, the other day, in the very interesting speech that he made, a reference to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The noble Lord quoted him with approval, but he did not quote those words used by Sir Henry during the Boer War relating to "methods of barbarism". If Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman is to be quoted here, let us recall what he said about methods of barbarism, and how unpopular that reference to methods of barbarism as applied to our own activities made him during the Boer War. And let us recall that a few years later his Party won an overwhelming triumph. We have heard one or two quite discreet and not exaggerated references to the recent General Election. Noble Lords have become immensely democratic, while flushed with triumph. Perhaps they will recall what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said and the kind of reception he had at the time, and what happened a little later on.
There is no need to exacerbate feeling. I hope I have not raised any. I am perfectly well aware that the two noble Earls immediately facing me—Lord Home and Lord Perth—are engaged night and day in trying to make a success of Central Africa among their other responsibilities. I do not doubt that they are devoting themselves to that with passionate intensity; but I do say that while we represent in this Party half the nation—and one day may represent more—the noble Earl and his colleagues must face the fact that if they continue as they do, they will continue to divide the nation; and while they divide the nation as they are doing we have no option but to divide the House.
6.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, at an early stage in this debate my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir reminded the House that if we ran the last Session of Parliament together with this one, the affairs of Africa have been mentioned on nine consecutive Parliamentary days. If I may pursue the analogy of the bridge table, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Pakenham—
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have not yet reached the stage of being an Earl.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I was merely using intelligent anticipation. But if I may pursue that analogy a little further than he did, I wish it fell to my lot to be "dummy" more often in playing this very controversial hand. At one moment when this debate started this afternoon I was afraid we were going to revert to an undercurrent which ran through this series of our debates in the last Parliament, when a picture was drawn of British colonial rule as one of harsh oppression, and of a colonial administration geared to retarding rather than advancing the legitimate rights of Africans in Africa.
The Opposition in the country at the General Election made quite a feature of the future of Africa and of our colonial administration, and the people rejected that picture of a harsh colonial administration as one that was utterly unreal and untrue. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, very fairly made the point to-day that not only in the case of Nigeria but also in the case of Basutoland, a much smaller country—and, I may now tell the House, in the case of Bechuanaland, where we are making preliminary advances on talks respecting a future Constitution—we have made a great deal of progress and we have practised what we have preached through the years—namely, that it is the aim of our colonial policy to give to the native peoples increasing responsibility in the management of their own affairs, leading to eventual self-government. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear no more of the insinuation that British colonial policy is out to retard and diminish the legitimate rights of the inhabitants of the colonial territories of Africa or, indeed, anywhere else.
316
If we are to be realists, however, we must admit that the stuff of politics is inflammable; and in dealing with primitive countries which are just beginning their apprenticeship in democracy we must remember, too, that they are exposed to-day to the cult of nationalism and the cult of racialism and that therefore it is likely from time to time, as indeed has happened in our colonial history before, that there will be threats to law and order, and emergencies may have to be declared. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that when there is a threat to law and order—which, always let us remember, is a threat to the majority and therefore to the community as a whole—then the Government must act; and the Government which must act is the Government on the spot, of course with the assent of the Secretary of State in this country.
Do not let us pretend that we can turn aside when situations of this kind arise in our colonial territories, because if we did not perform the duty of preserving law and order then democracy would not last for one minute. Governors must, therefore, be equipped with the appropriate powers to preserve the public peace. Your Lordships who have seen much of the world and of our Colonial and Commonwealth story would not quarrel with that principle. But equally let us say that if we are humanitarian and if we believe in justice, then we must secure that no emergency continues one moment longer than the threat to law and order, and that the instruments which are put into the hands of authority must in all the circumstances be just.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and others have read what my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary said in another place yesterday, which was repeated from this Bench by my noble friend Lord Perth—that he is eager to find ways and means of ending the emergency in Kenya and hopes that he sees a prospect of doing so; that he is eager to reduce the numbers of detainees and, indeed, to end the emergency in Nyasaland whenever that is possible. My right honourable friend is going to East Africa himself. He has asked the Governors of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to come here for consultation, and one of the purposes of these consultations is (I am paraphrasing his words, but using one word which was significant) to see if there

