Commons Sitting of 12 October 1944

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEMOBILISATION

    Married Men with Children
    Colonel Lyonsasked the Minister of Labour whether, in considering the proposals for demobilisation, he will examine the practicability of including in the first priority class those married men of or over 45 years of age having children of school age, so that paternal control can be resumed, in the interests alike of the children and their mothers.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Under the White Paper proposals, men aged 50 and over will be treated as a priority class, to be released, if they so desire, before other men. In framing these proposals, the possibility of giving some priority of release to married men with children was considered, but had to be rejected as impracticable, and likely to lead to anomalies. The fact that age is taken into account as well as length of war service will, however, benefit the class of men that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

    Officers and Other Ranks
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make clear the position as regards demobilisation of men of the Armed Forces who are serving on regular engagements; and whether the provisions of the White Paper on the Re-allocation of Manpower will be applicable to such men.
    Mr. Bevin: The Government's plan for release from the Armed Forces as set out in the White Paper an the Re-allocation
    1906
    of Man-power, does not apply to officers holding permanent regular commissions on the active list of their Service or to ratings and other ranks whose regular engagements have not expired. Ratings and other ranks whose regular engagements have expired will be eligible for release under the plan in accordance with their age and length of war service. In the case of a naval rating, the term "regular engagement" in this connection applies also to the active service portion of a special service engagement; in the case of a soldier, it means his period of service with the Colours, and in the case of an airman, the regular portion of his engagement.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend make these provisions which he has just enunciated very clear, and give them publicity, because I think the position is not understood by a large number of serving personnel?
    Mr. Bowles: Is not this only a White Paper proposal, without any force of law yet?
    Mr. Bevin: The question of the reallocation of man-power is one for decision by the Government, and does not need legislation.
    Sir Adam Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Leader of the House that a Debate on this subject should be arranged soon?
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Minister of Labour whether the provisions of the White Paper on the Re-allocation of Manpower are intended to apply generally to officers as well as to other ranks of His Majesty's Forces, and, if not, whether further instructions applicable to officers will be issued.
    Mr. Bevin: The proposals in the White Paper are intended to apply to both officers and other ranks.

    Candidates for Ordination
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the Minister of Labour whether in his interim plan for demobilisation, he will take into consideration the early release from His Majesty's Forces of as many as possible of those who are enrolled as candidates for Holy Orders in the various religious denominations.
    Mr. Bevin: Representatives of the Anglican and Free Churches are in touch with my Department on this subject, and they have been requested to furnish me with certain information, which will enable me to decide the extent to which early release of the men in question will be necessary, having regard to the numbers who will be released in their age and service order.

    Teachers
    Mr. Keyasked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his consultations with the Minister of Education, he is now in a position to state the procedure under which schoolmasters may be demobilised under the Class B scheme of the White Paper; whether he includes them under the designation of individual specialists or whether he proposes to take any special measures to secure the early release of schoolmasters from the armed forces in order to help to bring the supply up to present and future requirements.
    Mr. Bevin: I am not yet able to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Edmund Harvey) on 28th September, regarding the release of school-teachers from the Forces under the White Paper proposals.

    Special Categories
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to indicate the terms of demobilisation to be applied to young men directed to the mines, to war-time police and to others who have been directed or have volunteered for non-military duties.
    Mr. Bevin: As announced when the coalmining ballot scheme was introduced, young men sent to coalmining under that scheme will not be retained compulsorily beyond the date at which they would have been released from the Forces if they had been called up. The terms to be applied on release to members of the police auxiliary services and the Civil Defence services are being worked out in consultation with the appropriate Government Departments, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. Other men engaged in non-military duties will be deal with under the arrangements for re-allocation of civilian labour which are under consideration.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister see that that announcement is made at the earliest opportunity possible, in view of the uncertainty in the minds of many workers in these categories?
    Sir Joseph Nail: Will that include the National Fire Service?
    Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that Question.

    A.F.S. and Civil Defence Service
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Labour if full-time service in the A.F.S. or Civil Defence organisations will count as Army service in assessing the time for demobilisation from the Army or other services.
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) on 10th October, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir J. Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend give me the gist of that now?
    Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better look up HANSARD.

    JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to make the decisions of joint industrial councils legally enforceable throughout the industry concerned.
    Mr. Bevin: Under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, 1940, employers are required to observe such recognised terms and conditions of employment in the trade or industry in the district as have been settled by representative joint machinery. I am at present considering what further provision should be made to meet the requirements of the post-war position, but I am not yet able to make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. Mander: How soon does my right hon. Friend think he can make a statement about this very important matter?
    Mr. Bevin: I have negotiations to carry out with a lot of people who do not always agree.

    ASSISTANCE BOARD OFFICERS, LONDON (SUBSISTENCE)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for compensating ex gratia payments to be made to officers employed by the Assistance Board who have been transferred daily within the London postal area to deal with the victims of the flying-bomb menace, and who have been denied, under existing regulations, any recompense for the additional expenditure incurred by them in the purchase of meals ordinarily taken at home or in their offices.
    Mr. Bevin: The officers in question have been dealt with under Regulations applicable to the Civil Service generally, and the Assistance Board advise me that they do not feel that the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers afford any ground for giving their staff special concessions in the matter of subsistence by way of ex gratia payments which would not apply to other civil servants who may similarly be transferred from one part of the London postal area to another.
    Mr. Brown: In view of the fact that the Regulations to which the Minister refers were never devised for the conditions which exist to-day, and of the fact that he himself insists upon workmen having subsistence in such conditions, could he not press for the amendment of those Regulations?
    Mr. Bevin: I understand that the matter is being discussed by the staff side of the Whitley Council and the Treasury, and I do not think that I ought to interfere with the discussions.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (COLLEC TIVE BARGAINING)
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour the present position with regard to the recognition by the railway companies of collective bargaining for certain grades of their employees; and whether the decision of his Ministry has been made.
    Mr. Bevin: My Department is awaiting information from the parties concerned which would enable it to deal with the suggestion that a certificate should be given with regard to the extent to which the Railway Clerks' Association represent the grades in question.
    Mr. Mander: Am I to understand that neither side has yet sent in its evidence?
    Mr. Bevin: That is so.
    Mr. Alexander Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a difficulty has arisen from the fact that the railway companies' representatives have run away from the undertaking that they gave to this House?
    Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of that. My duty is to hear the evidence, and then if satisfied to give the certificate.
    Mr. Walkden: If I furnish the evidence will my right hon. Friend consider it?
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into it.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Printing Trade (Labour Supply)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to release or direct the necessary labour to enable the publishers to make use of the additional paper recently allocated to them by the Board of Trade and Ministry of Supply.
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot accept the implication that an increase in the supply of paper necessarily involves an increase in the amount of labour required for printing. Nevertheless, I appreciate that there are difficulties at the present time in supplying adequate labour for printing, and this general question is under discussion with the industry.

    Reinstatement Direction (Prosecution)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the letter from the New Forest Trades Council, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, regarding the case of Mr. Smith; and whether any action is contemplated by his Ministry in this case.
    Mr. Bevin: A summons was issued against Mr. Smith's employers on 14th September for failing to comply with a direction to reinstate him. On 5th October the employers were convicted, and fined £25, and £5 5s. costs.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister not consider advising the prosecuting authorities, in a case of this kind, to make an example by putting one of these employers in prison?
    Mr. Bevin: That would be a very dangerous precedent.

    Apprentices (Deferment)
    Mr. Thomas Fraserasked the Minister of Labour if there has been any tightening of the scheme under which certain apprentices are deferred from military service to complete their apprenticeship: and for what reason.
    Mr. Bevin: The scheme for the deferment of apprentices was revised last May. Under the revised scheme, deferment may be granted only to apprentices in occupations in which men older than themselves are not ineligible for deferment, and only if the apprenticeship is an effective one, in which the apprentice is gaining adequate experence of his trade.

    One-man Businesses
    Mr. Summersasked the Minister of Labour if he will give instructions that greater leniency in call-up is to be shown in those cases where one-man businesses would be seriously prejudiced.
    Mr. Bevin: This is one of the matters that I am considering at the present time. I must, however, have regard to all classes of the community if there are to be any modifications in existing arrangements.
    Mr. Summers: Will the Minister take into account that the sacrifice entailed in many of these cases is shared by members of His Majesty's Forces, and that not only people in this country, but people serving overseas, are affected?
    Mr. Bevin: I think I have largely met this trouble by the decision not to call up people over 35.
    Major Woolley: As consideration is to be given to these men, would it not be right to give equal consideration to men owning one-man businesses who are now in the Forces?

    Women (Work Directions)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour if, to avoid an unnecessary increase in the number of persons temporarily unemployed owing to the reduction in the demand for labour for various war-time purposes, he will issue instructions that no more women who are not normally engaged in any gainful employment shall be directed to such employment in future.
    Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension if he thinks that there is any general reduction in the demand for labour for war purposes, and I am unable to accept the proposal which he makes.
    Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to keep this matter under review, having regard to the fact that married women have homes of their own to look after?
    Mr. Bevin: I keep this matter constantly under review, but I must have regard to the fact that I have to start the normal life of the community as well.
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the releases from the Civil Defence services and the fact that a number of factories engaged on war work have had to curtail production owing to lack or orders, he will cease directing into part-time work married women of 47 years of age and over.
    Mr. Bevin: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), on 5th October, I am considering the position of women in the older age classes with household responsibilities in relation to their position under the Registration for Employment Order.

    Regulation IAA
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Minister of Labour how many prosecutions have been undertaken to date under Regulation IAA; and whether, in view of the improved war situation and its relation to industry, he can now withdraw the Regulation.
    Mr. Bevin: The question of proceedings under Regulation IAA is not for me; but I am informed that there have been no prosecutions under that Regulation, and I am not prepared to withdraw it.
    Mr. Kirby: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to keep this Regulation under review, in the same way as the Home Secretary is keeping other Regulations under review?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, we shall carry out the pledge we gave to the House.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Does not the statement of the Minister of Labour demonstrate that the Regulation is utterly unnecessary?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; plenty of things take place in the street when the policeman is not present, which do not happen when he is there.

    One-man Businesses
    Sir Charles Edwardsasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many one-man businesses had to be closed through the owners having been directed to work in industry; and will he now consider the release of these men so that they may restart their businesses, seeing that there is already a redundancy of labour in many factories.
    Mr. Bevin: There are still urgent demands for war production, and I am unable, therefore, to give any general concession such as my hon. Friend suggests. Where a man who previously ran a one-man business becomes redundant, as a result of changes in production, and wishes to restart his business, it is necessary to consider, in his case, as in that of other persons who wish to return to their previous work, whether he is still needed for war work.
    Commander Agnew: Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider applications for release in cases where the men were engaged in one-man businesses, and have had many workers taken away, and, though they themselves are able to accept contracts for war work, they cannot carry them out if they cannot get releases?
    Mr. Bevin: This matter is constantly under review by the Man-Power Board, but I am afraid I cannot give any general undertaking in reply to a question without knowing the actual facts and circumstances.

    MERCHANT NAVY PERSONNEL (REINSTATEMENT IN EMPLOY MENT)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bolesasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the ruling of the chairman of a court set up under the Reinstatement in Civilian Employment Act, that Merchant Navy does not come under the jurisdiction of the Act; and whether he has any statement to make.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Labour when he intends to introduce legislation to provide a right
    1914
    to reinstatement in pre-war employment for merchant seamen similar to that provided for soldiers, sailors and airmen under the Reinstatement Act.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Labour if members of the Mercantile Marine services are in the same position as members of His Majesty's Forces for the purposes of the Reinstatement of Employment Act.
    Mr. Bevin: The Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act is confined to service in the Armed Forces, and does not apply to service in the Merchant Navy. For reasons which I expained when the Bill was before the House, I could not undertake to widen its scope in this respect.

    EQUAL PAY (I.L.O. CONFERENCE DISCUSSION)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour in regard to the discussion which took place at the I.L.O. Conference on the recommendation of the desirability of paying the rate for the job irrespective of sex, if he will place in the Library of the House records of the speeches made by the official, employers', and workers' delegates.
    Mr. Bevin: I will place in the Library of the House a copy of three numbers of the provisional record of the Philadelphia Conference, which contain the report of the Committee on Employment and the discussion on this report in the plenary sitting of the Conference.
    Miss Ward: In view of a recent vote of this House, what mandate had the official delegate to oppose equal pay for equal work?
    Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

  INDIA

    Women (Underground Work)
    Mr. Hyndasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to report to the governing body of the I.L.O. the nonobservance by the Government of India of the convention concerning the employment of women underground, having regard to the provisions of Article 411 of the Constitution of the I.L.O.
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will now make representations to the Government of India to ensure the recognition of its obligations under the I.L.O. concerning the employment of women underground.
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Six months after the ban on the employment of women underground had been lifted, the Government of India, in accordance with their undertaking, reviewed the position. In spite of all the other measures taken to increase coal production it remains much below requirements and the situation is serious. The Government of India were therefore forced reluctantly to the decision that it was not practicable to re-impose the ban immediately. But the question is to be examined again very shortly.
    Mr. Cove: Does the Minister contend that there are not enough men in India to go underground, leaving the women completely outside? Is there a shortage of man-power in India?
    Mr. Amery: The Government of India have made every effort to recruit male labour from other parts of India.
    Mr. Cove: But is there a shortage of man-power in India?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Could the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question I asked him about a year ago—whether pregnant women are prohibited from going underground?
    Mr. Amery: As a temporary measure, women are doing certain work underground in seams over six feet in height.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Pregnant women?
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister answer whether pregnant women are prohibited from going underground?
    Mr. Amery: I think they are, but I will make sure on the point.
    Dr. Summerskill: It is absolutely disgraceful.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: It is a crying shame.
    Mr. Stephen: Is it the case that a similar practice is going to be put into operation in this country with regard to women working underground?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. As I have said, I am not aware that pregnant women are working underground.
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. I asked the Minister a question, and I notice that he is evidently becoming so deaf that he answers the hon. Member who put the previous question.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether any attempt has been made to induce more male workers to go into the mines by increasing their wages; and may I also ask how much extra coal has been produced by these women?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. Every effort has been made to secure male workers from other parts of India and from Government works in the neighbourhood, and I also understand that there has been an increase of wages. I gather that production since last year still shows a decline of about 4½ per cent.
    Mr. Sorensen: Then the women have produced less than the men?

    Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah (Conversations)
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give the House as to the breakdown of the conversations between Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah; and whether there is any prospect of these conversations being reopened.
    Mr. Amery: The reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) on 5th October was intended also as a reply to my hon. Friend's Question, which has been deferred from that day, and I have nothing further to add to it.

    Sterling Balances
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the effect upon the sterling balances now held in London by India of the Government's declaration in favour of the principle of non-discrimination so far as commercial and currency agreements are concerned; and whether the Government of India has been consultated on this subject.
    Mr. Amery: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon.

    1917
    Friend to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday last. As regards the second part, the Government of India were consulted about the Mutual Aid Agreement and the Currency Agreement and were represented by their own delegation at Bretton Woods.
    Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is really impossible to make out, from the Chancellor's answer to my Question and from his speech, what the policy of the Government is?

    Food Situation
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to make a statement concerning the general food position in India.
    Mr. Amery: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to the questions by the hon. Members for West Leytonstone (Mr. Sorenson) and East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) given on 5th October, to which at present I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for India, if the quantity of food grains stuffs which the Government undertook to import into India in the 12 months ending 31st October, 1944, has now been delivered.
    Mr. Amery: Shipments of the wheat which His Majesty's Government have undertaken to make available to India are proceeding satisfactorily and the whole of the quantity due for shipment up to 30th September is covered by arrangements already made.

    Demobilised Soldiers (Reinstatement)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for India if plans have been made or are being made for the reinstatement of soldiers of the Indian Army on demobilisation.
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, this matter is dealt with by the Reconstruction Committee of the Governor General's Council and has been the object of special study in all its aspects by the Policy Committee on Resettlement and Re-employment.

    Press Messages (Censorship)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that cabled messages from this country
    1918
    to the Free Press Journal of Bombay and other newspapers frequently have portions of the messages deleted but without information being given to the recipients of the extent or nature of the deletions; and whether he will ensure that the censorship more reasonably operates so that only references of a specific military nature become liable to deletion.
    Mr. Amery: While the Government of India have reserved the right to scrutinise any incoming message not only from the purely military aspect but in the light of their knowledge of conditions in India, I am confident that the number of deletions is in practice very small. The Government of India regularly intimate to me by telegram the more important deletions and the reasons for them, and this information is passed on to the individual correspondents concerned for their confidential guidance.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that editors in India do not know what is deleted, and that sometimes messages are almost incomprehensible? Could not that practice be stopped?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. Information is supplied to correspondents here for their guidance, so they shall not make the mistakes again.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the editors in India be informed what deletions have been made from the messages which they do receive?
    Mr. Amery: That would give them the opportunity of publishing precisely what they are expected not to publish.
    Mr. Sorensen: But cannot they be told?

    PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many parliamentary divisions the returning officers are in a position to state the approximate number of Service men and women whose names have been placed on the register of voters.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No doubt the Electoral Registration Officers could get out these figures, but, as I told the hon. Member last week, I am reluctant

    1919
    to add to their work by calling for special returns at a time when they are under heavy pressure to ensure that their records are as complete as possible by the date from which the new arrangements will operate, and when fresh batches of declarations are reaching them from day to day.
    Mr. Lawson: May I ask the Home Secretary if he has inquired of any of the returning officers whether they can give an approximate idea of the progress of this registration without involving any great amount of labour?
    Mr. Morrison: I dare say I could, but it really is a choice between getting on with the job and getting much more done, and making inquiries in order to answer the hon. Member's Question, and, on the whole, I would sooner get the job done.
    Mr. Thorne: What method is adopted in order to get the men overseas placed upon the register?
    Mr. Morrison: They fill up forms which come to this end, and they are allocated to the appropriate constituencies and registered. I think that that is how it is done.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation to enable local elections to be held once more.
    Mr. H. Morrison: This matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Mander: Seeing that consideration is being given to the question of holding local elections on the Continent, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we are not left behindhand, in view of the fact that all over this country, for five years, people have not had the opportunity of selecting their own council?
    Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I am not sure that the circumstances on the Continent are exactly the same as they are in this country. In France, for example, they have no Parliament yet, whereas our Parliament has been running all the time.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Are preparations being made for local elections next April? The right hon. Gentleman might tell us that.
    Mr. Morrison: I cannot say, but I am anxious that when local elections come they shall be conducted on a basis which is representative and will give representative results. It would be premature to make a statement at the present time, but I am not unsympathetic to the desire that local elections should be resumed.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: If legislation is introduced, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of the undemocratic system whereby aldermen do not have to present themselves to the electorate for election?
    Mr. Morrison: I am a county alderman myself and I have great respect for the institution.
    Mr. Thorne: Why not abolish aldermen altogether?

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (PENSION INCREASES)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with paying out increased pensions due under the Pensions (Increase) Act to pensioners in the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Grants under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, have been made to 2,750 Metropolitan Police widows and their children. 700 applications from widows and 7,000 applications from retired police officers are outstanding.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Home Secretary realise that these figures mean that under an Act of Parliament which we passed last February and which operates from last January less than one-quarter of the applications have so far been dealt with, and will he remember in this connection that "He gives twice who gives quickly?"
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, an Act of Parliament may be passed, but administrative preparations have to be made. I have made inquiries and I think it is going with all reasonable speed. There are staffing difficulties; there has been evacuation, people are moving about, and

    1921
    often inquiries have to be made. I can assure the hon. Member that I want to get on with this, as quickly as I can.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Home Secretary aware that at the present rate of progress it will be four years before this is done and that half the fellows will be dead by that time?
    Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Member is being pessimistic.
    Miss Rathbone: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is over two years since the House passed a unanimous recommendation on the subject of police pensions, especially for widows, and that absolutely nothing has resulted?
    Mr. Morrison: That is another matter.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Demobilised Personnel (Clothing)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if part-time unpaid A.R.P. wardens and other Civil Defence workers will on retirement be allowed to retain their greatcoats and boots.
    Commander King-Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when part-time members of the Civil Defence forces are demobilised, they will be allowed to retain their uniforms free of charge.
    Mr. H. Morrison: It is the wish of the Government that part-time members of Civil Defence Service, including the National Fire Service and the Fire Guard, should be allowed to retain the authorised uniform (including greatcoats and leather boots or shoes), with which they have been supplied for duty purposes. In the case of the Civil Defence General Services and the Fire Guard, the actual decision with regard to retention or withdrawal must rest with the local authority, which has bought the uniform with the aid of grant, but I hope that local authorities will give effect to the Government's wish in this respect and thus show their appreciation of the splendid services which have been rendered without payment by these men and women. In the case of the N.F.S., the retention of the fireman's tunic cannot, on security grounds, be allowed, and it must be surrendered. In lieu of the tunic, part-time members of
    1922
    the N.F.S. will be allowed to retain a set of dungarees. It will be a condition of retention of uniform that all badges and other insignia (except war service chevrons and wound stripes) are to be removed before it is worn on unofficial occasions. Details will be communicated to the responsible authorities as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lipson: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very satisfactory answer.

    Motor-Car Headlights
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that some motor-cars use open or strong headlights, he will allow all motor-cars to use the same standard of headlighting in order to contribute to safety on the roads and to facilitate travelling.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The standard of lighting for motor-car headlamps is the same for all vehicles. As regards the remainder of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Jewson) on 5th October.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend consider that even if the standard is the same, the practice is not, and there is real danger when driving down the Great West Road and other roads where perhaps one car out of five, or out of ten, has a full headlight and all the rest have dimmed headlights; has not the time come when we can at least have lighting on the roads and so save some of the lives which we are losing?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that, if it be the case that some people are breaking our law, it is our duty to do something about it. If particulars are given to me, I will take them up with the appropriate authorities with pleasure and with energy, even if they are cases which concern Allied Forces. But I cannot see that it necessarily follows that because somebody on the road has blazing headlights, it would be more safe if everybody had blazing headlights.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a drive down there and see for himself, as anyone who motors knows, that it is dangerous to have different kinds of lighting?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman in a reply last week on the subject, undertook to approach the authorities on the subject of bright lights on lorries. Has he in fact done so?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not know that I did give that undertaking. If I did, we probably have done so.

    Evacuees, Eire
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that women and children who, in response to the Government invitation to relieve the pressure on the official evacuation scheme, went to Eire in August under their own arrangements without any condition as to the minimum period they would remain are now being told by the United Kingdom permit office in Dublin that they must remain in Eire for six months; and whether he will alter this rule forthwith.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Instructions have already been issued to the United Kingdom permit office in Dublin to grant visas to persons who were granted exit permits to enable them to take refuge in Eire from flying bombs and who now desire to return to their homes in Great Britain.

    Young Men (Full-time Duties)
    Colonel Viscount Suirdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total number of men between the ages of 18 and 38 who are engaged in full-time duties in Civil Defence at the present time;
    (2) what is the total number of men between the ages of 18 and 38 who are engaged in full-time duties with the N.F.S. at the present time.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that no recent figures are available, but in January last about one-fifth of the whole-time male members of the Civil Defence Reserve and General Services were in this age group. The great bulk of these men were in the Rescue Service, and over the age of. 34 Of the men in the National Fire Service about 60 per cent. were in the age group in question; but the number of men under 34 was some 25 per cent, of the total whole-time male strength of the service. It would not be in the public interest to give the numbers of men concerned.

    Discharged Personnel (King's Badge)
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any decision has now been taken as to the issue of the King's Badge to personnel discharged from the National Fire and Civil Defence Services.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas) on 18th July.

    Klaxon Horns, London
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the installation of klaxon horns as a local warning of the approach of flying bombs has been abandoned.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Klaxons were intended to provide a local warning in London for flying bombs when attacks were frequent and prolonged. Since the capture of the flying bomb bases in France and Belgium, the scale of attack has been considerably reduced. It has, therefore, been decided that the expenditure of man-power and materials required to complete the manufacture of klaxons and to instal them, and the greater expenditure of man-power required to operate them after installation, are not now justified. The siren warning is still in use and is, I think, adequate.

    WOMEN'S VOLUNTARY SERVICE
    Mrs. Tateasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any attempt has been made to estimate what it would have cost the State had they had to pay at current rates for the work done voluntarily for almost every Government department by the W.V.S.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The cost of administration of the W.V.S., in so far as it is borne by the Exchequer, is carried on the Ministry of Home Security Vote. The services of the W.V.S. to other Departments are a matter of direct arrangement by those Departments, and no assessment of their aggregate money value is possible. Indeed I should feel it indelicate to attempt to put a cash value on the fine work of this public-spirited body of British women. I am sure that all the Ministers concerned would readily

    1925
    acknowledge, as I take this opportunity of doing for the Ministry of Home Security, the great value to the community of the work of the W.V.S.
    Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his extraordinarily flowery tributes to the work of women would be far more impressive, if the Government sometimes backed them with material evidence of their appreciation; and could we know when the membership of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay will be announced?
    Mr. Morrison: That is far beyond my competence, but the Deputy-Prime Minister tells me that there is a written Question about it to-day.

    RIGHT CLUB (MEMBERSHIP)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now publish the complete list of members of the Right Club, the activities of which were the subject of police inquiries.
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now publish the names of the members of the Right Club, seeing that the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay), in the statement recently circulated by him, has given his own account of the club and named certain members of both Houses as connected with it and has stated that among the grounds given to him by the Home Office for his detention under Regulation 18B was the subversive character of the club.
    Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. For reasons which I have explained on a previous occasion I do not think that it would be fair or in the public interest to publish this list, but I can give an assurance that appropriate steps are taken to watch any individual against whom there are grounds of suspicion.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this club existed for the specific purpose of spreading anti-Semitism; and, in view of the fact that anti-Semitism is one of the classic weapons of Nazism and Fascism, is it not time to let the light of day in on the proceedings and personnel of this very shady secret society?
    Mr. Morrison: I still think it would be unfair to publish the list. [An HON MEMBER: "Why?"]It is a list which has been compiled by a private individual. It may be correct, or it may not. There may be people who went on that list, with or without the opinions to which the hon. Member referred, and to publish lists of this character would, I think, be an improper use of the information which comes to the Home Office in all sorts of ways, and from all sorts of directions.
    Mr. Shinwell: If there should be any truth—I am not suggesting that there is—in the allegation that some hon. Members of the House, past and present, were members of this club and were supporters of subversive activities, is it not desirable in the public interest and in the interest of Members as a whole, that the list should be published?
    Mr. Morrison: If hon. Members were engaged in activities which were unlawful the law would have taken its course. If their activities were such that they should have been detained under Regulation 18B, they would have been so detained. That not being the case in these instances, it would be wrong for me to publish lists that come to me in a certain way.
    Mr. Manner: Can the Home Secretary say whether Lord Haw-Haw and the convict Tyler Kent are still members of the Right Club?
    Mr. Morrison: That is a question which I obviously should not answer, having regard to the previous answers given by me.
    Mr. Pritt: With reference rather to Question 61 and on the general matter, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the circumstances are now somewhat different? The hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) has now disclosed that one of the reasons why he was interned was his connection with the Right Club, and has described it as having close connection with the Conservative Party and having Conservative members. Is it not only fair to the Conservative Party to publish, not an inaccurate, but an accurate list of those persons known to the Home Secretary to be members of the Right Club?
    Mr. Morrison: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman says is one thing, but I cannot agree that that should bind me.

