Commons Sitting of 29 November 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    Voluntary Schools
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the need for economy and the delays which must necessarily occur in the replacement and rebuilding of voluntary schools which have been surrenderd as a result of the financial obligations imposed on the churches in the 1944 Act, the take-over can be delayed until such time as the schools are to be actually dealt with.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the fact that voluntary schools become controlled schools after the authority's development plan has been approved, unless the managers or governors apply within six months for their school to become aided. This is a statutory requirement, and Section 15 (2) of the 1944 Education Act gives me no power to extend the period of transitional maintenance.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some big economic changes have intervened since 1944, and is it possible to make some provision in order to meet this situation? Could it not be done by the operation of a statutory provision?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think my hon. Friend is referring to the fact that there might be further delays in building programmes, but those delays would really be of assistance to the voluntary schools, because, when an application is put in for aided status, in considering the various points. I should consider how much time was likely to elapse before a building programme had been carried out, and
    1688
    to see if it would not, therefore, be possible for the managers or governors to accumulate resources for the work.
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Education when, and with whom, she will discuss the extension, within the framework of the Education Acts, of the assistance at present available to voluntary schools.
    Miss Horsbrugh: As the right hon. Member knows, some discussions have already taken place, and I hope to proceed with these as soon as possible. Among those to be consulted I should naturally include the denominations, the local authorities and the teachers' associations.

    Building Programme
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Education (1) on what basis the building programmes submitted by local education committees for 1952–53 were reduced prior to 25th October, 1951; and, in particular, as between one education committee and another;
    (2) what was the total expenditure on the building programme for 1952–53 submitted by local education committees prior to 25th October; and what was the total expenditure accepted.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The total value of the primary and secondary school projects included in the educational building programme for 1952–53 which was announced in September was about £40 million. As in previous years, it was not possible to include all the projects put forward by local education authorities. In selecting the schemes which could be approved within the resources available, my predecessor considered carefully the needs of each authority for additional school places to house the increasing school population and the children moving to new housing estates and new towns. Without an inordinate amount of work I could not give the total value of the projects proposed by authorities for inclusion in the programme.
    Miss Ward: Would my right hon. Friend say what steps have been taken to ensure that Newcastle-upon-Tyne has got a balanced educational programme, because the Newcastle Education Committee, in referring to the fact that projects have been rejected by the Ministry, stated that

    1689
    that had upset the basis of the primary and secondary school places? Will she look into that and ameliorate that condition?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have already looked into it, for I imagined that my hon. Friend would have that in mind. The authorities put forward their proposal in their own order of priority and the Ministry observes that order in selecting schemes for inclusion in the programme.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Can the right hon. Lady say whether consideration has been given to the fact of the bulge in the birth rate five years ago and the increased demand for places that there will be next year in schools as a result?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I have already stated, the building programme is being arranged so that places can be found for this increasing school population and later on for them in the secondary schools.
    Dr. Horace Kingasked the Minister of Education how far new school building will be exempted from the three months' ban which has been imposed on new building projects.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Projects for which a starting date has already been awarded will be allowed to start, except that it may be necessary to arrange for some postponement in areas where there is a serious shortage of labour. Fresh applications for starts before March, 1952, can be considered only in areas where the building industry is not overloaded, and for projects on new housing estates where a delay beyond the end of February would cause exceptional difficulty. Any exemptions will be subject to the availability of steel.
    Dr. King: As recent answers by the right hon. Lady have indicated that we still have to find places for 400,000 children in 1953, will she use whatever influence she possesses with the Cabinet to see that building cuts are not made in our school building programme?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I would certainly do everything I possibly could to see that the Ministry of Education got its full share of the building programme of the country so that the children might get a good education.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: In view of the figures which the right hon. Lady has given about the bulge in the early days of school life, will she give an assurance, if not in regard to the 14–15 age group, that she will not meet the problem by raising the age of entry from 5 to 6?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am quite aware of the bulge in the figures of the extra school population. I am, naturally, also aware that that will go on into the secondary schools as the children get older. We are now considering the best method of dealing with our difficulties.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend take immediate steps to reverse the policy of closing down the infants' schools in villages, which would obviate the necessity for some of the new building and for little children to travel long journeys?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure my hon. Friend that we should naturally consider delaying the closing of buildings before other buildings were ready.

    Teachers, Middlesex (Political Views)
    Mr. Frederick Peartasked the Minister of Education if she is aware that the Middlesex County Council has imposed, and is continuing to impose, political tests for teachers desiring promotion; that this is contrary to the declared policy of the National Union of Teachers and other teachers' organisations; and what action she proposes to take to prevent political discrimination in the teaching profession.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Local education authorities and other responsible bodies have a statutory discretion in regard to the appointment of teachers. While I deprecate the Middlesex authority's decision to take account of the political views of applicants for teaching posts, I do not consider that circumstances have so far arisen which would justify my intervention.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that, while she has given a very favourable reply, it is repugnant to impose political conditions on promotion in schools, and will she reconsider the matter, and, if necessary, issue a directive to the authority?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have made it quite clear that I deprecate the position of the Middlesex authority on this account, and I think it would be better to leave it there as it makes my position absolutely clear.
    Mr. Peart: If the Middlesex authority still refuses to alter its decision despite what has been said by the Minister, will she reconsider her action?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I certainly will not be drawn into answering hypothetical questions.

    Higher Technological Education
    Mr. Austen Albuasked the Minister of Education if she will make a statement on the policy of the Government on higher technological education.
    Miss Horsbrugh: It is not yet possible to make a statement on the Government's policy in this field. It is being considered as a matter of great urgency and importance by consultation between myself and my colleagues who are concerned with aspects of the matter which are outside the scope of my Department.
    Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that there will be no change in the policy, which I believe has been followed by her Department, of upgrading a number of technical colleges?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As I have already said, I am looking into this matter with urgency. I should not like to state here, before I look into this question, that I have made up my mind that there is to be no change.

    Village Halls Schemes, Warwickshire
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Minister of Education how far the proposed building cuts will affect the schemes of rural community councils for new village halls, and, in particular, in the county of Warwickshire.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Until the Government have completed the review of capital expenditure which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is not possible to say what will be the effect on schemes for village halls.
    Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the great importance of village halls in scattered rural
    1692
    communities and do all in her power to carry on the general policies which have been followed since the war?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I fully appreciate the valuable work that is being done by village halls, and how important these halls are to rural areas.

    Inspectors, Liverpool
    Mr. A. J. Irvineasked the Minister of Education the number of His Majesty's inspectors of schools now employed in Liverpool; and the number employed in 1938 or an equivalent pre-war year.
    Miss Horsbrugh: At present, four of His Majesty's inspectors are almost wholly concerned with inspecting schools and other educational establishments, including the Youth Service, in Liverpool, and 12 others, who have substantial commitments outside Liverpool, are responsible for inspection in some establishments. In January, 1938, six were working nearly whole-time in Liverpool and two others for most of their time.

    Primary School, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Stephen Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if she is aware of the delays that are occurring in the building of the Hempstalls Primary School, Newcastle-under-Lyme, owing to failure to deliver steel to complete the foundations; and if she will take steps to secure special priority in the supply of steel to this site so that this school may be completed as soon as possible.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of the delays in the construction of this school, but I am informed that they are due by no means solely to failure to deliver steel. My Department's quota of steel for special cases is very limited, and I am afraid that I should not feel justified in giving this project preference over others where shortage of steel is causing even greater difficulty.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that there has been a delay now of two months in the building of the special foundations which are required for this school because of the danger of mining subsidence in the area? Will she instruct her officers to allow priority certificates to be issued to these authorities so that some progress can be made, in view of the time that has been taken already?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am quite aware of the delay in building this school, and I have looked into the matter. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there were many other delays long before we got to the stage where we met the difficulty of steel.
    Mr. Swingler: Does that not make it even more necessary now to take some action so as to expedite the building of the school? While what the Minister says is accurate, that there have been building delays, does that fact not make it necessary to lose no time in completing the foundations?

    Liverpool Development Plan
    Mr. Irvineasked the Minister of Education whether the extension of time required by the Liverpool Education Authority for the submission of the development plan resulted in any Ministry grant being forfeited.
    Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir.

    Black Listed Schools
    Mr. Irvineasked the Minister of Education how many schools, scheduled in 1920 as unfit for use, are still used for educational purposes; and how many of such schools are within the area of the Liverpool Education Authority.
    Miss Horsbrugh: 628 of the schools on the 1925 black list are still in use, including 26 in Liverpool.
    Mr. Irvine: Are not these figures disquietingly high? Is not the proportion of these schools in Liverpool very high? Will the Minister bear these facts in mind?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, I will certainly bear these facts in mind, but I do not know that I entirely agree with the point the hon. Gentleman made about Liverpool.

    Women Teachers
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Minister of Education what plans she has for increasing the supply of qualified women teachers.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Present training policies aim at a net increase in the number of qualified women teachers of about 2,500 a year, but it is impossible
    1694
    to be precise, because one cannot be sure how many teachers will leave the service each year.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Minister encourage children to stay longer at the grammar schools so that the potential source of supply of women teachers is likely to increase?
    Miss Horsbrugh: We all agree with taking steps to induce the parents of the children to make the fullest possible use of the educational services.

    Pensions
    Mr. Edward Wakefieldasked the Minister of Education whether she will increase the scale of teachers' infirmity allowances to reflect the rise in the cost of living since 1947.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I take it that my hon. Friend has in mind teachers who retired some years ago. As I explained last week, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), the claims of older retired teachers for an increase in their pensions has to be considered along with those of other classes of pensioners and the whole question is now being reviewed by the Government.
    Mr. Wakefield: Will the right hon. Lady consider the possibility of linking the scale of these infirmity allowances with the cost-of-living index so that rises in the pensions will be automatic?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As I have pointed out, these pensions must be linked with the whole scheme of pensions which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has assured us he is looking into.
    Mr. George Thomas: In view of the fact that the Minister has said that the review is now under consideration, will she take steps to expedite the decision, because this is really a serious problem?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I quite agree that it is a serious problem, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put any further Questions he may have as to expediting to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    School Places
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Education how far the proposed embargo on new building will cause a short

    1695
    age of school places, particularly for the 14- to 15-year age group; and what steps she proposes to take to remedy this difficulty.
    Miss Horsbrugh: It is not yet possible to say how the measures announced on 7th November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will affect the rate at which new school places are brought into use.
    Mr. Chapman: Would the right hon. Lady give an assurance, presuming there will be difficulties, that she will not meet the difficulties by lowering the school-leaving age back to 14?
    Miss Horsbrugh: It would be a pity if I began to argue now on a hypothetical supposition that the school-building programme will not be carried out. If that proved to be the case, we could perhaps consider all the factors before coming to a conclusion.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: Is it or is it not a fact that in the London area no starting dates are to be allowed for at least three months? If so, does the right hon. Lady realise that that means a further increase in the size of classes, which is already much too high?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As to the starting dates, we can take it that some of the work that has already begun may even be finished more quickly. We are examining the whole situation as to the number of children who will be coming to the schools and the number of places that we can provide in time.
    Mr. Chapman: Does the right hon. Lady's reply mean that she does not rule out the possibility of lowering the school-leaving age back to 14?
    Miss Horsbrugh: My original reply was that it is not possible to say what measures we could take until after the review which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was undertaking.
    Mr. Chapman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this subject again.

    General Certificate Examination (Scholarships)
    Mr. Dryden Brookasked the Minister of Education the numbers of students who took the science group of
    1696
    subjects at scholarship level in the last General Certificate Examination; the number of those who took the arts group at the same level; and what numbers were awarded State scholarships in each group.
    Miss Horsbrugh: One thousand eight hundred and fifty State scholarships were awarded this year on students' work in the examination for the General Certificate. Nine hundred and seventy-one of these awards were made to students taking science subjects and 879 to students taking arts subjects. Information about entries in the different subjects at scholarship level in the General Certificate of Education will not be available until early in the New Year.
    Mr. Brook: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the standard of marking gives an equitable distribution of scholarships as between the two groups?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I should not like to answer that without going more fully into the facts. We shall not have the results of the General Certificate Examination until the New Year.

    Students (Loans)
    Mr. Frederick Mulleyasked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities are failing to implement her policy by continuing to make loans by making grants below the scales for major awards recommended by her Department, and by continuing to make major and minor awards.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Of the 146 local education authorities, 131 have adopted, either wholly, or in part, the standard figures of maintenance recommended by my Department. In the academic year 1950–51, 122 authorities gave minor awards in addition to major awards. I have no precise up to date information about loans, but I understand that only a very small number of authorities are now making loans to students and then, as a rule, only in exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. Mulley: Will the right hon. Lady assure us that she intends to continue the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Education, and will she take active steps to bring recalcitrant authorities into line with the general education policy of her Department?
    Miss Horsbrugh: In this matter I should certainly not like to talk about recalcitrant local authorities.
    Mr. Mulley: Why not?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I should like the hon. Member to realise that recommendations are made and they are not standards which it is obligatory to follow. I think it would be far better if I worked with the local authorities making recommendations to them and discussing these things with them and leaving them the authority which they have now.

