I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "Kingdom," to insert:
other than in Colonial territories.
This and the next two Amendments—in line 36, at beginning, insert:
Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a).
and in line 41, leave out from beginning, to end of line 45, hang together. Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker, to take these three Amendments together?
These Amendments caused the greatest amount of discussion upstairs, and they are, in fact, the only real bone of contention between the Government and those on this side of the House. Some of the points which have been submitted upstairs have already been touched upon in the discussion on the new Clause, and to some of them the Minister of Food gave a reply, but I would like to put as briefly and as clearly as possible the case which we made upstairs.
We on this side of the House believe that in these Colonial territories the Colonial Secretary should be dominant and should be responsible for all developments within these territories, for which we in Parliament are responsible, whether of a welfare or of an economic nature. Obviously they hang together very closely. We are very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding, but we feel that the selection of the Minister of Food as an independent Minister with certain powers in these territories is not in the best interests of all concerned. There are two reasons why we believe this is so. The first is the psychological reason. With the best will in the world, there is a considerable fear among many people that these public Corporations under the Ministry of Food will become big monopolistic Corporations, the object of which is primarily to increase the rations of the voters and taxpayers here in Britain. That is the blunt fact. Therefore, under the Minister of Food, that factor will have priority over the welfare and wellbeing of the people in these Colonial territories.
I have had a certain amount to do with the personnel who make up these Corporations, and I have no fear at all that with the existing personnel there will be any such conflict in fact. I believe it is largely a psychological factor—that when difficulties arise which are detrimental to the wellbeing of the people in Tanganyika, for instance—incidentally, I think it is a pity that so much discussion has centred around the groundnuts scheme in Tanganyika—our actions will be regarded as having been carried out for the benefit of all of us in this country, including myself, and not for the benefit of the people of Tanganyika for whom we are responsible. This psychological factor is probably much larger than a great many hon. Members opposite realise. The backwardness of these people and the way they regard the Governor and the Secretary of State as His Majesty's representatives who are responsible for their wellbeing is probably far greater than is appreciated by those of us in this House who have not had practical experience in these territories. I say to the Minister of Food, without any detriment to him and with the greatest respect, that the fact that the Minister of Food rather than the Colonial Secretary has overriding responsibility for the production of food in Tanganyika will, if any difficulty arises, be to the detriment of whoever is trying to carry out this task in Tanganyika.
The other point is largely an administrative one. We must be prepared to accept a certain amount of administrative inconvenience in this dichotomy between two Ministers, one of whom is responsible for the practical side of the production of groundnuts in Tanganyika, and the other for its political aspect. We feel that in any territory where the Colonial Development Corporation works, both the Corporation and the Government of the territory should he responsible to the same Minister here in London. In the case of Tanganyika it is essential that there shall be one man responsible for all the administration, who will not have to send back certain problems to be resolved here in London, even presumably at Cabinet level, if there is such a thing as a conflict between the Colonial Secretary and the Minister of Food over these tremendous tasks which have been set for the people who are carrying out the job on the spot. In the House of Commons, we find that if we put down Questions some of them find their way to the Minister of Food and some find their way to the Colonial Secretary. That is merely another aspect of the same problem. It is essential that we should have in London and overseas one person who is responsible for the whole task of carrying out these schemes in territories which are under direct British rule.
I think these arguments have been put at considerable length upstairs, and they are well known to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not putting forward these points for the purpose of making difficulty—I think that is appreciated by the Government—but we feel most sincerely that this is primarily a psychological problem, and that it is of the greatest importance that in all these territories where we are pressing on, rightly and properly, with these tremendous schemes of development of all sorts, there should be one individual responsible, and that it should be the Colonial Secretary whose reputation both personal and in the office which he holds stands so high.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to produce one or two other arguments in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker). On the psychological point, we must realise that in Africa the groundnuts scheme, which has become the centre of these discussions, is in a very immature stage and, to a certain extent, what we are doing there is guess-work. We cannot quite see how the scheme is going. Therefore, at this stage it is very difficult to judge how this form of dual control will work out. In a way, it is starting under bad auspices because this being a large corporation, it will tend to put aside production by the peasant proprietor. Throughout every stage of this Bill I have been one of those, who with a great deal of support, have put forward the thesis that the development of our Colonies, Dominions and other parts of the world where these Corporations may wish to operate ought to be regarded as just as much an opportunity for educating and improving the peasant proprietor as for the big mechanised corporation—mechanised in thought as well as manned up mechanically.
The psychological effect of dual control is very inimical to that interest, because the big Food Corporation does not as yet work on the lines of having the educated peasants as the object of its work but so much more on the large-scale, mechanised person, the highly scientific big-scale method of working. That has certain very great disadvantages because, by and large, less of the result of the work flows into the territories because the actual peasant proprietor himself is not producing and getting a direct reward. That is one of the dangers of having this Corporation.
Let us turn to other parts of the world and see some territories where development has gone on for many decades. Let us consider Malaya, for example, where the Minister of Food does not operate and where the Colonial Secretary knows that a situation is arising of great difficulty. Why? Because Malaya, which is the biggest dollar arsenal in the British Empire, through its rubber and tin, is beginning to feel extremely restive that such a small proportion of the work done in Malaya is accruing to Malaya. We acquire the dollars and we restrict what is sent to Malaya in the way of cotton goods and everything else. That is causing great unrest because not sufficient of the result of the work of Malaya is actually going to the country itself. It does show the extreme danger and difficulties we are going to face in the future, and certainly it is going to be the cause of many more national movements and the acceleration of movements which are quite healthy in themselves but the pace of which would not normally be so great if it were not for outside influences. It is an extremely important thing in the sort of atmosphere this form of production is going to bring in its wake, quite inevitably. The Colonial Secretary should be the only person in the eyes of the native producer and of the employee of this Corporation to be complete master in the territory for which he is responsible. Obviously, what is being done here, though it may be perfectly good in intention, is in actual fact going to take a turning quite different from that which the Minister and all on this side of the House desire.