    1927
    One of these days I might be asked in this House if I will publish a list, for example, of secret members of the Communist Party. I am not sure that my hon. and learned Friend would say that it was right for me to publish it.
    Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Home Secretary if it is not the case that all, or some, of those who were members of the Right Club, were accessories to the theft of documents and to espionage carried on by Tyler Kent and Anna Wolkoff? Is it not right that this House should know who these Members are who were accessories to the activities of these two people? Will the Minister dare to deny that they were accessories to the theft of documents?
    Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend is getting into rather deep water in relation to these questions. Of course, as he will recall, there have been some other people who have improperly acquired official information.
    Mr. Driberg: In view of the Home Secretary's tenderness to this quisling organisation, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As I, too, have put down a Question on this subject, I also would like to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for the Minister to dodge an answer to my question by referring to another case where the offender was prosecuted? If the offender was prosecuted in one case, why is he not prosecuted in the other case?
    Mr. Morrison: He was.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

    DEFENCE REGULATION 18B (DETAINEES)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British subjects are now detained under Regulation 18B; and how many of these were members of the British Union, of the Right Club and of other organisations of a Fascist or other anti-democratic nature.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The number of British subjects detained under the Regulation is 114. As the hon. Member is aware, membership of the British Union is only one of the grounds of detention under the Regulation. The great majority are detained on the grounds of hostile origin or associations—many being persons who, though British subjects by birth in this country, also possess enemy nationality. Persons detained on these other grounds are not classified according to whether or not they have belonged at any time to a Fascist or anti-democratic organisation, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give the information asked for.
    Mr. Driberg: Is there any point in keeping the small fry in any longer, when the arch-traitors are released?
    Mr. Morrison: I will take note of my hon. Friend's wish that all persons detained under 18B shall be released.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not likely that some of those detained under 18B are less responsible for subversive action than the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) whom he has released? Why does he make this distinction? Can he explain why distinction is made between the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles who has been released, and the others who are still incarcerated?
    Mr. Morrison: There is a distinction of some sort about every person released under Defence Regulation 18B. There must be some order of priority, and that I try to apply as fairly as I can. Clearly the reason must be that I thought it safer to let out the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles than some of the people who are still inside, but they will all be considered in due course. My hon. Friend questions whether I have been fairly administering the Regulation. I have tried to do so, and he must take it that I am forced to let people out in order of priority, which has relation to the interests of public security.
    Mr. Shinwell: But would my right hon. Friend not be disposed to agree—I give him credit for all sincerity and integrity in this matter—that where an hon. Member is concerned, there ought to be no No. 1 priority but that he should be the last to be liberated because of his public responsibility?
    Mr. Morrison: The position of a Member of Parliament cuts both ways. It can be argued in his favour; it can, in certain respects, be argued against him. I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue in these cases is one of balance of consideration against consideration. I do my best and, honestly, I feel that the Regulation has been fairly administered and that it is right, in the circumstances, to release some people before others, and to keep others until later.

    BATTLE OF BRITAIN (AWARD)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Prime Minister whether, as four years have elapsed since the Battle of Britain, he will consider the granting of a distinctive emblem to be worn on the ribbon of the 1939–43 star, in a similar manner to that authorised for the Army numeral on the Africa Star, to air crews engaged operationally in that victory.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This matter is under consideration.

    BOMB DAMAGE REPAIRS, LONDON
    Mr. Astorasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for periodical meetings between London Members and Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve.
    Mr. Attlee: Several Ministers are concerned in the repair of houses and the provision of temporary accommodation in London. I have arranged that my right hon. and Noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction will meet the London Members. He will be accompanied by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and by the representatives of other Ministers, as necessary.
    Mr. Astor: Will these meetings be repeated at reasonably regular intervals?
    Mr. Attlee: That is a matter for consideration. The hon. Member should deal with the Ministers on these matters.
    Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us have constituents working in London on this bomb damage who are also interested? Could these hon. Members take part also?
    Mr. Attlee: It is always open to hon. Members to make arrangements to see Ministers, and Ministers are always willing to see hon. Members. It should not be regarded as a matter which has to be the subject of special arrangement.

  AGRICULTURE

    Fencing Wire
    Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Gloucestershire Agriculture Committee is stocking and selling fencing wire; and whether it is part of the Government's policy to encourage trade through such organisations to the detriment of traders dealing in these articles.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): Earlier this year the Gloucestershire War Agricultural Executive Committee purchased a stock of barbed wire and some of this wire has been sold to farmers. The question of the disposal of the balance of the stock is under consideration. The Committee's purchases will in future be limited to their own reqiurements. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

    Steel Sheets and Bolts
    Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the list of firms from whom steel sheets and bolts can be obtained, issued by his Ministry, was issued after consultation with the trade; and whether it includes a number of people who have never previously handled such goods.
    Mr. T. Williams: The arrangements for distribution which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind apply only to a relatively small quantity of surplus sheets and bolts which were originally constituent parts of silos, the manufacture of which was arranged by my Department as part of the silage campaign carried out in 1940. The sale of these silos to farmers was entrusted to certain firms of general agricultural merchants who at that time were in a position to stock them together with component parts of silage. When the demand for these silos had been met, the surplus parts were made available to farmers through the stockists concerned.
    Captain Strickland: Is it the policy of the Board of Agriculture to encourage the disposal of these agricultural parts to those recognised in the trade, and is the disposal confined to traders in that particular line?
    Mr. Williams: In the particular case in question, the spare parts referred to having been lodged in the premises of something like 134 merchants, when there were. nuts and bolts left it would have been unsound economy again to have distributed those nuts and bolts to other dealers. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend however that there is no intention of establishing a Government monopoly in these parts.

    River Ogmore (Flooding)
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to prevent the serious flooding of the river Ogmore and the danger therefrom to life and property at Bridgend; and whether he will arrange for officials of the Catchment Board to meet representatives of the urban district council on the spot to decide upon preventive measures being taken before the winter sets in.
    Mr. T. Williams: I understand that a fortnight ago representatives of the Mid-Glamorgan Rivers Catchment Board, who are the responsible drainage authority, received a deputation from the urban district council and informed them that if the council were prepared to make a substantial contribution under Section 32 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, towards the execution of protective works, the Board would carefully consider the position. My right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider for grant-aid under the Act any suitable scheme of works which may be submitted by the Board.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Would the Minister like members of the council and officials of the catchment board to visit the site and discuss the matter, because it is getting serious?
    Mr. T. Williams: The catchment board are the statutory bodies who deal with such drainage schemes. I understand that they have already met the urban district council representatives, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would be very happy if they would visit the area and suggest a scheme at the earliest possible moment.

    Land Utilisation
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to define the agricultural land that must not be used for building sites adjacent to towns and cities which are expected to have a housing overspill.
    Mr. T. Williams: My right hon. Friend's rural land utilisation officers are in close and constant touch with the regional planning officers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Full information about agricultural considerations, including the quality of land, is made available to planning authorities in order to avoid, wherever possible, the diversion of productive agricultural land to building and other industrial development.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that a good many local authorities are very anxious to increase their rateable value, and that there is a great temptation to use this agricultural land? Will he try to make this impossible?
    Mr. Williams: My right hon. Friend, as my hon. Friend may be aware, does not possess powers, except temporary powers under Defence Regulation 51 for food production, to prevent the development of good agricultural land. But, by agreement with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, wherever the use of good agricultural land can be avoided, such influences are brought to bear.
    Mr. Bossom: Would my right hon. Friend do his best to make this information as widespread as possible? I can name certain places where this is being actually done, or is being considered at the moment.
    Mr. Williams: I hope my hon. Friend's questions and my replies will get the publicity they deserve.

    Women's Land Army
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that as the land-girls employed under the Ministry are recruited mainly from non-rural areas they are not as interested in animals as if their origin had been rural; and whether he will take special steps to interest new entrants in animals;

    1933
    (2) what proportion of the land-girls are able to milk; and whether he will encourage all land-girls to acquire this accomplishment and offer prizes for this purpose.
    Mr. T. Williams: Special attention is already given to encouraging volunteers for the W.L.A. from both urban and rural areas to take up milking and the care of livestock. I have no information about the proportion of land-girls who are able to milk, but about one-third of those employed on farms or by war agricultural executive committees are employed as milkers, or on general farm work, including milking.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Will my right hon. Friend consider granting prizes, such as I have suggested?
    Mr. Williams: I rather doubt whether that suggestion would be wise. If we start granting prizes to one section, we shall have to make universal distribution of prizes over all sections of agriculture.

    Gardeners (Prisoners of War)
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the shortage of gardeners is grave; and whether he will consider using prisoners of war to help in gardens and teach them as soon as possible to look after bees and goats.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that there is a shortage of private gardeners, but all the prisoners of war at present available for agriculture are required for urgent work on farms, or for essential land drainage. It would not be in the national interest to divert such labour either to work in private gardens, or for training in the care of bees and goats.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Are there any German prisoners working on the land to-day in this country?
    Mr. Williams: I believe so, but I am unable to give the exact number at the moment.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: What is the good of capturing Germans, unless we use them?

    Ex-Servicemen (Land Settlement)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as regards the plans of the Ministry which have been
    1934
    formulated for land settlement of ex-Servicemen and their post-war livelihood and the question of smallholdings, he can give an assurance that the Ministry have consulted with and obtained the evidence of the Land Settlement Association.
    Mr. T. Williams: No such plans as those referred to by my hon. Friend have been formulated. My right hon. Friend has received a memorandum setting out the views of the Land Settlement Association.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend propose to read, mark and inwardly digest this important document? It is a very important matter.

    LONDON CLUBS (POKER GAMES)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, despite two recent decisions at the London Sessions, certain London clubs are still conducting poker games; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. H. Morrison: No action on my part is called for. The Commissioner of Police will continue to take proceedings under the Gaming Acts in all appropriate cases.

    PRISON COMMISSION (REPORT)
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Prison Commission last published an Annual Report; and whether, in view of the changes made in prison administration during the war, he will consider publishing a Report at an early date.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The last Report for the year 1938 was published in December, 1939. The need for economising in manpower and paper is still urgent, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a report will be published as soon as is practicable.
    Mr. Astor: Will a report be published this year?
    Mr. Morrison: I cannot say.

    MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (GROUNDS OF DETENTION)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the hon. and gallant Member

    1935
    for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) has circulated to certain hon. Members of this House a document containing what purport to be the particulars alleged by the Home Office as reasonable grounds for his detention; and if, for the information of all hon. Members, he will circulate in HANSARD a full version of such particulars.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I have seen a newspaper report of statements alleged to have been made by the hon. and gallant Member as to the grounds for his detention. Regulation 18B provides that the chairman of the Advisory Committee shall furnish a person detained under the Regulation with such particulars of the grounds on which the detention order was made as are in the opinion of the chairman sufficient to enable him to present his case. For reasons which I explained at length in the Debate on 16th June, it would be wrong for me to disclose these particulars. If the recipient of such particulars chooses to make or publish a statement about them, my duty to refrain from any public statement remains unaffected, and I cannot depart from the policy which has been consistently followed and stated to the House.
    Mr. Driberg: Since, by the hon. and gallant Member's action, these particulars, which were official and secret, have received at any rate a limited amount of publicity, is it not desirable, for the information of all hon. Members, that they should be put on record?
    Mr. Morrison: Application had better be made to the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay). I must have a principle in this matter. It must be remembered that these people were not convicted of anything, not found guilty under the law. They were detained by my will because I thought it reasonable and necessary in the national interest, and I think it would be wrong to blazon forth the charges—or rather, not the charges but the grounds on which their detention was made.

    EIRE CITIZENS (MIGRATION TO UNITED KINGDOM)
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to
    1936
    the figures published by the Eire Department of Industry and Commerce, showing that the following citizens of Eire have emigrated for work to Great Britain and Northern Ireland: 1941, 35,132; 1942, 51,711; 1943, 48,324; how many of these have gone to Great Britain and how many to Northern Ireland; and what is the length of the period which they are allowed to reside in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, respectively.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Separate figures have not as I understand been published showing how many of the persons in question have come into Great Britain and how many into Northern Ireland, and it would be better for the present that such figures should not be made public. The entry into Great Britain of temporary workers from Eire is strictly controlled. Permits are granted for an initial period of three or six months according to the nature of the employment, and the granting of further extensions is subject to satisfactory work and conduct. As regards Northern Ireland, I am informed that since the Residence (Northern Ireland) Restriction Order came into operation the usual practice has been to grant permits for residence in Northern Ireland for an initial period of six months, and a similar period is normally allowed in cases where permits are renewed.
    Professor Savory: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that at the close of the last war members of the Ulster Division, on returning to Belfast, found their posts occupied by immigrants from Southern Ireland? Is he satisfied that such an occurrence will be prevented on this occasion?
    Mr. Morrison: I understand that that consideration was kept in mind when the Northern Ireland Government caused the Order to be made. If the matter is to be raised, I think it would be best raised by the Northern Ireland Government with the United Kingdom Government.

    SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS (SHORTAGE)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Education how far the shortage of textbooks required for schools has been met.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): I have been in touch for some time with those of my colleagues who are concerned with the object of securing an increase

    1937
    in the allocation of paper for educational books and I am glad to say that, in spite of the many pressing calls upon the available supplies, a substantial additional tonnage of paper has now been allocated which should go a considerable way towards meeting the most urgent cases of shortage.
    Mr. Lipson: Does that answer mean that die work of the schools is still suffering from shortage of paper?
    Mr. Butler: I rather fear that is so. We are certainly suffering from a shortage.
    Mr. Cove: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the National Committee representing the publishers of these books are completely dissatisfied with the answer given by his right hon. Friend, and that the shortage in essential textbooks for school certificate and higher school certificate which have been laid down in the syllabus of the examinations cannot be printed, and the students have not got the books for the examination?
    Mr. Butler: It is precisely because of some of these difficulties that this allocation has been made. If those concerned will apply to the Moberley Committee I hope they will get the assistance they require.
    Mr. Cove: That application has been made and they are thoroughly dissatisfied. I think the best thing will be to have a Debate at a convenient date, and I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: No further questions can be asked as notice has been given to raise the matter.

  HOUSING

    Furniture Supplies
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to encourage all local authorities to make use of their powers to supply essential furniture at cost price to the tenants of both temporary and permanent dwellings provided by the local authorities.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): This matter will be dealt with in the memorandum on temporary houses which I propose shortly to issue to local authorities. I will consider whether any further guidance is necessary as regards permanent dwellings.

    Portal Bungalows
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Health which local authorities in the London Civil Defence region have applied for Portal bungalows; and what were the requirements in each case.
    Mr. Willink: As the list is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Captain Duncan: How many have the London County Council asked for?
    Mr. Willink: We have not yet had their application.
    Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say which type of Portal bungalow had been applied for in each case?
    Mr. Willink: No—the applications were simply for bungalows.
    Following is the list:
    The following applications have been received from local authorities in the London Civil Region for an allocation of factory made temporary houses:

    METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS

    Battersea

    …

    750

    Bethnal Green

    …

    403

    Chelsea

    …

    150

    Deptford

    …

    300

    Fulham

    …

    206

    Greenwich

    …

    100

    Hackney

    …

    500

    Islington

    …

    250

    Kensington

    …

    105

    Lambeth

    …

    600

    Lewisham

    …

    3,250

    Paddington

    …

    50

    Poplar

    …

    2,000

    St. Marylebone

    …

    120

    St. Pancras

    …

    500

    Shoreditch

    …

    200

    Southwark

    …

    300

    Stoke Newington

    …

    50

    Wandsworth

    …

    2,500

    Westminister

    …

    50

    Woolwich

    …

    922

    Middlesex

    Acton B.

    …

    200

    Brentford and Chiswick B.

    …

    100

    Ealing B.

    …

    1,000

    Edmonton B.

    …

    102

    Finchley B.

    …

    50

    Hendon B.

    …

    500

    Heston and Isleworth B.

    …

    200

    Hornsey B.

    …

    200

    Southall B.

    …

    300

    Tottenham B.

    …

    600

    Twickenham B.

    …

    100

    Willesden B.

    …

    1,100

    Wood Green B.

    …

    210

    Enfield U.D.

    …

    500

    Feltham U.D.

    …

    300

    Harrow U.D.

    …

    500

    Potters Bar U.D.

    …

    100

    Ruislip-Northwood U.D.

    …

    200

    Uxbridge U.D.

    …

    250

    Essex

    West Ham C.B.

    …

    600

    Barking B.

    …

    500

    Dagenham B.

    …

    200

    Ilford B.

    …

    300

    Leyton B.

    …

    150

    Chigwell U.D.

    …

    150

    Waltham Holy Cross U.D.

    …

    200

    Herts

    Barnet U.D.

    …

    100

    Bushey U.D.

    …

    75

    Cheshunt U.D.

    …

    290

    East Barnet U.D.

    …

    50

    Kent

    Beckenham B.

    …

    200

    Bromley B.

    …

    150

    Crayford U.D.

    …

    50

    Orpington U.D.

    …

    100

    Surrey

    Croydon C.B.

    …

    1,500

    Beddington and Wallington B

    …

    150

    Epsom and Ewell B.

    …

    500

    Kingston-upon-Thames B.

    …

    100

    Malden and Coombe B.

    …

    200

    Mitcham B.

    …

    500

    Surbiton B.

    …

    500

    Wimbledon B.

    …

    500

    Banstead U.D.

    …

    200

    Coulsdon and Purley U.D.

    …

    300

    Surveys (Technical Officers)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Health if local authorities are satisfied that they have in their service, or readily available, a sufficient number of professional and technical officers to enable them to bring to a speedy conclusion the works of survey, lay out and design, that must be completed before contracts for house building can be put out to tender.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. But every effort is being made to help local authorities to get the staff they need.

    Accommodation, Barking
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Health what is the reason for his refusal to sanction Barking Council's request to requisition 22 houses in Sheringham Drive, Barking, and complete them as 44 flats for the use of bombed-out persons.
    Mr. Willink: I am not prepared to authorise requisition in present circumstances because the houses require extensive works to complete them, and the labour and material needed can be better utilised on the repair of war damage.

    House Owners (Recovery of Possession)
    Major Petoasked the Minister of Health whether the Rent Restrictions
    1940
    Committee is dealing with the difficult question of a large number of Service men and others who cannot recover occupancy of their own houses; and when its Report may be expected.
    Mr. Willink: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 28th September.

    Temporary Houses
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the emergency houses, of which the prototypes are to be seen at the Tate Gallery, will be satisfactory from both constructional and hygienic points of view; and in what way they do not conform to his Ministry's model by-laws.
    Mr. Willink: These prototypes have been approved by the Burt Committee from the constructional aspect, and they will, I am advised, be satisfactory from the hygienic point of view under the conditions of licensed use in public ownership. They do not conform to the model by-laws in regard to height of rooms and ventilation under the ground floor, and questions may arise in regard to siting and the position of outbuildings.
    Mr. Bossom: In the circumstances could not my right hon. and learned Friend look at the model by-laws and see if they cannot be brought up to date? If they are good enough for the Government to produce, why should not the public have a right to produce them also?
    Mr. Willink: These bungalows are temporary.
    Mr. Bossom: They are going to be occupied by the same human beings as the others. Why cannot the same by-laws apply to both?
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Are the houses available for Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Willink: I believe they are still available. If there is any difficulty, my hon. Friend should consult the Ministry of Works.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what will be the Business for next week?
Mr. Attlee: The Business for next week will he as follows:
Tuesday, 17th October—Debate on Welsh Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Afterwards there will be a Motion to approve the Cold Storage (Control of Undertakings) (Charges) Amendment Order.
Wednesday and Thursday, 18th and 19th October—Report and Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Friday, 20th October—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure, Second Reading of the Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Bill, which is expected to be received from another place, Committee and remaining stages of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords], Motion for a humble Address relating to the Aden Colony (Amendment) Order.
Mr. Greenwood: With regard to the Business for Wednesday and Thursday, as the Government have stated that the compensation Clauses of the Bill are now under consideration and discussions have taken and are to take place between representatives of the various parties and my right hon. Friend, what arrangements are to be made to inform the House of the Government's conclusions in advance of the resumption of the Debate?
Mr. Attlee: We will endeavour to get the Amendments on the Paper as soon as we can, though I doubt whether we shall be able to do so much before Tuesday. I will consider whether anything else can be done.
Mr. Greenwood: If the Amendments are not on the Paper until Tuesday it is rather hard on Members. Could not some arrangement be made whereby the House will be informed of the conclusions of the Government, or the principles on which they are going to amend the Clauses which have been under discussion?
Mr. Attlee: I will consider that. I recognise the difficulty. The trouble is that the question is complicated and its translation into legislation is an extremely
1942
complicated matter for the draftsmen, who are rather hard driven. But I will consider it, in consultation with others, to see whether we cannot satisfy the House.
Mr. Greenwood: I am not asking for details, but I think the House ought to be informed of the broad proposals that the Government mean to submit.
Sir Percy Harris: With regard to Friday's Business, is a Debate anticipated? If so, will any particular subject be dealt with? We do not want to have a subject sprung on the Committee without warning.
Mr. Attlee: It will be possible to raise various matters but we have had a recent Debate on war finance and we should like to get on with other Business.
Mr. Stephen: Has agreement been come to in the Cabinet in connection with the Town and Country Planning Bill?
Mr. Attlee: Yes, and proposals will soon be brought forward.
Mrs. Tate: Is it proposed to have a Debate on civil aviation before the end of the present Session?
Mr. Attlee: We have had four Debates on civil aviation. It would perhaps he a good thing to allow the new Minister time.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will there be an early opportunity of discussing the conference at Dumbarton Oaks?
Mr. Attlee: We must remember that there is important legislation to be got through and there will be very wide opportunities for discussion on the King's Speech in the new Session. I am sure hon. Members would not like to exhaust all the interesting subjects before they come to it.
Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says that consultations are taking place on the compensation Clauses with representatives of various parties; will he give some indication of who the representatives are?
Mr. Attlee: I did not say representatives; I said various Members.
Sir H. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate who the various Members are?
Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member will see me, I will be glad to tell him.
Mr. Martin: Will the House have some opportunity of discussing the London situation and the replacement of houses?
Mr. Attlee: I think that there has been some discussion about that, but perhaps the hon. Member will approach the usual channels.
Commander King-Hall: May I ask when the Government will be able to announce the date of the termination of the present Session?
Mr. Attlee: It depends very largely on how we get on in clearing up necessary legislation.
Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Will the Government publish the Dumbarton Oaks proposals in a White Paper?
Mr. Attlee: I should like notice of that question; perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it on the Paper.
Mr. Muff: Can my right hon. Friend afford facilities for a full Debate on the conditions and length of service of our soldiers serving overseas?
Mr. Attlee: All these other matters should be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Bowles: What does my right hon. Friend propose that English and Scottish Members should do on Tuesday next?
Mr. Attlee: It will be a great opportunity for them to listen to the eloquence of their colleagues from Wales.
Mr. Buchanan: With regard to the Business for to-morrow, the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill has been put down as the second Order. I have no knowledge of how long the first Order will take, and what is likely to happen on the second, but it may well be that the discussion on the first Order will last some time. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the importance of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, he will consider taking it as the first Order or, alternatively, suspending the Rule.
Mr. Attlee: We hope to get on with the first Order so that there will be adequate time for the second. As the hon. Member knows, we cannot very well suspend the Rule on a Friday.
Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment insurance is a matter which affects the wellbeing of great masses of people? It is constantly being put down second, and I would ask him whether, on this occasion, it cannot be put down as the first Order.
Mr. Attlee: I will look into that and try to meet the general convenience of Members.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTEN SION) BILL (SECOND READING DEBATE)
Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. With regard to the Diplomatic Privileges Bill, which is put down for to-morrow, the Debate was adjourned because of the opposition to it from all quarters of the House. When the Debate is resumed tomorrow, none of the critics, if the Rules are strictly observed, will be permitted to take part in the Debate. It seems unfortunate that those who have taken most interest in it will not be able to make remarks on a Bill which, judging from the Amendments on the Order Paper, is now to be substantially altered.
Mr. Buchanan: In regard to that matter could I press the right hon. Gentleman on the point I have just raised? The Diplomatic Privileges Bill is regarded by some Members as of importance and there is a series of Amendments down to it. The other Bill is a human matter, and I would seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman not to regard a Bill affecting the whole life of our people as of secondary importance.
Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is quite wrong. There is no question of considering it as of secondary importance. We have a great deal of legislation to get through, but there is no intention of not giving adequate time to it.
Mr. Speaker: In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), of course, the Rule of the House is that one cannot speak a second time in a Second Reading Debate, except by leave of the House, and as the hon. Member says that might be very inconvenient. Possibly the House would give leave to hon. Members to speak again—[HON. MEMBERS: "All?"]—but I do not think that would be quite

1945
fair because, after one or two Members had been given leave to speak, there might be some others who had spoken and to whom the House would say "No." I do not think, therefore, that that is really a good answer. If there is to be a Debate on this Bill—and I understand it is possible there may not be—I suggest to hon. Members that if they put down a reasoned Amendment there will be another Question before the House, on which they may have a chance to speak if they catch my eye.
Mr. Stephen: On Business—
Mr. Speaker: We have got on to a point of Order. The discussion on Business is finished now.
Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. If we are on Business when a point of Order is raised, should we not be able to go back to Business when the point of Order has been disposed of?
Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) when we finished Business questions. We cannot discuss Business questions the whole morning.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTEN SION) BILL (SECOND READING DEBATE)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Amendment to:
  India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That the Proceedings on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for the division of abnormally large constituencies, and permanent provision for the redistribution of seats at Parliamentary elections, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Boundary Commissions constituted by the said Act, including the travelling and other expenses of the members of the Commissions and the remuneration and expenses of the assistant Commissioners, secretaries and other officers."
  Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of permanent Boundary Commissions)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Parker: In Sub-section (4) it is stated that Monmouth should be included with Wales, and I would like to make a protest. Whenever we have legislation introduced in which Wales is to have some different laws from England, Monmouth is added. It is high time that we had a short one-Clause Bill to provide that Monmouth is to be counted as part of Wales, so it will not be necessary, in every Bill which provides something different as between Wales and England, to add a Clause to provide that Monmouth shall be treated as part of Wales. If the Government did not wish a law to apply to Wales, but to apply to Mon-