    Transport Facilities, Eltham
    Mr. William A. Stewardasked the Minister of Education if she will consult with the Minister of Transport on the possibility of improving the omnibus service for children attending school from the Avery Hill Estate, Eltham, where at the present time congestion is caused by the overcrowding of omnibuses.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am informed that the London County Council have made representations to the London Transport Executive about the public transport facilities at Eltham, and that the Executive are considering the possibility of some improvement. The London County Council will continue to watch the position and will keep me informed.
    Mr. Steward: Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that there have been a considerable number of complaints by parents about the difficulty experienced by their children in getting to their school in that area?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, most certainly, Sir, and. as I have already said, the London County Council will continue to watch it and keep me informed, and if I do not hear from them I shall ask for further information.
    Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under the Rulings of your predecessor it was not possible to ask a Question of a Minister with regard to the day-to-day administration of a nationalised service. Do I understand that by asking another Minister one can ask a Question which is really the responsibility of the Minister of Transport?
    Mr. Speaker: I should like notice of that question.

    Primary School Population
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education how many extra places in schools for infants will be needed to meet the post-war increase in infant-school population; and how many of these places will be provided by new primary and infants' schools already under construction.
    Miss Horsbrugh: It is impossible to state the number of school places required to meet the increase in the infant-school roll in isolation. It is estimated that in the period January, 1947, to December, 1953, a total of 1,150,000 primary and secondary school places are required on account of the increase in population and the movement of families to new housing estates and new towns. Between the end of the war and 1st October last nearly 650,000 places had been brought into use and another 400,000 places were then under construction.
    Dr. King: Can the right hon. Lady assure us that the schools which are under construction and those which are planned for 1952–53 will cover the 400,000 vacancies which still need to be provided?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, I think they will.

    School Clothing
    Mr. Hylton-Fosterasked the Minister of Education if she will so revise Addendum 1 to Circular 210 issued by her Department as to allow to local education authorities within the existing limits of expenditure a wider discretion in the making of grants for expenses in respect of distinctive school clothing for boys.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am prepared to leave authorities wider discretion in the choice of distinctive school clothing, though I shall expect them to exercise the most rigid economy at the present time. I propose shortly to issue further guidance in the matter.
    Mr. Hylton-Foster: Does the right hon. Lady recognise how pleased many parents will be with her answer, particularly those who are unable to take the view that little boys can be quite as spiteful as little girls about an absence of distinctive clothing?
    Mr. Tudor Watkinsasked the Minister of Education if she will give the names of the education committees in Wales who have not adopted the provisions of Section 5 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, enabling parents to receive grants for children needing clothing to attend school.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Local education authorities are not required to inform me of any arrangements they may make to assist with the provision of children's clothing, and I regret therefore that I am unable to give the information asked for.
    Mr. Watkins: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the object of my Question was to ask her to make inquiries of the local education authorities, particularly as there is a Joint Education Committee for Wales at present?
    Miss Horsbrugh: This is something that we must leave to the local authorities, because it is their responsibility. I am very much against taking responsibility away from the local authorities, and I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members will agree with me.
    Mr. Watkins: On a point of order. As a Member of Parliament I am surely entitled to make an inquiry of the Minister, and, as the Minister is unable to get the information for a Member of Parliament, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES

    Bamangwato Tribal Dispute (Reports)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how far the reports which he has received from the three investigators who were sent by his predecessor to Bechuanaland affect Basutoland and Swaziland as well as Bechuanaland; and in what way.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I have been asked to reply. The task given to the observers by the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was to report on the Bamangwato tribe's attitude on the single question of Tshekedi Khama's return to the tribal Reserve as a private individual. Their reports are confined to this one question.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is causing the great delay in making the reports available to hon. Members, whether it is as a result of those reports that Tshekedi Khama has been invited to this country, and, if so, for what purpose?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The reports were only received in September and this Government has been in power for only a very few weeks, and there has been no delay whatever. As the hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be seeing Tshekedi Khama on his visit to London.
    Mrs. Eirene Whiteasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he can now state whether it is proposed to publish the report of the official observers sent to Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to publish these reports shortly.
    Mrs. White: Will the Minister, in publishing these reports, consider whether he might also publish the representations which, I believe, have been sent to his right hon. Friend by the chiefs of the Territory concerned?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry, but I did not quite hear the first part of the hon. Lady's observations.
    Mrs. White: Would the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to consider publishing also the representations upon this matter which have been sent to the Minister by the chiefs in the Territory concerned?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that they would be suitable for publication as a White Paper. After all, there was the Report of the observers who were sent out to Africa as a result of the decision of the previous Government, and that is entirely suitable for publication. I do not think that the other representations are suitable for publication, but I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend

    Rainfall Experiments
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will seek co-operation with

    1701
    the Union of South Africa in the conduct of experiments to produce rain in Basutoland and the Orange Free State.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been asked to reply. I understand that experiments in the artificial stimulation of rain carried out by the Government of the Union of South Africa have not gone beyond the exploratory stage. An approach to the Union Government would not be justified at present; but my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind, and we will ask our High Commissioner to keep us in touch with any developments.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past year people in the territory have had to wait seven and a half months for rain? How can he justify taking no steps in the matter? Should he not take the initiative?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a very technical and scientific matter. I have no doubt that many hon. Members wish that we could export some of our own rain. In Basutoland last year, the annual rainfall was actually 28 inches, which is comparatively high. We are watching with great interest the experiments in the Union, but up to now they have been inconclusive.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side are firmly convinced that the Government are doing their utmost to stimulate frost?

    Advisory Councils (Africans)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations the number of Africans upon the Advisory Council of the High Commission Territory of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Each Territory has its own council or councils. The Basutoland National Council consists entirely of Africans. Its membership is 100, including the Paramount Chief. In the Bechuanaland Protectorate, the African Advisory Council has 38 members, all of whom are Africans. There is also a recently established Joint Advisory Council in the Territory which has eight African members.
    In Swaziland, the African advisory body is the traditional Swazi National Council. This Council is composed entirely of Africans and is normally
    1702
    attended by all chiefs and prominent members of the tribe. There is no fixed membership. There is also a Standing Committee of this Council, consisting of one African representative from each of the six districts.
    Mr. Johnson: If the Minister thinks, as he obviously does, that the Africans have done excellent work in an advisory capacity, will he consider using them in an executive capacity and setting in motion machinery or legislation for forming executive and legislative councils in these Territories?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A very full answer to that suggestion was given on 15th November. If the hon. Member wishes, I will send him a copy.

    U.N. Trusteeship Committee (Herero People)
    Mr. Donald W. Wadeasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why the British representative at the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations was instructed to oppose the motion that the leaders of the Herero people should be invited to appear before the Committee.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been asked to reply, and would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on 26th November to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Nylon Stockings
    Mr. Norman Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the future prospects for nylon stocking allocations on the home market.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Deliveries of nylon stockings to the home market in the first 10 months of this year have already exceeded by over 25 per cent. the quantity delivered in the whole of last year. At the same time, there has been a welcome increase in exports. Greater demands for nylon yarn for defence purposes mean that in future there will be less yarn for stocking manufacture. With our present urgent need of foreign exchange, it is clearly necessary that any cut should not fall on

    1703
    exports, and if exports are to be maintained, and, indeed, as I hope, increased, it follows that there must be fewer nylon stockings at home.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of the great importance of nylon stockings to most women and some men, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a ray of hope of there being more adequate supplies to the home market of these dynamic morale-boosting items?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: While not underestimating the importance of nylon stockings for the purposes which the hon. Member describes, I would say that in our present economic position the promotion of exports is vital to our economy and every step must be taken to secure that end.

    Gaberdine Raincoats (Quality)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken or contemplated following the protest, a copy of which has been sent to him, by the Retail Standards Association at the increasing production of shoddy utility gaberdine raincoats which are deficient in waterproof qualities.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand that in general utility gaberdine raincoats are of a satisfactory quality, but there have been complaints about the quality of some of the wool and wool union gaberdine cloths from which they are made. I propose to tighten up the specifications of these cloths and the details of the changes are being discussed with the trade.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of the importance of this matter and the need for giving chapter and verse of the deterioration in the situation, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Cigar Imports
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ban the importation of all cigars from hard currency areas during the period of the present financial difficulties.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The only significant imports allowed will be the limited quantities to be permitted in 1952 and 1953 under the trade agreement with Cuba of August last.
    Mr. Donnelly: Will the Minister undertake to consult with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I consult my right hon. Friend on all occasions.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I have not for quite a long time imported any cigars from hard currency areas. I have nevertheless received some from time to time.

    Raw Cotton Imports (Meeting)
    Mr. Cyril Benceasked the President of the Board of Trade why he has not consulted the trade unions concerned in considering the future of the Liverpool Cotton Market, when he has had, or is having, consultations with the employers' organisations in the matter.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. and learned Friend on 27th November. I should add that a further discussion took place on that day with a fully representative delegation of trade unions in the cotton spinning and manufacturing industry.

    Ballbearings (Exports)
    Mr. Harold Watkinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to see that exports of ballbearings are not going to countries who have supplied arms in support of the North Korean aggressors.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I can assure my hon. Friend that the export of steel ball and roller bearings to all destinations except the Commonwealth, the Irish Republic and the United States is subject to strict control.

    Import Duty Orders
    Mrs. Barbara Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that the House will be given an opportunity of debating the National Farmers' Union's demand for higher tariffs on imported fruit and vegetables before any administrative action is taken by the Government.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Orders made under the Import Duties Act, 1932, imposing or increasing Customs duties, cease to have effect 'unless, within a period of 28 days from the date on which they are made, they have been approved

    1705
    by Resolutions passed by this House. There is already provision, therefore, for discussion by the House of any increase in duties chargeable under that Act.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the N.F.U.'s proposal is to increase substantially the tariffs levied under the Act, which is now over 20 years old, and in view of the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman's party during the Election that steps would be taken to bring down the cost of living, whereas increased tariffs would put it up, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this matter ought to be discussed most seriously by the House before any Orders are made under this out-of-date Act?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question, of course, refers simply to the machinery for discussing Import Duty Orders generally. It is as I have stated.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grievous losses sustained by the British fruit growing industry as a result of the promiscuous dumping of foreign canned and fresh fruit in the United Kingdom, which was the policy of the late Socialist Government?
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no dumping in that sense and that the difficulties experienced by growers arise from the chaos of the distributive system, and in view of the grave importance—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Castle.
    Mrs. Castle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—and in view of the great urgency to the British housewife of not increasing the price of fruit and vegetables, will not the right hon. Gentleman see that a debate takes place in the House on all the ways of helping the grower as well as the housewife—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—before steps are taken—
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Lady desires a debate on a specific subject, facilities for suggesting it are open through the usual channels and there are facilities for Private Members' Motions, but the Question does not refer to that. It refers to the technical arrangements for debating Import Duty Orders.

    Textile Trade
    Mr. Reader Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government will make an immediate statement on the textile trade to counteract the loss of confidence and unemployment which has arisen in this trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that there has been a slackening of demand for textiles and some other commodities one cause of which was the stocking up by consumers which took place last autumn and earlier this year. The position is being closely watched and will be considered in the context of general economic policy.
    Mr. Harris: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether there is any real likelihood of a drop in prices, or whether these prices will continue, having regard to the cost of raw materials?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no ambition to seek to guide the buying public by speculating on future prices.

    Crockery (Markings)
    Mr. Richard Woodasked the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances his regulations permit the stamping on crockery of distinctive initials.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The markings of crockery with distinctive initials is not generally permitted. Exceptionally, it has been allowed under licence for supplies for British Railways and the Port of London Authority because the risks of pilfering are so high. It is doubtful whether their catering services could be continued without markings on their crockery.
    Mr. Wood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are risks of pilfering in other spheres besides British Railways and the Port of London Authority; and is he also aware that British Railways have gone a great deal further in many cases by stamping crockery, and that beautiful flowers now decorate some of their crockery?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am anxious not to extend this provision more widely, as it does have an effect on the use of manpower and on exports.

    Commonwealth Statistical Abstract (Tables)
    Mr. Ronald Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade why the summaries given on pages 1 and 2 of the 70th number of the Statistical Abstract for the British Commonwealth which have been included in previous numbers have been omitted from the 71st number; and if he will have these tables compiled and published in some other document.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Summary tables Nos. 1 and 2 of the 70th number of the Statistical Abstract for the British Commonwealth have been recast following consultation with other member countries of the Commonwealth, and more detailed information on Commonwealth trade with foreign countries and of trade within the Commonwealth is now given in the 71st number in tables Nos. 3 and 4.

    Film Industry
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of growing unemployment in the film industry; and if he will take steps to raise the quota of British films which must be shown in British cinemas from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There has been a small decrease in the number of persons employed in film production since the summer, but this is a normal seasonal fluctuation, and employment today is slightly higher than it was this time last year. I do not believe that to raise the quota from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. would be in the best interests of the film industry. The first need of the industry is economic stability and other measures have been taken, including the establishment of the British Film Production Fund, to this end. There are indications that the industry is now more firmly based and has better prospects than has been the case for a considerable time.