This is already showing itself to some extent in the keenness of the Minister of Food to make a success of what one of his people, I am told, described rather unwisely as an Eldorado. There has been such a great blaring of trumpets, such a high raising of hopes about what we know is really nothing but a large-scale experiment capable of greater delay, of greater difficulties, inevitably greater competition and inevitably greater losses than the public have been led to realise at the present moment. Just recently the Minister of Food used the words "strongly suggests." The strong suggestion has been created in the minds of the people in this country—not through the impingement of the Colonial Secretary, who is not exaggerating or using the word "El- dorado"—that this country is going to draw a vast lode or rich claim of groundnuts and other produce which is going to be for our benefit.
I believe the Colonial Secretary must have very grave doubts in his mind whether the entry of the Ministry of Food into these territories is not to have the effect of upsetting the equilibrium of these territories. It is showing itself already when transport is depleted leaving high and dry, sisal which cannot be shipped. That is happening in West Africa where we have a new and ambitious Minister entering into territory which has been wisely administered. I lived for three or four years in Tanganyika and I have a little knowledge. I believe in due course the duality of control will show, in spite of the best will in the world on the part of the Ministry of Food, that it will work out greatly to the detriment of those inhabiting the territory and to the scheme which Members on this side of the House wish well and which they are trying quite genuinely to assist in the early steps, which can be hesitant ones and which are possibly over-confident.
The effect of this Amendment would be to stop the Overseas Food Corporation from undertaking projects in Colonial territories except for the East African groundnut scheme. It would restrict the freedom of choice of the Colonial Office or of any particular Colonial Government if it was desired to make use of the experience which had been gained in Tanganyika or elsewhere by the Overseas Food Corporation. If this Amendment were carried that would no longer be a possibility in the Colonial territory. All that experience would be wasted so far as the Colonies are concerned. Secondly, supposing in Tanganyika, or in a neighbouring Colonial territory, it was desired to have the co-operation of the Overseas Food Corporation that would no longer be possible if this Amendment were carried. Neither in Colonial territories adjoining Tanganyika nor in Colonial territories far distant from Tanganyika could the experience of the Overseas Food Corporation be used. We have heard from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) about the psychological factor, and the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) also mentioned the psychological factor. The hon. Member for Bury also referred on two or more occasions to dual control. I would have said so far as the psychological factor was concerned the average inhabitant of Colonial territory would be glad that there was in Whitehall a Ministry which was not itself concerned in the success or otherwise of the scheme and which could always look' after their interests. I believe the psychological factor works the other way and that the people of the territories will, in fact, be glad to think that there is a Colonial Office which will in co-operation with the Ministry of Food treat this particular Overseas Food Corporation, which has been set up by it, as if it were a limited liability company set up by private enterprise.
So far as the ordinary person in the territory is concerned he has every bit as much power to go to the local government or to the central government or to the Colonial Office in Whitehall for protection as he would have if this Corporation were a limited liability company acting in the normal way under private enterprise and I do not see why anybody has to say "exactly" about that, because that is a very great safeguard which he might not feel he had—we are dealing with psychological matters now—if the Food Corporation was to be operated by the Colonial Office and not by the Ministry of Food.
The Ministry of Food is not running Nigerian railways and these Nigerian railways; of course, are run by the Government of Nigeria and not by a Corporation coming in from outside. There is ample safeguard against any infringement, so far as the people of the territory are concerned, of the labour, the sanitary or any other regulations of the Colonial government. They have to obey the regulations. There has been one case in Tanganyika, where the local government pointed out to the agents running this scheme that certain matters did not meet with their approval, and they had to put those matters right straight away. So there is ample safeguard for the people of the territory, first in regulations and in strict supervision by the local government, the Government of the Colony, and secondly, in the right of petition which every person has to the Secretary of State.
There is, in fact, no dual control whatsoever. There is no more dual control in this matter than there is when I.C.I. are operating in a territory, or when any other big corporation is operating. There is no dual control. The Ministry of Food will carry out its activities laid upon it by Parliament, and its observance of law and its observance of the regulations of the territory will be enforced by the local government supervised by the Colonial Office. There is no dual control in that at all, any more than there is dual control in the case of any other project carried on by any other company or corporation.
Finally, we have in the Bill, in Clause 3 (1), safeguard against the intrusion—if I may call it so—of the Minister of Food into any Colonial territory in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies does not desire him to enter. He can enter only at the invitation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that invitation will be given only after consultation with the local government, the Colonial government, and after full consideration by the Secretary of State of all the circumstances which have to be borne in mind. Therefore, the idea that the Minister of Food and his Corporation can gatecrash into Colonies where he is not desired either by the local government or the Secretary of State is just fantastic. It just could not possibly happen. He would not be able and would not wish to carry any such tremendous liability as he would incur, even if he did get people other than the Secretary of State to agree to his entering.