  1967
  mouth, they could have a Clause including Monmouth. It is time we finished this farce.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This point comes on me by way of surprise. I do not know the historical details, and I am not sure whether it is always the case that Monmouth is added in legislative enactments.
  Mr. Parker: In the Acts relating to the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, and the Sunday closing of public houses, the two main things on which there are different laws in Wales and England, Monmouth counts as part of Wales.
  Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but I will consider the point. The precedents are numerous for the course that is taken in this Bill. What Monmouth feels about it, whether it wishes to be part of Wales or part of England, or whether it wishes to have the best of both worlds by being added to Wales when it is convenient for it to be added, I do not know. I am afraid that it must stand as far as this Bill is concerned, but I will pursue historical research studies in the light of what my hon. Friend has said and see whether the point ought to be followed up.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Immediate division of constituencies having electorates exceeding 100,000.)
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, leave out "existing," and insert "abnormally large."
  I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to all the seven Amendments standing in my name. The first six are purely drafting and are all in the same words. The term "existing" here means exactly the same as "abnormally large," and the only reason for substituting "abnormally large" is that that phrase will be more appropriate in the context if the Committee adopts my seventh Amendment—
  In page 2, line 27, at end, insert,—(2)
  Where—
  (a) any part of a county borough or county district within the meaning of the Local
  1968
  Government Act, 1933, is included in an abnormally large constituency, and another part thereof is included in an adjoining constituency which is not an abnormally large constituency; and
  (b) the Boundary Commission are of opinion that it is desirable to include both parts of the county borough or county district in the same constituency; they may, for all the purposes of the foregoing subsection, treat the abnormally large constituency as including the adjoining constituency, and the number of new constituencies into which the abnormally large constituency (including the adjoining constituency) is to be divided as increased by one;
  The purpose of this seventh Amendment is to give the Boundary Commissioners greater liberty in fixing the boundaries of the extra seats. It does not make any difference to the number of the extra seats, which will remain 25. I think the briefest way of explaining the point will be to ask hon. Members to imagine that these four walls are the boundaries of one of the abnormally large constituencies which is to be divided into two. Then suppose that the space on the left of Mr. Speaker's Chair comprises the bulk of a municipal borough and the space on the right of Mr. Speaker's Chair comprises the bulk either of an urban or of a rural district or a group of such districts. Also, let hon. Members imagine that part of that borough on the left or part of the district on the right overspills into the lobby behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, which is a constituency not to be divided. The Amendment will enable the Boundary Commissioners, if they think fit, to take that overspill part and add it to one of the new constituencies to be created, so as to give each entire borough or district or group of districts a Member of its own. Alternatively, the contiguous constituency, that is to say the one behind the Chair, might itself comprise the greater part of a municipal borough which overspills into the Chamber, and under this Amendment the Boundary Commissioners would equally have power to subtract that overspill part from the abnormal constituency and add it to the contiguous constituency.
  I want to make it clear that the Amendment applies only where there is an overlap of municipal boundaries. The advantages of making a Parliamentary boundary coincide with a municipal boundary have always been recognised, and they are already recognised in this

  1969
  Bill, as I pointed out on Tuesday. But it is absolutely essential that the exercise of this power should be discretionary, because to exercise it in certain places would undoubtedly create more anomalies than it would remove. For instance, the exercise of the power might make one of the new constituencies either too small or too big, and it must be left to the Boundary Commissioners in each case whether to use their power or not. I think hon. Members will agree that the fact that it would be difficult, even impossible in some cases, to use the power is no reason for not giving the Commissioners the right to use it when it is convenient.
  This Amendment was on the Order Paper on Tuesday, and several hon. Members commented sympathetically on the substance of it; in fact, nobody damned it, and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said the Government had by no means closed their minds to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who was himself a member of the Speaker's Conference, made the reservation that he would not support this Amendment if it involved a really substantial widening of the principles recommended by the Speaker's Conference. My comment on that is that I do not think any large number of contiguous constituencies would suffer any alteration of boundary under this Amendment. In Middlesex, if in every case where they could use the power the Boundary Commissioners did so, only four contiguous constituencies could possibly be touched in drawing the boundaries of the seven new seats. I do not know whether that ratio of four to seven would be greater or less in respect of the other 18 seats in the country, but whatever the theoretical possibilities outside Middlesex it is certain that because of the anomalies which would be created the use of the power would be less. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that under this Amendment less than a dozen constituencies would be touched. Moreover, in some cases, interference with the contiguous constituency would be very small. In Middlesex where, as I have said, only four contiguous seats could suffer an alteration of boundary, in two of the four it would mean only the transfer of a few dozen or a few hundred electors from one constituency to the other.
  1970
  I think it is clear that in all cases where the power is in fact used, and the Parliamentary boundary is thus made to coincide with the local government boundary, it will effect a useful simplification and will stimulate local public spirit and unity. I go further and say, as I did on Tuesday, that in Middlesex, and probably elsewhere, this Amendment will certainly facilitate the task of the Boundary Commissioners, and that without it they would be unable to give satisfactory boundaries to some of the new constituencies to be created.
  Mr. Parker: I would like to support, speaking for myself, this and the other Amendments to which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has referred. In the Speaker's Conference very strong views were expressed, and I think it was generally agreed that in this temporary redistribution there should be as little disturbance as possible of existing constituencies. I think all of us strongly support that view until such time as a general redistribution can take place. But it was pointed out that in certain areas such as Middlesex, Surrey and Essex, where there are large constituencies adjoining one another, it was desirable to treat them as a single unit for the purpose of redividing them into new constituencies, and that again was generally agreed. These Amendments go one point further and deal with the case of the abnormally large constituencies due to be divided up where there has been, perhaps, a reorgansiation of local government boundaries, which means that some small areas, probably in other constituencies, are brought inside those local government areas which may become new constituencies or which might more conveniently be placed in adjacent constituencies not in the Schedule.
  To take an example, the Romford Division contains four large towns, each of which will be putting forward claims to the Boundary Commissioners to become a constituency of its own, but it also happens that the town of Brentwood, which is mainly within the Chelmsford division, has expanded its boundaries in recent years and includes a little piece of the Romford Division and a little piece of South-East Essex. The Brentwood Council are going to submit to the Boundary Commissioners that the whole of their area shall be in one Parliamentary division. They seem to

  1971
  me to have a very strong case, although it is the Boundary Commissioners who will have to listen to the evidence and to make up their minds and make recommendations. It does seem that these Amendments would enable a tidying up in a number of cases where it is desirable that it should take place, and we do not want to have a situation in which new constituencies are created and then the boundaries have to be drawn again when a general redistribution takes place. If that can be avoided without going into very wide circles of upsetting existing constituencies so much the better. The point of view I am putting forward is that one would like to see these small pieces of tidying up taking place, but they would be at the discretion of the Boundary Commissioners, and any recommendations the Commissioners made would come to the House of Commons for confirmation.
  Sir Edward Grig: I rise to support this Amendment and what the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) has so effectively said. We all agree that this power should be discretionary and also that it should be exercised as little as possible in the case of constituencies lying outside the Second Schedule to this Bill, but I think that by giving this discretion to the Boundary Commissioners great inconvenience may be saved to the constituencies which are to be divided at the present time. In the case of my own consituency division will be difficult. It consists of two large boroughs and includes a large housing estate and an aerodrome belonging to Manchester Corporation. It is clear that any division of that constituency which is limited to the boundaries of the constituency as it stands is bound to be upset when the Boundary Commission comes to consider the full scheme of redistribution later. I think it is agreed in all parts of the Committee that so far as possible this immediate and provisional redistribution should be made to fit as far as is humanly possible into the scheme which will ultimately be put forward, and that constituencies which have been divided up for this election should not, unless it is absolutely necessary, be divided again before the next. That is the only point that I wish to make. I think it is a strong case. The power is purely discretionary and I believe will prevent a great deal of local inconvenience, and I
  1972
  therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider it favourably.
  Captain Strickland: I approach this subject with great diffidence because my own constituency of Coventry will become heavily involved in this scheme. A position will arise there which may well arise in other parts of the country. In Coventry we have a municipal borough which is the Parliamentary constituency of Coventry, and radiating out into three other divisions are large numbers of municipal electors. When my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) speaks of a few dozen or a few hundred electors being concerned in such a project I should like to point out what effect it will have on the 89,000 existing electors of Coventry. It will mean the transference of 55,061 voters from Nuneaton and a transference of 10,889 from Tamworth into the City of Coventry. When that has been completed, and it is as much as this Amendment could possibly deal with, there is the problem that there will still be radiating out from the City of Coventry into the Warwick and Leamington division a further 14,929 of the municipal electorate—call it 15,000, because these are only estimated figures. Those people could not possibly be touched upon in this Amendment.
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. Bowles: I do not think the Committee knows what the electorate of Coventry is.
  Captain Strickland: It is 89,000, though it may be 100 or so either way. That is a pretty near estimate of the Parliamentary electorate of the City of Coventry at the present time. What I would point out is that, not being merely a matter of adding a few thousands or hundreds to tidy up a Parliamentary constituency, in the case of Coventry it does mean that it would have to come under consideration again at a further date. We have another problem—and I hope the Committee will forgive me for mentioning my own constituency—but it is a matter which may easily affect other constituencies in the same way. In Coventry we have the situation which arises from the well-known fact that Coventry received the attention of the enemy to no small extent, and we have a vast population outside Coventry—not necessarily living in Nuneaton or Tamworth or Warwick—and many coming in

  1973
  from considerable distances, from the Rugby constituency and other places round about. We do not yet know how many of those displaced Coventry people who have been sent out of the city are coming back after the war.
  Mr. Petherick: Are those people, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers as being displaced by the blitz, included in the 89,000?
  Captain Strickland: They are included, but we do not know how far we can stand on the 89,000 figure. We have another problem. We have a vast number of munition factories in Coventry largely staffed by people directed by the Minister of Labour—not in hundreds, but in thousands—into the city. We do not know how many of these people are going to remain in the constituency. They will be qualified under the new registration, and the position arises that we shall be in a state of flux. The foundations of this Bill were duly considered by the Speaker's Conference and all these things were considered. The Conference came to certain conclusions. There were certain glaring examples, and these examples were taken out and put into a schedule. The Speaker's Conference said "These are the cases which we think ought to be dealt with at once." It did not mean that they were the only anomalies. It was well known to the Speaker's Conference that there were other anomalies which needed adjustment, but, very wisely, the Conference came to the conclusion that it was better to deal with those anomalies which could easily be handled, and leave the general redistribution for further consideration by the Boundary Commission. I see no reason to disturb that.
  As regards equalisation between one constituency and another, let us take the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). Nuneaton has an electorate of something like 112,000, some 12,000 more than the maximum allowed, but under this scheme, Nuneaton parts with 55,061 electors, and becomes a constituency of only 57,000 electors altogether, which at once shows that if you start dealing with this thing in a piecemeal fashion, you are going to create further anomalies. I suggest—not with any sense of opposition because I think there was a lot of wisdom in what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said—that it would be much better to
  1974
  follow the Speaker's Conference and avoid, so far as possible, further anomalies, and then deal with the whole question so that, for instance, the constituency of Nuneaton could be built up to something more reasonably approaching the mean average of the constituencies of the country. I am not in a position to know how this would affect Tamworth because the Tamworth Division is being torn away partly on the Birmingham side as well. But we should have 55,000 electors from Nuneaton, 11,889 from Tamworth and still leave the anomaly of 14,929 municipal electors of the City of Coventry outside the Parliamentary boundary, who would have to be dealt with under a further Redistribution Bill. I am aware that I am putting forward a rather personal point of view, but I am also aware that there may be other cases, especially in Middlesex, which need some sort of help.
  There is one thing I want to make clear finally. I think we ought to have some assurance on the difference between "may" and "shall" in the wording of Acts of Parliament. It is a matter which I have raised often, but have never been satisfied with the explanation given, although I am sure it is my lack of judgment in the matter which stands in the way. Often when I have pleaded that the word "shall", should be replaced by "may" or "may" replaced by "shall", I have been told that they mean one and the same thing. If the Boundary Commissioners are told that they "may" do a thing on this assumption, it would mean that they "shall" do it and therefore that it is binding on them to do it. I cannot support this Amendment and I hope the Committee will give consideration to it, in the sense that it would be proper not to disturb the wise conclusions arrived at by the Speaker's Conference in recommending certain principles to the Committee.
  Mr. Bowles: We have all listened to the only speech so far, opposing this Amendment, and I am perfectly certain that the Committee will agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) is speaking quite impartially. As far as I can see, it will make no difference to him whether this Amendment goes through or not, and, therefore, he is able to give us the benefit of his impartial judgment. But I do

  1975
  challenge his figures. The actual figure, as far as the Food Office registration is concerned, of electors in the Nuneaton Division who live in the municipal area of Coventry is exactly 49,217. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to something like 55,000.
  Captain Strickland: May I interrupt my hon. Friend for a moment, although it is immaterial to the Committee itself. I have the figures in my hand which were given to me by the town clerk. The figure for Nuneaton is 55,061.
  Mr. Bowles: My figures were based on the food registration. However, the position seems to be perfectly simple. Here you have in Nuneaton, Tamworth and Coventry two seats each of which is to be divided into two, making four, and you have Coventry, the fifth, at the Southern end. The position seems to me to be that it is absurd to have two bites at this cherry. There are 50,000 electors, let us agree, who vote in the Parliamentary division of Nuneaton, and who are civic electors in the City of Coventry. Knowing those people who live under that kind of dual allegiance, I am perfectly sure that many of them feel the position to be anomalous. I know perfectly well also that they regard themselves as belonging to the area of the Coventry City Council and the Coventry Parliamentary division. What is proposed in this Amendment is, to give the Boundary Commissioners power to examine a case which may be put to them at the time when the examination is being made in that area. There is no compulsion at all, and I do feel that if the Commissioners were refused this power, this Committee would find that a great mistake had been made.
  Take my constituency, for example. We have 112,000 Parliamentary electors in Nuneaton, 50,000 of whom live in the municipal area of Coventry. If Coventry cannot be looked at by the Boundary Commissioners at all, the Commissioners will divide the Nuneaton Parliamentary division into two—North and South Nuneaton. It may be they would divide it into North-West Nuneaton and South-West Nuneaton. At all events, it will be divided and when the next regional distribution comes along—Heaven knows when that will be—the people in the Southern Nuneaton division will find,
  1976
  naturally and certainly, that they will, in due course, go into the Coventry area. I think the Boundary Commissioners should have the right, here and now, to decide whether it would not be a good idea to divide Coventry and make it a two-Member constituency, once and for a long time.
  I said at the beginning that the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry will not in any case get in at the next General Election so that he was generous in giving us the benefit of his views. I am certain that in that part of Coventry which is the Nuneaton Parliamentary division, he will find there are a large number of good Labour voters.
  Captain Strickland: May I ask my hon. Friend why he is so anxious to get rid of 55,000 electors?
  Sir Herbert Williams: I hope we shall pass this Amendment, provided there is unanimity, because as one who was a member of the Speaker's Conference I recognise there was an all-round agreement which we must not break. Therefore, we must pass this only if there is general acceptance. I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) that this is a permissive power. If when they come to look at Tamworth, Nuneaton and Coventry the Commissioners think that the use of the power would produce undesirable results—and my hon. and gallant Friend and his friends in the district will no doubt have their opportunity of making representations—the door is not closed. I recognised from the beginning that the compromise we arrived at—we could only 'achieve changes now by temporarily increasing the membership of the House by 25—was bound to produce a certain number of anomalies. It would be a terrible thing to bring a constituency into being, and in five years wipe it out again. A constituency ought to have a community feeling. Members of a constituency ought to feel that they belong to the same club. If you bring a constituency into being, knowing that it is only to have a survival of five years, it is a bad thing for that constituency, and for whoever may represent it. The Middlesex problem is the most difficult of the lot. It stands out as calling for treatment rather better than that which the Speaker's Conference proposed, and I am

  1977
  glad to see that there appears to be a consensus of opinion among hon. Members who were not Members of that Conference and those who were, that there is a lot to be said for the Amendment we are now considering. I very much hope the Committee will agree to the Amendment because I am certain it will produce a much better state of affairs, than the Measure in its present form.
  Captain Strickland: I wonder whether it will be possible for the Home Office to consider the inclusion of some words which would enable Coventry to take in municipal boroughs. My point is that you are making two bites at the cherry now if you take in Tamworth and Nuneaton electors. Surely, we must expand this Amendment so that it applies to a constituency such as Warwick, and includes the Warwick municipal voters in the Coventry area. If the Home Office would accept some such form of words, I think that would meet the case.
  12.45 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I rather deprecate—although hon. Members are quite entitled to do it—the making of long dissertations about particular constituencies.
  Captain Strickland rose—
  Earl Winterton: I was not referring to the hon. and gallant Member. I was speaking in general. He need not be so sensitive. He made a rather long speech. I was referring to the Committee in general, but I shall repeat what I said, for his benefit now. I do not think it is necessary to have long dissertations on particular constituencies. What I do want is the principle so well enunciated by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir II. Williams). I know the case of a constituency where considerable trouble has been caused, and a certain amount of difficulty of administration—it is a county borough—by the fact that part of that county borough is in one constituency and another part if it is in an adjoining constituency. It seems a rather ridiculous situation that an anomaly of that kind should not be redressed. I thought the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) somewhat "flummoxed" the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland)—not that that is a difficult thing to do—by his speech, which
  1978
  deprived the hon. and gallant Member of his case and left him naked without a single argument of any kind. I thought the point made by the hon. Member was extremely good. It would be most inopportune if the Bill were passed without giving, at any rate, permissive power to a constituency to consider this matter. I, personally, feel strongly about it and I hope that the hon. Member who put down the Amendment to which my name appeared will, if necessary, go to a Division. Otherwise I do not see how you can condone the matter to your constituents when they are in a position such as I have described, I make the strongest possible appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Pritt: If the Government are going to concede this Amendment, as I hope they will because it is important and makes the whole matter a little more flexible, I hope they will also consider the wording a little and be quite sure that it really does what its supporters desire. The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) rather thought the wording meant that if you took any part of the municipal area of Coventry out of Nuneaton, you had to take all of it, but I do not think that is desirable, and I do not think it is meant. It says:
  "(b) the Boundary Commission are of opinion that it is desirable to include both parts of the county borough or county district in the same constituency."
  It would be better if it said:
  "Parts, both of the county borough or county district."
  I do not think that would be really satisfactory, but it would be nearer to the object of the Amendment. The last words of the Amendment say:
  "increased by one,"
  but it might be necessary to increase by two if you are dealing with a double constituency which is in existence at the moment. I do not want to labour the point.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I certainly cannot claim to speak for the Speaker's Conference. All I can do is to try to present to the Home Secretary the views that I hold and held during the Speaker's Conference, and which I imagine influenced my colleagues who sat with me on that body under the control of Mr. Speaker. These considerations

  1979
  were in our minds. In the first place, we realised that there might be a very early General Election and I thought it was desirable to have a quick method of procedure which could be carried out before that General Election took place. Therefore, one of the grounds on which I would examine this Amendment would be that it should not unduly delay the first re-arrangement and distribution, and thereby present the country with the dilemma of having an election on the old distribution, or having to put off a General Election at a time when it would not wish to do so. So far as that point is concerned, I should be quite satisfied if the Home Secretary desired to accept the Amendment, providing he can assure us that be does not think it will unduly delay the provisional redistribution which this Bill contemplates. That is the first point.
  The second point with which we were impressed was the fact that a number of constituencies had been depleted of their electorates during the war, and that those conditions had not yet been entirely removed. Therefore, it would be quite unfair to deprive a small constituency of its position as to returning a Member just because at that particular time, 1943–44, it had an unduly small electorate. Therefore we did not wish this early redistribution should take the shape of depriving any constituency of its power to return a Member. That affects the issue in this way: if the proposal meant that one of these abnormally large constituencies was to be mixed up with some small constituency on its borders, with the result that the small constituency lost such electoral rights, as it possessed before, that would be contrary to the spirit of the Conference. I have not detailed knowledge to enable me to answer for certainty, but I gather from the arguments that have been put forward in favour of the Amendment that that would not be the case, and I imagine that the Home Secretary may be able to answer that question specifically. Perhaps I have not made quite clear what my point is. Here is an abnormally large constituency. If it had on its borders an abnormally small constituency, and if I thought the Amendment would mean that the abnormally small constituency would be deprived of its present representation and be swamped by the abnormally large con-
  1980
  stituency, I should oppose the Amendment as contrary to the spirit of the Speaker's Conference. If the Home Secretary can assure us that that will not be the case, or if he cannot so assure us if he will look at the Amendment with a view to ensuring that that would not happen, the objection, so far as I am concerned, would be removed.
  Finally, and this point is closely allied to the first point, the Speaker's Conference did not wish the ripples of the changes that were going to be made by them to spread indefinitely over the country and thereby introduce a general redistribution in a kind of indirect way. So long as I can be assured that the effect of the Amendment, if carried out and even if the Boundary Commissioners used their power under it to the full, would go only a limited way beyond the rather narrow proposal which was agreed upon at the Speaker's Conference, and which the Bill embodies, again I should be satisfied. So perhaps, when the Home Secretary comes to reply, he can address himself to the points I have put forward. If he satisfies me that no difficulty will arise, I should offer no objection to the Bill.
  Mr. H. Morrison: In this matter it would be my wish, if I can, to meet the wishes of the Committee, which have been very well stated—as were the views, in some disagreement, put by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland). Undoubtedly it is desirable broadly, if you can and so far as you can, to make Parliamentary constituencies co-terminous with local government areas. At any rate, everybody's convenience is served. It is awkward for the local authority to communicate with two Members of Parliament upon a given matter and also awkward for a Minister to get two letters instead of one. He is much happier if he only gets one. If there is correspondence between the Parliamentary division and the municipal area, or group of areas, it creates a corporate spirit. Therefore, I am not unsympathetic with the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has presented. Probably Middlesex is an outstanding case, although I do not think that the Amendment is drafted in a way that would exclude consideration elsewhere.

  1981
  The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry was a little apprehensive about what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is up to. I do not blame him. In matters of redistribution I would not blame any hon. Member for being apprehensive about what any other hon. Member was doing, especially if he were next door. He is apprehensive that a very big reduction might be made in the constituency of Coventry and a little apprehensive as to why Nuneaton should want that large number of electors and where the others that he may have to lose are going. I do not know the geography of this area well, but I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is quite right. This Amendment is permissive. It tells the boundary commissioners that if they are satisfied that such and such facts exist in a given area, and if they are of opinion that something should be done about them, they may so act. That is all. It is clear that the boundary commissioners in considering the matter will have to take into account the not irrelevant arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry, as they will have to take into account the arguments of the hon. Member for Nuneaton.
  Earl Winterton: My right hon. Friend of course appreciates that this matter affects a great many constituencies as well as Nuneaton, Coventry and Middlesex, such as in Sussex and elsewhere. I rather deprecate being put on the basis of "any particular case." It is a very wide case.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I quite agree, but the cases are confined to the constituencies that are scheduled in the Bill. Middlesex happens to be one of the areas affected. However, the argument will be clear. I do not know whether the Boundary Commissioners read the reports of our Parliamentary proceedings, but they would be wise to read the discussion on this Amendment in order to understand the spirit and the atmosphere in which the Amendment was dealt with. I shall certainly take into account the nature of the Debate which has taken place in the Committee and will try to apply the spirit in which the Amendment was carried—if it should be carried.
  1982
  1.0 p.m.
  On the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I do not think that the Amendment need involve delay, at any rate any material delay. I do not think one needs to be apprehensive that it will impede the proper administration of the Bill and I think it would be right that the Boundary Commissioners should be disposed to act on the view that in so far as this is a Bill to deal immediately with the abnormally large constituencies they ought to be careful about stretching it in a way which might affect abnormally small ones. I think the Committee generally will take that view. I hope that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry, in which he brought in Warwick and Leamington, I agree with my right hon. Friend that what we want to do is to take this into account as far as is relevant to the real problem, and not try to take it any further, or we shall be wandering away from the constituencies in the Bill, which I agree would not be desirable. I can only say that it appears to be the general view of the Committee, with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry, that this Amendment ought to be accepted, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry, in the light of what I have said about us having to be reasonable and sensible about the administration of the Amendment—both the Boundary Commissioners and the Home Office—may be disposed not to proceed with his opposition. In view of the general feeling of the Committee, including hon. Members and right hon. Members who served on the Speaker's Conference, from whose recommendation this is a slight departure, so far as the Government are concerned we are perfectly prepared to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. Petherick: I agree with the Home Secretary and with the majority of the Committee in this matter, but I can quite understand the fears expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland). His fears are probably felt in a number of other quarters. Therefore I wonder if it would be possible to allay those fears by introducing, at a later stage, an addition to the Amendment to the effect that,

  1983
  "provided that in so doing they (the Boundary Commissioners) have regard to their obligations under Section 3 of this Act,"
  that is to say to the ultimate complete redistribution. While it may be said, of course, that the Boundary Commissioners will do that anyhow—it is only reasonable to suppose they will—I do not think it would do any harm to put in words of that nature. I hope those concerned with the Amendment and also the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry will consider that suggestion.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): In regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), I am not at present inclined to think that the inclusion of the words he suggests is necessary, because under Subparagraph (b) the Boundary Commission will only do those things if they are of the opinion that it is desirable, and quite clearly they will have regard to their further duties under Clause 3 of the Bill. But I will have the hon. Member's point looked at before the further stages of the Bill, so that I can make quite sure that the words he proposes are not necessary.
  Mr. Pritt: Would the Government look at the whole of the wording before the Report stage?
  Mr. Morrison: That may be done in another place.
  Mr. Pritt: In any case before the Measure becomes law?
  Mr. Morrison: Certainly.
  Captain Strickland: One cannot have listened to this Debate without realising the great weight of opinion that favours the Amendment. Although I have crossed swords with my right hon. Friend opposite who, with his usual air of superiority, thought fit to be rude, I feel there is a good deal in what this Amendment proposes. I would like again to propose that, should the Boundary Commissioners feel, in a case such as I have mentioned, that they ought to take an electorate into an already existing constituency, they should be empowered to complete that picture and draw other parts into that constituency, even though those parts were not, at that time, in an abnormally large constituency as mentioned in the Bill. That is,
  1984
  if the Commissioners feel it is a case which should come within their purview, they should have the power to go that step further and complete the picture and make a constituency complete in itself.
  Earl Winterton: I think that in two sentences someone who is associated with the Amendment should thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way he has met us, and I should like also to thank the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I do not know to whom the last speaker was referring. I did not cross swords with him, and his opinion on me or any other subject on earth is of no interest to me.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 2, line 9, leave out "existing," and insert "abnormally large."
  In line 12, leave out "existing," and insert "abnormally large."
  In line 17, leave out "existing," and insert "abnormally large."
  In line 20, leave out "existing," and insert "abnormally large."
  In line 26, leave out "existing," and insert "abnormally large."
  In line 27, at end, insert:
  "(2) Where—

  (a) any part of a county borough or county district within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1933, is included in an abnormally large constituency, and another part thereof is included in an adjoining constituency which is not an abnormally large constituency; and

  (b) the Boundary Commission are of opinion that it is desirable to include both parts of the county borough or county district in the same constituency;

  they may, for all the purposes of the foregoing Sub-section, treat the abnormally large constituency as including the adjoining constituency, and the number of new constituencies into which the abnormally large constituency (including the adjoining constituency) is to be divided as increased by one."—[Mr. Keeling.]
  Mr. Keeling: I am advised that the last Amendment having been passed, an alteration in the Title is necessary.
  The Chairman: Not at this stage.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: May I ask, Major