317
can be devised an instrument which will enable authority to keep the public peace without using what he called the "sledgehammer" of emergency regulations. I do not think I can carry that any further to-day before my right honourable friend has had his discussions, but I believe the whole House will hope that he will be successful in his talks with the Governors and that we shall be able to report progress in this particular matter at a later date.
During the debate particular emphasis was laid (and in particular by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough) on the undesirability of holding persons in detention without trial. All will feel that—none, I am sure, more than the Governor of Nyasaland, who has succeeded in eight months in returning to civil life half the persons who were detained. But, my Lords, again if we are realists, we know perfectly well that in these primitive countries where tribal law prevails to a very large extent, the authorities may have a conclusive case against an individual or several individuals conspiring to subvert authority and to bring the law into contempt and, indeed, to plot against the authority of the Government, but these people cannot be brought to open court because the witness would pay the penalty, and the penalty very often would be his life.
For that reason, I cannot accept the strictures of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, to-day. He insinuated—in fact, I think he said in so many words; he will correct me if I am wrong—that it was the wicked Conservatives who hold individuals for detention without authority. He said something like this: that we were guilty of the destruction of the standards of democracy and justice which the people could always expect and had always expected from Governments and Administrations in this country. Researches are in the air. My noble friend was doing researches for the benefit of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate; the noble Lord was doing researches into the past of the Colonial Secretary; and my memory was jogged and I thought I remembered that in the case of the arrest of Gandhi the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, himself was somewhat concerned. So I looked up the records and I found that Mr. Fenner Brockway asked a question of Mr. Wedgwood Benn
318
following on the arrest of Mr. Gandhi. He said:
"Will Mr. Gandhi be charged and tried?"
"No, Sir,"—
said Mr. Wedgwood Benn—
"it is intended to keep him detained under the regulations."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl has raised that point. It is perfectly true that when I was Secretary of State for India many people were detained under orders. But what I did, and what the Government will not do, was immediately to set on foot an arrangement which brought Mr. Gandhi to London, produced a Round Table Conference, and solved the emergency.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am going to ask the noble Viscount to agree to a round table conference very soon. But he will—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is what we are asking for.
THE EARL OF HOME: —and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will forgive me if in this matter I find their memories a little selective and their indignation a little synthetic.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to wait a moment? Am I to understand him to say in reply to my intervention that he intended to arrange a round-table conference and invite Dr. Banda to come?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, no. The noble Viscount must not understand that. The noble Viscount can now hear me and he must not understand that. What I was going to suggest later on was that the noble Viscount and his friends should join in a Commission to examine the rights and wrongs of the position in Central Africa.
But, my Lords, I am interested in the philosophy of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I do not know whether it is unfair to put it—I am not quite sure that he would say this, but a lot of people have been very near saying it—that "We must always negotiate with people whom we first put in prison, so why not let them all out at once?" I suggest that the lesson of the past is not that, but this: that everything stable and