    Trading With Russia
    Mrs. Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on British private traders by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and by her satellite countries; and how these restrictions compare with those placed on British official buyers.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In general it is not possible for a private trader to operate in these countries, either by means of personal visit or by the employment of a resident agent, unless his visit, or that of an official buyer, is desired by the Government of the country in question.
    In view of the complete control of
    trade which is exercised by the Governments of these countries, the restriction on the private trader does not, in practice, materially affect the volume of business which can be done. Our experience is that, if the authorities in these countries are anxious either to buy or sell, they are as willing to negotiate in the United Kingdom with a private trader as with an official body.
    Mrs. White: In view of the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, what makes him suppose that private buyers of softwood timber will be able to obtain a larger supply than official buyers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: So far as the Russian market and Russian supplies are concerned, I do not think it makes much difference whether buying is done by public or private arrangements. It is bulk selling, and bulk sellers decide the amount of which they will dispose.

    Internal Combustion Engines (Exports)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the expansion that has occurred since 1946 in the exports of industrial internal combustion engines, excluding motor car and aero-engines, and the harmful effects upon further expansion caused by complications in manufacturers obtaining refund of import duties paid upon components; whether he has considered the memorandum submitted to him by the British Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers Association on 29th August, 1951; and what steps he proposes to take to overcome the manufacturers' difficulties.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the expansion in the export of internal combustion engines over recent years; and that representations have been made by the British Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers Association for increased facilities for obtaining relief from Customs duties in respect of imported machinery parts incorporated in engines for export.

    1709
    I have received no formal submission on this subject from the Association but the memorandum referred to, which was addressed to another Department, has been brought to my attention, and I am now considering it.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the exports of internal combustion engines during 1951 will aggregate no less than £35 million, and that that figure is capable of much further expansion, if this vexed problem of imported components can be overcome by my right hon. Friend and the two other interested Departments—the Treasury and the Ministry of Supply?

    Raw Tobacco (Purchasing)
    Mr. F. J. Errollasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the present method of purchasing raw tobacco for British cigarette factories, together with details of methods adopted to ensure economy in the use of dollars.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: All unmanufactured tobacco is bought on private account, mainly at auctions in the producing countries. By arrangement with the companies, the dollar expenditure which manufacturers are authorised to incur is kept as low as is compatible with maintaining an adequate supply of cigarettes for the home and export trades.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister bear in mind the success of this method when considering the re-opening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question refers to tobacco. If my hon. Friend wishes to ask about cotton, perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper.

    Newsprint Supplies
    Mr. George Chetwyndasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether the Pulp and Paper Committee of the International Materials Conference has yet reached agreement about a general allocation of newsprint: and whether a further emergency allocation is under consideration to meet the shortage of newsprint.
    The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    1710
    As regards the second part, the possibility of further allocations is now being considered.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that present supplies are adequate to maintain the present level of national and local newspapers, and, in view of the fact that Parliament is soon to adjourn for two months, and that the Press will be the only source of comment upon Government activities or otherwise, would he not press for an emergency allocation immmediately, so that we can be informed on these great matters?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I think I can give the assurance for which the hon. Member asks. I do not think there is any need for an emergency allocation.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Lord President of the Council at the Billingsgate wholesalers' luncheon, concerning price control generally and fish prices in particular, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council's statement was to the effect that in his opinion controls were bad but they were sometimes necessary this is the view of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the Minister of Food stated that if prices of fish did increase and continued to increase he would consider replacing price controls on fish, can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Minister of Food would have his way and not the co-ordinating Minister in another place?
  The Prime Minister: This is a moment for answering Questions, and not for making Ministerial pronouncements.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Is the Prime Minister aware that prices of fish were lower during the last week than for some months?
  Hon. Members: Who says so?

  SATURDAY MORNING WORKING
  Mr. Stewardasked the Prime Minister if he will consider issuing an appeal to all sections of the community not only to put the maximum amount of effort into their work but to include Saturday mornings in their working week, bearing in mind that only a total national effort will put Great Britain on its feet.
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the nation fully realises the need for a special effort and that each industry will continue to examine the methods by which production can be increased.
  Mr. Thomas Williams: Will that apply to those business executives and others who go away for long weekends?
  The Prime Minister: I really do not see that I am called upon to draw up such precise regulations for those who may be departing on weekends. It does not follow that the weekends are spent in idleness. I have often known them to become more fruitful than the mid-week period.
  Mr. Steward: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the increasing competition which this country is having to face in world markets from Western Germany and other countries is mainly due to the greater effort being made by those concerned in those countries?

  SUEZ CANAL ZONE (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  Mr. Joseph Reevesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflicting reports on the conditions in the Canal zone of Egypt, he will arrange for an all-party delegation to visit this area for the purpose of investigation, and reporting to this House.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that this would be desirable or convenient at the present time.

  AGRICULTURE

    Sheep Worrying
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the annual total of sheep worried by dogs for the last convenient date.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): According to reports received from every county council in Great Britain, about 6,000 sheep were killed and 4,000 injured by dogs during 1950.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the Minister tell the House if talks with the N.F.U. on this subject have now been concluded, and if so what was the result?
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that this chronic scourge has now become endemic in many places, particularly in my own county of Warwick, and knowing his sympathy in this matter, may I ask him if he can advise or suggest some method of dealing with it.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I would inform my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) that proposals for dealing with sheep worrying were put forward by the N.F.U. shortly after the present Government took office and they are now under examination. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and would welcome suggestions from any hon. Member as to the best way of dealing with this menace which is becoming extremely serious.

    Fowl Pest
    Mr. Clifford Kenyonasked the Minister of Agriculture if provision can be made for those poultry farmers whose stocks have been destroyed because of fowl pest, to take up pig feeding until the area is declared a free area again.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. We have decided that such poultry farmers can draw temporary rations for fattening pigs, on a scale similar to that under the extended rationing scheme. When the land can be restocked with poultry, the normal basic poultry rations will be restored.
    Mr. Kenyonasked the Minister of Agriculture if compensation will be paid to those poultry farmers who are not permitted to sell day old chicks because they live in a fowl-pest area, and have to destroy the chicks as hatched.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. I have no power to pay compensation in such circumstances. Arrangements have been made under which poultry farmers who have day old chicks to sell will be allowed

    1713
    to dispose of them if that can be done without risk of spreading infection. I am informed that, so far, no poultry farmer in the Lancashire area who has asked for permission to dispose of his day old chicks has had to be refused.
    Mr. Kenyonasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to ensure the proper disinfection of egg boxes and feedingstuffs bags which are used in the area of the Lancashire fowl pest outbreak.
    Sir T. Dugdale: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), on 22nd November, I understand that packing stations in Lancashire destroy egg boxes from premises on which fowl pest is suspected to exist. My veterinary officers see that feedingstuffs bags on infected premises are properly disinfected.

    Executive Committees (Accounts)
    Mr. George Lambertasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will publish the accounts of the county agricultural executive committees.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Cash transactions of the committees as a whole are included in the annual appropriation accounts of the Department's Food Production Services Vote and are published in the annual volumes of civil appropriation accounts. Combined trading accounts are published in the annual volumes of trading accounts and balance sheets for those years.

    Agricultural Implements (Steel)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture what priority steel for agricultural implements is to receive under the new allocation system.
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to secure a sufficient supply of steel and other raw materials for the agricultural implement industry in view of the vital need to increase food production.
    Sir T. Dugdale: When the new steel allocation scheme comes into operation on 4th February next the system of priorities now in use will no longer be appropriate. The total quantity of steel available will be distributed to industry through Government Departments and I can only say that
    1714
    I shall do my best to ensure that among the many strong claims on limited supplies those of agricultural implement makers for steel and other raw materials are taken fully into account.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that nothing can save more dollars for Britain than the growing of more food, and will he therefore press for really adequate supplies of steel for both equipment and maintenance?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I will do my best to represent the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture in the overall picture on this subject.

    Farming Costs (Special Price Review)
    Mr. Anthony Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision arising from the special price review of farm products.
    Sir T. Dugdale: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions.

    Feedingstuffs (Ration Changes)
    Mr. Robert Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on rations for livestock for the period commencing 1st January.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The Government is very well aware that any programme of livestock production in the country must be based on an adequate and assured supply of feedingstuffs. There is at present a scarcity of coarse grains in world trade and of transport for them; moreover, sales of home-grown coarse grains for feeding purposes are greatly reduced as compared with last year. Nevertheless, the Government has found it possible to make arrangements for imports in order to maintain the pool of rationed feedingstuffs at the total of 5½ million tons for the 12 months up to the end of April next. It will, however, be necessary to make some reduction in the cereal element of the ration scales for the next rationing period from January to April, 1952.
    A full statement of the present position giving details of and reasons for the changes which are being made in the
    ration scales from 1st January next will

    1715
    be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Prices to farmers of feedingstuffs are not affected by these adjustments, and will not be increased during this financial year.
    Mr. Crouch: The answer of my right hon. and gallant Friend will be very much appreciated by the agricultural industry, where they have been greatly concerned in the last few months about whether feedingstuffs would be available after Christmas—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must make his remarks in the form of a Question.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make it transparently clear that these feedingstuffs have been arranged for by the previous Government?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I think I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that the former Government may have made arrangements for these feedingstuffs, but we found a very unpleasant gap between what was obtained and the target which was set.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where the Government have been able to acquire more coarse grain since the late Government left office?
    Sir T. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, who is very active in this matter, is making himself satisfied that he will be able to reach the 5.5 million tons target.
    Hon. Members: That is no answer.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the late Government took more interest in chickens than they did in the people?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot deal with that.
    Mr. James Hudson: Did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman get some of that presumed extra grain from the brewers?
    Following is the statement:
    Largely because of the welcome increase in pig numbers, claims upon the pool will exceed the amount available if rations continue to be issued to the full extent according to the present scales. There are, in effect, more mouths to be fed out of the same total quantity of feed. It will therefore be necessary to make
    1716
    some reduction in the cereal element of the ration scales for the next rationing period from January to April, 1952. The reductions will be spread over all the principal classes of rationed stock. They will not affect the amount of protein in the rations—it has in fact been possible to increase the ratio of protein to cereal in pig and poultry food.
    In the Government's view these adjustments in ration scales should not prevent the industry as a whole reaching and maintaining the level of production at which it has been aiming. But clearly expansion of livestock must keep in step with our capacity to feed them. This announcement should help to bring it home to everyone that it is of the greatest importance to increase the production not only of grass but of coarse grains. Farmers, therefore, should regard these inevitable reductions as a warning that the further increase in our livestock numbers which we all desire must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in home-produced feedingstuffs. The Government for their part, recognising the importance of the necessary raw materials, will do their utmost to maintain ration scales for the ensuing twelve months at the levels now announced for January-April next, subject to the usual seasonal variations.
    Details of Ration changes
    (The new ration scales have been settled after consultation with the Feedingstuffs Advisory Committee.)

    (a) Dairy Cows. The standard of cereal self-sufficiency for dairy farmers will be raised for the last two months of the winter period. As from 1st March, 1952, therefore, farmers will be expected to provide from their own resources for the maintenance of their cows, together with cereal for the first1⅛ gallons of milk per cow per day (instead of 1 gallon as at present) and protein for the first gallon.

    (b) Calves over six months old. The ration for calves aged 7 to 12 months introduced as a temporary measure in 1949 cannot be maintained at its present level of 1 cwt. per calf per month of which¼cwt. is protein. As from 1st January it will be reduced to½cwt. per calf consisting of¼cwt. protein and¼ cwt. cereal.

    (c) Discretionary Reserves. The quantities available for distribution through the County Discretionary Reserves will be reduced.

    (d) Pigs and Poultry—

    (i) The farrowing sow allowance will be reduced from 10 cwt. to 9 cwt. commencing 1st January, 1952.

    (ii) Bonus Rations. There will be a 25 per cent. reduction in bonus rations on pig-meat and eggs, compared with a year previously. For deliveries during the period

    1717
    September-December, bonus rations will be available in January-April as follows: Pigmeat, 3 cwt. for each 160 1b. (eight score) of pigmeat delivered to bacon factories and slaughter houses; Eggs, 1½ cwt. for each 80 dozen eggs delivered to packing stations.

    (iii) As from 1st January, 1952, coupons for pig and poultry rations will be issued in the ratio of 1 protein to 8 cereal instead of 1 protein to 9 cereal. The effect of this change will be that those drawing rations under the basic and extended scheme will receive more protein coupons at the expense of a reduction in cereal coupons.

    (e) Domestic Rations—

    (1) Domestic Pigs and Pig Clubs. From 1st January, 1952, rations will be reduced by 14 1b. per pig per month. The domestic pig ration allowed for one pig will be 56 1b. per month and the ration for not more than two pigs kept by members of registered pig clubs will be 70 1b. per pig per month.

    (2) Domestic Poultry. From the beginning of the new ration period on 1st March, 1952, the allowance of balancer meal in respect of each shell egg registration surrendered will be 4 1b. per month, instead of 5 1b. per month as at present.

