Sitting of 15 March 1960

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

    Advance Factory, Coatbridge
    Mr. Dempseyasked the President of the Board of Trade when the new advance factory at Coatbridge is likely to be completed; and if he has found a suitable tenant to occupy it.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): It is expected that the structure will be completed in August, 1960. A suitable tenant has not yet been found.
    Mr. Dempsey: When looking for a suitable tenant, will the Minister bear in mind the need to induce someone who can provide reasonable employment for large numbers, in view of the high unemployment rate?
    Mr. Rodgers: We will certainly bear that point in mind. At the present moment, unfortunately, we have no one really interested in it.

    Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
    Mr. Dempseyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a grant to the appropriate local authority towards the removal of the unsightly section of the Monkland Canal, Coatbridge.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade has no power to make a grant for this purpose. I would advise the hon. Member to wait until the Local Employment Bill has become law, when the local authority could approach the Secretary of Stale for Scotland under Section 5 (4) of the new Act.
    Mr. Dempsey: Whilst thanking the Minister very much indeed for his kind
    1090
    advice, may I draw his attention to the fact that this particular project was approved by his Department in November, 1947, and that, therefore, at this time of day it seems rather strange that it is not a matter for the Board of Trade at all?
    Mr. Rodgers: Two derelict site projects at Coatbridge have already been approved. Unfortunately, the Monkland Canal, which I agree is an unsightly mess, did not prove to be derelict in the meaning of that word at law, which is why it must await the new Local Employment Bill.

    Trade with China
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the import restrictions on trade with China; what modifications have been made or are intended; what quotas there are for glassware, and what these include; to what extent ceilings have been fixed for the importation of Chinese goods; and whether he will make a full statement on the problems involved in the fixing of ceilings, quotas and the need for a large scale expansion of mutual trade.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): As the Answer is a long one and contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister of State remember that where he and I were employed we benefited for many years to the extent of millions of pounds worth of orders? Does his recent experience of a visit to China confirm that there is enormous good will towards the people of this country, especially for our technique and skill, and, if so, has not the time arrived when there should be a large-scale expansion of trade?
    Mr. Erroll: I am glad to say that trade with China in both directions is expanding.
    Following is the information:
    The new import licensing arrangements for China have been discussed with the Chinese authorities and with a number of firms and representative trade organisations. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 27th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) about the Government's policy in expanding

    1091
    trade with China and to the Answer given on 23rd February to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) about the allocation of licences. As regards the quotas for glassware, I would refer to the

    QUOTAS FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA FOR THE PERIOD 1ST JANUARY TO 31ST DECEMBER, 1960 ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS ANNOUNCED ON 4TH NOVEMBER 1959M

    Quota Heading

    Value

    Meat and meat products, frozen or in airtight containers (of which not more than £150,000 for poultry)

    …

    …

    £400,000

    Fish, fresh, frozen or preserved, other than fish packed in airtight containers

    …

    …

    £300,000

    Butter

    …

    …

    £100,000

    Canned oranges (including Clementines, mandarins and tangarines) and canned pineapple (of which not more than £150,000 for canned pineapple)

    …

    …

    £550,000

    Nuts in shell, or shelled

    …

    …

    £250,000

    Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (subject to type)

    …

    …

    £350,000

    Silk piece goods for home retention (originally £250,000) increased to

    …

    …

    £380,000

    Headgear (including hat bodies, hoods and shapes) not made wholly or partly of wool or felt (originally £500,000) increased to

    …

    …

    £655,000

    Hand-made carpets (originally £500,000) increased to

    …

    …

    £634,000

    Pottery (originally £50,000) increased to

    …

    …

    £80,000

    Basketware (other than wicker, cane or willow) and manufactures of raffia and straw

    …

    …

    £150,000

    Sports goods, toys and games

    …

    …

    £180,000

    Additional Quotas (since the original announcement)—

    Fancy goods

    …

    …

    £250,000

    Seagrass mats

    …

    …

    £320,000

    Furniture and woodware

    …

    …

    £150,000

    Table glassware

    …

    …

    £25,000

    Chinese food specialities

    …

    …

    £75,000

    Canned fruit, other than oranges and pineapple

    …

    …

    £50,000

    Provisional Quotas

    Fruit and vegetables (variously grouped)

    each approx

    £25,000

    Canned fish

    each approx

    £25,000

    Preserved ginger

    each approx

    £25,000

    Textiles and manufactures thereof, not covered by other quotas (variously grouped)

    each approx

    £25,000

    Stationery

    each approx

    £25,000

    Cutlery and hardware

    each approx

    £25,000

    Leather goods and footwear

    each approx

    £25,000

    Brushes

    each approx

    £25,000

    Gloves

    each approx

    £25,000

    Musical instruments

    each approx

    £25,000

    NOTE.—There has not been sufficient interest in other items for formal quota arrangements to be made and these have generally been dealt with by issuing licences to applicants on request.

    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what action it is intended to take to bring about increased trade with China; to what extent China's sterling balances have increased, and whether this permits an increase in United Kingdom exports; how exports of capital goods to China compare, as a percentage, with pre-war exports; and what technical assistance is being provided or has been offered to China.
    Mr. Erroll: The services of the Department and of Her Majesty's representative in Peking are available to facilitate increased trade with China. No figures are published of China's sterling balances, but clearly any increase would help China to increase her purchases from the United Kingdom amongst other countries. The value of United Kingdom
    Answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) on 4th March and to the list below of the quotas set up for China and of the modications since the new arrangements were first announced.
    exports of capital goods to China in 1959 is estimated at approximately four times that in 1938. As regards the last part of the Question, a number of technical facilities in the United Kingdom are available to the Chinese should they wish to use them.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Whilst appreciating that reply, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that prior to the war large numbers of Chinese students who were studying technical questions used to visit this country and our men, in return, used to visit China? It was a mutual flow between the two countries. Those of us who have had large numbers of Chinese students working with us remember the enormous good will that it created. Has not the time arrived when that sort of exchange should be renewed?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir, I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in part answer to his previous supplementary question I would point out that during my visit to China I particularly reminded the Chinese of our willingness to receive engineering and other students in this country.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade, in granting licences for imports from China, how many new applications have been granted and how many refused in the last six months; and what value of trade has been allowed to new applicants in this period.
    Mr. Erroll: I regret that this information could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of work.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the complaints that are being made from a number of people that new applications for licences for trade with China are being refused on the grounds that they have no past experience and that the quotas allow only for those who have been in the trade already? Will he look into this whole matter, in view of the promise, which he has just confirmed, that the Government are in favour of the maximum expansion of trade with China, because it is extremely frustrating to those who feel that they have some trade they would like to enter?
    Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked into this matter. In any import licensing system one must have regard first to those who have already been in the trade. There have been a large number of applications quite unrelated in size to the level of the trade by the applicant concerned. We look particularly carefully at new applicants for licences for trade in lines which they did not go in for before.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the publication of revised versions of Notices to Importers, Nos. 920 and 921, for the benefit of British importers of goods from China.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind. The hon. Member may find it helpful to refer to the list of quotas I am today circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT as part of my Answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).
    Sir L. Plummer: I am grateful to the Minister for making an attempt to clear up what was causing a great deal of confusion. Is he aware that as a result of the changes which have come about since 4th November quotas have been supplemented by import licences and that many importers do not know from period to period whether their import licences will be granted? Will he, in the interest of clarification, publish a new statement so that they can understand exactly where they stand?
    Mr. Erroll: As I said in my main Answer, we will give careful consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of imports from China subject to quota restrictions in respect of which his Department is rejecting all licence applications from firms unable to give details of past trade.
    Mr. Erroll: With permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:

    Cotton and rayon textiles and manufactures.

    Meat and meat products.

    Butter.

    Canned pineapple.

    Other canned fruit (excluding pineapple and oranges).

    Silk piece goods.

    Pottery.

    Basketware and straw manufactures.

    Table glassware.

    Stationery.

    Leather goods, including footwear.

    Firms (Assistance)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek the consent of the firms concerned to publish the financial and other terms under which they have recently been induced to go to South Wales, Merseyside and Scotland.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: No. Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why not? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable sums of public money are involved here and that his hon. Friends are repeatedly asking for more control over the spending of public money? Cannot we be assured of their support, and, if we get it over this quite reasonable request, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, Sir. It would be quite wrong for the Board of Trade to put itself in a position where it would have to ask firms in receipt of D.A.T.A.C. assistance and other forms of assistance to disclose details of that assistance.

    Oil Heaters (British Standard)
    Mrs. McLaughlinasked the President of the Board of Trade when the revision of British Standard 2049, including new safety standards for oil heaters, may be expected.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that at a meeting yesterday agreement was reached on all the main features of a new British Standard for oil heaters, which will go to the printers almost immediately.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great concern felt by everyone in the country, including reputable oil heater manufacturers, about the problem of getting the Standard made a compulsory one as soon as possible? Can he say that all steps will be taken after this afternoon's Bill, which is to be brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), to make certain that this Standard is made law at the very first possible moment?
    Mr. Rodgers: I fully appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend, but, of course, the British Standard has no statutory force. The question of legislation concerning oil heaters would really be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is in favour of applying some legislative sanction to whatever it is that the British Standards Institution has now decided to recommend?
    Mr. Rodgers: As I said, I think that that is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    British Trade Fair, Helsinki
    Commander Courtneyasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the estimated cost to the Government and to British industry, respectively, of the official British Trade Fair in Helsinki in 1957.
    Mr. Enroll: The British Trade Fair at Helsinki in 1957 was organised by British Overseas Fairs Limited on behalf of the Federation of British Industries. The cost of the official exhibit in the Fair was £12,008. I have no information about the cost to British industry.
    Commander Courtney: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he takes the best possible political and commercial advice before investment of this magnitude is undertaken?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is guided by the Exhibitions Advisory Committee, of which I am chairman. It comprises a number of eminent industrialists, whose advice is extremely valuable in these matters.

    Finland
    Commander Courtneyasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of British exports to Finland in 1958 and 1959, expressed as a percentage of the figure for 1957.
    Mr. Erroll: Eighty-six per cent. in 1958 and 101 per cent. in 1959.
    Commander Courtney: Would my hon. Friend agree that the commercial return from this 1957 investment has so far been virtually nil?
    Mr. Erroll: No. I do not think one can look at a fair in isolation. There are a number of factors which affect the level of trade between two countries. The fair was valuable in promoting an increased volume of trade.

    Land Vehicles (Electrical Equipment)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how soon he expects that the Monopolies Commission will issue their report on the supply of electrical equipment for mechanically propelled land vehicles; what time has been spent by the Commission up to the present time in investigating this matter; and on what date it was first referred to the Commission.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The reference was made to the Commission on the 18th April, 1957, and it has been working on it for just under three years. This is a

    1097
    very complicated inquiry, and it is not yet possible to say when it will be completed.
    Mr. Johnson: What useful results have been achieved by this organisation which, according to my hon. Friend's Department, appears to cost £60,000 a year? Can my hon. Friend say, in view of the inordinately long time it takes to produce a report at all, what purpose is served by its continued existence?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is another question.

    Monopolies Commission (Expenses of Witnesses)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are made for the payment of expenses incurred by witnesses giving evidence to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Under Section 8 (4) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, the Commission has discretion to pay the expenses of any witness required to appear before it. The extent to which the Commission uses its discretion in this matter is for it to decide. I understand that it has not refused to make payments in any case in which it has been asked to do so.
    Mr. Johnson: While welcoming that answer, may I ask whether my hon. Friend does not think that businessmen would be much better employed in looking after their businesses than in giving evidence to a body which produces negative results?
    Mr. Rodgers: That may well be, but the total paid to witnesses has been negligible—only £10 so far.

    Durham
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to include the Durham Exchange area in the list of places eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Bill.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. Unemployment in the Durham Exchange area is not high and it is not expected to rise substantially.
    Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures are increasing in Durham and will continue to do so in view of the fact that in the near future
    1098
    there is likely to be the closure of a pit and that two coking plants are also to be closed? In view of this change, could he be more generous and include the Durham Exchange area on the list?
    Mr. Rodgers: The February figures show that there has been a decrease of ·3 per cent. compared with February last year—from 2·9 per cent. to 2·6 per cent. We are aware of the closures of two collieries and are watching the position very carefully.
    Mr. Ainsley: As this exchange area takes in a good part of my constituency and the hon. Gentleman did pay a fleeting visit to a portion of that area, is he-aware of the alarm expressed locally by the people at the closure of by-product plants and pits in the area? Will he reconsider the position?
    Mr. Rodgers: We are watching the position. If it appears to us that there is a threat of persistent unemployment —a level at or above 4·5 per cent.—we will immediately take action.

    Pressed Steel Company, Ltd.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the President of the Board of Trade what communication he has received from the Pressed Steel Company, Limited, with regard to the siting of their new extension in the North-East.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: We are in discussion with the firm, but discussions have not yet reached the stage at which it is possible for me to make a statement.
    Mr. Montgomery: When does my hon. Friend think that he will be in a position to make an announcement? Could he give us the exact date, or any date? Without wishing to prejudice the discussions which are undoubtedly going on at present, may I ask if he would make it clear to this firm that it would be very welcome in the North-East, where we have excellent workers and a first class labour relations record?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am glad to welcome the latter part of that supplementary question. Pressed Steel has visited the North-East and we are in constant touch, but it is for the firm to make an announcement of its plans rather than the Board of Trade.

    New Potatoes
    Mr. Brewisasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made regarding the importation of new potatoes from Cyprus, Malta, and Greece.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend has made no special arrangements.
    Mr. Brewis: Do I understand from that reply that my hon. Friend is not going to make any special arrangements? If that is so, will he endeavour to phase imports so as not to cause a glut in the home market, bearing in mind that last year early potatoes of Ayrshire were practically unsaleable?
    Mr. Erroll: Imports of new potatoes are admitted under open general licence between 1st November in one year and 31st August in the next. I see nothing at present which is likely to cause us to change this practice.

    British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation, Limited
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the sellers agreement between the British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation, Limited, and its members to be brought before the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that the Registrar is not yet in a position to say when this case will be heard by the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Mr. Willey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is very urgent, in view of the Monopolies Commission's Report itself, and also the discrepancy between the world price and our domestic price? Can he not take steps to expedite the consideration of this matter?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree about the urgency, but it is for the Registrar to decide the order in which proceedings shall be started. I do not think there are any steps we can now take.

    North-East Region
    Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade what recent consultations officers of his Department have had with firms having large offices in London, with a view to their being
    1100
    assisted under the impending Local Employment Bill to move part or the whole of their offices to areas of high unemployment such as the North-East.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: As the hon. Member will be aware from the debates on the Bill both here and in another place, while the Board have no powers to control the building of offices we nevertheless attempt wherever possible to suggest offices might move out of London and other congested areas. I am shortly taking steps to bring the facilities available under the Bill to the attention of a very large number of concerns using office space, and I hope this may have the desirable effect the hon. Member mentions.
    Mr. Boyden: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many consultations he has had in 1960 with firms which might be persuaded to move their offices to the North-East and how many firms were involved? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman took the initiative in persuading firms?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, I cannot give exact figures, but it might be some consolation to the hon. Member to know that the headquarters of the Management Corporation under the new Local Employment Bill will be in the North-East.

    Team Valley Trading Estate (Firm)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been agreed upon to enable the firm of Smith's Delivery Vehicles Ltd. to expand its production on the Team Valley Trading Estate.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The firm is acquiring a site of nine acres on the Team Valley Trading Estate for the purpose of erecting a factory of 120,000 sq. ft. with its own finance.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement and add, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) said, how welcome this news will be to the North-East Coast?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
    Mr. Manuel: What a change.
    Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be equally pleased to know that this new factory should result in 200 new jobs in that area.

    North-East Lancashire
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the President of the Board of Trade what further consideration he has given to the placing of Nelson and Colne, and other localities forming part of the North-East Lancashire development area, upon the list of places qualified to receive assistance under the Local Employment Bill.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has been keeping a close watch on the employment situation in these localities and is satisfied that in none of them are conditions at present such as would justify the provision of assistance under the terms of the Local Employment Bill.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look at this matter again as one of extreme urgency? Will he draw his hon. Friends attention to the fact that the figures which I gave on 23rd February were accepted as accurate by the Parliamentary Secretary himself only last night? Is he aware that they show that by 31st March there will be in Nelson and Colne alone a further 2,300 unemployed and an unknown figure for the rest of the area? Is is not the hon. Gentleman's duty under the Bill not to wait for the unemployment to happen before bringing the area within the ambit of the Local Employment Bill but to take steps where such a situation is likely shortly to happen? Will he not look at the matter again, very urgently?
    Mr. Rodgers: As I equally pointed out in yesterday's debate, in the North-East Lancashire development area there are 4,000 jobs in prospect at the moment.
    Mr. Silverman: And there are 3,000 unemployed coming on.

    Tyneside East
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of the firms through which it is hoped to provide 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in South Tyneside East; and what further information he now has about the other prospects of additional employment in the area.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Estimates of jobs in prospect are based on confidential information provided by the firms concerned. I therefore cannot give the hon. Member the list for which he asks.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these jobs will eventually materialise, and can he say when they will materialise?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that I could not say that, but we try to be as accurate as possible in our estimates.

    Leipzig Fair
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the President of the Board of Trade how many British firms exhibited British goods for sale in the Pavilion organised by the Federation of British Industries at the Leipzig Fair; how many British business firms were represented as potential purchasers; and what was the total value of business done by British firms at or in connection with the Fair, including purchases as well as sales.
    Mr. Erroll: I am informed by the Federation of British Industries that 47 British firms exhibited goods for sale inside the Pavilion and five in the outdoor area immediately adjacent. Thirty-five other British firms exhibited elsewhere in the Fair. I have no information about the number of British firms which sent buyers to the Fair, nor about how much business, whether sales or purchases, was done during the course of the Fair.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the Minister say what steps he is taking to ascertain what was the volume of business, which many of us, were informed was very considerable? Does he not consider that it is a real triumph for the Federation of British Industries and for British industries generally to have been able to stage such a show and do a considerable volume of business with a country that does not even exist? Will he further consider whether their efforts might not now be assisted by giving them in Leipzig, at any rate for the period of some future fairs, some consular assistance?
    Mr. Erroll: It is not usually possible to obtain for any fair the exact value of the orders booked during the period of the fair, nor should the value of the

    1103
    fair be assessed in terms of orders placed. As regards a consul for Leipzig, that, of course, would be quite out of the question since we do not recognise the East German régime.
    Mr. Silverman: The Government had better recognise it, then.

    Fisons, Limited
    Mr. Oramasked the President of the Board of Trade if his consultations about the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on chemical fertilisers will include discussions with Fisons, Limited, on the level of their profits.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Oram: Has the Minister noticed that the chairman of Fisons has recently been trying to have it both ways? When the Commission's Report was published he quoted more recent figures than those available to the Commission in order to prove that profitability was down, but when a fortnight later he wanted to impress the shareholders of British Drug Houses he quoted still more recent figures to show that profits had recently been doubled. What action will the hon. Gentleman take to make sure that the public interests are served?
    Mr. Rodgers: Discussions with Fisons have already begun this month. It would be premature for me to say what the outcome of these talks will be.

    Local Employment Bill (Development Districts)
    Mr. Manuelasked the President of the Board of Trade what help will be given to local authorities within an area scheduled under the Local Employment Bill to rent or sell factory buildings or land for employment purposes in their industrial estates.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Help under the Local Employment Bill is available to local authorities in development districts for various purposes, but these do not include the sale or leasing of land or buildings.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities which have acquired industrial estates have increased their own local rate liability by a fair amount? Is he not prepared to
    1104
    notify these local authorities that the 85 per cent. difference between the actual cost of building or the cost of acquisition as against the valuer's assessment could be used by them in negotiating to get industrialists to take over these buildings or land?
    Mr. Rodgers: No, Sir. Where the local authority itself is providing employment, for example, in building a factory or a harbour for its own purposes, it can apply for assistance; or it can apply for assistance to clear derelict sites, provide basic services, build approach roads and things of that kind. But local authorities are not covered in the way in which the hon. Member indicated.

    Summer Holiday Season (Committee)
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a committee has yet been appointed to review the problem of extending the summer holiday season; and what are its terms of reference.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. The Committee, under the chairmanship of a senior member of my Department, will be composed of representatives from the Treasury, Home Office, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Education Department. Representatives of the Welsh Office and of the Government of Northern Ireland will also be associated with the work of the Committee and free to join its deliberations as necessary.
    The Committee's terms of reference will be "To consider what action the Government can take to encourage the extension of the summer holiday season in Great Britain in order to relieve congestion at the peak holiday period; to consult the interests concerned; and to make recommendations."
    Sir R. Robinson: Will my hon. Friend say what facilities will be available to interested parties to make representations to this Committee?
    Mr. Rodgers: Representations can be made by independent organisations to this official Committee, and of course the British Travel and Holidays Association will be closely associated with the Committee during its entire work.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I may have missed it and I am not complaining, but may I ask whether industry is to be represented on the Committee? In view of the fact that the trade unions are seriously involved, with their millions of members, are they to be represented?
    Mr. Rodgers: The trade unions can make representations, but this is an official Committee consisting entirely of civil servants.

    Tourists
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken since the Conference on Tourism in May, 1958, to encourage the flow of overseas tourists to this country.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Since the Conference on Tourism the Government have taken a number of steps in several fields designed to promote the flow of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. The details are necessarily somewhat lengthy and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. All of these measures have a bearing on topics that were discussed at the Conference.
    Mr. Snow: Could the hon. Gentleman pay some attention to the responsibilities of this organisation for the publicity which is presented to potential overseas tourists in this country, which is very old-fashioned and not particularly attractive? Is he aware that there are much better things to offer than vistas of Beefeaters and Guardsmen to foreigners as worth while their investigating in this country? Is he aware that The British countryside is not visited sufficiently by tourists?
    Mr. Rodgers: This is a matter for the British Travel and Holidays Association. I take it that the hon. Member is referring to its advertising. Perhaps he would like to get in touch with it direct.
    Mr. Snow: That is the hon. Gentleman's job.
    Following are the details:

    1. The annual Grant in Aid to the British Travel and Holidays Association was increased for the year 1959–60 by £250,000 to a maximum of £1,050,000 and, subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government proposes to maintain it at this level for the years 1960-61 and 1961–62

    1106

    2. The Government has entered into negotiations with nine member countries of the O.E.E.C. with a view to concluding agreements that would allow citizens of those countries to visit the United Kingdom for up to three months on production of a valid national identity card instead of a passport, associated where necessary with a United Kingdom Visitor's card which will be available without charge.

    3. Arrangements have been concluded with the French authorities for passport-free day trips by air in each direction until Easter this year and discussions with regard to the summer season are imminent.

    4. The Government has entered into negotiations with five Latin-American countries with a view to concluding agreements for the mutual abolition of visas. In the case of Mexico, these negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion, and the Agreement has been in operation since the 1st January, 1960.

    5. Facilities for the sale of duty-free wines and spirits to departing travellers have been introduced at three United Kingdom Airports —London, Prestwick and Renfrew.

    6. The Government is at present conducting a survey of the views of a wide range of industry, commerce and agriculture on the desirability of a permanent extension to the period of Summer Time.

    7. The Home Office has undertaken consultations with interested bodies on possible reforms of the licensing laws in England and Wales. A Committee has also been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Guest to inquire into some aspects of the licensing laws of Scotland.

    Fertilisers
    Mr. Wadeasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the price to farmers of sulphate of ammonia is considerably higher than prevailing world prices, and that there is an import duty on nitrogenous fertilisers, including sulphate of ammonia, which helps to keep up the price in this country, and that this price is in part paid for by subsidy, whether he will remove the duty on nitrogenous fertilisers and thereby enable the subsidy to be reduced and at the same time enable some competition to be introduced into the fertiliser industry.
    Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question on sulphate of ammonia by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 10th March. My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider applications from representative bodies of users for reduction or removal of duty on other nitrogenous fertilisers.
    Mr. Wade: Is it not a farcical position that an industry which is admittedly in a monopoly position should be supported both by a tariff and by a subsidy? Would it not be a practical step, which could be taken immediately, to reduce prices to remove the import duty?
    Mr. Enroll: The import duty is under examination, and any question relating to subsidy is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware, admitting all the considerations I have just heard, that this industry is extremely well organised today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too well organised."]—that it is firmly capable of standing up to world competition, and indeed is desirous of doing so, and that on those grounds the import duty could be reconsidered?
    Mr. Erroll: All factors are being taken into account.
    Mr. Willey: As the Minister has referred to the reply he gave me, can he tell me when I shall get a satisfactory reply?
    Mr. Enroll: Yes, Sir, when the information becomes available.

    Central West Fife
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the numbers employed at the Lurgi plant at Westfield, Fife, are likely to decline from about 750 now to approximately 200 in October, and that within one year there will be 1,100 fewer jobs available in the mining industry in East Fife; and whether, in view of these considerations, he will include Central West Fife on the list of places eligible for aid under the terms of the Local Employment Bill.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is aware that the numbers employed on the construction of the Lurgi plant will decline during the year, and that there will be fewer jobs available in the mining industry. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 23rd February, when I said that a close watch would be kept on the position.
    Mr. Hamilton: It is not much consolation to the man unemployed that the
    1108
    Minister is going to keep watch on the situation. Will the hon. Gentleman seek to supplement the information he has now got on this area by the information provided in a series of five articles in the Scotsman a fortnight or so ago? Will he further give an indication whether he included in the Third Reading debate on the Local Government Bill the Dunferm-line area in the total Central West Fife area?
    Mr. Rodgers: If the position in Dun-fermline deteriorates we shall naturally consider adding it to the list. For the purpose of the Bill it includes the employment exchange area.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he and his right hon. Friend are looking far enough in these cases? We have now had three or four areas on which he is keeping a watch and in which unemployment seems to be likely. He will remember that "imminent" came out of the Bill.
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that underlines the difficulty. We know when unemployment seems to be likely, but in many of the cases mentioned we also know that alternative employment is available, or shortly will be available.
    Mr. Ross: In England that is where they will be offered employment.

    Cotton Industry (Reorganisation Scheme)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the methods of physically scrapping machinery under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, are effective; and what checks he has to ensure that the broken machinery is not subsequently repaired and put back into operation.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. It is the Cotton Board's responsibility to ensure that the machinery is rendered permanently unfit for further use and the Board informs me that this requirement is being strictly enforced.

    Monopolies Commission (References)
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade which subjects mentioned in the 1959 Report on the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Acts he

    1109
    has decided to refer to the Monopolies Commission; and, in particular, whether he has yet decided to refer newsprint, brewing. the supply of liquor to public houses, and petrol distribution to the Commission.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision about new references to the Monopolies Commission, but in considering the matter we will, of course, bear in mind the suggestions recorded in the Commission's Annual Report.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that as regards newsprint the community is held to ransom by price-fixing agreements which lead to very large profits on the part of newsprint manufacturers; that as regards the supply of liquor, a few brewers decide what shall or shall not be drunk in thousands of public houses, with no freedom of choice; and that as regards petrol, there has been no free and honest competition for years and years?
    Mr. Rodgers: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentlemas has said, but in addition to the references in the original Question there have been suggestions that we might consider referring the following—aluminium semi-manufactures, colour films, wallpaper, cartridges, insulated electric cables—to which we shall give consideration.
    Mr. Gower: In regard to cases which are likely at some future date to come before the Restrictive Practices Court, can my hon. Friend explain how he makes up his mind what to refer to the Monopolies Commission? Can he say anything about that.

    Commonwealth and Sterling Area (Statistical Abstract)
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the decision no longer to publish in the Commonwealth and Sterling Area Statistical Abstract detailed tables showing the trade of individual countries analysed by direction and by commodities, in view of the fact that the Direction of International Trade Statistics, published by the United Nations, gives them only in United States dollars and the Year Book of International Trade Statistics is not as up to date as the Statistical Abstract.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. We should not be justified in devoting our limited statistical resources to publishing information which is available elsewhere.
    Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this information is not available until later than it used to be when it was published in the "Statistical Abstract"? Can he tell us the extra cost of providing it?
    Mr. Erroll: I could not give the extra cost without having notice of that question. I am aware that there is delay this year in the provision of part of the information by the United Nations services concerned, but I do not think there will be in future.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that racks for gramophone records are subject to tax of 50 per cent. whereas cabinets are subject to tax at only 5 per cent.; why a rack is taxed ten times more than a cabinet, having regard to the identity of purpose between the two articles; and whether he will reduce the rate of Purchase Tax on record racks from 50 per cent. to 5 per cent., thus restoring uniformity and equality between record racks and record cabinets.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend appears to be in error. Racks and cabinets designed specifically for the storage of gramophone records are all taxable at the rate of 50 per cent.
    Hon. Members: Wrong again.
    Mr. Nabarro: No, I am not wrong again. Having regard to my right hon. Friend's reply, and to the fact that I checked this morning with the largest distributor of gramophone record racks in London that he has been collecting tax at 50 per cent. on these articles for the last four years, and as a mistake has obviously been made by Customs and Excise, would not my right hon. Friend undertake to refund the whole of the difference in tax to the people who have been illicitly charged?
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir, the information my hon. Friend gives does not conflict with the Answer to ibis Question which I have given, but racks and cabinets are different things. I hope that my hon. Friend will not harass me to the point where I should express the wish that he should end up on the rack rather than in the Cabinet.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend now undertake to re-examine this matter, as it is perfectly clear that his Department has illicitly collected a large sum in taxes during the last few years? I will send him the information tomorrow morning to enable him to refund the tax.
    Mr. Amory: I will read my hon. Friend's letter tomorow morning, but will he read the reply I have just given?
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the influence and incidence of Purchase Tax upon decor, for what reason paints and distempers used for that purpose are free of Purchase Tax, whereas wallpapers, friezes, panels and lincrusta attract Purchase Tax; why this discrimination is occurring against persons who prefer wallpaper to paint or distemper; and whether he will remedy this by abolishing Purchase Tax on all wall coverings.
    Mr. Amory: I would remind my hon. Friend that whereas most wallpaper is used for domestic decoration, most paint is not; and, as regards the last part of the Question, that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but why does my right hon. Friend allow his own personal idiosyncrasies and whims in matters of decor to obtrude into the Purchase Tax Schedules? Should he not treat all wall coverings with fiscal equity as he treats all floor coverings, including carpets, with fiscal equity? Why does he seek to discriminate and distinguish?
    Mr. Amory: I think there are good reasons for discriminating between one type of decor and another. My hon. Friend has mentioned lincrusta, which I am told is a superimposed decoration on a layer of plaster impregnated with linseed oil on a paper base. I am sure
    1112
    that the decoration of which he is so rightly proud, being a genuine built-in article, does not come under that heading.
    Mr. E. Johnson: Whilst I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate Ms Budget statement, will he look at the question of Purchase Tax on wallpaper, because it is having a serious effect on the industry?
    Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend will look at the sale of wallpaper over the past two or three years, he will see that it has been sharply on the upgrade.

    Sovereigns
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many golden sovereigns were minted in 1957, 1958 and 1959, respectively; and what is the policy for disposing of them.
    Mr. Amory: The number of sovereigns minted in the calendar year 1957 was 2,072,000; in 1958, 8,700,000; in 1959, 1,385,368. As to the policy for disposing of these sovereigns, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) on 11th March, 1958. Sales of sovereigns may now be made against payment in external sterling or any foreign currency.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of an advertisement in a national newspaper which states:
    "1959, 1958 and 1957 gold sovereigns, mint condition, £4 each "?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the "racket" that businessmen on the Continent are buying the sovereigns, bringing them to this country and selling them, using the profits to help pay for their business expenses in Britain? Does not this sort of business destroy the special objective of minting these sovereigns with a view to obtaining foreign currency?
    Mr. Amory: I would be glad if the hon. Member would send me any information he possesses about the practice which he alleges. In the meantime, I should like to make it clear that anyone acquiring gold sovereigns in this country must, under law, hand them over to the authorities.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that people who collect coins in this country are entitled to buy the sovereigns if they are advertised in this way?
    Mr. Amory: Only if they are collectors' pieces.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to announce details of a further repayment of post-war credits.
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed his consideration of the repayment of post-war credits to the long-term sick; and whether he will now increase the categories of people to whom post-war credits may be repaid so as to include cases of long-term sickness and other cases of hardship.
    Mr. Amory: I have this matter under examination, but I am not yet able to make a statement.
    Mr. Dodds: This is not good enough. Does not the Chancellor agree that during the Budget last year he held out hopes of the possibility of extending the payment of post-war credits in the autumn? Since I am not one of those people who believe that the Chancellor would try for an election advantage on the eve of an election, would he tell us what went wrong so that he was not able to extend payment in the autumn?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think I specifically said "in the autumn". If I did, perhaps the hon. Member will send me the words. I said that I hoped to extend the categories somewhat, and that is my hope; but at this time of year there are certain administrative difficulties to which I must have regard.

    Nationalised Industries (Public Investment)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. ROY JENKINS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will publish earlier information on the continued future investment plans of the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Jenkins: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that "continued" seems to have crept into my Question in an unnecessary and, possibly, misleading way?
    Mr. Amory: Following the recommendation of the Radcliffe Committee it is intended to publish information about prospective public investment several months earlier than at present—in the summer of the preceding year instead of in the spring of the year to which the figures relate. This will be done in a White Paper, of which the first will be published this summer.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does this mean that in future we shall have the Government's estimates of public investment at least as soon as we now have from the Government the estimates of investment in private industry?
    Mr. Amory: I think that is so. I am not sure of the exact dates on which the Board of Trade gives the estimates; I believe that two estimates are issued during the year. The effect will be that during the summer there will be issued the figures of the provisionally-approved expenditure for each nationalised industry for the following year. That is to say, the White Paper which is published this summer will give the figures for the year 1961–62.

    Private Firms (Public Money)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making it a condition of public money being lent to private firms that the firms to which it is lent should appoint a Treasury representative to sit on their boards.
    Mr. Amory: Whenever public money is lent to private firms the Government consider all appropriate methods of safeguarding the national interest. I would not expect Government representation on the boards of companies to be desirable or necessary for this purpose save in very exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say why insurance companies consider it desirable that they should have representatives on the boards of companies to which they lend money? Does he consider that they are right in doing this? If so, why do not the Government do the same?
    Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman would, I think, agree that it is by no means the general practice of insurance companies to put directors on the

    1115
    boards of companies to which they lend money. I should say that it is exceptional.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principles on which the Treasury acts in deciding whether or not to lend money to private firms.
    Mr. Amory: The Government lend money to private firms only in exceptional circumstances and where the public interest justifies it. Such assistance is given in accordance with Parliamentary authority.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the Chancellor aware that I am not surprised that he has not been able to answer this Question at all? Is he aware that many of us on this side feel that he has no principles whatever in lending money other than to lend it for importunate widows, particularly if they are well organised and have friends in court?
    Mr. Amory: One of my principles is to lend as little money as I possibly can.

    Grant-aided Bodies (Questions)
    Mr. Albuasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those classes of matters affecting the administration of grant-aided bodies upon which he is now prepared to answer Questions, despite previous refusals to answer on the ground that they were matters of day-to-day administration by the body concerned.
    Mr. Amory: In general, as regards grants-in-aid borne on Votes accounted for by the Treasury, I am ready to answer Questions about the size of the grants and about any matters which by Statute or otherwise are reserved to the Treasury or require Treasury approval. I am also willing to give factual information about the activities of the body concerned when the facts are available and where this is compatible with the general principle that the administration of a grant-aided body and the way in which it spends its grant are matters for the body concerned and are not the responsibility of the Government.
    Mr. Albu: As there are about 150 grants in aid and as the practice in answering for them varies greatly, and as the largest is that made by the Treasury itself, to the University Grants Committee, does not the right hon.
    1116
    Gentleman think that he might adopt the slightly more liberal attitude announced on 25th February by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the answering of Questions on the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough carefully to read my Answer? If there are any points outside that Answer which he thinks it reasonable that I should be prepared to deal with, I should be glad if he would write to me, in which case I will look into it.

    Ministerial Salaries
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, bearing in mind that Ministers receive smaller salaries than those of a large number of civil servants and executives in industry and commerce, he will take steps to alleviate the financial hardship that can occur when they leave office.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I do not think such action would be either feasible or justifiable.
    Mr. Cronin: Is the Chancellor satisfied with the present situation, in which Conservative Ministers receive inadequate salaries and have to look to directorships in private industry as their reward when they leave office? While no one doubts the integrity of present Ministers, is this not a constitutionally unhealthy situation, as Ministers frequently have to make decisions weighing the interests of private industry and the public?
    Mr. Amory: It is issues of that kind which arise when one takes on some appointment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the thing works the other way. While I would not go so far as to describe the life of Ministers in the words Hobbes used of life—
    "Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"—
    there are many cases in which appointees to Ministerial posts accept cuts in emoluments when they accept office, as well as when they leave it.
    Mr. John Hall: As I was told that to get the same emoluments after tax to. equal the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1938 my right hon. Friend would need £70,000 a year, will he consider increasing the salaries of Ministers?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, but I doubt whether I would go quite as far as my hon. Friend suggests.

    Government Securities
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which the Bank of England took action which resulted in a sudden depression in the value of Government securities on 24th February.
    Mr. Amory: The fall in the prices of Government securities on 24th February was primarily attributable to the action of those holders who decided on or about that date to make very substantial sales and was of course a natural consequence of such decisions. The Government do not believe that the market ought to be insulated by official action from the effects of decisions by holders of gilt-edged stock to buy or sell, though at times it may be desirable to assist in maintaining orderly market conditions. I am entirely content with the course adopted by the Bank of England in allowing the weight of selling on that occasion to be reflected in a fall in market prices.
    Mr. Cronin: If, as appears to have been the ostensible purpose, this withdrawal of Bank of England support was to limit bank advances, why did not the right hon. Gentleman use other of the several methods at his disposal—a direct request to the banks, or the powers given to him under the Bank of England Act, or the power to withdraw special deposits from the banks?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the hon. Member has not quite got this matter in perspective. It was not a withdrawal of support, but only to a support at some lower prices. Support was not completely withdrawn.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Chancellor trying to tell us that the Bank of England behaved in a purely neutral manner on this occasion and showed a behaviour in no way accounted for by a desire slightly to tighten the credit mechanism?
    Mr. Amory: The position, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that when stock is quoted in rather unusual quantities the authorities very often ease the
    1118
    transition in prices by some support. In this case there was a quite exceptional weight of sales and the extent to which, at any rate the point at which, they supported the market was a rather greater differential than usual. But their practice would depend on the volume of stock which was hanging over the market. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the authorities to buy stock regardless of quantity.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question about the intentions of the Bank in this matter? Was it intended to tighten credit or not?
    Mr. Amory: It was in line with the Bank's normal practice, except that the amount of stock offered, on top of what the Bank had already bought, was quite exceptional and unusual and, therefore, the differential was larger than usual. It is that rather than any sharp change in policy.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those with small fixed incomes from securities of this sort are badly affected? Will he not agree that they are not likely to be able to invest in equity shares?
    Mr. Amory: I will, of course. I am always sorry when holders of Government stocks suffer loss. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    Sir C. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say why there was this abnormal weight of sales at this time? Had the abnormality anything to do with the decisions of the Bank of England?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the rather exceptionally large volume of stock offered for sale was due to sales by the banks in order to improve their liquidity in view of the growing demands on them for advances.

    Railways (Tax)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have accrued to Her Majesty's Government from taxation, duty levy, or any other charges from the railway undertaking since January, 1948, up to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Amory: It would be contrary to practice to disclose information about the tax affairs of a particular concern, but if the hon. Member consults the Annual Accounts of the British Transport Commission he will see that it has so far not been liable to Income or Profits Tax.

    Pensioners
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint a committee, on the pattern of the Guillebaud Committee, to advise whether pensions and superannuation, in respect of individuals for whom Her Majesty's Government have responsibility, are fair in relation to salaries and wages of today.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir, for the cogent reasons advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Solicitor-General during the proceedings on the Pensions (Increase) Bill on 26th June last year.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that we are always able to examine the position of people in work but never able to examine the position of people who have retired? Can he say whether in the examination of the Guillebaud Committee's recommendations about railway wages, the position of railway superan-nuitants will be studied, since it was impossible to apply the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, to them, which was rather bad luck on decent railwaymen who had retired?
    Mr. Amory: In general, the point is that the Pensions (Increase) Act applied to the Government's own retired employees for whom the Government had a direct responsibility. In that case, responsibility must rest on the Government and the Government are in a position to obtain the facts. If my hon. Friend requires information about railway annuitants, perhaps she will put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Dame Irene Ward: I have.

    Middle East Airlines (Comet Aircraft)
    Mr. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given his approval to the guarantees given by British Overseas Airways Corporation in
    1120
    respect of the instalment payments on the purchase of five Comet airliners by Middle East Airlines.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the accusation by the chairman of the Middle East Airlines that there had been an inordinate delay by the Treasury in giving a reply and that it was necessary to give the Treasury a week's ultimatum before any answer could be obtained?
    Mr. Amory: I noticed the observation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I think that there was no avoidable delay in this case. It was not a straightforward case of credit insurance, but a highly complicated intricate case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I looked into the circumstances and I am satisfied that there was no avoidable delay.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say why this and a similar order by Olympic Airways were not dealt with by the Export Credit Guarantees Department? If there was good reason, will he publish details of the deals so that we may know on what terms nationalised industries are lending millions of public money?
    Mr. Amory: This was a matter in which the guarantee of B.O.A.C. was involved. If my hon. Friend requires more information, I ask him to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

    PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official talks with President de Gaulle.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. As I told the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 10th March, the visit was a private one and no statement or communiqué was issued.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Prime Minister tell the House, first, whether he had any

    1121
    discussions on the situation created by the determination of the French Government to persist in testing atomic weapons in defiance of a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly; and, secondly, whether he took the opportunity of expressing to the French President the profound disquiet that is widely felt in this country at the reported decision of the President to seek a purely military solution of the Algerian problem?
    The Prime Minister: If I were to go into detail, I would be doing exactly what I said I would not do.
    Mr. S. Silverman: When the Prime Minister says that this was a private visit, is he intending to imply that he did not go there as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: It was not one of those conferences at which it is common to issue communiqués. Naturally, we had considerable discussion over a large number of subjects and I think that this is a valuable practice.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) correct in saying that President de Gaulle is seeking a purely military solution in Algeria?
    The Prime Minister: I did not wish to get drawn into the details, because I should then be issuing the communiqué.

    DISARMAMENT
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to co-ordinate the policies of the Defence and Service Departments with those of the Foreign Office in relation to disarmament.
    The Prime Minister: It is not customary to publish details of the machinery for consultation between Ministers or their Departments.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of the great importance of the disarmament conference which is opening today, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the British Pentagon will be kept in its place and that Service chiefs and military leaders will not be allowed to sabotage the possibility of a disarmament agree-
    1122
    ment by fighting for the retention of particular weapons or seeking to maintain a mythical balance of power, as they did between 1932 and 1934?
    The Prime Minister: That suggestion is quite unworthy. The Service chiefs give us their advice and the Government make their decision. In this case, however, we have not only been able to co-ordinate between the Defence and Service Departments, but, I am happy to say, we have been able to gat a co-ordinated plan between the five Western Governments.

    ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the 70 Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry appointed since January, 1955, have, in all cases, reported with that expedition demanded by the importance of the subject of inquiry undertaken; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will realise that almost all these Committees were set up by, and reported to, the Minister directly concerned with the subject matter of the inquiry. If he has any doubts about specific inquiries, perhaps he will put down a Question to the appropriate Minister.
    As a general statement, I would say that speed of reporting cannot be the only criterion. The most important subjects are often the most complex, requiring the most detailed investigation. It is often necessary to take evidence from many sources, and persons and institutions must be given proper time in which to prepare their evidence. The essential point is that the report, when it is produced, should be thorough and complete. It is also relevant that for all these inquiries we rely very largely on public-spirited individuals who are prepared to give up their time to this work.
    Taking all these considerations into account, I should certainly not wish to criticise any of these Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry for failing to produce their report in good time.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one or two of these inquiries

    1123
    have taken more than three years, whereas the Committee of Inquiry on Administrative Tribunals, an extremely complex matter, reported in less than eighteen months? While accepting my right hon. Friend's remarks, I am wondering whether he would accept the suggestion put forward in due humility from the member of another university from his own that he might, perhaps, make further use of the services of Sir Oliver Franks.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. He certainly will have time and it would be very agreeable. He did a very good job at that inquiry. A long written list has been issued giving the periods taken by Committees of Inquiry and when they have reported. On the whole, it shows what a tremendous effort is given to this work by those who are good enough to serve.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
    Northern Ireland
    Captain Orr: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 30th March, I shall call attention to Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.
    School-Leaving Age
    Dr. King: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 30th March, I shall call attention to the need to raise the school-leaving age, and move a Resolution.
    Street and Road Works
    Captain Pilkington: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 30th March, I shall call attention to the question of street and road works, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS)
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for minimum standards of efficiency and safety in respect of oil-burning appliances; and for purposes connected therewith.
Mass production of labour-saving devices and appliances for the home, notably smokeless fuel appliances including millions of electric and oil space heaters, has created special problems in the realm of safety. The whole House will have been gravely concerned in the last few weeks about a series of hideous accidents which have occurred in various parts of the country in connection with oil heaters, most of which have been of the domestic and portable type.
There are in this country today no fewer than 12 million domestic and portable oil heaters in regular use. Of that 12 million, about 9 million are of the safer convector type and about 3 million are of the drip-feed radiant type with which, we are led to believe, special hazards are associated.
The record of accidents is very grave indeed. For example, it is recorded that in 1956 there were 1,202 fires in homes in this country caused by these domestic oil heaters. In 1958, the last year for which figures are available, the number had risen to 4,464 such fires. Out of that large total no fewer than 23 per cent. were accounted for by these oil heaters flaring or becoming overheated.
As a result of special tests which have been conducted it has now been established that many of these oil heaters which are on the market today, when subject to a very slight draught, will go up into a sheet of flame several feet high, and that the draught concerned causes not only a flaring of the oil burner upwards, but, which is much more hazardous and dangerous, causes a flaring of the burner sideways or even downwards, so that a fire in an ordinary room becomes nearly inescapable.
There has been confusion in the matter of methods to be adopted for dealing with fires of this kind, but what is indisputable today is that there is a huge number of these heaters in use. In certain circumstances they are very dangerous and I

1125
think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join with me in saying that we should examine, at an early date, prospects for establishing reasonable safe standards of oil appliances sold in future.
The hazards associated with these oil heaters may briefly be divided under three headings: first, there is the hazard of draughts; secondly, there is the hazard of overheating and flaring; thirdly, there is the hazard of a fault developing in the injection of the fuel supply. I will deal very briefly with these three headings, in what I hope will be an introductory speech on this topic.
In the matter of draught, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has said that it has tested no fewer than 35 different types of portable domestic drip-feed type radiant heaters and that in 32 cases a draught at the rate of only 3·3 m.p.h. caused the burner of the appliance to flare. A speed of 3·3 m.p.h. is slower than the speed at which I walk through the Lobby, which I calculate to be at a rate of 4 m.p.h. It needs only the slightest draught to cause a conflagration.
The special hazard in connection with overheating and flaring, of course, is that in many of these drip-feed radiant type heaters the fuel flask which may contain paraffin or kerosene is set below the level of the burner, which creates every kind of atmospheric hazard and one which certainly was not realised until several hideous accidents occurred during the last year or two.
I need not dwell on the third hazard. Wherever there is a drip-feed injection type of fuel supply to an appliance there is a very real danger, especially in domestic surroundings, that it will go wrong and what has been happening is that the fuel supply has often gone wrong. Paraffin has been splashed over a wide area and a fire immediately results.
Those are three of the hazards. They are largely avoidable by proper standards of design, construction, and implementation of them in the manufacture of these oil appliances and I believe that the House ought to specify reasonable minimum standards of efficiency and safety for these appliances.
I do not wish to relate the horrible results of accidents, but it is pertinent
1126
to reinforce my case by reference to just two. On 13th November last, at Ware, in Hertfordshire, five small children were asphyxiated and burnt to death within a matter of minutes of their parent leaving a room with an oil burner set in the middle of the floor, opening the door of the room, opening the front door of the house to go and buy groceries, crossing the road and going only a few yards away. The sudden draught which swept through the front door into the inner room caused an instantaneous fire and the death of those five children.
The coroner at Ware, who conducted a detailed inquest with a jury empanelled, is to be congratulated on the thoroughness with which he dealt with this problem and his demand that the findings should be sent to the D.S.I.R., which is the cause of the train of investigations that have followed.
The second accident happened, sadly, only a matter of ten days ago, in Nottingham, where a Jamaican left the room with an oil burner set in the middle of it, fetched a new canister of fuel and evidently sought to refill the appliance while the burner was alight. The appliance caught fire at once and, notwithstanding the aid of an adult relative, it could not be removed from the room and the fire extinguished before two small children, aged two years and twelve months respectively, had been severely burned. Within 48 hours the child aged twelve months died in hospital, and the second child is still critically ill.
We cannot legislate for the utterly stupid—for people who carry a lighted domestic oil stove from one room to another down a draughty corridor, or try to fill an oil appliance while it is still lighted—but we can try to fix reasonable standards of design, construction and safety.
I wish, in this connection, to point out the exact statutory position today. As long ago as 10th December last I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he would introduce legislation for this purpose. At that time he admitted that he possessed no statutory powers. On 7th March of this year, after he had received a report from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and his own fire advisers, he made a statement in the House, and I

1127
wish to quote a few words from that statement. He said:
"The main conclusion is that these heaters are safe in a house with the outer doors and windows closed, but that all the heaters of this type tested are capable of starting a fire very quickly if exposed to a draught such as can be caused by an open outer door."
I immediately asked my right hon. Friend a supplementary question, in which I said:
"Does not my right hon. Friend recall that, last December, 1 questioned him as to what powers he had within existing statutes to specify a minimum standard of proficiency and safety for these very dangerous oil heaters and he replied that he had no such power? Would he not agree that it is wholly insufficient to rely on optional British standards of minimum proficiency and safety and that he should legislate to give the appropriate Minister powers to require these safety standards for all new appliances from a very early date?"
My right hon. Friend replied:
"Yes, Sir. That may well be a necessity. The question of taking legal powers must follow upon the immediate consultations which my Department is undertaking."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 34–6.]
Those consultations have now been completed. Agreement has been reached on practically every point as between the D.S.I.R. and all the technical advisers. I therefore seek leave to bring in the Bill today, at the earliest possible moment, sure in the knowledge that even with full support from both sides of the House and the Treasury Bench it will take several months for the Bill to reach the Statute Book. I emphasise that it is an enabling Measure, designed to give my right hon. Friend the requisite powers in this context, and to enable him to frame regulations under those powers which will be in a form that may be
1128
prayed against in both Houses of Parliament if it is felt so desirable.
In conclusion, I would say that there may be hon. Members who prefer not to rely upon legislation, and who say, "Take the British Standards and rely on the manufacturers." I am a manufacturer, and I do not wish to impugn any of my fellow manufacturers, but I would remind every hon. Member who is listening to me today that it is wholly insufficient to rely on British Standards, because these domestic oil heaters are now being imported, and may well be imported in larger quantities, from, say, Japan, or Sweden or West Germany. How can we control their foreign standards?
In such circumstances I confidently appeal for the support of the Whole House. I am supported in my endeavours today by five of my Conservative colleagues—making a total of six Conservatives—five Socialists, and one Liberal. That is a total of 12 Members drawn from all parties in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Snow, Mr. Bullard, Mr. Blyton, Lady Tweedsmuir, Mr. Dodds, Lieut.-Commander Maydon, Mr. Randall, Mr. Beresford Craddock, Mr. Jack Jones, and Mr. Thorpe
OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS)
Bill to make provision for minimum standards of efficiency and safety in respect of oil-burning appliances; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st April and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [14 th March]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61; ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATES, 1960–61; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61; CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60
  CLASS II
  VOTE 5. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES
  1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.
  VOTE 5. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES
  2. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.
  VOTE 8. COLONIAL SERVICES
  3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment
  1130
  during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Colonial Services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine; certain expenditure in connection with and grants in aid to Cyprus; and certain non-effective services.
  VOTE 8. COLONIAL SERVICES
  4. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Colonial services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine; certain expenditure in connection with and grants in aid to Cyprus; and certain non-effective services.
  VOTE 9. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (COLONIES, ETC.)
  5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960. in respect of schemes made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and trust territories, and the welfare of their peoples.
  VOTE 10. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND, AND SOUTH AFRICAN HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES)
  6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £108,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, in respect of schemes made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the development of the resources of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and of the South African High Commission Territories, and the welfare of their peoples.
  CLASS VIII
  VOTE 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES
  7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,280,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.
  CLASS VI
  VOTE 2. BOARD OF TRADE (ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY AND TRADING SERVICES)
  8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,002,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on assistance and subsidies to certain industries, and on trading and other services; subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.
  CLASS V
  VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES
  9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,586,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the provision of national health services for England and
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959-60
  11. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

  Schedule

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  4,640,000

  *—700,000

  2.

  Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces

  1,160,000

  * —80,000

  3.

  Salaries, wages, etc

  330,000

  —

  4.

  Civilians

  760,000

  * —140,000

  5.

  Movements

  70,000

  700,000

  6.

  Supplies, etc

  240,000

  * —270,000

  7.

  Stores

  Cr. 3,500,000

  —

  8.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  Cr. 1,570,000

  —

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  300,000

  —

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  1,570,000

  30,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  —

  * —460,000

  Total, Army (Supplementary) 1959–60

  £4,000,000

  * —£920,000

  * Deficit.

  ARMY
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1960–61
  12. That a sum, not exceeding £7,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. medical services for pensioners etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  10. That a sum, not exceeding £39,990,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for expenditure in respect of Army Services, viz.:—

  Vote

  £

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  …

  39,990,000

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  100

  £39,990,100

  ARMY
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60
  13. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories.
  ARMY
  WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61
  14. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60
  15. hat a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £44,633,732, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—
  CIVIL ESTIMATES

  CLASS I

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  15,182

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  192,500

  6.

  Charity Commission

  8,482

  7.

  Civil Service Commission

  47,092

  8.

  Crown Estate Office

  8,049

  10.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  10,615

  11.

  Government Actuary

  10

  15.

  National Debt Office

  10

  17.

  Public Record Office

  10

  21.

  Tithe Redemption Commission

  10

  22B.

  Civil Service Remuneration

  1,558,600

  24.

  Scottish Record Office

  10

  CLASS II

  1.

  Foreign Service

  525,285

  2.

  Foreign Office Grants and Services

  788,900

  4.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  10

  6.

  Oversea Settlement

  10

  7.

  Colonial Office

  73,000

  CLASS III

  1.

  Home Office

  174,370

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  902,024

  4.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  10

  8.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc

  45,640

  9.

  County Courts

  469,847

  11.

  Land Registry

  10

  12.

  Public Trustee

  10

  13.

  Law Charges

  35,300

  14.

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  4,000

  21.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

  45,188

  22.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  10

  23.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.. Northern Ireland

  12,773

  1134

  CLASS IV

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Education

  10

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  500

  5.

  London Museum

  2,893

  6.

  National Gallery

  157,975

  7.

  Tate Gallery

  12,238

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  1,297

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  1,600

  10.

  Wallace Collection

  3,517

  11.

  Grants for Science and the Arts

  10

  12.

  Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain

  600,000

  13.

  Broadcasting

  952,000

  17.

  National Library, Scotland

  20,000

  CLASS V

  3.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  8,030,000

  4.

  Ministry of Health

  322,530

  6.

  Medical Research Council

  43,970

  7.

  Registrar General's Office

  1,940

  8.

  War Damage Commission

  28,550

  9.

  Department of Health for Scotland

  158,125

  10.

  National Health Service, Scotland

  2,032,400

  12.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

  941,000

  13.

  Registrar General's Office, Scotland

  3,500

  CLASS VI

  1.

  Board of Trade

  430,000

  3.

  Board of Trade (Former Strategic Stocks)

  10

  4.

  Services in Development Areas

  10

  9.

  Ministry of Labour

  854,000

  CLASS VII

  1.

  Ministry of Works

  10

  3.

  Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom

  10

  4.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  10

  7.

  Historic Buldings and Ancient Monuments

  32,000

  CLASS VIII

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  545,000

  3.

  Agricultural and Food Services

  4,918,480

  5.

  Fishery Grants and Services

  3,689,000

  10.

  Forestry Commission

  32,000

  12.

  Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

  73,050

  CLASS IX

  1.

  Ministry of Transport

  434,300

  3.

  Transport (Shipping and Special Services

  124,000

  6A.

  Office of the Minister for Science

  8,000

  7.

  Atomic Energy

  10

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60
  16. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, will be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
  First Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out "£10" and insert "£5".
  I want to make it clear at the outset that, in moving this reduction, I have no desire to leave one of the Monckton Commissioners stranded beyond the flood waters in the summer palace of the Paramount Chief of Barotseland, although those of us who have experienced the hospitality of the Paramount Chief—including the Minister of Power, who is present, and my right hon. Friend—would not feel that it would be too hard a fate if Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that he should be left there because there were not sufficient funds to bring him home. But, in the long run, we think that we should be right in allowing the Government to dispatch a money order, or whatever is
  1136
  appropriate, to bring him back from beyond the flood waters.
  At a time when events are moving so rapidly in Africa, we should give some consideration to what effect those events will have on the Monckton Commission. The purposes of that Commission were as set out by the Prime Minister in the Motion which he commended to the House some time ago, namely,
  "to advise the five Governments, in preparation for the 1960 review, on the constitutional programme and framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953. including the Preamble."
  There is no doubt that since the Prime Minister announced these terms of reference in the House, on 21st July last year, there have been many rapid changes on the continent of Africa. The tremendous decision by the Belgian Government to set free the Belgian Congo is bound to have its effects upon the work of the Monckton Commission.
  We understand that it has already resulted in an approach being made to the Federal Prime Minister by certain interests in one of the Provinces of the Belgian Congo to link up with the Federation itself. How far these approaches will be taken we do not know, nor do we know how far they represent the wishes of the people in the Belgian Congo. But it is clear that this decision is bound to have a tremendous reaction throughout Africa. We would all wish well those Africans in the Belgian Congo who will soon be launched upon the most tremendous experiment ever conducted in the territory.
  The second event that has undoubtedly influenced the work of the Monckton Commission is the Prime Minister's visit to Africa. [Interruption.] I do not know what the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is muttering about. Fortunately, the noble Lord does not have to decide whether something is in order or not. I realise that he has an Amendment on the Order Paper, and that no doubt he wants to get to it, although I doubt very much if he will do anything about it when he gets there, if previous experience is any guide. He and his supporters are just like a lot of chocolate soldiers. They think that they have got

  1137
  hard centres until the Tory Whips appear, and then they find that the filling is just marzipan.
  Mr. Speaker: I suspect that that is enough outside the scope of this Vote.
  Mr. Callaghan: Even so, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would agree that I have been provoked for the past two minutes by mutterings from the Front Bench below the Gangway.
  The Prime Minister's visit to Africa and his speeches both in Lagos and Salisbury have undoubtedly had a good deal of influence on the work of the Monckton Commission and the terms of reference with which it is charged, and, even more recently, in lands contiguous to these territories, an agreement, which we welcome, has been come to on the question of the future of Kenya. We believe that that is fraught with hope for the future, too.
  To go back to the question of the Monckton Commission and its terms of reference, they have been outpaced, as we see it, by the course of events today. All the events I have described have meant that what might have been— although we did not think so—arguable as being a worth-while task last July is really no longer worth while, unless the Monckton Commission is ready to take a much wider view of the task that has been set it by the terms of reference which we have been asked to agree, and for which this money is being expended.
  We think that it is not only events outside the territories of the Central African Federation which have outpaced and outdated the Monckton Commission, but statements made inside the territory of the Central African Federation. We think that we know where the Prime Minister stands now, as a result of his speeches in Lagos and Salisbury. We are not quite certain. One journalist rather unfairly described him as being at his most evasive and ambiguous best when speaking about the Federation. But we think that we have got it fairly well tied down.
  As we understand the Government's attitude in regard to the terms of reference, it is that the three territories making up the Federation may not break up. None of them may secede. That is why the terms of reference say that the purpose of the Monckton Commission is to
  1138
  review the constitutional programme and the framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953. The Prime Minister seems clear about that. What he also seems clear about, from his speech in Lagos, especially, is that the three territories may not go forward to full independence until all three of them, and the peoples of all three, are ready so to do.
  In these circumstances, I think that all of us can understand that the people in Southern Rhodesia, especially, who were very close to Dominion status, feel that they have been robbed by this curb that has been placed upon them, because there is little doubt, I suppose, that this Constitution, which is now being reviewed, might mean that they would be unable to get full Dominion status. There is equally little doubt from what the Prime Minister has said that they must wait for Dominion status until the two Northern Territories express an opinion that their people are ready to go ahead with them to full Dominion status.
  We know from the events of the past that, so far from their being anxious to go forward with Southern Rhodesia to attain full Dominion status, it really was quite different. A majority of the people —not a majority of the votes, but a majority of the people—wish to break up the Federation. They do not wish to be associated with it at all. We have been told by the Prime Minister that it is not the view of the Government that the Federation should be broken up; at any rate, not as far as the Northern Territories are concerned. But how do we explain what Sir Edgar Whitehead said in connection with the Monckton Commission? His views are that, in certain circumstances, Southern Rhodesia will have to reconsider her position in the Federation. He lays down these conditions. Some of them do not—
  Mr. John Eden: On a point of order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could give us some guidance as to the scope of this debate, and whether we can talk about the policies or likely policies of the Government in future, or whether we are restricted and strictly limited to the discussion of certain specific Estimates for 1959–60 which we have before us this afternoon. If there could be any guidance as to how

  1139
  far this debate can range, and the subjects which are permissible and not permissible, I think that it will be of very great help to all the other hon. Members who propose to take up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman is now putting forward.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I make a further submission to you, Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, on three grounds? The sum to which the hon. Gentleman referred —£40,000—is but a tithe of the total Supplementary Estimate, and if the Supplementary Estimate is to be debated, and the Vote has been tabled, the debate ought to range widely over those larger items such as Subheads S.3 and U, relating to the Federation of Malaya and Basutoland, and all those other matters besides the Monckton Commission. That is the first ground of my submission.
  My second submission is this. If it is to be allowed on this particular item of £40,000 it should be strictly related to the use to which that sum is to be put, that is to say, the travelling expenses of the Commission, the costs of the attendance of witnesses, and the entertainment allowances which the Monckton Commission will have to undertake or discharge, the things of that kind.
  Thirdly, I should like to make the submission that the hon. Member is out of order on the ground that he is enlarging on the higher policies connected with the work of the Monckton Commission, which would be the subject of debate on a special Motion, if that were put down, and that this is very narrowly confined to the expenses of the Commission.
  Mr. Callaghan: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am only asking satisfaction from the Government, because they are asking the House to justify the expenditure of £40,000 on the Monckton Commission. I am questioning whether, in fact, the pace of events in Africa has not made the work of that Commission less useful than it would otherwise be, and that, in fact, the terms of reference of the Commission should be much wider to guard against that. That does not need a change of policy, but only a change in the terms of reference.
  Mr. Speaker: I take the view that, this being the first occasion on which
  1140
  the Monckton Commission arises in connection with a Vote, I cannot stop the House discussing the whole question of policy underlying the Monckton Commission in this debate. What the noble Lord was submitting to me about the right of the House to debate the whole field in that connection is also true. The Chair has no power to stop it.
  Mr. Eden: May I take up a further point on that point of order? Would it not have been possible to have called Amendments to reduce the Vote on specific subheads in order to restrict the debate to those subheads? If that cannot be done, how is it possible to restrict the debate to one particular subhead in the Vote?
  Mr. Speaker: The House cannot do that on Report, as the hon. Member will appreciate, because we are considering the whole sum reported in the Resolution.
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the Government Front Bench have much to worry—
  Mr. Eden: They have not.
  Mr. Callaghan: —when the rebels have to appeal to be taught how to use their arms. If they really want to rebel, they should take a few lessons before they come here.
  Mr. Eden: What? From the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)?
  Mr. Callaghan: The difference is that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) carries his to a logical conclusion, whereas the hon. Gentleman opposite will not do anything anywhere. I do not consider that he will dare to vote—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to this particular matter. Wide as the discussion may be, it really cannot comprise these delightful matters to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree. There is such a call on rebels; that is the only difficulty.
  I was about to say, if I may now be allowed to continue—hon. Gentlemen opposite may leave the Chamber if they wish—that the real issue with which we are faced is that Sir Edgar Whitehead has himself

  1141
  laid down certain conditions in which he thinks it would be necessary for the Southern Rhodesian people to secede from the Federation.
  If the Monekton Commission may not consider this question at all—and we understand from the pronouncement of the Prime Minister of the Federation and our own Prime Minister that it is not allowed to do so—how is it possible— because the Federation is there to stay— for one of the territories to state a number of conditions on which it is willing to remain in?
  If it is possible for Southern Rhodesia to do that, equally it must be possible for Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to do the same. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not see how it is possible to have this both ways. Either all the territories remain in, and must remain in, or all the territories are free to contract out.
  Speaking for myself—and now I am referring to the technical matter and not to the merits—it seems to me quite clear that Sir Edgar Whitehead has spoken the truth, that, whatever legal forms may contain these three territories at the moment, those forms will be sustained only so long as they have the assent of the people. As we have seen before with written constitutions, they can be unwritten as quickly as they are written, and unless the federal machine can secure the support of all the territories whatever may be written in the constitution can be as easily unwritten.
  I believe that we were right when we said before, and that we are right today, that if we are to spend this £40,000 properly and expeditiously, if all the witnesses coming before the Commission are to spend their time in a worth-while way and all the expenses are to be paid, it would be far more useful and worth while for the work of the Commission to include discussions on other forms of association between the territories. At one stage we thought that the Prime Minister was coming a little nearer to us when, on 24th November, he said:
  "I want to make it clear, as I tried to say, that the Commission can, of course, hear any evidence of any kind on any subject. The right hon. Gentleman"—
  that is, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
  1142
  "says, 'can it consider other forms of association?' I would have thought that the phrase which I tried to interpret in the terms of reference"—
  and then the right hon. Gentleman quoted—
  " 'considered the whole field of redistribution of powers in either direction' is a pretty wide one and really covers the point at issue, other forms of association being covered by those 'powers' whether greater, or changed, or smaller, which really do affect the answer."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 213.]
  It was possible from that to assume that the Prime Minister was endeavouring to convince us that it could consider other forms of association. But we now know from the later comments of the right hon. Gentleman, and from the views expressed by the Federal Prime Minister, that, whatever the view of the Prime Minister himself, the Federal Prime Minister would not have agreed to this Commission going to Africa had he thought it was free to consider the break-up of the Federation or any alternative form of association.
  The remarkable thing is that some of the newer members of the Commission advocated precisely this; at least one did, Mr. Wellington Chirwa, from Nyasaland, who has recently been appointed to the Commission. On 25th January, after conferring with the Colonial Secretary, he declared that the nearer the Federation was to break-up the better it would be. He suggested that the terms of reference should be changed to allow the Commission to advocate secession for Nyasaland.
  Equally, Lord Shawcross, another nominee of the Government to the Commission. I see that he is described in the Central African Press as a Socialist and it is suggested that the reason he adopted the position he did was that, of course, the Socialists had to appeal to the groundlings. That is rather unfair to Lord Shawcross. We know very well that it is something the Prime Minister himself would never dream of doing. The Federation Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia both protested about the remarks of Lord Shawcross about the Monekton Commission in a B.B.C. television programme— that he would not hesitate to recommend the abolition of the Federation if he was convinced that it was the wish of the majority of Africans.

  1143
  On 14th January, Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead found it deplorable that Lord Shawcross, a member of the Commission, should have seen fit to publicise his views on the Commission's work before its sittings had begun and should have done so in a manner which seemed to them at so complete variance with the terms of reference.
  How right we were in this matter. This question has dogged the Monckton Commission ever since it set out. We asked for a clear answer to this question before the Commission set out, and before we took up a position, because we were anxious to participate if the answer was clear. We asked for a clear answer to the question: would the Commission be allowed to consider other forms of association? At first, the answer was, "Well, we are not sure." Then the answer was, "No, certainly not." Sir Roy Welensky has always been certain that the answer was,"No, certainly not", and now all the time, individual members, and the Commission itself, are being pressed by this question.
  In our view, the spending of £40,000 on this Commission to do this job is a case of spending money unnecessarily when we know what the answer will be before the Commission reports. The Commission could have done a really good job, in my view, had it been allowed to consider the possibility of these other forms of association between the territories. The simple truth is— this is what I think that we as a House must face—that if the Government are asking us to give them this Vote they are in a dilemma, because their policy in Kenya, Somaliland and in other territories in Africa is to ensure that the Africans themselves are free to take over the Government of their country as soon as they can.
  I am not saying that this is wrong. On the whole, I think that it is right, although I am bound to say, also, that I think that it is also fraught with dangers. But these are dangers which we ought to face. Indeed, we cannot avoid them. Regarding the Rhodesias, we are in a different position. Sir Edgar Whitehead and most of the Europeans in the Federation have made clear— certainly in Southern Rhodesia—that if the two Northern Territories, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, secure African
  1144
  Governments on the lines of Governments of other territories they will secede from the Federation.
  What is Her Majesty's Government to do? Here is their dilemma. It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a position where either they will have to break faith with the Africans to whom they have pledged themselves, or they will have to break faith with the Europeans who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Federation was set up to protect them against exactly this sort of happening. I think that here the real difficulty goes back to the decision in 1953 to establish the Federation against the will of the Africans.
  In Africa itself, the Government's policy seems to show signs of lapsing into sanity. We are glad that this should be so. But I beg the Government not to allow this lapse to be overtaken by Sir Roy Welensky's difficulties with the Europeans in Central Africa. I wish to say to the Government, and to the Europeans living in those territories, that so long as they insist that those territories must remain linked together in their present form, so long will the attention of Africans be focussed upon that to the exclusion of other problems which in many ways are more important. The economic problems of Central Africa, particularly of Nyasaland, the educational problems, all these need a solution. But attention is diverted from them. Now it is focussed—it is bound to be focussed—on this political issue the whole time, because the Government still insist on sticking to it.
  I know that the intention is, and it has been said, that this territory shall remain a Central African Federation, that it shall be a bastion against the onrush of African nationalism from the North. It has been more recently stated by Sir Edgar Whitehead that it is also to be a bastion against the onrush of European nationalism from the South. Those, I think, are in many ways worthy objectives. I would most dearly love to see a federation or an association between these territories in which black and white were living together freely and harmoniously because they believed that it was in the interest of all the people in these territories that they should do so.

  1145
  If we are to achieve this end, as I should love to see it achieved for the sake of the Africans and of the Europeans in these territories, we cannot go on, as the Monckton Commission has been charged to do, with the present policy of saying, "We shall ignore the overwhelming weight of African opinion about the form of association, or whether there should be any association at all." It may seem strange, coming from me, but I believe that there are certain elements in the Federal Government, from which I would not exclude the Federal Prime Minister, who genuinely would like to see a partnership. I think it possible that he would, but at the moment he is at the mercy of many of his own supporters and unable to move in the direction in which he would like to move.
  In those circumstances, whatever may be the feelings of Her Majesty's Government, they ought to give a lead on this issue. The best lead they could give would be to say to the Monckton Commission, "You are free to consider any form of association you think appropriate in the circumstances you find. You are free to make any recommendations about whether it is possible to hold these territories together or not. We give you responsibility to review the whole situation."
  If the Government did that, I believe that this £40,000 would be well spent, but, as they are not doing that, we on this side of the House come to the conclusion that however worthy the motives of the Commission, and however able its members may be, we fear that they will not come back with any solution which is likely to commend itself—as they are supposed to do—to the great majority of the people in those territories.
  Of course, we do not oppose the spending of the money—as I have said, we should not like to have one Commissioner left out there—but we do not think that the Commission is likely to advance the solution of the problems. The Government themselves will have to take decisions on this matter, come out of their masterly and ambiguous evasiveness—to use the words of newspaper correspondents—and recognise that we cannot chain people eternally to a legal form. Some day they will break
  1146
  loose if we do not free them from their chains beforehand.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Humphry Berkeley: The trepidation which I would normally feel in addressing the House for the first time is increased to a feeling of positive terror in view of the many points of order which were raised by some of my hon. Friends a few moments ago. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that I may ask not only for your special indulgence, but perhaps even for their special indulgence, to help me through this very difficult phase.
  The first point I wish to make about the Monckton Commission is one which I have not seen generally commented upon. It is that in the various comments, spoken and otherwise, about the composition of the Monckton Commission I do not feel that sufficient general acknowledgment has been given to the Government for, in my view, their imaginative appointment of Sir Charles Arden Clarke as a member of that Commission. I have been fortunate enough to travel reasonably frequently to West Africa. I can testify, as anybody who has been much in Ghana can, to the complete affection for him from the people in Ghana and the confidence in him of the people of West Africa.
  When one bears in mind that he was responsible for summoning Dr. Nkrumah from prison to the office of Chief Minister, one can take it for granted that he will not be afraid of any unorthodox recommendations in his participation in the work of the Commission. I believe the appointment of men such as he to this Commission will mean that it will carry a great deal more weight, as it should, among African opinion than otherwise it would have done.
  Those of us who, from time to time, have visited different parts of the African continent—and no one knows more than I do how difficult it is to generalise about that continent—must be deeply conscious of one characteristic which has pervaded every part of Africa to which I have been. That is the intense preoccupation of the African with symbols and with words. We see it in West Africa in the obsession with the need to get a new constitution and in Central Africa with the obsession over the word

  1147
  "federation". There is no doubt whatever in my mind that this word "federation" in Central Africa has done a great deal to destroy the confidence of the ordinary African in the future development of that territory. Whether or not some form of association can be maintained and the actual word "federation" dropped, I do not know, but I am sure that the Government and the Commission will be aware of the very real importance which Africans attach to actual words.
  Similarly, because they attach an importance to symbols and because Africans in the Northern Territories see Salisbury as the Federal capital, they tend to think that federation and partnership mean what happens at Salisbury at the present time. Any of us who has been to Salisbury knows that there are racial practices in existence there which are not tolerated in the Northern Territories and which we would not tolerate in a civilised society. I am well aware of the fact that many of these racial practices will go. Many have gone since I was in Salisbury less than a year ago, but so long as they exist—and they are much more than pinpricks—I do not believe that the African people will attach any reality to the meaning of the word "partnership".
  I am quite convinced that in Nyasaland what is needed is a rapid and imaginative political advance. I am equally certain that it is a chimera to assume that one could negotiate in Nyasaland with anybody in the last resort other than Dr. Banda. I am certain that that is a fact the Government recognise as well. I was extremely interested in the observations made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He drew what I am sure is the correct conclusion, that in the last resort and on the final day each of these territories must be given the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to remain inside the Federation, or to contract out.
  But, with due diffidence, I came to precisely the opposite conclusion to that which the hon. Member reached, because I cannot see why that decision must be taken now and I therefore cannot see why that decision must be within the terms of reference of the Monckton Commis-
  1148
  sion. After all, if Nyasaland were set along the road to responsible self-government tomorrow, if her pattern of evolution were anything like the pattern of evolution in Ghana, it might take six or seven years before complete independence were reached.
  Is it not more sensible for us to say to the people of Nyasaland and their leaders, "We propose to give you an imaginative advance. We propose to set you along the road towards internal self-government. Do not bother about federation now. The time for you to decide about that is when we are about to withdrawn from your territory as the protecting Power. Let us see, in the next six or seven years, whether we can work out an acceptable scheme of association between the territories."
  Short of the right to discuss the question of the breaking up of the Federation, the Monckton Commission has been given very wide powers indeed. After all, probably as important as the right to discuss the break-up of the Federation is the right to discuss various amendments which may be made in the individual relationships between the territories and the Federal Government. As I understand, the Monckton Commission has full power to review the relationship of each territory with each other territory and also the relationship between each territory and the Federal Government, and I think and believe that this could include considerable amendments, perhaps giving greater powers to the territorial Governments which, in the short run, might satisfy those territories and make them—particularly the Northern Territories—wish to postpone a final decision about federation until the moment arises for our withdrawal as the protecting Power.
  I have occasionally felt that members of the Labour Party, when they rightly feel concerned about our responsibility for the African population of Nyasaland, sometimes tend to overlook the very great moral responsibility which we have for the African population of Southern Rhodesia. When they talk glibly about breaking up the Federation, certain hon. Members opposite tend to ignore the fact that if the Federation were broken up tomorrow, and if Southern Rhodesia felt it necessary to join the Union, we should be handing over the 2½ million Africans of Southern Rhodesia to the

  1149
  policies of apartheid. We should bear that in mind as a tremendous responsibility and a brake upon our eagerness to try to achieve a quick and easy solution. If anything of that kind were to happen, it would be calamitous not only for the Africans of this territory, but also for the whole structure of those countries in South and Central Africa.
  Hon. Members have been more than kind to me and I will not detain the House longer, but before I sit down I should like to stress that it seems to me of tremendous importance that, as far as we can in the coming months, we should try among ourselves to think of these problems in perhaps a slightly less partisan way than has been done over the past year or two. I was tremendously struck by what I was about to describe as the moderation—although moderation is not always thought to be a complimentary term in these days—of a speech which I heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East make in a debate on the reply to the Address within a few days of my being elected to the House.
  I felt that the approach which the hon. Member then made augured very promisingly for closer co-operation between the parties. I noticed at that time, and I have refreshed my memory since, one sentence which he used which caught my imagination. He said that the real task of the present Government was to restore African
  "confidence in the good intentions of the Conservative Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 668.]
  I hope that the hon. Member thinks as I do—that the Prime Minister's speech in Lagos, and later his speech in Cape Town, and also the remarkable achievement of the Colonial Secretary over the Kenya Conference, show that tremendous strides have been made over the last three or four months and that, given good will and lack of partisan behaviour and hasty words, the road is clear for the kind of co-operation which will solve these difficultites—a solution for which we have all been hoping for the past five or six years.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: It is with genuine pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and thank him on behalf of
  1150
  the whole House for a quite remarkable maiden speech. He has made a very valuable contribution to our debate today. He has brought to the House a great deal of experience, and we hope that he will contribute still further to our debates, because his was the sort of contribution which we need on this subject, above all. I quite sincerely congratulate him. We look forward to hearing him again many times.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster expressed the hope that we should have a bipartisan approach to the problem of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. We on this side of the House who have taken a particular interest in this subject have done so without any party political axe to grind. We take an interest in the position in Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and, indeed, of all the people there, Africans and Europeans, because we are genuinely interested in having peace and understanding between all the communities who live in that part of the world.
  We are deeply conscious of the fact that it is in the House that the decisions about the future of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be taken. In approaching the problems of the Federation, I re-emphasise what was said today by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan): we are interested just as much in the future of Europeans as we are in the future of the Africans who live in these territories.
  I must, however, make one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster, because I felt that his reference to the position of Africans in Southern Rhodesia was based upon a false premise. He said that the reason for continuing the Federation, presumably even in its present form, was to ensure that we continue to have some influence over the position of the 2½ million Africans living in the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. We should have that power and influence even if the Federation completely collapsed, because Southern Rhodesia continues to be a Colony.
  If the hon. Member for Lancaster would like a distinguished reference to back up my opinion, I refer him to the book of his hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply to this debate. He will find there, in quite illuminating detail, the powers which are exercised by the Government of this country over the

  1151
  legislation of the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. Even if the Federation were to break up completely, it would be beyond the powers of Southern Rhodesia to go into the Union of South Africa, even if the Union would accept her, which is a matter of considerable doubt, unless approval was given by the Government in this country.
  Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend seems to me to have stated the point exactly. May I also remind him that Sir Edgar Whitehead is coming here next month to have discussions with Her Majesty's Government about the removal of these restrictions on the powers of the Southern Rhodesian Government in relation to the Africans there as a condition of the continuation of the Federation?
  Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up that point at this stage, because I wanted to refer to it myself in considering the problem before us today, namely the work of the Monckton Commission. It is certainly in all our interests that we have an objective approach to the problems of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
  I want to say, at the outset, that I am not opposed to federation itself. I have never said that the Federation should be broken up. I believe—I think that this is the opinion of all my right hon. and hon. Friends—that if federation between these three territories in Central Africa is to succeed it must be a voluntary association between free peoples and must not be imposed on any of these peoples against their will.
  I have spoken to many Africans. They are in favour of the theory of closer association between individual States. Indeed, at a conference in Accra, at the end of 1958, and more recently at the conference which took place in Tunis, they have emphasised and re-emphasised the importance of a union between African States. One thing which the Africans are trying to learn from the mistakes of Europeans is that they do not want the Balkanisation of their Continent. If we help them to establish the proper conditions for federation, I am confident that they will accept federation between Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia if it means that it is a free association
  1152
  of these peoples and is not imposed on them.
  One way of achieving that end would be for a constitution to be established in Rhodesia and Nyasaland which would give power to a wider circle of people than is at present the case. I am sure that I carry with me even hon. Gentlemen opposite when I say that virtually all the power in Central Africa today is in the hands of the white minority. This is the reason why the Africans are opposed to federation—because the power is in the hands of a minority which numbers less than 3 per cent. of the population. They fear that if that minority has all the political power in an independent federation as well as the economic privileges which it now enjoys it will use its political power to bolster up its own position at the expense of the African majority.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster was absolutely right when he said that the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are frightened by what they find in Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia. That is the case. What the people of the two Northern Protectorates know is that the main political power in the Federation as at present constituted is in Southern Rhodesia, and it is in Southern Rhodesia that the most vicious racial laws have been applied.
  If the Constitution of the Federation were altered to allow a wider electorate, perhaps on the lines of the first election held in Tanganyika, which was such a considerable success—for instance, with the qualification of £150 income per year—it would enable many more Africans to participate as electors and would give them confidence that the Federation was a structure which could protect them as well as the white minority.
  Our main reason for having the debate today is to consider the work of the Monckton Commission. As the Central African Examiner has so rightly pointed out, the Commission is a way out of the Tories' dilemma. The Tories are trying to adjust their sails to the winds of change. They have brought in Lord Monckton to help them in this job. Unfortunately, they have given Lord Monckton an almost impossible assignment. He is a very able and distinguished man, and is carrying out this assignment with incredible success when

  1153
  one considers the burdens which the policies of the Government have put on him.
  However, we cannot escape from the fact that the present constitution of the Monckton Commission was the result of a most unhealthy compromise. It was originally proposed that there should be a Parliamentary Commission from the House of Commons to investigate the position in Nyasaland. Then the Federal Prime Minister objected. He did not want any sort of Parliamentary Commission investigating the future of the Federation. Therefore, after a number of journeys by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the proposal was put forward for the Commission as at present constituted.
  We on this side of the House objected not only to the terms of reference, but also to the composition. We felt that it was packed from the start with a great many pro-federationists appointed by the Governments directly concerned. Then there was the most ridiculous restriction on the members appointed by the Opposition. The Opposition were told—it was an insulting direction —that only Privy Councillors could be appointed from this side of the House. Yet, with not a word of explanation, when the Opposition declined the invitation because they considered that the terms of reference of the Commission far too restrictive, non-Privy Councillors were appointed in their stead, in particular Mr. Aidan Crawley.
  The work of the Commission has got off to a very false start, but even now, with all the efforts of Lord Monckton to keep his unwieldy team together, the Government themselves are guilty of failure to establish the political conditions for the success of the Commission's work.
  I want to refer to six counts on which the Government have failed on this score. First, there is the question of the terms of reference to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. Even at this late stage, we ask the Government to amend the terms of reference to allow the secession of Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia to be recommended by the Commission. By holding to the original terms of reference and the gloss put on
  1154
  them by the Prime Minister, opinion in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia has been alienated.
  We now have the position that most of the Africans in the two Northern Protectorates are refusing to appear before the Commission. The United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia, the African National Congress also in that territory, and the Malawi Congress of Nyasaland are refusing to give evidence. If the Government want a genuine inquiry into the position in Central Africa they should enlarge the terms of reference so that these representatives of African political parties may have a chance to put forward their point of view, and not be tied in by these very restrictive terms of reference.
  It is interesting to note that, to some extent, Lord Monckton himself has extended the terms of reference by saying that he is prepared to hear evidence from all sides, even that in favour of the secession of Nyasaland from the Federation. If Lord Monckton himself is prepared to go that far, will not the Government back him up by allowing him complete freedom of suggesting or recommending secession if the Commission should feel that the evidence it receives during the course of its inquiries justifies that course?
  The next count on which the Government stand condemned is the continuation of the state of emergency in Nyasaland, which has continued now for over twelve months. In terms of civil rebellion in the Protectorate, there are now no grounds for the continuation of this state of emergency. Surely it is intolerable for the Monckton Commission to go to Nyasaland, in these circumstances of political suppression which the Devlin Commission itself called, in a memorable understatement
  "… no doubt only temporarily, a police state."
  Temporariness has stretched to well over twelve months.
  We ask the Government to tell us how long this state of affairs is to continue. Is the Colonial Secretary to allow the Federal Prime Minister to dictate to him the terms on which our own British Protectorate is run? I seriously suggest that these problems are completely germane to the work of the Monckton Commission on which we are

  1155
  being asked to spend a large sum of money. We suggest that the journey which the Monckton Commission is proposing to start in Nyasaland next Monday is pointless unless, by their policies in that Protectorate, the Government allow the Commission to have the political conditions which will enable it to succeed in its work. Those conditions do not at present apply, because the Government have allowed this state of emergency to continue for so long. They continue to keep Dr. Hastings Banda in gaol—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I think that the hon. Member is going far beyond the Monckton Commission now.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I am trying to demonstrate that it is quite wrong of the Government to ask the House to approve £40,000 of expenditure for the Monckton Commission unless they are also prepared to establish in these Protectorates political conditions that will allow the work of the Commission to be successful—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The conditions will be under a Vote separate from this one.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will return to the subject in greater detail later, but it is one of the counts on which we suggest that the Monckton Commission's work is being made fruitless, particularly in Nyasaland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East also referred to the statements recently aired by Sir Edgar Whitehead and by Sir Roy Welensky. These, also, are handicapping the work of the Monckton Commission at present, and I ask the Minister of State to tell us whether any protest has been made either to Sir Edgar Whitehead or Sir Roy Welensky about Sir Edgar's statement in relation to the secession of Southern Rhodesia if certain conditions are not met, and about Sir Roy Welensky's reference to the position of Katanga and the likely federation of that Belgian Congo province with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
  We understand that a protest has been made to the Foreign Secretary by the Belgian Ambassador here in London. Are we to understand that that protest
  1156
  has been referred to Sir Roy Welensky, in view of the fact that statements such as this are undermining the work of the Monckton Commission at this crucial time?
  I want now to refer to two questions that have cropped up very recently. These are the two final counts on which I criticise the Government for failing to establish the political conditions in which the Monckton Commission can succeed. The first relates to the use of defence forces in Nyasaland. No doubt this will be dealt with at greater length in the next Vote to be considered, but I felt that the Colonial Secretary was most evasive in his Answers to Questions last Thursday—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Then I hope that the subject will be developed when we come to the next Vote, because it is of very great importance in the present situation in Nyasaland. Hon. Members will remember that twelve months ago the people of Nyasaland were greatly concerned when Federal troops were flown in from Southern Rhodesia—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue this point.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and go to the final point, which was—
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I seek only clarification, Sir Gordon. I am very ready, if it be in order, to deal on the next Vote with any points that may be raised on this particular matter, but, answering Questions a short time ago, I told the House that the movement of troops was not a matter that affected the Northern Territorial Governments, but was essentially a Federal responsibility. If it be a Federal responsibility, then, with respect, I do not see how it can come into the next group of Votes—but I may be wrong.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All I said was that it did not come in on this Vote.
  Mr. Macleod: I am sorry.
  Mr. Stonehouse: As the Governors of the two Northern Territories are completely responsible for internal defence,

  1157
  the troops of the Federation can move into the territory only at the invitation of those Governors—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the House is now aware that this does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. Stonehouse: We would, however, on the next Vote, like to know why these troops are being moved into Nyasa-land—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the next Vote now.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Then I will only say that before the Colonial Secretary comes to the next Vote he should read a very amusing leading article in The Guardian, which refers to the possible defence of Nyasaland against the Ufti.
  Finally, I want to refer to the discussions currently going on, which will be continued in London, between the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Edgar Whitehead, and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I submit that if these discussions are allowed to reach the point of fruition, that will definitely change the whole character of the problem which the Monckton Commission was appointed to investigate.
  I believe that it is most unwise, at this time, for the Government of Southern Rhodesia to be engaged in discussions which will enable Southern Rhodesia to be completely independent of any control regarding legislation affecting Africans in that territory. It would be absolutely wrong if, at this stage, progress is made on that issue before the Monckton Commission has completed its Report.
  We are raising these matters concerning the work of the Monckton Commission, not to embarrass, but mainly to strengthen its work. Had the Government accepted the perfectly reasonable proposals that we made from this side of the House about the composition of the Commission and its terms of reference, it would have been possible for Opposition Members to have played a full part in the work of the Commission. We still press the Government to see the wisdom of the extension of the terms of reference of the Commission and particularly to do something to improve the political conditions in the two Northern Protectorates so that the work of the
  1158
  Commission can be successful. Without those attempts, the work of the Commission will almost certainly be abortive.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: I must ask the House to extend its traditional tolerance to a Member attempting to address it for the first time. This would be a very moving occasion for me in any case, but it has been made even more so by the two hon. Members who have spoken immediately before me. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) is an old opponent of mine who routed me in a by-election a little over three years ago. Only last weekend I revisited his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) is my closest friend, and I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me if I join the hon. Member for Wednesbury in congratulating my hon. Friend on his very fine maiden speech.
  I wondered when I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether this might not be a rather too controversial subject on which to try to make a maiden speech, although I am very pleased to sec that the degree of controversy between the two sides of the House seems to have subsided somewhat.
  I have lived and worked in Africa, and I spent the recent Parliamentary Recess visiting the three territories of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This is a subject in which I am particularly interested. I can well understand the very strong feelings which have frequently been expressed on this question of federation, because clearly the future of Central Africa must be one of the most important problems facing this country and, indeed, the world in the next few years. What I have never really understood is why that controversy has so often seemed to centre not so much around the future of the Federation as on the Monckton Commission itself.
  I listened with interest to the restatement of the criticisms of the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission by both the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury, but while I would personally have preferred to see rather wider terms of reference and would have preferred to see the Commission able to recommend within its terms of reference the break-up of the Federation,

  1159
  if it thought that inevitable and unavoidable, I nevertheless have never been in any doubt that the present terms of reference are adequate for the Commission to play a tremendously important rôle. I am also satisfied that if the Commission, or a minority of it, came to the conclusion that Federation was unworkable, it would in fact be able to make its feelings clear.
  When hon. Members have criticised the terms of reference agreed to by the Government, it is fair to point out— and, indeed, it was recognised in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—that more than one Government was a party to the agreement to set up the Federation. Some hon. Members in discussing Central Africa are a little inclined, on occasion, to disregard the realities of power in that part of the world.
  Another reason why, despite my reservations on the terms of reference, I have full confidence in the value of the Monckton Commission is the fact that it is an Advisory Commission and, as the events of the not-too-distant past prove, Governments of the day do not necessarily regard reports on Africa, from however distinguished a quarter, as Holy Writ. Whatever the Monckton Commission may report, there still have to be held the 1960 talks and afterwards the whole matter will have to be thrashed out in this House. Therefore, I would hope the whole House, having expressed its reservations in some cases, will support the work of this very distinguished Commission, for I am certain that it has a useful rôle to play.
  What is most needed in Central Africa today is reassurance. Roosevelt said of the United States in the 1930s that they had nothing to fear but fear itself. When I was in Central Africa I felt that that was true there, too, for there is a great fear both by Africans and by Europeans. It seems to me that the Federation has very great advantages, both economic and political, and if we could make it succeed it would be the best possible thing for that part of the world.
  The economic advantages are not really seriously challenged. One has only to read the Jack Report on Nyasaland to see what a parlous state that country would be in if it did not remain part of the Federation. But it is not only true of
  1160
  Nyasaland. Southern Rhodesia, too, gains great economic benefits from its membership of the Federation. The symbol of the economic value and success of Federation is the Kariba Dam, because it is clear that not one of the three Governments acting alone could have raised on the world market the very large sums of money needed to finance the Kariba Dam. Only the existence of Federation made that possible. The dam makes the Zambesi a uniting link instead of a dividing frontier which otherwise it undoubtedly would be.
  The political advantages of Federation, too, which I am sure will be brought to the attention of the Commission, are very great. We must all surely wish to avoid a political polarisation between a black nationalist North and a white nationalist South. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster mentioned what I regard as a vital point in our approach to this problem—the future of the 2½ million Africans in Southern Rhodesia if Federation were to break up. Whatever criticisms one may have of some of the racial practices of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, the Europeans at present are very loyal to Britain and the British connection. But if the Federation should break up, the emotional shock to them might well have the effect of driving them politically into the camp of the Union of South Africa, if not actually into the Union itself.
  The hon. Member for Wednesbury referred to the reserve powers and seemed to suggest that this was not a real danger. With respect, I do not believe that in that sort of situation the reserve powers would be worth the paper on which they are written, and any hon. Member who attacks the Federation should bear that fact very much in mind. There is no doubt whatever that the fact that Southern Rhodesia has been a member of the Federation for the last few years has had a tremendously liberalising effect upon the policies of the Southern Rhodesian Government. I did not meet a single African in Southern Rhodesia who wished to see the Federation break up.
  Another thing which particularly struck me in my conversations in Southern Rhodesia was that the best elements, the most far-seeing and liberal-minded elements, among the Europeans