319
lasting in the Commonwealth and everything that has led it to be a permanent bastion of peace and freedom has been based on respect for the rule of law and the insistence that it should prevail; and we could not have brought, and we cannot bring, nations to the sunlight of democracy and independence by surrendering all our standards to intimidation and to violence.
Now, I would turn for one moment to the franchise. Again, the last thing I want to do is to be controversial—my whole purpose is to join in happy harmony with all sides of the House—but who are the noble Lords opposite to criticise us for the progress that we have made in the franchise in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? During six or seven years of Socialist administration, not one single person in Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia had the vote, either territorial or federal. Why not, if they stood for justice and these human rights? And on the universal franchise, why on earth did they not begin? They were not on a trial of Socialism, finding their way; they had already had one Government—though they made a mess of it, it is true. They had another and they still did nothing in the matter of franchise.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl had better still further extend his researches, and he will then find that the real beginnings towards producing democracy in these territories over which we had control occurred during the lifetime of the Labour Government; and at any time, if the noble Earl likes, I will produce evidence from my noble friend, Lord Hall, or Mr. James Griffiths.
THE EARL OF HOME: But it is much worse, my Lords, to begin and then to forget your principles. Apparently, in respect of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the principles were forgotten—the principles of democracy and the practice of the franchise—and no one made a start at all on giving Northern Rhodesians or Nyasalanders one vote, although they were British protected persons. Now, in Northern Rhodesia at least, there are some thousands of Africans both on the territorial and on the federal rolls—some 7,617 actually registered—and 2,000 Asians, a total of
320
9,000 Africans and Asians compared to 20,000 Europeans are on the territorial register. I suggest, when we are talking of franchise, that my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve was right. The thing for all of us to do is to assist the Africans in increasing numbers to advance their education, and to increase their incomes; and thus, under the existing franchise rules—I assure the noble Viscount it is so if he will study them—hundreds and thousands of Africans will be added to the roll in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland. If only the violence had not intervened, we had plans for a franchise scheme on the model of the Northern Rhodesian scheme, and we will hope still to be able to bring that into force later when the security situation allows.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, plays on my emotions and heartstrings so surely every time he speaks that I have strictly to keep hold of my head. I would respond immediately to what he said about the principles which should govern the approach to these colonial problems. He mentioned justice and the rule of law and tolerance, and it is just because we are so anxious to see these elements woven into the fabric of these new nations that we counsel that there should be time taken so that justice and the rule of law and tolerance should be secured for all races; and that is particularly true in Central Africa.
Noble Lords opposite may think my methods misguided, but I do not think that they or their colleagues could possibly accuse me of not trying during the last year to co-operate with the Opposition on the problems of Central Africa. I could have counselled my friends on many, many occasions, that it would be unprofitable. I have persisted because I believe, with the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, that we should have an all-Party approach. The Federation contains three territories—one of which has virtually had self-government for 30 years, so it is not a problem of purely colonial scope.
I want co-operation, and I will do everything I can to get it. I want to say, and to meet the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the particular appeal made to me by Lord Ogmore this afternoon, in this way; that we will look at this with fresh minds—and indeed, will

321
make a fresh start—although I must qualify that by pointing out that there are certain facts in Africa that you cannot get over. There is the fact that the advance of the African must take time, until he reaches the same standards as the European; and there is the fact that the Federation of Central Africa has been in existence now for six or seven years. But I do believe that there is an instrument ready to hand by which all sides of this House—and, indeed, all political Parties in this country—can co-operate and set an example here and now, and, what is more, can reach a high degree of accord. My Lords, I refer to the Monckton Commission; and I want, if I can, to clarify certain points in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—and I wish to do so to be helpful.
The two points which, in particular, seem to be worrying him and, I think, his colleagues in another place are these: will this Commission command the confidence of all Parties, and in particular the confidence of the African? My Lords, I can forecast with absolute certainty that when the membership of the Commission is generally known it will be seen to be very good and to maintain the quality already set by the selection of the Chairman, and that it is composed of people who will look at this question with complete objectivity. The Africans, when the names are seen, could not possibly be described as "Yes-men" I do not like to use, and will not use, the word "stooges", which has been used in the past; but I say that they cannot be described as Yes-men". The Commission gives an opportunity for Africans in two ways: first of all, to play their creative parts inside, in the counsels of the Commission; and, secondly, to give evidence to the Commission, In addition, as the Colonial Secretary said yesterday in another place, Africans would be able to give evidence, and that evidence, if necessary, would be recorded for the whole world to see.
Now, my Lords, if the noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place want African opinion and African influence to be brought to bear on the 1960 Review, I cannot imagine a better way than by beginning to do it now through the Monckton Commission.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Do I understand from the reference that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has made to African members of the Commission that it is to include Africans of all views? Are the Government going to include on the Commission, say, a member of the African Congress?
THE EARL OF HOME: I would not particularise, but the whole point of this Commission is that it will include people who are respected locally and who will be willing to look at the whole question with unprejudiced minds. We shall not inquire, no doubt, too closely—or, indeed, at all—into their political views if we are satisfied that they are men of substance who will look at matters with an impartial mind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: As the question of India was raised earlier by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, may I remind him that what led to the success of the Round Table Conference was the bringing on to the Conference of members of the very committee, the working committee of the Indian Congress, who had been interned and charged? If people like that could be brought on to the Commission, perhaps we might have more confidence.
THE EARL OF HOME: I must continue my historical researches—but I seem to recollect that the Indian Round Table Conference was the final act: this is the preparatory Commission.
Then the second matter which has caused the Opposition concern is that the terms of reference for the Commission preserve a link with federation through deliberate reference to the Preamble of the 1953 Constitution. I therefore ask the question, and hope to answer it: are the terms of reference adequate to the situation in which we find ourselves to-day in respect of the African Federation? I would remind noble Lords of the history of this matter. We are in a situation where Parliament has laid upon us a duty to review a Constitution which exists—namely, the Constitution laid down in 1953. I therefore suggest to noble Lords apposite and their colleagues that any Commission preparatory to the 1960 Review must be directed to the scope of the Order in Council which contains the Constitution of 1953.