In these circumstances I would ask the House to reject this Amendment. It is an Amendment which can act only to the detriment of the territories in the Colonial Empire. It is an Amendment which will restrict Colonial governments and the Colonial Office from using the services of the Food Corporation in circumstances in which it is desirable. It will give no further power to resist the encroachment—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) will call it—of the Minister, because we already have full power provided in the Bill to resist any such proposal. Therefore, I ask the House to reject this Amendment.
No. They will not look upon him as an official of the Colonial government. They will look upon him as a servant of the particular Corporation in the scheme. It is the same with the Colonial Corporation.
Hon. Members who were on the Committee upstairs will notice that we have this time put our Amendment down in a different form. We were convinced by the arguments of the Minister of Food that it would be impossible at this stage to transfer the groundnut scheme. He was a little unfair, I think, on the previous Amendment. He drew out that agreement we had given not to transfer now, to cover transfer at some future date. The ground on which we agreed now was, that the scheme was in process of development; but he will remember that his forecast, which is now enjoyed by the public, is that the stage of development will last only five years, and that at the end of five years the whole scheme will already have been developed. Therefore, while we agreed to no transfer now, in what is now only four years' time the position may be different.
There is no need for me to deal in any way with the position of the groundnut scheme, which is not affected in any way by this Amendment. Nor do I think it is necessary to recapitulate at any length the arguments in favour of this Amendment. We have already discussed it on Second Reading; we discussed it at great length in the Committee upstairs; and my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment have with commendable brevity and lucidity put the arguments again. I am merely going to quote a witness that appears to me to put the argument so well that there is really nothing for me to add. It is the December issue of the Journal of the Fabian Colonial Bureau, a publication and a
society of which, I think, the Secretary of State has some knowledge, and to whose pronouncements at one time he attached some weight. This is what it says:
Many speakers in the Parliamentary debate were critical of leaving responsibility for one of these Corporations to the Ministry of Food. We share those criticisms. It is asking the impossible to expect a Ministry whose first function must be to secure cheap food for British housewives also to act in the interests of producers overseas, which must be—as far as prices are concerned—diametrically opposed to those of their customers at home. Mr. Creech Jones"—
that is, the Colonial Secretary—
himself recently said in the West Indies"—
talking to a Colonial audience—
that the Colonial Office, in dealing with bulk purchases of colonial products, 'always drives the hardest possible bargain with the Ministry of Food, which naturally tries to obtain the supplies at the lowest prices.' This is not meant as a rebuke to the Food Ministry, but it stands to reason that by its nature it is ill-fitted for this particular job. We would feel far happier if the Colonial Office was fully responsible for everything going on in the Colonies.
There have been times in the past when I have not always seen eye to eye with the Fabian Colonial Bureau, but I must say that in this instance they have put a point with clarity and force with which I can only agree, and with which I can really afford to rest content.
shall not elaborate the reasons in favour of this Amendment. They are well put in that quotation. I merely wish to deal with some of the arguments that have been put up against it. I found the argument of the Under-Secretary—that everyone who had spoken on this point at any stage was entirely wrong, and that the psychological factor worked the other way—a rather strange one. His argument was that the native Swahili, who we were told by the Minister of Food would not really know what it was all about, would, on the contrary, be delighted to know that it was all being run by the Minister of Food and that there was another Minister in London, the Colonial Secretary, who could have a quarrel with him if anything went wrong. I bow to the hon. Gentleman's insight into the simple mind of the uneducated African. If the hon. Gentleman says that is the way the native reasons, then I am sure he must be right; but it certainly comes as a great surprise to me.
If that is the view held, as it must be—and not only by himself, because he is not speaking for himself but for his office—why does the Colonial Office come into this at all? Why have not we got rid of all the fears, doubts and suspicions that might arise among the simple native people by merely making the Ministry of Food responsible for everything, everywhere? I cannot take the hon. Gentleman's argument as either very serious or very conclusive. Anyone who knows anything about this problem—some will rate it higher than others and put it more strongly—will say that there is undoubtedly some psychological danger in the control being in the hands of a Ministry whose purpose, and whose proper purpose, is to obtain for the people of this country food at the lowest practicable price. It is quite clear that the psychological danger, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members, does not lie merely in what the ordinary peasant in these countries will think. The danger lies in the impression that is given to him by the agitator. For the agitator's purpose it does not matter at all whether he is making an honest and sincere use of the facts.
But there are agitators and agitators. Compared with the skill of a Colonial agitator I class the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) among the "and agitators." There is a real danger that the agitator can get hold of facts which are undeniable; for example, the fact that the Minister of Food is charged with the responsibility of feeding the people of this country at the lowest practicable price. He can twist and make use of those facts, whatever be the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman; and I have little doubt that the agitator will make use of them, and that he is making use of them. Therefore, I ask the House to agree—as indeed, I think, most hon. Members experienced in this problem do—that there is a real danger here which may be used against the good name of His Majesty's Government and the good will of our administration.
So far, I have been dealing only with the little grotesquerie raised by the Under-Secretary. The serious argument against this Amendment appears to be that in the Bill there is already power which gives more or less all that is wanted. This Amendment prevents the Minister of Food coming in at all. The Bill says that he shall come in only-on the invitation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If I were assured that that argument was a wholly valid one, then I should certainly have to agree that, as we now have to regard the groundnut scheme as an unfortunate fait accompli, for future events an Amendment of this character would be unnecessary. I am not dealing in the least with personalities or with the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who at this moment happen to be sitting opposite. I am dealing with this as a matter of machinery of Government, because this is a Bill which may have to last for a great many years.