  1161
  in Southern Rhodesia supported federation. It was only the reactionaries, both European and African, who were against it. If it broke down, the Zambesi would become the frontier of the two Africas, black and white, and it would be an armed frontier. The consequences for the future of peace in that part of the world would be serious indeed. How much better it would be if we could create a multi-racial partnership. There are many influential elements in Southern Rhodesia working to that end.
  I am fully aware of all the difficulties which the Monckton Commission will have put before it. There is no doubt at all that African opinion in the two Northern Protectorates is at present overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of federation. Also, there is growing European hostility to the idea in Southern Rhodesia. The Africans fear that federation is a device for perpetuating European political domination. The Europeans fear that it is a means whereby they will all too quickly be subjected to inoompetent government. I believe that the Commission may well be able to make recommendations which will help the Government to meet both these fears.
  I myself found the degree of racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia extremely disturbing. I do not believe that it is defeasible for a moment, for instance, that a leading member of the Asian community to whom I talked—a civilised man by any standards and, indeed, a rich man— should be unable when driving from Salisbury to Lusaka to be served with tea at any hotel on the road. I do not believe that it is defensible that there are no Africans on the footplates of the railway engines of Northern Rhodesia, because of the opposition of the European unions, while there are African engine drivers throughout the Belgian Congo and Tanganyika. I am sure that no hon. Member of the House would support that kind of thing.
  That sort of discrimination is politically foolish and morally wrong. It seems to me that it can best be overcome through the existence of the Federation and, if it is done away with, any hope of progress in Southern Rhodesia will come to an end at once. What the Commission must do is to devise means which, if put into effect by subsequent agree-
  1162
  ment, would ensure that, while the liberalising influence continues in the South, the discriminatory practices can by no possible means spread to the North. Indeed, the removal of these discriminatory practices is at present even more important than any political or economic advances in that part of the world.
  It is important to bear in mind, I believe, that Southern Rhodesia is moving in the right direction and moving fairly quickly. In the short time that I was in Southern Rhodesia, about three weeks, two hotels became multi-racial, and I met many people of all classes and outlooks who recognised that, in the changing conditions of Africa, this kind of discrimination could not continue.
  The economic achievement of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia for the Africans is an extremely fine one. About 80 per cent. of all Africans in Southern Rhodesia receive a primary education, a higher proportion than is to be found anywhere else in the whole of Africa. The expectation of life of an African at birth in Southern Rhodesia is 48 years, compared with only 40 years in Nyasaland. This is an example of the great rôle for the benefit of Africans which Europeans can play and have been playing. If we can overcome some of the political and social problems, then, I feel, the Europeans will have a wonderful contribution to make in Central Africa.
  In Nyasaland, there are three main fears among Africans. First, they fear that their land tenure rights might be endangered. Secondly, they have felt that federation is slowing up their rate of political advance in comparison with adjoining African territories. Thirdly, of course—this is a factor which we must never overlook—there are the personal ambitions of some of the educated African leaders. I believe that here, too, the Monckton Commission can play a very valuable role.
  For my part, I believe that, if federation is to be saved, it is necessary to have a considerable reduction in the Federal powers and a corresponding increase in the territorial powers. Of course, the Federal powers are already a great deal less than is commonly assumed. One of the difficulties in discussing Central Africa from this country is that, since we have a unitary Government here,

  1163
  very few people realise how a federal government works and how comparatively limited the Federal powers are already. There are certain Federal powers such as those governing prisons, hospitals, and European education, which could revert to the territories, leaving the Federal Government little more than foreign affairs, defence, Customs and the Post Office. I think that such a change might help to restore confidence among Africans in Nyasaland.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster that rapid constitutional advance is necessary in Nyasaland. I do not believe that this can usefully be achieved unless Dr. Banda can be persuaded to be associated with it. I did not meet Dr. Banda and I heard many criticisms of him, but, rightly or wrongly, he is at present regarded in Nyasaland as the one Messianic figure, and I think that it is an illusion to imagine that any other African leader will emerge to replace him. He should be given responsibility. Then we will see whether he is of the calibre to fulfil it, and, incidentally, so will his African supporters.
  I believe that it would help to win support for federation if the Federal capital were moved from Salisbury. In African minds in Nyasaland, there is, unfortunately, a tendency to confuse the Federal Government in Salisbury with Southern Rhodesia and with the Union. Africans do not see them as three separate entities. Indeed, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to see how, with the Federal capital in Salisbury, it is possible for Federal Ministers and Federal civil servants not to be unduly influenced by Southern Rhodesian considerations. The Federal Parliament House and the Territorial Parliament House are side by side, with adjoining doors. The Ministers and civil servants all meet in the Salisbury Club for drinks at lunchtime and dinnertime each day. They read the same local newspapers.
  If there were a quite separate Federal capital, perhaps at Livingstone, the old capital of Northern Rhodesia, on the borders between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia and on the line of rail, this might help. It is worth reflecting that other great Federal States such as Australia and the United States faced
  1164
  this kind of problem in their formative days and in both cases came to the conclusion that it would be better to start with an entirely new capital separated from the existing centres of power.
  In my view, a Bill of Rights could usefully be written into any new Federal Constitution. Among other things, it would embody two principles. First, it would embody something along the lines of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which would make racial discrimination positively illegal. The difficulty at the moment is that, although many of the political leaders of the Federal Government and, indeed, of the Southern Rhodesian Government, have the best possible intentions, they cannot go faster than their European electorates will at present permit them. If there were, as in the United States, actually written into the Constitution certain provisions which made racial discriminatory practices illegal, then the opponents of these practices would not have to take the matter through the polling booth; they could appeal to the Supreme Court. This, I believe, might be welcomed by some of the European politicians in Southern Rhodesia. They would be able to avoid the need for taking unpopular decisions.
  On the other hand, I think that there should also be written into the Bill of Rights a protection against the future expropriation of property. It is very important for us all to remember that, while in the short term the problem in these multi-racial communities is how to give the Africans the rights which we believe should belong to them as their education improves, in the long run the more difficult problem will be to protect the rights of the European minorities. That, I am sure, will be exercising our minds most in the future.
  Of course, I recognise that we may fail in attempting to make federation a success and that, whatever the conclusions of the Monckton Commission, it may turn out that federation cannot be made to work. It may be that nothing can save the Federation. It may be that African and even European opinion has passed the point of no return in its opposition. But surely we all have an obligation to go on trying while there is still hope, because this Federation

  1165
  seems to me to be the most daring, the most difficult and the most hopeful experiment taking place in Africa at the present day.
  It is only seven years old—and what is that in the span of man's age-old struggle to learn to govern himself with dignity and decency? When we think of the early years of the United States, with all the difficulties that it had to overcome, including a civil war, the events of the last seven years in Central Africa have been extraordinarily placid and extremely hopeful for the future. This is not a problem confined to Central Africa. It is not a problem of black versus white. Racial strife is one of the most terrible problems that the world faces. In Europe only a few years ago we had the ghastly story of Hitler and the Jews. We have racial problems in Ceylon and in the Belgian Congo and in many other parts of the world. It is quite wrong to give the impression that this is a problem of black versus white.
  Africa is the continent of tribalism, and the Africans, above all, should appreciate the problems facing Europeans in this situation. If federation could be made to succeed, I believe that it would crown our endeavours in creating our multi-racial Commonwealth. This Commission, in my view, has a great contribution to make, and I believe that it may well come to rank in our imperial history with the Simon Report on India and the Durham Report on Canada, to the lasting benefit of all the peoples of Central Africa.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: I have very great pleasure indeed in offering, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, my very warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). His was a maiden speech which betrayed none of the signs of nervousness which are normally coupled with such an occasion. I am certain that the whole House listened with great interest to an extraordinarily interesting and illuminating contribution to our debate, and I am sure that we shall listen with equal interest on future occasions when my hon. Friend addresses the House.
  I wish to make only a very short speech. Before I start, may I say that I hope that perhaps somebody on the
  1166
  Opposition Front Bench will pay some attention to what we on this side of the House have to say.
  I was glad to find buried rather deeply in the rather restrained speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) a more than merited contribution to Lord Monckton, because I was sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—and in view of some of his earlier remarks, I must express my regret that he is not on the Front Bench now—did not appear to be at all willing to give the Commission a chance. His speech was full of the remark, "How right we were". He said it two or three times.
  I very much doubt whether this kind of self-congratulation is the sort of thing which we in this House can use with advantage at the moment. We are faced with a very difficult problem. On this occasion, would it have been too much to ask the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who sit behind him, to have given just a word of blessing and support to the Monckton Commission in its very difficult task, instead of harking back to the old arguments about its terms of reference, which we all know the party opposite did not find acceptable? We know their reasons. They have been expressed many times.
  I would not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the speech made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East which, I think, was singularly ungenerous in that he failed to give the Monckton Commission even a word of support in its difficult task.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I cannot believe that the hon. Member heard my hon. Friend's speech. He made a conciliatory speech and his reference to the Monckton Commission was that he wished that its terms of reference could be changed so that it could do a constructive job.
  Mr. Peyton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the point which I am trying to make. All that I was saying was that it would have been much more welcome and appropriate if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, instead of saying, "How right we are to object to it", could have said on this occasion, now that the Monckton Commission had started on

  1167
  its work, "We give it full support and encouragement and wish it every success". Had he limited himself to that, I think that he would have made a most effective contribution.
  There is only one thing that I want to say, and I say it very seriously. Perhaps I could put it in the form of a plea. It is so easy and tempting to lecture people who live thousands of miles away on how to deal with a very difficult problem with which they feel themselves, with some justification, to be entirely familiar and fully experienced.
  I remember the last time I was in the Federation that again and again ordinary decent Europeans, many of them with very liberal sentiments, were anxious to see the progress of their country along lines which hon. Members in this House have constantly called for. How often have such people said to me, "You are a British M.P. You have come out here to tell us how to handle our problems." I think that we could be a little more sparing in our advice to people who live so far away and who are on top of one of the most difficult problems facing the modern world.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the hon. Member agree that, time and again, speeches have been made from his side of the House lecturing the Africans in Central Africa on what they should do?
  Mr. Peyton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not agree. If speeches are made from this side which can be said to be lecturing the Africans, I think that they are equally wrong with those which I am now commenting upon, which seek so often to lecture the Europeans in Africa, who, as I say, are faced with an intolerably difficult problem, as we all admit.
  All I wish to say is this. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is not in his place because, again and again, he has wagged a lecturing finger from the Dispatch Box opposite. He has gone out to Africa, to the territories with which we are now concerned, and he has wagged a finger at people—and some of his colleagues have done the same—until those who should now be turning a ready ear to useful advice from here are sick and
  1168
  tired of the sort of dictatorial advice which too often is based on lack of knowledge.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: There are five points that I should like to make briefly before we leave the subject of the Monckton Commission. I shall not hark back to the past, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
  First, may I say a word about the terms of reference? I felt that the terms of reference, looked at through lawyer's eyes, were too restricted, but I think that what was most unfortunate was their lack of clarity, particularly in the gloss put upon them. I had the feeling that that lack of clarity was deliberate and that there was the intention that the terms of reference should mean one thing in the Federation and something rather different in this House. That was an unfortunate start to the work of the Commission. I only hope that the Commission's work will not be handicapped by that unfortunate lack of clarity in the terms of reference.
  Secondly, the Commission cannot undo the past. It is very sad that there is this loss of faith in Nyasaland in particular in the protection of Britain and the British Crown. At one time, the Nyasaland people were the most loyal of subjects in our Colonial Territories. There is no doubt that they have been greatly disillusioned by what has happened over the last seven or eight years. I do not think there is much hope for a multi-racial partnership until we recover some of that lost faith.
  Thirdly, I believe that there must be less, not more, power for the Federal Government. I hope that that is one of the aspects of this problem which the Monckton Commission will consider. One of the reasons for the troubles that have arisen in recent years has been the extent of the powers handed over to the Federal Government rather than retained by the territorial Governments.
  Fourthly, I believe that too little attention has been paid to the possibilities of economic as opposed to political association. I do not accept the view that it is not possible to have economic association between the three territories without the political power being transferred

  1169
  to the Federal Government. I do not think that we have always sufficiently recognised British responsibility for the economic development of Nyasaland, part of which we—and when I say "we" I mean this country as a whole—have been willing to pass over to the Federal Government.
  I therefore very much regret the speech reported in The Times today by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at Luton on 14th March, in which he is reported as having referred to Nyasaland as the slum of Africa.
  The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Like my noble Friend the Secretary of State, I have seen that report, and I think that it is not really an accurate representation of what my noble Friend said. He said something which has been said many times in the past in answer to a question which was put to him regarding the future, namely, that there would be a danger of it becoming a slum if it did not have the economic advantages which came from its association with the Federation.
  Mr. Wade: I am glad to hear what the Minister says, but, even so, I think that it was a little unfortunate to use the expression "the slum of Africa". It does not alter the fact that for seventy or eighty years Britain has been responsible for the economic development of Nyasaland, and, if conditions today are such as to justify that expression, Britain must surely accept some responsibility.
  The fifth point that I want to make, which is all too obvious, is this. Federation cannot be imposed by force. It may be too late, but it cannot succeed without good will. It is almost a law of political evolution in Colonial Territories that, if one does not come to terms with moderate Nationalist leaders, sooner or later one will have to give way to extremists. I do not know whether one would call Dr. Banda a moderate or an extremist, but I urge that an attempt be made to come to terms with Dr. Banda. I very much regret that a man like Sir John Moffat was not allowed to meet Dr. Banda and discuss the political situation. Surely a man like Sir John Moffat would have been very
  1170
  helpful in bringing about a solution. As I say, it may be too late.
  I do not want to see the Monckton Commission fail. I wish it well, but I am certain that it will come to one conclusion—that federation cannot be imposed by force.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: We are discussing this enormous subject on the peg of a relatively small Vote of £40,000, but I feel that the House should remember that, if by mischance federation fails, in years to come there is no doubt that an enormous sum of money will be required from the taxpayers of this country to support Nyasaland and to prevent it falling into the condition described by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in his speech at Luton. It would not be a question of £40,000, but of between £5 million and £6 million, if not more.
  As hon. Members know very well, since Federation there have been great economic developments in Nyasaland which have been largely paid for by revenues raised from other parts of the Federation.
  Mr. Wade: I should like to make this clear. Throughout our discussions on federation, I have always taken the view that Britain should be prepared to undertake expenditure that in the past has been borne by the Federation. In other words, if we proceed on what I would have thought would be a wiser course, I accept what follows, namely, that £3 million or £4 million, or whatever it may be, would have to be borne by the Exchequer.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is very good to hear that the hon. Member accepts that. I dare say that a great many people in this country would accept it, but I doubt whether very many people know that that is one of the likely consequences if federation collapses.
  Economic advances have been made in Nyasaland since federation—for example, hospitals and schools have been built—but there is no doubt that only a small proportion of this has been paid for by the revenues raised in Nyasaland, if one works out the sum properly. Once an economy has been geared up to expect higher and better things, it cannot be allowed to collapse.

  1171
  The consequence of these revenues not being drawn from Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia—
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Northern Rhodesia.
  Mr. Fletcher - Cooke: Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia—
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is a matter of debate.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No, it is not.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is. I am debating it.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Surely the hon. and learned Member knows the difference between a fact and an argument. It is merely a question of ascertaining the fact whether it is Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman gives his opinion as a fact, but I do not accept it as fact and, therefore, it is a matter of debate. I am saying that, to a certain extent, Nyasaland has been on the back of the Federation as a whole. That being so, and if the Federation breaks up, there is no doubt that we shall be investigating expenditure, not of £40,000, but of many millions of pounds. That is something that we must face and consider and which I hope we should want to avoid, although, at the same time, I have no doubt that we shall honour that obligation with as much readiness as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has indicated.
  I was very impressed by both the maiden speeches made from this side of the House, as I am sure was everybody who heard them. I was particularly impressed by the reminder which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) gave us of the higher standards of life that the Africans enjoy in Southern Rhodesia and almost in every part of the African continent, of the higheT expectation of life, of the great advantages in housing and health and in all the things that are essential not only for economic advance but for political advance.
  Many times from these benches I have on African matters somewhat criticised the fact that political advances have
  1172
  sometimes outstripped what one might call the taking of responsibility in executive and in Civil Service positions by the Africans. It always seemed to me that one of the reasons of the success of the independence of such great countries as India was the fact that there was a Civil Service ready to take over when independence arrived, something which has not begun to happen in most of the African territories.
  That seems to me to be a very dangerous and a very bad state of affairs. It is, of course, quite cheap and fairly easy to extend the franchise and to give votes, because those things do not cost very much. But to put Africans as they should be and now have a right to be in positions of responsibility in the machinery of Government is much harder. Yet without this any independence is likely to be a mockery. Executive responsibility depends directly on a higher standard of education than they have previously had. That, in turn, depends almost certainly upon a high state of economic prosperity.
  It seems to me that in many ways the priority in timing is all wrong and that in Nyasaland we have not the condition for, much as we now want it, a strong constitutional advance. There are no Africans who are accustomed to responsibility in the Government machine to be found at low levels and there are practically no graduates and no people with a proper secondary education. How in these circumstances can we expect a sufficiently wide constitutional advance on the political level and in votes and suffrage to be a success? One of the reasons why we have not got that is because of the economic condition of Nyasaland, which is very backward, but which, as a result of federation, has taken a good many leaps forward.
  Surely one must realise, as many of the African leaders realise, that they need the European there as much as possible. The contrast, for example, between the attitude of some of the leaders in Nyasaland whom the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and I met there two or three years ago, with the views in Tanganyika, is very great. When we discussed economic matters and the future exploitation and development of their country we found the contrast to be remarkable. Mr. Julius Nyerere, who,

  1173
  after all, is a neighbour of theirs, realises that, without European support, without European settlement and capital and without all the other things he cannot have the schools that he wants for his people. He cannot have the health services, the universities and all the things that go to make up a proper economy and a proper polity.
  When one talks to Nyasaland leaders they do not think that at all. I suppose that proportionately they have no more European settlers there than there are in Tanganyika—perhaps a few more, but not many. Yet in Nyasaland if we said to them, "Well, first of all, there is this direct economic aid which you are getting from the Rhodesias"—I say the "Rhodesias"—and there is not only that but the fact that such European settlers who are here, the tobacco companies, the tea planters and so on are creating the wealth for your new hospitals, for your new schools and for your teachers," they would look with blank amazement, and say, "But what is that? After all, we have our trees and whether the white man is here or not the trees will still be here." Their view of an economic viable State seemed to be that provided they could grow the trees that was enough.
  It seems to me that it is a very dangerous look-out if in the neighbouring country of Nyasaland to that of Tanganyika there is such a remarkable contrast in outlook between the leaders of the Africans. Certainly in Tanganyika the African leadership realises what I should have thought was obvious, that without economic prosperity there can be no education and that without education there can be no life.
  I think that when we talk, as many hon. Members on both sides have talked, in a rather resigned tone about federation having, perhaps, to break up, we should realise what the economic consequence of that would be, not merely because it is unfortunate that people should be poorer than need be but because of all the things that flow from poverty in Africa. Those things are the things that we hate, whereas the things that flow from prosperity are the things that we encourage.
  I want to sound this note of warning. I, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, feel that we should not shirk the responsibility of subventing Nyasaland
  1174
  again if we have to, but it would be a frightful commentary on all our efforts if we had a good prospect seven years ago of making this area of Africa into a viable supporting community and after that part of it would have to come back again to this country with the begging bowl asking for a dole of £5 million or £6 million or more from this House even in order to tread water and even to maintain the regrettably low standard which it had achieved up to then. Before we talk about scrapping federation, let us realise what one of the consequences of doing that may be, because if we think about it we must realise that it would be a pretty pathetic end to a promising chapter.
  5.38 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I should like, if I may, to be associated with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in congratulating my two hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) upon their maiden speeches. I think the House will agree that in both cases the speeches were sympathetic to the subject and most constructive and were made by those who have had personal contacts with the problems of Africa and have seen the problems there for themselves.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster was perfectly correct when he emphasised the important part which the Monckton Commission has to play in design in relation to the distribution of powers between the Federal Government and the territorial Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 24th November last, the terms of reference
  "will permit the Commission to consider the whole field of the redistribution of powers in either direction between the Federation and the territories and to advise on the timing of any programme and the character of any changes in the framework that it may suggest." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 208.]
  I should have thought that that was a very clear statement of one of the important functions of the Commission.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West drew attention to the Jack Report, and this is very closely relevant to the point which my hon. and learned

  1175
  Friend the Member for Darwen has just made. I hope that other hon. Members who are interested in the economic aspects of the problem, particularly in Nyasaland, will take the opportunity, if they have not already done so, of studying that Report. As I have said, those of us who have been occupied for some time past in trying to discuss and work out solutions to the difficult problems in Africa can feel from those two maiden speeches that we have good reinforcements in the fields in which we are interested, and we shall look forward to hearing both my hon. Friends on many other occasions.
  The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in what I must confess, from my own experience of occasions on which he has addressed the House on this subject, was a conciliatory way. I am grateful to him for that contribution, but he drew attention to the terms of reference and, indeed, as far as I understood it, based the whole of his case upon the objections to the terms of reference as he saw them.
  He said that great events were happening in Africa at present—in the Congo, East Africa and elsewhere—and that this had made the terms of reference of the Commission out of date. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Commission's position absolutely clear. On 24th November he said:
  "This Commission is appointed to review an existing Constitution to which its terms of reference naturally relate. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that a solution should emerge acceptable to all the races in the territories concerned. The terms of reference, in my opinion, give the Commission full scope to advise us on how best that object can be achieved, but, of course, if the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference, no doubt it would say so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959: Vol. 614. c. 215.1
  Therefore, it is really for the Commission—which, after all, consists of extremely experienced persons both in terms of Africa and of politics and constitutional matters—to decide whether the terms of reference can be fulfilled in accordance with what the Prime Minister said was its own satisfaction, or whether that is not the case. If the Commission feels dissatisfied no doubt it will say so.
  Mr. Callaghan: This is a point which has concerned us more than once. Does
  1176
  that statement mean that it will be open to the Commission, at any time, say, in the next few weeks, before it breaks up, to come back to the Government and say, "We do not think we can carry out the terms of reference. Can you please give us fresh terms?" Or does the statement mean merely that in its final Report, when the Commission is over, it will be able to say it then? If the Commission is free to do it first, it will be very helpful.
  Mr. Alport: The Prime Minister's words are extremely clear:
  "… If the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference, no doubt it would say so."
  I do not intend to produce any gloss on what my right hon. Friend said. I do not think that there is any need to do so. That is a perfectly clear statement of the position as far as the Government see the Commission in relation to the terms of reference.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman say, then, in view of that clear statement, what the answer is to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)?
  Mr. Alport: I do not think that that question requires to be asked. The Prime Minister's statement said that
  "… if the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference, no doubt it would say so."
  There are plenty of ways in which it would be able to say so. I have drawn attention to the Prime Minister's statement. It is a very clear one—if the Commission feels, as he said, that it cannot do its task within its terms of reference, it will say so. Quite obviously, it will say so to the Governments concerned.
  Mr. Callaghan: I take it, then, from what has been said, that it is open to the Commission at any time, from now until the time when it makes its Report, to indicate that it is not able to fulfil the terms of reference?
  Mr. Alport: It is open for it to do what the Prime Minister has said.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must be frank.
  Mr. Alport: I am being frank. That question is made quite clear by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister

  1177
  has said—that the Commission can at any time say so if it cannot fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference. I have repeated three times what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, so that it should be clear not only to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East but to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas).
  Mr. Dingle Foot rose
  Mr. Alport: I have given way a number of times already. If the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) will allow me to continue my speech I will be most grateful.
  On the other point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I must say that I felt with him, and have said so on many occasions, that the real object of the experiment of federation in Central Africa is to try and ensure effective partnership between the races. He put it this way—and I think I am quoting him correctly—"Living harmoniously in the territories".
  Mr. Callagban: And freely.
  Mr. Alport: And freely, certainly. If we can achieve that in Central Africa through federation, or if it can be achieved by those on the spot through federation, it will be a very great advance in the politics of that continent. I am glad to feel from this debate today that, as far as the work of the Commission is concerned, and the contribution it may make to the achievement of precisely that end, both sides are united in wishing the Commission well with the work it has in band.
  The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) drove off a number of times and each time seemed to find that he was out of bounds, and I had some sympathy with him. It is not easy to see where this debate ends and the next one begins. I will not follow him on the various points he raised, but there is every chance for anybody who wishes to give his views to the Commission to do so, whatever those views may be.
  Again, I quote what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, this time on 21st July. He said:
  "I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission would be free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever
  1178
  quarter on whatever subject, although, of course, we thought it right to give it terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 Review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1079.]
  So the hon. Member for Wednesbury should be under no misapprehension that the Commission cannot hear any point of view which anyone who wisihes to give evidence wishes to express.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Including civil servants?
  Mr. Alport: The rule with regard to civil servants is precisely the same as with the same form of Commission in this country. They can give evidence on the work of their Departments and give any information the Commission may wish to obtain from them.
  The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that there must be no constitutional changes, as far as Southern Rhodesia was concerned, during the process of the procedure of the Monckton Commission. I am not sure whether he realises that that rule, if indeed he is advocating that it should be a rule, would mean that there presumably could not be constitutional change in any other territory as well. I would have thought that that was a principle not acceptable to either side of the House. I am not sure whether he meant it that way, but I draw his attention to the logical consequences of what he was saying.
  I am glad to have this opportunity of saying something about the work of the Commission to date. After all, in its narrow sense this debate is concerned with the administration of the Commission and the work it is undertaking in the Federation at the present moment. But I must make it clear that, as with the other Governments, we are only in touch with the Commission's work in so far as we have general responsibility for the arrangements being made for it. I cannot therefore give the House a fully detailed account of progress up to the present in relation to the work which the Commission has accomplished in Northern Rhodesia.
  I think, however, that it would be right and would be the wish of the House that I should pay a tribute to the energy and strong sense of service which the Commissioners have shown in applying themselves to their onerous task. The conditions under which a Commission of

  1179
  this sort must work are inevitably arduous, and as a result four of the Commissioners have suffered short periods of indisposition, while Lord Shawcross and Mr. Justice Beadle have both been in hospital. I hope that both will be restored to full health in a very short period of time.
  As the House is aware, the Advisory Commission has so far been taking evidence in Northern Rhodesia. It assembled at Victoria Falls on 15th February and went on to Northern Rhodesia on 18th February. It is at present assembling in Lusaka to continue to take evidence and go through the large amount of material which has been produced by the three parties into which the Commission was divided for its Northern Rhodesian tour.
  The House will no doubt have seen some excellent photographs in the Daily Telegraph illustrating the picturesque conditions in which the work of the Commission is at present being undertaken. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, however, that one would not necessarily want to stay there indefinitely, and therefore it would be sad if the Opposition succeeded in reducing the Vote.
  The arrangements for the Commission's work have gone extremely smoothly and it has had the opportunity of hearing evidence from a very large number of witnesses, indeed a greater number than was expected. The threat of an African boycott seems to have had relatively little effect, and the decision of the chairman, Lord Monckton, to hear evidence in private, together with the assurances of the Attorneys-General of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Government of Southern Rhodesia with regard to the protection of witnesses, has clearly enabled many who wish to have their views heard by the Commission to come forward for that purpose.
  A large Commission consisting of 26 distinguished members together with the necessary secretarial assistance, the extensive travelling, the accommodation and other expenses which must be involved must inevitably result in substantial expenditure. This Supplementary Estimate for £40,000 is to provide for the expenses of the Commission up to 31st March, 1960. Subsequently, however, moneys will be required to meet the ex-
  1180
  penses of the Commission until such time as its report is completed. I cannot, of course, say when this is likely to be, but the chairman and members of the Commission are well aware of the importance of completing their work in sufficient time to make it possible for their advice to be fully digested by the five Governments before the opening date of the 1960 Constitutional Review Conference.
  Whatever may have been the controversies surrounding the appointment of the Commission, I am sure that the House will welcome this report which indicates the progress which the members are making in tackling the formidable yet important work with which they are entrusted. I am sure that the House would agree that now that the Commission is hard at work collecting evidence, the result of which will have a direct bearing upon the whole future of this important part of Africa, nothing should be done which would make its task more difficult. I am grateful therefore, as I said, to hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for the restraint which they have exercised in tackling this difficult problem.
  The House will have a full opportunity of studying and subsequently debating the Commission's Report when it is published and the same no doubt will apply in the other Assemblies of the various other countries concerned. I hope, therefore, that the House will not divide against the Supplementary Estimate, since the differences of point of view have already been fully deployed in the House in recent months and are well known to the Commissioners. Once the Commissioners have started on their work it seems only right that they should be allowed to get on with the job, while I fully acknowledge that the position of the Opposition is reserved against the time when we shall all be able to examine the advice contained in the final report and consequently see precisely for ourselves what the situation will be at that time.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman referred in terms of some conviction to the opening date of the 1960 Conference. Has a date been fixed?
  Mr. Alport: From my recollection, I think the agreement is that it will be opened as soon as possible after the 23rd October. No date has been fixed.
  Mr. Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer a further question? If the Monckton Commission should make a request that its terms of reference be enlarged, would Her Majesty's Government be disposed to accede to that request?
  Mr. Alport: The hon. and learned Member has asked me a hypothetical question which I am afraid must have the normal answer, which is that I cannot answer a hypothetical question.
  Mr. Callaghan: We tabled the Amendment because a great deal of discussion is going on in Central Africa and other parts about the future of these territories. We did not feel it right that the whole future of Central Africa should be put to sleep while the Commission was sitting and we felt that we should have the opportunity of expressing our views on a developing situation. But we have no desire to incarcerate any of the Commissioners even in the pleasant paradise of the summer palace of the Paramount Chief of Barotseland. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution agreed to.
  Third Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

  COLONIAL SERVICES
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, to leave out "£10" and insert "£5".
  This sum of money is the first instalment that the British taxpayer is being asked to pay of the price of the emergency in Nyasaland. As far as I can understand, it is only the first instalment because, according to an Answer that the Colonial Secretary gave on 16th February, it seems likely that there will be another £1 million on the bill before the end of the financial year 1961–62. And this is only the financial bill for the emergency. The political bill is still to be calculated and will depend a great deal upon the wisdom with which the problems which we have just dis-
  1182
  cussed are faced in the months that lie immediately ahead.
  Perhaps two things might be said straight away about the sum of money which the House is being asked to vote. At the risk of the wrath of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I must say that this emergency need never have taken place and the Vote need never have been before the House if the Government had followed the advice of the Opposition and, before March last year, had made concessions of reasonable political advance and the promise of the right of self-determination for the people of Nyasaland in relation to the question of secession. There would then have been no emergency and no Vote before us tonight.
  Again, if the Government had seized the priceless opportunity which they were offered as long ago as last summer, when the Devlin Commission reported and quite deliberately gave the Government the chance of reconciliation between Dr. Banda and the Governor of Nyasaland, the cost of the emergency, both financially and politically, would have been a great deal less than it has been. But, as we know, the emergency has dragged on month after month, and, in our view, indefensibly.
  We were greatly heartened in January when the Secretary of State, in his speech at Leeds, talked about the need for an early end of the emergency. It is two months ago since that speech was made and the emergency is still with us, and, as the Colonial Secretary will be well aware, he now has against him on this matter a body of public opinion which is very critical and widespread. It includes not merely the normal newspapers which take a liberal view, such as The Guardian and the Observer but, as he will know, The Times, on more than one occasion, has indicated that it feels that the emergency should be brought to an end.
  As this situation has carried on, the unsatisfactory situation in which this country finds itself has become clearer and clearer and has revealed the humiliating position in which the Government have allowed themselves to be placed. The British Government have imposed a state of emergency in a territory for which they are responsible and have put into detention citizens of the Commonwealth who are protected persons of the

  1183
  Commonwealth. Yet the moment they go into prison under detention orders they are removed from the protection of the British Government.
  We had an example recently, when Sir John Moffat, a respected politician in Central Africa, sought an interview with Dr. Hastings Banda in prison. As I understood it, the British Government were not unwilling that the interview should take place, and most helpful results might have come from it. However, the Federal Government, which has the responsibility for people in their places of detention, refused permission and the British Government weakly gave way.
  As the Colonial Secretary knows, my hon. Friends and myself have from time to time put to him many Questions about the conditions under which people are being detained; Questions about conditions in prisons, about health dangers, about visitors attempting to see those in detention. All the time we are given the answer that this is a Federal responsibility and that the conditions of imprisonment of those for whom we are responsible in this House are no longer within our jurisdiction. This is a most unsatisfactory position.
  What has also been becoming increasingly clear is the final humiliation which has been imposed on the British Government during the last month or two. It is that the British Government find themselves unable or unwilling to end their own state of emergency in a territory for which they are responsible because of Federal opposition. If the Minister feels that this is unduly strong and unfair language, I will quote to him the words used by The Times as far back as 18th February:
  "… there is good reason for supposing that if the British Government had had their way, Dr. Banda would by now have been released and be back in Nyasaland …"
  It stated, later, that the British Government cannot afford to hesitate longer. That was four weeks ago, and the purpose of this debate, and our reason for tabling our Amendment, is to attempt to stiffen the Government into doing their overdue duty of ending the emergency, bringing about the release of Dr. Banda, and carrying out the other steps which should go with this and of which I shall speak in a moment.
  One of the questions to which the House will want to address itself on this
  1184
  Vote is whether the money in the Vote, nearly £¾ million, will be wisely spent. Insofar as we have been able to gain information about this money, it seems that it will be devoted almost entirely to strengthening the forces of law and order. I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any part of this money will go towards the cost of maintaining the Federal troops which have arrived recently in Nyasaland.
  It seems to us on this side of the House that this movement of Southern Rhodesian troops was a most unfortunate and provocative step. The House will remember—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. Thomson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The internal security of Nyasaland is the responsibility of the Governor under the British Government. This Vote is related to internal security, and it is on this that I am seeking further enlightenment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The movement of Federal troops is under the Federal Government.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. May I make a further submission, to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The hon. Gentleman was speaking on the subject of the detention of Dr. Banda and he may do so again. I understand that all prisoners are the responsibility of the Federation and so, if anything, they come under the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and not my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.
  Mr. John Dugdale: Further to that point of order. Although the troops may be Federal troops they have been accepted in Nyasaland by the Government. It is for internal responsibility that they have been accepted. If it did not want them, they would not be there. Is that not a fact?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But they do not appear to be included in the Vote which we are discussing.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Further to that point of order. This seems to be a tremendously important point upon which you are ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not

  1185
  the case that in both British Protectorates, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the duty of internal security is in the hands of the respective Governments? Is not this Vote on the issue of Nyasaland, and is it not related to the maintenance of the emergency in that territory? If that is so, I submit to you that all matters which relate to the internal security of Nyasaland are in order in this debate.
  If the Minister says, as he hinted in answer to questions, that these troops have been brought into Nyasaland for some purpose other than internal security, then one would agree that my hon. Friend is out of order, but there is no other possible purpose for which those troops could be brought into Nyasaland than that of its internal security.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Colonial Secretary is not responsible for the movement of Federal troops.
  Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when the Federal troops went into Nyasaland, on 4th March, they did so because the Government asked that they should go in because they feared for the internal security of that territory. It was the responsibility of the colonial Governor that they were there. Indeed, when it was suggested from this side of the House that it was the responsibility of the Federal Government, that was hotly denied because we were told that the Governor had invited them there.
  I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and I think that the Colonial Secretary could help us there. Does the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Federal troops now in Nyasaland have gone there purely for military reasons, and that their presence there has nothing to do with the internal security of that territory?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I do not know whether I can help the House, although I am very willing to answer. This is just a question of the rules of the House. I have no desire to be obstructive in any way on this matter. I am answering this Vote as Colonial Secretary, and the question of the movement of troops is
  1186
  a military matter for the Federal authorities. This battalion of the Rhodesian African Rifles is in Nyasaland with the knowledge of the Governor and myself. It is not taking part in anything to do with the internal security of Nyasaland. It is taking part in exercises with the King's African Rifles battalion which is in Nyasaland. The movement of troops is a matter for the Federal authorities. If it be in order for me to answer questions on this matter, I am willing to do so.
  Mr. Callaghan: That helps us greatly, because the Colonial Secretary has said that the Federal troops are in Nyasaland with the consent of the Governor. This Vote is a Vote purely about the emergency in Nyasaland. For whatever military purpose the troops are there, they are there also in a state of emergency in Nyasaland.
  As the Colonial Secretary has indicated his willingness to reply to questions about this matter, if it is in order, and as it is an unprecedented movement that must be related to the emergency in some way and has been done with the consent of the Governor, I submit that it would be ruling unduly narrowly to deny my hon. Friend the opportunity of questioning the Colonial Secretary about the reasons and the length of time that the Governor proposes to give his consent for the troops to remain there and in what circumstances they shall leave the territory. These seem to me to be perfectly legitimate questions which should be in order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question seems to depend upon whether the movement and maintenance of these troops are paid for out of this Vote.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I make a submission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Nothing could be more clear than that the pay and allowances of these Federal troops and the cost of their military movements are in no way a Colonial Office matter. It must be a Federation matter. If any Department is responsible to this House, it could only be the Commonwealth Relations Office. I submit that all this discussion is out of order.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I put the further point that the question of the funds from which the pay and allowances of the troops are met

  1187
  is not quite the relevant factor? As the Colonial Secretary has made perfectly clear, the troops could not be there without the consent of the Governor. They could not enter the territory or remain there without his consent. Since the Governor's pay and allowances are borne out of the moneys which we are now considering, the reasons for his consent and the conditions for the maintenance of the consent must be proper for the House to consider in deciding whether to make this Vote.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Governor's allowances are not paid for out of the Supplementary Estimates that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Thomson: Perhaps I can assist the House in this way. I am not anxious to get out of order, but the Estimate deals with expenditure for the twelve months ahead, until March of next year. The amount of money that may be required to meet the cost of the emergency will be very much related to the kind of actions now taking place and, in particular, to the consent given by the Governor of Nyasaland to the arrival of troops on a so-called military exercise at this politically delicate time.
  The Secretary of State must know as well as anybody that these troops were suddenly moved to take part in the so-called military exercise at the very time he was being pressed in relation to the ending of the emergency and the release of Dr. Banda. What we on this side argue is that this is utterly the wrong way to bring about a state of conciliation and peace in Nyasaland.
  In view of the record of these troops during the period of the emergency, and of what the Devlin Commission said about how they had been used to cow troublesome areas in Nyasaland, this is utterly the wrong way to go about maintaining law and order, with which, as I understand it, the Vote is principally concerned. I leave the matter at that point, but I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us on what ground he justifies the consent given by the Governor of Nyasaland to allow this military exercise to take place at this time.
  The greater part of the Vote appears to be devoted to a large increase in the
  1188
  police force of Nyasaland. According to Answers that the Secretary of State has given in the House, it is proposed very nearly to double the size of the police force from 1,268 to 2,407. This is an astonishing approach to the admittedly difficult problem of ensuring security, law and order in Nyasaland. The House will recollect that the Devlin Commission, on the very first page of its Report, chose to make the charge that
  "Nyasaland was, no doubt temporarily, a police state ".
  That was more than twelve months ago and the word "temporarily" is beginning now to wear a little thin.
  That charge outraged the Government and hon. Members opposite. It seems somewhat odd that the Government which considered this to be an unjust charge against it should now react by spending the greater part of its moneys for the emergency on doubling the size of the police force.
  Nor is that the whole story. This is not the first increase in the size of the police force in Nyasaland. The Colonial Secretary will be familiar with the memoranda that are sent to him by the Bow Group of the Conservative Party. He will, perhaps, recollect that a memorandum which he received from that Group at the beginning of the year commented on the fact that the police force in Nyasaland had already been increased three times over since the imposition of federation. The Bow Group stated:
  "That the size of the police force in Nyasaland has increased threefold since Federation is not a symptom of better administration."
  The Colonial Secretary may argue, as he has done in the House, that in the past Nyasaland has had fewer police in relation to its population than other African territories. This is not quite the point. The point, surely, is that before we made the political blunder of attempting to impose federation on Nyasaland, it was a quiet and peaceful country with a very small police force.
  It is a devastating indictment of the policy of imposing federation against the will of the population that one of its results has been to bring about a sixfold increase in the strength of the police in order to maintain law and order. We on this side suggest that this money

  1189
  might have been better devoted to other things in Nyasaland which might have made a more effective contribution—
  Mr. Henry Clark: It is of considerable interest that, although Nyasaland has had an unfortunate history in the last few months, Tanganyika has had an extremely happy one. At the same time, Tanganyika has had to increase its police force by about 50 per cent.
  Mr. Thomson: I wholeheartedly agree about the excellent progress that is being made in Tanganyika. I can only say to the hon. Member that if Tanganyika had been forced into the same kind of Federal framework as Nyasaland, there might have been a somewhat different record of political progress in Tanganyika.
  Mr. Clark: Surely it is hardly logical to argue that an increase in the police force is a sign of a thoroughly unhappy and unfortunate country. Tanganyika, a happy and fortunate country, has had an increase in its police force.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to know a figure of which he may not be immediately aware. In Tanganyika, there are about 1,850 inhabitants to every member of the police force. That is the 1958 figure. This is the valid comparison, because the Colonial Secretary says that we must increase the police force in Nyasaland to give us one policeman to every 850 inhabitants.
  Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which so effectively deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark). My point is that we would much rather see this £¾ million spent on tackling some of the kind of problems in Nyasaland that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations mentioned in his speech yesterday. It was a most unfortunate speech, coming a week before the Secretary of State sets out for Nyasaland. I can only conclude that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who was speaking in Luton, had fallen under the polemical influence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because that kind of phraseology about
  1190
  the conditions and people in Nyasaland set a most unfortunate tone for the right hon. Gentleman's forthcoming visit.
  However, we can agree with the Secretary of State to the extent that there are many things which need to be done in this very poor country of Nyasaland if we are to have the sort of social and economic conditions which, in the long run, are the best guarantee of the maintenance of law and order. I fully agree with those hon. Members about the economic implications for this country if this cannot be done within a federal framework or within a framework of the looser economic association which we would like to see enhanced.
  We are not in favour of breaking up the Federation as such. We are in favour of obtaining the consent of the peoples of those territories to whatever form of political advance seems to them desirable, but, in the long run, we may be forced to face the need to give substantial help to the people of Nyasaland, who may have enjoyed too little help from us in the past.
  We have just received the Jack Report, a survey of the Nyasaland economy. Professor Jack has done an immense amount of work and has provided us with a unique body of economic information. Everybody interested in Nyasaland will be grateful to him for that work. However, in passing, I must say that I find many of his conclusions both disappointing and reactionary, although I am very glad to note that he laid much emphasis on increasing the number of places in higher education in Nyasaland.
  I recollect that in the early part of the emergency I asked the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor how many African graduates there were in Nyasaland at that time. The answer was that there were 22 African graduates, of whom 12 were in detention at that time. We would far rather see some of this money used on doubling the number of secondary school places and doubling the number of technical college places than doubling the number of policemen in Nyasaland.
  Again, there is the urgent question of agricultural development, to which the Jack Report drew attention and which is the foundation of any economic progress in Nyasaland. I understand that within the Nyasaland development plan

  1191
  only £500,000 is earmarked for land reorganisation and land improvement, and yet here we have £¾ million earmarked almost purely for the purpose of doubling the size of the police force.
  At the December meeting of the Legislative Council, the Financial Secretary of Nyasaland reported on his visit to the Secretary of State, which must have taken place a short time before. He was very coy about what other things were to be done to meet the conditions created by the emergency. He said that he had put before the Government in this country other things as well as an increase in the police force, but that he was not yet in a position to make any sort of announcement. He said that urgent consideration was being given to a programme of agricultural development.
  That announcement was made in the Legislative Council three months ago, and perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us something tonight about the results of that urgent consideration which has been given to the need for agricultural development. Perhaps he will tell us that he will reconsider whether some of this £¾ million might not go to agricultural development, rather than be concentrated on increasing the police force in Nyasaland.
  On the subject of agricultural development, the Government sometimes complain about the difficulty of getting adequate co-operation in schemes of agricultural improvement and, in particular, in the very difficult task of changing the basis of land tenure. When I read about those difficulties, I wonder whether the Government will never learn the lesson of other African territories which have advanced further along the road to self government—that economic co-operation can be expected only where political hope is provided.
  Economic advance can never be a substitute for political advance. The two have to go hand in hand. We therefore take the opportunity of this debate to urge upon the Government that the best way to maintain law and order is not to hold down an unwilling population by a bigger and bigger police force. The most essential step to restoring social peace—indeed, the first step —which need not cost the British taxpayer one penny, is a declaration of the ending of the emergency and
  1192
  the release of Dr. Banda and all the other detainees against whom ordinary charges cannot be brought in an open court, and —this I emphasise—a positive programme of political advance to responsible government with real political power in the hands of the Africans in Nyasaland.
  The ending of the emergency without real hope of peaceful political progress is not enough. The two steps should be taken together, and before he sets off for Nyasaland next week we urge the Secretary of State to make those two moves— ending the emergency and providing a positive programme of constitutional advance. As a censure on the Government for having delayed those steps for so long, we take the step of moving the Amendment.
  6.27 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The part of this Vote which particularly concerns me is that in respect of the police. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) about the desirability of having political rather than police solutions to the problems in Nyasaland, but I must admit at once that if the choice is between having police in Nyasaland under the Governor of Nyasaland, and, therefore, indirectly under the Colonial Secretary, and having the Federal troops of Sir Roy Welensky in Nyasaland, I am in favour of the police every time.
  That may well be the main issue tonight. The troops which have been in Nyasaland have been Federal troops and they have contributed to the political difficulties there. The difficulty in Nyasaland is the difficulty of internal security and not of ordinary crime. The difficulty of internal security is a political difficulty, and if we use as our implement for dealing with that problem something which exacerbates that political problem we make no contribution towards the solution of the internal security problem. That is exactly what is involved by the employment of Federal troops.
  The Devlin Report has been mentioned. The troops recently sent into Nyasaland are those who were sent during the emergency from Southern Rhodesia and all of them are indirectly under Sir Roy Welensky. In the words of the Devlin Report, they were used