323
You cannot get away from it. Parliament has laid that duty upon us.
There are two features, as noble Lords will recollect, of the Preamble to that Constitution. The federal principle is one, but the other, as one or another speaker from this side of the House has reminded us, is the declaration that the final emergence of the Federation as a full and independent member of the Commonwealth depends upon the consent of the African. So there are two features inevitably in any preparatory Commission: the federal background and the safeguards for the Africans which are built into the Preamble. Both the aspirations and safeguards are inevitably there in the terms of reference.
I could not help agreeing with my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir—and I am not asking for any replies or indications of the Socialist Party's attitude today—when he reminded us of the history of Canada and said that if you talk about federation and secession in one breath all you are going to do is to invite chaos and uncertainty in Central Africa. The Canadians were very wise and the Australians were very wise in the early days of federation deliberately to exclude the right to secede.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Having gone so far with the argument—I followed it as closely as I could, and the principle laid down in it by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that ultimately it must be by African consent that this federation comes into being—may I ask this question? If you are going to get all this through in 1960, what are the proposed steps he would take in order to get the true African view of the populations of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in time to get a really full result of African opinion about the part they are going to takle? What steps does the noble Earl propose?
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount is jumping quite a long way, because he said, "If you are going to get all this through". But, of course, the 1960 work is to deal with the next phase of constitutional advance, and it is quite uncertain when the final time will arrive when the whole Federation will become independent. That is at some date in the future.
324
My Lords, again I think this thought is worth consideration by the noble Lords opposite. There is a very great temptation to lay down blue prints as to what may happen over the next 10 or 20 years or more. In fact South Africa has perhaps been guilty in that respect. I do not know what is going to emerge from the 1960 Review; nor does the noble Viscount; nor does anybody. I do not know what Parliament will accept as a result of that Review—and remember that Parliament here has the last say. But what I do say is that noble Lords ought to face up to the fact that in any terms of reference for any Commission you might have there must be the federal background, because we are working under Statute and there must be included the safeguards for the Africans, because it is with their consent that the final phase will be necessary.
My Lords, the last sentence I have to say is this. I think that, apart from any other argument, it would be very valuable to this country and to the people in the Federation to have the facts of the situation. I have never seen all the facts put together, nor have I seen a survey of the opinion of the people of the Federation as a whole on these issues. Mr. Justice Devlin gave us a certain indication of opinion in Nyasaland at the present time, but I want to see what one noble Lord to-day called a cool analysis and a fair and just balance of proposals for the next stage of constitutional advance reflecting the opinion of the sensible and reasonable majority which form the population of that country. Membership of the Commission does not commit anybody. There may be minority reports. Personally I believe that if we all combine to serve on this Commission there is likely to be a high degree of unanimity, because once the Commission get on the spot, there is an obvious common-sense middle road which can be taken, and one can see the way to bring justice and fair play between all races and to safeguard minorities and individual rights within the Federation. I believe profoundly that the Commission can point the way which men of reason and good will can take, and that therefore all political Parties in your Lordships' House ought to join in supporting it, in joining it and helping it to work. That is my appeal.