In the whole working of Government I do not think things will work out in quite the simple way which has been put before us, namely, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies thinks, "Let us grow asparagus in Mauritius," and then asks himself, "Is this a thing I shall do myself, or shall I ask the Minister of Food in to do it for me?" and upon thinking it over decides finally, "Well, the Minister of Food has such special knowledge of the growing of asparagus that I ought to ask him in to do it." I do not think it will work that way at all, but in exactly the opposite way. The Minister of Food will say, "We would like to have for this country a certain kind of foodstuff. I think we could grow that in such and such an area of the Colonial territory," and he will go to the Colonial Secretary and put to him a scheme for growing that foodstuff. It may be that the Colonial Secretary, regarding the whole situation, may not want that particular scheme carried out in that particular territory at all. However, he will be asked to give his permission, and if he refuses the final decision does not rest with the Colonial Secretary, but the matter becomes one for the Cabinet; two Ministers will be disagreeing on a point which will have to be settled by the Cabinet, and not necessarily at all in accordance with the views of the Colonial Secretary.
We cannot regard this provision as being anything like such a strengthening of the hands of the Colonial Secretary as would be a definite legislative provision that the Minister of Food could not start work in a particular Colonial territory. We are told the effect would be that there might be some cases where we should be deprived quite unnecessarily of the cooperation which we think the Colonial Corporation ought to have from the Food Corporation. Frankly, I do not believe that for one moment. I believe that in pretty well any scheme which the Colonial Secretary wanted to start in a Colonial territory he could get all the co-operation he wanted from the Food Corporation by the loan of one or two key men. It would not be at all necessary for the whole of this vast paraphernalia which has been described to us to become operative. We have been told how immense vested interests will grow up round each particular plan in the Food Corporation, but it would not be in the least necessary for the whole of that great army to march into the territory. One or two key men—who, presumably, would be loaned gladly from one Corporation to another—would, I think, give all the expert advice and cooperation that was needed.
It is in those circumstances that we ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to listen to our vain pleadings, not to listen to our arguments, however strong, but to heed at any rate the words of their strong supporters, the Fabian Colonial Bureau, and to show that a few years of office have not altered the reputation they possessed and the adherences they once showed. I hope, even at this late hour, now that the Minister of Food is assured that this Amendment involves no attack upon his groundnut scheme, that he will be prepared to withdraw his ban and allow the Colonial Secretary to accept the Amendment, with which I am sure he is in sympathy.
The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) began his speech by saying that he would not go over the ground which was fully debated on this issue during the Committee stage and on Second Reading, but that he would confine himself to making his argument by means of a quotation from the Fabian Society. I must say that on that account he put his case more powerfully to-day than he has done on any previous occasion. It would be right to consider when these views were put forward by the secretary of the Fabian Society Colonial Group. If my recollection is correct, the statement was made before some of the discussions we have had on this Bill. I always thought that the purpose of our discussions was that we should advance in our opinions on these matters. I have no doubt that if the secretary had had the opportunity of listening to the Debates we had in Committee, he would very rightly have changed his views on this proposition. It is not really a very powerful argument to rake up a newspaper article which appeared long before we had all these interesting and valuable discussions, to which the right hon. Gentleman has contributed so fully.
The second main point of the right hon. Gentleman was to refer to the play which agitators may be able to make with this provision in the Bill. That strikes me as being an extraordinary proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman knew even a quarter as much about agitation as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I am sure that he would not advance any such proposition. Apparently, the argument is that if this Corporation is run by the Ministry of Food, the agitators will be able to make what play they want, but if it is run by the Colonial Office, it will be impossible for them to make any play at all. Really good agitators can overcome little points like that. All the agitators throughout the British Empire are not attacking the Food Minister, but the Colonial Office, and all these tales which come from hon. Members opposite of how impossible it would be for agitators to make a case against the Corporation run by the Colonial Office are therefore beside the point. If hon. Members opposite study this matter of agitation a little more carefully, they will come to a wiser conclusion on the matter.
Both the mover and seconder of the Amendment hold some extraordinary views. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said that one of his objections to the Ministry of Food running this Corporation was that it would arouse an exaggerated interest in this matter in this country, and he misquoted, as did the right hon. Gentleman for West Bristol, a statement made by the head of the Food Corporation about building some Eldorado in Africa. I think it is high time that the people had a greater interest in the Colonial Empire.
The hon. Member has entirely misrepresented what was said. My hon. Friend did not say that it would make people take more interest in the Colonial Empire, but that it would lead people to expect far more in help for their rations than they were likely to get.
I think he was making both points. He said that there had been exaggerated hopes built up in this country about this matter, but exaggerated hopes may arouse interest in the Colonial Empire. It is one of the great merits of this Bill that it will arouse much greater interest in the Colonial Empire throughout the country. The proposer of the Amendment advanced the extraordinary proposition that in his view the Colonial Secretary should be dominant and responsible for all developments in Colonial territories. He does not believe anything of the kind, because there are hundreds of enterprises in operation in the Colonies today in which the Colonial Secretary is not dominant.
I am not disputing that. The proposition is that the Colonial Secretary should be responsible for all developments in Colonial territories. There are dozens of enterprises which are not under the Colonial Secretary in that sense. They are private enterprises. What hon. Members opposite are really proposing, although they may not say that this is what they want to propose, is that there shall be a ban on the operations of this Corporation run by the Food Ministry in Colonial territories, a ban which does not apply to private enterprises.