  1193
  during the emergency to "cow the population". The Devlin Report says that the troops were used for punitive expeditions intended to make it plain that siding with Congress led to very unpleasant consequences. Sending those same troops into Nyasaland now, so recently after the emergency, is bound to produce precisely the same popular reaction.
  These people were cowed by the troops during the emergency. The troops are there now, at a time when the Monckton Commission is visiting the country. Will not the people consider that the troops are there for the same purpose as before? It does not matter to them. They are not aware whether the troops are there for defence purposes, or for internal security purposes. What matters to them is that there are troops on the spot who behaved in the way they did during the emergency, and who may behave in precisely the same way again. To have troops there in those circumstances is to invite internal security trouble.
  Despite the risk of sending these troops there—and the Colonial Secretary recognises the risk to internal security resulting from the presence of these troops—they were sent into the country. We were told by the Minister the other day that they were sent for defence purposes, and that the decision to send them was the responsibility of the Federal Government. That means that they were sent by Sir Roy Welensky. They were not sent by the Governor, or on the direction of the Governor, or the Colonial Secretary, but by Sir Roy Welensky.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair when a similar point of order was raised about half an hour ago, when an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House persisted in discussing the question of the despatch of Federal troops to Nyasaland. Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled that this was out of order because it was not applicable to a Colonial Office Vote.
  Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the detailed movement of troops not under the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary would not be, but I can see that while discussing the expense arising out of the
  1194
  emergency there must be some degree of permissible discussion in so far as the movement of troops is a background, or an alleged cause of the continuance of the emergency.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is on that basis that I am putting it, Mr. Speaker, and giving the Colonial Secretary the opportunity, which I gather he welcomes, to deal with this difficulty which is troubling hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Are these troops to be used for defence purposes, or are they to be available for internal security purposes? What is the motive in sending them there? If they are for defence purposes, defence against whom?
  Mr. Speaker: That is over my line, because if they are not sent there under the control of the Minister it is not much good asking him why they were sent there.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: They were sent there after consultation with the Minister. We are entitled to know what representations he made when Sir Roy Welensky informed him that he proposed to send these troops there, because the sending of troops will have an aggravating effect on the internal security problem.
  The Minister has a responsibility for that. What consultations took place? What representations were made to Sir Roy Welensky about it? Did the initiative come from the Minister, from the Government, or from Sir Roy Welensky? What representations were made by the Colonial Secretary, or by the Government, to Sir Roy Welensky when it was proposed to send those troops there?
  Those are vital matters to which the House is entitled to have an answer. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will clear up the deep concern which many of us feel about what is essentially an internal security problem. To put it baldly, we are troubled that these troops have been sent there by Sir Roy Welensky not for defence purposes at all, and we want to know what representations were made by the Government to Sir Roy Welensky when he told them that he proposed to send these troops there.
  6.35 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: Not having been to Nyasaland or to any of the three countries in the Federation, I am always hesitant to say anything on that subject. My feeling is that it is dangerous for those hon. Gentlemen who have been on visits to these countries to assume that they know more than the Governor or the people in the territories. I have always deplored—and I do not mean to be insulting to hon. Members opposite— attempts by anybody in the House to frame his question and make his point in such a way as, possibly, to lead those who have grave responsibilities in the territories concerned to imagine that this country's confidence in them is being lost. I have always felt that that is something about which we should exercise a great sense of responsibility.
  The operative factor in this matter is who has the authority to send the troops. That responsibility is obviously outside the scope of discussion on this Vote. It is a Federal matter, and a matter for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The agreement by the Governor in Nyasaland for the troops to be sent is a matter which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Even then it seems somewhat unfortunate for us to go on having this wrangling in the House about this issue which was considered in some detail, arising out of the Devlin Report, before the General Election. I do not believe that it will produce any constructive result to continue this battle which has been decided by the country. Before the election the Devlin Commission had produced its Report, and the contents of the Report were well known.
  On the whole, most of us accepted the facts in the Devlin Report but rejected many of the opinions. I hold that view today. The Devlin Commission did a splendid job in finding out the facts, but I find it difficult to accept all the opinions based on those facts. That is all I propose to say about Nyasaland.
  My principle purpose in rising is to raise another matter contained in the Vote under the headings B.17 and B.18, which deal with the grant to the Cyprus Government of £3,750,000 and with the grant to Nicosia Airport of £72,450, which are more substantial matters for
  1196
  the taxpayer to consider than the token Vote of £10 arising out of the Nyasaland matter. I realise that my right hon. Friend could easily be embarrassed if we were to ask questions relating to the negotiations going on in the island. I am anxious not to embarrass him on that, but I am sure he will agree with me that there are one or two somewhat unusual features about what is said on page 42 of the Estimates. There is a hieroglyphic—the typographical name of which I can never remember—against B.17 and B.18 on page 40, and on page 42 one reads the following:
  "Expenditure from these sub-heads will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but he will be furnished with audited accounts. Any balances of the sums issued which may remain unexpended at 31 March, 1960, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer."
  I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions on that. First, is this procedure without precedent? Secondly, by whom will the account be audited? If we can be satisfied on these two questions it will not be necessary to ask the third, namely, is there an auditor general to the Cyprus Government to carry out the rôle which would otherwise have been carried out by our Comptroller and Auditor General? We are here dealing with a very substantial sum of money—nearly £4 million—and it is appropriate that these matters should have that scrutiny which we expect them to be given by the accountants and the Comptroller and Auditor General when raising money from the British taxpayer.
  There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, arising out of Subhead B.18—"Cyprus (Nicosia Airport)", in respect of which we again have some rather unusual wording. The item is prefaced by a hypothesis. It says:
  "Subject to satisfactory arrangements being concluded with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,"—
  presumably by 31st March, 1960—
  "and as announced in the House of Commons on 25th June, 1959, assistance is being made available towards the cost of constructing a new terminal at Nicosia airport."
  The House will remember that in the defence debate on 9th February the Minister of Defence said that we had offered to give up control of Nicosia airport. He said that that was a major step, and I agree with him. We are here dealing with a sum of £72,450 and we are

  1197
  entitled to ask what will happen to that sum, or to part of it, or what has already happened. Has the work begun or not? If it has not begun and if we do not arrive at an agreement, what happens to that money? Would we then expect it to appear as a reduction on the outturn of the year, or would it be used as an appropriation in aid in the ensuing financial year?
  I ask these somewhat detailed questions because these appear to be two rather unusual items in a Supplementary Estimate, and I should like to know whether or not they are to be regarded as a precedent for the future.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not expect me to follow him—[An HON. MEMBER:" Why not? The right hon. Gentleman would be in order, for once."] That is a very uncalled-for remark, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling. It appears to be more a reflection upon the Chair than upon hon. Members on this side of the House.
  My only comment upon the hon. and gallant Member's speech is that from his early remarks he appeared to hold the view that hon. Members who had not visited these territories, or stayed there for any length of time, were not competent to discuss the question, and that the House of Commons should not concern itself with matters outside the United Kingdom. That is an oversimplification of our duties.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I do not dispute the rights of any hon. Member to ask about expenditure at any time. I was merely pointing out that the question of policy represented here has been debated ad nauseam, and I was saying that hon. Members intervening with regard to security matters do not know what they are talking about.
  Mr. Dugdale: I will leave that matter now—not because I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right, but because I see no use in pursuing it further. Most hon. Members on this side of the House disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  We were profoundly disturbed to read in The Times today a report of a speech
  1198
  by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about Nyasaland. It has been said that the noble Lord has been misquoted in this case. I want to know exactly how he has been misquoted, and I would ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to clear the matter up. I understand that the noble Lord did not say that Nyasaland was a slum, but I am not clear what he did say. The Times is not often found guilty of misquoting Ministers, but we are told that he did not refer to Nyasaland as a slum. Did he say:
  "People glibly talk about self-government for Nyasaland, and it is a country that has only about a dozen native lawyers, one doctor who is a properly qualified "—
  presumably Dr. Banda, who is now in prison?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may be quoting an extremely interesting speech, but I find it difficult to relate it to expenditure arising out of the emergency during the period ending on 31st March, 1961. The right hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to that.
  Mr. Dugdale: I shall relate them to that, Mr. Speaker. I maintain that if the Government had carried out another policy in Nyasaland the emergency might not have arisen. Many of these difficulties have arisen because of the policy of the Government. I will refrain from further comment upon this matter; I will merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those words were used, because it is important that we should know.
  Mr. Speaker: It may be important, but it cannot be in order. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is submitting on the question of policy, but it is difficult to see how the question whether a speech has been accurately reported has any bearing upon the matter under discussion.
  Mrs. Eirene White: Surely we are entitled to discuss matters which may exacerbate feelings in Nyasaland and lead to an intensification of the emergency. Surely it can be said that if this speech was truly reported it was so insulting that it might easily exacerbate feelings in Nyasaland.
  Mr. Speaker: I follow that argument, but I have not heard it emerge from the right hon. Member for West Brom-wich (Mr. Dugdale).
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Secretary of State was making what I assume to be a statement of Government policy about self-government in Nyasaland, which is closely related to the expenditure on the emergency. I submit that it is in order.
  Mr. Speaker: I follow that argument.
  Mr. Dugdale: Do I understand that, owing to my hon. Friends' more successful intervention, I am in order in mentioning this point?
  Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that Minister A is being asked whether or not Minister B has been correctly reported.
  Mr. Dugdale: I am assuming that he has been correctly reported. I maintain that if he has, his remarks are likely to exacerbate the situation in Nyasaland, and that it would be in order to ask the Colonial Secretary whether or not his noble Friend has been correctly reported. I do not intend to pursue the matter further. All hon. Members will have read the remarks, and will have found them somewhat disquieting.
  A state of emergency has been declared, but instead of money being spent on improving the conditions of the people, which would appear to be necessary from the statement that I have just read out it is to be spent mainly upon the police. To hon. Members on this side of the House that seems to be a wrong balance of expenditure. Not only that —leaders are now being imprisoned. Some have been released, but many are still in prison. In view of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, it is important that we should consider what the people on the spot think of these leaders. I have here a quotation from an article by Sir John Moffat, who describes what these leaders are like. He says:
  "These African leaders are certainly men with whom the Nyasaland Government could negotiate and I believe that such negotiations could result in a reasonable plan for constitutional development. I took a careful look at these leaders and was much impressed by them. In view of the emergency, there was an astonishing absence of bitterness."
  I can bear that out from my personal observation, and from having spoken to
  1200
  Mr. Orton Chirwa. Except, perhaps, for Mr. Nehru, I have not seen anybody who has been imprisoned who has come out of prison with less bitterness. This is a remarkable testimony to the people of Nyasaland and their leaders, and I hope that the Government will see their way to release the rest of these people before long. I hope that the Secretary of State will also tell us something about the reasons which prevented Sir John Moffat from visiting Dr. Banda in prison. It would seem to me that the decision must be one primarily for the Governor, and it is up to the Governor to say whether or not he can visit him, because he is the Governor's prisoner, even if lodged in a prison in Salisbury. I will not pursue that matter any further, but I hope that we may get an answer to that point.
  I should like for a moment or two to compare the conditions in the emergency in Nyasaland and the conditions in Tanganyika. In Tanganyika we get calm and the leaders are free, whereas in Nyasaland we have tension and the leaders are in prison. In Tanganyika we have racial equality, and in Nyasaland racial inequality. In Nyasaland we have a demand for a better franchise, and in Tanganyika the people are satisfied with the new franchise that has been proposed. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has been to Tanganyika and has himself secured, as all of us would agree, what seems to be a very remarkable degree of unanimity upon a new and better constitution.
  Why does that not happen in Nyasaland? Why is there nothing like that in Nyasaland? I believe that it is because of the shadow of federation which has been imposed against the will of the great majority of people in Nyasaland. As long as that continues, it will be virtually impossible, I fear, to get the same sort of conditions as exist today in Tanganyika. I wish it were not so; I wish we could get them, because all of us would like to see these kinds of conditions, and I feel that we ought to congratulate the Colonial Secretary on what he has done in Tanganyika.
  I hope that when he goes to Nyasaland he will look northwards instead of southwards. I would ask him to do this. I hope that in the first place he will take steps to end the emergency, because that is the most important thing of all, and to

  1201
  free Dr. Banda and the other leaders. I hope that he will then call a conference, something on the lines of the Kenya one, to deal with a new internal constitution for Nyasaland, because quite apart from the question of a Federal Constitution, it is vitally important to promote a better and more liberal constitution for Nyasaland itself. I ask him again to look northwards and to consider the possibility of a federation between Nyasaland and Tanganyika which would be far better than the idea of a federation of Nyasaland with Northern and Southern Rhodesia.
  It seems to me that there are two roads, one which leads to the fulfilment of the national aspirations of the people of Nyasaland and the other which leads to the dead end of federation. It is up to the people of Nyasaland to choose. I feel sure which road they will choose, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary will help them to choose the right road.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Eden: I hope that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and his hon. Friends will forgive me if I turn the discussion to the Supplementary Estimates now before the House, and ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions on some of the subheads on which a certain amount of detailed information has already been given. I would reinforce the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) for additional information about the control of expenditure under Subhead B.18 in regard to Cyprus and Nicosia Airport. May I, very briefly, ask some straightforward questions on some of these subheads that are worrying me at the moment?
  I refer, first, to Subhead A.1, relating to the St. Helena grant in aid, the details of which are given in the Supplementary Estimate, showing that additional provision is required for further issues of grant in aid of expenses of administration. This item in the Supplementary Estimate amounts to £17,000. Could my right hon. Friend give me any information about the nature of the expenses of administration in this respect, and say to what extent he can himself supervise or exercise any control over the expenses of the administration in St. Helena?
  Mr. Callaghan: Puerile.
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) may object, but the purpose of bringing Supplementary Estimates before the House is to enable hon. Members to obtain information about the expenses.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry. I only want to say to the hon. Member that I think his contribution is puerile because a full explanation of this expenditure has already been given in a debate in the House, and that if we had had the advantage of seeing him present during an earlier debate he would have known the answer.
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman should know that a full explanation has already been given of the nature of the emergency in Nyasaland and other related matters, yet he persists in trying to raise them in the House today. Like every Member opposite, he is not concerned with considering other subheads.
  Mr. Callaghan: The point is that there is a real difference between us and the Government on these matters. There is no real apposition by the hon. Member to the expenditure of this money in St. Helena, or is there?
  Mr. Eden: My opposition is not specifically directed to St. Helena, or any other place. It is not my fault that I have to raise the question of St. Helena, since the Opposition chose this particular Vote to be put down for discussion in the first place. I am concerned to see whether the control which can be exercised by the Government over the expenditure of the taxpayers' money has been properly applied, and I shall continue, therefore, to ask questions of my right hon. Friend to try to satisfy myself that he and his Department, and the accounting officials in the Department, have done this.
  Could my right hon. Friend turn his attention to Subhead C.2, relating to the Aden Protectorate? Here an increase of £137,750 is required for certain increased costs in connection with the Aden Protectorate levies. Could he give further details of the nature of this increased expenditure for the Aden Protectorate levies? Is it required for equipping them with uniforms, or certain

  1203
  expenses involved in their operations? Could he give any further information on that, and also on Subhead C.3, concerning a Supplementary Estimate for £22,000 for further issues of grants in aid to certain States of the Aden Protectorate for administrative and other services? I assume that these are administrative services based on the Aden Protectorate, and staffed and controlled mainly by British officers and personnel, for assistance to the Aden Protectorate States. If he could say a word or two about that, I should be grateful.
  Finally, on page 44, Subhead C.14, relating to the desert locust control in the Ethiopian-Somali area, could he tell us about the results so far of the activities of the locust control organisation there? Is it meeting with a better degree of co-operation from the local people in trying to carry out its essential work? It is a very essential service which the organisation is performing there, and it would be interesting to know how far the money which is being spent on these operations is achieving results.
  One further word on the question of the British Council, referred to in Subhead F.2. I am sure that no one will dispute the value of the work of the Council, but this is a rather generalised provision, in that it calls for a Supplementary Estimate of £43,500 to meet the increased costs of the Council's activities. That might well account for a multitude of blessings, but it could also account for a multitude of sins, and it would be valuable if we could have some further information about the nature of the activities, and also be told where the Council is carrying out increased activities, which is the reason why it has called for a Supplementary Estimate. Further, why when the original Estimate was prepared could it not have been foreseen that an additional £43,500 would be required?
  I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend can provide that information so that I and other hon. Members may be sure that the closest scrutiny and attention of his Department is being given to all the items of expenditure under its control.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: I wish to bring the House back to the question of Nyasaland. It is clear that we are being asked to vote additional money largely to increase the establishment of the Nyasaland Police. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: have the Government, either here or in Zomba, seriously considered the observations made by the Devlin Commission on the organisation of the Nyasaland Police Force?
  The House will recall that that force was analysed on page 36 of the Report and it falls into three branches:
  "… the uniformed branch, whose duty it is to police the country and deal with all ordinary crime, including criminal investigation; special units, known as the P.M.F. (police mobile force), designed to deal with riots; and a special branch whose business it is to detect subversion and seditious activities."
  The organisation came under a good deal of criticism by the Devlin Commission and on the following page of its Report the Commission draws this contrast:
  "In Southern Rhodesia, on the other hand, there is neither a P.M.F. nor a special branch. There, it is the belief of the British South African Police, with a strength of 4,250 (one European to 2·23 Africans) and a record of never having killed anyone since their formation in the '90s, that a P.M.F. is liable to be cut off not only from the rest of the population but also from the rest of the police force itself and that the 'riot squad' technique is no training for ordinary police duties; secondly, that a special branch, as 'a force within a force' tends to deprive the ordinary police of their normal intelligence duties as well as, by reporting direct to the Governor, risking sidestepping the overall responsibility of the Commissioner of Police."
  That was the view expressed from Southern Rhodesia. The Commission goes on to make this finding:
  "We have not received enough evidence to suggest that the Nyasaland police force, despite the devotion of many of its officers, has succeeded in making itself a thoroughly acceptable part of the population of the Protectorate with, so to speak, 'its feet well under the table'."
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this passage in the Devlin Report has been considered and whether as a result any reforms of the Nyasaland Police Force are in contemplation.
  The relations between the police and the population must depend not only on the organisation of the force but also, of course, on the duties which it is called on to carry out. At this moment nobody

  1205
  can deny that there is a very deep division in Nyasaland between the rulers and the ruled. That is due to a number of causes, but in a very large part it is due to the continued existence of the state of emergency and to the nature of the emergency regulations under which Nyasaland is governed at the present time.
  The attention of the House has already been called on various occasions to Regulation 35. I will cite the relevant words:
  "No person shall do any act or publish likely … to undermine the authority of, or the public confidence in, the Government or the Government of the Federation"
  If anyone commits that offence, he is liable to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or to a fine of £1,000, or both imprisonment and fine. I wish to make two comments on that regulation. First, it has, and it must necessarily have, the effect of stifling practically all political discussion, at any rate so far as the African population is concerned. If I may digress for a moment without getting out of order, there has been the question about who should give evidence before the Monckton Commission. It is extremely difficult for any body of persons to decide to give evidence if they cannot act freely and discuss together. Any sort of free discussion involving any attack on the Federation and any discussion among Nyasaland Africans exposes the persons concerned to the penalties here attached.
  Secondly, I wish to comment on the penalties. It is, of course, perfectly true that courts in Nyasaland, as in this country, often mitigate the severity of statute law by imposing sentences which fall a good deal short of the maximum which the law allows. But, nevertheless, it must be the intention of those who framed the law that the maximum punishment should on occasions be imposed.
  I simply cannot understand the mentality of the authors of these regulations who seemed to think that a sentence of fourteen years' imprisonment and a fine of £1,000, or both imprisonment and fine taken together, was the appropriate penalty by which to deter criticism of the Federation or the territorial Government. That is one regulation. There is another regulation to which I should like to refer.
  1206
  I could cite a good many but I will content myself with one, Regulation 28. It reads:
  "No person shall publish, whether orally or otherwise, any report or information calculated to create alarm and despondency, or which is otherwise likely to prejudice the public morale, unless such report or information is merely a repetition of information which had already been published by or with the authority of the Governor."
  If the Governor says anything to create alarm or despondency one can repeat it, otherwise one cannot say it. There the maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment or a fine of £500, or both imprisonment and fine.
  It is rather remarkable when one contrasts that with the similar regulation which we had in this country during the war under the Defence Regulations— Regulation 39BA. There also it was made an offence to publish any report or statement likely to cause alarm or despondency. But there was the proviso that no person should be convicted of the offence against the regulation if he could prove
  "that he had reasonable cause to believe that the report or statement was true; and that the publication thereof was not malicious and ought fairly to be excused."
  If he made a statement in good faith believing it to be true he had a perfectly good defence. The penalty in that case —and this was in the middle of the war—was a month's imprisonment or a fine of £50. Compare that with the sentence of three years' imprisonment or a fine of £500 which obtains in Nyasaland. Is it not remarkable to compare these two regulations and to note the comparative savagery of the penalty imposed under the emergency regulations in Nyasaland? The point I wish to make is that so long as the emergency conditions and these regulations continue in force, so long are the people of Nyasaland subject to this extremely harsh and oppressive law, and those are not conditions in which a settlement can be brought about.
  The complaint that I make of what goes on and the law which the police have to enforce in Nyasaland is not confined simply to the emergency regulations. The police have to administer the ordinary law and it is worth while to look for a moment at the ordinary law in Nyasaland as it affects the liberty of the subject. Ever since 1909 there

  1207
  has been in force in Nyasaland the Political Removal and Detention of Africans Ordinance. Only Africans may be removed or detained. The Ordinance provides that if a district commissioner is satisfied that any African
  "… residing or being within his district is conducting himself so as to be dangerous to peace, order and good government in the Protectorate or is intriguing against Her Majesty's power and authority in the Protectorate the district commissioner may detain any such African …"
  After the detention order has been made by the district commissioner, the report is made to the Governor and then it is provided that
  "The Governor may, if he thinks fit, …"
  direct
  "that such African shall, (a) be detained in such place and for such period as the Governor may consider necessary in the interests of peace, order and good government; or, (b) be removed from within the limits of the district in which he ordinarily resides to some other district appointed in the said order, and there detained in such place and for such period as the Governor may consider necessary in the interests of peace, order and good government."
  Quite apart from emergency regulations, we have this power of arbitrary detention and restriction which has existed for many years in Nyasaland and which continues to operate today. One particular case which I have already taken up with the Colonial Office is the case of M.Q.Y. Chibambo. He is a man of 43 years of age. In 1953 he was convicted of uttering seditious words. He was alleged to have said that the agricultural laws should be disregarded, that offences against the laws of the Protectorate should not be reported to the Governor or the native authority and that such offences should be tried by the people themselves. In other words, he was advocating non-co-operation. He was following in the footsteps of Gandhi and a good many other figures in the history of the British Commonwealth.
  That, of course, may have been very reprehensible but it took place in the year 1953, a year when the Nyasa people were greatly exercised because federation was being imposed on them against their will. Mr. Chibambo served his sentence. He served for fifteen months and was released in July, 1954, but he was not allowed to go back to his home in Blantyre. He was at once deported
  1208
  to Port Herald in the far north of Nyasaland, hundreds of miles from his home, and continued to remain there under a restriction order until March of last year when he was detained under emergency powers.
  I wrote to the Colonial Office on his behalf in December, 1958, and got this reply from the Under-Secretary of State:
  "The order under which Mr. Chibambo is restricted to the Port Herald area in Nyasaland is reviewed by the Governor in Council every six months, and the last review was in September, 1958, when it was decided that it should remain in force."
  That is an entirely arbitrary proceeding; there is no appeal and there is no redress. This man goes on year after year without any explanation ever being furnished to him or to anyone else of why it is thought necessary to keep him in detention.
  The police in Nyasaland have a very thankless task. That is not their fault. I think it only right that I should say in this House that I have had a good many contacts in the last twelve months with the Nyasaland police, particularly in May of last year when I was appearing before the Devlin Commission. I think I ought to say in this House that both then and when I was in Nyasaland a few weeks ago, I and my colleagues received every possible courtesy and assistance from the Law Officers and from all members of the Nyasaland Police Force. I am not making any attack upon the force. It is not their fault, but their task is due to the relations which now exist in Nyasaland between the rulers and the ruled.
  Earlier today when the Monckton Commission was discussed during the debate in an earlier Vote, we had two very remarkable maiden speeches by hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). The hon. Member for Lancaster quoted a sentence which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) during the debate on the Address when my hon. Friend said that the task of this Administration, newly returned at the General Election, was to restore
  "African confidence … in the good intentions of the Conservative Government."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 668.]

  1209
  I think it goes even further than that. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman goes to Nyasaland in a few days' time, his task—and it may be very largely the task of Lord Monckton as well—will be to restore the faith of the Nyasa people in British rule and in British integrity. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will be assisted—I hope he will—by the speech made by the Prime Minister in the Union of South Africa, and that he will also be assisted by what he himself has recently accomplished in relation to Kenya, but in any event his will not be an easy task. When I was in Blantyre last January I had the opportunity of speaking to leaders of the Malawi Congress Party and many Africans I have met on an earlier occasion. We discussed many things, including the question of their attitude towards the Monckton Commission.
  I am putting it in the form of a summary, but this was the effect of what they said to me: "What use is any Commission to us? We have had one Commission already. We all gave evidence before it; we accepted its Report as a fair and accurate picture of events leading up to the emergency, but what happened? The British Government accepted only those findings which were favourable to themselves and rejected every finding which was in favour of the African leaders." They went on to say, and this was said to me more than once, "What can we expect from Britain, or from any Commission which Britain sends out?"
  On 28th July last year, when hon. Members opposite filed through the Lobby in support of the Government Motion on the Devlin Commission Report, the Motion which picked out merely the findings favourable to the Government, and by implication rejected the rest, they were engaged, no doubt, in a very slick Parliamentary manoeuvre, but I wonder how many of them realised the immense damage they were doing in Nyasaland to British authority and British prestige.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will be able to repair the damage. That is the hope of hon. Members on this side of the House just as much as it is the hope of hon. Members opposite. There are many things he can do. I will not enumerate them now: I want to mention only two. I believe he could go a very long way to
  1210
  repair the damage if, first, he would arrange for the ending of the state of emergency and, secondly, if he would induce the Protectorate Government at once to review the permanent legislation in Nyasaland under which persons living in that Protectorate can be restricted and imprisoned without charge and without trial.
  7.20 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) with great interest. I do not know the details of the story which he told about the Nyasaland farmer who, because he thought that the agricultural laws of Nyasaland need not be adhered to, was removed a hundred miles or more from his home.
  Mr. Foot: More.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he replies, can tell the House a little more about this than could the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, but it seems to me to be a strange paradox that the Labour Party as recently as two years ago was still anxious to retain powers not merely to remove a hundred miles but to dispossess farmers in this country who, under certain circumstances, did not think that the agricultural legislation should be upheld.
  Mr. Foot: Was not every farmer against whom a dispossession order was made entitled to appeal to an impartial tribunal sitting in public?
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not want to be out of order, but there was considerable difference of opinion, not confined to one party, as to just how impartial some of the tribunals were all the time.
  I share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that, while we are fully entitled, and indeed under a direct obligation, to discuss in whatever detail we like the contents of these Supplementary Estimates, it does not necessarily follow that the views of hon. Members are always better informed than those of the people on the spot who have the unenviable task of maintaining law and order, preserving security and taking the extremely difficult decision whether, in a given set of

  1211
  circumstances, a state of emergency should be declared.
  Nor do I think that we should turn this debate on the Supplementary Estimates into another discussion of the Devlin Report, because, as has been said from these benches, that Report was discussed fully before the election. I can, of course, understand why hon. Members opposite want to discuss it again, because in retrospect it must be a ray of sunshine for them; it is about the only thing upon which they are agreed at the moment. I can quite understand why they are anxious to rehash this old story, while keeping within the terms of the Supplementary Estimate.
  But whatever views hon. Members opposite take about the Devlin Report and the opinions which the Devlin Commission expressed, surely there is one thing about which there can be no doubt whatever—and that is that Mr. Justice Devlin and his colleagues fully vindicated the action of the Governor, Sir Robert Armitage, in proclaiming a state of emergency. All the members of the Commission went out of their way to say that if he had not done so he would not conceivably have been able to discharge his essential duties as a Governor. I think that, with the example of the Mau Mau atrocities in Kenya behind us, we ought to applaud rather than condemn a Governor who takes action in time to stop outbursts of physical violence and bloodshed from occurring.
  I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I wonder whether hon. Members opposite would like to be in the position of officers in the colonial police forces serving in remote territories. They are out on a limb, faced with difficult decisions, knowing quite well that if they take action too soon they are almost certain to be criticised in the House and, on the other hand, that if they take action too late, and what might have been quite a small riot becomes a very big riot, they are equally certain to be criticised in the House.
  The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich paid a tribute to the police forces in the Colonial Territories. Against the background of events which we have witnessed in the last two or three years, it is perhaps time that one or two other hon. Members opposite, a
  1212
  few more members of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, and some who belong to both, should say a word of encouragement to the colonial police forces and have the grace to admit that if they were in their shoes they would not have done the job nearly so well.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I will not take very long because I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. It is possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is better cast in the rôle of Cassandra than I am, but it is several years since I first rose in the House to speak of the problems of Nyasaland. It was rather more than five years ago that I raised questions of development in Nyasaland, of land tenure and of the development of the Shire Valley, and that was at a time when Nyasaland was not a headline country, as it has unfortunately since become.
  I am therefore justified in saying to the Colonial Secretary that had some of the things which were advocated from this side of the House been done by his predecessor the lack of confidence in Nyasaland which now exists might never have been created. The discussion of this Estimate, which is to pay for matters arising out of the emergency, is a discussion of the lack of confidence in Nyasaland in the intentions of the Government, otherwise it would not be necessary in the form in which we have it.
  May I make it perfectly clear that I am not opposed to some increase in the police force in Nyasaland if that is required? I take the point which has been made in the debate about some increase in Tanganyika. It is true that there are conditions in which one can properly say that the police force is undermanned and needs some increase to maintain its efficiency. But an increase of sixfold, which is the basis of the discussion, is surely quite out of proportion. I am certain that this large increase in the police force would not have been required at this time had more attention been paid to other matters.
  If we ask people from Nyasaland why they distrust the Government's intentions they give several reasons. The primary reason, which we have often discussed in

  1213
  the House, is the political question of imposed federation, but there are other reasons. They feel themselves to have been the neglected territory. They feel that if we in the House had been in earnest about our concern for their conditions, we should have done far more about it in the years since the war.
  If I take only one subject—education —we have the Jack Report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. The Report points out that even now, in spite of the increased expenditure on education—and there has been an increase—only about half the children of school age in Nyasaland have any education at all, and Che larger proportion of those are in school for about two years only. To give a smattering of education to children and then to leave them without further training for a livelihood is to make the worst of all possible worlds and to create a thoroughly discontented younger generation the members of which feel that they have had education dangled before them and that they ought to have had better opportunities in life than those to which they are entitled by a tiny smattering of education. This is one of the underlying social reasons, apart from the political reasons, for the discontent in that territory.
  As to the economic development of the territory, according to the Jack Report matters which were discussed in the House years ago are still being discussed, investigated and examined. There has still been no decision about what will happen to the development in the Shire Valley, either as regards the large hydro-electric schemes, which I think are probably not likely to come about, or, what are as important from the point of view of the individual African, about the very necessary schemes for land reclamation, swamp drainage, etc., which would make a vast difference to the prospects of economic improvement for many of the Africans in the Southern Province.
  I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us more on the matters about which we have already questioned him. We have asked him about agricultural improvements. Has he a Swynnerton plan for Nyasaland? Does he intend to leave education where it is now? Does he intend to say, "You
  1214
  can trust the Federation to stimulate economic progress, and therefore we in the House need do no more about it"?
  The position in Nyasaland is so exceptional that outstanding action is required by Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Treasury. If there is one country in the Commonwealth of which one can say that there are exceptional and special circumstances, Nyasaland is that country. There is a peculiarly difficult political situation there. That can be dealt with only on a political level, but it would greatly alleviate the political tension and make political advance at least easier if, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government adopted a positive approach on the other matters.
  Moreover, to point to a relative increase in expenditure on various services to be provided begs the question. When one starts from near zero, the fact that one is now spending perhaps four times as much as was being spent ten years ago is of little consequence. This matter is not being viewed in proper perspective. It is important for hon. Members to study all the figures closely. For instance, the total Government expenditure on education is less than the cost of a mile of M.1.
  I feel that we should not be asked to spend the money which we are being asked to spend on the emergency. Some of it presumably will be used for the purposes mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot). I should very much like to know how much of this Estimate is likely to be devoted to enforcing Regulation 35. Is it to be devoted to paying the salaries of bands of snoopers who are to find out whether people say things derogatory, not merely of Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government, but as I recall the Regulations—I have not the text with me—of a very much lower group of persons in the Governmental hierarchy? To bring any of those persons into disrepute is sufficient to bring one up against the law, if that law is to be enforced. If it is to be enforced, I am sure that it will need much more expenditure than we are being asked to vote to pay people to go round listening to conversations. If that is the only way we can carry out our administration in Nyasaland, we shall have not just this Supplementary Estimate this year but, I have no doubt, a

  1215
  very substantial Estimate indeed in subsequent years.
  We are entitled to ask the Government to tell us not merely what they propose to do on the purely political side concerning the police, but also on some of the more fundamental matters which I believe very strongly indeed are at the root of much of the dissatisfaction and lack of confidence which the ordinary African has in the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.
  7.35 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I had not intended to talk about Nyasaland, but as it has been discussed by right hon. and hon. Members I wish to make a few remarks before asking one or two questions on other subjects.
  We all sympathise with the views expressed on education by the right hon. Member for West Bromwiah (Mr. Dugdale). I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do Ghat, unless one has a peaceful country, it is not possible to go on with other desirable improvements in the standards of the people. One must remember that at one time in Malaya and Kenya people were forced to live in separate villages in order to have their protection.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is far better to have the police free and not have the people put in separate villages. The people should be given the protection of the police in the way it is being done now. We do not want to come to the emergencies which were necessary in other countries when one was forced to herd people together for their very protection.
  I was glad that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) paid a tribute to the police, because I know that he has great knowledge of Nyasaland and visits the country frequently. A tribute from him will be very well received there. The hon. and learned Gentleman took exception to some regulations dating back to 1909. Since that date, Socialist Governments have been in power. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was so very upset and worried about this, the authorities could have been asked by one of the Socialist Governments to rescind the measure which he so dislikes at present.
  1216
  I do not think that extra police is necessarily a very bad sign, because as countries become more fully developed they need extra police. In this country, we have considerably increased our police over the last fifty years, and we hope that our civilisation in this country is improving. In Plymouth, recently, despite everything, we have had to take on 37 new police. Even in this country we cannot say that the police force is up to strength. Therefore, having extra police in a country is not necessarily a sign that we are being overbearing. It is a sign that we wish to keep a country peaceful in order to fulfil the further objects that the Government have in mind.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: What would be the hon. Lady's view if it were announced that Plymouth was to increase its police six times over?
  Miss Vickers: It has increased its force by 37. I am not sure what percentage that is. Plymouth is also to have some policewomen.
  I do not think that percentages really matter. We have had the percentage discussed between Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. There are far more Europeans in Southern Rhodesia to help to keep order, particularly with the volunteer police service. Therefore, I do not think that the numbers are comparable between the two.
  We hope, naturally, that the police will be successful in keeping law and order. That will enable the Government in the future not to have to budget for this type of Estimate. They will be able to spend the money on improving the lot of the people individually. I have lived in Malaya and outside the Commonwealth in Indonesia. When one is living in fear for one's life, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to work on improving the social services. One just has to help the people to live their daily lives, and, in many cases, to find sufficient food to feed their families.
  We hope that the emergency will soon be over. As my right hon. Friend is to go to Nyasaland shortly, he will be able to discuss the matter on the spot. I hope that he will achieve success equal to that which he has achieved at the Round-Table Conference on Kenya.

  1217
  I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two other points which arise out of the Estimates. One is Subhead C.16, "Singapore: Relief of distressed British subjects." We are being asked to vote £2,000 for these people in Singapore. The note says that they are receiving relief against a promise of repayment. I understand that these British subjects and British-protected persons are not necessarily citizens of Singapore. They may come there on their way to a ship, miss their ship and be stranded, as often happens in Singapore. Who is to make the repayment? In many cases it is quite impossible for the individual to do so. I think it would be a proper gesture for the Government to take the responsibility.
  Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Nantina Home, set up in Singapore with the object of helping distressed British subjects and protected subjects, is still in being. There does not seem very much in this Vote for the provision of food, clothing and medical services where necessary. There ought to be some hostel to which these people can go. I should be very grateful for some information, because my experience out there was that a considerable number of people got stranded, and some, in fact, had no home of their own to go to. Does my right hon. Friend really think this sum sufficient for repatriation, where necessary, to the territory from which these people originally came?
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), I have a great admiration for the work of the British Council. It is one of the best links we have at present between the various Parliaments. We no longer have the same types of people living in many territories—including the civil servants—and in many places the main contact now is through the Council.
  The Council also attends to students residing in this country. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Council's headquarters here is really large enough to deal with the number of students visiting us? I gather that the Council has to limit membership of students at its headquarters to those in their first year. After that, owing to lack of accommodation, they must go elsewhere.
  I should also like to see far more co-ordination between the voluntary
  1218
  organisations working for these students. I know that there is a London council, but perhaps the British Council might set up a national council to undertake this work of co-ordination. I gather that in the London council there are 40 or 50 people who represent the different organisations and meet from time to time to discuss student welfare but, as far as I know, there is no co-ordinating link throughout the country between these organisations.
  That may lead to considerable overlapping, and also tend to destroy the work of the British Council and other organisations. A considerable number of students still, somehow, seem to slip through the net and do not get in contact with any organisation. The result is that very few of those who have been living here for two years have been invited to the houses of our people in England, Scotland and Wales. We should try to obviate this.
  I agree entirely with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that there has been a great deal of neglect of education in Nyasaland in the past. The difficulty is that one always has to educate people for something. Nyasaland is principally an agricultural country. Most of the people work on the land, while a large percentage of the rest go to South Africa to work in the mines, and never return to Nyasaland.
  I support the hon. Lady in everything she says about increasing educational opportunities. In this work the British Council has a great part to play. I see that this work is expanding, and has been increased greatly in recent years, and that there are further proposals to strengthen future educational activities. Any support that we can give to the Council in its efforts to obtain more teachers will be very valuable.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education held a Commonwealth conference on this subject a few weeks ago, but there is still a great shortage of teachers who are prepared to go overseas. One of the difficulties is the period for which they go. If they are already in a teaching service, particularly that of a local authority, they may not be able to get an assurance that they will get a job on their return, and that their pension rights will be safeguarded.

  1219
  I therefore hope that the British Council will continue its work on further education. That, I think, is one of its principal duties; not only encouraging people to know more about our country and forming a greater link between the Commonwealth countries themselves, but bringing students here for education and sending our own people overseas to teach. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give every support to the Council in the future.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: As I have been away for some time, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate the Colonial Secretary most cordially on the success that he achieved in his plans for Kenya. He then had the good fortune of gaining the support not only of the African and Asian representatives but of the moderate European representatives. He will have a much more difficult task when he approaches Central Africa and Nyasaland, because in those territories the moderate Europeans are in a minority. It is the diehard Europeans who are in the dominant position. I extend a good deal of understanding and sympathy to him when he approaches this further task.
  I am quite certain that while the right hon. Gentleman has held his present office he has been urging the Government of Nyasaland and the Government of the Federation to release Dr. Hastings Banda. Early this year it was indicated in the Press that his release might take place at an early date. I think it very likely that the Colonial Secretary has also asked the Government of Nyasaland to consider whether the state of emergency there could soon be brought to an end.
  I come to these conclusions, not only from Press indications, but because the right hon. Gentleman, since he has been Secretary of State for the Colonies, has carried out policies in other territories which show an approach to these issues much broader than we have had from his predecessors.
  I take into account the fact that he must have been very well aware that Dr. Banda has now been in prison for one year without any trial whatsoever. The Colonial Secretary must have had
  1220
  in his mind the fact that the Devlin Commission, appointed by his own Government, declared that the plan for massacre, alleged by his predecessor, was a myth. He must have been quite aware that that Commission declared that there was no evidence at all that Dr. Banda had advocated violence.
  In these circumstances, I am perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman's sense of justice would not allow him to be Secretary of State for the Colonies without his urging upon the Government of Nyasaland, and that of Central Africa, that Dr. Banda, after one year in prison without trial, should be released.
  If that is an accurate description of what has been happening—and I am fairly confident that it is—I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that his view has not succeeded in these matters. He has referred earlier—and there have been several references to the matter during the debate—to the increase in the police force. I want to know whether or not that proposal for an increase in the police force followed his suggestion that Dr. Banda should be released. I want to know whether it was not the reaction of the Government of Nyasaland, supported by the Federal Government, to his own proposal that Dr. Banda should be allowed to return to Nyasaland. Is it not the case that those Governments said to him that if Dr. Banda were returned to Nyasaland it would be necessary, in order to maintain order, to strengthen the security forces?
  I recognise that under those pressures he did not immediately respond to the suggestion that troops should be called into Nyasaland, but instead himself made a proposal that the police force should be doubled since the police were unobtainable from Northern Rhodesia in view of the condition of unrest which existed in that country. I, with other speakers, would much prefer that the police force should be increased to maintain internal security rather than that troops should be brought in from the Federal territory.
  I want to take that history, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to deny, a stage further. I should like to ask whether a stage was reached where the Prime Minister of the Federation, in conjunction with the Governor of Nyasaland, urged that troops should be introduced if there was

  1221
  any proposal that Dr. Banda should be allowed to return to Nyasaland. Is it not the case that because of the fear of the conditions that would arise in Nyasaland if Dr. Banda returned and the emergency were lifted, there was immediate pressure that troops should be brought to Nyasaland from the Federal territory? If and when that pressure took place, on what grounds did the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposal that troops should be brought into Nyasaland?
  I hope I have made it clear that I understand the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman. Apparently both from Nyasaland and from the Federal Prime Minister there was advice that if Dr. Banda should be released there would be likely to be an emotional disturbance in Nyasaland which would lead to violence.
  I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman tonight that when he goes to Nyasaland he should suggest a different solution from the solution of increasing the police force and the troops. There is one way in which he could safely bring Dr. Banda back to Nyasaland and in which he could lift the emergency without the danger of violence occurring in that territory. That way is this: the release of Dr. Banda should be accompanied by a statement to the people of Nyasaland that there will be constitutional changes in that country giving them a majority in their own Legislature and in their own Executive Council before consideration is given to the future of the Federation to which they are opposed.
  I ask the Minister to look at the figures of population in Nyasaland. There are 2,250,000 Africans, 10,000 Asians and coloured people and a mere 7,000 whites. Look at the representation which that population has in the present Parliament. There are a Speaker and 27 members, of whom 14 are official and 13 unofficial; there are only 7 Africans. On the Executive Council are the Governor and nine members. Of those nine members five are official, four are unofficial, and there are only two Africans on the Executive Council.
  The people of Nyasaland are in this frustrated position. Africans form the overwhelming majority of the population, and it is undubitably an African society, with a mere 7,000 whites in that territory, most of whom are officials and
  1222
  managers of plantations without having to the same degree their roots in the life of the country as the whites in Kenya and in the Rhodesias have. The people of Nyasaland have a sense of frustration because their future is to be decided at the coming conference on Federation by a Parliament and by a Government in which they have no voice and in which there is no reflection of their point of view.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that simultaneously with the release of Dr. Banda and with the lifting of the emergency he should say to Nyasaland, as he has had the courage to say to Kenya, "You shall now be given a majority in your own Legislature; you shall now be given a majority in your own Executive Council. When the future of the Federation comes to be discussed you shall have a Government which represents your people."
  The right hon. Gentleman should say to Nyasaland what he has said to Kenya. He could then release Dr. Banda. He could lift the emergency without the need of police or troops. He could do it, because he would then begin to act with justice to the people of that territory.
  7.59 p.m.
  Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I fancy that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is to a large extent pushing at an open door. On the other hand, I think that, unintentionally, he has been rather unfair to the Colonial Secretary. The nearer the hon. Member gets to the truth in his speculations, the less my right hon. Friend will be able to say. I therefore hope that neither he nor I need interpret what may be a measure of silence or restraint on the part of the Colonial Secretary as meaning that the speculations of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough are entirely inaccurate.
  From the start, I interpreted the movements of troops and the increasing police as meaning that the release of Dr. Banda was imminent. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be so pessimistic about it. It seems to me—and although it is oft repeated by people of extreme diehard views, it is none the less true— that the first duty of any Government is the maintenance of law and order. If there is any risk attaching to the release

  1223
  of Dr. Banda—and I think it is quite clear that there is—the first thing to do is to see that there is no measure of unrest as a consequence. Therefore, I welcome the movement of troops and I welcome the increase in the police.
  I cannot go the whole way with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough when he urges my right hon. Friend to make the release of Dr. Banda coincide with a declaration that there will be an elected African majority in the Nyasaland Parliament. We should be doing the gravest possible disservice to Nyasaland if we hastened too fast. But I shall be bitterly disappointed if my right hon. Friend comes back and the situation in Nyasaland remains the same as it is today. I think that we all realise that on both sides of the House and, indeed, throughout the country people are profoundly dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, and regard it as purely temporary.
  My purpose in speaking is quite simple. It is to say to my right hon. Friend that the majority of his hon. Friends are confident that he will come back with proposals for constitutional advance in Nyasaland—not going so far as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough proposes, but far-reaching proposals for constitutional advance in Nyasaland. We wish my right hon. Friend well. We have great faith in him. We believe that his visit to Nyasaland may light a candle of liberty in that country which will redound to the credit of the British Commonwealth.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: I congratulate certain hon. Members opposite upon their new-found enthusiasm in probing the minor details of expenditure in this Estimate and for posing as the protectors of the public purse. They deceive themselves, however, if they believe that they are benefiting the taxpayer more by asking questions about small administrative matters rather than by examining the broader aspects of Government policy.
  It is surely the political experience of everyone in the House that political inefficiency is, in the long run, far more expensive than administrative inefficiency. If Cyprus had not taught us that, and if Suez had not taught us that, we should be very hard indeed to teach.
  1224
  In Nyasaland, we have a classic example of expensive policies against which it is our duty to protect the British taxpayer. It is for this reason that we have raised this matter tonight, because of the misapplication of public funds and the unnecessary burdens put on the hard-pressed taxpayers of Britain.
  As more than one of my hon. Friends has clearly shown, the emergency for which we are presented with the bill tonight arises quite directly from the Government's denial to Nyasaland of her constitutional rights. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) drew attention to what has been achieved in Kenya, because that, of course, is the answer to hon. Members opposite who say that we must have a bigger police force in Nyasaland.
  I think that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) who referred to Mau Mau and the need to protect the public against violent movements of that kind. The Colonial Secretary himself would be the first to admit that the best safeguards against the resurgence of Mau Mau are the constitutional reforms which he has been instrumental in introducing.
  This Vote arises directly out of the emergency. If we really want to save the taxpayers' money we ought to probe the Government's plans for ending the emergency, and ending it without any unnecessary delay whatsoever. Every month of delay is putting an unwarranted burden upon the British citizen's pocket and, as such, it ought to be vigorously denounced on both sides of the House.
  This is why we on this side found this Estimate so alarming and singled it out for attention. What does it foreshadow? We are here presented with what the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree is no mean item of expenditure between now and the end of 1962. Let us remind ourselves of what it is that we are here voting. We are discussing a total Vote which the Colonial Secretary himself has told us, in answer to Questions in the House, is part of a planned capital expenditure of another £1¼ million on the Nyasaland police by the end of 1962, in addition to the expenditure of £288,000 for what he calls emergency items. Taken

  1225
  against the whole background of colonial expenditure in any individual country, particularly one as poor and small as Nyasaland, this is a very considerable item indeed.
  Why is it necessary? We are alarmed about what is foreshadowed when we take this Estimate in conjunction with the speech made by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. We really cannot just dismiss that speech as another piece of misreporting by those slack chaps the journalists. We have had rather too many cases of this kind lately. I gather that during the last day or two the Secretary of State for War and Dr. Kennedy have been trying to hide behind that one, and they have not succeeded in getting away with it. As a member of the National Union of Journalists, I object to Government spokesmen trying to escape the consequences of their Freudian lapses by blaming the chap who was taking the shorthand note.
  It is not just a matter of whether or not the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations did or did not describe Nyasaland as the slum of Africa—a picturesque phrase which I should not have thought any conscientious shorthand reporter would have the time to make up. Let us leave that aside. I am much more concerned about other elements in the Secretary of State's speech. They come under two heads. First, he told his listeners in Luton that Nyasaland could not expect independence for several years yet. Then he added that it was no good talking glibly about self-government for Nyasaland because she was so terribly backward and was a country which had practically no assets at all.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is in the Cabinet just as much as the Colonial Secretary is and, therefore, we have a right to attach as much weight to his words as to any soothing syrup we may be given by the right hon. Gentleman here this evening. We must couple the speech of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations with the very significant words used by Sir Edgar Whitehead in a recent speech when he threatened that Southern Rhodesia would march out of the Federation if the British Government were ever to be so intolerable as to allow an African Nationalist Government to arise in Nyasaland. What is an
  1226
  African Nationalist Government? It is, of course, merely a Government which democratically recognises that the Africans in the territory are in the majority.
  I suggest that all these things taken together amount to a recipe for a continuing emergency. A continuing emergency will be a worsening emergency. It is against this background that we are asked to vote an increase of £1½ million for the maintenance of law and order in Nyasaland over the next two years alone. It is no good the Colonial Secretary telling us, as I know he will because he has already revealed his hand a little in answer to questions, "Well, of course, this increase in the Nyasaland police force will not be relatively large." Relative to what standard? I know one example that the right hon. Gentleman will give us, because he has given it before, and I think that it is a sinister and significant example. He will tell us that the increase in the Nyasaland police force will still give us only one policeman to every 850 people in Nyasaland.
  What is the strength of the police force in Northern Rhodesia? It has one policeman to every 550 people. The right hon. Gentleman will tell us that, therefore, the Nyasaland police will still be of only moderate strength. I could give him another example which on the appearance of things seems to support his case. Southern Rhodesia has one policeman to every 590 people. Policemen are thicker upon the ground in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia than in Nyasaland, but Nyasaland is heading fast to catch up. The significant fact is that these three territories inside the Federation need excessively large police forces.
  I think that the real comparison is that which an hon. Member opposite, unfortunately from his point of view, referred to—Tanganyika. He told us that the Tanganyika police force was recently increased by 50 per cent. Between 1951 and 1958 the Tanganyika police force increased by 50 per cent., but what does its strength remain at the end of that increase? We still have in Tanganyika one policeman to every 1,850 people because Tanganyika is a country which is solving its constitutional problems, and I give credit to the Colonial Secretary for the part which he has played in helping it to do that.