    The above changes apply to Great Britain and a separate announcement will be made by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

    Humane Rabbit Traps
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now state the results of the experimental use of the new humane rabbit trap; and when it is hoped to make it available to farmers and others interested.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The experiments that are taking place have indicated that some further modifications are desirable in the trap now being tested. I should make it clear that I have no power to give formal approval or disapproval to a spring trap; it is for the producers of traps to determine how and when to market their wares. In this particular case we think the principle of the new design a good one, and my Department is helping the inventor; he himself is not yet satisfied with the details of his invention and would not wish it to be released for wider use until certain problems have been solved. We shall continue to assist in solving those problems.
    Sir J. Lucas: May we understand that at least the progress has been encouraging?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Certainly the progress has been encouraging, but we are not in the final stage yet.
    Capt. J. A. L. Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that one of the difficulties of this new trap is the danger to other animals, such as pets, which might run into it accidentally, and the resulting cruelty would be worse than at present?
    Sir T. Dugdale: There are very many problems which surround this question and all these are being taken into account.

    Fat Pigs
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the restrictions, which have been imposed upon certain uninfected counties as a result of foot and mouth disease in other counties, is preventing fat pigs from being sent to the bacon factories; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Orders were made on 24th and 25th November to enable pigs from parts of Eastern England to be sent to bacon factories in Yorkshire, Hertfordshire and the Birmingham area. I am advised that these measures should be sufficient for the present.
    Mr. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that throughout last week we could not send uninfected pigs from an uninfected area to a bacon factory in an uninfected area, and will he ensure that his Ministry do not make mistakes of that kind in future?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member, but the real difficulty in this case arose because the control area as originally defined contained 40 per cent. of the pigs in the country, but only 15 per cent. of the bacon curing capacity.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it ought to be possible to send pigs through an uninfected area to a slaughterhouse without closing the area? Is he further aware that the closing of Warwickshire and part of Staffordshire—two areas not affected—is causing very great inconvenience including cancelling an important Shorthorn Sale?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I must be guided in these matters by the advice I have from my technical advisers, in whom I have complete confidence.

FARMING COSTS (SPECIAL PRICE REVIEW)
Sir T. Dugdale: With your permission. Mr. Speaker, I should now like to reply to Question No. 55.
I should first explain that the Special Review which took place recently under the authority of the previous Government was a Review under Section 2 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, not of prices but of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry, as affected by the latest awards of the three Agricultural Wages Boards for the United Kingdom. The Government have now considered the effect of these awards on the economic condition and prospects of the industry, and have also taken note of other increases in costs that have taken place since the Annual Review of last February.
The Government have decided that a case exists for adjusting those farm prices which were fixed after last February's Annual Review, so as to take account of the sudden and substantial change in labour costs resulting from the awards of the Agricultural Wages Boards. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the price increases and the dates from which they will operate. It will be possible in the case of milk, but not for other commodities, to make the new price restrospective to the dates on which the increased wages become payable in England and Wales, and Scotland respectively.
I have said that other increases in costs have also been examined. Of these the most notable single item both in magnitude and in regard to its potential effect on production, has been the steep rise in fertiliser prices. The excess increase over the estimate used for the purpose of last February's Annual Review is equivalent to an annual rate of just over £9 million. We have decided that this is a matter which should be dealt with separately by means which will most effectively encourage the proper use of fertilisers on crops and grass. Arrangements are being made accordingly for the payment of a contribution towards the cost of acquiring phosphatic fertilisers in the United Kingdom. The contributions will be at a rate equivalent to about 30 per cent. of the present cost to farmers and will apply to all phosphatic fertilisers bought between
1720
1st July last and 30th June, 1952. I shall in due course ask Parliament to make the necessary provision.
These measures will partly offset the increased costs of production arising from higher wages and other causes. Since it is our policy to curb Government expenditure, they will be counted against the food subsidies and will involve increases in some food prices if the level of the subsidies is not to be increased.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: More broken promises.
Sir T. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has already announced an increase of 1d. per quart in the price of milk and he will be making further announcements as and when necessary.
Mr. William Ross: Throw in Your hand.
Sir T. Dugdale: The Government recognise that the rapid and substantial increases in costs which have taken place this year have created severe difficulties for agriculture, as for other industries. Necessarily these problems must be considered in relation to the general economic condition of the country and defence requirements. The whole economy is seriously overloaded; there are grave external financial difficulties; and we have heavy defence commitments. One of the most important contributions that can be rendered to agriculture is for the Government to press on with the attempt to get control of inflationary tendencies. The farming community will be among those who will benefit by reason of successful policies in this regard.
It will require more time than has so far been available to the present Government to balance, on the one hand, the nation's food production requirements and appropriate ways and means of enabling the agricultural industry to meet them, and, on the other, the national economic and material resources which are likely to be available for that purpose. We are applying ourselves to that task with energy and determination; we have made these present awards; and we intend to do our utmost in the circumstances I have described to ensure that agriculture can make the fullest possible contribution both to the nation's food requirements and towards the solution of its economic problems.
Mr. Hurd: While thanking the Government for dealing with this problem so promptly, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if he will always remember in view of the fall in the production of milk and eggs in this present year—
Mr. Manuel: And the promises given in the Election.
Mr. Hurd:—that adequate prices in line with costs of production are essential to regain full food production here to meet consumers' needs?
Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, that is the intention of the statement I have made on behalf of the Government.
Mr. T. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? First, would he give us the estimate of the increases on a yearly basis? Secondly, are we to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that it is expected that the total increase in the cost will be borne by consumers, and thirdly, are we to understand that this is an agreed statement with the National Farmers' Union?
Sir T. Dugdale: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is that on a yearly basis the total estimated cost will be in the neighbourhood of £26 million on two accounts. As far as his second question is concerned, although the new proposals with regard to fertilisers, which I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, will be borne on a Ministry of Agriculture Vote, they will be included in the consumer subsidies, in this grand total which is controlled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's third question, there is no question of agreement or disagreement to this statement as far as the National Farmers' Union is concerned. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that so far as this special price review is concerned, if the facts are accepted and agreed then the figures are machinery figures.
Mr. S. N. Evans: Is the Minister aware that his further pampering and featherbedding of an already cosseted industry will cause considerable dismay among housewives and taxpayers, and does this further financial blood transfusion mean that farm profits are now sanctified at £300 million a year, six times their prewar level, without any regard to efficiency or productivity? Have the leaders of this industry no shame, no regard—
Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not responsible for the absence or the presence of a sense of shame in other people.
Mr. Evans: Have those responsible for this decision no understanding of the grave financial and economic crisis that confronts this country, and are the tears of self-pity—
Mr. Speaker: This is really developing into a speech. Sir Thomas Dugdale.
Sir. T. Dugdale: I think the best way in which I can answer the hon. Gentleman is to say that the Government are very well aware of the extremely difficult financial position, but that they are equally aware of the danger of a fall in production from the farms of Great Britain, and that is my responsibility as a Member of the Government.
Mr. John MacLeod: Is the Minister aware that farmers in the Highlands and other remote areas are greatly penalised through the raising of freight charges which took place to such a great extent under the Socialist administration? Can he say if this was taken fully into account in this review, and will he bear it in mind in the future?
Sir T. Dugdale: I wish to make it clear that this is a special price review which only deals with the special point of increased costs.
Mr. Hector McNeil: Does the Minister's reply mean that if the Government are unable to absorb these additional costs inside the existing subsidy ceiling they will be passed on to the consumer in terms of increased food prices?
Sir T. Dugdale: I made it perfectly clear in my statement, if the right hon. Gentleman will read it, that we anticipate that there are bound to be increased retail prices.
Colonel Ralph Clarke: Is it not a fact that since the last review in February the costs of farmers have risen something like £50 million to £60 million for extra wages and other things over which they have no control, and which, under the 1947 Act passed by the late Government, now the present Opposition, are fairly placed on the consumers?
Sir T. Dugdale: That is not quite accurate if we are considering only price review commodities. Those are commodities for which guaranteed prices are arranged under the 1947 Act, but I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend

1723
that under the proposals I have now submitted to the House they will cover, so far as fertilisers are concerned, not only price review commodities but the horticultural industry as well.
Mr. Frederick Peart: As during the Election many Tory farmers supported the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, is this the way in which they are now to be disappointed, and do not these terms reveal the hypocrisy of the Tory Party's claim that they would reduce the cost of living?
Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Is not the best thing that could happen for consumers in this country that agriculture should be made to prosper and to pay its way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is developing into a general debate of agriculture.
Mr. H. Hynd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. R. T. Paget: In view of the immediate importance of this statement and the shock it will convey, would you, Mr. Speaker, accept a Motion to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public importance?
Mr. Speaker: No, I could not accept such a Motion under the Standing Order. Notice has already been given that the matter is to be raised on the Adjournment, and it is not a matter which falls within the Standing Order.

—

Prices fixed after the last Annual Review

Notes

Price Increases

Operative Date

Crops: 1952 harvest

Wheat, per cwt.

29s.

—

6d.

1.7.52

Rye, per cwt.

21s. 6d.

(i)

6d.

1.7.52

Barley, per cwt.

23s.

(i)

6d.

1.7.52

Oats. per cwt.

20s. 8d.

(i)

6d.

1.7.52

not earlier than

Potatoes, per ton

232s.

(ii)

7s.

1.8.52

Sugar beet. per ton

108s. 8d.

—

3s. 6d.

1.7.52

Livestock products: 1951–1952

Fat cattle, per live cwt.

116s. 11d.

(iii)

4s.

3.12.51

Fat sheep and lamb, per lb. dressed

2s. 5d.

—

¾d.

3.12.51

Fat pigs, per score dead weight.

53s. 2d.

(iii)

5d.

3.12.51

Eggs, per doz.

4s. 3½d.

(iv)

1d.

6.12.51

Milk, per gall.

2s. 11¾d.

(V)

0·68d.{England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland

21.10.51

5.11.51

7.1.52

Wool, per lb

6s.

—

½d.

1.5.52

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Is not the House entitled, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister's statement, to learn whether this is the first contribution of the Government—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Gentleman on a point of order.
Mr. Thomas: Arising out of the Minister's statement, is not the House entitled to learn whether this is the first contribution of the Government's promised reduction in the cost of living?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and I would call the attention of the House to the fact that an hon. Member of it has given notice that he intends to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Following is the statement of price increases and operative dates:
The price increases shown in the Table are average annual increases for agricultural commodities in the United Kingdom covered by the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act, 1947. For crops these increases apply to the 1952 harvest, and for livestock products other than wool the increases will begin at the dates stated in the Table. In the case of wool the increase shown will be added to whatever guaranteed price is fixed for the 1952 clip. For practical reasons the price increases for particular grades of produce, or for produce marketed in particular months or from particular areas, may differ slightly from those set out in the Table. For livestock products the prices quoted as having been fixed after the last Annual Review include small once-for-all amounts added in respect of the deferment of the 1950 Special Review.

(i) Columns 1 and 3 refer to the minimum price only.

(ii) Column 1 refers to standard ware potatoes only; Column 3 applies to sub-standard ware as well.

(iii) For cattle, column 1 refers to steers, heifers and cow heifers, but column 3 applies to other classes of adult cattle as well. For pigs, column 1 refers to clean pigs in quality weight ranges, but column 3 applies to other pigs as well.

(iv) Column 1 refers to hen eggs sold through packing stations. Column 3 applies, as well, to an increase in the guaranteed minimum price for duck eggs.