The hon. Member has misrepresented me. What we are maintaining is that with these Government corporations the Colonial Office should be predominant. If, for example, the Government are to take powers, as in wartime, to take away cattle from certain people, these powers should be exercised by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and not by the Minister of Food.
The hon. Member says that the Colonial Secretary is responsible for all operations inside the British Colonies, but that is not the case, and it is not the position he supports. He says that when a private-enterprise industry comes to a British Colony it operates under the sanction of the Colonial Secretary; but the same sanction applies to the Food Corporation. Hon. Members opposite want to draw a distinction between the conditions under which private enterprise can operate and the conditions under which a public corporation can operate.
I believe that there are great advantages in this proposal of an Overseas Food Corporation. This is a new idea, and it can be of enormous value to the British Colonial Empire. The best service we can do is to assist the Corporation to get on with their job as quickly as possible. The operation of a food corporation under the Ministry of Food can be of great advantage in the British Colonial Empire, because it introduces a new element and a new kind of operation into an area. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who said that all the representations which had come from the Colonial Empire were entirely against the Government's proposal. I can assure him that I have had many representations from people who consider it is of great advantage that there should come into these territories a new kind of corporation with a new outlook. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman for West Bristol to laugh. He has great knowledge of the British Empire, but unhappily most of it is out of date.
I do not wish to take away from the hon. Gentleman credit for having spent a week in Jamaica since I went there. I was only laughing at his idea that there was a new progressive spirit in the Corporation set up by the Ministry of Food as compared with the hidebound spirit of the Corporation set up by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In both cases the Government had to go to outside services, and in both cases it seems that they chose the same kind of admirable man.
It the right hon. Gentleman had learnt as much from Jamaica as I did when I went there I am sure that he would not be against the Government in this Debate. I claim that the idea of a great public corporation coming in is something very different from big private corporations coming in for quite other purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the difference between those two propositions then I can understand why he should be sitting on the opposite side of the House.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that this would be an entirely new thing, that there would be an entirely different position, whereas the Under-Secretary argued that the position would be exactly the same.
The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what the Under-Secretary said. I say that it is quite possible under this Bill, and, under the provision for a Food Corporation, to have a new approach to these problems. There are many persons working inside the Colonial Office and in Colonial territories who take that view, and who think that it is a great advantage that there should be a new element and a new kind of approach towards this problem, not only through the introduction of a Development Corporation, but also through Corporations operating under a different Department as well.
Members opposite have talked about psychological dangers. They say that an injurious effect will be created in the minds of native peoples. They may be antagonistic to the Food Corporation because they think it is an invasion of their sovereignty, if they think that the Food Ministry do not intend to act in co-ordination with their interests. I should have thought that the Food Ministry has one special advantage even over the Colonial Development Corporation, for this reason: the Food Corpora
The great importance of the association between the Food Ministry and the Colonial Empire should be made more explicit. There should be propaganda to explain their true relations. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not the association of the Food Ministry and British Colonies is of vital importance today, and will increase. As I listened to some of the speeches which have been made in this Debate, I could not help thinking that one of the real objections to this proposal is that Members opposite want to get rid of the Ministry of Food. Indeed, one Member said he regarded the Ministry as a temporary institution and that he thought that the Ministry should, therefore, be excluded from these operations.
We on this side do not regard the Ministry of Food as a temporary organisation, and I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people in the Colonial Empire would view the idea of the Ministry being a temporary organisation as being fraught with great danger for themselves. This is a fact which Members opposite must appreciate. They have a right to make their argument, but I do not think it assists government of the British Colonies very much when they make the argument about great differences between the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Food. Their interests are the same.
The right hon. Member for West Bristol was rather scornful about Jamaica—
The hon. Gentleman has overstepped the limit. He has no right whatever to say that I was scornful of Jamaica. That is a rather serious imputation to make of someone who held my position, and I cannot let it go out that I showed scorn for a Colony for which I have always had the greatest affection. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
I am prepared to withdraw, but the right hon. Gentleman was scornful of the fact that I had drawn a certain amount of knowledge from my visit to Jamaica. He thought that was funny and he made insinuations about it. I have withdrawn what I said, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will show equal courtesy in Debate in future. He is very eager and tempted to make insinuations against others, but when anyone hits back he does not take it very well. There has been the recent case of the bananas agreement with Jamaica, in which the Minister of Food and the Colonial Secretary combined to get an agreement which is of immense value to the people of Jamaica. It is only right, and in the interests of the Ministry of Food's reputation throughout the Commonwealth, that these facts should be known.
Whatever the Opposition may say this association between the Ministry of Food and the peoples of the Colonial Empire will grow stronger, and its bonds will become firmer. The developments which have taken place during the past two or three years offer great hopes to the people of the Colonial Empire. It would be an added advantage that the Ministry of Food should become all the more closely associated with them by the kind of proposal which the Government have included in this Bill. I hope, therefore, that for these positive reasons the Government will reject the proposals made by the Opposition.
I am sure that that point is not relevant to this. Debate, but I am also sure that the Ministry has played a big part, against opposition from that side of the House, in carrying out the arrangements made throughout the Far East to prevent widespread starvation during the past few years. If the hon. Gentleman would give a little more credit to the Ministry for these kind of achievements he would do a better service to the people of the Colonial Empire.