  1227
  Uganda has one policeman to every 1,330 people. If we take England and Wales, we have a crime problem and juvenile delinquency and no one will tell us that we are a more virtuous nation than the people of Nyasaland, one of the most peaceable tribes which would put some of us to shame. In England and Wales we have one policeman to every 1,581 people. Why do we need this sudden strengthening of the Nyasaland police force to bring it into line not with the more peaceful territories in African but with her unhappy neighbours within the Federation?
  Reinforcing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I put this question to the Colonial Secretary. Are we entitled to increase this expenditure in a poor country which is crying out for our help in every other direction of social development? Already in Nyasaland 9 per cent. of the total public expenditure goes on the police compared with only 12 per cent. on education. Is not this as much as she can afford? If we have this money to throw about, I would suggest to the Colonial Secretary that there are far more important fields in which to do it.
  When the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations says that Nyasa-land's assets are few, that she has only about a dozen native lawyers and one fully-trained doctor, whose fault is that? We in this House are directly responsible, and have been for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East pointed out, we have an intolerable situation in this territory for which we are responsible in which only 50 per cent. of its children get any kind of schooling at all and some of such a quality that Government spokesmen themselves say that we cannot really say that any of them are properly literate.
  We talk about spending £1½ million on the police for the emergency, but we continue to deny constitutional development because we say that the people are not ready for it. That is a vicious kind of nonsensical story which is leading us into all this waste of money in Cyprus. Let us stop it before it is too late.
  The total development grants alone from this country to Nyasaland during the whole period from April, 1946, to March, 1958, amounted to only £4½
  1228
  million and we are to spend £1½ million in two years on police and emergencies. Of this expenditure of £4½ million the educational service in Nyasaland for the full period of twelve years received only £670,000. Yet the Government tell us that we are going to pay £1½ million on maintaining law and order.
  In 1958–59 the total grants and loans which went to Nyasaland amounted to only £¼ million. We are going to give six or seven times as much in the next two years, I repeat, on the police and on the emergency, and therefore I most earnestly ask the Colonial Secretary to end this nonsense before it is too late. This poor country is crying out for aid and constitutional development; do not let us instead give it the baton of the police.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I want to speak for a minute or two on one point. I listened with very great interest to what the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, and I think that the whole House and my right hon. Friend would agree with her that we want to bring this emergency in Nyasaland to an end as soon as we can without danger of renewed disturbance and, possibly, bloodshed.
  I think that we are all agreed that we want more money to be put into Nyasaland to raise the present deplorable standard of living of the people there who are under British protection. That is one reason why I support the idea of a strong federation in Central Africa.
  The point I want to speak about is that which the hon. Lady mentioned about the extra money which is now being made available for the police force in Nyasaland. I think that there was a slight contradiction in her argument. If she wants, as I want, the emergency to be brought to an end, we must see to it that conditions are provided which will enable that emergency to be brought safely to an end.
  We owe it to Nyasaland to see that the police force is efficient and that there is an improvement in the relations between the police force and the public in Nyasaland, because whatever may come out of the inquiry in Blantyre I think that there is no doubt that the relations between the public and the police in the Protectorate are not what we should like to see

  1229
  in a British territory. I am not trying to make any criticisms of the police force. It has a terribly difficult job with few resources. The point I want to make is that we should give it adequate resources.
  One difficulty in Nyasaland, and it may be the difficulty in other territories, is that there are not enough policemen on the ground. It may be cheaper or administratively convenient to centralise or concentrate the police force into mobile reserves so that when trouble breaks out in some district or village the riot squad descends and knocks the people about, but that does not make for good relations between the public and the police. If we are to get those good relations, and they are necessary, I believe, for the restoration of normal conditions in Nyasaland and for a steady advance towards greater freedom and a greater degree of self-government, we must see that sufficient funds are provided by this House for the police force to be adequately maintained and for its standards to be progressively improved.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I think that my hon. Friends have made a very valuable contribution to our debate, although I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that I think she was rather more than generous to the Tory rebels. Incidentally, where are they? I have been reminded of the eighteenth century battles when in the evenings the gentlemen retired to their picket lines for dinner. This rebellion seems to have been carried on in much the same sort of way.
  I was moved to considerable irritation by the speeches of one or two Tory rebels who have been snuffling through these Estimates trying to save candle-wicks when there are major decisions costing this country hundreds of thousands of pounds, the expenditure of which could be averted by a change of policy. If the rebels do not want to be a cut-rate or third-rate lot, for whom the Whips will have no respect at all, and if they want to do a job, let them attack the Government on policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will be willing to give them assistance at any time. He is expert at organising this sort of thing
  1230
  and could do a darned sight better than has been done over the last two days.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that if he arranges the transfer I shall have a proper and legitimate share of the transfer fee.
  Mr. Callaghan: I should also like to say how much I appreciated the speeches of the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). The hon. Member for Lancaster made me feel rather old. I remember twelve years ago, when he was President of the Cambridge Union, speaking against the present Lord Chancellor. I believe that we won. I would only say to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West that it is far better that they made their speeches in this Parliament. They would not have had such a warm reception in the last Parliament if they had tried to make those speeches then. However, the winds of change are sweeping across the Conservative benches, and we all welcome this very much.
  The Vote that we are discussing is to make provision for a grant in aid not exceeding £725,000 towards expenditure arising out of the emergency. I understand that it is in respect of the police. It is described as expenditure arising out of the emergency. I want to ask one or two quite direct questions. Why is the emergency still in force? Why have the resources and the forces of law and order not been capable of bringing it to an end? When does the Colonial Secretary expect that it will come to an end? What are his plans for bringing it to an end? These are the sort of questions which I should have preferred to hear asked by hon. Members opposite. They will determine whether the taxpayer will have to find this money.
  What is the reason for continuing the state of emergency in Nyasaland? There are no armed guerrillas. This is not Cyprus. There are no ships stealing into harbours bringing arms to the rebels. As far as I know, there has not been a single political murder. In fact, I am sure that that is so. No European has lost his life. The only crimes that I can find have been committed are those which would have been committed anyway,

  1231
  and which had nothing to do with the political situation. There are no armed bands in the hills. There are no riots. Why is there still a state of emergency in Nyasaland? When the emergency was imposed on 3rd or 4th March last year, we were promised that it would soon come to an end. There is no reason why it should not come to an end. Such opposition as exists is channelled through the Malawi Congress Party which has eschewed violence but which is not allowed to organise.
  I want to know why 2¾ million British subjects in this Colony are today living under a state of emergency. Is it true that the Colonial Secretary wants to lift the state of emergency and that the Federal Government are denying him the opportunity of doing so? The right hon. Gentleman will say that this matter is the responsibility of the Governor, but so was Cyprus. We have all read the accounts of the part played by the Governor in determining these matters. I say to the Colonial Secretary that the state of emergency in Nyasaland cannot be justified by any unrest that exists, that has existed or is likely to exist in the territory.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that if we release Dr. Banda there will be trouble. We were led to expect that Dr. Banda would be released before the Monckton Commission reached Africa and started its work. We were led to believe that he would be free to have consultations with his colleagues in order to give evidence to the Commission. This has not taken place. Why? Have the Government changed their mind, or are they yielding to pressure?
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said in what was, I thought, a most significant speech, "Do not press the Colonial Secretary too hard. You are pushing at an open door". I am ready to believe that this is so. I said this afternoon that there are signs that the Government are lapsing into sanity. Certainly after our experiences in the debate on apartheid in December I would not dream any more of accusing the Government in future of not being willing to accept our suggestions. The hon. Member for Farnham will remember how I was shouted down at the end of the debate merely because I said to
  1232
  the Prime Minister, "When you go to South Africa will you courteously make a speech telling the South African Government where we stand?". I was shouted down. Hon. Members opposite trooped into the lobbies against us. After six weeks, the Prime Minister took up our suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were told in an editorial in The Times that what we said was the height of irresponsibility. The Times did us the honour of attributing a whole editorial to what we said. Six weeks later, the Prime Minister took up our suggestion, and I congratulate and commend him for doing so.
  Can we expect the same thing in six week's time from the Colonial Secretary? If so, I shall be the first to congratulate him, although, as I have said before, I do not want to congratulate him too much. There is only one thing which is worse than my congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and that is for my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and Blackburn to congratulate him. If we want him to do a good job—he has made a good start—I think that we should be sparing in our praise, and I think that we can help him most against his own rebels, his lunatic fringe, by attacking him vigorously. That is why I have put a lot of venom into my attack on him tonight. He should have brought the emergency to an end.
  The right hon. Gentleman is shortly to visit the Federation. He is going to Nyasaland. It may be that the police service there should be strengthened, but I. and I am sure other hon. Members, can remember a time when relationships in Nyasaland between the police and the community left nothing to be desired. I spoke to a policeman in the northern part of the territory near Mzuzu and Mzimbi who, by himself, patrolled an area about three times the size of Yorkshire with very little difficulty, apart from the inevitable chicken stealing and the other minor crimes. The reason why the police force has to be strengthened is that the Government have followed a policy that has led to this result. I hope that the Government will take over this part of our policy, just as they have taken over other parts of our policy during the last six months. They are

  1233
  welcome to them. We bequeath them to the Government with open arms.
  I shall not weary the House by going through them all, but there are three simple things that the Government can do—release Dr. Banda, commence constitutional advance, together with an African majority in Nyasaland announced at the same time, and give a pledge to the people of Nyasaland that they will have the right at some time to determine their own future in relation to the Federation. That is all.
  I am weary of saying it; we have said it so often. I imagine that the House is equally weary of hearing me saying it. I am, however, willing to guarantee that hon. Members opposite who acquiesce in saying that they are weary of hearing me say it will cheer the Colonial Secretary when he says it—and he will say it. In the meantime, however, we are faced with a Vote of £725,000 of British taxpayers' money to be devoted to objectives which I find repugnant and which I believe to be unnecessary. If the Government had followed the policies that we advocated they would never have had to come to the House to ask for this money. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the House.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has announced that whatever I say, he intends to divide the House, it may be thought that there is comparatively little point in replying to the detailed debate. However, undeterred by that, I will do my best.
  First, to start on a point on which, I know, everybody will agree, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) on their outstanding maiden speeches. We have heard many first-class speeches in this Parliament, but even among those, these two today were notable and I was very glad to hear what they said.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that the Motion which we are discussing relates to £725,000 for Nyasaland. That is not so. We are discussing Class 11, Vote 8, in which there are twenty-one subheads and the one to which the hon. Member referred is only
  1234
  one of them. It is wholly proper to discuss the other matters and I do not see how anybody can describe as minor detail matters relating to Cyprus, for example, where sums of £8 million and more are called for.
  The whole of the sum comes to the figure that I always used to find incomprehensible and now I merely find baffling—£10. No matter what one adds up, it always comes to £10 in the end and the Opposition propose that we should reduce it to £5. I do not know whether the House remembers the story attributed to one of my predecessors, perhaps unfairly to my noble Friend Lord Chandos. When an Amendment was put down by the party opposite to reduce his salary by £1,000, he offered simply to accept the Amendment on the ground that it would not make much difference anyway and the debate could then be avoided. I am rather tempted to follow a similar procedure on this occasion.
  It might make for a more coherent reply if I deal first with all the separate matters that have been mentioned and then concentrate on the Nyasaland speeches together rather than try to separate the two issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) asked a number of questions on Subhead A.1 concerning St. Helena. The main reason in that case is that we have to pay an increased subsidy to the shipping company, the Union Castle Line, which calls at the island. The amount was negotiated by the Colonial Office and I am satisfied that, having regard to increased shipping costs, the company makes little or no profit from calling at the island.
  The next two questions concern the Aden Protectorate. Those matters, which are covered by Subhead C.2, deal in the first instance with increased provision required, in the main, to cover the cost of famine relief operations which involve the flying of grain supplies to the affected areas, and with a contribution in Subhead C.2 (b) to the Army Vote. That is because we provide a 50 per cent. share of the cost of maintaining the Aden Protectorate levies.
  The next question was on Subhead C.3 in relation to the grant in aid to those States in the Aden Protectorate that are

  1235
  not included in the Federation. The answer is that this is essentially an error in estimating and that the savings from the previous year fell short of the amount then anticipated by the amount now required.
  The next question was about locust control by the East African High Commission. The whole subject of financing the control organisation is under review by the East African High Commission. This money is required to replenish stocks of insecticide, which are nearly exhausted.
  Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) referred to the British Council and the money required for it. The additional provision, which amounts to £43,500, is required for library schemes and for the purchase of books and periodicals and has been partly offset by savings elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West asked what had caused the increase since the original Estimate, and I am afraid that the answer is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who headed a committee into this matter with resulting recommendations which have necessitated this expenditure, which I think will be money very well spent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked about the British Council with special reference to co-ordination and whether it would be of value to have an additional body. I do not think that it would. In 1954, an overseas students co-ordinating committee was set up, composed of heads of all the students offices. The majority of territories which send students to this country now have their own student offices in London—and a very good thing too— and representatives of the British Council and my office sit on that committee under the chairmanship of someone from my office. I think that that is satisfactory and that it would not help if there was an additional body.
  I was asked about the Cyprus Vote, particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I know that this matter is difficult to follow and I will try to explain it only very briefly. The House will see that the figure of
  1236
  £3¾ million in Subhead B.17 and £4¼ million in Subhead C.19 together add up to the saving which is put down under Subhead B.1. We are therefore dealing not with new money, but with a reallo-cation of money which has become necessary in the changed circumstances and the changed relationship of this country with Cyprus.
  The answer to questions about Subhead B.17—Cyprus—and Subhead B.18 —Nicosia Airport—is that this is not without precedent and, indeed, is common form for grants in aid to Colonial Governments. The audit is carried out by the local director of audit. It is not possible to do it in detail, because this is a Vote to make up a deficiency in a budget, but the audited accounts of Government expenditure as a whole are forwarded to the Comptroller and Auditor General in the United Kingdom.
  The situation about Nicosia Airport is complicated because when this Supplementary Estimate was produced—in January—we thought that independence for Cyprus would come on 19th February, 1960, and this amount was therefore asked against a total cost of £500,000. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely asked whether money would still be paid if we did not get agreement about Cyprus. The answer is, "No.". Work has started, but it has been started with money put forward by the Cyprus Government and, until final agreement is reached on all points of the Cyprus settlement, Her Majesty's Government will not pay over any money for this project, so that in a sense it is in suspense until we see how the Cyprus negotiations finally go.
  There is one last point before I deal with Nyasaland. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport about the relief of distressed British subjects. The small sum of £2,000 shown there is not directly related to the specific cost. There have only been three, of which I have details in each case, since June, 1959, but this provides a fund, and I am certain that it will be more than enough, from which such expenses as arise unavoidably in the current year can be met. Where it is appropriate, those who have had money advanced to them are approached for repayment.
  So much for all the questions which I was asked which I think I have answered in full on matters that do not directly

  1237
  concern Subhead B.16, Nyasaland, to which I should now like to turn.
  We all know the situation in Nyasaland. It is by far the most densely populated of the three territories within the Federation. Its African population of about 2¾ million exceeds that of Southern Rhodesia, although its area is only one-third of the size of the latter. We know the essential economic facts of the Federation, that it is largely dependent on agriculture, helped with one or two cash crops, and that what light industry there is is usually associated with the main agricultural products.
  I was asked by more than one speaker on the other side of the House whether we had a Swynnerton Plan for Nyasaland. I shall return to that in a moment in connection with the point that I should like to make to the House about the strengthening of the administration. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) made this point. To put it shortly, there is a Nyasaland Government Development Plan which envisages the expenditure of about £12 million at the rate of £3 million a year over the next four years. The money will be devoted to the expansion of agricultural production and research, and to improving education facilities.
  I assure the House that during the visit which I am about to start, I will, apart from the investigations which I will be making into the political situation, be careful to look at the question of advancement in agriculture and education because I agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If from now on I concern myself mainly with political problems, that does not mean that I am not conscious that political and economic advance ought to go together.
  The situation is that we have this poor, crowded country, and it has been possible for it to benefit to a substantial extent —to the extent in total of about £3 million to £4 million a year—from federation. One of the most encouraging things that has emerged from this debate is that speakers on both sides of the House —with the exception of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)—consider that in certain circumstances, and with certain reservations, federation could and would work well. That opinion came from both sides of
  1238
  the House, and it is good to have that said. It is my firm belief that that is so.
  Nevertheless, what has given rise to this debate is the fact that the special expenditure that was necessitated by the emergency, which the events before and during the emergency clearly demonstrated, meant that we had to accelerate plans for strengthening the administration and the police. That inevitably produced a serious budgetary situation.
  I think that I can clear one point out of the way now. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) made a long, detailed and involved hypothetical comment. He said that the question of this increased expenditure on the administration, and particularly on the police, might have arisen from a hypothetical disagreement about the duration of the emergency, or the question of Dr. Banda or any other detainee. I can assure him that that is not so. The Nyasaland financial year runs from July to June, and the expenditure envisaged for this financial year, on matters which I shall discuss in a little detail, amounts to £640,271. The programme of expenditure was approved last autumn, before any of these matters arose and probably before I became Secretary of State—although I would not be certain of that to a day.
  Mr. Brockway: I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's own announcement of an increased expenditure of £1 million or more on the police, which meant a doubling of the police force. That was not before last June.
  Mr. Macleod: I think that we are referring to the same thing. The plans for that were drawn up last autumn, and this is the first opportunity, through a Supplementary Estimate, that we have had of discussing this matter, because this is the first Estimate that has come before the House since the Estimates of almost a year ago.
  A summary of what has been said about the use of this money was put most clearly by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—not today, but in a supplementary question to me on 16th February. That is not intended to be a reflection on her speech today, but I shall have other small reflections to make on it in a moment. On 16th February she asked:
  "Would not it be far better (a) to abolish the emergency and to save British taxpayers'

  1239
  money and (b) to see that British taxpayers' money is spent on educating the people of Nyasaland instead of repressing them? "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1107–8.]
  If that were the choice there would be no doubt about the answer, but the Committee must not underestimate the importance of sound administration, and of a machine, including the police, which can carry out swiftly and efficiently the wishes of the central Government—and I am not thinking in any repressive sense. If someone goes to the International Bank and asks it for a loan for a certain territory, one of the first things to which it will devote a great deal of care is the ascertainment of the capability of the local administration to undertake the project and carry it through to fruition.
  It is at this point that we come back to the point made about the Swynnerton Plan and to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), "Will we never learn the lessons of other African territories?" Many references have been made to Kenya, and that is the very lesson we learned there. Our experience there showed how essential it was to strengthen the administration, and a substantial part of the help we voted to Kenya during the years of the emergency was devoted to the improvement of the administrative machinery. As a result, a terrific impetus was given to African production.
  It was from the strengthening of the administration in Kenya that the Swynnerton Plan came. It would have been quite impossible to put it into effect without that. The lesson that was true for Kenya is doubtless just as true for Nyasaland.
  Mrs. Castle: Is not the Minister aware that in our criticisms today we have not been dealing with the item of £250,000 in respect of the expenditure on the provincial administration, which is additional to the £l½ million devoted to the police and the emergency? We agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the administration, but he must answer the point made about the comparison between the police force considered necessary for Nyasaland and that considered necessary for Tanganyika.
  Mr. Macleod: I can assure the hon. Lady that I shall deal faithfully with
  1240
  that point very shortly. I intend to come to exactly that point, but part of this money is concerned with the administration, and the major part, as the hon. Lady said—and she just anticipated my next sentence—is in relation to the police.
  After the expansion that is planned has taken place, there will one policeman to every 850 people. The hon. Lady went to great pains to prove that that establishment was too high. I wonder, with respect, if she was not herself a little selective in the territories she took. It is quite true that Tanganyika has a ratio of one to 1,820, but Kenya has a ratio of one to 510, and both Northern and Southern Rhodesia have less than the Nyasaland figure. The Britsih Guiana figure is one to 334, and the Jamaica figure is one to 759, while Trinidad is one to 391.
  But the most remarkable difference which I find, and we may have to go to an arbitrator on this matter, is that between the figure of the proportion of police to population in England and Wales which the hon. Lady states and the one which I am given from the Home Office. I am not saying for a moment which is right. I will give the figures. The hon. Lady said twice that the figure is in the region of one to 1,580, but the Home Office makes the calculation of one to 580. I do not know where the decimal point slipped in. It may be that, in Lord Randolph Churchill's phrase, "one of those damned dots" somewhere came into the hon. Lady's calculation. If she would like the precise figures, there are 71,475 policemen and women in England and Wales against a population of about 45 million, and the arithmetic of that, I think, comes nearer to the Home Office figure, if I may put it this way, than the figure which the hon. Lady puts in front of us.
  I am sure that she will realise, because she is a very good and fair debater, that assuming, if I can do so for a moment, that the Home Office is right and that she is wrong, she will accept as a conceivable possibility that much of her argument disappears. She made a tremendous case about some of those countries where these figures show that they were not coping with their constitutional problem. It will be very sad indeed if we have to come to the same conclusion about England and Wales as a result of

  1241
  the hon. Lady's calculations. She said a moment later, in response to some comment from someone, that her mental arithmetic was not very good, and I think that this may be some evidence that this is so.
  Mr. Callaghan: So far as I know, they are not yet towing away motor cars in Blantyre, and do not need to strengthen the police for that.
  Mr. Macleod: That is an extraordinarily weak argument, like most of the others which the hon. Member feels he has had to put at the present time. Of course, the situations are different. In Nyasaland, there are nothing like the traffic control problems which we have here, but, on the other hand, there are other problems in Nyasaland with which they have to cope.
  Anyway, that is the background against which Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide assistance of up to £1·8 million in the three financial years ending on 30th June, 1962. That is the end of the Nyasaland financial year, as I explained earlier, and the greater part of this sum is, as was said, for the police. I believe, as I think I have indicated, that that too is a wise expenditure.
  Of course, we take into account—I say this in reply to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot)—the different point of view expressed about the use of a police mobile force. From the small knowledge that I have of these matters, I believe that the police mobile force should be regarded in the context of it being a part of the central Government just as in the same way the administration is regarded. We must consider this in that context and not in the context of repression, if that has happened. No doubt we are now moving into other times. There are great benefits to come from having an efficient police force and, as I have shown, the figures are not remotely out of line with other territories in the Colonies or indeed with the figures at. home.
  I wish to say a word on the question of payment because, after all, this is a financial Estimate which I am discussing. The aid provided is in the form of two-thirds by grant and one-third by interest-free loans.
  1242
  I wish to turn now to another matter about which we have argued a good deal as to whether it is in order or out of order to discuss it. Most of the points raised appeared to be out of order, but it seems to be in order for me to make some passing comment about the movement of troops This is a difficult matter, not because I have any desire at all to make the situation obscure—the facts are perfectly simple—but because it is genuinely difficult for Secretaries of State to answer on matters which have been ruled upon by the Chair, and which we know are true, but which, if they come under the jurisdiction of anyone, come essentially under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Relations Office.
  As I think has been said, the facts are quite plain. The first battalion of the R.A.R. is carrying out exercises in conjunction with the second battalion of the King's African Rifles. I was talking about the constitutional responsibility when I said that this was a defence matter. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn pertinently observed, "Against whom?" Of course it is against nobody. I did not mean it in that sense. I meant that it is a military matter, and the question which I think it fair to ask—I hope it is in order for me to say a sentence or two about it— is whether it was wise.
  I do not wish—let me make this clear —to question the judgment of the man on the spot—in this case the Governor —knowing the security reports from Nyasaland. I can assure the House that not all of them are wholly reassuring, because I studied them with great care. I do not wish to question the judgment of the Governor that it would be a good thing to have troops near. I do not think for a moment that one can really sustain the argument—except on the question of polemics in this House—that this could be interpreted in any way as a threat or intimidation to—or protection of, for that matter—those who may appear, or may not appear, before the Monckton Commission.
  I think the sentence which would carry most weight in this matter was included in a supplementary question asked on 10th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West who said:
  "Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if an increase in the number of troops in Nyasaland is a necessary prerequisite to

  1243
  the ending of the emergency, that is something which some of us would very much welcome?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th March. 1960: Vol. 619, c. 605.]
  It was the view of the Governor that it would not be provocative but would, on the whole, have a good effect, if troops could be near and, as I say—I do not know whether what I have said is in order—I have no wish to question his judgment.
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman go further in clearing up the matter? He is saying that in the judgment of the Governor these troops were desirable in the interests of internal security. The question of internal security is the responsibility of the Governor and not that of the Federal Government. As I understand it, during the emergency it was the Governor who requested the troops. Under what circumstances was the Governor's prerogative and the Secretary of State's own prerogative overridden?
  Mr. Macleod: It was not overridden in the least. That illustrates the difficulty we are in. It is partly a procedural difficulty in that a Secretary of State cannot be answerable for something which, according to the laws which prevail in the Federation, does not strictly come within his responsibility. I think I must leave that matter there.
  The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich asked a specific question about Mr. Chibambo. Strangely enough, only this morning I was reading my latest copy of the Malawi News, which is the voice of the Malawi Congress Party, I saw it had an editorial saying: "Welcome Macleod, but …" I shall not go on with the "but". It is fairly extensive and there are a lot of other things, but Mr. Chibambo's name is mentioned in that article. I know only the outlines of this particular personal case, but, in view of the fact that the hon. and learned Member raised it, I shall undertake to discuss the case with the Governor during my visit there if this man has not yet been freed. The number of those in detention now is probably something under 200.
  I have been asked a tremendous number of questions about Nyasaland and outside Nyasaland and I have done my best to answer. The hon. Member for
  1244
  Cardiff, South-East said that he felt he had to divide the House. I do not object to that in any way, because he and his hon. and right hon. Friends feel that the Government have been wrong, perhaps, or misguided over a considerable period. I do not accept that position for a moment, but I should like to establish this one thing, even though we are to divide now. Divisions are sometimes misread outside this House. We understand what we mean here, but in other countries they do not always understand these matters.
  In a few days time I am going to Nyasaland. That is a journey I am looking forward to very much indeed. The announcement of my visit said that I was going to discuss constitutional changes, and so I am. That is the main object of my visit and I am very grateful for the different suggestions which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we can agree on this even though, for Parliamentary reasons, we must divide on this Vote. I accept and understand that, yet I should like to feel that it is the wish of the whole House that Nyasaland can go forward, both politically and economically, in peace.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, will he answer the questions addressed to him? When will the emergency be brought to an end and, in particular, when will Dr. Banda be released?
  Mr. Macleod: I have said more than once that I have no intention of dealing with personalities, whether of Dr. Banda or anyone else. Responsibility for that matter is for the Governor in relation to law and order and not in relation to a Vote, Questions in this House, visits of the Monckton Commission, or any other consideration whatever.
  Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was or was not accurately reported? If it was not accurately reported, in what was the inaccuracy?
  Mr. Macleod: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was not present when, at a very early stage, the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations explained that matter to the House.
  Question put, That "£10" stand part of the Resolution: —
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 161.

  Division No. 50.]

  AYES

  [9.4 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Allason, James

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Claphtm)

  Noble, Michael

  Alport, C. J. M.

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

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

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

  Godber, J. B.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Page, Graham

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Gower, Raymond

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Green, Alan

  Peel, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Perclval, Ian

  Barter, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Peyton, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pilkington, Capt. Richard

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Harvle Anderson, Miss

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pott, Percivall

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Hiley, Joseph

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hinchlngbrooke, Viscount

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Bossom, Clive

  Hobson, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Ramsden, James

  Box, Donald

  Holland, Philip

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hollingworth, John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bralne, Bernard

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Rees, Hugh

  Brewis, John

  Hopkins, Alan

  Renton, David

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

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Brooman-White, R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Browne, Percy (Torrlngton)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Roots, William

  Bullard, Denys

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Russell, Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Sharpies, Richard

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Shepherd, William

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Jackson, John

  Simon, Sir Jocelyn

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  James, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Speir, Rupert

  Chataway, Christopher

  Johnson, Erio (Blackley)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson Smith, Ceoffrey

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kirk, Peter

  Talbot, John E.

  Cordeaux. Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Cordle, John

  Leavey, J. A.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Costaln, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Coulson, J. M.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Pctersfield)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Crltchley, Julian

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Curran, Charles

  Linetead, Sir Hugh

  Turner, Colin

  Currle, G. B. H.

  Litohfield, Capt. John

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Dance, James

  Longden, Gilbert

  vap Straubenzee, W. R.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Vane W. M. F.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Drayson, G. B.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Duncan, Sir James

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

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Duthle, Sir William

  MoMaster, Stanley

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Eden, John

  Macpberson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Watts James

  Elliott, R. W.

  Maddan, Martin

  Webster, David

  Emery, Peter

  Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Whitelaw, William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Woodhouse C. M.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Woodnutt Mark

  Gammans, Lady

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Stratton

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Morrison, John

  Colonel J. Harrison and

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Blyton, William

  Albu, Austen

  Beaney, Alan

  Boardman, H.

  Alfaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Bowles, Frank

  Awbery, Stan

  Blackburn, F.

  Boyden, James

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hill, J. (Midlothlan)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Holman, Peroy

  Proctor, W. T.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Holt, Arthur

  Randall, Harry

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hoy, James H.

  Rankin, John

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Brown, Thomas (Inee)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Reid, William

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Callaghan, James

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Carmichael, James

  Janner, Barnett

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jeger, George

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Chetwynd, George

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

  CCCCROSS, William

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Short, Edward

  Colllck, Percy

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Small, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C, W.

  Snow, Julian

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, George

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ledger, Ron

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Deer, George

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stonehouse, John

  de Freltas, Geoffrey

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stones, William

  Dempsey, James

  Logan, David

  Swingler, Stephen

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sylvester, George

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Symonds, J. B.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)

  MoLeavy, Frank

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Evans, Albert

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mahon, Simon

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

  Finch, Harold

  Manuel, A. C.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Fitch, Alan

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mason, Roy

  Watkins, Tudor

  Foot, Dingle

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Weitzman, David

  Forman, J. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Wells, percy (Faversham)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, C. R.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Monslow, Walter

  Whitlock, William

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Moody, A. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, John

  Willey, Frederick

  Gooch, E. G.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)

  Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Grey, Charles

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Owen, Will

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Grimond, J.

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Yates, victor (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hart, Mra, Judith

  Peart, Frederick

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pentland, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Prentice, R. E.

  Mr. Howell and Mr. Cronin.

  Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

  Resolution agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: The Estimate now before us is one of that very mysterious character to which the Colonial Secretary referred earlier, and unless one is an expert one can hardly understand what it means. When the people of Mauritius read about our debate, they will hardly understand why we are devoting only a quarter of an hour to such a vitally important matter to them.
  I want to give the right hon. Gentleman time to tell the House what he proposes to do for the reconstruction and repair of the terrible damage which has occurred in Mauritius. Therefore, I must not spend very much time in briefly outlining the information which we all
  1248
  have and which indeed the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 10th March in a Written Answer.
  There were 1,700 casualties in Mauritius as a result of a cyclone that struck the island twice. Over 100,000 buildings are reported to have been destroyed or seriously damaged, and no fewer than 70,000 people—nearly half the population of the Borough of Middlesbrough—which is represented in this House by two hon. Members—are in refugee centres. Not only that, but the whole livelihood of the island is seriously imperilled, for more than half of the sugar crop is said to have been lost. Sugar, of course, can be grown again, but the immediate loss is very severe, and it will inevitably take a long time before the plantations get back into production again.
  I am told that the total loss to the island is estimated at no less than £50 million. This, of course, includes the

  1249
  loss of the sugar crop, a large amount of which was insured, fortunately, under a plan introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) when he was Colonial Secretary. I should like to say that he is very sorry not to be here tonight to add a word in support of my plea for the maximum possible help from the people of Great Britain at this time.
  The Colonial Secretary has told us of the excellent emergency action that has been taken. We are grateful to the French Air Force, for example, for the assistance it has given by flying in supplies from Madagascar; to the Government of India, to the Red Cross, and, no doubt, to many others who have co-operated in emergency relief work. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that sufficient supplies to meet immediate requirements, including food, are on the way.
  For the moment, then, it would seem that as much as could be done in a hurry and in an emergency has been done, but when we consider the Supplementary Estimate for the aid that will be required from us for the future, we want to know a little more. What more is to be done? We understand that the right hon. Gentleman guaranteed a sum of about £2 million for aid for the island after the first strike of the cyclone. Now, there has been this much more heavy strike, and this much more serious damage.
  The island is faced with the sort of thing that our great cities faced during the war. The kind of damage that has occurred has been the sort of damage that occurred in the average heavily bombed city here. It is really of that dimension. What we have to ask ourselves is how far we can use that experience of bomb damage, emergency action and civil defence to help these people.
  Are we to send out to the island a team of experts who have had experience in the reconstruction of war damage? Are we, perhaps, to call for volunteers from within the ranks of some of our voluntary Civil Defence services, who have, at present, fortunately, nothing to do, although they have studied these problems very carefully? I am sure that there are useful ways in which they could be used, and that many would volunteer to
  1250
  fly to Mauritius for some weeks if transport expenses were found. There are experts in our local government service —borough surveyors, and so on—who could be of great value.
  I hope that the Colonial Secretary will tell us that he has some plans of that kind in mind. Particularly, I would ask whether he does not agree that in contemplating aid and all-out reconstruction action for the people of Mauritius, it would be as well now to rebuild, in a proper form that could be satisfactory for many years to come, the mud huts that have been blown down. Really tremendous damage has been caused to those dwellings—no doubt, quite easily. These fragile buildings have been blown over by the cyclone without much difficulty. The people had been living in those huts, inadequate affairs, for a very long time. Surely this is an opportunity to be taken for rebuilding that kind of structure on a much more permanent and satisfactory basis, with drainage and other necessities of a more civilised form of life.
  Mauritius is a very little-known Colony. I suppose that there are few people in Great Britain who, if they were stopped in the street and were asked, could say where Mauritius was. But, as we who have had the advantage of making contacts with visitors from Mauritius are aware, this is a Colony which is very proud of its connection with this country. It is a Colony like the island from which my ancestors came, in which people speak both French and English with equal fluency. Therefore, I feel that I have a specially warm spot in my heart for this island, although I have never been to Mauritius.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond tonight in the spirit in which I have spoken and will guarantee all-out aid on a large scale for a permanent improvement in conditions in Mauritius, and will have no hesitation whatever in asking the House when the time comes to provide the money. On this side of the House, at any rate, there will be no hesitation whatever in voting whatever supplies are necessary. Speaking from some personal experience that I have had lately in collecting funds for the relief of Agadir, I believe that the British people have only to be told about these things to respond generously.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and to the Opposition for giving an opportunity, however short before the Guillotine falls at 9.30, to discuss his matter of aid to Mauritius, which is one very close to the whole House. I am certain that the House will be glad when we are able to come back with final plans, and that it will gladly vote the additional supply that will be necessary.
  For the moment, this Vote is concerned with a token contribution of £15,000 towards the cyclone relief fund set up by the Governor of Mauritius. I have some doubt—I have such little experience in these matters—whether these token payments are or are not a good thing, because it takes so long to get away from the idea that Her Majesty's Government are just providing £15,000 for the relief of tragedy in Mauritius, whereas, of course, the discussions on cyclone Alix—that is the January cyclone—with the Ministers and the Financial Secretary who came over here to see me a short time ago resulted in agreement to provide from Her Majesty's Government £2 million, and in due course authority will have to be sought for that.
  I think that it is worth while that we should make these contributions at once because they are an example to others who may wish to contribute to the Mauritius cyclone relief fund. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak so warmly in his praise of. what other Governments have done, but before I go any further I should like to say a special word about the Red Cross. It was immensely swift off the mark in this matter, as it always is. Its organisation clicked into top gear at once, and it has been of the greatest possible help. It was a tragedy that even while the Ministers from Mauritius were in this country discussing with me financial aid for the cyclone called Alix, the cyclone called Carol, which was much more devastating in its results, struck the island. There were 42 people killed and over 1,700 casualties. We have had splendid help from the French Government who sent a cruiser to Mauritius, and flew supplies in French Air Force planes from Madagascar. Also, the French Army in Madagascar offered to provide electrical engineers and other technical personnel
  1252
  who are so valuable, the more so because they are so near. The Indian Government, too, have been mentioned. I should like to mention that the South African and Australian Governments have both been very helpful and co-operative in supplying emergency stores. The Kenya Government, because, of course, Nairobi is the essential staging point in this operation, have given very useful help indeed.
  We have, naturally, been concerned essentially with first-aid. I believe, and I have been so assured by the Governor, that the first-aid needs are being met. To a large extent they were, I am happy to say, anticipated. Now, however, we must turn our attention to the long-term problems. The right hon. Gentleman asked the very important question: Are we sending out a team of experts? The answer is, "Yes." The Mauritius Government have aleady begun planning their long-term housing schemes, and they are to discuss those with my housing adviser who is to go out later this month. There is in existence a subcommittee of the Executive Council in Mauritius consisting of the Ministers most closely concerned and the Financial Secretary which meets daily to co-ordinate reconstruction and rehabilitation work.
  Quite apart from that, there is in Mauritius at the moment a very important economic survey mission led by Professor Meade, of Cambridge University, and there is also a team there led by Professor Titmuss. The economic survey mission is to examine the long-term economic prospects of Mauritius, and Professor Titmuss's team is to examine the possibility of establishing a sound system of social security in the Colony. Both those bodies will, of course, have to take into account the effects of the recent cyclone. I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that we must not only plan but plan soundly for the future.
  I have one last word to say, and I think that the House will welcome what I wish to announce. The right hon. Member said, rightly, that Mauritius is not very well known here although we have a great affection for the island and its people. It is difficult for a Secretary of State to visit Mauritius. Indeed, as far as we know, no Secretary of State in office has been able to visit it. In

  1253
  a few days, I shall be in Central Africa, and I have considered whether I can, at the end of my visit there, go to Mauritius. I have now made arrangements to do this, and I have heard from the Governor that he very much welcomes the visit.
  Immediately after my forthcoming tour of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland I shall, between 9th and 12th April, be in Mauritius. I shall be able to see something of the first-aid work which I hope will have been accomplished and something of the long-term planning which is to be put into operation. Also I shall, I know, be able to take to the people of Mauritius the very best wishes of all hon. and right hon. Members of the House.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: We have only two minutes left, but I am glad to have this opportunity of saying to the Colonial Secretary that we very much welcome his decision to visit the island of Mauritius. It is not often that the island sees a Minister of the Crown, and people there are always urging that Ministers should go to visit it. We are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to go there, and we shall gladly spare him from the service of the House for a few extra days for that purpose. We shall not even mind if he has a little relaxation after the arduous duties which he will have to perform in the Federation.
  As regards his visit to the Federation, we wish him well in the task that he is undertaking. We are under no illusions about the difficulties which will confront him. We hope that he will have the same success as he had in Kenya. He will find that any criticism which we have to make will not be factious or advanced in any party spirit but will stem only from the principles which we believe should be applied in these circumstances. We hope that his visit will be fruitful for everyone in the territory, for the Africans, for the Asians and for the Europeans. There is no doubt—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carry this message from the House— that the best future for the Federation lies in a partnership between all three races, without domination by any one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution: —
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution.
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eleventh Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twelfth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Thirteenth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourteenth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifteenth Resolution.
  put and agreed to.
  Question,
  That this House doth - agree with the Committee in their Sixteenth Resolution,
  put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution: —
  SUPPLY [10th March]
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE
  1. That a sum, not exceeding £113,110,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1961.
  VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
  2. That a sum, not exceeding £1,069,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 161,100, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 3,400 all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliairy Air Force), which will come in course of payment during
  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60
  7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

  Schedule

  —

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c, of the Air Force

  …

  …

  1,100,000

  180,000

  2.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Services

  …

  …

  Cr. 100,000

  —

  3.

  Air Ministry

  …

  …

  420,000

  30,000

  4.

  Civilians at Outstations

  …

  …

  1,100,000

  510,000

  5.

  Movements

  …

  …

  2,740,000

  *—130,000

  6.

  Supplies

  …

  …

  Cr.3,910,000

  *—l,080,000

  7.

  Aircraft and Stores

  …

  …

  Cr. 5,270,000

  *—1,650,000

  8.

  Works and Lands

  …

  …

  3,650,000

  *—550,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  10

  *—520,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  …

  …

  270,000

  —

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  …

  —

  *—150,000

  Total, Air (Supplementary) 1959–60

  £10

  *—£3,360,000

  * Deficit.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  VOTE 1. PAY ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES
  8. That a sum, not exceeding £69,997,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961.
  the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT STORES
  3. That a sum, not exceeding £238,000,000, granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS
  4. That a sum, not exceeding £37,770,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  5. That a sum, not exceeding £3,700,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
  6. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY
  9. That a sum, not exeeding £14,044,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
  10. That a sum, not exceeding £19,362,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS, MACHINERY AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD
  11. That a sum not exceeding £19,264,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, machinery and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60
  15. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

  Schedule

  —

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants

  Appropriations in Aid

  Vote

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  …

  300,000

  —

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  Cr. 300,000

  250,000

  4.

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  …

  200,000

  —

  6.

  Scientific Services

  …

  Cr. 650,000

  250,000

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, &c.—

  Section I—Personnel

  …

  1,050,000

  100,000

  Section II—Matériel

  …

  Cr. 5,250,000

  1,250,000

  Section III—Contract Work

  …

  5,500,000

  3,195,000

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  …

  Cr. 3,550,000

  600,000

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  —

  *—300,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  700,000

  *-l,100,000

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  …

  550,010

  —

  13.

  Non-effective Services

  …

  1,450,000

  —

  15.

  Additional Married Quarters

  …

  —

  *—245,000

  Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1959–60

  …

  £10

  £4,000,000

  * Deficit.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY
  16. That a sum, not exceeding £127,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES
  17. That a sum, not exceeding £20,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 337,500, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 325,000 other ranks),
  VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  12. That a sum, not exceeding £9,412,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  13. That a sum, not exceeding £26,229,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
  14. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.
  Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 333,865, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  VOTE 7. STORES
  18. That a sum, not exceeding £64,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores (including stores for research and development projects and inspection, disposal and certain capital and ancillary services relating thereto) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS
  19. That a sum, not exceeding £33,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  20. That a sum, not exceeding £8,260,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  SUPPLY [3rd March]
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
  That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 174,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  SUPPLY [7th March]
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  VOTE A. NUMBERS
  That 102,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  SUPPLY [9th March]
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61
  VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 317,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.
  Resolutions agreed to
  WAYS AND MEANS [14th March]
  Resolutions reported,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £82,026,032 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £2,223,676,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty and one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 84].
  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate the keeping and use of radioactive material, and to make provision as to the disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in consequence of the passing of the said Act;

  (ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State under the said Act.

  Resolution agreed to.