  1985
  Milner, whether you have considered calling the Amendment down in my name and in the names of other hon. Friends—in page 2, line 28, at end, insert:
  "Provided that, where any existing constituency is divided into three or more new constituencies or where two or more existing constituencies form a continuous area which is divided in accordance with paragraph (b) of the preceding Sub-section into three or more new constituencies, all such new constituencies shall at and for the purposes of the next general election which shall take place after the Order in Council mentioned in the next following Sub-section comes into force be grouped into one or more constituencies returning at that election not less than three nor more than seven members with a view to such members being elected by the method of the single transferable vote in manner provided by Sub-section (2) of Section twenty of the Representation of the People Act, 1918"?
  The Chairman: I have carefully considered the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member and his Friends. It is clear, however, that the House, on Second Reading, having taken a decision not to include any provisions in regard to Proportional Representation, the hon. Member's Amendment—although, I agree, it only refers to a certain number of constituencies, namely, those set out in the Bill—would not be in accord with the expressed will of the House on Second Reading, and is therefore out of Order.
  Mr. Harvey: With great respect to your Ruling, Major Milner, which I accept as regards the main question, may I ask whether you have considered the point that a limited experiment of a partial nature was not even mentioned during the Debate on Second Reading? It was not considered or discussed in connection with the reasoned Amendment. It was never really before the House, and therefore that might be a reason for allowing this very limited Amendment to be considered now.
  The Chairman: I am sorry, but, in my view, the whole includes the part, and the Amendment is therefore out of Order.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Initial report of Commissions as to redistribution.)
  Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, leave out "other than the City of London."
  1986
  The view of those associated with this Amendment is that the City of London should not have two Members. Our view indeed is that the City of London should not have one Member unless its population justifies it. We know that its population does not justify it, and we submit that the City of London should have no special treatment of any sort or kind; it should take its chance with every other Division in the country. I could maintain at some length that it is the least deserving of Parliamentary representation in the country. It is not necessary for me to do that. The proposition is sufficient that it is no more deserving than any other part of the country. It ought to be easy to discuss such a matter without heat, and I shall try to do so, but I am bound to say that the unparalleled purse-proud insolence of the speech made by the hon. Baronet who is one of the two Members for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge)—who came down here on Tuesday and lectured us on the City of London, and immediately went away again showing, I would suppose, his contempt for this House—does not make it easy to deal with the matter very temperately. Of course, the hon. Member is not here to-day. I suppose he is upholding the City in some other form or place.
  It is rather interesting to examine the reasons he gave. Practically all of them were several hundred years old. It is quite natural, for the City of London is, and has been for a long time, the centre of capital, capitalism and finance, and there was a period, when capitalism was raising its head and fighting feudalism, when it was a progresisve force, and most of its battles were progressive ones and could be described as revolutionary. Capitalism was opposing something older than itself. The City of London was not uniformly revolutionary even in those days. There was the murdering of Wat Tyler by methods of treachery which could hardly be equalled in the modern City of London. On the whole, it did have a good record at the time when capitalism was a good thing. But since the hon. Baronet goes into this and tells us that the City has all these virtues, we have to examine just a few of them.
  The hon. Baronet, for example, says that it has adventured this and that in order to build our great Empire. One comment is that it has never adventured

  1987
  anything in the last 300 years except money, and this money was usually somebody else's. For another answer to this view go to any orthodox writer on finance and economics. He will tell you, and quite rightly, from his limited point of view that one of the greatest evils of the last 20 years, the cause of a great many slumps, is that capital often would not adventure itself, and stayed in the bank mouldering, because it was afraid that if it went out and adventured it would get lost, a fear which was thoroughly well grounded. But that does not make it very plausible for anyone to say that the City of London is adventurous. Then we were told that it has always championed the cause of freedom and liberty—there is apparently some distinction between freedom and liberty; and it champions the cause of both. It would be rather uninteresting, and the House would not want to listen to me if I did it, to go through the voting record of the City of London in the last 150 years. But if on any occasion the vote of a City of London Member during that period was cast for anything remotely resembling freedom or progress, the man must have got into the wrong Lobby by mistake. It has been the most reactionary record of voting for monopoly capital and finance that anybody could have wished to see.
  1.15 p.m.
  When the hon. Baronet tells us that if it had not been for the City of London there would never have been any Empire, he selects, with a most unhappy appropriateness, a visit to Botany Bay, as an illustration of what the City of London has done. He forgets that it was only people with average representation in Parliament, at the very best, who went out and did the hard work. Let us look at what the City of London did in what is called the period between the wars—because it was a period of only 26 wars, surrounded by two wars much larger than any of the 26. It bolstered up the Weimar Republic by discounting its bills, not because it loved anything that Weimar introduced, but because it wanted to bolster up Germany against the Soviet Republic. But when the Nazis came into power the City's enthusiasm grew much greater, and the friendship between Mr. Montagu Norman and Hjalmar Schacht was absolutely legendary.
  Mr. Petherick: On a point of Order. Might I ask whether the argument with which the hon. and learned Member is belabouring the House is not absolutely out of Order? Would it not be possible to take any other constituency's record in the last 20 years, and make a long speech on it? It is not necessary, in order to show why the City of London should not have two votes, to discuss the whole record of the City of London in the last 20 years.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): It is rather difficult, because we are giving the City of London a rather particular place in the Bill; but we cannot go into the history of what City of London firms have done, any more than we could, in the case of an agricultural area, discuss the amount of agricultural produce that came from it. We cannot use this issue for an attack on any particular system. We can only discuss the work of the City of London representatives in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) spent a great deal of time, in the Second Reading Debate, giving the history of the City of London, as an argument for these seats being retained; and if that is allowed as a defence, would it not be legitimate to discuss the history of the City of London's financial transactions in reply?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, the history of the City of London in a wider historical sense, but not the history of firms in the sense that they supported this or that financial enterprise. That is where I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was beginning to get out of Order.
  Mr. Pritt: I did not think I had mentioned any firm. I was not intending to mention the name of any firm. Indeed. if I did, I should almost certainly get into the position that I was mentioning the names of my clients.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The actual mentioning of the name of a firm is not necessary. When it is mentioned that a loan has been made, it is obvious that that loan has been made by a certain firm or firms. That is really my point.
  Mr. Pritt: I quite agree with your anxiety, Mr. Williams, that I should not

  1989
  mention the name of any of those firms, but I have not done so. I do not think the Bank of England as a firm, although I may be wrong in that.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out that the Bank of England is not the City of London. Although I agree I was wrong in using the word "firm," we cannot use this opportunity, of a discussion on the value of having City of London representatives in the House of Commons, to attack the historical record of firms and companies in the City of London.
  Mr. Pritt: I do not think that I was doing that by any unfair reference to any firm or company. If we are told that the City of London is so important that it should have in this House five or six times the representation that it is entitled to on its population, that it has such a splendid, adventurous history, and that it is the centre of finance, am I wrong in criticising the activities of the centre of finance in building up the strength of our enemies on the Continent? But if I proceed I may get away from even the risk of getting out of Order.
  I noted the praise given by the hon. Member for the great courage and adventurousness of the City of London. I remember an occasion in 1931—I will not mention either the firm or the individual—when one distinguished Member of another place, who is now no longer with us, was prosecuted for common, ordinary prospectus frauds, and the City of London made the strongest efforts to have the prosecution stopped, on the ground that it would be bad for the reputation of the City of London. That may have been very wise, but it was not very adventurous. I looked up an earlier intervention of the hon. Baronet in this House. He claims that the City champions the cause of freedom and progress. In 1939 he asked the Home Secretary whether he would institute a Press censorship, because the indiscreet headlines and articles in the Press were adversely affecting trade, commerce, and investment. If adventure is such a common characteristic of the whole City of London that it should have six times the normal representation here, has it not even the courage to think that trade and commerce can survive, even if newspapers have indiscreet headlines? If it cannot survive without six people standing around holding it in
  1990
  cotton wool, do not let it claim that it is adventurous.
  But suppose that all these claims are true, and suppose that every time one walked into the City of London—and I walk into it many times a day, because I live at one side of the boundary, and my office is at the other side of it—one felt a great glow at the thought, "At last I have come out of the dreary air of the City of Westminster into the glorious air of freedom and Mr. Hatry and Lord Kylsant," such a marvellous body should be able to get on with the normal representation enjoyed by other parts of the country. Of course, if our constitutional arrangements were so peculiar that capital, company directors, company promoters even, finance and adventure, could never get their voices heard at all, and had nobody else in the House interested in them, had never any access to the columns of the "Daily Telegraph" and "The Times," we might say, "Poor blighted City of London, let us try to redress the balance by giving it 10 Members." I could understand that. But, after all, the voice of finance does not get a bad show. When we had the honour of having as our Prime Minister the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, one almost had the idea that finance got more than its fair show in this House—it may have been a prejudiced view, but many people shared it. I do not think that it should have either two Members or one Member. It has an electorate of 23,000. Six thousand people live there. When I belonged to the Labour Party, it was the policy of the party to oppose the plural vote. Judging from the way in which the Home Secretary told us how warmly he welcomed everything that the Speaker's Conference had done, the Labour Party no longer opposes the plural vote.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and learned Member does not believe that.
  Mr. Pritt: I certainly hope it is not so, but if the Labour Party opposes the plural vote, it has done it in recent months in the most decorously silent manner I have ever known. The plural vote gives the City 38,000 electors, of whom 32,000 men are business men, who come in daily and have offices, which gives them a vote. Of these 32,000, probably at least 15,000 have spouses, who have votes; and, so far as we can judge, most of those 15,000 will come off the register. So effectively,

  1991
  we are dealing with a register of about 23,000 electors. The Home Secretary, so far as I know, is still a member of the Labour Party. He attacks me from time to time with a cheap malignity which is equalled only by the attacks of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay); and the attacks of both of them give me a great deal of comfort. He is pleased with a Bill which, for all he cares, will give 23,000 electors at least one Member in this House, and perhaps two.
  Mr. H. Morrison: How does the hon. and learned Member know that that is all I care?
  Mr. Pritt: The right hon. Gentleman has not shown a great deal of concern about it so far. Suppose we accept the argument that a glorious history entitles an area to special representation, what other constituencies could be so treated? Peterloo is a very glorious name; although I expect many Tory Members do not know it, and think it must be Waterloo. Peterloo Fields, I suppose, lie in the Central Division of Manchester, but nobody suggests that in honour of Peterloo there should be treble or quadruple representation for that section of Manchester. If you say that Peterloo was rather a long time ago, it is not so long ago as the traditions of the City of London. Tolpuddle is next on my notes. I expect the Tory Party would support quadruple representation for that area, because it is in one of those backward places which they represent.
  What about Birmingham? Why should there not be special representation at any rate for that part of Birmingham where Mr. Chamberlain had his house? You could make a much better case for special representation for the County of London than for the City of London, because the burgesses—if that is the word—of the County of London, over vast stretches, have displayed a stolid courage in days of great peril, which makes them entitled to honour. But there is no more reason why you should reward them with representation in Parliament than why you should reward them with houses fit to live in. On such grounds, the County of London has a very much better claim than the City of London. You could make out a very much better
  1992
  case if you went into some areas where people have worked particularly hard under distressing conditions, such as in North-Eastern England and South-Western Scotland. You could make out an infinitely better case for the coal miners, because they work in the most abominable conditions, for the worst employers and for the rottenest wages. I suggest that anybody who votes for the maintenance of special consideration of any kind for the City of London is a traitor to democracy.
  1.30 p.m.
  Mr. H. Morrison: There are two questions on this Amendment. One is whether the City should be preserved as a constituency, and the other, raised by implication by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), whether they should have one or two Members. If I may say so, I think that both the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) and the hon. and learned Member have made rather too much heavy weather of this matter. I know that the hon. and learned Member enjoyed himself thoroughly in giving a Marxian interpretation of the City of London and its own materialist conception of history. The hon. and learned Member and I could agree about that at a suitable time if we could forget the materialist conception of the City of London and the political consequences thereof. I am something of a Marxist myself, and I hope that is acceptable to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
  Mr. Gallacher: No, it is just cheap taradiddle, that is all.
  Mr. Morrison: Those are the two questions, and I do not think they quite warrant the heavy weather that has been made about them. On the second question, whether there should be one or two Members, I made it abundantly clear in the House on Tuesday that the Government were not asking the House to commit itself one way or another. Certainly, I am not committed. I was amazed to see two newspapers, in headlines on the speech I made, suggesting that I had defended two Members for the City of London. Their own reports did not bear that out. The trouble is that the Parliamentary reporter writes his report, but another fellow writes the headlines. Often

  1993
  the headlines are in conflict with the report, but people read the headlines and not the report. To tie me up categorically with the continued existence of two Members for the City of London is rather rough.
  I said that the Government were not asking the House to commit itself on that point. We have deliberately so shaped the Bill that it would have to be considered when a general redistribution comes forward. That will be the time for this argument. I hope to be there and to make a vigorous speech on one side or the other. As a Member of this Government, I am not empowered to argue the merits of one or two Members, but I did give the House the facts. That argument will come another day, and it is right that it should come, because there will have to be a redistribution in London, and because it is right that the matter should be considered to some extent in relation to redistribution in the County of London.
  The only other point is whether the City, as such, should be preserved as a constituency. I admit that one could make a tub-thumping speech tearing the City of London to pieces. It could be done quite well, but, if I may say so, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has got his City of London somewhat wrong. There are two Cities of London, if not more. There is the city of high finance and there is the city of the Corporation, and they are two very different cities. That has to be taken into account. The members of the Corporation are certainly not all high financiers. They are of a different order, and, indeed, I think that some of them think the high financiers ought to take more interest in the government of the City than they do. The other point is that there is no aristocracy in the City now—no great land-owning element. All these features criss-cross to make up this curiously interesting place, but I, personally, as a Londoner and as a Member of Parliament, but particularly as a Londoner, would feel regret if the political and Parliamentary identity of the ancient City of London was completely abolished.
  It may be that in the future the day will come when the question will have to be looked at. But the City of London occupies an extraordinary and unique place in British history and in the history of British local government. It was amongst the
  1994
  earliest municipal corporations, and it was one of the earliest that insisted upon the rights of municipalities against kings and Parliament. I may be sentimental, and perhaps more sentimental than the hon. and learned Member, but there is rich municipal blood in my veins and I cannot forget the history of those early struggles against kings and Parliament. I have taken a part in similar struggles myself. There is a constitutional and historical connection between the City and this House. There is in this House the picture of five Members who escaped to the City from the wrath of the monarch. It is also the case that the City of London has been a champion of Parliamentary institutions, and I do not think it is out of place, in considering the question of one Member of Parliament or two, that we should, with regard to this unique square mile, take into account these historical, and, if you will, sentimental considerations, and say that it is such a special place that, if we can possibly help it, we will not destroy its Parliamentary identity.
  That is how the Government feel about the matter. I am pretty sure it is how the average thinking Londoner thinks about it, whatever his politics, and, therefore, taking the arguments on the whole, I think the Bill is right. It does deliberately preserve the existence of this unique and historical square mile. It does not, on the other hand, prejudice the question whether there shall be one or two Members for the City when the general redistribution takes place. I know where my friends of the Labour Party will be on that point, and I know where I will be, but that argument can take place at that time. As for the other issue which arises on this Amendment—the proposal that the City should be abolished as a Parliamentary constituency—I think it is emotionally, historically and Parliamentarily objectionable, and I hope the Committee will not agree to the Amendment which has been moved.
  Mr. Hugh Lawson: I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee on this point, but I submit that the case which the Minister has just put to the Committee is not a case for special representation for the City of London. It is entirely a case for the preservation of the City of London as a local government area and entity. Nothing that my right hon. Friend said would lead me to the

  1995
  conclusion that this entity should have special representation in this House. The Minister has made out a case for its preservation for local government purposes, and for other reasons. If there is such a strong case for special representation in this House, surely, if this House is setting up a special Boundary Commission presided over by Mr. Speaker, and if this Boundary Commission is to review the electoral position of the whole country, it should be the most competent authority to decide what should be done with the City of London. All that is done by the Amendment which I am supporting is to suggest that the Boundary Commission shall have the authority to decide what is going to happen about the representation of the City of London in this House. The Amendment does not say that there shall not be any representation for the City; it merely extends the authority of the Boundary Commission to this problem.
  I think the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has put up arguments which are unanswerable, and so far, they have not been answered. May I just say a word on the point that financial and business interests in the City of London should have special representation in this House. I submit that, already, in this House, those interests have a very much greater representation than any other occupation, calling or interest in this country. I have not in mind the figures of the exact number of directorships represented by Members of the House of Commons, but I do not think anybody will correct me if I say that they run into several hundreds out of the 615 hon. Members.
  Mr. Pritt: Several thousands, I should think.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend may be right, but I think that several hundred Members each hold one directorship, or some financial position, and that is a very much bigger proportion than exists in the whole country. So that, even if we accept the case that these interests want special representation in this House, the argument that the City of London should have extra representation is quite beside the point. I must also refer to the point made that the City has, in the past, represented adventure,
  1996
  freedom and progress. I entirely agree with the careful analysis which the hon. and learned Member made on that point. When you have a rising capitalist system, it is inevitable that the centre of that system should be represented here, but we have got just the reverse. We have a decaying capitalist system, and therefore it is inevitable that the centre of that system should be represented by reaction.
  If you give special representation to that part of the country, I suggest that we should give one Member of Parliament to each 10,000 or 15,000 voters. That would be an exact parallel to the position of the City of London in the 17th or 18th century. Why should there be such a lot of fuss and bother about this matter? Why have some hon. Members of this House said "We are not going to accept the normal and ordinary democratic principle, that a community of 50,000 to 70,000, voters should have one Member in this House"? I can only come to the conclusion that it is, very largely, because the City of London, whatever happens anywhere else, will always return a Conservative Member. There can be no doubt that is the test, and, therefore, since that is one of the objects of democracy, I think "gerrymandering" is the word which one can fairly use about this. I shall vote for the Amendment.
  The Home Secretary in his speech on Tuesday said that this was a problem with which we ought not to deal at the moment because there are other constituencies which have very small electorates and it may be the argument would be put that, if we were to start dealing with the City of London, we should at the same time be thinking of other constituencies.
  1.45 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of the fact that of the two present Members for the City of London only one is a Member of the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Pritt: The other is a raving revolutionary.
  Mr. H. Lawson: I think that the point is so unacademic and slight that it does not need a reply. Whatever label is attached to their coat-tails, they are Conservatives in the full sense of the word.
  Sir Edward Campbell: The honest sense of the word. They are honest.
  Mr. H. Lawson: The Home Secretary suggested that we could not tackle this problem of a small number of people returning members of one party to this House, without tackling the problem of other small constituencies which return members of other parties, and I agree. I am not asking that it should be tackled in isolation. The Boundary Commission is to tackle all these constituencies, and if this is not tackled, it will mean when the Boundary Commission makes its report, that the only constituency—except university constituencies which are the subject of another Amendment—which will have more than its share of representation will be the City of London. A very large percentage of the electors of the City of London are persons who already have two votes because they have a residential vote elsewhere. We are very often told, when discussing the question of plural voting, that it does not matter as they do not sway the election. But the one city where they do that is the City of London. Unless the case which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith put is answered, all real democrats in this Committee should vote for the Amendment.
  Captain Sir George Elliston: It is unfortunate that the hon. Baronet, the Senior Member for the City (Sir G. Broadbridge) is unable to be here this afternoon, because I am certain he would have been amused to hear the disparaging remarks and the gibes about the City that have come so characteristically from the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I feel, however, in spite of the satisfactory statement made by the Minister, who has given us to understand—almost the assurance—that the City will remain a separate constituency, that someone should point out that the claim of the City to two Members is not so wholly fantastic or extravagant as it has been represented to be in the opening speeches to-day. For many years past I have been connected with municipal government in the City, and I feel that the statements made in support of this Amendment should not be allowed to go by default. I think that the Minister's recognition of the City's historic record and the contribution it has made to the building of our democratic institutions throughout the centuries justifies it in claiming some special treatment in the matter of representation.
  1998
  Apart from sentimental and historical considerations there is a case to be made on the ground that, although there are fewer than 10,000 people sleeping in the City each night, there is that great daily congregation of over 500,000 persons who have their occupations and interests in the City itself. The physical conditions within one square mile make it impossible for it to be a residential area, but to suggest that these 500,000 people should be disregarded as possible electors for the City is very unfair. Rightly or wrongly, the citizens feel that Parliament should be jealous to safeguard the great prestige the City enjoys throughout the civilised world. Wherever one may travel, the City of London is regarded as the example of business integrity and honourable enterprise. It is surprising that any Member of the House should seek to discredit the City by mentioning a few black sheep; such cases unfortunately occur in every community. But except for those few who are perpetually deploring the shortcomings of their fellow countrymen, the City of London has long been regarded as the stronghold of business rectitude—
  Mr. Pritt: How many leaders of finance in the City have gone to prison in the last twelve years?
  Sir G. Elliston: I am not interested in those figures. Even in the legal profession you have, from time to time, most distressing cases of fraudulent misconduct. I am not asking the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith to give me a list of the legal practitioners who have gone wrong.
  Mr. Pritt: I am not boasting of the integrity of my profession, but the hon. Member is boasting of the integrity of the City and I ask him how many have gone to prison.
  Sir G. Elliston: My concern is that in the interest of this country this House should recognise the great position occupied by the City as the headquarters of the vast financial and commercial interests of the whole British Empire. It is wrong to disparage the services of the City in the interest of our nation and of the Empire. What satisfaction any Member can find in coming here to cheapen the City and to reduce its dignity, I cannot understand. It seems to me to be such bad business for the hon. and learned Member to get up and tell the

  1999
  Committee by inference that the men of the City of London are not entitled to some credit for their adventurous spirit. Why disparage our own people? Quite rightly, in my opinion, we give 12 seats in this House to the universities, whose Members come here to represent culture, learning and research. That is a very wise provision and I should be very sorry to see it disappear. But I think that if we give 12 seats to the universities it is not unreasonable—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member but we cannot go into the question of the universities on this Amendment.
  Sir G. Elliston: I am very sorry, Mr. Williams, for going astray, but I will put my point this way. Is not the City of London justified, in view of the enormous interests concerned, in asking for the special consideration implied by two representatives in this House? Business is just as deserving of a hearing as research, and we have never been ashamed of being described as a "nation of shopkeepers." If our commercial interests are not entitled to that extra privilege, it is a pity.
  The citizens of London have been embarrassed lately by being hailed by the nations of the world as heroes. It had never occurred to them that the City would go out of business because of intimidation by Hitler or anybody else. They did not expect or want to be described as heroes. They expected to carry on and do their job while our fighting men are doing theirs, but they will feel very strongly that this is a curious moment to choose for de-grading the City and reducing its part in the affairs of the nation. I feel assured, therefore, that the Amendment will be rejected by the Committee.
  Mr. Gallacher: The Secretary of State for the Home Department said something about some paper that published headlines suggesting that he was in support of the two Members for the City of London and then said the report that followed showed that the headlines were wrong. I did not hear his speech on Second Reading but I heard his speech to-day, and I assert that on the speech that he made to-day, and which can
  2000
  be read to-morrow, the headlines of the paper, whichever paper it was, were correct, that he is for the two Members.
  Mr. Tinker: I was present when the Home Secretary spoke, and can say that he did not lean towards two Members.
  Mr. Gallacher: I said that I did not hear him on Tuesday but I heard him to-day, and what he said to-day makes it clear that he is for two Members. He said that historically, and all the rest of it, the City of London was entitled to representation by one Member, or at the outside, two Members.
  Mr. Windsor: Let us get clear what the Home Secretary really did say to-day. He said this raised two separate issues: one, whether it would be a question of representation and, secondly, whether that representation should be by one Member or two Members. He refused to go into anything beyond that, other than to say that he was prepared, when the time came, to deal with the issue, leaving no doubt in any of our minds where he stood.
  Mr. Gallacher: That was not the point with which the right hon. Gentleman was dealing at all. When he started he dwelt on that point, but later on he argued about the importance of the Corporation of the City of London. Nobody is suggesting any unfairness to the Corporation of the City of London. The municipality of the City of London, he says, did this and that in the times of the troubles against the kings. Why does he introduce all this sort of thing, if it is not to cover up the fact that he is preparing the way for the City of London to keep its two Members? If he is not in favour of it why do not the Government accept the Amendment?
  Is not the Boundary Commission capable of deciding all these questions about the City of London? Why is hot the Amendment accepted? So that they will preserve whatever they can for the City of London. If they can keep the two Members, they will do so; if the feeling is so terrific as to make them hedge, they will have one Member. But the Minister said here that he considered the City of London should have separate representation by one or, at the outside, two Members. That was the phrase he used and,

  2001
  if hon. Members will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow they will see that is correct.
  2.0 p.m.
  I consider that the City of London should have no separate representation. We have other ancient corporations in this country. Maybe the Home Secretary has not heard of it, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has heard of the Ancient and Royal Burgh of Renfrew. A terrific case could be put up for that Borough having representation in Parliament, for it is at the centre of the greatest shipbuilding industry of this country, and it has a long history in so far as the development of this country and the Empire is concerned, and has played a much greater part in that development than the City of London. What was the main slogan before the last war of the Home Secretary and this party when the Labour movement was being built up? It was: "Rent is robbery, property is plunder," and not one of them but declared that capitalism and high finance meant the robbery and exploitation of the workers. If the Home Secretary and the Labour Party are correct, the City of London represents the centre of robbery of the masses of the people of this country. Why, therefore, should that centre have special representation? The City of London is an aggregate of financial undertakings. I remember not long before the war the financial undertakings in the City of London handing over £6,000,000 in gold to the Nazis which did not belong to them. The Prime Minister got up at that corner and said these famous and prophetic words:
  "It is going to Germany in gold, it will come back to this country in bombs."
  When the bombs came to the City of London—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry but I have already ruled that we cannot, on this matter, go into isolated questions of finance. We can only deal with the wider question of the value of representation.
  Mr. Gallacher: I accept that, Mr. Williams, but I am dealing with the representation of the City of London.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but that is just the point—representatives of the City of London were not, as representatives in Parliament, directly responsible for that incident.
  Mr. Gallacher: I have just passed that point and I am dealing with the representation of the City of London because in this House we had a discussion on one occasion about the service hon. Members were giving in preparing in their constituencies for the defence of this country. It was pointed out that in some areas hon. Members were very active, but where was it in this country that we had the worst representation and the least care for the people? If you take the whole of the country, North, South, East and West, where did we have no preparations, no care, no concern for the people who lived in the area? The City of London. The hon. Members who represented the City of London were not the least bit interested in the people who lived in the City of London, they were only interested in the financial houses in the City of London. That is why, when masses of fire bombs rained down on the City of London, its representatives and all these people who return them to Parliament were not there, and the unfortunate people who lived in the City of London had to suffer. Not another district in the country, not another constituency, had such bad representation or such pitiful preparation to face the conditions that came upon us. You cannot make out a case for representation for the City of London.
  Let the Boundary Commission have responsibility for the City of London as for the rest of the country. It is capable of deciding and, if it works out a boundary that does not give representation to the City of London, all good and well; if it works out an area that gives a representative to the City of London because some other part is brought in, good and well. Why, however, at the start of the Bill have we this special consideration for the City of London? Everybody in the country understands that the City of London represents reaction in its very worst form, taking the City by and large.
  This is the important thing for every Member on this side to consider. There has been so much talk, there have been so many protestations, about the big changes which will be made in this country, that the lads who are fighting and the men and women who are working have not been doing it for nothing; that there will be something new, something entirely different in this country. Yet,