I feel very strongly about Colonial administration, and I hope that nothing I say to-night will make the temper of the House any more heated than it has been so far. I have been interested in Colonial affairs ever since my early days in the Colonies, where I was born. I was a Socialist at the age of 21, when I came here, and I have remained a Socialist ever since. I hope the Government will forgive me on this occasion, because I am very unhappy about this Bill. I am unhappy about it from a Labour and Socialist point of view, because I have a very long association with the Labour and trade union movements. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) to utter his nice, flippant, sentences which, no doubt, score points. It seems that some have the gift of the gab, but I prefer to have something behind my gift of the gab rather than to rely purely on the weapon of the tongue.
I have spent much time in the Colonies, seeing how people live, their disease, poverty, and destitution. I know something of their psychology, not from a brief visit, but from a study of many years, living among them, going in and around their huts, and seeing how they react towards certain problems. I feel genuinely unhappy that the Colonial Office is not to be the dominant factor in all this business.
I know that the psychology in the West Indies is that they want one Department, one pivot, to whom they can go. This divided interest, in my view, is quite wrong. The hon. Member for Devonport raised the point that some hon. Members opposite had said that development in the Colonies should be under the Colonial Secretary, and because private enterprise was not, he says that their arguments about this thing are all wrong. Is that argument very valid? Some Socialists think that because an enterprise is run by a Government it is necessarily well-run. The railways in Nigeria have been run by the Government for years. Are they good railways? The coalmines in Nigeria have been run by the Government for years. Was there any attention paid to the diseases of the miners there? Is it not a fact, as the present Colonial Secretary knows, that there was a report from one of his officials during the Coalition Government, during the war, in which it was proved that no protection was given to the bare feet and shins of the miners working in Nigeria, and within a year of his recommendation asking that protection should be given, the mortality rate among the native miners, who sometimes live ten to 20 miles from the mines, was reduced by 50 to 75 per cent.
The groundnut scheme originated from private enterprise, and it is now to be run by private enterprise in one Colony; but what about the smaller islands? The whole basis of these schemes is wrong. In my view, they should be on a co-operative basis, based on the production of the peasant proprietors and the smaller men, and run by the Government.
I do not understand what this has to do with the Amendment before the House. The hon. Gentleman's argument might be all right on Second or Third Reading, but it does not appear to deal with the point which we are discussing—the conjunction or otherwise of the Ministry of Food with the Colonial Ministry.
That is what I am dealing with. I say that this sort of scheme cannot be continued in all the Colonies. It might be done in big territories like Tanganyika, but this sort of scheme, which is presumably permanent legislation, in which there is a multiplicity of controls, cannot apply to all the different types of Colonies. That is why I am against a Clause which allows the Ministry of Food inside Colonial territories to have the power to run these schemes.
I want to give an assurance to the House that while I like these schemes of Colonial development in every direction, I do not think that schemes based on the idea of private enterprise under the aegis of the Government will necessarily be run well. I maintain with regard to the Colonies that the Colonial Office should be the main factor, and the whole basis of these schemes should be concerned with bringing in all the small proprietors in the country from the point of view of production, organisation and marketing. I maintain that these schemes should be based on co-operative ideas, co-operative trading and co-operative production. If that were done, this Bill, in my view, would be a much better Bill.
I could say a lot about the speech made by the hon. Member for Devonport, but perhaps as a colleague in association, I had better say nothing. It is better to settle these things privately than to discuss them before the House. I can assure the hon. Member that certain of his views on Colonial matters, in spite of his association with Colonial administration, could be im- proved to a considerable extent if he went to the Colonies and resided there for ten years, or took into consultation those who know a little bit about certain parts of the British Empire.
I have tried with great difficulty to follow the thesis put forward by Members of the Opposition. Their case seems to be that our Colonial Empire must now and forever remain the choice preserve of one Government Department only; that any outside Ministry that wishes to follow a line of development in one of our Colonial territories is encroaching upon the choice preserve of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I would submit quite frankly that it should be the policy of the Government not only to stimulate interest on the part of one of their Departments, like the Ministry of Food, but that to develop our Colonial resources for the benefit of our Colonies, we should invite all Departments to take an active interest in our Colonies. The more the merrier.
Why should we still hold to the old ideas that our Colonial Empire is something quite apart from the mother country, and that every idea for the development of the Colonies must and can in the future only come out of the brain of the Colonial Secretary? Even if they try to justify their case, it has no actual foundation in fact. Many Government Departments have in the past taken a vital and close concern in Colonial matters. We have only to take the case of the Admiralty. It was vitally interested some few years ago in the project of the Singapore naval base, but the whole future of our defence system may tend to turn from the Middle East to our East African Colonies. Are we to exclude the Admiralty and the War Office from taking a direct interest in the development of our Colonial Empire?
Why should we attempt at this stage to exclude the Ministry of Food? During the course of the last few weeks we have read of the Paymaster-General making a tour of our Colonial territories as a sort of glorified commercial traveller, certainly in the interests of the mother country but also in the interests of the Colonies themselves. The object of this Bill to stimulate and increase interest in the welfare and development of our Colonial territories on the part of many other Government Departments is a new development to be welcomed. I would refute utterly the suggestion made by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House that this is a dichotomy. It is quite the reverse. It is not a dichotomy but a symbiosis, an effort to get other Departments of the Government interested in the future of our Colonies.