  PETROL STATION, CONDORRAT (ACCESS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I make no apology for raising on the Adjournment a very important problem that exists in the village of Condorrat in the County of Dunbarton. The story as it has been given to me verbally—I have no documentary evidence, since the lady concerned seems to have no documents—is this. The lady and her husband have held the ground in question since 1912. The husband left and the lady is now in a cottage with responsibility for a son who suffers from a rare disease, as a consequence of which he has had over a hundred fractures of his very brittle bones. This boy, therefore, is quite unemployable.
  Prior to the construction of the new Glasgow-Stirling Road, the A.80, this cottage was on ground capable of cultivation. The idea was to develop it as a nursery so that the mother could leave provision for her son when she died. As a result of the new road being built, they lost some of their land. Some of the ground has been worked upon by building contractors, and any idea that they had of developing the ground as a nursery is now out of the question. The Department in Edinburgh acquired a piece of land south of the B.802 road for which this lady's husband received, I am told, £235, which seems a hopelessly inadequate sum. Part of the flyover bridge over the Glasgow-Stirling Road is built on land belonging to this lady for which she received no compensation at all, according to her statement. The lady informs me that compensation for the land on which part of the bridge was built was paid to the Campbell Trust. She received no payment for that small piece of land.
  Having lost the possibility of developing a nursery, this lady, on behalf of her son, conceived the idea of a petrol and service station. She obtained planning permission from the Dunbarton County Council to construct a garage on the site of the cottage. The cottage is enclosed in a narrow strip of land running
  1262
  alongside the A.80. She was given planning permission, subject to the approval of the Department in Edinburgh, to have access to the Glasgow— Stirling road.
  She has told me—I do not know what she does with the letters that she receives —that she has been granted access only to the B.802, the secondary road, which, by a flyover crosses the Glasgow—Stirling Road, but, unfortunately, the level of the B.802 has been raised to accommodate the flyover. As a consequence, the cottage on the site of which it was proposed that a garage should be built lies at the immediate foot of a gradient of 1 in 8½ which runs at a direct angle to the B.802. No motorist in his senses would take a car down that gradient to fill up with petrol.
  I have been out and seen the site and the gradient. I have been driving cars for years, but I would not take a car down there to fill up with petrol. I would go down on foot with a can and carry it back, but I would not take my car down there. It is a waste of time for the lady to have a garage built, because there is no access to the trunk road.
  In reply to my Question last week, the Joint Under-Secretary of State told me that the question of granting permission for access to and from the road was considered on safety grounds. I recognise that. I cannot, however, understand why this exit and access on the Glasgow-Stirling Road is refused on safety grounds while in the Borough of Clydebank, a few years ago, an hotel was built on the Glasgow-Dumbarton Road, a fast motorway between Glasgow and Loch Lomond and very busy in the summer. Whatever people may say, in the summer all roads lead to Loch Lomond.
  An hotel was built with access to that road. I swear that I will never take my car on that road again on New Year's Eve after about ten o'clock. Why access was granted, I do not know. If I had been in the Department in Edinburgh, there would have been an awful row, because I object to public houses being built on these roads in any case. But there it is. Now, however, when a service station is applied for to enable motorists to fill up with petrol, access to the so-called motor road is refused on the

  1263
  ground of danger. This seems to me complete nonsense.
  Let us consider the site. The garage lies down a 40–50 ft. bank from the road. The length of the plot is about 55 ft. 6 in. The roadway down to the garage would have a 30-degree run-in and similarly a 30-degree exit, which is quite safe. The road engineer of the contractors states that it is an ideal site for a service station, and yet permission has been refused.
  It is nonsense to say that permission has been refused for other garages on the road. It may have been refused, but there are already other garages on the road. There are garages further along the road in each direction. Therefore, why this lady should be refused a service station when there are other similar places on the road some eight or nine miles away in both directions, I cannot understand.
  Next comes the safety factor. In the centre of the A.80, there is a central reservation. In parts of the road there are gaps in the reservation where motorists can cross. I am the first to admit that if a garage is sited on a road near a break in the central reservation where motorists can make a U-turn across the road and into the garage, that can be dangerous. On this section of the road the central reservation is unbroken and no motorist travelling from Stirling to Glasgow would cut across to this garage, because of that central reservation. Anyone wanting to cross to the garage would have to go a long way down the road before making a U-turn, which is something no motorist would do. As a motorist, I deplore the practice of crossing central reservations to get to a garage on the other side. It is a bad practice which no doubt causes many accidents, but the Under-Secretary need not have any worries on that score, because there is no break in the reservation for some distance.
  This young lad, a fine well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed boy of 15, has had more than a hundred fractures. No one will employ him. He is quite unemployable. The slightest accident will cause a fracture. The road leading to the cottage where he and his mother live has a gradient of 1 in 1—, which is most dangerous for him. He is afraid to go over that ground for fear that he falls,
  1264
  because a fall means another fracture. The gradient is due to the construction of a fly-over.
  This cottage and the piece of land which they cultivated and from which they earn their living were all that the boy and his mother had in the world. They are cut off by the road and if they want to get to the village without going up the bank to the old road, where the gradient is 1 in 9 or 1 in 10, which the boy does not use because he is liable to fall and have another fracture, they have to go up to the B.802. So the poor boy is confined to the cottage with no opportunity to earn a living. His only chance is to have this service station at which he could employ a petrol pump attendant and where he could sit in the office taking care of the financial side of the business.
  It is heart-rending to see a bright and intelligent young boy in this difficulty. He and his mother are completely frustrated about doing something to help him earn his living. His mother has sole responsibility and has no one to share it. Her assets are few. It may be that the Under-Secretary will say that she can appeal. However, an appeal is a costly business. I told her that it might not be costly, but she said that it might be and that she might have to make several appeals. She said that she did not have the money for lawyers and for appeals and that all her resources had to be devoted to investments for this boy, especially for this service station, so that he could at least keep the wolf from the door. She is quite sincere in this. She does not want her boy to be dependent on the charity of the State or anybody else when she dies. She wants him to be able to get his own living. They naturally feel that they could have done that had the road not been put through, because they had their nursery. But what was once a nursery is now a bank of clay where the road has been built up to go over the fly-over.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will have an inquiry into exactly what has happened to this mother and her son. It is evident that they have had a raw deal. According to what she told me, her husband, who left her with this responsibility, signed an agreement and accepted £235 for this piece of land which, from their point of view, is very valuable. Anyone who saw the place and spoke to the

  1265
  woman and the boy would realise that they were two ordinary humble people, without any knowledge of the law or education, but just good, honest people. Had they had a wider knowledge of the law and of the way that things are done they might have got much more than they did.
  In the interests of the concept of fair play and justice, even for the most humble people in the land, I beg the Minister to see that something is done immediately to improve their position. The access to the B.802 is impossible with a gradient of 1 in 8½. It is no use as a service road to a garage. Any idea that it constitutes a danger on the main Glasgow-Stirling Road carries no weight. The road is not a motorway in the sense of the Birmingham-London Motorway or the Preston Bypass. There are roads into it. There is the road to Kirkintilloch from Airdrie. There are intersections into it all the way to Stirling. That is unavoidable because of established roads and residences and all sorts of interests along the road as one goes into Glasgow or Stirling.
  Granting access to this road is vital. Planning permission has been given to build a garage. To allow the garage to be built and then say that no access to it will be provided is tantamount to refusing planning permission. I have no doubt that all those concerned in the Department in Edinburgh feel compassion towards this family. I am sure that there is nothing in any of our regulations to prevent the Department of Agriculture from authorising Mrs. Doherty, on behalf of her son, to go ahead with her garage and to have access to the Glasgow-Stirling Road.
  9.53 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has raised a case which quite naturally must rouse compassion in the heart of everyone who has heard what he said, but I am bound to put the history of the matter. It would be fair to divide what the hon. Gentleman said into two parts. First, what he said about general policy for the siting of petrol stations on trunk roads. Secondly, what he said about the particular application, and the policy in the case he raised.
  1266
  The history of the case is this. With one or two minor disagreements I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that I ought to recapitulate the case. In August, 1958, Mrs. Doherty applied to the Dunbarton County Council for planning approval to erect a petrol station on her land alongside the line of the Condorrat bypass which forms part of the new dual carriage road being constructed from the Glasgow city boundary to a point north of Denny, a distance of about 16 miles. In December, 1959, after consultation with the Scottish Home Department, the county council signified approval in principle of the application provided that access to the petrol station was from the minor road, the B.802 only.
  On 30th December the hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and a reply was sent on the 20th January, 1960, in the following terms:
  "The position is that Dunbarton County Council have granted planning permission in principle for the petrol filling station in question on condition that there shall be no access direct to the proposed by-pass of the existing trunk road route A.80. Mrs. Doherty has of course a right of appeal to me"—
  that is, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—
  "against the imposition of this condition by the County Council and one of my officials called on Mrs. Doherty on 30th January to explain the position to her. You will appreciate therefore that in view of the possibility of an appeal being lodged it would not be proper for me to comment on the merits of the case at this stage."
  On 17th February the hon. Member again wrote saying:
  "I do hope you will give the necessary authority for Mrs. Doherty to proceed"—
  meaning to construct the petrol station with access to the trunk road. Again my right hon. Friend replied on 25th February, saying:
  "As I explained to you in my earlier letter the case may be the subject of an appeal and it would not therefore be proper for me to comment further at this stage on the merits of the case."
  As the hon. Member knows, that is still the position. If Mrs. Doherty chooses to exercise her right of appeal it will be for my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. At the moment my right hon. Friend has no locus to override a planning authority decision

  1267
  unless Mrs. Doherty appeals. That would be the right occasion to put forward the considerations which the hon. Member has mentioned.
  The hon. Member also referred to the question of compensation. Compensation is fixed either by agreement or by the district valuer, and the person whose land is being taken has a right of appeal to the arbiter. If this lady was not satisfied with her compensation she had the right of appeal. There is no other step that my right hon. Friend can take. He cannot intervene. The question of compensation is not a matter for him. That is a matter for the arbiter, in the event of disagreement.
  Mr. Bence: Unfortunately, it was Mrs. Doherty's husband who got the compensation. He has cleared off, and she does not know how much he got or how he got it.
  Mr. Macpherson: So she does not know what to appeal against. That is a difficult position, but it does not alter the case.
  I do not say this with any acrimony, but when the hon. Member raises a case I strongly advise him to put it forward on its own merits rather than to bring in a different case, decided by a different planning authority, in connection with a different road, in totally different circumstances. The case to which he referred was not related to a public house but to an hotel.
  Mr. Bence: What is that but a public house?
  Mr. Macpherson: One can make a distinction. At any rate, I understand that this hotel not only has bedrooms, but a ballroom, which is not normal in a public house.
  Mr. Bence: It is still a drinking den.
  Mr. Macpherson: This hotel is in Great Western Road. Planning permission was given in 1955. A significant feature of the case was that approval was given only after the site had been changed and on condition that while entry to the hotel was from the dual carriageway the exit for vehicles from it was to a side road behind it, leading to Kilbowie Road.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: That is only one of the cases
  1268
  raised by my hon. Friend. What about the case to Crow Wood in Muirhead, which my hon. Friend also mentioned?
  Mr. Macpherson: I shall come to the question of this particular road in a minute. I think I ought not to comment on this case at all, but—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  Mr. Macpherson: —I can at least say something of the policy in regard to the planning permission for petrol stations on trunk roads. I think the hon. Gentleman would like me to do that.
  Very careful consideration indeed has been given both by the present Government and by the Labour Government before them to that question. The General Development (Scotland) Order, 1950, made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, enabled the Minister of Transport, who was then responsible, to give directions in the case of development which would affect a trunk road, restricting the grant of permission by the planning authority. Since 1956, when the Secretary of State became the highway authority, the Secretary of State has not issued directions; but, where he considered it necessary, he has called in applications for decision by himself under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The object of both procedures is to ensure uniformity in policy as regards the national road system.
  In 1958, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport each issued a circular to explain policy in regard to petrol stations on trunk roads with particular reference to applications for petrol stations in the open countryside. The circulars made clear that the purpose of these roads is, as main roads, to carry traffic speedily and safely between important centres.
  We would all agree that it would be folly to spend millions of pounds on new bypasses, designed to avoid built-up areas and to reduce the number of access roads to the main traffic route, only to clutter up the new road with a profusion of petrol stations. The circular

  1269
  does not say that there should be no new petrol stations on such roads, but it does make it plain that the main criteria to be applied in considering individual applications are road safety and public need. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has had to refuse many applications, including fourteen apart from this particular case, on the Glasgow-Denny Road. Of course, that case has not come to him yet. In some cases, the applicant wanted a site on the new road because his garage, where he had been established for years, was being bypassed by it. In others, the new road literally passed right over an existing petrol station, but, in all cases, the main considerations must remain road safety and public need.
  The circular says this:
  "It would be contrary to good planning to permit development on the open stretches of these roads which would impair their usefulness for their intended purpose, or would in particular impair the value of any improvements. All petrol filling stations, even on well placed and adequate-sized sites, which would have access to fast open stretches of the road are liable to interfere with the smooth flow of traffic. Accordingly, they should not be allowed unless there is a very good reason, for example, a genuine lack of facilities to ment essential needs or the possibility of replacing an obsolete and dangerously sited
  1270
  station. Bypasses and new construction providing vast stretches should, if less than twelve miles long in all, normally be kept free of stations."
  That is the general policy which has been announced and it is in accordance with that policy that the Secretary of State will normally call in applications for planning permission where it is a question of access to a trunk road.
  I am conscious of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and of course due note will be taken of everything he has said. But it would be quite wrong for me to comment—as I said before and as the Secretary of State has twice repeated— unless and until the matter comes before the Secretary of State in the form of an appeal and my right hon. Friend has to decide upon it. Then it will be open to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the decision if he is dissatisfied with it, or to applaud it if he is satisfied. But in the meantime comment on my part either way would not be in order. I hope that this debate will serve to make the present policy regarding petrol stations on trunk roads better known and more widely accepted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Committee on Consumer Protection (Written Evidence)
  Committee on Consumer Protection (Written Evidence)
  German Democratic Republic (Trade)
  German Democratic Republic (Trade)
  Leipzig Fair
  Leipzig Fair
  Peruvian Fish Meal
  Peruvian Fish Meal
  Pottery Industry
  Pottery Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Travelling Allowance)
  Income Tax (Travelling Allowance)
  Civil Service (Staff College)
  Civil Service (Staff College)
  Australia (United Kingdom Investment)
  Australia (United Kingdom Investment)
  Nationalised Industries (Finance)
  Nationalised Industries (Finance)
  Purchase Tax (Gramophone Records and Musical Instruments)
  Purchase Tax (Gramophone Records and Musical Instruments)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Value)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Value)
HOUSING
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Old People, Wales (Accommodation)
  Old People, Wales (Accommodation)
  Local Authority and Private Building
  Local Authority and Private Building
  Houses, South Wales (Bathrooms and Water Closets)
  Houses, South Wales (Bathrooms and Water Closets)
  Goole
  Goole
  Slum Clearance, South Wales
  Slum Clearance, South Wales
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Tottenham Borough Council (Clearance Area)
  Tottenham Borough Council (Clearance Area)
  Public Footpaths and Bridleways
  Public Footpaths and Bridleways
  Local Authorities (Exchequer Aid)
  Local Authorities (Exchequer Aid)
  Treadgold Avenue, Bramhope
  Treadgold Avenue, Bramhope
  Radioactive Dust, Wales
  Radioactive Dust, Wales
  Woods, Hawns and Dendles (Preservation)
  Woods, Hawns and Dendles (Preservation)
  Water Supplies, Wales
  Water Supplies, Wales
  Manor Farm, Lincoln
  Manor Farm, Lincoln
  Industry (Re-rating)
  Industry (Re-rating)
SCOTLAND
  Hospitals (Building Programme)
  Hospitals (Building Programme)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Centre, Aberdeen)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Centre, Aberdeen)
  Forth Road Bridge (Toll Charges)
  Forth Road Bridge (Toll Charges)
  Roads (Reflecting Kerbs)
  Roads (Reflecting Kerbs)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Scientific Information)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Scientific Information)
  Contempt of Court
  Contempt of Court
  Criminal Charges (Costs on Acquittal)
  Criminal Charges (Costs on Acquittal)
  ALGERIA
  ALGERIA
  FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
  FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
RAILWAYS
  The Highlands
  The Highlands
ROADS
  New Bridge, Hackney
  New Bridge, Hackney
  Accidents (Car Doors)
  Accidents (Car Doors)
  Road Junction, Swindon (Traffic Lights)
  Road Junction, Swindon (Traffic Lights)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Insurance (Graduated Contributions)
  National Insurance (Graduated Contributions)
  Road Junction, Hatfield (Accidents)
  Road Junction, Hatfield (Accidents)
ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Marines (Mr. P. Wray)
  Royal Marines (Mr. P. Wray)
  H.M.S."Discovery"
  H.M.S."Discovery"
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Drip-Feed Oil Heaters
  Drip-Feed Oil Heaters
EMPLOYMENT
  Remploy Factories, Wales
  Remploy Factories, Wales
  Disabled Ex-Miners, South Wales
  Disabled Ex-Miners, South Wales
  Disabled Persons, Wales
  Disabled Persons, Wales
  Scotland
  Scotland
  National Service (Personal Case)
  National Service (Personal Case)
BRITISH ARMY
  Private P. Wray
  Private P. Wray

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool

THE PINK ZONE AND PARKING METERS
2.36 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Pink Zone in London is still in force and, if so, whether any figures can be produced to show that it is being enforced and whether the motorist should obey the rules governing its use or the parking meter rules, when the latter come into being.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as your Lordships will recall, it was announced on January 12 that most of the temporary car parks which had been provided in connection with the arrangements for the Pink Zone would be closed as from January 16. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works agreed, however, to allow the continued use of the Horse Guards Parade for car parking until the Mayfair parking meter scheme came into operation. It was made clear that the Parade Ground might be required before that date for ceremonial occasions or assemblies. It has now proved necessary to withdraw the parking facilities in Horse Guards Parade at 10 p.m. on Saturday, March 19, in order to allow for resurfacing the Parade and for the necessary preliminary arrangements for the review of Household Troops to be held during the State visit of General de Gaulle in early April.
The experimental ban on loading and unloading at a number of difficult intersections and lengths of street particularly liable to congestion between 1 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., which was an essential feature of the Pink Zone, will continue
1100
for the time being, but will be reviewed in the Spring.
The police continue their enforcement activities, and I am informed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that in December the police removed 4,500 cars in the zone, in January 6,000 and in February, 5,500. Drivers in the Pink Zone have never been prevented from leaving their cars in authorised parking places; elsewhere they should be sure that they do not infringe waiting restrictions and are not likely to cause obstruction. When the new parking meter scheme is introduced on April 4 the whole area of Mayfair will be covered by meters, and it will be clear that in that area parking is prohibited everywhere except at metered parking bays.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for his Answer, I would ask whether it is not rather an unfortunate thing that the Horse Guards Parade has to be cleared of the machinery which at present ornaments it, and is it intended to do something else to provide parking places for the cars that use it? Is not the effect of the closing of Horse Guards Parade, and maybe other parking places, to increase the difficulties of parking a motor car and of London traffic generally? And what are you going to do if the position gets as bad as it was before the Pink Zone came in?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would agree that the closure of Horse Guards Parade is going to help in no way with the problem of parked cars, but that closure is inevitable at the moment, and, so far as I know, there is no alternative that can be offered at the present time. It is only a matter of waiting until the 4th April, when the parking meter scheme comes in. I should be very surprised to find things getting as bad as they were before the Pink Zone was brought in.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that not a single detail as to either the extent of the Pink Zone or the rules which apply in it has been made available in print to the general public; and does he not think it rather an extraordinary thing to impose laws and

1101
restrictions and to penalise people for breaking them without even telling them what they are?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely incorrect, I am glad to say. The fullest possible details of the Pink Zone were widely circulated by every means we could think of to anybody who wished to listen before the Pink Zone came into operation.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question again: Is it not quite clear from his Answer that the closing of Horse Guards Parade is going to produce another serious problem for London traffic as a whole unless efforts are made by the Ministry of Works or by some other Government Department to try to accommodate the cars that will have absolutely nowhere to go?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the seriousness of that problem has not escaped us.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it has not, in fact, been proved by this experiment in the Pink Zone that no zone, whether pink, blue, or yellow, can be a success as regards parking until a proper survey has been made of parking space available, including kerb-side parking space; and does my right honourable friend the Minister intend to have such a survey made?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can say in answer to my noble friend that my right honourable friend is thinking very hard of everything he possibly can to solve this matter. These things do not go all that fast, but I am perfectly certain that if a survey is necessary it will be made. All possible places for parking are being explored.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what alternative plans the Government have for dealing with the hundreds of cars that are at present being parked in the Horse Guards Parade? The noble Lord has not answered the question of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and it is going to be a great hardship on people who have to park their cars. Surely the Government have some alternative plans for dealing with the problem.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I regret to say that at the present moment there is no alternative plan which can be offered—if I take the sense of the noble Lord's question aright, shall we say, on Monday.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I mean that when the facilities are withdrawn on Horse Guards Parade, is there any other place to which these parkers can be directed?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there is no place to which they do not at present have access.
LORD DERWENT: Might I ask my noble friend one more supplementary question for information purposes? Can he give the date on which my right honourable friend will stop thinking and start doing?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords. I cannot give the exact date, but it was a date about the middle of October, 1959.

DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
2.43 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the total amounts of deficiency payments for cattle, sheep and pigs respectively made through (a) the live-weight centres and (b) the dead-weight centres during 1959.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the deficiency payments on cattle, sheep and pigs certified in the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1959 totalled—and I will give the figures in millions of pounds: cattle, £3·1 live-weight, £0·7 dead-weight; sheep, £20·4 live-weight, £7·4 dead-weight; pigs, £4·5 live-weight, £15·8 dead-weight.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the full amounts of correct

1103
deficiency payments made to the dead-weight centres were, in fact, received by the senders of stock to those centres in 1959, and, if not, whether steps will be taken to make certain that the correct deficiency payments for the period in which the stock reached the centres will be paid direct to the senders in future by the appropriate department of the Ministry concerned, as is done for stock passing through the live-weight centres.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, many producers who send stock to dead-weight centres prefer to sell at inclusive prices, which take account of the guarantees, leaving it to the buyers to present the stock for certification and claim the guarantee payment. The guarantee arrangements make provision for this. I cannot say whether the full amount of the guarantee payment is passed on in every such transaction, but any producer is entitled to sell his stock at the market price and claim the guarantee payment himself if he prefers to do so.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer to the Question, is it not the fact that, according to the Agriculture Act, 1957, and to the Orders made in 1957 and 1958 with reference to it, the producer or the sender of the stock to the dead-weight centres is the person entitled to receive the payment, as indeed he does when his stock is sent to the live-weight centres? And cannot the Government institute a system whereby the sender of the stock, either live or in carcase form, can receive the deficiency payment to which he is entitled under the Act and the Orders?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, my Lords, but this is precisely what happens. It is the sender of the stock, the person who presents the stock to the certification centre, who gets the deficiency payment. But that sender may not necessarily be the first producer, the farmer. It may be his agent; it may be the wholesaler to whom he has sold; it may be the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. Under the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1957, the "producer" for the purpose of guarantee payments, is defined as the person in whose name the fatstock are presented for certification.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it seems clear, from both the Question and the Answers, that there is a great danger here that in many cases the people who carry out the slaughter and are the final receivers of the subsidy are making a profit on the subsidy itself: that, by the arrangements that have to be gone through, there are leaks. Surely the whole idea of the Government, in giving a subsidy, is to see that the producer gets something near his production costs plus a slight profit.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I cannot accept for a moment that there are any leaks here. It is entirely a matter for the producer to decide whether he himself presents the beast to a certification centre and gets two cheques, one from the auctioneer or buyer and the other from the Government, or whether he does that transaction through an agent. If he does it through an agent, the agent will be properly paid for his services. If the producers who are using agents do not think they are getting a proper amount passed on to them, they have the remedy in their own hands; they simply present the stock themselves.
LORD WISE: But is it not the fact that under the Government's own Order of 1957—the noble Earl read out the definition of the producer—the producer must be the sender of the stock, and that he is the person entitled to the payment? It seems to me clear throughout all the Orders that, just as you are a producer when you send to the livestock auctions and receive your cheque, so in the same way you are a producer by sending it to the dead-weight certification centre. It seems to me that as my noble Leader has said, there may be some leakage; and surely under the various Acts the man who is entitled to the deficiency payment is the sender of the stock, and not the centres.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, my Lords, that is exactly what I have said. The Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order is the one which is concerned. It is Statutory Instrument No. 370 of 1957, which defines the "producer" for the purposes of guarantee payments as the person in whose name the fatstock are presented for certification: the sender, not necessarily the rearer of the animal.
LORD WISE: I am not arguing that it is the rearer. I want the sender to get the money and not the processors or the other people who deal with the carcases.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: All I can say is that the sender gets the money.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But he does not get it all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, he does. He gets it all.
LORD WISE: Might I then ask whether, under these same Orders, the Government take any steps to investigate or inspect the records and the books of these live-weight centres?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I really think that it would be more convenient if the noble Lord opposite, Lord Wise, and myself discussed this matter afterwards. I wonder whether I could illustrate it in this way. Suppose that I am a farmer, and that I sell an animal to another person; that that person sells the animal to a third person; that he, in turn, sells the animal to someone else; and that the last person then presents it for certification. It is the last person who gets the money for the deficiency payment. That last person may not be an individual; it may be a corporation, such as the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. The Government are absolutely satisfied that the deficiency payments due under the experiment are paid to the presenter for certification.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (FULLBRIDGE, MALDON) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to make a brief statement about these two Bills. They are down on the Order Paper for Third Reading to-morrow. I have now been informed that there is opposition to these Bills and, indeed, that there may be a Motion for their rejection. In
1106
those circumstances, I propose to remove them from the Order Paper to-day so that more time will be available for discussion, and put them down at a later date for some day which I hope will be for the convenience of all those concerned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence this day to the other Bills over the Committee Stage of the Horticulture Bill.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

FATSTOCK (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1960
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this is a straightforward Order which re-enacts, with certain amendments, Article 6 of the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958. That Article related to records and its replacement has become necessary because of the making of the Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1960. At the time the original Order was made the Animal Health movement records were required under the Movement of Animals (Records) Order of 1925. From March 1 this Order was replaced by the Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1960. We are re-enacting the provision in the Fatstock Order with a similar reference to the new Movement Order. We are also providing for the right to inspect in Northern Ireland very similar movement records which have to be kept under a Northern Ireland Government Order—the Transit of Animals (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1941.
At the same time we are making similar provision to obtain the right to inspect registers kept under the Swine Fever Order of 1938. This is needed because movements of pigs entered in

1107
these registers do not have to be recorded under the Movement Order.
I commend this Order to your Lordships. It provides a valuable supporting measure for the safeguard of public money paid out in Fatstock Guarantees and I am pleased to say that it does this without imposing any extra work of record keeping on anyone. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1960, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the title of this Order appeals to us very much after the earlier Question and Answer: the "Guarantees" is most interesting. I appreciate that this Order deals purely with the movement of animals. The only point that occurs to me is that sometimes in Parliament we get a curious timetable. This Order dates from March 1, and today is March 15. I can assure the noble Earl that the police have been round to visit us on the farms and have prescribed the regulations, and those regulations have actually been kept for the past fortnight. I think that Parliament might sometimes be consulted before the event.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL
2.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, this Bill has been fully discussed in all its stages by your Lordships, and in moving the Third Reading all I have to say is how sorry we were that, owing to illness, the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, was unable to make his maiden speech on Second Reading, and how glad we are that he now proposes to make it on Third Reading instead. As I have perhaps an excessively cautious nature, I shall wait until after I have heard the noble Lord's maiden speech before I congratulate him upon it. I shall be a little surprised if his approval of the Bill is wholly unqualified. Meanwhile, I would only remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, as President of the Board of Trade, was the Minister in charge of the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act in another place; and long before that, as Member for Bishop Auckland—which he has no doubt noticed is included in the first list of development districts—the noble Lord took a continual interest in this subject, which many of your Lordships, and I myself, often debated with him 20 or 30 years ago in another place. The Rules of Order in your Lordships' House are not quite so cramping as they are in another place, and I do not yet know whether the noble Lord intends to confine himself to what is in this Bill or whether he intends to expand himself in a really interesting way. I greatly look forward to hearing what he is going to say. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
2.59 p.m.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, I must, of course, begin by asking your Lordships' indulgence on this, the first occasion that I have had the honour to address your Lordships' House, and by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for his kind references. I remember very well indeed debates long ago in another place in which, as he said, he participated with many others of us. It was 35 years ago last month that I

1109
made a similar plea for indulgence for a maiden speech in another place, and that seems a long, long time ago, looking back to an era now almost forgotten, except by the historians—what we may call the Baldwin-MacDonald era.
On the Bill which is now before us I should declare an interest—as the noble Earl has himself indicated, an historical interest—because I think I can say with all sincerity that there is no subject which, through all my public life, I have followed more keenly than this question of areas with a continuing abnormally high level of unemployment—special areas, development areas, development districts, call them what you will. I think that I may claim that there is no political topic to which I have devoted more personal effort, sometimes without success, sometimes with some success, towards finding a solution. This Bill, I hope, is going to help us towards finding a durable solution to this most distressing human problem, as all of us who have lived close to it, in our constituencies or elsewhere, through the long years of the past, must regard it.
I hope, particularly in view of what the noble Earl has said and the comparative flexibility of the Rules of debate in your Lordships' House to which he has directed my attention, that here and there I may be pardoned for a little personal reminiscence in the course of the remarks which I shall make to your Lordships. These were indeed the grim and gaunt areas in the 'thirties, and I tried to picture them in a speech which I made in another place a long time ago, on March 2, 1936. In the course of a debate on Government policy on the distressed areas and the special areas (they were officially so known then) I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 309, col. 1024]:
"The Special Areas are full of men in middle age who have almost given up hope of ever finding work again…of young men who have never worked, through no fault of their own…of children who have never seen their parents come home from work…gallant women…have been starving and stinting themselves in order, somehow, to feed their menfolk and their children."
I asked:
"… how much longer is all this to go on?"
Various steps have been taken since then to seek to bring this grim state of affairs to an end.
1110
When I was first chosen as prospective Labour candidate for the Bishop Auckland Division of Durham, which I had the honour to represent for 26 years in all in another place, I said to a friend of mine: "Representing these fine people will be one long heartache until we have made great changes and done away with all this unemployment." I think I was right; and I have felt that from time to time on many occasions since then. I think I was right to refer to my future constituents, as they then were, as, "fine people." I know that my noble friend Lord Lawson, with whom I have worked very closely for many years in County Durham, on this and other matters, will agree with me. They were fine people.
Here may I make this slight deviation from the terms of the Bill? Bishop Auckland has always been one of the best recruiting areas for that splendid North Country regiment, the Durham Light Infantry, whose Regimental motto, as many of your Lordships may recall, is the one word, "Faithful", so that we often speak of "The Faithful Durhams." May I add, in a slightly lighter tone, that Bishop Auckland also has a very famous association football club. Very often, when I have moved about the country and admitted that I was the Member of Parliament for Bishop Auckland, people to whom I spoke at once began to talk to me of the football club. It has indeed a fine record. It has played eighteen times in the Amateur Cup Final, and has won the cup ten times—that is to say, on more than half those occasions. It is the only amateur Association Football Club in England which has ever won that cup three times running, as it did at Wembley in 1955, 1956 and 1957. I am glad to recall that I was there to cheer them on on each occasion.
As the noble Earl was kind enough to say, I was honoured to serve as President of the Board of Trade in Sir Winston Churchill's War Coalition Government, and it fell to me in that office to try to work out, with my colleagues, an effective post-war employment policy. We had considerable tussles on this matter in the Cabinet and in Cabinet Committees. But at the end of these I was authorised, in 1944, to move the Distribution of Industry Bill, which subsequently became the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. I recall

1111
that in that day's debate the Bill passed another place without a Division, and that it fell to me to open the debate which was wound up by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos (as he is now). I think it is right that I should pay a tribute to him to-day when we are discussing this topic. He was always conscious of this problem, of its economic importance, and also of the practical possibility of solving it. Perhaps I may add, without undue disclosure, that on this issue he was at that time my best ally among all my Conservative colleagues of the Coalition Government. I have kept in touch since then with him. He has known industry, and has always recognised the desirability and the need in the national interest to have some control over the location of new industries, as indeed he has since shown in his work for the benefit of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I think it is right that his name should be mentioned to-day.
The passage through the House of Commons of the Distribution of Industry Bill was slightly delayed by what the Prime Minister would call some little local difficulties—the Coalition Government broke up while the Bill was still in Committee, and the Caretaker Government was formed. Later, there was a General Election, after which I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then the President of the Board of Trade, and therefore the Minister in charge of operating the terms of the Bill, and I went all out to make the fullest possible use we could of the terms and possibilities of the Distribution of Industry Act. In the next year or two we put in hand a big programme of new factory building—that was the nub of the matter at this time—in different parts of the development areas, and other plans for development under the various powers conferred by that Act. We worked that Act as hard as we could, and after a few years full employment did come. Full employment in wartime as somebody once said, anybody can organise, but in peace time greater difficulties appear. After a few years of peace full employment did come to these areas—in many cases for the first time—and I confess that this event seems to me to be a crowning mercy.
1112
Desiring to make no Party point of this, I will state that full employment, which came for the first time (and if it is desired to be precise, I would say that I have always thought it reasonable in modern conditions to take full employment as meaning anything over 98 per cent. of the insured population employed; that is to say, an unemployment percentage of no more than 2 per cent.) in the Government of my noble friend Lord Attlee, was continued after 1951—a significant turning point, for some purposes, in British political history. It continued for some years after that, though I think that in more recent years there has been some backsliding from that standard. That, I think, is why this Bill, which is now being debated on Third Reading, was introduced early in this Parliament: so that the ground might be cleared for a further effort to resume a durable full employment level.
My Lords, I shall not rediscuss this Bill in any detail. As the noble Earl said, it has been well discussed in another place and again here, and I shall not resume discussion of any of its minor points. I confess to certain scepticisms which still linger in my mind. I am still not quite sure that the change of title from "Distribution of Industry" to "Local Employment" bill is an improvement. I am not quite sure whether these new Management Corporations will work better and more effectively than the old Industrial Trading Estate Companies. The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, who was a great source of strength to us, has expressed a contrary opinion very strongly in your Lordships' House. At any rate, the question is open to discussion.
I will make one point. There is to be, as I understand it, one Management Corporation for the whole of England, one for Scotland and one for Wales. For England the Government have chosen Mr. Sadler Forster to be Chairman, and he is, to my knowledge, a very good man. When I was at the Board of Trade I picked him to be Regional Controller for the North East, and he did splendid work. But he has now been given a tremendously varied assignment, with the new scheme of development districts. He has to take charge of what is left of the North East, and what is left of West Cumberland; those, as your

1113
Lordships know, are two of the earlier development areas. Then he has a number of other miscellaneous districts: Merseyside, Blackpool—one could go on through the list. It would be a tremendous administrative achievement to bring all those very separate and diverse areas effectively together under one administrative machine. I hope he may succeed, but I feel that he has been given a very difficult task, and that it is open to argument that it might have been better, from the point of view of the Management Corporations, to split England into two or three areas.
I shall not further develop these questionings, because I am most anxious that this Bill should succeed, and I wish it all success. Whether it succeeds or not will not be difficult to determine. It will be a simple matter of statistical comparison, because we know what is the unemployment now in each of these districts, and from time to time other figures will be produced. It will then be a matter of simple arithmetical calculation to see how far this Act, novel in some respects, is succeeding in achieving the task of bringing down the still substantial unemployment figure that remains.
There is only one other point upon which I wish briefly to touch, and that is a matter of administration. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pay considerable attention in picking those who are to work for him to carry out this Act. I do not think that mere "routineer" administrators will be up to it. It is going to be in many ways a difficult and tricky job, calling for much skill in human relationships and knowledge of industrial conditions. They should be men who have fire in their bellies, who are determined to win the fight, district by district, against this curse of unemployment. I have tried to keep up my contacts of old with leading figures in the various development areas, and I have had an uncomfortable feeling in the last few years, travelling about and seeing old friends, that the Distribution of Industry Acts were not being very energetically administered, not very confidently administered, not administered with great zeal. It would almost seem sometimes that Talleyrand had become the President of the Board of Trade and that "pas trop de zêle" was
1114
his directive to his Regional Controllers. I hope that any such tendency will be curbed under this new régime.
I quote briefly a notable leading article from The Times voicing the same apprehension that I have just voiced; that there was a rather lazy and unconfident administration of the Distribution of Industries Acts. In a leading article on October 29, The Times stated:
"The Government's policy on areas of unemployment has gone through some remarkable changes during these past two years. It was less than a year ago that the Government were still clamping down completely on some of the major normal activities under the Distribution of Industry Act, were scarcely sanctioning or themselves carrying out any new building under it, and were giving no aid to local authorities for special work on basic services in the development areas."
The same apprehension was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, speaking in this House in March, 1957 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 805] when he said, referring to the Distribution of Industry Act:
"… a major Act of Parliament has been rendered practically inoperative …"
From such a high authority, those are serious words.
In conclusion, my Lords, I express the hope that this Bill will succeed, will abundantly succeed. And I trust that, in the light of the apprehensions I have just voiced and the quotations I have read to your Lordships, with the passage of this Bill into law there will begin a new more positive and more dynamic chapter in the long history of this grave human problem.
3.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I regard it as a very high privilege to be the first to congratulate my noble friend on a remarkable maiden speech. My noble friend has observed all the traditions of this House: he has been uncontroversial; he has been brief, and he has spoken with the greatest possible authority on a subject of which I imagine no one in this House, or in this country, can have a greater knowledge. We welcome his speech; we welcome his intervention in our debates; and I say, with no sense of formality, that we look forward to further interventions on his part, though I think I can promise the House that they will be substantially more controversial

1115
than this particular intervention has been. This is the second time on which I have had the privilege of congratulating a maiden speaker. On the last occasion I had to follow a speech which was highly controversial. It was the introduction of the Second Reading of a controversial measure by the noble and learned Viscount. It was obviously not possible for him to be non-controversial on that occasion, but on this occasion, as I have said, my noble friend has observed all the traditions of this House.
My reason for intervening in the debate is to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, whether he can give some assurances to a number of authorities who are somewhat concerned about this measure. They are authorities who are engaged in activities under the Town Development Act and the New Towns Act. As the noble Earl is aware, both new towns development and the expansion of existing towns are taking place for the purpose of dealing with problems of large towns with congested population, and they are doing it with the good will of all Governments. The new
towns policy has been approved by all Governments, and so has the Town Development Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government but had been prepared by its predecessor, a Labour Government. It is of the essence of the success of new towns and of town expansion that, in taking people from the congested towns into the new towns, there should also be taken a certain amount of industry, otherwise the economy of the new towns or expanded town will become uneven and unbalanced. It is, and will still be, necessary to obtain an industrial development certificate in the case of industries which go from the congested towns to the new town or the expanded town. I should like some assurances that there will be flexibility in the matter of granting industrial development certificates, so that neither the expanded towns nor the new towns will suffer.
May I give an example of some of the problems that will arise? A number of the new towns are substantially completed, or will be completed in the course of the next two or three years. Others are probably not more than half-way towards reaching the desired population, and they will not achieve it unless they can get the industry there with the popu-
1116
lation. If they cannot be assured of getting the necessary industrial development certificates, they will not be able to get industry there. The same applies to the expanded towns. A number of examples are Swindon, Bletchley and, one hopes, Hook, in Hampshire. Perhaps I should not say that—that is sub judice at the moment. At any rate, other expanded towns are actually in being, and it would be useless to start with the proposal for an expanded town unless one could be assured that, in proper cases, an industrial development certificate would be granted to industries which, though not perhaps able to go to one of the areas of high unemployment, were willing to go to one of the areas of the expanded towns. Without elaborating the point, I hope that the noble Earl can give some assurance to those authorities who are deeply concerned in this matter, that the procedure for granting the certificates required for the success of the Town Development Act and of the new towns will be reasonable and flexible in proper cases.
3.24 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I do not want to delay the Third Reading of this Bill, but I should not like this opportunity to go by without adding from these Benches our very great pleasure at hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, a remarkable maiden speech which we all enjoyed so much. I would say that the conventional and sincere hope of us all is that we shall often hear him in this House.
3.25 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I think it is fitting that one who has worked so closely with Lord Dalton for so many years should take this opportunity of joining other Members in congratulating him on his most successful maiden speech. He had the distinction, in the county that I used to represent, with him, of being the only non-miner who sat for a mining seat. In that county they are very particular whom they select to represent them. I can tell your Lordships that he not only pleased and satisfied his constituents, but attained more than distinction in the county by the affection in which he was held before he came to this House.
There is one thing I want to say about this Bill. I think that it contains a fatal

1117
mistake. Lord Bilsland made it quite clear in his speech. I cannot understand how the Government could come to the conclusion that they should abandon the committees, known as the Estates Committees, which were set up in different parts of the country. They were composed of carefully selected men and women of experience, and they represented the confidence of the people in the various areas. Among them, in industrial matters and local knowledge, there were some very distinguished people. They gave confidence to the people in the areas, and in the course of the years they have not only built up these estates in England, Scotland and Wales, but have themselves gained a great deal of knowledge. I should have thought that, when a Bill of this type was presented to your Lordships' House, the last thing any Government would have thought of doing would be to abandon that experience and to cut themselves off from the company of some of the most distinguished people in these particular areas.
Having said that, I want to add that in my view there is another defect in this Bill. Before a development area is created there must be a standard of unemployment. In some of the heavy industrial areas that means that, before the area is made a development area, there must be something approaching gross unemployment. In these heavy industrial areas they are working almost up to the last moment when a mine or plant, or something like that, is closed. These areas make all the steel sheets for motor car factories in this country. I see great loads of iron ore which have come from Spain and other parts, going past my own door many times a day, to the Consett Ironworks. There is the steelworks at Middlesbrough which supply a great mass of the steel used in this country in the making of motor cars, and for heavy engineering, too. Yet there must be unemployment there before that is considered to be a development area.
If I may repeat what I said in my last speech in this House, the distinctive thing about a heavy industrial area is that there is a great deal of woman labour that is not used. In and around colliery areas they work only about the house, for the simple reason that there are no factories in which they can work.
1118
If that labour was reckoned with the general unemployment in the area, then in every part of the county which the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, used to represent (in common with myself) there would be a clear case for it to be made a development area at once and to get to work in that respect.
It is true that South West Durham has been made a development area, but North West Durham has not. In a great stretch of that area, which has been claimed by the National Coal Board as producing the best coking coal in the world, mines have been working for nearly two centuries. As I told your Lordships in my previous speech, I had the privilege of being invited by the community there to present long-service certificates to some of the men who, with the closing of one of the mines in the vicinity, had been declared unnecessary.
I believe a great mistake is made in the Bill, in that areas which, by the special nature of their work, underpin the greater part of our industries in
this country must have a certain amount of unemployment before they are taken into consideration. On the whole, one of the greatest defects of the Bill is that it has not opened out areas of the country but rather proposes a layout and condition of things which inevitably will have the effect of pulling labour from these areas and thus repeating the mistake which has been made here in London. Already there are signs that people are being drawn away from these wider, more open areas which are better fitted for the establishment of industries than a great many of the areas which will get them. People are being drawn from those areas and absorbed into places in the Midlands, and it looks as though there will be a repetition of what has happened in London, with people being drawn in. There is no clear vision of the extension of industry to those parts of the country that need and have the space for industry.
I thought it was necessary to say a few words upon that subject, but I rose chiefly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, upon his first speech in this House. I know that they will miss him in the County of Durham but I am sure that they will gain by the experience that he won in that particular industrial area—and it is not very often that we,

1119
in that part of the world, take anybody in from outside.
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised a question arising from this Bill which your Lordships have not previously discussed, perhaps I had better begin by answering the point which he put to me on new towns. I must first remind your Lordships that it is laid down in Clause 17 of the Bill that:
"In considering whether any development for which a certificate under the principal enactment (hereinafter referred to as an "industrial development certificate") is applied for can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, the Board shall have particular regard to the need for providing appropriate employment in development districts."
I must emphasise, as I am sure your Lordships would wish me to do, that we are determined that development districts must have priority. We must exercise that priority with firmness if this Bill is to be a success. But I believe I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the provisions of this Bill do not in any way prejudice the position of the new towns, and that in their control of industrial development by means of these certificates the Board of Trade will continue to have regard to the needs of the new towns and to the importance of securing for them a balanced and suitable industrial structure. When a firm is moving from an area of low unemployment and cannot be persuaded to go as far as a development district, the attention of the firm is always drawn to the new towns and the overspill towns. That is the existing policy and it will continue unaltered.
For instance, if a London firm wants to expand its capacity and is not allowed to do so in London, then, if the Board of Trade are satisfied that it cannot be steered to a development district—which must have the first chance—the firm will be encouraged to go to one of London's new towns. That would not be the case with, say, a firm in Leeds, because we do not want to encourage any movement of industry to the South-East. But it is fully recognised that the new towns and overspill towns have an important part to play in accepting both population and industry from the centre of which they are, so to speak, the satellites. Subject
1120
to the overriding needs of the development districts, each case will be considered on its merits, as it is now, in the light of the distribution of industry policy; and this most certainly includes the proper development of the new towns and overspill towns.
May I now have the pleasure of adding my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others of your Lordships who have spoken, to the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, on his maiden speech which we have heard with such great interest and to which we listened with care, as we always do when listening to anybody who speaks with as much authority as the noble Lord has on this subject? Perhaps there is no one whose political history better entitles him to speak on it or who is more likely to interest your Lordships when he speaks. He has certainly done so on this occasion.
Apart from some detailed points which the noble Lord mentioned, like Management Corporations, which have been already very fully discussed on the Committee stage and at other stages of the Bill, I believe the noble Lord's criticisms were mainly in the nature of exhortations which I was very glad indeed to hear. His theme and the whole burden of his speech was that he hoped the administration would be toned up; that he hoped the Bill would succeed and that it would be administered in a more dynamic way.
He quoted, from The Times newspaper and other authorities, observations made not long ago to the effect that there have been a good many changes in our distribution of industry policy. I did, I think, put it to your Lordships on Second Reading that it is not easy to make progress in the development districts when we are engaged in a constant battle against inflationary pressure, with a constant threat of balance of payments crises in the background; and the reason why building was slowed down in the development districts was that it was necessary to reduce Government capital expenditure below the line in order to relieve inflationary pressure and evade another of these balance of payments crises. I added, my Lords, that it is precisely because we have some reason to hope that our economy is in a more stable condition and, we hope, likely to

1121
remain so, that we are now able to contemplate a much more dynamic and vigorous policy of Government building and industrial development in these areas.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dalton, I am not going to indulge in speculation now about what may happen. The policy must be judged by its results; that is to say, in the last resort, by the effect on unemployment figures in these areas. Of course, we may have indications before that as to whether it is succeeding or not: it takes several years before a factory is actually going at full speed and employing the full number of workers which it is capable of employing; but before it has reached that stage, it may be possible for us to judge how much success is attending our efforts. We have already, I think, in the Second Reading, discussed the hopeful signs of movement from the motor industry; but, as I say, I do not want to try to look ahead until we actually have some tangible results to judge by. But that is our hope: that because of the economic stability which has been achieved it will be possible to have a far more dynamic movement in the development districts than we have had for the last few years. This Bill is limited in its duration to seven years. Long before that time—at the end of which it will probably have to be revised—we shall be able to judge how much success can be claimed for it. We hope that by then, although we may not have been able to do it ten times, we shall have won the "cup" seven times in all the development districts, including Bishop Auckland.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HORTICULTURE BILL
3.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Grants for horticultural improvements
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the appropriate Minister may, in accordance with a scheme made by him with the approval of the Treasury, make—

(a) to the person carrying on a horticultural production business,

(b) to the landlord of land in England or Wales occupied for the purposes of such a business and being or comprised in an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, or land in Scotland so occupied and being or comprised in an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, a holding to which any of the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, apply or a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955,

a grant of an amount equal to one-third of the amount of expenditure reasonably incurred by him in the carrying out of approved proposals for the provision of specified facilities for the purposes of the business.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit "of an amount equal to one-third of the amount of" and to insert, "in respect of". The noble Lord said: We now come from consideration of a Bill which deals with areas which have in them industries in some form of distress, to consideration of an industry which is in distress wherever it is carried on, and I can only hope that this Bill will help to relieve that distress and that the acceptance of some of the Amendments which my noble friends and I are going to move will aid in that objective. The Amendment which I now move seeks to give the Minister greater discretion and flexibility in the making of grants by removing the rigid one-third restriction. He is now obliged to limit the grants which can be given to one-third of the total cost of approved schemes. I am