  2003
  whenever we come down to a practical question such as we had yesterday, the day before, and to-day, there is the most rigid conservatism.
  Viscount Hinchingbroke: Does not that disprove the hon. Gentleman's theory that there will, in fact, be vast changes?
  Mr. Gallacher: I have heard so much talk about vast changes. I have heard the hon. Gentleman and his Friends talk about vast changes, but they were not there yesterday or the day before to advocate vast changes, and I do not hear them to-day advocating a small change which, at the same time, is a big change in the sense of breaking down a particular aspect of monopoly. We hear the phrase that there will be no more monopolies dominating this country, that things are going to be different. I have heard such things from the hon. Member and his Friends on the Front Bench and the back benches, but whenever it comes to a practical, simple question, they dodge the issue in order to see whether the old conditions can be brought in by the back door. If anyone believes there is a case for the City of London, he should be content to leave if for the consideration of the Boundary Commission, and if the Boundary Commission is capable and is to be trusted with the situation in other parts of the country, surely it is capable of dealing with the City of London.
  Therefore, I say, if we are going to have vast changes, let us have a little practical demonstration of the fact that hon. Members are in earnest. If you go to any part of the country you will find the greatest possible cynicism amongst the people. They say, "We have heard these stories before, and these promisas, but they do not mean a thing and nothing will be done. We want to see some demonstration of their intentions." Let us, on this practical question, have a demonstration from the Members of this Committee of the fact that they are serious when they talk about changes in this country, by showing that in this instance they will put an end to a monopoly which should not exist by leaving it to the decision of the Boundary Commission as to whether the City of London should be represented or not.
  Sir Percy Harris: I approach this problem of the
  2004
  special representation of the City of London largely as a London Member. Here I would like to pay tribute to the magnificent history of the City. For hundreds of years it was the champion of the common people against the pretensions of the King, against unfair exactions by the privileged classes, and anyone who has studied history knows what a magnificent record the City has. Unfortunately—
  Earl Winterton rose—
  Sir P. Harris: My Noble Friend will have his chance to prove the other side—he will be able to try to denounce the City for its bad history, but I am paying tribute to its glorious history. Unfortunately, towards the end of the 18th century, through over-population the people left. The business men who used to live there, and the craftsmen who carried on their craft and lived over their workshops, gradually went outside the City walls. In the 19th century attempts were made by reformers to persuade the City of London to extend its borders, as nearly all the great towns had done, in the North and other parts of England, to include their suburbs—that was done in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and all the great towns. But the City decided it did not want to extend its ancient privileges over the surrounding districts, and the result was a long and bitter battle between the reformers and the City Corporation, after which it was decided to make London into a County to get over the difficulty of the City refusing to extend its borders. So it retained all its ancient privileges, amongst others, the right to send two Members to the House of Commons.
  In the controversy during the last war when the other Bill reforming Parliament was going through the House, there were discussions then on the position of the City. If I remember rightly, there were then about 20,000 residents in the City of London; now, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, they have been reduced to about 10,000 residents or less, mostly charwomen and office cleaners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Caretakers."]I am sorry I did not know how to describe them. The case is made that the City of London still stands for powerful financial interests so it ought to have a voice in the affairs of Parliament by sending here persons representing the interests of the City. The

  2005
  hon. Member who put that case forgot to tell the Committee that most of the powerful corporations which the hon. Member for Fire West (Mr. Gallacher) has just been denouncing—the Bank of England, the insurance companies, the financial interests, the shipping companies—nearly every of them is a limited company having no Parliamentary vote and no opportunity to see that their interests are represented. Those who vote, in addition to the caretakers and office cleaners, are—
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that these powerful corporations he mentions are in the position of being able to decide who the office cleaners and others shall vote for?
  Sir P. Harris: The fact is they cannot vote for themselves.
  2.15 p.m.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Quite clearly, that could not possibly come into a Bill like this.
  Sir P. Harris: I think that is quite clear, Mr. Williams. The only people who have a vote inside the City of London, other than those residing there, are the stockbrokers, solicitors, agents and a certain number—a declining number—of business people who are not limited companies. What has been going on for many years is that professional men have been leaving the City, going to Westminster and Thames House and elsewhere, so that the City of London can no longer claim to represent all business interests. The City of London can only claim special representation on the basis of tradition. It cannot claim it either because of its population or commercial interests, and I say that it would be a reasonable compromise to retain the representation of the City of London because of tradition but to limit its representation to only one Member of Parliament.
  Sir Austin Hudson: I want to say a few words on this matter as one who was a member of the Speakers' Conference. In doing so I want to reinforce what the Home Secretary said about not dealing with this matter in this Bill. I think I am right in saying that in the Speaker's Conference we divided our deliberations into two parts. The first was to deal with an immediate General Election.
  Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. It may be useful to have your Ruling, Mr. Williams—I am not challenging this in a hostile fashion—as to how far we can discuss here the details of what took place in the Speaker's Conference.
  The Deputy-Chairman: So far as they were made public they can be discussed, but we cannot go beyond that.
  Sir A. Hudson: I was going to try to be careful not to give away anything which was not in the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known that we divided our recommendations into two parts—one to deal with an immediate General Election, as a result of which the present Bill is before the House. There are many other recommendations, as is known to Members, which will have to come forward in another Bill. What we tried to do was to have some simple system of dividing abnormally large constituencies, so that it could be done quickly and would cause as little disturbance as possible. Naturally the question arose not only of the abnormally large constituencies but the abnormally small constituencies. It was decided not to touch the small constituencies, one of which, of course, is the City of London. I wish to say, here and now, that I do not consider that this is the time to deal with the City of London.
  Mr. Tinker: Then why is the City of London particularised in this Bill?
  Sir A. Hudson: I can say exactly why. In this Bill the Boundary Commissioners had to divide the different constituencies on a quota basis. It was obvious that the City of London, if it was to be preserved, was too small a quota even for one Member, and, therefore, it had to be put into this Bill in order to preserve the question later as to whether the City should have one Member or two. For the immediate next General Election it was never intended by any member of that Conference—I think I am right in saying this—that the City of London should be swept away as being too small a constituency. If it had been, other members of the Conference would have wanted to consider other constituencies which have small populations, and not all of which are represented by Conservatives.
  One thing we have to consider is that the L.C.C. depends very largely—in fact,

  2007
  it is almost entirely elected—on the Parliamentary divisions of London, and if we started doing away with constituencies the whole question of the effect on L.C.C. elections would come up. Therefore, we made a flat recommendation to deal only with the large, and not with the small, constituencies. We have heard some talk about how many electors there are now in the City of London, but we must remember that the City is one of the worst destroyed areas in the country. Another reason why we did not want to deal with the small constituencies was that many had been blitzed and we could not tell how many people would come back to them and how many would not. I, personally, feel it would be much better if the Committee agreed with the Home Secretary to leave the matter until we come to the main recommendations for long-term policy. No harm can be done. None of us is pledged to any course of action. Some might think that the City should have one Member, and others might think it should have two, but at any rate I think it is most unfair to deal with the matter now on the basis of recommendations which have no intention of perpetuating or doing away with such an important area as the City of London.
  Mr. Gallacher: It was left to the Boundary Commission to decide that now or later.
  Sir A. Hudson: The Commission could not deal with the City of London under the circumstances, because the quota was too small.
  Mr. Hynd: The implication in the hon. Member's statement seems to me that if the Amendment was defeated the Boundary Commission will decide whether or not the City of London shall have separate representation. Under Schedule 3, if the Bill is passed without Amendment the Boundary Commission will be bound to recommend one Member for the City of London.
  Sir A. Hudson: The Boundary Commission is bound to keep the City of London as an entity, and then it will come up to this House for decision.
  Mr. Parker: I would like to say, on behalf of the Labour Party, straight away, that we support the views which have been put forward by the Home
  2008
  Secretary. We believe that it should be left open at the present time as to whether the City of London should have one Member or two, but I would like to make it clear that our views are definitely that the City should have only one Member, and that when the question of redistribution of seats comes forward we shall press in no uncertain terms for a reduction of the City's representation to one. There is also the point about representation on the L.C.C., which follows on the City's representation in this House. At the present time the City has four members on the L.C.C.
  The Deputy-Chairman: If we get on to representation on the L.C.C. we are getting away from the subject altogether.
  Mr. Parker: The point is one of some importance, Mr. Williams, because for every Parliamentary seat in the County of London there are two representatives on the L.C.C. and, therefore, if the City has two Members, it has four representatives on the L.C.C. If, after general redistribution, there is to be a reduction of the number of members of the L.C.C.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That question can come up at the time of general redistribution, and not now.
  Mr. Parker: We reserve our views on that point, then, and will press them strongly when the time comes. I was interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) yesterday. When the hon. Member waxed sentimental about the City of London I felt very uncomfortable and went cold all down the backbone. Considering that he of all people is one of the most sceptical and cynical Members in the House, when he gets sentimental about something it makes me feel that there must be something wrong with that about which he is getting sentimental. The hon. Member said that most people would prefer to be entertained by the Lord Mayor of London rather than the Chairman of the L.C.C. Well, we will not quarrel with that statement because, as the Home Secretary said on another occasion, the main job of the City Corporation is to handle the wining and dining functions of London government, and leave the L.C.C. to get on with the real job of government. But we take a

  2009
  strong line against the view that a particular constituency which traditionally returns adherents of one particular party should be treated in an exceptional way, compared to other small constituencies in the London area. When we consider the general redistribution of seats we shall press to ensure that the City of London is not treated differently from Bethnal Green, Shoreditch or any other borough inside the L.C.C. area.
  I would like to refer to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who truly said that the City of London does not now represent the interests which the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) yesterday claimed that it represented. He claimed that it represented the banking, financial and commercial interests of the country, but, as has been said, the big banks, insurance companies and commercial enterprises do not have votes and, therefore, the City does not represent the interests which were claimed for it. The electorate of the City of London—apart from persons like myself, who live in the Temple, and a few people of the caretaker type, in all there were about 6,200 resident electors living in the City in 1939—consists of the hangers-on of big business and not big business itself. They are the jackals of capitalism rather than the big capitalists. There is no reason why that particular group of people should have any particular representation in this House. I think it can be claimed that the City is as rotten a borough as any borough abolished in 1832 in this country. As I have said, we shall definitely press for a reduction of the City representation when the question of general redistribution of seats comes before the House.
  Earl Winterton: I do not think this matter can be disposed of as rapidly as may be supposed, because it raises a question of constitutional importance. The question of representation goes to the root of the most sensitive fibres of the British people, and any suggestion that any particular body of persons has any undue representation in this House not only causes resentment but does great mischief to the party which claims to enjoy that representation. Therefore, I think it is desirable to make one or two answers of a different character to the reasons
  2010
  which have been put forward for retaining the City of London Membership, because I think those reasons were based on a partly fallacious basis. I think the arguments for retention of representation have been most admirably stated by the Home Secretary.
  2.30 p.m.
  It is unfair to accuse the Home Secretary of having gone back on his ordinary views. He has stated that, for reasons which must be apparent, it would be very difficult to abolish this constituency without affecting the whole question of the representation of the City of London generally. The long descriptions that we have had of the financial position of the City of London, with the counter arguments accusing it of being filled with robbers and raiders, seem to be singularly separated from the question that we are discussing. It is no longer true to say that the whole financial centre of the world is centred in the City. Therefore, I rather deprecate, on the one hand, long descriptions of the financial glories of the City or, on the other, an attack on the capitalist system, which does not seem to arise.
  There is another weakness in the point put forward by the representatives of the City. If they were right in the first instance and if it represented the financial centre and genius of the Empire, a visitor from Mars would say, "Of course all these gentlemen enjoy votes." They do nothing of the kind. The voters largely consist of persons of an entirely different class, and therefore on logical grounds I must say, as a Tory, that there is very little to be said for the retention of this particular representation, and it is as well that some Tory should say so. My friends are asking for special representation of what some claim to be a rotten borough. There would be much more to be said for the retention of the seat if the City electors themselves had shown slightly more discrimination in the past than they have done. If we are to have a constituency sui generis, where ordinary electoral conditions do not apply, it should be reserved for men of great reputation outside the House, possibly not in their first youth, not belonging exclusively to one party, for example, Speakers of this House, in other words, people whom the country desires to honour. Lord Mayors who represent the City can hardly be

  2011
  said to come into that category. They seldom take any part in our proceedings. I was very glad when the City elected my right hon. Friend, one of the most important Ministers on that bench. I must protest very strongly, as a Tory, with Tory blood boiling in my veins, against the appalling assumption of the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the Whigs of the City were always on the side of liberty. I deny it. It was the bourgeoisie who, in the name of liberty, did their best to destroy other interests of great importance to the country. It is not true that the City was always on the side of freedom. It pretended to be, but often it was inimical to the best interests of the country. My blood rises up in rebellion when I think of some of the Whiggish Members they have sent to the House, whose names still stink in the memory of the public.
  Mr. Muff: Can the noble Lord give the date when such an intervention took place? It was about 1,000 years ago.
  Earl Winterton: I prefer not to specify it more definitely. Everyone will know whom I have in mind. I cannot pursue the subject, but the City behaved extremely badly over the Lord George Gordon riots. They refused to allow special magistrates to be sworn in and they were inimical to the Government, which was doing its best to restore law and order. We should treat the matter to some extent as one of historic continuity. We should not be led to suppose that this state of affairs can continue for ever, and it is not in the interest either of Socialism or of capitalism that this question of the representation of the City should be made a kind of jousting ground for the respective points of view.
  Mr. Tinker: I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) describing the City as a rotten place and yet wanting to give it representation. The case for tradition and special privilege has been swept away. The purpose of the Bill is to put all citizens on something like equality. If this is allowed to go, it means that the voter in London will occupy a privileged position because of something that has
  2012
  happened in the past. If we give the City of London a specially privileged position how can we ever justify treating in the same way another constituency, which may have done equally good work for the country, which has not enough electorate to return a Member? I have always had the greatest admiration for the Home Secretary because of his sound practical views. He has never allowed sentiment to enter into has being. He comes forward to-day with the plea that he is an old Londoner, with the traditions of London in his bones, and that sentiment must govern him, and he asks Parliament to allow the City of London to occupy this privileged position, not on equity, not on what we call practical knowledge, not because of what it is doing now, but because of sentiment for times past. He has no right to do that on an occasion of this kind. If the building up of the electorate means equality of citizenship, there is no other course than to say that, whatever London has done in the past, it must be treated like any other part of Great Britain. I shall vote for the Amendment. I am not bound by discussions that have taken place within my party. I shall follow my own views and I shall vote for equality for every citizen in the realm.
  Mr. W. H. Green: I want to put a rather different point of view from that put by my colleagues, at the risk of being branded as a reactionary Member of my party, but I speak as an old London man. I should view the Parliamentary extinction of the City of London with the greatest regret. There is something of sentiment in my approach to this question, and I would not give much for anyone who has not something of sentiment in his make-up. I do not agree with the lurid painting of the virtues of the City by the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) nor with the fantastic blackening of the City by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
  Mr. Gallacher: I refrained from saying anything about the City of London other than what had been said by the leaders and the rank and file of the Labour Party in days gone by.
  Mr. Green: Whatever one thinks of the City's past, the City of London is

  2013
  regarded as the centre of the British Empire. All our distinguished foreign visitors naturally gravitate towards it. It occupies a position which no other constituency in London occupies or could occupy. It is a centre which I cannot imagine in any other borough in London. Through its Lord Mayor it has been responsible time after time for raising magnificent sums for most laudable objects. Hundreds of my people in Deptford thank God that the Lord Mayor issued his appeal and raised £1,000,000 for the relief of air raid victims. Thousands in my borough have been saved from distress as the result. I cannot imagine any other mayor in London issuing an appeal as effectively as the Lord Mayor of London. The Labour mayors of London for the last 20 years have worked in the closest friendship with the Lord Mayor of London.
  2.45 p.m.
  I am sure that the Speaker's Conference were well advised in their conclusions to take into account what the country would really like. There were certain things not done because the Conference felt that at this juncture the country would not welcome them. I am convinced that the Conference felt that the country would not welcome the political extinction of the City of London. I am not so biased as to oppose the representation of the City because my opponents have held it for so long. The time may come when the City will be as enlightened as the Borough of Deptford. I could not allow this occasion to pass without giving the reasons why I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Clause as it stands. I believe that in doing so I shall have behind me the vast majority of the working people. The tradition and unique position of the City of London justify its continued representation in this House.
  Mr. Woodburn: There have been a good many personal points of view put about the City of London, but, on behalf of my hon. Friends who are likely to support this Bill, I would like to make clear that they are upholding the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that this matter should not be decided just now but that it ought to be decided when the Bill dealing with complete redistribution comes up. The Speaker's Conference was faced with either a partial redistribution, which would bring great unfairness and cause
  2014
  considerable dislocation in constituencies throughout the country, or with complete redistribution—
  Mr. Pritt: The hon. Member is speaking as if this Bill, and the part of it to which I have moved my Amendment, dealt only with a temporary arrangement, but it is a provision for a definitive redistribution. If the Amendment is negatived, it will mean that the definitive redistribution after the General Election will be one in which the City of London is compelled to be left as a separate constituency.
  Mr. Woodburn: I would suggest that what this Parliament does cannot bind any future Parliament and that, when the Bill comes before a future Parliament. the composition of that Parliament will decide what will happen to it. That Parliament cannot have its hands tied. We have either to deal with the whole question or define the limits under which we are going to deal with redistribution. This Bill has for its immediate purpose the dealing with certain abnormal constituencies and the setting up of Boundary Commissions to deal with the bigger question. When they do that it will come before the House of Commons existing at the time they report. In supporting this Bill, therefore, we support the deferring of this question until the next Parliament which will deal with the whole subject.
  Mr. Naylor: I apologise to the Committee for having only just come in and not having had the advantage of listening to the discussion, but I came in soon enough to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). I do not think he is right when he says that this is a matter for the major Measure that will come after the Boundary Commissions have reported. Reference is made in this Bill to exempting the City of London, and it will be an Act of Parliament before the Boundary Commissions report. Therefore, we have a right to give a decision on whether we approve the exemption of the City of London. In advocating the exemption of the City, the Home Secretary drew a picture of its wealth, munificence and history. As one who has spent a good deal of time in the City, I ought to acknowledge the compliment he has paid to that great centre of civilisation. I wonder whether it is within the knowledge of those who

  2015
  advocate this exemption how the City came to have two Members for an electorate which is so much less than that of any other constituency. It is a long time since I went to school, and I have not looked up the historic reference, but I have a recollection that it was one of the Kings of England who gave the City representation in the House of Commons. He was a monarch who, like many of his predecessors and successors, not only wanted revenue but knew how to spend the money when he got it. He was keen on having ships of his own to ride the seas and to bring back merchandise to add to his revenue.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: May I ask the hon. Gentleman which monarch he has in mind?
  Mr. Naylor: I said it was a long time since I left school, and I am not clear about the actual period. Whether it was one of the Edwards or one of the Charles's, I am not sure. All monarchs of England have in the past been very fond of their revenues. To continue my story, the City merchants were so loyal to the King and his extravagance, that they provided him with the money that he required to carry out his purpose.
  Mr. E. P. Smith rose—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to intervene unless the hon. Member who is speaking gives way.
  Mr. Naylor: As a mark of his appreciation of what the City merchants did for him, the King gave them representation in the House of Commons. The point, I take it, is not so much whether the City of London should have two Members or none. I am willing to concede it representation to the extent of one Member. Our objection is that to give two Members, when the resident population is not much more than 10,000 at the outside, is altogether out of proportion. It is not the prestige possessed by the City that entitles it to extra representation. If that were so, the City is so wealthy and so influential, and has a reputation second to none throughout the world, that, if we measure its representation in that way, it would be entitled to half the representation in this House. We are entitled to take this Amendment to a Division so as to challenge the right of the City to con-
  2016
  tinue to have two Members, who have, it is to be noted, the additional privilege of sitting on the Treasury Bench in all the livery of the City, thus making it clear that these two Members are something additional to and apart from the common Members of the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Peake: I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision, and I should like, for the sake of hon. Members who have not been here during the whole of the Debate, to state the issue raised by this Amendment, because some of the speeches show that there is a little misunderstanding about it. The Amendment would bring the City of London within the purview of the Boundary Commission at the time when they make their first general redistribution throughout the country. Nothing in the Amendment affects the position as regards the next General Election, because it is contemplated by the Bill that before then, the only step to be taken will be the carving up of 20 abnormally large constituencies. Therefore nobody who votes on this Amendment will have the slightest effect by their votes upon the representation of the City of London at the next General Election. Whatever happens, the City will be represented in this House by two Members after the next General Election. The only issue is therefore rather an academic one. We say that, owing to the historical position of the City, its position as regards Parliamentary representation should be dealt with by Parliament and by Parliament alone. My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment wishes the position of the City to be brought within the purview of the Boundary Commission after the next General Election. That is the simple issue, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear that nobody voting on the Amendment will be expressing any view as to whether there should be one or two Members for the City of London. That question is left open to be dealt with by Parliament after the next General Election. In these circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. McEntee: If the Amendment were carried, would it

  2017
  not bring the City of London in the same position as any other constituency within the purview of the Commission?
  Mr. Peake: After the next General Election.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 163; Noes 38.

  Division No. 36.]

  AYES.

  [3.2 p.m.

  Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

  Greenwell, Colonel T. G.

  Pet, Major B. A. J.

  Agnew, Comdr. P. G.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Gruffydd, Professor W. J.

  Pym, L. R.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

  Gunston, Major Sir D. W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Beech, Major, F. W.

  Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Beechman, N. A.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Benson, G.

  Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)

  Blair, Sir R.

  Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

  Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Salt, E. W.

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)

  Hopkinson, A.

  Savory, Professor D. L.

  Brabner, Comdr. R. A.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'dern's)

  Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)

  Scott, Lord William (Ro'b's & Selk'k)

  Brass, Capt. Sir W.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)

  Shephard, S.

  Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  John, W.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

  Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  Cary, R. A.

  Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)

  Clarke, Colonel R. S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Studholme, Major H. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Cobb, Captain E. C.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Lewis, O.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Conant, Major R. J. E.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Little, Sir E. Graham- (London Univ.)

  Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Critchley, A.

  Lloyd, Major E. G. F. (Renfrew, E.)

  Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Touche, G. C.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Longhurst, Captain H. C.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

  De Chair, Capt. S. S.

  Lyons, Colonel A. M.

  Turton, R. H.

  De la Bère, R.

  Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)

  Walker, J.

  Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (H)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Magnay, T.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Maitland, Sir A.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gton, N.).

  Makins, Brig.- Gen. Sir E.

  Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.

  Dunn, E.

  Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Mathers, G.

  Webbe, Sir W. Harold

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.

  Montague, F.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)

  Windsor, W.

  Errington, Squadron-Leader E.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

  Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)

  Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.

  Woodburn, A.

  Gates, Major E. E.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Woolley, Major W. E.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

  Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Gledhill, G.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W.

  Major A. S. I. Young and

  Glyn, Sir R. G. C.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Mr. Drewe.

  Graham, Capt. A. C.

  Petherick, M.

  NOES.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hardie, Mrs. Agnes

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Harvey, T. E.

  Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)

  Cove, W. G.

  Hynd, J. B.

  Shinwell, E.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Sloan, A.

  Debbie, W.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Stephen, C.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)

  Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Foster, W.

  Loverseed, J. E.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Frankel, D.

  McEntee, V. la T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Gallacher, W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

  Glanville, J. E.

  Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)

  Mr. Pritt and Mr. Hugh Lawson.