(v) Columns 1 and 3 refer to the average pool price plus production bonus and quality premiums. The operative dates are those on which in the three countries revised wage rates came into force or are in prospect.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the business tomorrow and if he will announce the business for next week?
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. Tomorrow, after the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, we shall ask the House to take the Second Readings of the:
Northern Ireland (Foyle Fisheries) Bill.
Judicial Offices (Salaries, &c.) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
It is not proposed to take the Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill and the British Museum Bill previously announced for this day.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of:
Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill.
Northern Ireland (Foyle Fisheries) Bill.
Consolidated Fund Bill.
Second Reading: Merchant Shipping Bill.
Consideration of Motions to approve:
Mineral Development Charge Set-Off Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland.
Agricultural Holdings Act (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order, 1951.
1726
TUESDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Debate on Housing, which will arise on a Motion to be tabled by the Opposition.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Festival Pleasure Gardens Bill.
The Bill can only be proceeded with if no Petitions requiring it to be considered by a Select Committee are presented within the prescribed period.
Committee and remaining stages of the Judicial Offices (Salaries, &c.), Bill.
Second Reading: Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Bill.
Consideration of Motions to approve:
Draft Police Pensions Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland.
THURSDAY, 6TH DECEMBER—Debate on Defence, which will take place on the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
During the week it may be necessary to consider Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place.
If all necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped to adjourn on Friday, 7th December until Tuesday, 29th January.
Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is available for the housing debate a Minister from Scotland to deal with Scottish housing questions?
Mr. Crookshank: It is, of course, the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland not only to be here but also, I hope, to speak.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether the debate on defence will be opened by a statement by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Crookshank: It is my right hon. Friend's intention to open the debate.
Mr. Attlee: Third, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has considered making arrangements for a debate on Welsh affairs?
Mr. Crookshank: I had kept Tuesday for that purpose. Ever since we have met the Opposition have more or less committed the House to a debate on that subject, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite asked for a debate on housing and, of course, that has taken precedence.
Mr. George Thomas: Why?
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Member should not ask me. I hope we shall be able to have a debate on Wales before very long, after our return. I should like it before Christmas, but that was taken out of my hands.
Mr. Thomas Steele: Would the Leader of the House find an opportunity next week to give us a debate on the Christmas bonus to farmers?
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to include in the business of the House a discussion upon new proposals for a Federation of Central Africa?
Mr. Crookshank: There is no mention of that in the business I have just announced for next week.
Mr. Douglas Jay: In connection with the business for next week, as the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture amounted to a heavy reduction in food subsidies which will increase food prices—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If it does not amount to that, no doubt the Leader of the House will explain the fact. As, in fact, it does, will the Minister consider either finding time to debate that next week or giving additional time before Christmas?
Mr. Crookshank: There is no time next week for anything beyond what I have announced.
Mr. Jay: Does not that prove, and would not the Leader of the House agree, that we must have more time before Christmas to discuss these things?
Mr. W. W. Astor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a general debate on Friday on the Motion to adjourn?
Mr. Crookshank: The normal procedure will be followed under which, as in the past, Mr. Speaker has selected certain subjects at the suggestion of Private Members.
Mr. Barnett Janner: In view of the very grave concern that is felt throughout the House in consequence of the statement made this afternoon and the very grave concern in the country about the cost of living increasing, are we not entitled to debate that matter and to stay over to do it, no matter how long? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I should like
1728
an answer. May I also say that in view of the very serious increase in the cost of rents that will take place throughout the country in consequence Of the statement that was made yesterday, ought we not to discuss that before Christmas? There are 12 million houses concerned—
Mr. Crookshank: I realise these are matters of grave importance—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not do something about it? "]—but I am dealing only with the business for next week.
Mr. Raymond Gower: In view of the fact that the cost of living has been increasing constantly for the last six years, will my right hon. Friend resist any application to debate these measures until their effect has had some time to reveal itself?
Mr. A. C. Manuel: A damp squib.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Can we have an assurance that there is no possibility of the Prime Minister, in opening the debate on Thursday, spying strangers?
Mr. Crookshank: My right hon. Friend said the other day it was not his intention to have a private Session, as he had originally suggested.
Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the fact that within the last few minutes the Leader of the House has had to refuse three important debates, on higher food prices, on Welsh affairs and on Central Africa, and in view of the fact that he has had to suspend the Rule on four occasions this week, is there not clear evidence that we ought to have a much longer time for debates before Christmas?
Mr. Crookshank: It is quite true the Rule has had to be suspended as a precautionary measure, but it certainly was not my fault the House sat so late.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Now that the Leader of the House has made an announcement on the adjournment of the House next week, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the statement made last Friday by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs has created widespread concern throughout the country? In view of our limited time, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that no cuts will be made in the people's standards while Parliament is not sitting?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I am not aware at all that any changes have been made in regard to what may be done when Parliament is not sitting and what may not be done. The custom is well established and we shall conform to the general principles.
Miss Irene Ward: May I ask for an assurance that if, after the Christmas Recess, we debate the new agricultural prices, the debate will be linked with the increased price of coal, which is the product of a nationalised industry?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say anything about the subject of debate in January or February.
Mr. John Paton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman something which I think he may find it in his heart to grant? In view of the very special importance of the housing debate on Tuesday, and the very important announcement that was made recently by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, could we have the Rule suspended for perhaps two hours in order to give the House a greater opportunity to participate in that debate?
Captain Crookshank: I will certainly consider any proposals. I cannot promise anything, but I would ask that, if the request is granted, I shall not be subject to comments and criticisms from the Opposition.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We have already spent a long time on this question. Mr. Hutchison.

KOREA AND MALAYA (CHRISTMAS PARCELS)
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement about Christmas parcels for Korea and Malaya.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the difficulties which I mentioned
on 15th November have been overcome and that one Christmas parcel of not more than 3 1b. will be accepted for conveyance by air, free of postage, to each member of our Forces in Korea and Japan. The concession will extend, as
1730
it did last year, to men sent to Malaya after 8th November, the last date for posting parcels to that country by surface route.
I will circulate full particulars of the scheme, which is to start tomorrow, in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They will also be available at post offices.
Miss Elaine Burton: In welcoming the statement that the Government are to continue the policy inaugurated by the late Government last year, may I ask the Minister if he is aware of the very real appreciation which will be felt not only by the men themselves but by their relatives and friends? Would he not also agree that the basic problem is the prohibitive cost of sending parcels by air to men in the Far East as compared with men stationed elsewhere, and, after Christmas, would he look closely at that point?
Mr. Hutchison: I am glad that it has been possible to meet the representations made by the hon. Lady and by other Members of the House. We had a full debate on the broader question of parcels to all theatres of war at all times of the year, and I do not think that there has been any change in the circumstances to warrant our making a change in the decision of that time.
Mr. Ness Edwards: While agreeing with my hon. Friend that this announcement is most welcome, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take into account the fact that there is very little time in which to make this information generally known? Will he issue the information through the B.B.C. or by other means and give the maximum amount of publicity to this arrangement, so that all the men's relatives in this country may take full advantage of the scheme?
Mr. Hutchison: Yes, Sir. The details announced in the OFFICIAL REPORT Will be issued by the Post Office to the Press and to the B.B.C.
Following are the details:
One parcel up to 3 1b. in weight addressed to each member of His Majesty's Forces, and crews of Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, in Korea and Japan, will be accepted at any post office free of postage and will be conveyed by air mail. This concession also applies in respect of each member of His Majesty's Forces who left the United Kingdom for Malaya after the last date of posting of surface mail parcels for that country (8th November).

1731
Parcels must be prominently marked "CHRISTMAS PARCEL FOR KOREA" (or "MALAYA" as the case may be) and have a blue Air Mail label affixed next to each address on the parcel.
The latest dates of posting for these parcels are 8th of December for Korea and Japan and 12th of December for Malaya.
The public are earnestly requested not to exceed the allotment of one 3 1b. parcel for each addressee.

PERSONAL STATEMENTS
Mrs. Barbara Castle: On a point of order, might I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In today's HANSARD I am on record as having, in the early hours of yesterday morning, gone into the Division Lobby with hon. Gentlemen opposite and voted "Aye" in Division No. 17, which was on a Closure Motion. In view of the damage this is likely to do to my political reputation, could steps be taken to expunge this error from the record?*
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly do all I can to mitigate the damage done to the hon. Lady.
Sir William Darling: On a point of order. Following the hon. Lady, Mr. Speaker, may I direct your attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in the debate the night before last, said that I was asleep, and as this statement by him is likely to cause dissatisfaction to my constituents, who probably look upon me as a watchful and wakeful Member, may I ask what steps I can take to have it expunged from the record?
Mr. Speaker: I shall have to consider that.

SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. I was asked yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) —
Hon. Members: Where is he?
Mr. William Hamilton: Gone to join the Home Guard.
Mr. Speaker:—if I would give a Ruling for the guidance of hon. Members as to the procedure which is followed in the case of an hon. Member being named by the Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House.
1732
Standing Order No. 22 provides that the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House, because it is for the House, with the Speaker or his Deputy in the Chair, to pass judgment upon the hon. Member on the circumstances being reported to it. When the Chairman makes his report to the House, through the Speaker, and the hon. Member is named by the Speaker, it is the duty of whoever is leading the House at the time to move, at once, the suspension of the hon. Member.
By practice and usage, this Motion must follow immediately upon the naming of the hon. Member by the Speaker. The House and the Speaker are entitled to assume that before matters have reached this stage the resources of the Committee and its Chairman for maintaining order have been exhausted. The time for withdrawals and apologies is, for the moment, over.
Up to 1882 it was the practice, when a Member was named in these circumstances, that he should be heard in his place in his own defence before the House decided what course of action it should adopt. It was precisely because this practice led to obstruction and disorder that what are now Standing Orders Nos. 22–24 were passed. For the last 70 years, since the modern summary procedure was introduced, the practice has been as I have described.
I have thought it proper to give this Ruling, not only because I was asked to do so by the right hon. Gentleman, but because it is now a long time since a similar case occurred. May I express the hope that it will be a long time before such a case happens again.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. T. Driberg: In connection with the matter to which you have just referred, Sir, may I respectfully draw your attention to two instances in which the report in HANSARD of our proceedings on that occasion does not correspond with the words which were actually uttered. I do so because in both cases the changes involved slight but perhaps not unimportant differences of emphasis at least, and because they were made deliberately—I am sure without your knowledge or authority, Mr. Speaker, and in good faith by the staff Of HANSARD.

1733
The first instance to which I wish to draw your attention is in column 1311 of HANSARD, 27th November, about two-thirds of the way down the column:
"The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman persists in defying my Ruling I must ask him to withdraw from the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 1311.]
In fact, the Deputy-Chairman did not use the last three words there attributed to him, and although this may seem a very slight distinction I would venture respectfully to submit to you, Sir, that there may on occasion be a genuine misunderstanding caused by the ambiguity of the use of the word "withdraw" in this context—because when, as in this case, a number of Members are shouting "Withdraw, withdraw" they usually mean "Withdraw the words that have just been uttered." Therefore, I suggest that there is at least a chance that in the rather tumultuous circumstances of that occasion hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) may be under a genuine misunderstanding of what the Chair is ordering them to do. The words "withdraw from the House" were not used by the Deputy-Chairman on that occasion, as I have verified, because, through the courtesy of the Editor of HANSARD, I have had access to a copy of the original typescript and the words "from the House" have been written in in ink.
The second instance to which I would draw your attention is, I think, more substantial. It is in the next column, column 1312 and it is on a point of order which I raised with you during that Division. I asked you, in that point of order, as reported in HANSARD today, if you would indicate whether it is possible to raise a point of order at the time when the Question is being put, to which, very naturally, you replied "Yes." I was rather surprised when I saw that report in HANSARD this morning because I had a clear recollection of having used other words also at the end of my point of order and of having gone upstairs to the Office of HANSARD to check the typescript myself an hour later, as is customary, and they were in the typescript.
Again, I have had access to the typescript through the courtesy of the Editor
1734
of HANSARD, and I find that I was reported by the original reporter as having said:
"…whether it is possible to raise a point of order at the time when the Question is being put which you recently put to the House."
But those last seven words have been crossed out in ink, thus substantially altering the sense of what I said in my point or order, and changing the point of order from a specific reference to the occasion that we had just been witnessing to a very obvious generalisation. I thought it my duty to draw your attention to these two substantial changes, but, at the same time, I am confident, as I say, that they were made without your authority and in good faith by the staff of HANSARD
Mr. Speaker: I understand, though I was not present, that there was a good deal of noise going on, and it may be that recollections differ and that the reporters heard differently what was said. However, I will look into the points raised by the hon. Member and see if there is anything I can do. May I say that in giving my Ruling today I deliberately abstained from referring to the events of yesterday.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point, Sir, with great respect, the point I was making was not that there may have been some mishearing or misunderstanding of what was said at the time but that the words clearly heard and reported in the original typescript by the reporter were subsequently changed twice.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that. I am not prepared to answer that until I have had a chance of looking into the matter.
Mr. Driberg: It is true; I have got it here.
Mr. Speaker: I will go into it later.
Mr. I. Mikardo: Mr. Speaker, on a related point you will recollect that some time after the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had been named and had withdrawn I raised with you a point of order, and although I put it in a rather long and involved way you were kind and patient enough to hear me out and give me an answer. I did not pursue the matter because I had raised my point of order based upon a recol

1735
lection of what I thought you had said, and, of course, one cannot always be sure that one's recollections are correct. As I was not sure that my recollection was correct in what you had said, I pursued the matter no further. But now, on having the report of our proceedings I find that, in fact, the recollection on which I based my point of order is substantiated in the Report. The passage concerned is on column 1312 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which you said:
"I understand so, but at that time I thought the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was out of order as he was the subject of the Motion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1951, Vol. 494, c. 1312.]
The point which I had been endeavouring
to put to you was to ask for your guidance as to whether it was not an inalienable right of an hon. Member to raise a point of order at any time and under any circumstances. I was, of course, thinking particularly of an occurrence before you entered the House. The difficulty, which arose as a result of the action of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, arose precisely because he endeavoured to put a point of order and was prevented by the occupant of the lower Chair from doing so.
Of course, I am making no comment at all on whether he was right or wrong in thinking that he was entitled to speak on the Motion to report Progress, and, of course, I make no comment—it would be most improper for me to do so—on his own behaviour after he had been given certain instructions by the Chairman. But what I did query with you, aside from the merits of the incident which caused his naming, was whether, even under those conditions, an hon. Member does not always inalienably have the right to raise a point of order.
I put it to you that you had made the remark which I have just quoted at the bottom of column 1312, and that, while I was not pretending to quote your actual words, I recalled that, and suggested that the hon. Member had been refused permission to raise a point of order on a view you had taken of the matter when you had entered the House, but that you had taken another view on reflection afterwards. I was subsequently reinforced in this view—and here I think I can simplify the rather complicated nature of my point—
1736
by the fact that you, Sir, permitted the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to raise a point of order, seated and covered, whilst the Division on his own behaviour was actually taking place.
Surely there could be no moment at which the conduct of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was so much under question than when, on either side of the Chamber, in the two Lobbies, some hundreds of hon. Members were dividing about the Question; and yet at that very moment, when the conduct of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was so much in question, you, Mr. Speaker, and I feel quite rightly, permitted him to raise a point of order.
May I put this question to you? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I apologise for being so long, but we are dealing here with the rights of ordinary Members which I know, Mr. Speaker, you will be as anxious as anyone else to safeguard. The question I want to put to you is this. If, even at the moment when we were dividing about the conduct of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne; if, even at that moment, you thought he had the right to raise a point of order, then, with respect, was the occupant of the Lower Chair right in thinking that the hon. Member could not raise a point of order at a moment when his conduct was not in question?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot deal with what happened in Committee; I was not there. I will, however, say this about my own refusal to listen to points of order when I resumed the Chair. The reason for that was this. The only business before the House, as re-constituted, was order. Therefore, any point of order raised was debate on the subject before the House. Different considerations apply to a point of order raised by an hon. Member when there is another Question before the House and he intervenes on a point of order, very often for the assistance of the Chair, to point out some irregularity which has passed unobserved. It being the Rule that first the matter of order for which I was summoned, should be dealt with, points of order upon that were debate. When the Question had been put and the House divided, however, there might be subsidiary points of order about the conduct of the Division and so on which it would be my duty to hear; but in the interval between my entering