1123
not suggesting any other rigid limit such as one-half or two-thirds, because the proper proportion of grant in individual cases could, in our view, be settled administratively on the basis of the facts. But we do want to see the utmost help given to the smaller producers, many of whom, though urgently needing them, will not submit schemes because they cannot put up or borrow the necessary two-thirds of the cost.
As we have already seen, the danger in any fixed-grant formula is that those who benefit most are the larger producers who, by and large, are least in need of help. As my noble friend Lord Netherthorpe said during the Second Reading of the Bill, arbitrary standards are always vulnerable to cases of hardship, and that cannot be denied. Our Amendment, if accepted, will get over this difficulty, and I would point out that there is no question of increasing the total sum of public money available for grants, but it is simply a case of using it where it will do the most good. The Government have borrowed this 33⅓ per cent. proportion from the Farm Improvements Scheme; and it is precisely because of our experience under the Farm Improvements Scheme that we are now moving this Amendment. That experience has shown that big farmers, who could in any case have carried out improvements, very properly took advantage of the grant, while many of the smaller men could not do so.
There is nothing sacred about this figure of 33⅓ per cent., because the Committee will remember that some years ago the Ministry of Fuel and Power actually made 100 per cent. loans—100 per cent. of the cost in loans—to horticulturists to enable them to improve heating of glasshouses. The Committee will remember also that during discussions on the Farm Improvements Scheme we asked for the same grant to be given to horticulturists and we were told it could not be done. Now it is being done. We were also told in discussion on the Farm Improvements Scheme that the Minister could not be given full discretion of approval of schemes. Now he is being given full discretion. In fact, the scheme is not in the Bill at all: this is merely an enabling Bill to permit the implementation of a scheme which will be
1124
announced after the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
The one-third grant does not mean any particular sum of money: it can mean £33 6s. 8d. or £10,000 according to the nature of the scheme, so there is absolutely no difficulty there. Nor is there any lessening of responsibility. If this Amendment is accepted, every scheme must still be
approved by the Minister and it is still subject to Treasury approval. We ask that the Minister be given power to give greater help, at his discretion, in special cases; and he can in that way give more help to the small men who need it most. I think there is everything to be said for this Amendment and I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("grant") to end of line and insert ("in respect of").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The effect of this Amendment, as has been so clearly stated by the noble Lord who moved it, would be that the Minister would not be required to specify any rate of grant in the statutory scheme. He could make—and this is a point which the noble Lord opposite did not make—a smaller grant if he so wished than the one-third which we put in the Bill. It is gratifying to know that noble Lords opposite have such confidence in the Minister's fair-mindedness and wisdom that they think he does not need any guidance as to what the grants should be, but I do not think we ought to extend such a wide discretion under this scheme, and I do not think it would be satisfactory either to Parliament or to the horticultural industry. We think it quite right to state clearly in this Bill the rate at which we propose to inject this new capital assistance. We think Parliament has a right to know to what degree the new grants will be supplementing private resources; for, if we grant one-third, private resources will have to provide the two-thirds. We think also that the industry will wish to be told quite unequivocally what the rate will be so that they can plan accordingly.
Now the kind of discrimination for which this Amendment would pave the way would really be no more than a means test. It would be objectionable in principle on that account; and it would

1125
be further objectionable because neither Parliament nor the industry would be told what the rate would be. It would very much complicate administration and the difficulties of our advisory officers, and would really jeopardise, we feel, the implementation of the scheme; because, apart from all the other matters, the decision has to be taken: what rate of grant shall we give on this particular application? Any limitation of this sort must be a matter of judgment. We feel that that limitation should be put in the Bill, and that one-third, which has proved so successful under the Farm Improvements Scheme, is a suitable and proper proportion for grant aid under this scheme. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I am extremely disappointed at the noble Earl's reply. It is quite true that the Minister could give a lesser grant than 33⅓ per cent., and there are obvious circumstances in which that would be an extremely good thing, because it would enable more money to be given to the smaller men, who need a higher proportion. That was one of the reasons, which I thought was obvious, why we moved the Amendment. It is equally true that we have much greater confidence in the Minister than his own friends have, as is evidenced by the fact that a little later on we shall be discussing another Amendment which illustrates that to the full. But what I found most disappointing about the noble Earl's reply was this rigid conception—if I may say so without disrespect, a typically Civil Service reply—that here we have something which is easy administratively, and therefore it must be one-third, whether it is an application from an extremely well-to-do farmer who does not really need it at all, probably involving a big scheme, or whether it is from somebody who in fact is in great need—and it is admitted that, of the 70,000 horticulturists, there are more than 40,000 who are unlikely to benefit from the scheme as it is, and who are those in the greatest need. I therefore think that it is extremely regrettable that this view should be taken, and that the opportunity for greater flexibility should not be accepted. I regret that we cannot withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.54 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved after subsection (4) to insert:
"() In this section, 'equipment' means plant for the control of temperature and atmosphere, washing and grading machines, benches, racks, and conveyors, fork-lift trucks and pallets and other machines necessary for the implementation of improved schemes".
The noble Lord said: It may be within the memory of your Lordships that on the Second Reading of this Bill I raised the point as regards the question of the inclusion of certain equipment; and it was thought at that time that, as that particular equipment was not mentioned in the Bill itself, it could not be drafted in. We now find, however, that it is possible, by an addition to Clause 1, at the end of subsection (4), to write in a definition of "equipment" as we understand it. Now our definition which appears on the Marshalled List has been taken from parts of the definition which appears in the Appendix to the White Paper, paragraph 15. The equipment with which I am mainly concerned is fork-lift trucks and pallets, which we wish to be included in the Bill so that they also may come into any scheme which may be laid afterwards. I understand that these particular items of equipment are very necessary for the efficient operation of a packhouse and that they are used in the hand in the transport of horticultural products. There is a demand, I understand, from the people concerned, that, if possible, these articles of equipment should come in line for a grant.
I also understand that they are fairly expensive to purchase; and that, having been purchased, there would be no question of their resale by horticulturists. I think the Minister suggested on Second Reading, or perhaps it was suggested in another place, that after a grant had been given for these particular items they might possibly find their way into other hands at a profit. I think it is quite unlikely that the people who use these items of equipment and who require them for the purposes of their business would do that, and I am certain that that would not be the case. The application, when it was made, could be properly checked, and whether or not it was a genuine application for the purposes of the business could be easily ascertained. I therefore hope that in this instance the Minister will agree to our

1127
Amendment, and that this may be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Wise.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I had anticipated from the remarks which were made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, that the intention of this Amendment in his mind was really to include fork-lift trucks and pallets, and I should like to enlarge upon the reasons which I gave then (I think I gave reasons then) why we do not think that these particular items should be included or should be specified in the Bill as included. We must have regard, of course, to the total amount of the financial provision that is available in the Bill. We must direct the funds available towards the facilities that will give the greatest benefit over the whole range of the industry. We want to give assistance in ways that are most likely to be useful to the industry as a whole; that take account of the particular needs of these different sections of the industry; and that are fair as between the larger and the smaller businesses.
We of course gave consideration to the possible inclusion of such things as fork-lift trucks and pallets—and I think there are things called clamp-trucks, and a number of other technical devices of that sort; things used for handling containers—when we were considering, as we still are, the draft scheme, but we had to recognise that the inclusion of this type of quite expensive equipment would mean a substantial additional demand on the funds available. It would, in the main, we feel, benefit the larger businesses—the co-operative associations, the larger growers, and perhaps some of the medium-scale fruit growers—but on the whole this kind of quite expensive equipment is not suitable for the small grower. Therefore its addition to the Schedule would mean that less money would be available for others, including smaller people, about whom we were hearing on the last Amendment.
This is a point that I think we might well take into consideration: that though we may not think it right to grant-aid this particular form of equipment, the successful operation of this method of handling the fork-lift trucks
1128
and pallets means a proper layout of the buildings, such as the packhouse, for example; it means that you must have level floors and doorways suitable to get through, ramps and loading bays and similar structural features. Those will all be grant-aided under the scheme—I think that is worth bearing in mind—but the actual movable piece of equipment will not be.
The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of the risks of abuse in regard to machines of this sort. I do not want to over-emphasise it, but it is true that this kind of equipment could be used in any kind of business where heavy packages have to be moved. These things cost, I am told, between £750 and £1,000 apiece. There is a risk, particularly with movable equipment, of the equipment being bought by grant-aid for the horticultural scheme and then being used elsewhere. I think we must have that in mind, as it is public money that we are using. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. We have given this matter careful consideration, and I understand that it was also carefully considered in another place, and we have come to the conclusion that we must try to keep our improvement grants to things that have permanence for horticulture. These things, by their very nature, are impermanent for horticulture and could be used for a number of purposes.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply and, as this Amendment has no great importance, I intend to withdraw it. Before doing so, however, there are just one or two points I should like him to take into consideration—because I imagine that, in any case, he and his right honourable friend will give further consideration to the points that we are making. We agree that there is no real need to specify fork-lift trucks in the Bill, but we put down the Amendment in order to get a discussion on it, which I think has been worth while. What we were really after, and what he has not yet been able to give, is an assurance that they would be included in the scheme. While the noble Earl said that it was quite expensive equipment, which would chiefly benefit large growers and the co-operatives—indeed, the co-operatives are mainly collections of small growers whom we want to benefit—fork-lift

1129
trucks are not so expensive as washing and grading machines or conveyers, and far more expensive things are going to be specified in the scheme. That point, therefore, rather falls to the ground.
The other point is the real fear which the Government have that farmers may sell them. How real is that fear? They are going to pay £700 or £800 for a piece of equipment which will be secondhand a week after they have bought it; they will have paid two-thirds of the cost, and surely the secondhand value will not be more than the total cost to them when new. Therefore it does not seem to me a very entrancing prospect, to pay two-thirds of the original cost and then to sell it when secondhand at approximately the same price. That would be not only disreputable, but, it seems to me, wholly foolish, and I cannot imagine horticulturists doing it. I hope that the noble Earl will take these points into consideration.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I should like to answer one point he made. I took particular care to say that I did not want to over-emphasise that there could be abuses here. The noble Lord referred to other more expensive equipment being included in the scheme and he instanced washing machines. I am advised that a horticultural machine designed to wash, say, carrots has not the enormous generality of purposes for which you can use a fork-lift truck. There is a difference. One has a much greater horticultural use than the other and, therefore, perhaps in the one case there is less temptation for abuse.
LORD STONHAM: We have many more important Amendments than this, and I do not propose to engage the noble Lord in a technical discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Supplemental Provisions as to Schemes
2.—
(3) A scheme may provide that the payment of grants, or of instalments of grants, shall be subject to compliance with such conditions, whether as to the capacity of the business, determined in accordance with the scheme, the security of tenure of the land on which
1130
any facilities are to be provided, the carrying out of the proposals in question in a proper manner and within a reasonable time, or any other matter, as may be specified by or under the scheme.
4.7 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (2), after "period" to insert "not exceeding two years". The noble Lord said: From our point of view this is possibly a more important Amendment than the one which has just been withdrawn. Clause 2 (2) of the Bill says:
"A scheme may provide that in such cases as may be specified therein grants shall be payable by such instalments and over such period as may be specified in the scheme."
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the White Paper also deal with this matter and refer, in the main, to the formation of new co-operative marketing associations or the carrying on of existing associations. On Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, paid some attention to this matter, and in regard to co-operation said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221 (No. 48), col. 812]:
"Everybody is out to pay lip service to co-operation, but in this Bill we are actively and positively encouraging it."
I hope that that encouragement will be given to us in the acceptance of this Amendment.
The question of the erection and equipment of buildings which is rather suggested in this subsection is set out in the Appendix to the White Paper. We are here mainly concerned with the provision of additional buildings. According to the White Paper, these additional buildings can be erected either on land which is used for horticulture at the present time or on land which is not at the moment so used but is outside the area of the particular holding or holdings which form the co-operative association. Under the Bill an individual horticulturist can obtain a grant for such buildings when his addition or improvements have been approved and completed. But if the building improvement should be contemplated by an association for the benefit of their members, they might possibly be able to build upon land owned or occupied by one or some of the members, or on a continuing site close by the spot where that building would be of the greatest use and satisfy the needs of the association.
It is suggested by the Government that, unless they put this limit of time on the payment, in the course of a few years these buildings may be sold for other purposes. Personally, I cannot conceive that that is likely to be the case. Very often horticultural holdings—smallholdings in particular—are not adjacent to the villages, but are situated in remote parts of the countryside. It is obvious that any buildings which may be erected in connection with those
holdings are likely to remain for the use of the occupiers for many years to come. It is also clear that when a grant is given to an individual under a scheme for this purpose there is no restriction on that individual requiring him to occupy that building for any length of time. He receives his grant, and he can sell his holdings. If it is close to a town or city it may be used for building purposes. He could sell his holding for that purpose or any other purpose. Naturally, he would gain to the extent of the grant which he had received from the Government. The purpose of this subsection is to restrict the co-operative associations in their efforts to expand and make use of their means, such as they are, for the purposes of their members. That seems to me totally unfair. What can be done for the individual should also be done for the associations.
I wish to make one or two remarks about the financial implications. It is known to most noble Lords that there are certain restrictions on the amounts the co-operative associations can borrow on loan. For the purposes of development in the case of an established society, there is no possibility whatever of a sale of any building which may be erected for the purposes of that society. They are restricted, and not only would they be faced under this clause with the need to obtain a loan of two-thirds of the cost, but they might also require to obtain a loan of the additional one-third. On completion of the building they would be expected to pay, but in regard to the grant which the Government would make, they have to wait over a period for repayment on the part of the Government year by year. The payment of interest would throw an additional burden on the association, and my view is that we are not justified in doing that. To take an example, if they have to
1132
borrow £1,000 as one-third of the cost, that £1,000 may involve them in the payment of interest, even at a low rate, of anything up to £150 to £200 over the period. I realise, of course, that after the first year the Government will pay the first instalment and so reduce the liability, but it would throw a burden on the association which in my view is not justified.
It can be argued, against the view of the Government, that some restrictive covenant could be introduced, as in the case of improvement grants for rural houses. I understand that if a grant is made (either 50 per cent. of a certain figure, or a lower figure), it is spread over a period of fifteen years. If that property is sold outside the family, or not occupied by the family of the original borrower, then the amount which is outstanding is repaid to the local council. Surely, the same sort of operation could be carried out in this instance, and if the building or other property should be sold within the time then what is outstanding to the Government could be returned.
I hope that the Government will meet us in this Amendment. If the loan were limited to two years, while it might not be acceptable to the associations it would at any rate be a gesture on the part of the Government that they realise there is a point in what we are saying and that two years is a reasonable time. If the Government are uncertain what may happen, I think the two years might be a reasonable time in the circumstances. I hope that the Government will accept this period and will agree with what we have said. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("period") insert ("not exceeding two years").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I had better explain this, because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Wise, understands clearly why we have decided that the safeguard of the instalment procedure is necessary in certain cases. The purpose of the safeguard is not directed only towards the co-operative associations. It is directed to all cases where the building is not on the land which is the subject of the grant—where there is severance. Where we are paying for the erection or improvement of a building on land which forms an integral part

1133
of a horticultural unit—that is to say, on land actually used for the growing of crops—there is no special risk of severance and diversion of that building to some non-horticultural purpose; and we have no recovery procedure for the grant at all. But under this new scheme it will be possible for us to pay a grant for a building which is on a site entirely detached from the land used for producing the crops to be handled. It might be, as I said on Second Reading, and as has been referred to to-day, that the unit would be erected in the centre of a town, near a railway station or on a most valuable industrial site.
There is obviously some risk—not a great risk, perhaps, in an honourable profession—and when we are dealing with public money we must guard against the risk of that building being diverted to some other use than horticulture within a relatively short time after payment of grant. The business might fail, or some quite different business might make an attractive offer for its premises. Such diversion may not be likely to happen in many cases, but we cannot ignore the fact that it could happen, and we think it desirable to adopt some measures for safeguarding the public purse in such cases. If I have correctly understood the Amendment, we do not disagree in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has not suggested that there shall be no instalments. All he has suggested in this Amendment is that they should be limited to two years rather than five years. I hope I can satisfy your Lordships that what we propose to do under the scheme strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of the recipients of the grants, on the one hand, and those of the taxpayer, on the other.
It would be logical, under an instalments system, to spread the payments evenly over a long period related to the life of the improvement. For example, for buildings the period might be 20, 30 or 40 years. That would be a complete safeguard for the taxpayer. But, of course, it also might completely stultify the proposals. On the other hand, the maximum value of the grant to the grower, or to the marketing business, would be gained if we paid the grant all at once, but that would be no safeguard at all against the danger of diversion from the taxpayer's point of
1134
view. We therefore propose to make a compromise. We propose to pay a proportion of the grant on completion of the improvement. Our proposals in the scheme being drafted, which will shortly be laid before your Lordships' House, are that we should make one-third of the total grant that is payable as the first payment, not one-fifth.
LORD STONHAM: Could the noble Earl say when that one-third would be paid? Would it be immediately on completion of the building scheme?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I imagine so. When the
grant becomes payable the first instalment becomes payable. It would not be one-fifth but one-third, rather more than the direct arithmetical proportion. The period over which the balance is payable will vary according to the amount involved, to make sure that we do not pay trivial sums as instalments; but in no case will the period exceed five years. It is, in any case, a valuable innovation that we should pay grant at all for buildings not on a holding. Moreover, the Ministry's written assurance in the formal approval document that the balance of grant will be payable over a stated number of years, provided that the conditions of the scheme are complied with, will surely make it easier for the applicant to raise funds to finance his project. We feel that if we are to accept this principle at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, appeared to accept it, that two instalments only is really neither one thing nor the other; and I hope that I have convinced your Lordships of that.
Before I close I should like to deal with the other point made by the noble Lord. He referred to the hardship that the instalment procedure could involve for established co-operative societies. His point, if I have understood him correctly, is that the instalment procedure was less necessary for well-established businesses than for new ones, because the length of time during which they had been trading would itself be evidence that they were unlikely to go out of business in the near future. But, my Lords, whether a co-operative or any other recipient of grant decides to dispose of his premises, w ill not depend on how long he has been in business. Even very old-established businesses, very fine businesses, are sometimes confronted with strong financial inducement to sell out,

1135
inducements which perhaps they would be foolish to reject. The procedure we have in mind would not prevent this, nor should we wish it to. It merely ensures that the amount of grant pocketed by the recipient will bear some relationship to the horticultural benefit that will be derived from it. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, for I am afraid I must resist it.
4.24 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: We on this side of the House are extremely sorry to receive this reply. Despite the noble Earl's careful explanation, we do not feel that the Government have really understood our point. We feel that if this Bill is to benefit horticulturists, the benefit will come, in the main, in two ways: one, through the activities of the producer-co-operative and the other through the efforts of the Horticultural Advisory Council. We feel that if in the scheme to be published the Government adheres to the suggestions which the noble Earl has now advanced—particularly with regard to the smaller people, who would benefit by gathering together within a co-operative but who will not benefit in any other way by the grant at all; and they will not act in this way if these absurd, totally unjustifiable restrictions are continued—then public money will be in large measure wasted.
The noble Earl said he could not understand why my noble friend had moved an Amendment that the instalments should be limited to two years. But, of course, if you read in a Bill that payments will be by a number of instalments you cannot insert an Amendment to say, "Provided that the number of instalments does not exceed one." So we put in two as the smallest number after one, which seems reasonable, having regard to the fact that this is only an enabling Bill and the operative scheme will be published afterwards, after we have completely finished with this Bill. We shall have no further power over the scheme when it is finally presented to us for approval; we cannot amend it. My noble friend has moved this Amendment in the only way open to him and he explained his reasons, I think, in a full and lucid way.
The noble Earl has, quite properly, told us that the reason for the Government's decision to pay to co-operatives—respon-
1136
sible bodies, not individuals; co-operatives of producers gathered together—one-third of the grant, which is only one-third of the one-third of the cost of the building when completed, and the remainder over a period of not more than five years (but that is a long time) is to safeguard public money, because in the words he used the other day on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 852]:
"a building of this sort may be in the centre of a village, near the railway station, on a most valuable site, and we cannot give a grant in respect of buildings of this sort with no strings at all."
We do not object to strings: we object to the rope which strangles the co-operatives and will not allow them to do anything at all, which will in fact prevent schemes from starting. Most co-operative buildings are in out-of-the-way sites; they are "plonked" down in the middle of the places where the producers are. They are mainly clearing centres. They are not, as a rule, near a railway station on valuable sites. I do not deny the possibility that one might be put up on a valuable site, but I think it highly improbable. In most cases these
buildings which will be put up by producers' co-operatives will be on out-of-the-way sites, and when they are built their market value will be a lot less than their cost. The proper thing to do in this Bill would have been what was done in the Local Employment Bill which has just passed through the House; namely, to pay 85 per cent. of the difference between the market value of the building when erected and its cost. The noble Earl says it is a most unusual thing. We have just passed a Bill which gives 85 per cent. of the difference in the cost.
But supposing, by some odd chance, a co-operative society should want to put up a building on an extremely valuable site, why, as my noble friend Lord Wise asked, is there this difference between the treatment of a horticulturist and the treatment of a collection of horticulturists in a co-operative?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: If I may interrupt, there is absolutely no distinction. Perhaps the noble Earl did not hear. This provision is not directed against the co-operatives alone; it is directed against all applicants who

1137
put up buildings severed from the land.
LORD STONHAM: I had appreciated that point, and if I over-stated the case, I apologise. But the noble Earl will agree that, in the main, the people who are going to put up buildings not on farm land will be co-operatives, who erect buildings in centres among a large number of producers.
One other point I put to the noble Earl. He indicated that this safeguard is needed for buildings which will be put up on land other than farm land, but in introducing the Bill he was at great pains to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 810] that whereas the farm in the scheme was clearly anchored to the land, this was not applicable to a wide range of desirable improvements in horticulture. Quite clearly, the noble Earl cannot have it both ways. If safeguards are needed—I agree that safeguards in such circumstances are needed—why bring them about in a way which will completely discourage these schemes and cripple them altogether, when it could be done easily by a restrictive covenant on the building, or indeed, by an undertaking that if the building was sold the amount of grant should be given back?
There is absolutely nothing unusual in this. Last Wednesday I was at the Ministry of Education, at their request, on behalf of a charitable organisation of which I am chairman, and we discussed a project to put up a building on a most expensive site right in the heart of Leicester. It had to be on an expensive site because it had to be in the heart of Leicester. It was for a most expensive business—namely, to provide a coffee bar, dancing and other facilities for young people. The Ministry of Education seriously discussed a 50 per cent. grant. Of course we offered, and they gratefully accepted, the suggestion that if—as is not at all unlikely—in ten years' time the building has to be sold, they would recover out of the sale price the proportion of their original contribution to the, cost. That is an infinitely risky business, and there was suggested a much higher grant than the one now suggested. There was no suggestion of payment by instalments; the money would be paid as it was expended. So these things are being done by different Government Departments in a far more generous way.
1138
The Government have now said to horticulturists, "Put forward your schemes and, if they are approved, we will give you grants of one-third." Everybody is agreed that the best way of spending this money is through co-operatives, but then you say to the co-operatives, "If you put forward a scheme you can have only one-third of one-third, first of all, and the rest spread over five years." I would suggest that we have heard nothing that justifies this, and I would say that at its meeting last week, on March 9, the most representative body in the country, the Horticulture Consultative Committee of the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association expressed the deepest concern over this question. They pointed out that the scheme cannot be amended once it has been presented to Parliament for approval. They pointed out that it is not so easy for them to get capital because they are still limited to £500 per member, and they would perhaps have to borrow under difficulties.
I submit that this instalment business is impossible to justify. It could wreck our highest hopes of benefits under this Bill, and we feel most strongly that special consideration should be given to the acceptance of this Amendment or, better still—we should greatly prefer it—that an assurance be given by the noble Earl that, under the scheme when it comes out, there will be paid to reputable horticultural societies on completion of the building grants in one lump sum, with the condition of a convenant that if it should ever come about that the building has to be sold, the Government should recover the money advanced or expended in full or in proportion to the original investment. I do not see how that can be challenged. I hope that the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. If not, then my noble friends will be obliged to press it to a Division.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I wonder whether I might make an inquiry of the Minister and make a suggestion. I may be talking complete nonsense because I find this Bill very difficult to follow, and, as a modest market gardener, I am bound to say that I am just a little doubtful about how much, if anything, I am going to get out of it. But I must disclose an interest, in that I try to sell something out of a market garden. I

1139
am in this difficulty. In listening to this debate, as I understand it—the Minister will tell me if I am talking nonsense—the proposal is that, first of all, the Minister has, with the approval of the Treasury, to produce a general scheme. When he has produced that scheme, presumably it is embodied in an Order which does not require an Affirmative Resolution of the House—it is subject to the usual procedure of Negative Resolution. Then, if the scheme is not objected to, individuals or societies produce their particular schemes and plans. But, of course, they have to produce them in conformity with the general scheme, otherwise if the Minister were inclined to be generous the Treasury would certainly turn it down.
There is always this difficulty—here I speak as an old Minister—about proposals, schemes and Positive or Negative Resolutions. We all want this Bill, or a Bill of this kind. The noble Lord quite rightly said, with his experience of another place, that the only thing a Member of either House can do is to vote against a scheme. He does not want to do that, because that means that nobody is going to get anything at all out of it—the only person who would get any satisfaction would probably be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would not have to pay anything until the following year.
On the other hand, there is no opportunity, as the noble Lord says, of amending the scheme, except that the Minister may say, if there is a great deal of criticism in the House, "Well, I will take this away and produce another". But then a great deal of time is wasted, particularly in another place, where they waste a great deal more time than we do here. If you have a day or even half a day allotted for the debate upon an opposed Order and then the Minister withdraws it, probably the Chief Whip will say, "You will not have another day for the next two or three months". The result of that is that the scheme founders for a year. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory to everybody. It is certainly extremely unsatisfactory to the Member, who is not opposing the scheme in its principle but trying to make a better scheme; and I should imagine that it is equally unsatisfactory to the Minister and his
1140
Under-Secretary, who I know in this case are extremely anxious to do the best they can for the industry.
There is a way in which we can meet that kind of difficulty—it is not novel; it has been done before now: namely, that when the Minister and his officials and the Treasury have all had a good haggle over the business, they then produce a White Paper containing a draft of the Order that they are going to propose. They do not lay it as an Order, but produce it as a draft. In this way everybody has a chance of looking at it, and people can go to the Minister and say, "Could you not alter it in this way, or amend it in that way?" Then, if the Minister thinks, as he often does, that these are constructive suggestions, he can say, "All right; I am going to produce my Order in this form, which will embody the amendments which the good sense of Members of both Houses dictates ought to be included." The result is that a great deal of time is saved and the Order is made, and the scheme is produced to come into force (subject to a Resolution against it) in a form which is acceptable to everybody. I do not know whether that would apply in this case. From what I have heard from the other side I rather believe it would, because, from what I have heard, the noble Lord opposite is really saying, "There are many things which I should like to see in this scheme and I only want to be sure."
Let me say that if what the noble Lord on the other side is proposing is entirely beyond the powers conferred by the Bill to which the right honourable gentleman the Minister must stick, then I agree it is a question of principle which must be decided here and now. If it is not a matter of life and death, of conscience and morals or something of that kind, but rather a matter of convenience as to whether or not something is included, or what is the best plan, why cannot the Bill be put in a form sufficiently wide to enable the Minister to produce his scheme so as to give effect to the suggestions which have been made, the Minister then giving an undertaking (which need not necessarily be included in the Bill) that before the scheme is tabled in the form of an Order he will produce it as a White Paper and allow Members of both Houses a fortnight in which to make suggestions that he can perhaps incorporate later?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, as I am sure we all are, for his intervention, with all his ministerial experience. I believe that I shall be able to help. I was also very grateful to the Lord Chairman of Committees for letting us range so widely over this Amendment—which perhaps would not have been allowed to happen in another place. The reply to the noble Earl must involve one or two facts. First, the scheme will be subject to Affirmative Resolution. Secondly, the scheme is now in draft—in course of preparation—and anything that is said in this debate will, of course, be considered by my right honourable friend and by the other Ministers involved. We shall take due note of what is said and see whether we are impressed by the arguments that have been used, and can in any way amend our thoughts about this scheme. Of course, our thoughts are not yet publicly known, for the scheme is only in draft. If I may quote a particular example, coming fairly close to the Amendment—as it is quite proper one should—the Amendment concerns instalments. As I have indicated, our thinking at the moment is that the first instalment should be one-third of the amount. After what we have heard to-day, my right honourable friend and other Ministers might vary that proportion and make the first instalment larger than one-third. That is the first possibility—and it is a sign of the value we can get from these debates.
The main point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was whether a White Paper could be laid on what is proposed, so that that could be discussed. But we have already done that, because Command Paper 880, which was issued, I believe, in November, 1959, goes into considerable detail about the improvement grants. That matter is dealt with in paragraphs 9 to 16, upon which many noble Lords this afternoon are hanging their Amendments. Frankly, we are discussing the content of these paragraphs, so I am afraid that that is not a complete way out of this apparent slight difficulty—not that I recognise we are really in a difficulty here. I am in much more difficulty in replying finally to this third Amendment, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise.
1142
If I may put it in this way, there seems to have been much misconception. Although I have already intervened twice on the point, the fact still seems not to have sunk in in some quarters that this provision is not intended as some kind of vindictive measure against co-operative marketing associations but is simply a measure to safeguard the taxpayer's money in the event of the improvement being severed from the land which the grant affects. In moving his Amendment the noble Lord did not ask that these instalments should be removed altogether and the grant paid in one lump sum. He has asked merely that there should be two instalments. The noble Lord has admitted the principle, but says that he could not find words by which to remove the word "instalments" from the Bill. I find that difficult to understand, for I feel that the Parliamentary draftsmen might have been able to help him find some means of doing so, had he wished. But he did not wish to do so. His Amendment asks only that there should be two instalments.
In my remarks I have tried to show that the proposed Amendment is neither one thing nor the other; and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, agrees that some safeguard is needed. In thinking of this scheme my right honourable friends were concerned to decide what were the sensible safeguards to use in such cases. The possibility of paying the grants all at once, and with what the Americans would call "strings attached", was considered. There could be covenants and conditions, so that the money could be got back again if anything went wrong and if there was cause to draw it back. This, however, would involve the imposition of conditions which would be binding on an applicant for some years after he had spent the grant. That would give rise to the whole difficulty of policing. That difficulty must not be burked. If we give a grant with strings attached and want to draw it back when the building or machinery is used, after a time, for some other purpose—
LORD STONHAM: We are here discussing buildings, and speaking of an erection on land other than farmland, so that the question of machinery does not arise. The chief difference between us is that the "string" we suggest is a restrictive covenant, so that the building

1143
cannot be sold for another purpose; so no policing would be needed. Otherwise, by the method proposed by Her Majesty's Government, people would not get any money at all for six years.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I entirely agree, and I should not have used the word "machinery". That was a slip of the tongue. We are, of course, talking of buildings, and of the need for safeguards; and I am saying that my right honourable friends, when they were considering the kind of safeguards that should be put into the Bill—the need for which is not denied—thought it would be much better to have a safeguard of this kind, with payment by instalments which avoids the administrative necessity of policing. Otherwise there would be a need for policing if we had to draw back a grant in the event of a building being used for an improper purpose: because we have to see that the building is afterwards used for the specified purpose. I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time. It was felt that nothing would be more satisfactory than simply to say: "We will pay this grant in instalments, but the first instalment will certainly be more than a fifth of the sum paid in the five-year period." I must ask your Lordships to reject this particular Amendment which asks that there should be only two instalments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is a happy conclusion to our anxiety, at any rate, on this particular Amendment because the noble
Earl the Minister says he is not giving way in any respect. I have no interest to declare in horticulture but I am intensely interested in agricultural co-operation generally, and I am a member of an agricultural co-operative society. I must say that the noble Earl does not seem to me adequately to have answered the submissions of my noble friends on this matter and I should have thought from the answers he has given that it is going to be pretty difficult to get co-operative societies set up for the purpose of the Bill on such promises as are now being made. They get nothing at all until the building is completed. That will be difficult enough for some of them. Then they have to get the instalment suggested and spread the rest of the payment over another five years. I do not think that that is the way in which we can come to anything like an acceleration of the business such as we desire.
I appreciate very much the effort of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in suggesting the halfway house of getting a White Paper. But I understand that we want this scheme to start on April 1. It is now March 15, and therefore there would not really be time enough to exploit the ideas he has put before us, although I value the suggestions he made. And in view of the uncompromising attitude in the last statement by the Minister, there is nothing to do but go to Division.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents. 66.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Stansgate, V.

Amwell, L.

Kershaw, L.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Taylor L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Orr, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Citrine, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Faringdon, L.

Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Brocket, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Allerton, L.

Carrington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Freyberg, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Gifford, L.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Goschen, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bathurst, E.

Davidson, V.

Gridley, L.

Birdwood, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hastings, L.

Bossom, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Boston, L.

Derwent, L.

Hereford, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Digby, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Horsbrugh, B.

Milverton, L.

Som̃ers, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Monsell, V.

Soulbury, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Spens, L.

Lambert, V.

Newall, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Mansfield, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Margesson, V.

Perth, E.

Tenby, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Teviot, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Torrington, V.

Mersey, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Meston, L.

Salisbury, M.

Waleran, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that where the appropriate minister is of the opinion that there has not been compliance with such conditions in accordance with this subsection then he shall give to the person who appears to him to be carrying on for the time being the business to which the grant relates a written notification of the reasons for his decision and shall afford to that person, and if that person so requests, not more than one other person nominated by him in that behalf, an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the minister and shall consider the report of the person so appointed, a copy of which shall be supplied by the minister to the first mentioned person."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would say that it is on a very simple but important point—important from our view. It is with the object of giving horticulturists the statutory right of appeal when they have incurred expenditure under an agreed scheme and they then find, after they have carried out the scheme, that the Minister, for reasons which appear to him to be good, revokes the agreement, and the grant is then refused. I should like to make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, so that it will save him the necessity for going through the normal procedure, that I am not talking about the case of an application which is made and refused. We are perfectly familiar with the satisfactory procedure under the Farm Improvements Scheme, whereby an applicant, if he is not satisfied, can go to his county committee, the matter can be considered by the members, and they may decide to send someone down to the holding to discuss the matter with him. That procedure is all very satisfactory.
We are talking about the provision in the Bill for revocation. Here we have a scheme which has been submitted to the Minister, which has been approved and which, for reasons which the Minister considers are sound, is then revoked after
1146
the person has spent the money—and maybe he had borrowed the money. He could then be in a very serious and, indeed, a crippling position. As the Bill now stands, there is no statutory right of appeal. I hope the noble Earl will not say that this is not going to happen very often. It may well be the case that the Minister would not often like to reject cases of this kind unless they were of the utmost seriousness. And we are not in any way going into the question of whether revocation would be right and justified or unjustified; that simply does not arise. Our one point is that there should be this statutory right of appeal.
I would remind your Lordships that the subsection to which this Amendment relates deals with carrying out the scheme in question in a proper manner or within a reasonable time. Failure on those grounds might be a reason in the mind of the Minister for revocation and for cancellation of the grant after the money had been spent. If money is withheld from the applicant after he has incurred heavy expenditure, we are strongly of the opinion that he is entitled to the same rights as those provided under other, similar legislation in respect of similar circumstances—namely, that there must be a right of appeal to an independent person and the right to see the report which that person makes to the Minister. In all honesty, we just do not see how this claim can possibly be disputed; and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I confess that when I examined this Amendment I took it to mean (and I apologise if I should have thought differently) that the Amendment was asking for a statutory procedure enabling persons to make representations against decisions by the Minister on applications which could not be accepted or on grants which could not be

1147
paid. In fact, it was my advice that that was what this Amendment must mean. Though the noble Lord did not want me to say it, I am bound to say that the question of revocation is likely to be exceedingly rare. It has been exceedingly rare under similar schemes: the Small Farmers Scheme (though there, perhaps, there has hardly been time for it to go through); the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Schemes; the Drainage and Water Supply Grants; the Silo Scheme; the Ploughing Grants, and so on. In such schemes revocations have been exceedingly rare. I frankly doubt whether a statutory right of appeal for these very rare cases needs to be written into the Bill.
I would at once say how glad I am that the noble Lord agrees that the procedure through the agricultural executive committees in relation to applications that cannot be approved, which we know so well, works extremely well. I had prepared my remarks to explain to the noble Lord how well it worked, if he had doubted it, but those remarks are quite unnecessary after what he has said. All I think I can say at this moment is that I will certainly take this matter back to consider the implication that the noble Lord is giving to this Amendment: that he is asking for a statutory right of appeal on revocations. There is not much time—let us be frank about this—but I think I shall have to say something about it on Report stage, if the noble Lord presses the point, or on Third Reading, because I myself do not believe, at first sight, that it is necessary to write this into the Bill—and I did not know that the purpose of this particular Amendment was to write it in.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I appreciate his difficulty, though I am bound to confess that I am surprised that the advice he received was not that it was perfectly clear that the Amendment intended what I said it intended, because it follows on after the provisions in the clause indicating that the Minister has in fact, for good reasons, turned down the original agreement about the grant—and, of course, he can read in the clause the actual word "revocation". I had hoped that it would have been perfectly clear before I spoke. I appreciate the noble
1148
Earl's position; and there may be other occasions this evening when we shall have to decide to do the same thing, because there is very little time, and we are as anxious that this Bill should be ready in time to come into operation on April 1 as are noble Lords opposite. Therefore, if it would meet with the noble Earl's agreement, I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and will table it again for consideration on Report, by which time the noble Earl may well have had an opportunity of taking advice. On that understanding, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Earl moves the next Amendment, it may help if I tell him that it is perfectly clear to us and we shall be glad to accept it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for helping the Committee in that way. It is a rather formidable-looking and somewhat technical Amendment which has come to light as being necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
("() Where any such condition as to capacity is framed by reference to land occupied for the purposes of a horticultural production business, the scheme may provide that if there is any land so occupied which is not eligible to be taken into account in ascertaining whether the condition is satisfied,—

(a) in so far as the benefit to be derived from any proposals is attributable to that land, it shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (4) of the foregoing section;

(b) where the applicant satisfies the appropriate Minister, at any time before that Minister has determined whether to approve his proposals, that the cost of the proposals has been increased by their being designed for the provision of specified facilities both for the said land and for land which is eligible to be taken into account as aforesaid, and agrees with the Minister what proportion of the cost is to be treated as referable to the eligible land, paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) of the foregoing section shall apply in relation to that proportion.")—(Earl Waldegrave.)

5.11 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the Clause:
"(7) Such scheme may provide for the payment of grants under this part of this Act to persons whose holdings may be below the

1149
minimum qualifying size limit laid down in the scheme but who can satisfy the Minister that, whether by virtue of the intensive nature of the cropping or the specialist nature of the holding, or for other reasons, his holding can yield a sufficient full time livelihood after taking into account any improvement in profitability expected to result from improvement proposals put forward under the scheme."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to which we attach considerable importance, and it is strongly supported by the National Farmers' Union and by the County Councils Association. The purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. It is that, whilst we recognise that it is desirable and administratively convenient to have various forms of limitation, notably an acreage limitation, nevertheless horticulture is an occupation which in many cases lends itself to intensive cultivation of particular crops, and a full living can be got from a much smaller acreage than with other types of cultivation. The Bill recognises this, because in the case of mushrooms and rhubarb as little as a quarter of an acre is regarded as sufficient to enable anyone to get a full livelihood, and in the case of glasshouse products as little as one-twentieth of an acre is regarded as large enough.
We have introduced this Amendment because it would be absolutely impossible, with the best will in the world, to particularise in a Bill, or indeed in a scheme, all the intensive types of horticultural production; and as the Bill now stands—and this is what we seek to avoid—quite a number of sound enterprises would be ineligible for grant. We therefore feel that a strong case can be made out for giving the Minister this discretionary power to extend grant-aid to those growers on small acreages whose production is sufficiently intensive. We have all had experience of trying to draw up lists, and of saying that a certain procedure shall apply to those lists; then immediately we have done it, and feel that we have got them all in, we discover that there are some important ones that have been left out. If the Minister is given the discretion that we ask for in this Amendment, these people will be covered. This would in no way infringe the Government's principle that grants of this nature should be applied only (in the words of the Farm Improvement Scheme) to holdings capable of yielding, after the improvement proposed, "a sufficient livelihood to an occupier reasonably skilled in husbandry." We are in
1150
favour of that, but we say that it is absolutely impossible for the Minister or anyone else to lay down various acreage limitations and then say: "I have put in everybody who can earn a living from horticulture farming those kinds of minimum acreages."
We recognise that questions of discrimination might be encountered, but in our view it should not prove unduly difficult to use the appeals machinery of the agricultural executive committees, or specialist panels, plus the independent certification of accountants to determine the eligibility of applicants. They are not being sought: they have to apply and make good their case. Again I would quote what I regard as a leading authority—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 221, col. 838]:
"…in horticulture…even more than in agriculture, acreage size can be a misleading criterion of viability. After all, an intensively run holding of an acre and a half can sometimes produce more than a holding three times that size if it is on a particular type of production."
There is also the type of case where a heated glasshouse, for example, might make it possible greatly to increase the output of a small open horticultural holding. There are many such possibilities, all of which would be covered by the Amendment. There is always the safeguard that the Minister must approve the scheme. All that the Amendment does—and it is not unimportant—is to remove the embargo which exists on worthwhile applicants who would otherwise be precluded from applying. I scarcely feel that that point needs arguing further, and I think the Amendment as it stands should be accepted.
If the noble Earl agrees—I think it would save another discussion on the clause standing part—I will raise now a related point which was put to me yesterday by the County Councils Association regarding the lower limit which the Minister intends to impose in the scheme on the cost of work carried out on a holding which qualifies for grant. At the moment the lower limit for this scheme is £100, of which the horticulturist would receive one-third. The County Councils Association have already represented to the Ministry of Agriculture that the minimum limit

1151
should be lower than £100 (which is the limit operating in the Farm Improvement Scheme), so that small producers in horticulture who have very little capital may benefit without having to carry out all the desired work at one and the same time. This is important, because, as we all know, many people will otherwise be unable to find the other two-thirds of the cost.
In reply to the submissions of the County Councils Association the Minister said this:
"It has already been explained in Parliament that an application under the scheme will not be approved if it relates to work of which the total estimated cost is less than £100 (as under the Farm Improvement Scheme). The Government think that a minimum at this level is necessary to ensure that the available funds and technical and administrative resources are directed to worthwhile improvements. If a lower limit were adopted, so that grants of amounts significantly below £33 6s. 8d. were payable, the cost of proper administration of the scheme might well be out of all proportion to the amount of grant paid."
The County Councils Association have considered that reply, but, while they appreciate its force, they feel strongly that it is essential for the Government to reconsider this lower limit if a large number of those who have the necessary acreage qualifications are not to be arbitrarily excluded from benefit, especially as, in the main, they are those who we all realise are most in need of help. The Association is especially concerned with the interests of the tenants of the statutory smallholdings of county councils, many of whom cultivate a type of holding often known as a "small-scale vegetable and fruit holding". The Association adhere to the view that the lower limit of £100 will prevent a great number of small but nevertheless valuable improvements from being carried out on county council smallholdings, and for that reason they urge that this lower limit should be reduced from £100 to £75.
In order to illustrate their view, I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the situation in Worcestershire, which, as we all know, contains one of the most important horticultural districts in the country, where I understand some 42,000 acres are given over to the production of fruit and vegetables. In this area there are some 9,000 small producers who would qualify under this Bill—that is, about one-third of the
1152
whole total. According to a recent report issued by the Agricultural Economics Department of Bristol University, the small-scale vegetable and fruit holding in 1956 was able to show a profit of only £12 per acre, as against a figure of £78 an acre on "intensive vegetable holdings", and £174 an acre for "holdings with glass". These are truly remarkable differences, and the County Council think that with quite a small capital outlay many of these small horticultural holdings, which already qualify on the acreage qualification, could be made similarly productive. They point out that many of them have two or three acres of worn-out plum orchards, and they fear that a limit of £100 might prevent many of them from grubbing up this land and turning it into intensive vegetable holdings. They also feel that there would be a number of cases where a tenant could start to provide glass on his holding for propagating purposes for less than £100, but that he will be discouraged from doing so if he has to find £67 himself. They think that £50 would be a magic figure.
There are also many improvements, such as the wiring of packing sheds for electricity and the provision of various other small capital outlays which could be carried out and would be carried out if this limit were lower. We must appreciate that the County Councils Association are a powerful and very responsible body, and they are again resuming the charge in this matter. They feel that the replies they have received are not satisfactory and not such as they can accept, and they most earnestly ask the Government to review this. I appreciate that, as with most of the things we are discussing this afternoon, this is not in the Bill—it is in the scheme that will be laid. But this is our only opportunity to discuss these things. I therefore hope that if we cannot do so this evening, the noble Earl will assure us that consideration will be given to this point over the next few days, so that he can tell us something about it either to-morrow or on Third Reading, and that full consideration will be given to these important representations from the County Councils Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD WISE: I wish in a very few words to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I raised more or less the same point on Second Reading, because I am most anxious that either part-timers or smallholders should have an opportunity of increasing their output and raising their standard of life. I have lived in a district for many years where there are a number of small horticultural part-timers, and if this Amendment were adopted many of them would be able to increase their work upon their holdings and obtain a decent livelihood: it would be a step up the ladder. Without help, it is almost impossible at the present time for new people to come into either the horticultural industry or the agricultural industry, because prices are so high and land so scarce from the point of view of occupation on a tenancy. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, in order that we may do something to help these fellows succeed.
5.24 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am afraid that noble Lords opposite are not finding me very accommodating this afternoon. As I indicated on Second Reading, I like to be as helpful and as reasonable as I can, but the Amendments themselves must be reasonable and helpful, if I am to accept them. This Amendment seeks to empower my right honourable friend to pay grants in a case where the general conditions as to the size of the production business are not fulfilled, but where he is satisfied that the business, after completion of the proposed operations, would be capable of yielding a sufficient full-time livelihood. This suggestion is not one, I am afraid, to which we can agree. Although it means anticipating—as so many of our discussions this afternoon must—what is to be included in the statutory scheme to be brought before the House at a later stage, I think it would help the Committee if I explained how we came to decide on this lower limit and our equivalents for the horticultural scheme. Our general basic approach on working out this scheme was that the direct grants should, in general, be available to growers whose horticultural production business might normally be expected to give the equivalent full-time employment for at least one man. I am sure it is generally
1154
recognised that the test of eligibility must be designed so that it can be easily understood by applicants and easily administered by our officers throughout the country.
The first idea, that of taking the criterion of profitability, is attractive. We gave it careful thought, but we found what were a number of real snags. First, a grower would have to produce for examination by the Ministry's officers proper accounts covering a period of, say, two years prior to his application. This might not present much difficulty to the larger grower with a business and an office, but we were certain that many small growers—just those whom noble Lords opposite, and we ourselves, are so anxious to help—would not be able to produce these properly authenticated accounts for which we should be bound to ask. This would inevitably lead to hardship in cases where the applicant was unable to provide such information. That was one difficulty.
Moreover, the examination of individual accounts for every applicant would in itself impose a considerable task of accountancy on our regional officers, and one which they are not equipped to undertake. There are all the difficulties of potential profitability before or after improvement; and account would have to be taken of weather, disease, market fluctuations and growers' returns. This assessment applies to the production business—not to the holding. Noble Lords have used the words "the holding". But these production grants are not, as in the Farm Improvement Scheme, attached to the holdings, but are attached to the business. To decide whether a business was viable by that kind of measurement would, we felt, be too difficult. We therefore came to the conclusion—and the National Farmers' Union agreed with us on this—that some form of a ready-reckoner or a rule of thumb test was the one we should apply. Was the test to be the standard man-days, as in the Small Farmers' Scheme? There are great difficulties in applying this to the horticultural business. So, with the agreement of the National Farmers' Union, we came finally to the acreage test. Once you have come to the test it is a matter of judgment to arrive at the acreage which you decide should be the limit. Then, of course, there are all the people who are