  Guy, W. H.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Exception of university constituencies.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Pritt rose—
  Captain Strickland: On a point of Order. Is it in Order that the Debate should go on after the Question has been put?
  Mr. Pritt: I wish to move to leave out Clause 6. The effect is to deprive universities only of a vote, and I think the argument on the subject can be put very shortly.
  Mr. Petherick: On a point of Order. I understood, Major Milner, that you put the Question to the Committee that the Clause stand part. Is it in Order to continue this Debate?
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite in Order, but it might be for the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House to bear in mind that it is not necessary to put down an Amendment in terms such as—"Leave out Clause so and so." It is the duty of the Chair, on every Clause, to put the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Petherick: Is not the operative moment, after the Question has been put and when it has been declared that the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it? Is not the Question then finished and should we not go on to the next Question? I am not in the least anxious to start a discussion but I want guidance.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: As you have given a decision on that point, Major Milner, is it in Order for the hon. Member to question the Ruling of the Chair?
  The Chairman: I was collecting the voices and was awaiting the hon. Member whose name was on the Order Paper. I had not declared the result.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Both myself and others, sitting as we were near to the Chair, were in a particularly good position to hear you, Major Milner, and we were under the impression that you said the words "The Ayes have it."
  Mr. Woodburn: I quite distinctly heard you say, Major Milner, "I think the Ayes have it," but you did not definitely declare that the Ayes had it.
  Mr. Pritt: Perhaps I can now return to my speech. The question of the university franchise is very different from a city franchise, in that it is normally defended on the ground that it brings distinguished persons into the House of Commons who would not otherwise be there. I do not think anybody has ever said that in favour of the City of London. There is something to be said for the fact that the university franchise does sometimes bring us distinguished Members. When I heard the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) yesterday at one and the same time fulminating against Proportional Representation, and defending the university Members as most excellent Members, I wondered whether he remembered that a good many of them were elected by Proportional Representation. Something very much stronger is required than the mere hope of getting, and frequently getting, Members of some distinction. They are a numerically tiny section of the Membership and without exception they have already one vote elsewhere. It is rather a reflection on the electorate and on the House of Commons if we can get distinguished Members only by a special representation.
  3.15 p.m.
  It is curious to look up the record and discover how many university Members there are who have sat for non-university seats and how many Members there are sitting for non-university seats who have, at any rate, tried to get into Parliament for the universities. If there is any real distinction between those of us who represent universities and the others, it should be that university representatives are naturally distinguished persons of such great culture and fragility that they could hardly hope to survive the ordinary rough and tumble of a General Election or a by-election, while the rest of us are distinguished by no sort or kind of learning or culture, but simply by the capacity to sustain the turmoil of a three-weeks' election—unless we are, like the City of London representatives, elected without contests.
  The essence of the matter can be put quite shortly. This should be a demo-

  2021
  cratic House of Commons and the more democratic it is, the more faithfully, without portraying it with mathematical accuracy, it will represent the country, so much the better for the House and for the country. To import a number of privileged persons or so, standing, so to speak, in a privileged category but exercising votes like everybody else, is something in the way of an insult to democracy. If it should be seriously thought that you can only get a really intelligent and cultured person if he sits for a university seat, then hon. Members who think that should never have the temerity to stand for Parliament again, because they will know that they are unintelligent and uncultured.
  As regards the principle, why should such privileges be confined only to people who have university education? Why not privileges for people who have other claims to culture and other advantages? Why not special representation in this House for poets? Why not special representation for the Trades Union Congress, which is a very important body and very specialised? Why not special representation for scientists or doctors, or—perhaps for once the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I can find ourselves in momentary agreement—for that very distinguished and very learned body called lawyers?
  Mr. Qnintin Hogg: We have too many already.
  Mr. Pritt: Perhaps I shall find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend once again. We have a number of cultured and intelligent persons in the House already. Why suggest a special provision for extra ones? It does not admit of much argument and is a complete anomaly. If we did not have university Members, and anyone were to propose that we should have, it would be very difficult to find any argument in favour of it. For those reasons I ask the Committee to reject the Clause.
  Petty Officer Alan Herbert: I do not know whether it is seemly for one of the intended victims to do so, but I should like to thank the cannibal king for the comparatively moderate way in which he has prepared the pot. I am rather surprised by the quarter from which this proposal comes.
  2022
  The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), although the fact is not mentioned in Dodd, was at school with me, a scholar at Winchester College, and he is entitled, if he wishes, to wear the same old school tie; and so might have been expected to welcome the representation of the citadels of what he called culture. I was also surprised that he seemed to fall into the same error which he attributed to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). He, like myself, believes in the single transferable vote, but by this Amendment he proposes to abolish the only constituencies in which the single transferable vote is operative and in which therefore, according to us, the voting is bound to be fair, free and satisfactory.
  Perhaps I may say a few words about the methods of election in these queer places. They are in a way, I think, the most civilised form of election we have got. There are no speeches, no spellbinding, no canvassing, hardly any expenses. I do not know what the expenses of my hon. and learned Friend were at the last Election, but I think mine were under £100. I quite agree with him that I would like to see this principle extended. I do not know whether I would be in Order in saying this: I agree with him that this arrangement might be extended, though not in the way he mentioned, because we do claim to represent the artists, scholars, poets, and men of science. We talk about young men coming here after the war, the men who fought the Battle of Britain and so on, I am afraid that will be impracticable for many of them, because they will have to earn a living; so I should like to see constituencies like these returning, say, two young men from the Army, two from the Navy and two from the Air Force, so that they could give us the views of youth without having to bear the full labour of a geographical Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Co-operative Society."]They can get in already.
  The objection, I gather, to the university representation is based on a somewhat arid devotion to an arithmetical formula of "One man, one vote." It is suggested, I gather, that this is now part of the Constitution. If so, I do not know where to find it. "One man, one vote" is, after all, only a very recent experiment: and it has yet to be established as

  2023
  altogether satisfactory. Even in that enlightened and progressive country, Russia, I doubt whether "One man, one vote" is in very active operation; and, if the claim is made, we all know who the One Man is.
  When my hon. and learned Friend talked about an "insult to democracy" and constitutional formulae and principles I could hardly believe my ears. I should have thought it was a fairly well established convention, at least, that Members who have notoriously lost the confidence of their constituents and have been invited by responsible bodies of their constituents to retire from their seats—
  Mr. Pritt rose—
  The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is not entitled to stand up or remain standing or to intervene unless the hon. and gallant Member gives way.
  Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order.
  The Chairman: Frequently the hon. and learned Member is inclined to remain standing when an hon. Member who is addressing the House has not given way. He must not remain standing. He must resume his seat.
  Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Is it not an absolute rule for every hon. Gentleman who makes a direct attack on an hon. Member to give way?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Not until he has finished it.
  The Chairman: It is entirely at the option of the hon. Member concerned.
  Petty Officer Herbert: I will certainly give way in a minute, but as a lover of language, I have a prejudice in favour of finishing my sentences. I do not remember making a direct attack on anybody, but if the cap fits we shall no doubt see it taken off in a moment. I was going to say that the phrase "insult to democracy" might reasonably apply to one who, having been invited by his constituents to retire and permit them to choose another Member, declines and remains here lecturing us on who is entitled to represent whom.
  Mr. Pritt: The hon and gallant Member will forgive me telling him that that is a
  2024
  complete and absolute misrepresentation of fact. So far from my constituents asking me to retire, all that ever happened was that a body of seven of them, meeting without previous notice to me, and without stating on their notice convening their meeting what they wanted to discuss, then passed a previously prepared written document asking me to resign. I thereupon held a number of meetings in my constituency, as I had done before, to ascertain the views of my constituents. I found unanimous support, and since then two delegate conferences, one of which sat yesterday, comprising large numbers of trade unions in the constituency, have voted their unanimous support of me.
  Petty Officer Herbert: If those are the facts I freely and gladly withdraw. I had not heard the more recent facts. There are three aspects to the university constituency. One is the voter, one is the Member sent here, and one is the institution. I suppose this franchise dates from the day when it was considered advisable to have some test before a man was allowed to exercise, not the right, but the duty of voting. In some cases it was the laborious acquisition and retention of property, which is not a bad test. In the case of my constituents, they have to pass an examination before they are allowed to exercise the vote. For three years they have to subject themselves to the discipline and teaching of a great university—[Interruption.] It may be only a third class degree, I know, but when people ask, "Is there any reason why these persons should have an extra vote?" one answer that might be made—I do not press it too far—is that they are the only voters who have to pass an intelligence test before they vote. It is a principle which might well be extended, even possibly to North Hammersmith. I think the hon. and learned Member is quite wrong, constitutionally and practically and in every way, when he talks about the vote as a privilege. I do not regard it—
  Mr. Pritt: I did not talk about the vote as a privilege; I do not regard it as a privilege. I spoke of the privilege of having twelve extra people here.
  Petty Officer Herbert: The privilege of having a university vote. I do not think it is a privilege at all. It is a duty. When the hon. and learned Member says,

  2025
  "Why do they have this vote?" the answer is that they represent, and we represent, the British universities. The British universities are unique institutions, and it is not surprising that they have unique treatment. They are small cities on their own, governing physically the lives of thousands of young men, and through their teaching the minds of generations; they have great possessions, huge responsibilities, including the spending of public money. I think that Parliament would be foolish if it did not compel the universities to send a few representatives here to render an account from time to time of what the universities are doing, and to defend, if necessary, the great purposes for which they exist. I do not really agree with the hon. and learned Member when he says that we should not think of starting such a thing if it did not exist. I think we should. I think that so far from the principle being a retrograde and an antiquated remnant, it is a sign of great modernity and enlightenment. I was in France the other day speaking to some Frenchmen. I was introduced as "Un Député Anglais." That did not excite them much. But then one Frenchman asked me what part of England I represented. I said proudly "The University of Oxford." They pricked up their ears. They said "Oxford is represented in your Parliament?" That tickled them to death. They thought it was a most modern idea. This is what they said: "But yes, that is part of the reconstruction?"
  3.30 p.m.
  Of course if the universities did not do their duty, if it could be shown that they sent to this House a procession of deplorable Members, I should be the first to sing a different tune. It is not for me at present to say whether they are doing so. Let me say how I think that a trickle of university Members to this House does help the State. The Committee may have noticed that university Members tend to bring up subjects rather out of the way of the main stream of politics—it may be coinage or camouflage, divorce in England or distress in Europe; and the hon. and gallant Lady, one of the Members for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has a whole bagful of noble causes. They are not election winners; they are causes with which my hon. Friends here, although they may
  2026
  be interested and sympathetic, cannot have time to deal, and which they certainly would not dream of putting into an election address. My own election address was full of such oddments. There was a burglar at my house some time before the war. I am glad to say that he did not get much—he left in a hurry—but he pulled out my political file and spread the contents on the floor. I have always imagined that when he saw the extraordinary themes tumble before him—"divorce," "drink," "insanity," "adultery," "betting," "libel and slander," and so forth, he must have said, "Heavens, where am I?" and rushed away. It does seem to me a good thing that there should be a few Members who by the circumstances of their election, and in some cases, perhaps, their special aptitudes, are inclined and able to bring forward sometimes, not too often, these intricate questions, which are not really politics but are important parts of life on the fringes of politics, and, therefore, are useful subjects for discussion in this House. It is not a thing that everybody agrees about and I wish to make no personal boast, but I am perfectly sure that if I had not been an independent university Member, the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, would not be on the Statute Book to-day. Hon. Members know how difficult that sort of subject is for ordinary Members, and it is well to have one or two Members who need not be afraid.
  If this is indeed my swan-song, I must say I have been very proud to have been an hon. Member here. I have a great admiration for this House, and for the hard, self-sacrificing work of the geographical Members. We 12 Members for the universities all humbly recognise how comparatively little are the labours which suffice to bring us here and to retain us here. We do not have to go on the long week-end journeys; we do not have to hold great meetings and plunge into the turbulent troubles of pensions, housing, war damage and so on. I do not think we get so much correspondence as other Members do—although we get quite enough. But there is a corollary. Some people are kind enough to say that if university representation is abolished, we can easily stand and be elected for other places. It is not for me to say whether that is so or not; but the point is that not everybody has

  2027
  the time, although he may wish to serve the State, which my hon. colleagues so gallantly give. Therefore—this is not a threat, or a promise—assuming that this Amendment is carried, I bid the House a fond but proud farewell.
  Professor Savory: If this Clause is omitted, Northern Ireland will be deprived of one of its Members. I should like to point out that, by the Act of 1920, the representation of Northern Ireland was reduced from 30 to 13. The 13 Members were very much less than Northern Ireland was entitled to from a numerical point of view; and if this Amendment is now passed, that 13 will be reduced to 12. That would be a breach of the Agreement of 1920, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  I should like to pass to various other arguments which have been brought forward. I have here HANSARD of 1931. I find that the Labour Government brought forward a Bill, one of the Clauses of which was to deprive the universities of all representation in this House. But I see that on this Bill, brought forward by the Labour Government of that day, the Motion that this particular Clause stand part of the Bill was defeated, the Ayes being 242, and the Noes being 246. Even when a Labour Government was in power, this proposal was defeated by four votes. The Prime Minister who brought forward that Bill was subsequently defeated by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell); and what did he do? He who had wanted to destroy university representation took refuge in a university seat. The Scottish Universities sent this very distinguished gentleman back to the House of Commons. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald took refuge in a Scottish Universities' seat; and the Scottish Universities were highly honoured in sending him back here. To-day, those same Scottish Universities have sent here the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What should we do without the guardian of our finances? I maintain that these universities bring in an element that this House likes to have. I read in "The Times" the other day the annual report of the Liberal Party. They said that, whereas formerly they had been opposed to university representation, now they were fully reconciled to it, because it brought into this House an
  2028
  element which otherwise would not be represented.
  It I may, I will refer to my two very distinguished predecessors. My immediate predecessor was Colonel Sinclair, the professor of surgery in the University of Belfast, who was certainly the most distinguished surgeon in the whole of Ireland, to put it at the lowest. I know for a fact that many ladies and gentlemen who desired to have certain operations performed undertook the trying journey over the sea to Belfast, to come under this very celebrated surgeon. May I also remind the Committee that this eminent surgeon was placed by the War Office in charge of all the hospitals in France during the last war. When I said to him, after his return, "I am sure you must have performed some very wonderful operations in France," he said, "No, Savory, my glory is not in the operations I performed, but in the operations that I prevented from being performed," The predecessor of Colonel Sinclair was Sir William Whitla, and his "Dictionary of Treatment," I understand, forms part of the library of every doctor in this country. His "Dictionary of Treatment" and other books have been translated into innumerable languages, including Chinese.
  The Chairman (Major Milner): I do not think that is material to the hon. Member's point. Will he please confine himself to the Question before the Committee?
  Professor Savory: I should also like to add that the dictionary was translated into American, and that it contains all the prescriptions in English for the benefit of those people whose Latin has become rather rusty. I should just like to say this—that a university constituency is the most democratic constituency in the world, because it enables a poor man to get into this House. My distinguished predecessor, Sir William Whitla, attended a banquet to celebrate a Conservative victory—
  The Chairman: These matters are interesting, but not very vital. Will the hon. Member be good enough to confine his remarks to the Question?
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The hon. Member who is describing how his predecessor attended a banquet is using it as an illustration, and, in view of the fact that some of us have never been to a banquet, I ask you, Major

  2029
  Milner, to allow him to give such an illustration.
  Professor Savory: May I finish the story? This has a direct concern with democracy and is important in that connection. Sir William got up to propose the chief toast, and he said this: "I have just come back from the University of Belfast, and you know how terribly expensive these university elections are. As I am a strong supporter of this club, I should be very grateful if you would be so kind as to help me with my expenses." The chairman looked rather askance, but he turned round and said, "After all, Sir William, what were your expenses?" and Sir William Whitla held up two fingers and said "Twopence—one penny tram to take me to the university and one penny tram to take me back home."
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Gallagher: I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) withdrew the remarks he made about the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), because, if not, it would have put upon me the responsibility, which I would have been ready to accept. of going to Oxford and getting a group there to demand his recall. I am prepared to go to Cambridge also and get a group to recall the Senior Burgess. It is easy to get a small group of that particular character in any constituency. The hon. Member gave a fine exhibition, not even surpassed by the Home Secretary, of how to dodge an issue. The hon. Member went so far as to say that he agreed with a couple of representatives for the Army and Navy and so forth. There is not an argument for the university because of special knowledge, but applies as an argument for every industry on the ground of the special knowledge they have. If there is to be an argument put up for special qualities, one might be put up for the theatres or the music hall profession, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University would care to touch on that, because he would be in a very difficult position in having to endure the competition of Tommy Trinder and Vic Oliver.
  To come to the main thing we have to face in considering this question of special representation for the universities, I would like to say that I go to a good
  2030
  number of them and talk to the students and do all the harm I can as far as the Conservative Party is concerned. I run about the universities quite a lot. Everything should be done to encourage students and train them into an understanding of the life of the masses of the people, but there is no justification of any kind for certain individuals utilising the universities in order to get a seat in this House. The hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) gave us a classic case of what can happen when you get someone who is so discredited that no constituency anywhere will have him, but who can be adopted for a university and can come to this House.
  Professor Savory: It was a Prime Minister.
  Mr. Gallacher: It does not matter who it might be. It should not be possible to have such a situation. There can be no justification for such a thing. When the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith talked about the professions, the hon. Member for Oxford University said there were too many lawyers here already. There may be, but quite a number of these hon. Members have come here through Oxford or Cambridge or some other university, so that, if you take it from that point of view, there are too many representatives coming from universities, without an extra dozen being thrown in.
  The important thing, I say, is that we are now facing a new situation arising out of the war and all the changes which are bound to take place in connection with the war. Here is something that has always been a subject of objection, so far as the masses of the people are concerned. It was because it was the subject of objection that it was raised by the Labour Government. The Liberal Party had a very big percentage addition to its ranks by the coming into this House of the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Professor Gruffydd). The hon. Member is a very big strengthening of the Liberal force in this House, numerically and intellectually, and therefore we can understand the Liberal Party changing its attitude on this question, but not on the basis of any principle. In the light of the past discussions of this question and the situation that now confronts us, with all these lads out at the fighting front and all the men and women toiling

  2031
  in the factories, nobody can justify the anomaly of the universities having separate and independent representatives. With all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University, if it was a question of one man one vote for the universities, I would not have any difficulty in choosing the one man. I think he would get very favourable consideration. But apart from all that sort of thing, there is no basis of justice and no principle that can be brought forward to justify such an anomaly. I ask Members, and particularly those who have made so many protestations, to face up to the declarations they have made and, on this question of changing the electoral arrangements, to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: After the eloquent and friendly appeal by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I feel almost reluctant to disappoint him. But Oxford must stand four square. Town and gown have had their differences in the past and no doubt they will have their differences in the future, but as far as I can see, speaking as the representative of a borough where a great university has its physical abode, although its spiritual abode is spread right across the terrestrial globe, we should not deny Parliamentary existence to our younger sister who has been lodging for so many years in our house. I cannot claim the eloquence or the wit of my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess of Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) but there are one or two home-spun arguments which might appeal to the unsophisticated and illiterate Members from the boroughs. It did rejoice my heart when the Speaker's Conference, after careful consideration, came to a unanimous recommendation on this matter. It said a good deal for the spirit of give-and-take which had animated the discussions and it will be a pity if we disregard that unanimous recommendation. Other issues we have had, of course, in which the Speaker's Conference differed and divisions have been heard, but this was a unanimous recommendation and it would be a pity if we disregarded it.
  There is a second point. It struck me, as I heard the hon. Member for West Fife talking about the van of progress, that the real truth of this matter was that he
  2032
  was living in the past. There has been a time when there was quite legitimate complaint as to the use of which the university constituencies were made. They were used, as hon. Members who have studied the history of these seats will no doubt know, to return followers of the most embittered, narrow, crusted ecclesiasticism and Toryism of that time. There was a time when that was so and a legitimate complaint was made in the past. I need only refer to the history of Mr. Gladstone. How deplorable was the effect upon his state, a state of mind where for years he was struggling with his conscience as to which privilege of the Church of England he would give up next, and how many were the difficulties with his constituents he had to face. But these times are past. It is not a party question and it is not a class question.
  The modern University of Oxford represents the cream of the young intellect of the country coming up, and would to God we had more of them. The working class have every bit as much right to go to the universities as anybody else. They are welcomed when they get there, and they already represent, even from the humblest homes, very nearly half of the undergraduate population. When they graduate they get votes and I myself rejoice that they should have that extra vote. The representatives they are beginning to send to Parliament are not the entrenched representatives of the Church of England and Toryism as they were in the past. We are beginning to see the dawn of a new era already. One only has to contrast the type of representative we are getting from the universities now with what we had 25 years ago to see plainly written the shape of things to come. There is no reason for any member of any political complexion to doubt that their own particular point of view will have ample representation in universities in time to come, and I hope that it will be so. We in this country—and by this country I mean England rather than Scotland—
  Mr. James Griffiths: England and Wales.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not know about Wales, but in England we tend to under-estimate the appeal and virtue of education. We always have done so. It is not confined to any particular class, but English people do not give sufficient honour and respect to the things of the mind as such.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member says that when they graduate they rightly have the vote. Would he apply that principle to a factory where a man has a son serving his time as an engineer, and has another son going through the university for a particular degree? When the one graduates at the university, he gets a vote, and when the other graduates as a skilled engineer should not he also get one?
  Mr. Hogg: He certainly should get a vote. I do not think that that is in question but I give the hon. Gentleman the credit of asking whether he should get an extra vote. I will endeavour to argue that point separately, but let me complete the point I was making. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said that this university representation was an insult to democracy. That is not the way I see it at all. The way I see it is that it is a compliment to the things of the mind paid by democracy—a compliment which democracy can well afford to pay—a compliment which should come willingly from every political party which believes in the development of the mind. I make no bones about asking for privilege for things of this kind because it is not based on class, money or party. It is based on the one form of aristocracy which can be justified—the aristocracy of the intellect—and I should deplore a departure from the tradition of this House which has allowed universities to be separately represented.
  It is not a question of whether you are cultured or not. Of course there are plenty of cultured people in this House who can stand for a democratic electorate, but it is not a bad thing that universities should be separately represented in order to represent their interests, which are all too little considered sometimes in our modern affairs. It is not at all a bad thing that those who cannot ordinarily face a democratic electorate, but who still have some appeal to this House, should have a way in, a way which is democratic, because it is provided by an election on democratic lines but nevertheless election through people who can appreciate, for instance, the value of a man behind perhaps a slight impediment in his speech; a man perhaps who cannot command a noisy crowd—not always the worst kind of speaker in this House. We
  2034
  welcome, I think, a method which enables us to welcome men like that.
  4.0 p.m.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife asked, Did I suggest that the person who graduated in a factory should have a second vote too? Of course, that in the ordinary course would make nonsense of the whole eloctoral system. I do not believe in all this talk about graduation in the school of life. It is a school which most of us have been in, but we want for our children—those of us who believe in education—something better than that rough school. We want education to be represented in our highest counsels. There is, as a matter of fact, a very good practical answer to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife was saying. This is not an Amendment which proposes to do away with the second vote for the business qualification. If this Amendment were carried, all that would happen would be that the business men would get two votes and the man with a university qualification only one. I should have thought that, if anything were certain, the man with the university qualification should have two votes long before-the purely business qualification.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: We are all agreed with that.
  Mr. Hogg: If we are going to deal with these questions of dual qualification, we ought to deal with them as a whole at a stage when the whole matter can be gone into.
  I want to make only one more point. It seems to me that there is a difference in the philosophy of those who put this Amendment forward and that which I myself hold, and the key is to be found in the word which recurs again and again in their speeches, the word "anomaly." I believe that if a system is working well and doing good, manifest good, in its operations, you do not have to look too closely as to the intellectual basis on which it originally rose; you have to consider whether it is doing good or evil. In my submission to the Committee this university qualification is doing good in this House of Commons. I do not believe in absolute uniformity in human life. I do not believe that society is a mechanical construct which you can make conform to a rigid, intellectual plan. I believe it is more in the nature of a living organism

  2035
  with its own peculiar characteristics. Universities, with their qualification and their representation in this House, have a long and honourable history in the intellectual life of this country. They are doing good by returning the kind of Member they are returning at the present time. They have shown themselves capable of changing with the times and moving with the times, and I cannot but think that a House of Commons which did not have amongst its representatives the very largely independent Members whom I now see around me, would be a poorer House of Commons, and therefore less worthy to represent the great democracy of this country, which looks in the future to pay more attention to the things of the mind and to education than it has been able to do in the past.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: If the universities were to be judged by the Members they have sent to this House up to the present Parliament, I think we should sweep away university representation at once. It is of little use for theoretical arguments of such cogency as we have heard to be put forward when we consider what kind of Members the universities have, in fact, returned until the present Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has mentioned the connection of Mr. Gladstone with that "God-fearing and God-sustaining university" of which we are both members. By forgetfulness or deliberation he did not mention that the University of Oxford rejected Mr. Gladstone at the polls, as it had previously rejected his great mentor, Sir Robert Peel. In fact, at every epoch of our public life the universities hitherto have been below the general level of the political consciousness of this country. The Labour Party has been in existence for 44 years, and yet the universities have not returned a single member of the Labour Party to Parliament.
  Mr. E. Harvey: In the 1923–24 Parliament, the representative of the University of Wales was a member of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Thomas: I stand corrected. I am very glad to hear it; obviously it had not made a great impression on my mind. At any rate, in that long period of time, nearly half a century, the universities have returned practically no Labour
  2036
  Members of Parliament. That may appear to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford as an argument for university representation but it can hardly be expected to commend itself to the party on these benches; and I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), who made such an interesting and far-ranging speech, that he is hardly likely to obtain our support by pointing out that the Scottish universities were used as a place of refuge for Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.
  Mr. Levy: The hon. Gentleman will excuse my interrupting, but is he suggesting that the constituents should not be the best judges of the representatives they send to Parliament?
  Mr. Thomas: Of course, I am not suggesting that. I was saying that the argument is not likely to commend itself to those of us on these benches on whom it falls now to decide whether university representation shall continue or not. I say very strongly that if the universities were to be judged, not by the theoretical arguments that can be put forward so cogently but by their results, then we should sweep away university representation at once. However, I think, and many of my hon. Friends think with me, that this is a matter on which we should suspend judgment, for the universities are beginning to send a better type of man to this House. The Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer A. Herbert) has had my vote in the past in default of Labour candidates and, if his behaviour remains good, he may get it in the future. In the case of Oxford, at any rate, there is a growing opinion that no Member with a party label ought to be elected and, in future, if Conservatives are elected for the University of Oxford, they will probably call themselves Independents. At any rate the universities are beginning now to send better men to the House of Commons. I do not want to make any invidious comparisons but I would like to single out such a man as the Junior Burgess for the University of Cambridge (Professor Hill).
  Mr. Pickthorn: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that I am an improvement on Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton?
  Mr. Thomas: Sir Isaac Newton was probably the greatest mathematician that the world has ever seen, and Francis Bacon a great philosopher, but I am yet to be convinced that they were very valuable Members of this House.
  Mr. Pickthorn: But Newton was a very great administrator.
  Mr. Thomas: I would prefer not to make any comments which must be invidious on the hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, though I was caught in the process of paying a tribute to his Junior colleague. That, I say, is the position, that the universities are beginning now to justify their representation, and it is as a result of the process to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford has drawn attention that the universities are now becoming more truly representative of the country as a whole, with the single exception of the House of which he is himself a Member, which retains all its old aristocratic characteristics.
  Captain Strickland: To which "House" was the hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. Thomas: To Christ Church, Oxford.
  Mr. Hogg: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, but we cannot go into it here.
  Mr. Thomas: Be that as it may, there is a case, I think, for suspending judgment, but I hope it will be clear to university electors that they are definitely on trial, and will be judged in future, at least by the Labour Party, by the kind of representatives they send here. There may be a strong case for continuing the representation of the universities, but what is surely repugnant to every democratic mind is that a university graduate should have two votes. Let every university graduate choose whether he wants a residential vote or a university vote. At any rate, he should not be allowed to have two.
  Sir Ernest Graham-Little: This is the third time in 20 years that this matter has been before the House. May I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that he is premature in moving abolition of university franchise today, because he has done more than anyone else to bring about the change
  2038
  in the political representation of the universities now evident everywhere. There is a very vigorous and influential body, the University Labour Federation. For many years the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was its president, and now the president is the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith. The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) made a strong and important point when he said that the underlying reason for wishing to abolish the university franchise was the fact that the universities had never sent a Socialist Member to this House. If that is the sole criterion of worthiness for Membership, that point may be justified, but I would like to emphasise that this position is now definitely changing.
  Let me give an illustration. During the Debate about a year ago on the release of Sir Oswald Mosley I was the target, as no doubt were other Members, of a series of deputations from a number of very excited young people. Representatives of six colleges of the London University—which has a larger number of colleges than any other university—came to see me and all told the same story. It was an extremely silly story, because they based their objections to the release of Mosley on medical grounds, of which they were entirely ignorant, but all confessed they were delegates from the University Labour Federation. This Federation has established societies—I believe the proper word is "cells"—in nearly every school and university in the country.
  Mr. H. Lawson: Have the members of these "cells" votes at university elections?
  4.15 p.m.
  Sir E. Graham-Little: They are undergraduates. There is a strong view that political qualification should not be considered for a Member for a university. I followed that rule myself. Twenty years ago there was a crisis in the University of London, which united a large number of electors on my side. What was in question was the destruction of the democratic side of that university; it is my proud boast that that university is the poor man's university, because it has what is known as the external side. In that connection because I supported that side I received