1737
the House and putting the Question on the Motion which was moved, any point of order raised would have been debate, because the subject of the House was order, and therefore it would have been out of order.
Mr. Mikardo: May I thank you very much for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Arising from the statement made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), could you say, Mr. Speaker, to what extent Members of this House have right of access to HMVSARD for anything except their own speeches and statements? We use so frequently in the House the phrase, "The hon. Member will see that I am right in quoting what I have said when he sees tomorrow's HANSARD." From that, surely one can draw the conclusion that a Member has not right of access, even by courtesy of the Editor, to the HANSARD report of what has been said by other hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to inquire into that. I know hon. Members have been in the custom of going to HANSARD to correct their own speeches and I see nothing wrong in that. I do not know what the rule is with regard to looking at other reports. I will inquire.
Mr. Driberg: In this case may I point out, since the matter has been raised, that I, of course, asked to see only that page of the typescript which referred to my own intervention, which I sought to check, but, naturally, I had to read through the episode concerned in order to find it, because the whole thing was handed to me together. [HON. MEMBERS:
1738
"Oh"] There is nothing surprising about that. That was the point. In addition to checking my own intervention, I noticed that there was this change in what had been said by an hon. Member who is at present excluded from these premises and who, therefore, could not verify it himself.
Mr. Speaker: I think we had better pass on to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL
  "to extend by five years the period at the expiration of which section three of the Electricity Supply (Meters) Act, 1936, is to cease to apply to any electricity meters," presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; supported by Mr. Joynson-Hicks; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
That this day, if the Proceedings on the Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill or in Committee on Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) [Money] or the Proceedings on Consideration or on Third Reading of the Home Guard Bill have not been completed by Seven o'clock, such Proceedings shall stand postponed until the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Christmas Food Supplies and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 1 (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  MR. SPEAKER CLIFTON BROWN'S RETIREMENT BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARIES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary at the Home Office, and another at the Scottish Office. Before I discuss the provisions of the Bill I want briefly to indicate the background against which these proposals are put forward, and that means indicating very shortly the party policy which was put before the electors and on which they are based.
  Perhaps I may begin with the question of Wales. The pamphlet, "The Conservative Policy for Wales and Monmouthshire," pointed out that there was no single person responsible for seeing that Wales is not forgotten in connection with her special questions and for seeing that in any matters where Welsh conditions are distinct, account is taken of them; or that where Wales needs to be treated as a separate entity, she is so treated. We felt that what Wales needed was to obtain steady representation at the highest level in all aspects of national policy and we suggested that one member of the Cabinet should be given special responsibility for Wales, and that that responsibility should be clearly marked and recognised.
  The lot has fallen upon me and I want to say—and I hope the House will accept that I speak with complete sincerity—that I am deeply conscious of my own privilege and of the prime responsibility which rests upon me. My function, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 13th November, is:
  "To inform himself of the Welsh aspect of business by visiting the Principality and by discussion with representatives of Welsh life and to speak in Cabinet on behalf of the special interests and aspirations of Wales. He will be assisted by a Welsh Under-Secretary.
  1740
  It is not proposed to confer executive power on the Home Secretary as Minister of Welsh Affairs and he will have no direct responsibility to Parliament for education, health or agriculture in Wales or for the administration in Wales on any services for which other Ministers are Departmentally responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 817.]
  Perhaps I may pass for the moment to pick up the corresponding background of the proposal in regard to Scotland, again starting with the policy document, the pamphlet "Scottish Control of Scottish Affairs ", which was issued in 1949. In that pamphlet we emphasised that year by year the responsibility of the holder of the Office of Secretary of State for Scotland increased and that it was of the first importance that this post should not become overwhelmed with Departmental detail. We therefore proposed that a Minister of State for Scotland should be appointed as deputy to the Secretary of State and that a third Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State should be appointed so that the burden of Departmental duties could be properly distributed.
  It might be convenient if I passed from that aspect to the legislation which we desire to amend by this Bill. Before either of the two new Ministers can receive a salary in respect of his office and sit and vote in this House, the legislation which at present governs these matters must be amended; and I hope the House will bear with me while, very shortly, I deal, as simply as I can, with the involved position in which the law now stands.
  The principal Act is The Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, which lays down, in Section 2, the number of persons to whom salaries may be paid under that Act. Section 9 (1, c) fixes the maximum number of those persons entitled to sit and vote in our House as Parliamentary Under-Secretaries at 20.
  This Act has been considerably amended by other Acts and by the Defence Regulations. First of all, The Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, added not only the Minister but a Parliamentary Secretary to the list of Ministers to whom the Act of 1937 applied and increased the number of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and raised the maximum number of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries who could sit and vote in our House to 21. To show

  1741
  the difficulty of these interlocking Acts, that number was subsequently reduced to 20 by The Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945.
  Then followed The Ministers of the Crown (Treasury Secretaries) Act, 1947, which authorised three Parliamentary Secretaries for the Treasury. Turning to Defence Regulations, by The Defence (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Regulations, 1940, provision was made for a third Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Admiralty and the War Office and a second at the Scottish Office, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  One would think one had already a large corpus of legislation dealing with this matter, but I can assure the House, without going into it in detail, that there are a number of other Acts like The Ministry of National Insurance Act, The Ministry of Fuel and Power Act and The Ministry of Defence Act, which provided for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries; but all these Acts are independent of the Act of 1937 with which we are dealing today.
  I am sorry to have taken so long, but I wanted the House to appreciate the somewhat complicated basis on which we have to act. I would say this in extenuation: although it sounds complicated it is a very important matter, in which, historically, this House has always been most interested, to see that the strictest rules are applied to those who are paid by the Crown; and it is because of that that we have these complicated provisions.
  May I sum up the position and explain what it means in actual persons at the present time? Under The Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, as amended, the total number of salaries authorised for Parliamentary Under-Secretaries is 31 and the maximum number who may sit in the House of Commons is 26. Apart from the Defence Regulations, which I mentioned, the numbers were 25, whose salaries are authorised, and 20; those are the potential numbers. Today, the number of these Parliamentary Under-Secretaries actually en poste and sitting either in this House or in another place is 23. This Bill authorises the appointment of an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office and
  1742
  for the Scottish Office and increases by two the number of Under-Secretaries who may sit in this House. It also aims at clarifying the law and getting rid of some unnecessary provisions.
  The way in which it has been done is, first, to substitute new provisions for Section 2 (2) and Section 9 of the Act of 1937; second, to repeal the Defence (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Regulations—and I do not think that any one who took part in the debate a fortnight ago on the Defence Regulations will complain about this method of repealing Regulations and getting rid of unnecessary provisions; and third, to proceed further to tidy the law, and to make certain consequential Amendments to recognise the existing situation, by, for instance, repealing the part of the Act of 1937 which includes the India and Burma Office which is now an unnecessary provision.
  Clause 1 (1) fixes the number of Under-Secretaries at the Scottish Office at three; in the Home Office and Ministry of Agriculture at two; and, by referring to Departments which I have mentioned, abolishes additional posts authorised by the Defence Regulations for the Service Departments and the Ministry of Labour; so that it makes the total potential number now, by statute, 27.
  Let me remind the House of the figures so that hon. Members will know just what is being done. Taking into account the Defence Regulations the potential number was 31.
  Six of these were justified
  by Defence Regulations. so these come off, and bring the number down to 25; and then we add the two for which we are asking, which makes the number 27, and of these 22 will now be able to sit in the House of Commons. Again, comparing the number, which was 26 with the Defence Regulations, it is 20 when we take off the six justified by Defence Regulations; add these two to it, and we have 22 as against the old 26.
  Mr. Ede: Does that mean that Parliamentary Secretaries will in future, from the passing of this Measure, be appointed under Acts of Parliament and none under Defence Regulations?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is so, yes; and I think the House will see the good sense of that.
  Mr. Ede: Hear, hear.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Under subsection (2) the number that can sit in this House is 22.
  Subsection (3) removes the India and Burma Offices from the list of Departments in the Second Schedule of the Act. I have a full note here of the repeals which take place of different parts of the various statutes I have mentioned. I do not intend to inflict it upon the House, but if any hon. Member is interested I shall be only too pleased to give it to him.
  That being the statutory web of enactments which we have tried to dust a little in this Bill, then we come to my special charge, in which, I know, a number of Members are interested, and that is, What is the additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Home Office to do? Actually, his work now is to deal with the duties which relate to Wales. That does not mean that my hon. Friend who has already been appointed has not been dealing with Wales. I think that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House know that he has. But that is the additional work which it is desired to cover. He will be able to devote a substantial part of his time to Welsh matters, and it will be his task to keep himself especially familiar with the general trend of Welsh opinion.
  I hope the House will not mind my referring to a practical matter. I think my hon. Friend has been with me a matter of four weeks, and, as hon. Members opposite know, he sits for one of the Cardiff divisions, but, apart from that, he has been to Caernarvon and Aberystwyth, so, as soon as possible, he was in both north and central Wales.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I intervene only for the sake of clarification. I gathered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary would devote a substantial part of his time to Welsh affairs. Do we gather from that that he will not devote the whole of his time to Welsh affairs?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Minister and has had to conduct important offices, knows that when people are under the same roof, occasionally it is necessary that one should help another. What is in my mind is that,
  1744
  apart from that, it would be Welsh affairs that would be his subject, and not only his main but his dominant subject. I hope that that clarifies the point. That is what is in my mind and in the minds of my right hon. Friends.
  As I have said, he has made a beginning. It will be part of his duty to pay frequent visits to Wales, and he will be provided with accommodation in Cardiff from which he can be in touch with the actual physical offices which are situated there; and he will become Chairman of the Conference of the Heads of Government Offices in Wales, which meets quarterly. And, in addition to that, he will give me his information and advice on the major issues of special interest to Wales, so that I may be fully briefed in such matters as are to be discussed in the Cabinet; and he will assist me in relations with the Council for Wales, and will receive deputations either in Wales or London from the Council or other representative Welsh bodies.
  I want to say at once—and I hope the House will not think this a personal intrusion—that I do not want to create the impression that this appointment means, or is to be taken as an excuse for, any inactivity in Welsh matters on my own part. I have already had the great pleasure of being able to arrange visits to Wales in the course of the Recess, and perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am almost overwhelmed by the traditional hospitality which has already been offered to me for that purpose.
  I believe that the arrangements that I have indicated to the House will result in Welsh interests and Welsh problems being brought before the Government at the highest level, and with a force and clarity which previous methods of co-ordination have been unable to achieve. We shall always be prepared to listen and learn—and improve when the listening and learning convince us.
  I am not suggesting for a moment that this is the final solution. What I am putting to the House is that it is a good start, and I hope that the House will accept it in that way. It will be my care, with the help of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, if the House passes the Bill, to ensure that the new arrangement works smoothly and satisfactorily, and I am sure that, irrespective

  1745
  of party or of the part of Wales with which he is particularly associated, every one who has at heart the best interests of Wales will help us.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. May I ask, Sir, whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), to import into the Chamber what, from this angle and point of vantage, appears as a floral tribute intended for the Under-Secretary of State-designate for Wales?
  Mr. George Thomas: I do not know what the noble Lord is talking about—other than that I share his admiration for the flowers. They have nothing to do with me.
  Lord John Hope: Further to that point of order. May we know, whether the flowers are a tribute or not, whether it is in order for flowers to be in the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot see any flowers.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. Granville West: I hope the House will not expect me to make any comment at all upon the question of flowers in the Chamber. I have no doubt that they were intended as some tribute to the new Under-Secretary of State.
  I am sure that the House will agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a very clear exposition of the surrounding details of this Bill, and I am sure that we shall not seek to quarrel with him upon the way that it has been done. We are, of course, dealing principally with the proposal to appoint an additional Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office who is to be specially charged with Welsh affairs. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) from north of the Border will be dealing with the matter relating to the Scottish Office. I, therefore, propose to confine my remarks to the proposal for the authorisation of an additional Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It has been represented to me unofficially and as a proposal for the House that it would be
  1746
  convenient if we divided this debate into two parts, so that those who are interested in Welsh matters could take the first part—as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) has started—and, if the House will give me leave to speak again, I should be more than glad to answer any questions; and then hon. Gentlemen who are more interested in the other part could speak and the Secretary of State for Scotland would deal with that. I know that this may be somewhat irregular, but if it meets with the convenience of the whole House we would ask you, Sir, to agree to that course being followed, for the convenience of everyone.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the general principle first of all, and then particularly with Wales. Am Ito understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland, when the time comes to shift to the Scottish aspect of the matter, will make a brief explanation and then reply to questions afterwards?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did think that I had covered the reason for the Scottish appointment. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to met everyone's convenience. I did give the reasons for the set-up. However, we are very anxious to meet the convenience of the House. I speak for my right hon. Friend as well in saying so.
  Mr. Woodburn: I am quite sure that it would save the time of the House a good deal if Scottish Members did not have to deal with a conjecture as to what this was all about, but had a definite picture of the purposes and circumstances of this proposal. That might prevent a great deal of debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) would be in a better position to discuss the matter intelligently if a picture of all the purposes and circumstances were put before the House.
  Mr. Ede: May we be told where a mere Englishman comes in—a person who takes an interest in both Wales and Scotland and who can view them dispassionately from outside?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In reply to the last question, I understand, and have always understood, that it is a very im