1155
just under the acreage who say: "Is there not some way of getting us in?"
I know that noble Lords opposite attach great importance to this Amendment, and that is why I am endeavouring to reply fully and not in any way cursorily. The fixing of the acreage is bound to be a matter of judgment. We have taken the best advice we can, and we have arrived at this judgment of four acres of open land or these equivalents: the equivalent of so much glass, so much land under cloches, so much land in mushrooms, so much land in rhubarb and watercress. Those are the ones which we shall be applying, as set out in the White Paper, paragraph 10—the acreage of open land or these equivalents, one-twentieth glass, one-quarter for watercress and so on.
The noble Lord says, "You cannot think of everything; you must leave some leeway in case you think of something else you want to put in with an equivalent: you have thought of mushrooms and rhubarb, but you may think of something else; you must leave space for that." The Bill is now in Committee in this House. It has been discussed exhaustively in another place; it has been discussed with the organisations, the farmers' unions; the White Paper has been published since November. In these circumstances I think one is entitled to ask, why has this point been brought forward? Is there some other crop which should be put in which we could still consider? The White Paper is still in draft. I think I am entitled to say that I do not think one ought to amend the Bill at this stage by this addition, which nobody has so far suggested in all the discussions that have taken place up and down the country about this point.
The second point the noble Lord mentioned was again in the White Paper and is not in the Bill—and he was kind enough to tell me in advance that he might refer to the work of Bristol University and Mr. Fekete, who has produced a study of the functional layout of a mixed horticultural holding in the Vale of Evesham. It is a formidable document. I have not read every word of it since it was brought to my attention last night. It quotes some remarkable figures, and one of the figures that bears on the argument used by the noble
1156
Lord (he will find it at page 169 of this work, and I think he himself quoted the figure) is that an intensive vegetable holding in this survey was making an average profit of £137 per acre. We have the four-acre limit. Multiply that figure of £137 by four and you get £548, which is what a man can live on; it is about a minimum wage. It seems therefore that we were not very far out from this particular study that has been prayed in aid, and that our figure of four acres is about right.
The County Councils Association, apparently, are worried about their smallholdings. Is this £100 limit going to cut a lot of them out? I do not think so. I think there are two points to be taken into consideration here. The first is that this £100 is the gross amount on each application. We are saying that we cannot accept an application unless there is £100 worth, gross, of work applied for in the proposal. But it need not be all on one thing. If a holder wants a £50 washing machine and a £50 reflooring to his storage shed, he has his £100; he can aggregate his individual improvements. We feel that there will be very few schemes worthy of being turned into formal schemes, of being assessed and agreed to by our expert officers, which will be less than £100 gross.
After all, the grant is to be 33⅓ per cent., one-third of the cost. Is it really worth a man's while putting up schemes on which he is going to get a grant of less than £30? We feel it rather extravagant to suggest that we are cutting out a great deal of worthwhile work by having this £100 limit. I think I must say that the draft scheme, which will probably have the £100 in it (that is our present thinking), is pretty near the mark as it was set out in the White Paper. This particular Amendment would not permit variation of the £100, but would give discretion to vary this minimum of four acres, or the equivalents which we have chosen after so much care, and that is really unacceptable at this stage. I am sorry not to be more accommodating, but we have considered this point very carefully, and I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I hope that, after what I have been able to say, the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw it.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry the noble Earl said that this Amendment was unacceptable at this stage, because if it is not acceptable at this stage it is not acceptable at all; if we cannot amend the Bill now we cannot amend the scheme. I must say that I found his reply not only disappointing but to some extent disturbing. He said that if we wanted a reasonable response we should move reasonable and helpful Amendments. I do not think that any one of our Amendments has been unreasonable, and certainly we have tried to be helpful during the discussion. The noble Earl also pleaded in aid that some of these matters had been discussed at length in another place. That is astonishing. If we cannot usefully discuss matters here then there would appear to be no use for your Lordships' House.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Let us keep this on the level on which we started. I never suggested, and of course do not suggest, that because the matter has been discussed in another place it should not be discussed here. I merely passed the remark that this White Paper had been published in November; and on the question of whether there were other equivalents that ought to have been considered I said that although this matter has been under discussion, including discussions in another place, for a long time, this was the first time we had heard it suggested that other equivalents were desirable. I said no more.
LORD STONHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance, but that was how it seemed to me when I heard his words. He will be aware that I have done everything I can to expedite discussions, and I shall continue to do so. But I am in this difficulty. We felt that it was a reasonable and helpful Amendment, and that it was reasonable to suggest that the Minister should have discretion in this matter. The noble Earl spoke about all the difficulties of accountancy. But apparently you do not have difficulties of accountancy if the man has four acres. It is very much like what used to be said about applicants for the Army in the First World War, "If they are breathing they are in." If they have four acres they are in. If they have not four acres, no matter how good they are, and no matter how much they could be helped by a grant, they are out, be-
1158
yond the pale. I think it is most unfortunate. However, I hope that if, for administrative reasons—and they are important—the noble Earl cannot accept my Amendment, he will have another look at the points which have been put by the County Councils Association. They have considerable experience. They have thought enough of this matter, having raised it once with his Department and having had a reply, to go into the matter again. And they still feel that it is important. I do not think it fair to say, after that, that it is extravagant of them to suggest that many people will be excluded if the limit is held as it is. They have made this suggestion responsibly. I think it should be entertained in that spirit, and I hope that the noble Earl will do so. I think we have made our position perfectly clear. I hope that something will emerge, if not from the Amendment, at least from the suggestion when the scheme comes to be drafted. The noble Earl says that it has not yet been finally drafted. In that belief, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Interpretation of Part I
(4) In the foregoing subsection "co-operative association" means any body—
(b) which (whether incorporated or not) has a written constitution from which the appropriate Minister is satisfied, having regard to the provision made as to the manner in which the profits of the body are to be applied for the benefit of its members and all other relevant provisions, that the body is in substance a co-operative association,
(5) In this Part of this Act "preparation for market" does not include canning, bottling, pulping or cooking, or preserving by sterilising, by freezing, by de-hydrating, by heat or by chemical process.
5.41 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "(whether incorporated or not)". The noble Lord said: This is a point with which I can deal very briefly. It proposes to leave out the words which would make an incorporated body, as distinct from co-operative associations, eligible for grant. I hope that this Amendment will

1159
be accepted because we think it would be unwise to allow incorporated bodies to apply for grants. The Government have already insisted on retaining the safeguards which have been introduced in Clause 2 and which will operate against producers' co-operatives in respect of grant—that is, genuine co-operatives. We cannot see why they should regard incorporated bodies as a safe outlet for Government assistance. It might well mean—this is a point that the Minister has several times raised—a considerable dilution of the total sum available, and allow a lot of public money to go to bodies which are not genuine co-operatives. I hope, therefore, that, having considered it, the Minister will accept this Amendment and delete the words "whether incorporated or not." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out from ("which") to ("has").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must confess that I am extremely puzzled why the noble Lord should have this distaste for incorporated bodies. There is nothing which is not respectable about them. As drawn, this is a wide clause, and surely rightly wide. We want to be able to consider applications from an association of growers which is incorporated or, although not incorporated, has a written constitution to satisfy the Minister that it has co-operative principles. Without a much clearer exposition than we have heard from the noble Lord as to what is wrong with being incorporated, I am afraid that I can see no reason at all for amending the Bill in this respect.
LORD STONHAM: May I ask the Minister whether his advisers are quite sure that no such danger as I have envisaged in my brief remarks will arise?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Nobody can ever be absolutely certain that dangers will not arise. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, but the words "whether incorporated or not", are used over and over again. I think we should be going rather far, following this short debate, to leave out these words and to say that we do not wish to allow incorporated associations to benefit. I hope that this point may be dropped. We may have to take it up on some other occasion. But we wish all genuine associations, whether
1160
incorporated or not, so long as they have a written constitution, to be eligible for grant aid. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
LORD STONHAM: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "by heat". The noble Lord said: A moment ago the Minister said that he did not like additions to the Bill; I hope that he will not object to this omission. All I ask is that he should put his blue pencil through two words. The point of this Amendment is that in Clause 8 the word "herbs" is covered by horticultural produce. Clause 8 also includes a definition of what is included in "preparation for market". Clause 1 (2) refers to "preparation for market" and a grant is made under this particular clause.
I wish to raise the question of sage. I raised it on Second Reading, when the noble Earl said that I had taken him rather by surprise, that he would think about it and that I might raise it again at this stage. My information is that sage comes under the definition of herbs; that it is a herb and should come into the Bill under Clause 8. But under the definition of "preparation for market" it would not do so. Apparently sage is prepared by a certain system of hot air drying over a kiln and, according to my information, it cannot be put upon the market for consumption unless it is dried in this particular way. It may be that little of it is produced except in certain areas of the country, but I think it should be admissible for any building necessary for the production of sage for market to be covered by the Bill. The effect of the definition in Clause 8 (5) is that the words "by heat" mean that it is not included. This is a position that I find difficult. If a co-operative organisation should want to erect a building in which sage, having been collected from the members of the co-operative organisation, could be dried, then the building would not be admissible for grant and the expansion of the sage industry would not materialise.
The same consideration applies in the case of an individual. A short time ago

1161
the Minister was wondering whether an individual had the same treatment as a co-operative association. In this case the individual has the same treatment; if he erects a building for the purpose of drying a herb by heat, then he is not able to apply for a grant. In another place the Minister was a little sympathetic to this particular desire for an Amendment, and I hope that as this is a very small Amendment, merely the omission of two words, but of importance to growers of sage, the Minister will agree to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("by heat").—(Lord Wise.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord wrings my heart in asking for these "very little" Amendments, but this is really a rather important Amendment. These two words—"by heat"—are very important because, although the noble Lord may not have realised it, it is this provision which enables grants to be withheld from jam factories and soft-drink organisations. It is not the intention to help those. We want to help horticultural producers and horticultural marketing businesses, and if the words "by heat" are left out we are opening the door to a great deal of processing which would result in money that is available being quickly swallowed up in a way that was not intended.
This particular Amendment might be called a "sage and onions Amendment", and perhaps if I quote the difference between those two the position will be made clear. I am advised by my experts that sage, by artificial heat treatment, is
dehydrated, and that what is sold as dried sage is not the raw material. But while one may dry onions, the nature of the product, of the onion itself, is not changed in the way that sage is changed. I fear that if we agreed to the plausible words of the noble Lord we should be on a slippery slope. The noble Lord says these are only small words and would hardly be missed, so let us take them out; but I am afraid we really cannot do that, for we cannot have manufacturing processes brought into eligibility under the Bill. I do not believe that the noble Lord wants that, but I am advised that if we leave out these words that is what we shall have done in bringing a few sage growers a little nearer Government money.
LORD SOM̃ERS: Could the noble Earl say whether there is some way of getting round the difficulty with regard to plants like grain driers, which, after all, are essential in this difficult climate of ours, as are grass driers and other things? For that matter, of course, heat is actually used in the combine. Is that not counted as preparing grain for market?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Perhaps the noble Lord has not remembered that we are now discussing a Horticultural Bill. Grass driers, grain driers and combines are seldom used in horticulture and at the moment we must stick to the Horticulture Bill.
LORD WISE: I really thought that my look of innocence would appeal to the noble Earl and that he would accept this very small Amendment; but I realise that it might make difficulties in other directions, so, without referring to sage and onions. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
The Horticultural Marketing Council
9.—(1) There shall be a council, to be called the Horticultural Marketing Council, which shall be a body corporate by that name with perpetual succession and a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mort-main, and shall be charged with the exercise, for the purpose of improving the marketing and distribution of, and developing the trade in, horticultural produce in Great Britain, of the functions specified in subsection (1) of the next following section and, with the consent of the Ministers, of any other functions which the Council may determine expedient to be exercised for that purpose.
(2) The Council shall consist of twenty-eight members appointed by the Ministers, of whom—
(d) seven shall be persons appointed as capable of representing the interests of retailers of horticultural produce;
5.54 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved in subsection (1) to leave out all words after "section". The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission, it might be convenient if I speak at the same time on Amendments Nos. 9 and 13. I believe the reason for that will emerge if I have your Lordships' permission to do so.

1163
Under the Bill as it is before your Lordships, the functions of the Horticultural Marketing Council are listed in some detail in Clause 10. Considerable thought has been given to these functions and it is the general opinion of those in the industry that this list covers the work that the Council ought to do, but it is always possible that some other activity will be discovered which, though thoroughly desirable, would not fit into the wording of Clause 10. It would be quite wrong to prevent the Council from doing a useful piece of work merely because we to-day have not been able to see sufficiently far into the future.
The words in Clause 9 which empower the Council to carry out, with the consent of the Ministers, functions not listed in Clause 10 were introduced to meet just this kind of eventuality. Concern was expressed in another place lest the words in Clause 9 should empower the Council, with the consent of the Ministers, to carry on trade and business—which is something specifically excluded from the powers of the Council. There was a fear that this wording would have overridden that prohibition, and my right honourable friend in another place, and I myself on the Second Reading, undertook to move Amendments to put the matter beyond doubt. That is what these two Amendments, taken together, would do. It was always our intention that the proviso to Clause 10 should apply to all the functions of the Council, but I am advised that as the Bill stands—and it is a question of legal drafting—there is some doubt as to whether the proviso to Clause 10 (1) bites on the latter part of Clause 9 (1). This is highly technical, but that is what I am advised by lawyers. The Amendments proposed remove this doubt by deleting the words relating to additional powers in Clause 9 and inserting them in Clause 10.
I know that noble Lords opposite would like to extend the powers of the Council for trading and we shall shortly discuss that on another Amendment. May I suggest that your Lordships accept this Amendment, which is really a clarifying one—although I am afraid I have not been very clear—for it is really non-controversial and carries out undertakings given and accepted as necessary on all sides? We can then have our full
1164
discussion on trading powers, which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham wants, later, on Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, leave out from ("section") to end of line 27.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD STONHAM: I am astonished to hear the noble Earl describe this Amendment as non-controversial, because I should have thought it was about the most controversial on the Order Paper. So far as I can see, it marks an abject retreat by the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because of one or two critical and angry words from Back-Benchers in another place. The history of the matter is perfectly clear. In another place, my honourable friends had a discussion on this point in Committee. They submitted that it would be desirable to give the Council power, if, eventually, at a later stage it was thought fit, to come to the appropriate Ministers and submit to them that the Council should have additional powers not so far provided in the various subsections of Clause 10; and on the Report stage in another place, the right honourable gentleman the Minister himself moved the inclusion in the Bill of the very words which the noble Earl now seeks to delete.
We are told that that is not controversial. I know it would be improper for me to quote what the right honourable gentleman said in another place, and I shall not do so; but as to the gist of his words (I am on safe ground because they were reported in The Times newspaper), it was that his reason for then moving the Amendment, which was accepted in another place, was that there was always a possibility that there might later be found to be functions which everyone would agree the Council should have the power to carry out and which might not be covered by the various categories listed in Clause 10. That is a perfectly proper and sensible suggestion. He said he would not be pleased if that happened, and did not think anyone else would be pleased, and it was always right to allow latitude for contingencies. He was not going to give the Council power to do as they liked. That was very sound reasoning and the Amendment was accepted, but not without some rather strong words from some

1165
of the right honourable gentleman's own supporters; and it is the case that the Minister gave an assurance that he would take steps to see that in your Lordships' House it was made perfectly clear that the words then inserted in Clause 9 could not possibly be used as a lever for permitting the Council to engage in trade.
However, the point is this. We are now asked to delete these words from Clause 9 and to permit the same, or rather similar, words in Clause 10. But if we look at the words we are deleting we shall see that they give the Council powers to submit to the Ministers for approval any kind of function which they deem expedient for them to exercise. But if the Committee agree that these words should be put in Clause 10 in the place which the noble Earl proposes, it will mean that they will then relate only to subsection (1) of Clause 10. If the noble Earl doubts that let me read it. Clause 9 (1) refers to
"the functions specified in subsection (1) of the next following section".
"Subsection (1) of the next following section" is, of course, subsection (1) of Clause 10 of the Bill. Therefore, it seems to me that it is a much greater limiting factor than the noble Earl has yet considered, because it does not give the Council any power, if they feel so inclined in the future, to bring forward any suggestion which is not covered by subsection (1) and the various proposals made in Clause 10, paragraphs (a) to (j). So this is not non-controversial. It is not just a moving of words from one clause to another and having no effect at all. It definitely and absolutely limits the powers which the Minister himself gave in an Amendment which he moved—and for very good reasons.
Indeed, when in another place his honourable friends attacked him for what he had said, my honourable friends rose to defend him; and the Minister said he did not need any such protection because the Amendment he was then moving was common sense and a rather useful provision. I still think it was common sense and a rather useful provision. I still think there is no reason at all why it should be taken out of the Bill now. I think we ought to protect the Minister from his friends, so that when it goes back to
1166
another place it will go back unamended in this regard, and it will still be a common-sense and desirable provision to have. I hope that the noble Earl will admit, in the light of that explanation, that there is a substantial difference between the powers the Council may then have, as the Bill stands, and those which will exist if we accept the Amendment he has moved. I hope that even now the Government will look at this question—there is still time—and say that the thoughts they had in another place were right, and they ought to have the courage of their convictions and stick to them.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I was earlier this afternoon admonished by the noble Lord for saying that there were certain discussions in another place. Now we have gone into very great detail of what was said in another place, and I think in too great a detail. I think we have to discuss these Amendments on their merits as they stand before us now. We must obviously admit, to be realistic, that these three lines were added to the Bill after discussion in another place. But the point is that it was not realised at the time these lines were added, in the place where they were added, that it would empower the Council, with the Minister's consent, to do something which nobody wanted the Council to do: that is, to trade. That is what I am advised. And this is not in any sense an abject retreat; it is nothing as exciting as that. This is a piece of very difficult technical draftsmanship. What has happened is that, after discussion, we have put words in the Bill which have been put in, I am advised, in the wrong place. They empower the Minister to do, no doubt, all sorts of desirable things, but also empower him to do things which nobody wanted him to do—namely, trade. I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments and I think that the Amendments that I have proposed are right, proper and necessary, and are no abject retreat at all.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl say whether he still adheres to the point that the Bill remains exactly the same as it is now if we accept these two Amendments? Is he seriously saying that after the Committee stage in another place, when the Minister had,

1167
for all I know, a couple of weeks to consult his advisers, he did not find that they were wrong; that they went through all this business, with a couple of weeks to think about it, and they only themselves discovered the position where one or two Back-Benchers made a few casual remarks? That is something I, for one, cannot believe. I am sure our Ministers are far more responsible than that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: If the noble Lord puts it to me, I can say only that this is a technical matter of drafting, and I do not know the time schedule at all. I do not follow the proceedings to that extent. I can only say that it was not realised that the words in this case would, accidentally, give the Minister the power to consent to the Horticultural Marketing Council engaging in trade; this was not what was intended. I am advised that if we put the words, as I suggest they should be put now, in a different place in the Bill, they will do what we want them to do and will not do something we do not want them to do.
6.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() The functions of the Horticultural Marketing Council shall include the provision of a common container service."
The noble Lord said: We regard this matter as perhaps one of the most important things which the advisory Council could do. At present, the position is that every wholesaler has his own returnable containers, bushel boxes, half-bushel boxes, trugs, potato boxes and half-boxes, and so on. They are sent to the grower, who may at any one time have on his farm the empties of a score or more different salesmen from all parts of the country; and if a particular market is returning low prices, then those empties stay on the farm unused for perhaps weeks at a time. When the produce is sold on the market to a retailer in the same town it is not so bad, because the empties come back to the wholesaler perhaps in a couple of weeks, but, even so, the retailer has to sort them out and deliver back to twenty or more different salesmen in the market. But vast quantities of produce are re-con-
1168
signed from London markets to other markets all over the country; and thence, from those other markets, to smaller towns.
For example, you might have a Case where cherries grown in Kent are sent to Covent Garden, then on to Bristol, and from Bristol to four or five towns around, all over Somerset. Then, when those containers have been emptied, and the cherries sold, the containers must go back from those various towns to Bristol; from Bristol to Covent Garden; and then they have got to be sorted out again and sent back to the farmers in Kent. Of course, the freight costs are absolutely fantastic. But the biggest difficulty is that the container has been away three or four months on a single journey: doing just one job; it has been away three or four months. In fact, the average life of a bushel box, which costs 8s., is three or four journeys, when it should be twenty.
Eventually, of course, the cost of all this has to be borne by the grower. He must pay, because it all has to come out of the price. With a common container service such as we should like to see, the cost would be reduced by two-thirds. The railways or the wholesalers would draw their empties from a single depôt in each market; the quantities held by farmers would be drastically reduced, because they would not have empties from twenty different salesmen but one type of empty, according to the type of produce; and retailers buying at the market would return empties to the same market depôt instead of to twenty different salesmen. Then, the country buyers, instead of sending all these containers back to the market from which they bought them, would return them to the nearest depôt, from which they could go to the nearest farmers to be filled up again. In that way, long hauls would be reduced to a minimum.
Mr. Bowman, the Chairman-elect of the Horticultural Advisory Council, and a gentleman of very great experience, has stated that one of his prime objectives is to reduce the cost of distribution, and I am sure that that is an objective which we all share. There is no single item which would make a greater contribution to reducing that cost than a common container service. I appreciate that the Minister is in some

1169
difficulty because of the fears—not his fears, but the fears that have been expressed—that the Advisory Council might mix up in something awful known as "trade". I do not want to suggest that they should do anything so dreadful as that, but I submit that the Council could do this particular job of providing a container service without the expenditure of public money and without, in fact, themselves trading at all.
I mean this quite seriously—and if the noble Earl has any doubt I will explain exactly what I mean. A very great part of the producer's capital is tied up in containers which are largely unused. His stock is probably 30 times as large as he would need to use on any one day. The number he must carry in stock might be 50 times as large as the number of containers he would need actually to use. I believe that producers would gladly provide the initial finance for this scheme, which would quickly become self-supporting; and I am sure that anyone as experienced as Mr. Bowman could devise a satisfactory formula, provided the Bill gave the necessary authority. This Amendment would give him that authority. It does not confer trading powers; it does not oblige the Council to start a common container service: it merely confers the right to provide such a service if the Council decide that it is a practicable and a desirable thing to do.
This is a matter—everybody knows it—of absolutely first-class importance to the industry. If the noble Earl is unable to accept the Amendment as it stands, I hope that he will at least consider the possibility of making a recommendation approving the idea of a common container service (which is absolutely common sense, and something which should have been done years ago), so that the Advisory Council can see whether it is possible to devise a scheme to be put into operation, while at the same time avoiding going into trade themselves. It would be much easier for them to do it if they went into so-called trade themselves, but I think that it could even be done without that. I hope that no doctrinaire consideration will prevent the Government from encouraging something which is so obviously necessary and desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.15 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have listened with great interest to the exposition of the noble Lord. I believe that here I can be more helpful than I have been in regard to some of the suggestions that have been put forward. I believe I can be helpful in this sense, that I think that the noble Lord is tilting at a nonexistent windmill. He has said that in this particular Amendment he is not asking for power to trade. I am bound to say that I think it is a little difficult to know how you provide a service without having the power to trade. His Amendment reads:
"The functions of the Horticultural Marketing Council shall include the provision of a common container service."
If they are physically to provide these containers—and, in another Amendment later on, we have the words, "the manufacture, purchase, sale and hiring out"—I suggest that they really are engaging in trade. Yet that is something which, on this Amendment, at least, the noble Lord admits he is not asking for.
LORD STONHAM: I do not want to be pedantic, but I would remind the noble Earl that we are talking about the provision of a common container service, not the provision of containers. I am suggesting that the Horticultural Council should provide a service—a framework, if you like—within which other people, under their guidance, can provide containers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I heard what the noble Lord said the first time. I was coming to that, perhaps rather slowly. That is where I think we can be more helpful. But we have to approach this matter with care, because, if I may put it in this way, in so far as the provision of this service did in fact entail the engagement in trade, I do not think the Horticultural Marketing Council, with or without this Amendment, would be entitled to do it. But there is obviously a great deal of room for improvement in the container situation. We all admit that; and I think that the noble Lord has made out a very good case for a further inquiry into the merits and demerits of a common container service. If the noble Lord wants to know, I am

1171
able to tell him that I think, and my advice is, that under the Bill as drawn, and envisaging what the Council can do, the Council would probably be able to undertake this activity under Clause 10 (1) (e), which empowers them to provide an information service, and so on.
Of course, I cannot promise that the Council will do this, but I think that they should institute an inquiry and research, formulate schemes, and so on, which the trade themselves would carry out with the trade's finance. I think that this would probably be within the powers of the Council. But I am bound to say that I do not think they would have powers to follow up any such scheme which they themselves, or through some sub-committee they cause to be set up, might suggest by operating this service, because that would be trading, and that is not allowed. That is not for doctrinaire reasons, but because you do not get a body constituted like this drawing its money from the sections of the industry happily working in competition with one section, or more than one section, of the industry at trade. We set our face against that. I do not believe that this Amendment is necessary.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps I could interrupt the noble Earl, in the hope of curtailing this discussion. He said that probably the Council would have power to formulate such a scheme. I imagine that he must have taken advice about this. He will appreciate that there is a great deal of difference between saying that a Council would have power to formulate a scheme and that a Council probably would have that power. Could he clarify that?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not prepared to go much further than that, because I cannot give any orders to the Council. The Council have wide powers, and I think they would very much resent it if, before they were even set up and the Bill was through, they were given orders as to what they were to do. If the noble Lord can accept my assurance, with the word "probably", and without any undertaking that they will be told to do it, or that they will do it, or anything of that kind; that Clause 10 (1) (e) will probably cover this problem,
1172
I hope he may see his way to withdraw the Amendment, which I believe to be unnecessary.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out to me that the Council cannot be told. He is absolutely right. I am satisfied with the words he has used, although I cannot call it an assurance. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (2) (d): "and shall include members of co-operative societies". The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will be aware, it is proposed that the Council should be drawn from sections of the community representing growers, independent persons, wholesalers, retailers and members who are engaged as employees in the industry. We seek to ensure that one of the seven representatives of retailers shall be a representative from a retail co-operative society or one approved by the co-operative societies. I cannot understand why these words are not already in the Bill. The co-operative societies represent a most important section of retailing, and if they had one representative out of seven it certainly would not be an undue proportion and would probably represent less than the proportion of retailing which they do. Moreover, this Amendment is not only common sense, but it is in line with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and I cannot understand why the Government, who in this measure have followed the recommendations of that Committee so closely, have not adopted this one.
It is imperative that the retailers should be represented by all who have a special type of interest: for example, small private traders, super-markets, chain stores and, of course, the co-operative societies. If the Government had given an undertaking that all important retailing interests would be represented it would have covered the point; and if the noble Earl could give such an undertaking now, I should be quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment, because there would be no need for it. But the difficulty in our minds is that during the Report stage in another

1173
place the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture would give a categorical assurance only that he would consult the representatives of the Co-operative Movement on the retail side before appointing the members of the Council. When pressed, he declined to give an assurance that members of the co-operative societies would be represented on the Council. We are all aware that consultation is not representation. Surely in such a case representation ought not to be denied. As I have said, I do not understand why the Runciman Committee recommendation has not been followed. I do not see how, in equity, in justice or in sound common sense, seeing that we want full and proper representation on this Council, this Amendment can be denied; and I hope that both the Government and your Lordships will admit the justice of this claim by accepting the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 43, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Under this clause the Bill makes provision for representation of the three main interests in the industry—namely, the growers, the wholesalers (who include the importers) and the retailers. These are the main groups who will eventually have to finance the Council, and in each of these broad divisions there are a large number of sectional interests. Among the retailers, with which perhaps we are immediately concerned, there are, in addition to the retail co-operative societies, the florists, the chain stores and the super-markets, to say nothing of the ordinary greengrocer who handles the greater part of fruit and vegetables. We think it would be wrong to single out any one of these sections and lay it down in the Bill that that section shall be represented on this Council. If we included one, we should in all fairness have to include others, and this we believe to be quite impracticable in a Council of this size. Therefore, some of these various interests will have to share representation. We do not think it would be right to accept this Amendment, which would make it statutorily mandatory that we should have people from this particular section on the Council, and I must resist it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This is a rather nostalgic subject with me, and a very old one. The whole idea, when we come to a Bill like this in which Government money and the development of trade from and with the aid of that money is involved, is that there are two great sections of retailers in the country. One section is the ordinary, small or large, and multiple in some cases, retail trader who works on the ordinary lines; and many of these traders are very good people. The other section is the organised consumers. They are not merely a great body of customers, but they are customers who have banded themselves together to look at these matters from the point of view of the consumer. There was a day when we had more enlightened Governments than the present one, apparently, even though the co-operatives' case was first refused in the course of the First World War by Mr. Lloyd George. That was about the beginning of the end of the Liberal Party, when he transferred so many millions of co-operators from the Liberal Party elsewhere. But in the years that succeeded, co-operative representation became almost a sine qua non with Government after Government in these great issues concerning retail trade in which the consumers were especially interested. Then the co-operative case was asked for. Representation was provided. They represent a great section of the community—with their families certainly not fewer than 30 million people. There are 12 million members of the retail Co-operative Movement. The noble Earl brushes them aside. Perhaps he is thinking of the little village store; but they are part of a great national movement and have great influence in the retail trade, and in their proper position they look after the consumers' economic needs. I am very disappointed and surprised that such a case as this can be so easily ignored by the Government. We must remember that.
LORD BROCKET: May I ask the noble Earl a question? Under paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Clause 9, seven persons will be capable of representing the interests of retailers of horticultural produce. Surely that would not bar a representative of the co-operative societies?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Of course not. That is exactly the position, and I am glad my noble friend has raised it. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition must not think, and I did not in any way intend to do so, that I am denigrating the great Co-operative Movement for which he has done so much. All I said was that that is a sectional interest, and that we did not want to write sectional interests into the Bill. As my noble friend has said, there is no reason whatever why one or more than one of the persons appointed as capable of representing the interests of retailers or, indeed, under paragraph (c), a person capable of representing the interests of wholesalers should not be from the Co-operative Movement. They probably will. What I am saying is that I would resist writing into the Bill one particular section that had to be represented, because it vitiates the whole principle that we have written into the Bill: there are three sections of the industry; the producers, the wholesalers and the retailers. Once we put in a specific kind of wholesaler or retailer, then it seems to us that there would be no stopping or no justification for stopping.
LORD AMWELL: May I ask the noble Earl a question? Is there any reason at all why the specific interests of consumers should not be recognised? The Co-operative Movement represents the consumers' interests as distinct from the commercial interests of retailers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That definition of the Co-operative Movement might not be accepted by everybody. I am afraid it does not alter my conviction that we should be departing from this matter of principle, which has been taken after great care and attention, and which has not by any means been cast aside lightly, as the noble Viscount suggested. I am afraid I must resist specifying any one type of retailer producer.
LORD AMWELL: But it is different. I beg your Lordships' pardon for interrupting, and I do not want to do so unnecessarily. Surely the issue is the question of consumer interest, which does not apply to any other section to which the noble Earl is referring. Is it not about time that in all these issues the consumer should, for once, at any rate, have a chance?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Of course, in your Lordships' House we are allowed to range fairly widely. If there was an Amendment before your Lordships that some organised body of consumers should be represented on this Council, of course we should be discussing it. But that is not the Amendment on the Order Paper. The Amendment is that, under Clause 9 (2) (d), one of the retailers should be from the Co-operative Movement, which is not the same thing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that that is an extraordinary statement of the position. If the noble Earl was prepared to say to us to-night: "There are going to be seven representatives of retailers in the country, and in those circumstances we shall certainly see that the large body of 12 million members of an organised co-operative consumers' movement, both wholesale and retail, are given one representative", we would understand it. But we have no such assurance. What are you going to do? If we cannot get you to put it into the Bill, are you going to give us a pledge that they will be represented? And if not, why not? Or are you going to some of the larger capitalist organisations who are so prone to-day to take advantage of every take-over bid there is? I should like to know where we are.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think I have spoken quite clearly and explained the Government's position on the Amendment before us. I am not prepared to give undertakings, and I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment. As my noble friend Lord Brocket said quite clearly, there is nothing whatever to prevent the members of this movement or any other movement from being one of the representatives.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Except the goodwill of the Government in appointing them. Cannot we have it quite straight now? Is it the will of the Government to say that they are not going to commit themselves to the idea that we have fought for for years, and obtained over and over again—representation of this large organised body of consumers?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Does the noble Viscount wish me to reply?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Certainly. If not, we will go straight to Division.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think we shall have to divide. My right honourable friend in another place and I take the line that we do not think it advisable to write these words into the Bill at this place.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Earl will remember that in the course of my speech I said that if he would give an undertaking, without writing the words
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Functions of Council]:
EARL WALDEGRAVE: We had the discussion on this Amendment when we were discussing Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, at end insert:
("and, subject to the consent of the Ministers, shall include any other functions which the Council may determine to be expedient to be exercised for the purpose specified in subsection (1) of the foregoing section.").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Offences in relation to schemes]:
6.47 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "one hundred" and insert "twenty" [pounds]. The noble Lord
into the Bill, that a member of the retail co-operative societies would be included among the retailers, then I would withdraw the Amendment. Will he give such an undertaking now? If so, I will withdraw the Amendment.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am afraid I am not in a position to give the undertaking.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Stonham, L.

Amwell, L.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Taylor, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Stansgate, V.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Morley, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Digby, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Auckland, L.

Hampton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Som̃ers, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Brocket, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Teviot, L.

Carrington, L.

Long, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Chesham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Waldegrave, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

said: In moving this Amendment (and I hope that we can discuss also the next one; they are on a precisely similar point) I wish to draw attention to the maximum penalties which can be inflicted for so-called offences. I think that they are far more severe than any of us could possibly countenance. Both these Amendments are designed to reduce the penalties for offences under this Bill when it becomes an Act. Your Lordships will note that I am not moving an Amendment to reduce the far larger penalties—a fine of £500, and two years' imprisonment—for offences on indictment, but only those for the lesser offences, which I think are the offences that the small growers are likely to commit, largely through inadvertence or what the Bill calls recklessness.
I would mention that in subsection (2) (a) it is an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a statement which is false in a material particular. Since the Government have accepted none of our Amendments, there are some 40,000 out of the 70,000 growers who, we are now convinced, will not benefit at all. Yet

1179
they will all be required to make returns; they will all be required to pay levies, and they will all, if your Lordships allow this clause to go through unamended, be liable, on summary conviction, not on indictment, to fines up to £100 or three months' imprisonment, or both. In the County of Worcestershire this year a number of horticulturists had incomes, not of £500 or £600 from crops; all they got for a year's hard labour was £50. What are those growers going to do? If this happens they are not going to get help under this Bill. When they get long documents asking them to make returns and ordering them to pay for the finances of this Council, supposing one of them should see fit to take up the form and write on it "Go to Hell!" and send it back to the Advisory Council, would that be regarded as a reckless statement for which the unfortunate grower would be sent to prison for three months?
I may be quoting an extreme case, but time and time again we have had it mentioned, quite truly, that these are small people—people farming a few acres; people with perhaps no books at all, with very little idea of accounts and small incomes. These are the people we are going to subject to the possibility of these penalties, fines or imprisonment, for recklessly making a statement which eventually turns out to be false. Many of these people do not keep books; some of them earn considerably less than the average farm worker. Stubborn individualists they may be; hard-working people they certainly are; foolish they sometimes are. But I think it would be an absolute injustice, and something that we ought not to permit, to allow this Advisory Council, which we will not allow to do a pennyworth of trade, to have power to send, or to start a process which may well send, any one of these 70,000 people to prison.
Therefore we ask that for the first and most minor offence, instead of the maximum of £100 the fine should be a maximum of £20; and for the second, medium, offence, which carries also the penalty of imprisonment, we suggest a maximum fine of half the figure in the Bill: not £100 but £50, and leaving out altogether the penalty of imprisonment. I think it is obnoxious to all of us to think that for this kind of offence which
1180
is not an offence on indictment, not real fraud or anything like that, these penalties should be made possible. We have nothing to say against the power of the courts to punish these people if they commit these offences, of course: we agree that the power should be there, but without the penalties at present laid down. It is no use saying that a reasonable magistrate will not impose these penalties or send these people to prison. I do not think we should put the responsibility on to the magistrates, reasonable or otherwise. I think we should say that these penalties are excessive, and we ask the Government to accept these Amendments.
The noble Earl has been good enough to say that I have been putting forward reasonable and helpful Amendments. I think that these Amendments fall within that category, and I hope that he is going to give us some help in this way. I should feel it very much against my conscience to be a party to inflicting this kind of penalty on these fellows, whom I know so well, whom in many ways I have been with, lived with and worked with. They have a lot the matter with them, but we ought not to put them in this position. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept these Amendments, the first one of which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("twenty").—(Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will give serious consideration to the matters raised in these Amendments, because for the first time this afternoon I find myself in considerable sympathy with the Opposition, although I do not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, apparently wishes to go in regard to his first Amendment, in saying that the penalty for not keeping books should be only £20. I think that it would be well if it were £20 for a first offence, but a considerably greater amount, perhaps the £100, for a second or subsequent offence. It might well be that a man who wanted to practise various forms of dishonesty would find that it would pay him well to be fined £20 once a year in view of the great benefits that he would receive from not keeping books. But I think that for a first offence £20 would be sufficient.

1181
When we come to the second Amendment I cannot altogether agree that no one should ever be sent to prison after summary conviction for making a false statement; but here again I think that it should not be done for a first offence. I would ask the noble Earl to take back this clause and to see between now and the Report stage whether he cannot agree that the penalty for a first offence should be merely the imposition of, say, a £50 fine but that for a second or subsequent offence the fine should be the full £100, with or without the three months' imprisonment, as the presiding magistrates may decide. After all, in this country imprisonment still carries a stigma—and quite rightly; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he says that many of the horticultural communities are people who are not conversant with figures. All of us who have anything to do with agriculture, as I have in a fairly large way, know how completely bored and, to use the vernacular, "fed up" we get with the reams of Government forms that we are obliged to fill up at all too frequent intervals. It is quite understandable that, in a moment of exasperation, a man may well make a deliberately wrong statement. I submit that three months' imprisonment for that is much too great a penalty to be inflicted. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says, we must not just leave it to the good sense of the magistrates. Occasionally, magistrates do not show good sense. I think we should take out this provision whereby imprisonment for three months can be inflicted for a first offence.
LORD BROCKET: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to add a few words in support of what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has just said. My sympathies, if this Amendment should go to a Division, would be on the side of the Government; but I should like to ask the noble Earl if he could reconsider the matter before the Report stage.
6.58 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have been most interested in what has been said, and I must admit that I have some sympathy with the first Amendment. I know that an offence under the first subsection of Clause 12 will generally be an offence of ignorance; and, of course, although ignorance can never be a defence, I should have thought that, the magistrates'
1182
system being as we know it, the magistrates, in fixing the fine, would take into account the fact that this was a small offence, committed through ignorance, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, through pique. But I think noble Lords have forgotten that in this clause we are putting forward maximum fines, and there are cases when this kind of non-compliance with the regulations could be deliberate and could be repeated.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, asked, could not we put in a lower limit for a first offence? That is something that I will certainly discuss with my right honourable friend before the Report stage. I can give no undertakings and, as noble Lords are aware, the timetable is rather tight, but I will certainly discuss it with my right honourable friend and hope to be able to say more about it on the Report stage. I have a lot less sympathy with the reduction of these maximum penalties under the next Amendment, however, because in nearly all cases here the offences will have been deliberate. Nearly all of them contain an element of fraud, and amount to attempts to avoid a fair share of payment to the Council by false statements or false records. These offences might involve attempts to escape from liabilities, and if treated too lightly might jeopardise success of a charges scheme. The deliberate avoidance of a fair share of the cost of the Horticultural Marketing Council cannot be regarded lightly. Another offence covered is the unauthorised disclosure of information. That could be very serious, and this provision is to protect growers and traders against disclosure of confidential information by officials of the Council.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Surely unauthorised disclosure of information would be punishable with the penalties which we do not seek to amend. I believe the noble Earl will find that that is so.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I know that the Amendment of the noble Lord deals not with indictable offences but only with summary offences, but I am advised that disclosure of confidential information could be dealt with summarily. Perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a moment, because in the Second Reading debate I believe that the noble

1183
Lord, Lord Stonham, on this point was under one or two misconceptions which I should like now to put right. He implied (and I hope I do not impute to him anything he did not say or think) that small growers would have to pay the levy and that non-compliance might involve them in fines or even imprisonment, although they might not benefit through grants or the Council; and the noble Lord thought that that was very wrong. I am bound to say that on a careful reading of Hansard I feel there were a number of misconceptions. First, failure to pay a levy is not an offence under this Act. The Council will have resort only to civil procedure. The only offences here are for such matters as failure to comply with registration or record keeping, the making of false statements, the falsifying of records and unauthorised disclosure of information. Failure to pay the levy would not be dealt with under the Act, for that would come under civil procedure.
The other thing to remember is that the charges scheme is not fixed in the Bill, and until it is fixed it cannot definitely be said that some or all small growers will be required to pay a levy at all. We do not know. The charges scheme may have limits but it has not yet been worked out; so I think the noble Lord went a little far there. I must ask your Lordships to resist these Amendments as they stand now on the Marshalled List. But although they are unacceptable, I can give an assurance on the possibility of putting in words to lower the fine for a first offence: I will consult my right honourable friends upon that and come back to it on the Report stage.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his helpful and informative reply. I am grateful, too, to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, with both of whose objections to my Amendments I am in full agreement. I can only regret that I did not consult him before tabling them, for the result might have been better. I must say, also, that I appreciate what the noble Earl has said about the second of my two Amendments, but I understand that it may well be possible, if I table another Amendment on the Report stage or Third Reading, for the
1184
matter to be considered again. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, for his guidance. I understand that the Report stage of the Bill will be taken to-morrow and that the Third Reading will be on Thursday; and before an Amendment can be tabled for the Report stage the Bill has to be printed—because we have already agreed to certain Amendments. I would ask the noble Lord whether, in his experience, it would be in order for me to table an Amendment not for the Report stage but for the Third Reading, to give the Minister more time to consider the matter and to provide more time for printing.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Unless Standing Orders are amended, I believe I am right in saying that while the Report stage is to be taken to-morrow, the noble Lord can put down an Amendment on Third Reading, provided it is in writing, and printed.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I put down for Third Reading this particular Amendment or one on which we might agree through the usual channels, for the noble Earl's consideration on Thursday.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding here. I cannot give and am not giving any undertaking that I can or shall be able to accept any alteration to the Bill; but if we find it is possible to put an Amendment on Third Reading, and if noble Lords think it advisable so to do, we can discuss this matter again then. I want it to be quite clearly understood, however, that I cannot give an undertaking to vary the Bill on Third Reading.
LORD STONHAM: I was perfectly clear that there was no undertaking, but I thought the noble Earl would welcome another discussion after he had had time to think about this. It is in that belief that I propose to put down an Amendment in time for Third Reading, and now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 19 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:
Particulars of Sale. Amendment of 16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 39. s. 1
"The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section one of the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926 (which imposes a duty on certain salesmen of horticultural produce to record and deliver particulars of sales)—
"(4) The provisions of the Act shall apply to the sale of horticultural produce unless the owner or consignor sends to the salesman before the sale authority in writing to sell the produce otherwise than in accordance with such provisions.""
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on quite a simple point. It is a change that we should like to see written into the Bill for the greater protection of growers in their transactions with the wholesalers. We believe that it will be welcomed by all honest wholesalers—who are the overwhelming majority. Clause 20 as it now stands embodies an Amendment which was accepted by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in another place and which extended to one month the period during which a grower has the right to inspect a salesman's books relating to his own consignments. I believe that prior to that the period was about ten days.
The new clause which I ask your Lordships to accept would give growers the automatic protection of the 1926 Bill, unless they decide to opt out from that protection. I really disagree in advance (if I have to) with any suggestion that this is a matter which ought to be left for the Council to decide; because if, when the Bill becomes an Act, there is any controversy in the matter (and I hope there will not be) then the Council will have sufficient far more important matters on their hands—matters which I hope will be of a non-controversial character between the different elements of the Council.
I feel that this new clause is in line with the views of the Runciman Committee, and in any case I do not think it will be opposed by a single wholesaler. The whole point, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, is that many of these growers are not very good business people in the sense of keeping books and so on; and when they get very bad returns from wholesalers in the market and are extremely disappointed with the results they have the right to
1186
inspect the books of the wholesaler within a period of one month. On the other hand, in order to exercise that right, as the law now stands they have to opt in—and many, of course, are not aware of that. A great many neglect to take that precaution and therefore have not their rights in full. All we now ask, therefore, is that they should be completely protected, as they will be under existing legislation amended as my Amendment now proposes, unless they opt out—which I do not think they are likely to do.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I hope to be able to persuade the Committee that this Amendment goes too far. The Committee may be aware—the noble Lord who moved is probably aware—that when this Bill was in another place, Clause 20, which had not been in originally, was added to cover this point. What is between us is that the noble Lord opposite does not think Clause 20 goes far enough, and I am bound to say that I think his Amendment goes too far.
I am well aware that the Minister of Agriculture announced, in 1957, I think it was, that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Runciman Committee for the amendment of the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, and this is still the Government's view. Nevertheless, I must ask the Committee to reject this new clause, for these reasons. Our acceptance of those recommendations of the Runciman Committee on the relations between growers and salesmen did not commit us to accept every detail of those recommendations. We fully accept the central view that "it is best left to the trade themselves to establish standards of business conduct and to enforce them." It is extremely difficult to enforce standards of business conduct by law. The trade organisations concerned are at the present moment giving active attention to this problem; and the Horticultural Marketing Council, when set up, will be a very suitable medium indeed for discussion between the different interests on this matter. My first reason, therefore, for rejecting this

1187
clause is that, before we have set up the Horticultural Marketing Council at all and before it is at work, it would be premature to make this radical alteration in the law dealing with sales on commission.
My second reason is that, by itself, it would be unfair. At present the provisions of the Act, which require the salesmen to give a detailed account of sales, obtain only when the grower has sent an advice note—as the noble Lord opposite knows—and in fact asked for details. But the new proposal would make all transactions subject to the Act, whether or not the grower sent an advice note, unless the grower informed the salesman in writing that he wished to contract out of the Act. That is a far-reaching change and it would give rise to difficulties. I do not myself see many growers bothering to contract out—not that they wish all this to be done. It would impose this great burden just because they did not fill up the form. They might be perfectly satisfied with the present arrangements they have, but unless they have specifically contracted out they would be concerned by it; and one knows the difficulties.
But more important, I think it would be unfair. At present the Act imposes on the grower the obligation to provide an advice note if he wishes to take advantage of its provisions. The new proposal, however, would impose penalties on the salesman for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act without imposing any obligation on the grower to let the salesman know what he is sending him. I do not want to give the impression that we object in principle to the basic purposes of this new clause, because that would be quite wrong. It may well be found that something of
1188
the kind will be necessary. But my objection is that, as it stands, it is both premature and too far-reaching—unfair is the word I used and will stick to. We are starting on an era of consultation within the trade, between all sections of the industry. That is the really good and exciting thing we have in this Horticultural Marketing Council, and I am sure we should let the Council start this and have a go at this problem before we go into such an extensive amendment of the 1926 Act. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment for this new clause, and, on second thoughts, agree that Clause 20 is a very reasonable compromise.
LORD STONHAM: If I may say so with respect, I think that the noble Earl improves the later the hour becomes. I think that was about the best of the many replies he has made this afternoon; it was certainly the one which most convinced me. I am satisfied that it was valuable to have the discussion, but I think his arguments are most convincing and I am going to withdraw the Amendment. As this is the last time I shall speak this evening, I should like to express to the noble Earl our grateful thanks, not for anything we have achieved on this side by our Amendments, because I am afraid the results have been meagre if not entirely negligible. But we are grateful to him for his courtesy and consideration, and for the careful way he has attempted to answer every one of the points which we have put before the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.