325
In general, I am glad that we have debated this matter of colonial policy. None of us can claim perhaps to be wholly right, and although we have said a few harsh things about each other and each other's attitudes, and although we cannot agree on methods, I believe that there is an opportunity for us now to get together to do a practical piece of work on a Commission which is headed by a man whom the whole House knows to be impartial and who will give good guidance and leadership to the Governments concerned in the 1960 Review.
6.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House for long. The only purpose one may achieve in a closing speech is not to continue the debate but to try to answer many of the points that have been raised. I think that at this stage that would be hopeless, because the respective attitudes of the two sides have been very clearly defined in the course of this debate and nothing I could say could alter that. I would just say one or two things about a few of the general points that have been raised. For instance, I feel that the noble Earl the Leader of the House somewhat departed from his usual high standard when he delved into the past and tried to establish that the Government are right because my noble friend Lord Stansgate was wrong some years ago—
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? I did not say necessarily that the Government were right, but that the noble Viscount was being over-righteous.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I repudiate the suggestion of my noble colleague that I was wrong ten years ago.
LORD SILKIN: —or that the Government were right because my noble friend was right ten years ago. I do not think that these incursions into ancient history will really help us. We all make mistakes and we think that the Government are making a mistake to-day. Nor did I think it very helpful to suggest that the Opposition are oppos-
326
ing merely for the sake of opposing, because it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose, or to suggest that it is really their business to acquiesce in everything the Government say in order that unity should be demonstrated to the people of Africa. If Parliamentary democracy means anything at all, it implies that there is a Government and that there is an Opposition whose duty it is to be vigilant and to express the point of view which it sincerely holds. And we do genuinely hold the views which we have expressed. We may be mistaken—we often are; and so are the Government—but at least there is this interchange of ideas; and without an interchange of ideas we cannot get a true democracy.
I do not suppose that we have convinced anybody on the other side to the extent that they will be ready to support this Amendment; nor have any of the speeches on the other side convinced us that we ought not to proceed with the Amendment. But I think that what all the speeches have done is to give us cause for further thought. I think that we all have heard to-day, from all parts of the House, things which will give us cause for re-thinking and which, in the end, may affect the attitude that each side adopts. For instance, the Colonial Secretary is going to hear the views of certain of the Governments of the territories. He is going to take them into consideration. He is going to inform himself of the circumstances in these territories and he has had the advantage of hearing what honourable Members of another place and noble Lords in this House have said. I cannot think that all that would have no influence on him at all. Likewise, we have heard what has been said, and no doubt will think again. In these circumstances I think that our Parliamentary system justifies itself.
I do not think that I need say more than that at this stage. Neither of us, I imagine, has been convinced by the other and we therefore propose to press the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 31; Not-Contents 84.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Ammon, L.

Layton, L.

Stansgate, V.

Amulree, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Amwell, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor, L.

Burden, L.

Pakenham, L.

Williams, L.

Chorley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Crook, L.

Rea, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Granville-West, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Furness, V.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Gage, V.

Perth, E.

Albemarle, E.

Gifford, L.

Radnor, E.

Allerton, L.

Glyn, L.

Raglan, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Baillieu, L.

Hampton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Harris, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Boothby, L.

Home, E. (L. President)

Saltoun, L.

Brand, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrick, E.

Hylton, L.

Savile, L.

Chesham, L.

Inchcape, E.

Selkirk, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Iveagh, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jessel, L.

Soulbury, V.

Conesford, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Spens, L.

Croft, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor)

Strang, L.

Crookshank, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lambert, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Donegall, M.

Luke, L.

Teviot, L.

Dovercourt, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Torrington, V.

Ebury, L.

Margesson, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Twining, L.

Erskine, L.

Milverton, L.

Waleran, L.

Ferrier, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wellington, D.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Winterton, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Northesk, E.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.