  1747
  proper thing for any Englishman ever to speak in a Scottish debate.
  Mr. Ede: I know that that has long been the opinion of back benchers, but it is the first time that it has been announced from the Chair. May I suggest, in view of the difficulties with which we are now confronted, that it will be almost impossible for the Englishman, as we have a Scottish Speaker, a Scottish Chairman of Ways and Means and a Welsh Deputy-Chairman, ever to get in at all?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it will work in the reverse way, because all the occupants of the Chair are so very keen to be honest that they will give the Englishman the advantage. With regard to the Home Secretary's suggestion, if that is the wish of the House, I am perfectly happy about it. Therefore, for the first part of the debate I shall call no Scotsman—if that is the idea—and after the Hone Secretary has spoken again we will have Scotsmen only.
  Mr. West: After that interchange of conversation, may I now deal with some aspects of the Welsh matter which is occupying the attention of the House? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, this Bill is necessary so that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) is able to take up his duties formally as the Under-Secretary specially charged with Welsh affairs.
  I think that this was anticipated by the Prime Minister in his speech in the debate on the Address, when he said that such a course would be necessary. May I take this opportunity of congratulating, first of all, the hon. Gentleman upon his appointment and to wish him well in the new office which this Bill seeks to create. We shall, of course, as Welsh Members, do all that we can to encourage him in his efforts to promote the best interests of Wales. We shall also prod him on if we consider that is necessary for the benefit of the Principality.
  Having said that, I must confess that the proposal to appoint an additional Under-Secretary in the Home Office came to Wales as something of a surprise. So far as I am aware, it was not part of the Conservative policy for Wales. I do not think that it was mentioned, or even hinted at, in any of their Election manifestos, and I am quite certain that, so far
  1748
  as the speeches of Members of the Tory Front Bench were concerned, it was never mentioned in any of our debates on Welsh affairs.
  The intention of the Tory Party, as I understood it, was to appoint a Minister who was to be answerable in Parliament for the Government's policy in so far as it affected Wales. He was to present Welsh reports, lead Welsh debates, preside in Wales over Welsh inter-Departmental conferences and help to coordinate the affairs of Government Departments in so far as they affected Wales, and this Minister was to be a member of the Cabinet and specially charged with Welsh affairs. But a few days ago, the Prime Minister in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), as the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned in his opening speech, defined what the Minister for Wales was to do, or rather what he was not to be permitted to do.
  The Minister for Wales will have no executive powers. He will have no direct responsibility to Parliament for education, health and agriculture in Wales or for any services for which other Ministers are Departmentally responsible. We know that the hon. Gentleman is to be appointed under the provisions of this Bill to assist the Minister. I think that we may, therefore, well ask: What are the functions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in which he is to be given the assistance of an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary?
  The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has taken part in our debates on Welsh affairs, said on one occasion that his party did not want the Minister for Wales to be a messenger boy. We can well understand that there would be no need for the appointment of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary for that purpose. What they wanted, he said, was a Minister for Wales as a watchdog, and I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) inquiring whether this watch-dog would have anything more than a bark. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that the Conservative dog would be complete in every respect.
  Naturally, from the statements made by hon. Members of the Tory Front Bench

  1749
  in the debates in the House on Welsh affairs, the people of Wales were led to expect that when the Conservatives got into power they would, at any rate, have a good Welsh corgi, but when the Conservatives were elected, apparently, the Prime Minister looked round his kennels but he was not able to find a good Welsh corgi. Of course, there is not a good Tory corgi in Wales at all, and so he gave to the people of Wales, instead, a Scottish terrier which had strayed into an English seaport town. I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take it amiss when I say that it was a good dog, but of the wrong breed.
  Lord John Hope: In fairness, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least admit that the dog's name is David.
  Mr. West: That was a situation which, one can well understand, the Prime Minister was anxious to try to justify in some way. In his speech on the debate on the Address, the Prime Minister said:
  "I wonder whether it is a wise attitude for Welshmen to take, that their affairs can only be dealt with in the United Kingdom Parliament by one of their own race and nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 75.'
  Then, I think, the proposal to appoint an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary came as a sop, or, as the Prime Minister said, "To give pleasure," and to give pleasure he announced the appointment of a Welshman to be Under-Secretary of the Home Department, specially charged with Welsh affairs.
  So what the people of Wales are to have is a watch-dog unable to bite and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary who in the present set-up, must inevitably prove ineffective. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Wales is at the present time under a serious disadvantage when we compare their position under the Labour Government. We have in our long history in Wales produced many great men who have done great things for England, and I think it is fair to say that during the last six years in the Labour Government we have had great Welshmen who have done great things for Wales. It is quite true that since 1945 in the Labour Government we have had great Welshmen in the Cabinet doing great things for the people of Wales, and, as a result, the economic life of Wales has been completely transformed.
  1750
  We have had my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), former Minister of National Insurance and afterwards Secretary of State for the Colonies, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who was the Minister of Health and afterwards the Minister of Labour and National Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "And after that?"]—and others. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—who is a Welshman, although representing an English constituency, was the one man—the great architect—who planned the development of industrial Wales after the period of depression which was imposed upon Wales by the party opposite. He is the man who devised the plan for bringing industries into Wales, and we remember that he was the originator of that famous phrase, now so much quoted, and that he was at the Treasury making the financial provisions necessary for the development of Wales.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must stop the hon. Member. He is going beyond the Bill.
  Mr. West: I was attempting to show in connection with this Bill—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. I understand that this Bill is technically a Bill to enable the House to constitutionally provide an additional Under-Secretary for the Home Office and for the Scottish Office. Since it is proposed that the new Under-Secretary for Wales shall devote a substantial part of his time to Welsh affairs, surely my hon. Friend was in Order in the remarks he was making.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was only pointing out that my duty is to see that we do not go beyond the scope of the Bill, and I think the hon. Member was going beyond it, if he intended to deal with Welsh development and that sort of thing.
  Mr. Griffiths: Surely, Sir, it would be in order to discuss the responsibilities of the new Under-Secretary.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is so, but the hon. Member was getting beyond that point.
  Mr. West: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. I was contrasting the position in respect of the appointment of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary specially

  1751
  charged with Welsh affairs with that which prevailed in the last Parliament under a Labour Government, and the argument which I was addressing to the House was upon that point.
  I was dealing with the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland, and seeking to demonstrate to the House that as a Welshman and in charge, as he was at that time, of the Treasury when he was making the financial arrangement for the development of Wales, he was the originator of the now famous phrase—he did it with a song in his heart. I submit that so far as I was contrasting the situation when a Labour Government was concerned and the situation as envisaged in this Bill, I was in order. However, I have dealt with that point.
  I submit, therefore, that in those days there was no need for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary charged with Welsh affairs at all, but now we realise that circumstances have changed. Now we have a Conservative Government and a Bill for the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary in the Home Office. I do not think that Wales can expect in the present set-up very much benefit from the creation of this new Under-Secretary-ship. On the other hand, I do not think that he will do much harm, and, therefore, we do not propose to oppose the Bill.
  I would, however, point out to the hon. Gentleman who occupies the post of Parliamentary Under-Secretary charged with Welsh Affairs that we will do everything possible to make him do something with his new appointment. We know that he has little or no executive powers. In fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that really all he will have to do is to try and gather what are the feelings of the people of Wales and report to him.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair on an important point. It may be that I did not make it clear. I would like to remind him that my hon. Friend becomes Chairman of the Conference of the Heads of Government Offices in Wales, which meet quarterly, and that is an important point. I probably did not make it sufficiently clear in my speech,
  1752
  otherwise I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not have omitted reference to it.
  Mr. West: I was glad of the intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What I was going to say on that point was that in the Conservative Manifesto for Wales it was stated that the person who was to be charged with the responsibility of presiding over the inter-Departmental conferences was the Home Secretary. What is happening now is that the Under-Secretary of State will preside over these conferences, and relieve the right hon. and learned Gentleman of his responsibility, although a pledge was given to the people of Wales on the subject.
  I should like to ask the Home Secretary a few questions about the Under-Secretary of State. What is to be the relationship between the hon. Gentleman and the Welsh Industries Board? We know that the hon. Gentleman is to preside over the inter-Departmental conferences. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do about his functions when the Under-Secretary is presiding over these conferences? We also want to know what is to be the policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Under-Secretary about the Remploy factories of Wales? What association will the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman have with the Grenfell factories for providing employment for disabled people in Wales?
  What is to be the relationship of the Minister for Welsh Affairs and the Under-Secretary and the local authority? If the local authority have to deal with the Health Department, will they first have to go to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his Under-Secretary? Are the local authorities in Wales to have direct access to Government Departments as they have had in the past, or is there to be intervention by the Minister for Welsh Affairs or the Under-Secretary to act as a buffer between them and the Ministers concerned?
  We want to see in practice what the Under-Secretary will be doing. We shall watch him very carefully and seek to help him all we can. At the same time it must be remembered that his functions, as stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, were to ascertain the trend of public opinion in Wales. The Labour

  1753
  Government appointed a Council for Wales, and one of the things which that Council
  did was to ascertain the trends of opinion of the people in Wales. They have produced most valuable reports.
  What is to be the future of the Council of Wales now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been appointed Minister for Welsh Affairs and has an Under-Secretary? Is it to be continued? We believe that this Under-Secretaryship can do very little good, but on the other hand, it will not do much harm. In those circumstances we shall watch and see what the hon. Gentleman makes of the new position to which he has been appointed.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: I hope I shall be forgiven if I intervene in this part of the debate, for as I have a Scottish name it may be said that I am cutting across the arrangement which has been suggested and agreed to on both sides of the House. May I plead in extenuation that although I am some generations removed, unfortunately, from Scotland, I am still interested in this proposal which the Bill enshrines?
  The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) was not very warm in the welcome which he gave to it. He praised it with faint damns if I may say so. What he appeared to think was, because it was the policy of this Government to charge my right hon. and learned Friend with special responsibility for looking after Welsh affairs, and that he should have the support of my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary in discharging that obligation, that that was unsatisfactory.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, despite the presence of very distinguished Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom the hon. Member for Pontypool mentioned by name, and who at the moment are adorning the Front Opposition Bench, the last Government never did anything of the kind which we propose to assist the people of Wales.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Wales had full employment for the first time.
  Mr. Hay: I am talking about a constitutional point which the hon. Member for Pontypool raised, and I think it is necessary for us to look at these proposals in that light. The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of one point, namely, that
  1754
  the Government were, as he put it, backing down on the pledge which was given to appoint a Cabinet Minister for Wales. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has really appreciated the point. The Home Secretary is in the Cabinet but he has also been given these additional Welsh responsibilities. Therefore, I suggest that there is a Minister for Welsh Affairs appointed, and that the statement of policy, to which reference was made earlier, has been fully honoured through my right hon. and learned Friend's appointment.
  My right hon. and learned Friend will have to attend to a great many other matters which arise in the Home Office. He will have the assistance, therefore, of an Under-Secretary to help him in his Welsh tasks. As one who entered this House with my hon. Friend the new Under-Secretary, I would say how much we welcome his appointment, which we feel is richly deserved. We wish him every success in the new office he has taken over.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool raised another point that was connected with the part which this new arrangement will play in the representation of Welsh opinion and Welsh affairs in this House. I do not think there is anything in this new proposal—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members had better wait for what I have to say. I do not think there is anything in this new proposal which will in any way cut across the arrangements which the last Government and previous Governments introduced from time to time to provide for the adequate representation of Welsh opinion in this House.
  As I see it, the new proposal, which the Bill will endeavour to place in a statutory form, gives added emphasis to that opinion, which at the moment is rather diffuse and amorphous. There are a great number of Welsh Members in this House, particularly below the Gangway, who seldom lose an opportunity of making their voices heard in the interests of their constituents. If we have this new arrangement, that influence can be brought to a point where action can result from it, which is the great virtue of the proposal the House is asked to approve.
  Another point in connection with this Bill has been overlooked. At present we have my right hon. and learned Friend as Home Secretary and Minister for