During the fuel difficulties last year it was suggested that the miners should be asked to give up their five-day week and work longer hours. In future when the coal mines are better developed under the new system of nationalisation and when we get not only sufficient coal for our own needs, but also for export, why not give the miners back their five-day week or make it even a four-day week and let the Minister of Fuel and Power go out to the Colonies and develop the coal resources in some of them? Having not only stimulated the interest of the Ministry of Food in the Colonies let my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary encourage the Minister of Fuel and Power to go out to the colonial territories on some such vast new project as the development of the coal resources of Nigeria, or Northern and Southern Rhodesia. What is fundamentally wrong in that principle? Is it the aim of the Opposition this evening to put forward the thesis that the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply must remain for ever indifferent to what is happening in our Colonial Empire?
It is pathetic to see the once great Imperial party, not only great in numbers but great in its conception of Imperial policy, now shrunk to the miserable state of a small band of little Englanders. Cannot we develop a far greater conception of the significance of our colonial Empire and the whole future of our colonial peoples? Cannot we broaden the interests not only of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but every single Government Department so that in the future they will take a deep interest in the development of our colonial Empire? So far from this being a new development from which we should run away and of which we should fight shy, it is a development which we ought to do our utmost to encourage not only in the interests of the mother country, but also in the interests of the Colonies themselves. The colonial people get sick and tired of seeing the emissaries of the Colonial Office making their trips to colonial territory with some new idea or because of a nationalisation scheme proposed by the Government. They want for a change to see the emissaries of the Ministry of Food or the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply. Why not? Let us forge all the more closely the links which bind our Colonies to the mother country. Let us see to it that it is not purely a one-way traffic which tends to be caught in a development bottleneck, but a two-way traffic developing broadly along vast new avenues of Imperial policy. So I would appeal to Members opposite to discard the ideas of the little Englander.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting in the speech which he is presenting to the House that we should lose the services of the Minister of Food for a period? For His Majesty's administration in this country to lose such advice for a time would be a deplorable thing to which to look forward.
Provided he has during his absence made due provision for an ample supply of potatoes and certain other necessities upon which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) depends, the Minister is entitled to his holiday as much as any of us, and in what better way could he spend it than by a visit to some of our Colonies to see what he could do to assist their development, which as well as helping them would help our own country. Finally I would say, the conception in this Bill is a new conception which deserves every support from Members in all parts of the House, and not least from the once great Imperialist Party which sits now on the Opposition Benches.
There is not a very great deal to say on this issue that has not been said upstairs and on the Floor of the House, so that I will deal very briefly with it. So far as I can see there appears to be three points. There is the issue of what is called dual control. We on this side of the House most earnestly deny that the provisions of this Measure have any element of dual control unless we call dual control the system under which today 99 per cent. of the economic activity in Colonial territories is actually undertaken, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) put it, by private enterprise—by the Union Africa Company in West Africa, to give one instance, by Imperial Chemical Industries in some parts of East Africa and by a great many corporations in Malaya. They all work under the laws, rules, regulations and the provisions of the Colonial Governments of these respective territories and, through those. Colonial Governments, under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.
Hon. Members opposite can call it dual control if they like, but at any rate it is exactly the same system that we propose when we suggest that the Colonial Secretary can invite the Overseas Food Corporation to operate in any of the Colonial territories. It will come under precisely the same control by the local Colonial Governments as any other form of corporation which already operates there or which may start operating. We cannot see how such an arrangement is any more or any less dual control than that in which nine-tenths of the development of the Colonial territories operates today, and which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are so very proud of having promoted in the past. Therefore, we believe that the real point of the Amendment we have before us is to exclude from my right hon. Friend his right to invite the Overseas Food Corporation to come into any Colonial territory, and the reason why there is this discrimination is unquestionably because this is a public Corporation under public ownership. We object to this particular Overseas Food Corporation being excluded by Statute from operating in Colonial territory should the Colonial Secretary of the day in his wisdom invite it to do so. There is no more to be said on this issue than that.
Taking the second point, it is the psychological issue that somehow or other, if my right hon. Friend invites the Overseas Food Corporation to undertake some scheme in Colonial territories, that will bring upon him and the Government and the officials concerned obloquy on the part of agitators or other persons in Colonial territories, who will think that a wicked thing to do as compared with development undertaken by private corporations which are responsible only to their shareholders. We honestly do not believe that there is anything in this psychological question. What, in fact—I will not use the word "reconcile" for I do not think they need reconciling—,will commend these schemes to the local inhabitants of the areas in which they operate is that it will not be a question of a large corporation operating or that a Ministry is ultimately responsible, but it will be a question of how they are run. Do they pay good wages? Do they give good conditions and are their medical services good? That is how every inhabitant of the area will judge these schemes. That is the real issue.
Can the Minister of Food assure us that in the course of the developments in this direction there will not be any unfairness in the competition that is bound to arise?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is a completely unfair misrepresentation, such as he tried to get away with in the Committee upstairs. That is not the object of hon. Members on this side of the House. Examples have been given showing how, in shipping, railways, and a score of other ways, the Government have been giving themselves advantages in Tanganyika, which have resulted in the disruption of the existing economy.
One hon. Member is now trying to explain what another hon. and gallant Member may have in mind. The point is not relevant to that which I was arguing. The only implication I could catch in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member was that standards of wages and medical supervision might be raised too quickly by these Corporations.
The only point which occurred to me is that there are many genuine concerns which have weathered difficult times, and this House, and particularly the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, will not want to see those concerns driven out of their legitimate businesses. We want to instil a feeling of confidence in those concerns and to see that no unfair advantage will be taken of their position.