  2039
  votes from every part in the university, very largely from the Liberal section, and quite largely from the Labour section, and consequently I won the election. It was a university vote, and not a political vote. I put in the front of my election address the plea that a university vote should not be regarded as an opportunity for casting a second vote for a political party, and that standpoint has been adopted very largely in subsequent years.
  I was the first Independent university Member to win election, and now there are seven Independent Members out of the 12 university Members we have in this House. Of those seven, there are probably three who have very definite Left Wing orientations. There are only three who are official Conservatives. I submit that that composition does away at once with the charge that the university Members are a restricted political group. It has been suggested by no less a person than one of the leaders of the Labour Party, Professor Harold Laski, that the future function of Parliament and of Members of Parliament would not be to effect legislation by Acts of Parliament but by Order in Council. He was kind enough to suggest that there was one function still left to Members which he regarded as being nearly as important as legislation, and that was the function of Members of Parliament to draw attention to abuses and correct injustices. I submit that that function is performed by the university Members in a very generous and abundant fashion, and that it ought to be one of their principal duties.
  I want to make reference to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Thomas), that no eminent persons have been elected by the universities until this Parliament. May I quote a few? In the time I have been a Member, here are some of the persons I would select as refuting that contention. I would place Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in the very top rank. He was the most distinguished leader the Labour Party has ever produced. Another Member was Mr. John Buchan, who, as the House knows, performed a very important mission for this country in Canada. Then we had that very celebrated debater, Lord Hugh Cecil. We know how exceptional he was in his intellect and in his debating power and personality. Could
  2040
  there have been a more worthy Member for a university? My own predecessor was Sir Philip Magnus, who sat here for 17 years and made a very strong impression upon the educational world during his Membership. I do not want to consider in detail present Members—that would be invidious—but I should like to mention two or three of these. We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would inevitably be a pillar of any Government of which he formed part. We have the Junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who has done a most important piece of work during the war. The last Member that I will mention is the Junior Burgess for Cambridge (Professor A. V. Hill), who has just returned from an important mission for the Government in his visit to India. He is moreover a link between the most famous scientific society in the world, the Royal Society, and this House.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember also the Senior Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), who did a fine job in making our divorce laws more reasonable and humane.
  Sir E. Graham-Little: I was selecting those who have done important missions far the Government. The Senior Member for Oxford University requires no bouquets from me. Then comes another question. It has been mentioned more than once that university Members in the House now would not be in the House if they had to undergo the ordinary conditions of election, especially in the matter of expense. Very few university Members are rich men. Another reason is the time that would have to be spent in the performance of their duty. So there is not really an alternative avenue for their approach to Parliament and if the Committee agrees that their removal would be unfortunate, I hope that the vote for retention of university Members will be decisive in its overwhelming volume.
  Mr. H. Lawson: We have heard to-day quite a lot of speeches on the question of whether universities should or should not return Members to the House. I hope I shall be forgiven if I make my remarks pertinent to the Clause that we are discussing. We are asking that it should be struck out The Clause says that the

  2041
  Boundary Commission shall have nothing to do with university constituencies. The effect of the rejection of the Clause is that the Boundary Commission shall have power to examine and deal with university constituencies. So it is not a question of saying we want to abolish university constituencies. Why is it necessary that the Boundary Commission should have to make adjustments of the present university constituencies? The first reason is that the representation between one university and another is grossly unfair. May I read approximate figures of the quota required to elect a university Member for each university, the quota being the total electorate divided by the number of Members returned, and these are the 1935 figures—Oxford 11,000, electorate per Member, Cambridge, 17,000, London, 17,000, Combined English Universities, 13,000, 7,000 for the University of Wales, 17,000 for the Scottish Universities and 3,800 for Queen's University, Belfast. There is a difference between one university and another of four to one and I do not think, if I protest against that, that I can be said to be niggling about an exact mathematical equality. After all, 400 per rent. is a big error. So, if one is going to accept the idea of special university representation, there is a case for a review to get fair representation between one university and another.
  The second reason why I think the Boundary Commission should have to review the position is that the average quota for a university representative is very much less than that for the whole country. The universities together return 12 Members, with an electorate of about 164,000. In other words, the average quota is about 14,000. The quota for the rest of the country is somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000, so that a vote cast in a university election has four or five times as much representation in this House as the vote in any other kind of election excluding the City of London. So here again I am not niggling about small percentages. What, therefore, would the Boundary Commission do if they applied themselves to this problem? I believe you could make out a case that there should be three, or possibly four, Members for all the universities, and probably the best thing to do would be to have a system of Proportional Representation for all the universities with three or four Members. But I do not want to
  2042
  dogmatise on that. You might give Oxford and Cambridge one Member and two Members for the rest. But I think I have made out a case that there should be a review of the matter.
  So much has been said about the case for having university representation that I think I may be allowed to refer to it. The case is that it is necessary that graduates should have a say in the counsels of the nation. I agree, but is anyone suggesting that there are not in the House at present a very large number of university graduates? There is a much larger number than in proportion to the total adult population. I am glad it is so and I take it that it will always inevitably be so. If university education is what it should be, it should fit people for coming to the House. The Senior Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) made out the case that, because of the special corporate life of the university, there should be representation. His case was one for representation of the university as a corporate body, which is in the main representation by undergraduates, but that is not what you get to-day. You get people receiving the vote when they have left the university and they are no longer taking any part in its corporate life. They are spread over the country, indeed over the world.
  4.30 p.m.
  Professor Gruffydd: A university is not made up of undergraduates; it is made up of the undergraduates and graduates, and the proportion of graduates to undergraduates is very large.
  Mr. Lawson: I agree, but the point that was made was that the corporate body of a university, the people living and studying together should have special representation in Parliament. I agree that this corporate body consists not only of undergraduates, but also graduates, tutors, fellows and so on. The main part of the corporate body however is for all practical purposes composed of undergraduates, and when they leave the university their links with it are very slight. A lot has been said about the quality of those who come to this House to represent the universities. I do not wish to go into that because I think, from the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, that those Members who are returned by the university voters are a

  2043
  cross-section and represent many of the shades of opinion that we get in this House. I do not think that these arguments have very much to do with the proposal to leave out this Clause. I ask hon. Members to study what we are trying to do. It is to give the Boundary Commission the opportunity of reviewing the position of the university constituencies. We are not under this Clause even trying to remove plural voting. Suppose that the Boundary Commission does adjust the quota, there will still be plural voting, and a person will be able to vote in his residential constituency and also in his university. I support the proposal that a university voter should only be able to use one vote but should be able to choose whether he will vote in the university constituency or in his residential constituency.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into the question of two votes now.
  Mr. Lawson: I am only pointing out that the proposal on the Paper leaves plural voting unchecked.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is just the point we cannot discuss now.
  Mr. Lawson: May I, then, conclude by reinforcing the appeal I made, to set aside the arguments which have been brought forward for the abolition of the university vote or for keeping the vote as it is. All I am asking is that the university vote, with all the other problems concerning the distribution of seats, ought to be submitted to the Boundary Commission.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee: In one matter I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). That is as to the effect of this Amendment if it is taken literally. This Clause does not settle the question, certainly not in so many words, of the retention of the university seats. It does not settle the other question whether, if there are to be university electorates, they should be based on a system of plural voting. The hon. Member went on to point out that the Amendment does not in so many words abolish university representation. That, of course, is technically correct, but I do not think the Committee has strayed from the point in regarding the Amendment as intended to destroy the university electorate altogether. It is to that ques-
  2044
  tion that I propose to devote my remarks. This question of the universities has for some time in the past divided Members, largely on party lines. The members of the Speaker's Conference were composed of nearly all the parties in the House, and naturally they brought with them, I will not say the prejudices, but the preconceived opinions, of their respective parties. Under the co-ordinating influence of Mr. Speaker, representing, I am confident, the general view of the House, they sought to use the opportunity of the Conference not to assert and defend their views, but to reach some solution of this and other problems which, while not providing them with all that they wanted, could be regarded as a reasonable compromise.
  This was so in particular in this matter of the university electorate. It is true, of course, that in times gone by the Universities were largely, if not exclusively, preserves of the party opposite. This was mainly due to the fact that only those had votes who had not only taken degrees but had paid special fees. In my university there was a substantial fee before a roan could take the degree of M.A., which at that time was requisite, and, in addition, he had to pay a registration fee for his name to be kept on the books, which was necessary in order for him to vote. That money qualification has already been partly swept away, and, therefore, the position as we find it is not precisely what it was some years back. In spite of that, there is a fee attached in many cases, though not in all the universities, and the class position of the university voter, though not in its original form, has been to some extent retained. Faced with these facts we members of the Speaker's Conference desired to reach a compromise solution.
  Mr. Britt: On a point of Order. I understand that it had been ruled earlier that we were not allowed to discuss what took place within the Speaker's Conference, except in so far as it has been published in the Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister.
  The Deputy-Chairman: As far as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was discussing the effect of the Speaker's Conference on the individuals who composed it in making their recommendations, and he was not going into details as to how it worked.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Thank you, Mr. Williams, for putting into other words precisely the answer that I should have given to the hon. and learned Member. I am not proposing to disclose in any particular the debates or discussions which took place in the Conference, but I am giving the point of view of those who came to the Conference with a desire to arrive, under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, at agreed solutions. I am going to give the findings of the Conference, which are already published, in illustration and as a direct application of the agreement which we reached. As I say, we sought to reach an agreed conclusion which was neither, on the one hand, complete satisfaction of the claim that the university electorates should be swept away, nor, on the other, that there should be a retention of the university electorates in the precise form in which they were before. What we did, therefore, was to propose that the university electorates should be retained but that all registration fees should be abolished, and that the franchise should be thrown open to all graduates, not only those that will graduate hereafter but those who are graduates of any university at the present time, without any further fee on their part.
  In view of the tendency, which has already been illustrated by other hon. Members, of universities taking a less party view of their representation than used to be the case in the past, and in view of the greater entry of members of all classes into the universities which is going on at the present time, I think, as one who was at the Speaker's Conference, that we have not only reached a compromise solution which is reasonable as a compromise between parties but that it is one which can quite legitimately be defended on its own merits.
  The Bill, as far as it goes in the matter of settling the university electorate question at ail, is, at best, one half of that compromise. I shall support it, and shall ask my hon. Friends to take the same line. Equally, when another Bill comes forward with the other half of our agreed solution, I shall look to hon. Members who have taken a different view from ourselves, Members of other parties, to support that half of the compromise, and I have every confidence that they will take that course. The agreements were satisfactory as agreements, and in my view
  2046
  they met the situation by arriving at a solution which we thought would survive. We look to their being embodied in legislation and supported by Members of all parties in this House. Therefore, I commend the proposals in the Clause, and I trust that if the Amendment is taken to a Division, that the Committee will vote against it.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Peake: We have had a fairly long discussion on the Amendment, and I think the Committee is probably nearly ready to come to a decision. I am one of those who think that mere length of speech from this Box has no special merits, and I shall therefore express the views of the Government on this Amendment hi two or three sentences. We base our views towards this Amendment on the report from the Speaker's Conference. That Conference consisted of 32 persons, practically all of them Members of this House with an unrivalled experience of Parliament and of the working of Parliament. That Conference came unanimously to the decision that the representation of the universities should continue.
  Mr. Pritt: Not unanimously.
  Mr. Peake: My hon. and learned Friend says "not unanimously," but all that persons who were not members of the Conference have to go upon is the official report of the Conference, contained in Mr. Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister, on 20th July. There it is recorded that this matter was not the subject of a Division and that no vote was taken. It appears to everybody who reads this document that the decision on this matter was unanimous.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Perhaps I may explain. I have not the document here, but if the Minister looks at it I think he will see that in another part of it it says that it must not necessarily be taken that a decision was unanimous when it is recorded that there was no Division and no vote was taken.
  Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. That at any rate exculpates the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) from the charge of inconsistency. I gather that he did not support this apparently unanimous resolution of the Conference, when the Conference was in session. So far as

  2047
  the Government are concerned, this decision of the Conference was unchallenged at the time, and therefore we should be acting in defiance of an enormous weight of Parliamentary experience and of feeling if we were to reject the finding of the Conference on this issue. Therefore, we shall resist the Amendment.
  Mr. Sloan: Before the vote is taken I want to express my support of the Amendment, because it embodies what has been the policy of my party ever since I can remember. Indeed, I believe it was the policy of the Liberal Party at one time. University representation is one of our outworn relics, and ought to be abolished, now that we have the opportunity. There might have been a case for it in the days when education was not general, but we have travelled a long way since those days. Now we have a system of universal education, and attempts have taken place in this House to raise the standard still further in that respect. It cannot be argued that university graduates show any definite intellectual superiority. There are outstanding examples, it is true, but that is the case in all walks of life, and not in the case of universities alone. We have outstanding examples in every walk of life. As a matter of fact we have many of them in this House. One has only to look at the Front Bench. We must judge the position as we actually find it, and university representation in Scotland—and I know something about Scotland—only means that there has been an addition to the representation in this House of the opponents of the Labour Party, and that is all it will mean if we continue that representation. That may be considered by hon. Members opposite a very good reason for the continuance of university representation, but I do not see how it can appeal to hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
  I do not see how we can so clearly depart from the old slogan: "One man, one vote, and one vote, one ballot." It is just as necessary as it was years ago. What is a university? It is a school for vocational training, nothing more. It has developed into that. When we begin to discriminate between different vocations it will inevitably lead us into trouble. The university graduate has no more right to a, plural vote, or to be allowed to send a representative from his workshop or his
  2048
  school, than any other class of people who have had vocational training. We have here a very sharp contrast. Universities have ceased, as is very well known, merely to train people in the intellectual sphere. They are now largely devoted to training technical people, and if I may be permitted to return to Glasgow, we have in that city a very fine technical college, probably the very best of its type in the whole world—the Royal Technical College. From that institution we sent technicians all over the world; we send from it probably the best-trained engineers the world can produce. We have two types graduating from the same college. We have the lad who goes in with what is known in Scotland as his leaving certificate, which entitles him to take a degree course. He takes the course at the technical college, and sits for his examination at the university. He is then a university graduate and is entitled for all time to take part in university elections. Alongside him may be a lad who has gone into the technical college with a lower entrance certificate, and who is not allowed to sit for his degree examination, though he takes the same course and graduates from the technical college a trained engineer with the diploma of the Royal Technical College. [Interruption.] He may be better than the other fellow, it is all in the balance, but it is perfectly well known that the engineer—the civil engineer, the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer—coming from the Royal Technical College with the mark of the R.T.C., can find a place in any part of the world. Yet one can take part in university elections and the other cannot. That is a very sharp distinction, a discrimination we are up against immediately, and it is only because of this system of university elections that such a thing is allowed to exist.
  Major Sir Derrick Gunston (Thorn-bury): Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument really that Glasgow University should alter the arrangements by which people sit for degrees? If examination degrees at Glasgow University were altered it would get over the difficulty.
  Mr. Sloan: If that were done it would exclude some of the very best brains in the world. I am not concerned really about this high intellectual aspect. Representatives of universities do not come here because of their attachment to a university but because it is for many of

  2049
  them a safe way of getting in. The case of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has been mentioned in the course of the Debate. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald did not come to this House in 1931 because he was intellectual; he came because he had had a good sound beating at Seaham, and a safe seat was found for him. There is no safer seat to find for a Tory than a university.
  Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Member go through the list of the present university Members and ask how many of them are sound Tories? I doubt whether there are more than two.
  Mr. Sloan: It is not how many of them are sound Tories but how many of them are Tories. I suppose I would be called to book if I said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Tory. After all, it is not the type of people who come here about whom we are concerned—many of them would find their way here in any case; it is the suggestion that because someone has been educated at a university he is entitled to have a second chance of sending someone to this House.
  Let me go back again to Scotland. We turn out graduates by the hundred every year, like turning them out of a sausage machine. It is only a question of sticking it, of having the finance to wait three or four years, whichever course one takes, and securing one's degree. Where do these graduates go? About 1,200 of them go to the teaching profession. I have a very high respect for the members of the teaching profession in Scotland, I know very many of them, but if I were to be asked whether these teachers who have graduated after a three year's course and training, and have gone into the teaching profession, are any more qualified to exercise a second vote than anyone else, I would say decidedly "No." It is because of this tremendous discrimination that I think this Amendment ought to be accepted, and if we do that we shall at least have done one good thing in regard to this redistribution of seats.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 16.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES.

  [5.4 p.m.

  Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Magnay, T.

  Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

  Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.

  Maitland, Sir A.

  Agnew, Comdr. P. G.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

  Mathers, G.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)

  Greenwell, Colonel T. G.

  Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)

  Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Molson A. H. E.

  Beech, Major F. W.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)

  Beechman, N. A.

  Gruffydd, Professor W. J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Blair, Sir R.

  Gunston, Major Sir D. W.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Boyce, Sir H. Leslie

  Harvey, T. E.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

  Brabner, Comdr. R. A.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Brass, Capt. Sir W.

  Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W.

  Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham)

  Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Petherick, M.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Bull, B. B.

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Peto, Major B. A. J.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)

  Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.

  Cary, R. A.

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Price, M. P.

  Clarke, Colonel R. S.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Cobb, Captain E. C.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Colegate, W. A.

  Jennings, R.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Conant, Major R. J. E.

  John, W.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'K Newington)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)

  Critchley, A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Debbie, W.

  Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

  Sandys, E. D.

  Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

  Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.

  Savory, Professor D. L.

  Drewe, C.

  Lewis, O.

  Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Silkin, L.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)

  Little, Sir E. Graham (London Univ.)

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

  Dunn, E.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Longhurst, Captain H. C.

  Stourton, Hon. J. J.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  Thomas, I. (Keighley)

  Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

  Windsor, W.

  Studholme, Major H. C.

  Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)

  Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

  Suirdale, Viscount

  Touche, G. C.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Summers, G. S.

  Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Woodburn, A.

  Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.

  Webbe, Sir W. Harold

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Captain McEwen and

  Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Mr. Pym.

  NOES.

  Bowles, F. G.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Buchanan, G.

  McGovern, J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

  Gallacher, W.

  Shinwell, E.

  Mr. Hugh Lawson and

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sloan, A.

  Mr. Pritt.

  Loverseed, J. E.

  Stephen, C.

  Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  First Schedule agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Constituencies to be divided and number of new constituencies.)
  Amendment made: In page 9, line 23, column 3, leave out "108,059," and insert "109,059."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Rules for Distribution of seats.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
  Mr. Woodburn: In the discussion today the Home Secretary made a speech in favour of tradition, and it was borne in on my mind that, on the Second Reading, both the Home Secretary and the Under Secretary, in winding up, in spite of my efforts to stress the traditions of Scotland, gave the impression to me and a great many others that the Home Office did not have any eyes for tradition in regard to Scottish representation, but felt very strong in regard to London traditions. I should like to stress again that the Scottish national tradition is no less intense than any London tradition, and I should like both those members of the Government to stress upon their offices, when looking at Parliamentary representation, that Scotland will not be content to be regarded from the standpoint of the mathematical formula which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary repeated in the final speech in that Debate. He then pictured Scotland as getting a more privileged position through
  2052
  four English Members being equal to five Scotsmen, or something of that kind, but omitted to realise that there are geographical difficulties in the North of Scotland which make any mathematical formula quite ridiculous. I have had to take part in by-elections in the North of Scotland, and, in calculating the time for travelling between one spot and another, one has to allow at least four times as long in any other part of the country. In one stretch of four miles one has to go over the highest road in Britain. I merely say, since tradition has been mentioned, that both tradition and geographical conditions affect the question, which should not be looked at from the point of view of this mathematical formula. I think I may say that Wales is affected by similar conditions.
  Mr. James Griffiths: When the Home Secretary made his speech yesterday I was away on other business, but I was not aware that there was any question of the wisdom of the unanimous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference which were arrived at after very careful consideration. The Conference was unanimously of the view, on account of existing circumstances, and bearing in mind what has happened in the last 25 years, that the representation of Scotland and Wales should not be reduced. There were two reasons which induced them to come to that unanimous decision. The first was the point which has been mentioned, that of the national sentiment, and this is felt in Wales equally as in Scotland. If I was disposed to argue about it, I should say that the real test of the existence of national sentiment was whether the national language was retained. Scotland

  2053
  has forgotten hers, while Wales keeps its national language, and I think this national sentiment is stronger in Wales than in Scotland. I have only met one Scottish Member who speaks his native tongue, but there are a number of hon. Members who speak their native Welsh.
  There is another important point in both Scotland and Wales: the population grew immensely in the 19th century largely upon the old basic industries. In the last 25 years both have suffered considerable reductions. Indeed, in Wales the net reduction by emigration has been 418,000. That was due to the depression that forced people to leave their homes and go in search of work. To take the existing population, which has been so considerably reduced by an economic blizzard, and say that that is the population to decide Parliamentary representation would indeed be very unfair. In parts of Scotland and Wales, and in some parts of England, it will be held that this reduction of population is due to the failure of Governments to do their job properly. Had there been a real policy for industry, we should not have suffered that loss. For all these reasons, there was a unanimous recommendation, and a cordial one, too, by the Speaker's Conference that in this redistribution there should be no reduction in the number of Members for Wales and Scotland. I hope the Home Secretary, who has always been fair to everybody and particularly fair to Wales and Scotland, and also the Under-Secretary, will realise that, if they depart from that recommendation, they will bring upon themselves the anger of Wales and Scotland, and no Englishmen could stand the combined strength of both.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I think I had better intervene now or there will be tears in my eyes and chokings in my voice. I think both my hon. Friends are manifesting signs of unhappiness and concern without due cause. What we understand about Scotland and Wales is that the Speaker's Conference had recommended three things: that the total representation for Great Britain, excluding the universities, should remain substantially where it is, except for the 25 new Members under the redistribution; that Scotland should not have the number of its Members reduced; and that there should be no reduction in the case of Wales. I said that, so
  2054
  far as this Bill was concerned, we accepted that recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, but I could not give any undertaking about what future Governments or Parliaments might do in further legislation. I do not know whether that is regarded as carrying out the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference or not; I rather gathered that it was; but I think it would be impossible for the Government to say that, irrespective of the future population, these numbers were guaranteed for all time.
  Mr. Woodburn: Why mention it?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I think it should be on record, but the rights of hon. Members who argue the matter are not prejudiced, any more than the rights of anybody else to argue it are prejudiced. I quite agree that we must have a fair margin of toleration about the figures. I gave figures in my Second Reading speech and I said that I thought that differences, which are material in some constituencies, were still within the limits of reasonable toleration, and, therefore, we are not challenging the present position. I entirely agree that we have to take into account the sparsely populated areas and the question of difficulty of access, and I laid down the doctrine that we should not make this too mathematical and automatic. Therefore, I think Scotland and Wales have been well treated in the spirit of the Speaker's Conference recommendations. The only thing which I thought it right to tell the House was that future Parliaments and Governments must be free to consider this matter on its merits. There might be an extreme development—one never knows—and the English might turn and make trouble. Parliament could, of course, square the English by giving them additional representation as against the Scots and Welsh, but that is for the future to decide.
  The hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Woodburn) referred to my speech about the City of London, in which I talked of traditions and history, and said he wants the right to talk about it for Scotland, and the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J Griffiths) said the same thing in respect of Wales. I will not deny anybody the right to talk about history and tradition. I have a very great respect for them, and they are very real

  2055
  things in our public life. I ask my hon. Friends not to press the point, although they are certainly entitled to argue about the traditions of Scotland and Wales, just as I was entitled to argue about the City of London, though, in my speech, I did not argue that the two Members for the City of London could never be reduced to one. My hon. Friends are converting tradition into arithmetic and that is going too far. The City of London has been subject to argument, and it would not be inconsistent if some one argued about the principles to be applied to Scotland and Wales. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have the deepest affection for all three countries, and, when the time comes, if it ever does came, to deal with the representation of England, Scotland and Wales, I will try to be as friendly as I can and to have an open mind and respect whatever argument may be adduced.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has the right to speak for England, for I do not know whether the name "Morrison" is really a very English Cockney name. I speak as an Englishman and a Conservative. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that Scottish Nicolsons have not an "H" to their name. I want to assure hon. Members who have spoken seriously that I believe they will find most Englishmen and Conservatives very sympathetic to their claims. We believe, above all, that democracy stands for the rights of minorities, and in any national and international settlement minorities have the right to extra weightage. It is important for Scottish tradition and Scottish contribution to the affairs of these islands that they should feel that they get not only a bare mathematical satisfaction of their claims, but good measure, pressed down and running over. I believe that was the whole spirit behind the original Act of Union, and although there was no Act of Union with regard to Wales, it is only fair to say that the same argument must apply to Wales.
  I rise to assure hon. Members that in my opinion the Conservative Party are not unmindful of this, and that there can be no hostility towards Scotland. But I would say to the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that he should
  2056
  not base his case merely on sparsely inhabited areas. Nor should he tacitly admit that Gaelic is the native language of all Scotland. I admit that Gaelic was the native language of parts of the Lowlands but that is not true of the Lowlands as a whole. English is the native tongue of most Scotsmen and all Englishmen, and even some Welshmen. I hope that representation will not be done purely on an arithmatical basis, and as a good Conservative I recognise the claims made on behalf of Scotland and Wales.
  Professor Gruffydd: I hope that the Schedule will not be passed without some consideration of the consequences it seems to entail. I refer in particular to paragraph 5 (1a and b), which has rather a nebulous proviso at the head—"So far as practicable." I need only refer to the reason why I am speaking now, namely, that I had an Amendment on the Order Paper which, the Chair said, was out of Order, and which comes more properly under this Schedule. The point I am trying to make is one that is common to England, Scotland and Wales but it has particular reference to Wales and Scotland, and that is that every geographical county should have its own Member, and should be represented in Parliament by at least one Member. That does not mean that under a scheme of redistribution you cannot take a whole county and add to it a small part of another county, but it does mean that no two whole counties can be lumped together and be represented by only one person. I will take two examples, one from Wales and one from England. The English example is Rutland. Rutland, although it has a small part of Lincolnshire added to it, has its own Member and Lincolnshire has two Members in addition. The Welsh case, that of Brecon and Radnor, is different. These two Welsh counties are as different as any two Welsh counties can possibly be both in their history and social life. They have been lumped together and send only one Member of Parliament. I suggest that you should give Breconshire itself a Member and Radnor a Member irrespective of the number of constituents in the county.
  It must be evident to everybody who has studied the political and social history of Britain during the last too years or so that Parliament has been concerning itself more and more with the urban and industrial areas of the country and less and less

  2057
  with the rural areas. The countryside has in the past been shamefully neglected with consequences which are familiar to us—the decline of agriculture, the extinction of a large number of rural industries, the migration of the youth of the country into the towns and the impoverishment and flagging of all endeavour in the rural communities. And yet the countryside not only in Wales and Scotland, but in England, is the very backbone of the life of the nation and it is the inspiration from which the arts and other activities spring, but it has been declining at an alarming rate and it continues to do so with every electoral reform. I maintain that population is not the only factor that should be of account in the fixing of Parliamentary representation. The enormous diversity of facts that together determine the entity of a county in England, Wales or Scotland is in itself a sufficient reason for granting it a minimum of one representative in Parliament to do justice to that diversity. A county like Radnor which has no Member of its awn yet has its county council, its own education authority and all the activities that are appropriate to its position as a county and it has very much its own tradition; it is different and distinct from that of Breconshire.
  I think the Committee will understand what I am trying to get at but I would like to answer one possible criticism. It may be said that my suggestion will make no difference whatever in the present representation except a matter of two divisions in Great Britain. I have not been able to find that with the exception of the division of Ross and Cromarty and the division of Kinross and Clackmannan in Scotland and Brecon and Radnor in Wales there are any others which have to be considered and therefore it may be said with such little change it is hardly worth while providing for it in the Bill. It may be that it is a very little matter at the present time but the countryside of Britain has been progressively depopulated and unless we stop it now and put some sort of check on this rake's progress, the redistribution bills of the future will make worse and worse havoc of the countryside. I think that this is the time to establish the principle that the rural life of the country should have representation in this House. I ask the Committee—who have had more experience of these things on account of the
  2058
  nature of their constituencies—if any single Member can assert that it is humanly possible for any Parliamentary candidate to work the necessary machinery of an election in two counties simultaneously, or, if elected, could give such a constituency the attention which is necessary if he is to retain his seat with security and dignity.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir H. Williams: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd.) I do not think he quite saw the logic of his speech because, I believe, on Tuesday he voted in favour of Proportional Representation, which means that each vote should have the same value. He is now urging the exact opposite.
  Professor Gruffydd rose—
  Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, we will not have anything to do with that now.
  Sir H. Williams: I was just drawing the hon. Member's attention to the logical consequence of his own remarks, but I will not pursue that, as you have quite rightly ruled me out of Order, Mr. Williams. In the Speaker's Conference I was the first person to urge that it would be a great mistake to cut down the representation of Scotland, because you would merely let loose a wild nationalist agitation and cause much trouble. I do not mind in the least, sitting as I do for an English constituency, that Scotland and Wales have in one sense rather more than their fair share. The reason for that will be found in the reference to consideration being given to large geographical areas. On the other hand, to propose that every county should have its own Member, would, I think, really be going back. In Scotland I think there are six or seven joint counties, Moray and Nairn, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Clackmannan and Stirling, and so on. Really, to ask that those very small populations should have full representation is, I think, going too far. I understand my hon. Friend's interest—he is worried about certain parts of Central Wales; he is worried about Montgomery and Merioneth. However that problem is solving itself, because I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Sir H.