That argument applies quite as much to the Colonial Development Corporation as to the Overseas Food Corporation. I am reminded, moreover, that Imperial Chemical Industries, and any great corporation powerfully supported with large funds, might have that effect. That point is not germane to the argument on this Amendment, which is simply and solely whether the Colonial Secretary is or is not to have the right to invite the Overseas Food Corporation, as well as the Colonial Development Corporation, to operate in what I may, for short, call his territories.
A number of points have been raised as a result of misunderstanding of the very narrow issue which we are debating here. I was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) whether it was possible for these schemes to be based upon peasant production. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be, and it is important that they should be. In the Tanganyika bush there could be no peasants until it had been cleared, because the tsetse fly made that impossible. In more habitable parts of the Colonies where there is a peasant population I imagine that these schemes must of necessity be based upon independent peasant production of one sort or another.
Finally, it is ironic that speaker after speaker from the Opposition side should suggest that they need, by moving these Amendments to put up a sort of iron fence against the intrusive Minister of Food going into Colonial territories. The irony is that the real effect of their Amendments is not to limit my powers in the slightest degree but to limit those of the Colonial Secretary. If the Amendments were carried, the Colonial Secretary would have no power of choice between the two Corporations. As the Bill now reads he has power to choose. He feels strongly that he likes to have two strings to his bow. That is a very simple and sensible desire. I think I am right in saying that in nine cases out of ten he will use the Colonial Development Corporation, but there is no doubt that he likes to have the option, in particular cases which cannot be seen in advance, to use the other Corporation. For that reason we ask the House to reject the Amendment.
|Division No. 55.]||AYES.||[...]7.56 p.m.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Raikes, H. [...].|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Haughton, S. G.||Ramsay, Maj. S|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Herbert, Sir A. P||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Walls)||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Renton, D.|
|Bower, N.||Hollis, M. C.||Robinson, Roland|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hurd, A.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Challen, C.||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Scott, Lord W.|
|Channon, H.||Jeffreys, General Sir G||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Cole, T. L||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Snadden, W. M.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Spence, H. R.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||McCallum, Maj. D.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Teeing, William|
|De la Bère, R.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Thornton-Kemsley, [...]. N|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Marlowe, A. A. H||Touche, G. [...]|
|Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Turton, R H.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Medlicott, F.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Drewe, C.||Mellor, Sir J.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Molson, A. H. E.||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Morris-Jones, Sir H.||Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset E.)|
|Erroll, F. J.||Mullan, Lt. C H||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Nield, B. (Chester)||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gage, C.||Odey, G. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Commander Agnew and|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||Pel[...], Brig. C. H. M.||Lieut-Colonel Thorp|
|Grimston, R. V.||Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Prescott, Stanley|
|Acland, Sir R.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Gallacher, W.||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Pearson, A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Gibbins, J.||Perrins, W.|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Gibson, C. W.||Porter, G. (Leeds)|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Gilzean, A.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Rankin, J.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Granville, E. (Eye)||Rees-Williams, D. R.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Reeves, J.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Grenfell, D. R.||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Grey, C. F.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Baird, J.||Grierson, E.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Balfour, A.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Rogers, G. H. R.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Hardy, E. A.||Royle, C.|
|Barton, C||Harrison, J.||Sargood, R.|
|Battley, J. R.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Segal, Dr. S.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Herbison, Miss M.||Sharp, Granville|
|Berry, H.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Beswick, F.||Hicks, G.||Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|Binns, J.||Hobson, C R.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Blenkinsop, A||Holman, P.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Blyton, W. R||Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.|
|Boardman, H||House, G.||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Bottomley, A G||Hubbard, T.||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Braddock, T (Mitcham)||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Snow, J. W.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Stamford, W.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)||Steele, T.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Burden, T W.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)||Sylvester, G O.|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Symonds, A. L.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Keenan, W.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Champion, A. J.||Key, C. W.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Chater, D.||King, E. M.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Kinley, J.||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton>|
|Cobb, F. A||Levy, B. W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Collick, P.||Lindgren, G. S.||Tiffany, S.|
|Collindridge, F.||Lyne, A. W.||Timmons, J.|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||McAdam, W.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||McEntee, V. La T.||Tolley, L.|
|Cook, T. F.||McGhee, H. G.||Tomlinson, Rt Hon G.|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Mack, J. D.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Cove, W. G.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Crawley, A.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Usborne, Henry|
|Daggar, G||McKinlay, A. S.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Daines, P.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Mallalieu, J. P. W||Wadsworth, G.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Mann, Mrs. J||Walker, G. H.|
|Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Delargy, H. J.||Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Diamond, J.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. George||Warbey, W. N.|
|Dobbie, W.||Medland, H. M||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Messer, F.||Wells, W T. (Walsall)|
|Donovan, T.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mikardo, Ian.||Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Dye, S.||Mitchison, G. R.||Wigg, George|
|Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.||Moody, A. S.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Edelman, M.||Morley, R.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Mort, D. L.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)||Moyle, A.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)||Murray, J. D.||Willis, E.|
|Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Nally, W.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Naylor, T. E.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Ewart, R.||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Woodburn, A.|
|Fairhu[...]st, F.||Oldfield, W. H||Woods, G. S.|
|Farthing, W. J.||Orbach, M.||Yates, V. F.|
|Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)||Page[...], R. T.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Foot, M. M.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Forman, J. C.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins[...]|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Pargiter, G. A.|
Question put, and agreed to.