  2059
  Jones) is giving up, so there will be no claimant. So he need not worry unduly unless he desires to transfer himself from his triple—
  Professor Gruffydd: Quadruple.
  Sir H. Williams:—constituency to Harlech Castle. If that really is his ambition, then we can understand his anxiety to-day.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: May I intervene for a moment, as one of the representatives of Scotland, to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) for the assurance that the Conservative Party in England will see that in future' our representation shall not be cut down in Scotland below the figure of 71. I would also like to refer for a moment to the point made by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) about each county having its own representative. Whilst, theoretically, it might be desirable, it would be practically impossible, so far as Scotland is concerned, for many of these counties like Moray, Clackmannan and Kinross, are very small and if each of them had to have their own Members the number left for the large burghs and industrial counties, like Lanark, would be very much cut down and I think the agricultural interests, important though they be, would be overweighted in the Scottish representation. For that reason I feel that though admittedly it has its inconveniences, we will have to be satisfied with a certain amount of union between the smaller counties or the tacking on of such smaller counties to the larger ones.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: In spite of the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) I would still like to endorse the argument put before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). We know that there are already quite a number of double-county constituencies but under this Bill there is a great danger that there may be a wholesale slaughter of whole counties, and the fact that there are some double-county constituencies at the moment is no argument, in my judgment, that there should be an additional
  2060
  number of them, because, on every ground of tradition in our history, it is most important that we should obtain one Member for every county.
  I do not know that Wales is peculiar in this respect—I am quite sure that it is not; it is the same in England. We know the rivalry there is between village and village and town and town. We know, if we go to one village to speak and omit the next village, the rivalry is so great that we have to go also to the particular village we have omitted. If you compare that particular sentiment with the sentiment attached to a county, it is far better from every point of view—on the question of the social system, the educational system, and so forth. I think it will be a great calamity if, under this Bill—which I quite appreciate is meant to obtain the representation of some 50,000 electors per Member—it means a wholesale slaughter of a number of individual counties in England, Scotland and Wales to amalgamate them with another county or make a double-county constituency. After all, we are not here to count heads. We have had that argument in Debates over and over again. If we counted heads, why do we have the university Members here? They represent culture; counties represent tradition, and I hope both my right hon. Friends will be able to see their way, within the ambit of this Bill and without doing away with the main purpose of the Bill, to see that in some way, and as far as possible, individual counties shall be represented by one individual Member at least.
  Mr. Peake: I think the Committee has very much enjoyed the spectacle of a representative of Wales, having secured in the Schedule a minimum of 35 Parliamentary representatives for Wales, offering six new additional Members to Scotland, which would be the effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. Many of those new constituencies would be far smaller than anything that exists at the present time. Take Caithness and Sutherland, for example, where there are approximately 28,000 to-day. Whoever could justify dividing the seat and making two new seats with some 14,000 electors? I am afraid this is where England must protest and advise the Committee to reject the Amendment. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule goes as far, I think, as is reason-

  2061
  able, in saying that the boundary commissioners shall, so far as is practicable, take account of local boundaries and divisions.
  Question, "That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  TITLE.
  Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Title, after "constituencies," insert:
  "together in certain cases with the adjoining constituencies."
  This is consequential on an Amendment made to Clause 2 earlier.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments (Title amended); as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. Woodburn: I asked the Home Secretary, earlier, questions about the other recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. This Bill is a first instalment, and I am sure the House would like to know if there was some hope of bringing forward at an early date proposals necessary to provide legislation for carrying into effect the other recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, especially those in regard to corrupt practices and things of that kind.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Those are matters outside this Bill, and it is not possible to discuss them now.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  BRITISH ARMY (SERVICE OVERSEAS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Captain McEwen.]
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Before I begin what I have to say, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for having come here himself at short notice in order to answer the case which I propose to press upon his attention and the attention of the House. There is a story in Hans Andersen, which is comparatively well known,
  2062
  about a trickster who visited the court of a certain king and offered to clothe the king with a most sumptuous material which was to have magical properties. These properties were that if a person was of pure heart he could see the beauties and embellishments on the brocade, but that if he were not of pure heart he could see nothing there at all. The king was induced to order a suit of clothes made of this material whereupon he appeared in court horribly and unmistakeably naked. But with one accord his courtiers said he had the most sumptuous regal robes and induced him to go into the streets to be admired by his populace, who immediately spoke to one another in terms of the greatest admiration about the way their monarch was clad, until, in the background, a little boy said to his father, "Why, Daddy, he has nothing on at all," whereupon the whole populace laughed because they could see it was no more than the truth.
  Now, in this House we have for years patiently accepted the argument which has been put forward on military grounds that the period of overseas service for the Army should be substantially longer than for any other Army fighting on either side in the war, or for either of the two Fighting Services with which the Army is associated under the command of His Majesty the King. I think it is necessary to say, plainly and clearly, from the back benches of this House that that argument is no longer acceptable to ordinary people and that the administrative reasons, sound as they may appear to those who are responsible for the formulation of Government policy, do not correspond with the ordinary common sense of mankind. What is the situation? The fact is that there are officers and men in the Army, now abroad, who have been away continuously for periods up to five years. A great number of them are married, they are of quite high age and some of them have families at home. That is not the situation in the Air Force, where the period of service overseas is three years. It is not the situation in the Navy; it is not the situation with our South African or other Dominion troops; it is not the situation with the Americans, who serve a period, I believe, of two years. It is not the situation with our Indian or African troops. In fact, there is no other army in the world whose soldiers are compelled to

  2063
  serve abroad for this period, who are compelled to be so long away from their homes in circumstances which are so foreign to all that they have been accustomed to. That is the situation.
  My right hon. Friend was asked about a week ago, by two or three Members, what he hoped to do in the matter. He told us that by next January his hope was to reduce the period of service to four years in the case of India and Burma, and to four and three-quarter years in the case of other stations overseas. I think the time has come for back-benchers to refuse to accept a ruling of this kind. I believe that it would be possible for His Majesty's Government, if they so desired and had the courage to do it, to reduce the period of overseas service to three years within the next six months. If it is reasonable to do it for the Americans it is reasonable to do it for our men; if it is reasonable to do it for the Air Force it is reasonable to do it for the Army; if it is reasonable to do it for our Dominion or other Allies it is reasonable to do it for ourselves. It is not right to make of our Army a class which is, in this sense, depressed. It is a magnificent tribute to the morale of the men of our Army that anyone should have ventured to attempt an inequality of this kind. But I believe it is possible to press a man's morale too far, and I prophesy that unless this ruling is altered my right hon. Friend and his friends will have a great deal more trouble in administration and discipline than if they had heeded the words of those who are not so fully acquainted with their inner councils and information. For two years since I have been back from the Middle East I have been steadily inundated with letters from my comrades overseas and their relatives begging me to pay attention to this matter. I believe other Members have been so placed. We have replied patiently on each occasion—sometimes to the great disappointment of those who have put their trust in us—first, that the Mediterranean was not open and that they must wait; second, that ships were required for preparation of the Second Front and they must still wait, and, third, that our lines of communication had to be built up so that our Forces in Normandy could be supplied, and that they must wait still longer.
  But there comes a time when this argument, which has changed more than once
  2064
  during the course of this controversy, cannot be adhered to any more. If the manpower situation is so bad for us it is bad for the Americans; if it is bad for our Allies it is bad for ourselves. If shipping is the difficulty it is as bad for others as it is for ourselves, and it cannot be just or ultimately prudent even on military grounds to compel the British Army which, after all, has borne the heat and burden of the day to suffer this rank injustice as against its sister Services, and as against its gallant Allies who fight by its side. The weight of evidence which is accumulating in our post-bags is too heavy to be disturbed by purely administrative argument.
  I do not want to burden the House with quotations of a poignant kind. Some letters make difficult reading, especially when they come from parents. I can honestly say that I have had representations from every rank from every overseas station, from every type of unit—fighting units, base units, line of communications units—in the bitterest terms complaining of this decision, which I myself believe to be both unnecessary and unjust. Here is one from a captain in the Tripolitanian area. He says:
  "The following lengths of overseas service compare with our own as follows—Americans two years, South Africans three years, H.C.T. Africans three years, Indians two years, R.A.F. (married) three years, Royal Navy 2½ years. They all go home for a minimum of three years. Why does not the Army? How can the Government expect the morale of our troops to be so good when they are sanctioning such schemes? The sea route from the Middle East to the U.K. is no longer and certainly no more dangerous now than from the M.E. to India or S. Africa. It has before been admitted that shipping is no longer a problem. Why cannot then our troops get home leave after a reasonable time?"
  Here is another from a sergeant in East Asia:
  "Because our Parliament will soon be reassembling I am writing to you in the hope that you will bring forward the vexed question of repatriation. We consider this to be of vital and urgent importance to us and we are hoping that something may be done soon. The first and most obvious thing which embitters us is the comparison between the length of service overseas of our American, Colonial and Indian colleagues, none of whom are required to do more than two years away from all that they hold dear. A very sore point is the term of service for R.A.F. personnel posted to India, namely three years for married men. Is not the wife of a soldier as eager to see her husband as the wife of an airman? I know what my wife would reply. She has asked me too many times when I am coming home. It seems

  2065
  that once again the Army is to be called upon to bear the brunt of the sacrifice. I will not touch on the moral aspect of the proposed five years' separation, which will be obvious. I contend that it is not conducive to marital fidelity and there have been numerous cases of domestic trouble."
  Here is another from a bombardier in a battery of gunners:
  "To sit at home and talk glibly of 4½ years is one thing, to be parted from wife and family is entirely different and amounts to punishment especially to a middle aged man. I am speaking with nearly four years' experience and it is a disgrace that we alone should be treated in this way."
  Another, a sapper in the Middle East, pointed out that because he was four weeks more than six months at home after he had served in Dunkirk he had to spend a further year in what he described as exile owing to the operation of the Python scheme. Here is another:
  "I left England in December, 1940, I was 31 years old my wife will be 30 in December. We both wanted a child before we grew too old. The stipulated length of service out here is still four years and eight months, which we all consider too long especially when we are told that no preferential treatment is given to R.A.F. personnel yet they get home after three years. Do not think I am of a Bolshie disposition, but such actions as the Army are committing is asking for trouble."
  I hesitate to go on quoting these. The morale of our troops in these overseas stations is suffering severely by the firmness with which this rule has been adhered to by the Government. I have had two or three letters written since the right hon. Gentleman gave me his answer. They are painful because they do an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I believe he is not personally responsible for this particular wrong. That he is politically responsible there can be no doubt. I believe the Government policy has proved a mistake and I seriously believe that in the future they are going to have serious disciplinary trouble if they go on doing this wrong thing; and 'I do not believe that it is necessary in the interest of operations, as they assert. No one in time of war would lightly disregard the argument that operational considerations should come first, but we are entitled in our capacity of critics with some knowledge of the world to dispute the manner in which the principle is applied and to say that it can only have a seriously damaging effect upon our war effort in the Middle East as well as committing a serious injustice to those whom it
  2066
  penalises. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise his full influence, as the Secretary of State, who is supposed to protect the soldier, to remove this wrong and I seriously suggest that, if he fails to carry his way in the counsels of the Government he ought to take the course which Secretaries of State as men of honour have taken before him when they have found that justice cannot be done to those for whose interests it is their duty to fight.
  5.59 P.m.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: I think the House will agree that the hon. Member in raising this matter has pot only rendered a very great service to the men concerned, but has expressed opinions that the House will be pleased to have heard expressed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to give this matter patient and sympathetic attention. We quite understand that, as things have been previous to the freeing of the Mediterranean, he was considerably harassed in a situation like that, but I think it is nothing less than the duty of Members of the House to do what the hon. Member has done, to press for very serious consideration of this matter in the light of the proved facts. I think no greater test could come to any young man than to be married, and sometimes to have young children, and yet to be separated wide seas apart from wife and home affairs. Our men were never put to such a test as that in the last war. At any rate the bulk of them were fighting in Europe. They got regular leave. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman needs any argument or any evidence, even from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), to prove the devastating effect that this is having on marital relations.
  I have given a case or two to the War Office, and they have told me that they are very sorry, and that they know what the situation is, but that nothing can be done about the question of leave. Most Members will be receiving most pitiful letters about unfaithful wives—although I do not know whether they can be regarded as unfaithful because the woman is put to a very great test as well as the man in these long separations. I receive letters about cases where one would scarcely have dreamed that anything could go wrong, so warm had been the

  2067
  relationship between husband and wife previous to the husband going into the Forces. These conditions are made worse when there are small children.
  It being Six 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. Drewe.]
  Mr. Lawson: A young man who is married, who misses those first early years with his children, misses what is almost the most fragrant thing in human and married life. That is the great sacrifice Which these men are making. I have heard, and I am addressing a Question to the right hon. Gentleman about it, that even the four years' limit overseas without being brought back does not apply to officers.
  The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Emergency commission officers are treated in the same way as the other ranks. I think that there may be an occasional exception with Regular officers, but I am not certain about that. Ordinarily, the rules are the same.
  Mr. Lawson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Whether the men are in the Middle East or in the worse conditions of the borders of Burma and in India, we say that it is too great a test to put men to to keep away from home for so long. I was glad to hear the evidence that the hon. Member for Oxford gave about the limits that are put to service in the other Forces and other armies. That is an almost unanswerable case. It is true we have not the reserves that America has, but I do not think that America would find any fault — their whole tone has been in that direction— men who have served conditions such as our men have served under in the past few years getting reasonable consideration. I am sure that the American soldiers themselves would regard it sympathetically and with understanding, since they undergo pretty much the same experience.
  6.4 p.m.
  Colonel Clarke: I support the case that has been so admirably put by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). On 4th July last there was
  2068
  a somewhat similar Debate on the Adjournment on the question of home transference. At that time I had only lately returned from the Central Mediterranean Force, and I was able to put a case based on personal experience and my own painful interviews with my men. I do not want to repeat myself now, but I want to make one point. Four-and-a-half or five years away seems to me too long. Since I spoke on this matter on 1st July I have had many letters and have been carrying on the work of my Regimental Families' Association. Nothing that has come to my notice through those channels has in any way altered the opinion with which I came home. To the temporary soldier four-and-a-half or five years really seems an infinity; he cannot see the end of it. Nor can his friends at home, his wife or his fiancée or his children. That produces a feeling of apathy, and apathy leads to irresponsibility and to the sad cases to which reference has already been made. I am certain that if the period were three years, half the work of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families' Association would not need to be done.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I support the contention of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), and I think the Secretary of State will have some difficulty in resisting the plea put forward by a man who has just returned. Like the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), I am receiving letters every day, and other Members are, too. In addition, almost every week-end I spend time receiving the claims of parents, mothers, wives and sweethearts on behalf of men who have been serving overseas since the beginning of the war. It is difficult to satisfy them with the answers that one can give. It should be remembered that the answers given by the Secretary of State for War 18 months or two years ago will not satisfy the people to-day, because of the changed circumstances which have manifested themselves since July, 1942. Coming into the Chamber after lunch to-day, I picked up this letter at the Post Office. It is one of many which I have received this week. It is dated 10th October, and says:
  "I feel it necessary as a constituent to write to you regarding the position of leave for our soldiers in the Middle East. It will be unnecessary for me to remind you that under

  2069
  normal circumstances our soldiers can only expect to return home after four and a half years' overseas. The overseas service of members of the Royal Air Force is three years."
  Why should there be differentiation in the period that has to be served by members in the different Services? If we are all in this war together, there should be uniformity of overseas service, whether it be short or long. The letter goes on to say:
  "I have no wish to make this just another letter of complaint, as you will no doubt receive enough of these, but I do feel that sufficient interest is not being taken in the soldiers overseas. Eighteen months of further separation is a very high price to pay for the privilege of being in the Army rather than in the Royal Air Force, and there does not seem to be any logical reason for it."
  Then the writer goes on to say:
  "I see from the newspapers that various Members of Parliament have raised the question in the House and I should like to know that you intend to follow suit."
  Hence my rising to my feet, after receiving that letter. We all appreciate the difficulties of the Secretary of State for War, but I want to put forward again the strong plea which has been made that the time has now come when there should be a change of attitude by the War Department towards our men who have served overseas for so many years. I hope that the Minister will respond to our appeal, and cut out this rigidity which his Department is capable of and has applied in days gone by.
  6.12 p.m.
  Colonel Viscount Suirdale: I do not wish to keen the House more than a minute. We are all anxious to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) on raising the matter. I feel that the troops in the Middle East, in India and other places are subject to considerable injustice and from the letters which I have also received it is clear that their morale is being submitted to very considerable strain. The reasons for that are, I think, four. The first is that all want to get home to see their families and their wives. The second is that they feel it is unfair that they should have to stay out there longer than the Air Force and longer than others of our Allies. The third reason is that there is a feeling of suspicion that it is unnecessary. I think the most astonishing reason of the lot is that which I get in letters saying: "What we really feel is that
  2070
  there is a complete lack of sympathy in London and in the House of Commons." I do not think that is true. I know there is tremendous sympathy in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]I think it is probable that there is also great sympathy on the part of my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government. What is important is that the Government should show their sympathy with these men. The only way in which they can do it in a practical way is by taking steps to put the matter right. I feel that if they have the will to do it they can go a very long way towards dealing with the matter.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn: I should like to treat this matter from a slightly different aspect. Other hon. Members have spoken for the soldiers, but I should like to speak not so much from their point of view as from that of the soldiers' wives. Unfortunately the position has been intensified in a most heartrending fashion by the order which was issued in the Middle East and which offered to officers and men the opportunity of getting home if their wives were over 30 years of age and were willing and anxious to have a family. The age of 30 was the first idea. Many of the men wrote home to their wives and raised hopes that they were coming home on leave. Suddenly they found that the age was raised to 35, and the hopes which had been raised in the minds of those women have been frustrated and disappointed.
  This has caused great emotional hardship and really intense resentment which ought never to have been caused. I suggest to the Secretary of State for War that the matter should have been very carefully considered before such an order was issued. I am sure that the whole House supports the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in raising this matter, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take special note of cases where this kind of feeling has been aroused and will try to get the order restored to its original intention, instead of being reduced to a few hundred cases as it is now. I hope that he will treat this matter sympathetically and seriously when he replies and not as an attack upon the War Office. I hope he will regard it in the light of the best interests of the men, women and children at home.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Bartle Bull: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I say, as he did, that the period of service overseas for the Army should be shortened. Like him, and like many other Members in the House, I have had many letters from my constituents whose menfolk are serving abroad The man-power position in the United States has been mentioned; it is a little different from what it is here. I do not know whether the figures have been published as to what age groups have been called up, hut most certainly they have not called up married men to anything like the same degree that married men have been called up in Great Britain. I know that since the American War of Independence—or the Revolutionary War, as they call it—we are not sent here to legislate for the American Colonies, which are now the United States, but the best that the British can do is to point out to them that in our British history we have only lost one war, which was when we were fighting against Britishers and using German troops.
  Earl Winterton: What has that to do with the matter?
  Mr. Bartle Bull: I do not speak as long or as often as the Noble Lord. I understand that the point is how best to help these men—
  Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bull:—I am most grateful to the Noble Lord—who are serving abroad. I think the worst thing we can do is to give them false hopes. I know from personal experience how strongly they feel about this matter. From what I have had to do with the Secretary of State on these matters I think he has done as much as he possibly could. No one who has had any correspondence with him or with his Parliamentary Private Secretary on cases of hardship could do other than realise that everything possible has been done in those cases.
  One other point has been mentioned. Various hon. Member have discussed the question of the Army in relation to the Navy and the Air Force. The only observation I would make about that is that I agree that there is great hardship on men in the Army as opposed to, those in
  2072
  the Navy or the Air Force. I would like the Secretary of State to tell us something about that matter. Is not the explanation that naval and Air Force operations are based upon Great Britain? Then we have responsibilities in France, Italy, India, Burma and so on. Hon. Members who know anything about India will be aware how long it takes to train soldiers for that type of warfare. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, and I support him, but I think the most wicked thing possible is to raise false hopes.
  6.18 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Before I come to the main part of my speech perhaps I will just dispose of two subsidiary points and correct slightly the information I gave to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson). The rules are the same for all officers and all men, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a provision that when a man's turn comes, if, for military reasons, he has to be kept back and unfortunately cannot go when his turn comes—
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: We cannot hear what the Secretary of State is saying.
  Sir J. Grigg: Naturally, that happens rather oftener in the case of officers than it does in the case of men.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: There is already strong feeling about it in its application.
  Mr. Critchley: Would the Secretary of State for War be good enough to address the Chair, and then we could all hear him.
  Sir J. Grigg: The second point was that raised by the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), that is, about the special order which was issued in the Middle East, and the explanation of the attenuation of it. I have not had a report on it. As soon as I have I will make a statement in the House. I have made inquiries, but I am not in a position to give the full story, and I prefer, if the House will allow, not to give a partial story.
  Mr. Bellenger: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get it? Can he not cable?
  Sir J. Grigg: Let me come to the main case. With a great deal of what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said, I find myself in agreement. In fact I am extremely grateful to him and other hon. members for the moderation with which they have stated their case. The only point on which I would join issue with him is the assertion that this practice rests on an administrative rule which it is quite simple to alter, that it is entirely unnecessary and is an arbitrary imposition on the part of the War Office themselves. If that were the case it would be all perfectly simple. It is not a rule of that kind at all. The present practice represents the most we can do with our present resources. When I made my statement a fortnight ago it was made in the light of a detailed review of what was the maximum we were likely to be able to achieve with our present resources. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. Member's contention that it is merely a matter of being able to promise if only I wanted to.
  Naturally, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to promise more, particularly as there is a very strong case to be made if it is possible. Anyhow, I probably know better than any other hon. Member whatever the size of their postbag how the shoe pinches and where it pinches, because I get the concentration of all their postbags on this matter. I realise the importance of this matter to the troops. The House and the Army can be perfectly sure that if, a fortnight ago, I had been in a position to promise more than I did then, I should certainly have done so. All my efforts will be devoted to doing more than I promised, but the worst possible thing to do would be to promise something and then not to fulfil it. That is why I was concerned a fortnight ago to make clear that I would not make promises unless I was certain that I saw a reasonable certainty of being able to carry them out. That is why that statement must, I am afraid, stand, until I can see clearly that we can do better. That is why I am not in a position to say anything to-day which qualifies or calls in question anything I said then.
  Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt has regard to the constitutional position. The clearly expressed wish of this House, with one rather incoherent exception, is strongly in favour of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend.
  2074
  Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will bring this fact to the notice of the War Cabinet, and repeat to them that it is the almost unanimous feeling of the House?
  Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would wait until he has heard an explanation of the position we are in and then see whether it is so easy as all that, No constitutional practice can force people to do the impossible. As regards the situation, I often bring it to the notice of my colleagues, and I shall certainly do so on any occasion when I think any assistance from them will ameliorate matters.
  Several other hon. Members have made some play with the fact that the War Office has during the history of this subject shifted its ground, that originally the difficulty in doing better in shortening the tour of service was shipping, and now it is man-power. It is not very surprising that the War Office should have shifted its ground, seeing that the circumstances have so completely changed. At one time the obstacle to repatriation was quite definitely shipping. Convoys had to go all the way round the Cape, and had to be heavily escorted; and, apart from that, there were very heavy losses from U-boat attacks. It is barely a year since the Mediterranean was fully opened. In the meantime the great attack on North-West Europe was being planned. The relief to shipping was counteracted by the necessity of bringing large numbers of American soldiers, destined for Normandy, and their equipment and stores, across the Atlantic. So far as the Army in this country was concerned, preparations for the assault on Normandy proceeded on the basis of putting, into that venture every man, with equipment and weapons, that we could. That was clearly wise, I think, because it offered the best prospect of an early knock-out of Germany. Once the expedition had been launched, the shipping position would obviously ease; but, given the fact that we had put every man we could into the assault, we should be hard put to it to maintain our forces, and so maintain the maximum strength until the knock-out had been administered.
  In other words, once the Normandy campaign had started, our difficulty would be in providing replacements, and not in actually shipping them. Here is the ex-

  2075
  planation of the apparent change of ground. It is one which, I think, should carry conviction to everybody. Personally, I believe, and I think rightly believe, that the great generality of the troops serving abroad would quite willingly forgo a greater reduction in their all-too-long tour of service overseas if it meant a hastening of the final defeat of Germany. A fortnight ago I said, in my statement:
  "With a view to accelerating this process, I have, since the Foreign Secretary's statement, given directions that the provision of replacement drafts is to be given the highest priority even though this is in some cases at the expense of keeping up to strength our Armies engaged in active operations. Special consideration in these directions was given to troops serving in India and South-East Asia Command in view of the particularly arduous conditions in the Far East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th September, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 19.]
  But this process is one which cannot be carried very far. It is really a question of weighing each consideration against the other; of weighing the necessity for the keeping up of our strength against accelerating the replacement of men of long service in the Mediterranean and the Far East. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. I think it is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the change of ground which has puzzled some
  2076
  Members over the last two years, and a perfectly natural explanation of why it is necessary to ask the troops who have served abroad a very long time continuously to forgo a rapid reduction of their tour of service abroad, in the hope that the coup de grace in0 North-West Europe' will be administered that much more quickly.
  Two subsidiary points are the question of the Royal Air Force and of the Americans. In the case of the Royal Air Force, I, personally, am extremely sorry that we cannot get the Army tour of service down to theirs. Our manpower situation is not in the least the same as theirs. A far greater proportion of the Army than of the R.A.F. is overseas; and when intense fighting starts, the casualties of the Army are much greater than theirs, and the replacement needs are much greater accordingly. As far as the Americans are concerned, there is no doubt that, as one or two hon. Members have pointed out, the Americans have very large reserves of man-power which have not been ventured yet in the fighting, and their situation is a great deal different from ours. As a matter of fact—
  It being half-past Six o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.