  1755
  Welsh Affairs and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who, if the Bill goes through, will have thrust upon his shoulders the task of assisting my right hon. and learned Friend in Welsh affairs. But the Bill provides for two Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office, and it should be remembered that what this Bill is doing is regularising a situation which ought to have been looked at a considerable time ago. Across the years the Home Office has been acquiring numerous new responsibilities, and there should be additional assistance in the form of an additional Under-Secretary in that Department.
  For my part I, and several of my hon. Friends on this side of the House wish these new proposals well. We believe that this is something which is long overdue. It will do a great deal to assist and help opinion in Wales, which needs to be fully expressed at Governmental level. I hope sincerely that my hon. Friend will have a long and successful career in the new responsibility, and that he will show the House and the nation what he is capable of.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Although I cannot subscribe to the principle underlying this Bill, particularly in its impact on Wales, I would join with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) in wishing the new Under-Secretary well in his new office. It is significant to note that the creation of an Under-Secretaryship for Wales is a new idea. As my hon. Friend said, there was no mention of it in the Conservative Party Manifesto, to which the Home Secretary has referred. Indeed, that document promised a Minister of Cabinet rank to have charge of Welsh affairs, and the Welsh people—I was one of them—thought that if the party opposite won the Election there would be a Cabinet Minister whose sole charge would be Welsh affairs. At all events, that was the opinion of the Welsh people in Anglesey, and that is what the Conservative candidate there said on his platform.
  Mr. Hay: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the wording in the Manifesto is capable of either construction, but that it was made perfectly clear by speeches made in Wales and all over
  1756
  the country that what was intended was the situation which is proposed in the Measure?
  Mr. Hughes: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. That was not the impression given by the Tory candidate in Anglesey. It may be that it is capable of two constructions, but that is true of many other matters in the Conservative Party Manifesto. It seems to me that the idea of a junior Minister was conceived when the Prime Minister realised that Wales felt she was being "led up the garden path" by the party opposite. That is why there are many things about this appointment which need clarification. I was very disappointed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of the Under-Secretary's duties. This is the first time that we have heard he is not to be a full-time Under-Secretary for Wales it is to be a part-time job.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I tried to make it clear in answer to questions that apart from giving particular aid in Departmental work, which cannot be avoided if people are working under the same roof, my hon. Friend would be dominantly in charge of Welsh affairs.
  Mr. Hughes: The fact remains that Wales will be extremely disappointed that the Under-Secretary is not devoting his entire time to Wales. The Home Secretary has the burden of an important Department on his shoulders, but when he has time to spare it will be devoted to Welsh matters. We are now informed that the Under-Secretary will also devote part of his time to Wales.
  I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would devote a substantial part of his time to Welsh affairs. We listened very carefully to the Prime Minister's reply to a Question put on 13th November, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), to which reference has been made by the Home Secretary. We assumed that the Under-Secretary's duties would be in the same terms as those of his right hon. and learned Friend. This is what the Prime Minister said:
  "The function of the Minister in charge of Welsh affairs is to inform himself of the Welsh aspect of business by visiting the Principality and by discussion with representatives of Welsh life and to speak in Cabinet on behalf of the special interests and aspirations of Wales."

  1757
  That part of the reply was very vague and nebulous.
  These are not very heavy responsibilities, and, on the face of it, they are not responsibilities commensurate with the position, or with the salary attached to it. This is not carping criticism on my part. I agree with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), that the Under-Secretary will be making a contribution of some value if he conveys authentic Welsh opinion to his Government and to this House. The party opposite have never been noted for their interpretation of Welsh opinion on any matter, but that is not enough, because we are all here to interpret Welsh opinion and if we fail to do it we are failing in one of our major duties as Members of this House.
  The factor that really weakens this appointment is that it will not carry with it executive powers. I quote again from the latter part of the Prime Minister's reply to the Question asked by my hon. Friend, when he said:
  "It is not proposed to confer executive powers on the Home Secretary…,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493. c. 817.]
  Mr. G. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend say in the course of his speech whether there is any other junior Minister or Minister of the Crown without executive power over the Department for which he is responsible?
  Mr. Hughes: When the Under-Secretary comes to reply he will have to admit that himself. I assume that Questions on such general matters as the capital of Wales—I know that the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me has a vested interest in this matter—will be dealt with by him, but there are other questions which closely affect the day-to-day life and prosperity of the Principality which will be quite outside his purview.
  It is a case of the status quo once again. We have in Wales a number of administrative bodies, for example the Welsh Board of Health, the Welsh Joint Education Committee, and the Welsh Department of Education attached to the Ministry in London. It is significant that, during the six-and-a-half years of Labour Government, Wales had a greater measure of administrative devolution granted to her than ever before. The fact remains that the administrative set-up for Wales is untidy and ill-conceived.
  1758
  The question which emerges is whether the new appointment will improve the position or make it more obscure than it is now. The fact that the Under-Secretary will be chairman of the inter-Departmental conferences does not interest me. Lastly, there is the Council for Wales. What will be the relationship of the new Under-Secretary to that body? It is well to remember that this body, which was created by the Labour Government, has done some very good and solid work within the limitations imposed on it.
  I would draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend to the last paragraph in the Council's last report. It is:
  "There is an urgent need for a more detailed and authoritative investigation by the Council, with full. Government authority and direction, into all aspects of Welsh administration and the relationship between Government offices in Wales and the central departments."
  That is putting the case very mildly. We are entitled to know what the new Minister's position will be vis-à-vis the Council for Wales.
  There is no cohesion in Welsh administration. If we are to have these new creations without a plan and a pattern, we shall have confusion worse confounded in the Principality. There is a very large element of Welsh thought today which gives the hon. Gentleman every good wish in his new post but which looks beyond the appointment, and beyond the other existing administrative bodies that we have in Wales, to a more comprehensive and co-ordinated system of devolution that will be acceptable to the Welsh people, not the hit-or-miss contributions that Wales has had thrown at it up to the present. This appointment can claim justification if, and only if, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman prove that they have the vision and the will to work towards that goal.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Marlowe: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has taken up a view which was expressed by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), that there is a great preponderance of Socialist votes in Wales. They pointed to the paucity of material available on this side of the House, as

  1759
  they allege, for the appointment which is under contemplation for Wales. That only illustrates the great disinterestedness of the Tory Party and its readiness to take an entirely impartial view. In spite of the large majority of Socialist votes in Wales, the Tory Party is prepared to give the benefit of its great wisdom to that country.
  Some play has been made by both hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken with the point that the pledge given in my party's Manifesto has not been fully kept by the procedure suggested in the Bill. That is not really the case. The hon. Member for Anglesey appears to think that what was contemplated was the appointment of a Cabinet Minister with full executive authority devoted to nothing but the problems of Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I quite understand the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen from Wales have in understanding the English language, but it is perfectly clear to anybody who reads the Manifesto that it could not have meant that at all. If it had that meaning it would mean also the setting up of a Welsh Office.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: It was capable of both interpretations.
  Mr. Marlowe: If it really means the setting up of an executive Cabinet Minister for Wales who had no other duties whatever, that would involve the creation of a Welsh Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Nobody on this side of the House, so far as I know, has ever suggested that that was the intention.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that my right hon. Friend who has just interrupted him was, before his party came into power, a strong advocate of the setting up of a Secretary of State for Wales?
  Mr. Marlowe: I am reminded by the hon. Gentleman of what is perfectly true, but for the moment I am dealing with a definite charge of breach of faith which is being made against my party, and I hope hon. Gentlemen will think I am entitled to defend it. If we say we shall appoint a Minister, or a Minister of Cabinet rank, we cannot possibly read into it the setting up of the great machinery of a separate office, with all the executive powers contained in such an
  1760
  Nobody ever interpreted that pledge in that way on this side of the House, so far as I know, and I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite should have read it differently. If they did misunderstand it, the slightest inquiry would have clarified it. It is open to any hon. Gentleman or any of his constituents to question Conservative candidates at Election meetings on what this means. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] I have no doubt they did.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are getting far beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Marlowe: I have been dealing with the allegation of breach of faith, and I hope that the charge will not be persisted in because it is completely unfounded.
  I have very considerable sympathy, and I always have had, with the point of view that there should be a considerable delegation of powers in relation to Wales and Scotland. It can only be done by stages, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has reminded us. The last Government gave a specific pledge about it which they never kept, and it has been necessary to remedy their lack in that respect.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I have always held the view to which reference has been made, and I hold it now. Many members of my party share it, but the Labour Party has never given such a pledge.
  Mr. Marlowe: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no pledge was given. I have considerable sympathy both in regard to Wales and Scotland, and it becomes all the warmer when Scottish Questions are being answered. A large number of hon. Members would be glad to see some of those Questions answered in Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to keep his remarks within the bounds of the Bill.
  Mr. Woodburn: The waste of Scottish and Welsh time just now is meeting with similar resentment.
  Mr. Marlowe: I am not intentionally wasting time, but time has to be spent on discussion of such an important matter as this. I did not notice that there was any great rush of speakers from this side

  1761
  of the House so I felt entitled to take up a little time in discussing the Bill. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of order. Should not the hon. and learned Gentleman have a quiet hearing, in view of the fact that there are no Tory Members for Wales except one, and he does not understand these matters? We ought to give him a fair chance.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps it is my fault. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite audible.
  Mr. Marlowe: I will not detain the House for much longer. The only other point I wish to make relates to the Financial Memorandum which is printed on the front of the Bill. It is of wider interest than its application to the Bill. It is said that the salaries payable under the Act of 1937 to the Ministers authorised by the Bill will be £1,500 each. These Under-Secretaries, in common with all other Under-Secretaries, are very much underpaid in relation to modern standards. There is a case, to argue which would be out of order on the Bill, for an increase in all Department. However, I hope I shall be in order if I limit the case to the two Under-Secretaries contemplated by the Bill.
  I suppose it is generally understood nowadays that anyone accepting an appointment of this kind probably decreases his net salary in relation to the Parliamentary salary which he receives. As a member of a party which has always been associated with the incentive motive, I cannot believe that that is a very good thing. I hope that when the opportunity arises—I have to limit what I am saying to the Under-Secretaries referred to in the Bill—proper consideration will be given to rewarding the Under-Secretaries properly for the very heavy tasks which they have to undertake, and to bringing their salaries into line with the modern cost of living.
  5.31 p.m.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope I am interpreting the general opinion of the House by intervening now. We have divided the debate into two parts, and I am sure we want to make the division as fair as we can. I wish to confine my remarks to answering the points which have been raised.
  1762
  I shall first endeavour to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West). His first point was that the Under-Secretary was not mentioned in the policy statement. The hon. Member will find it confirmed: I have checked it up. An assistant for the Minister was not mentioned in "The Conservative Policy for Wales" published in February, 1949. It was mentioned by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council in a speech at Anglesey, and it was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in a speech at Cardiff as an extension which we thought was the logical need of the policy we had outlined.
  The hon. Member raised a general question, which is a difficult one and one into which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would not allow me to go in detail, and that is the constitutional and administrative problem. Given a century-old unified administration, with the activities of government growing and operating in different Departments from the centre and spreading into Wales, how are we to make the change? I cannot go into it—despite a little provocation, I shall not go into party points because, to put it selfishly, I want the maximum good will in the job I have to do, irrespective of the background—but, given that problem, I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate the need for what may be a transitional period when we can study how the different Government activities react on each other and on the general feeling of Wales as a whole.
  It is a difficult problem, and I believe the hon. Member recognised that, even if he were convinced that there should be either a Welsh Office or a Welsh Parliament—rightly, he has not gone into that today but we may hear it some time—there must still be a transitional period. It is with the first period of study that I am now beginning to deal.
  Mr. Bowen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that, if it were found during the transitional period that it would be more satisfactory to have a Welsh Office or a Welsh Parliament, that would be seriously considered by the Government?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said that we were going to listen and learn, and that

  1763
  we would not shut our minds to the consequences of anything that we heard and learned during that time.
  The next point made by the hon. Gentleman, after his canine exegesis, into which I shall not follow him, was the broad one that the last Government had contained three distinguished Welshmen and that that must be set against any constitutional proposals. Again I resist temptation, and I simply say that in the course of, on a rough calculation, 900 speeches criticising the policy of the last two Governments, in certainly 800 out of the 900 I mentioned two of the right hon. Gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for Pontypool referred, but never in one of those 800 speeches did I mention anything that they had to do with Wales, because I had never heard of it. We will not follow that point in case we incur the disapproval of the Chair.
  Mr. W. G. Cove: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the functions would be limited to a study and an investigation of conditions in Wales? If they are not limited in that way, can he tell the House what powers the hon. Gentleman will have to do anything of any value for Wales?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It would have been more convenient if, before posing that question, the hon. Gentleman had come in earlier for the debate and heard the points that have already been discussed, because I have already dealt with that, and I am very anxious not to re-tread ground that I have already trodden.
  Let me very shortly remind the House of the sort of functions which it is designed that I should have. I am given the special responsibility for Wales. In addition to that, I have to answer in Parliament, as the Prime Minister has made clear, for the Government's policy as a whole in its effect on Wales, and I have also to present and deal with the debate on the Welsh reports, and in any Welsh debates I have to take the lead. I have also to co-ordinate any plans for the whole or part of Wales which involve different Departments.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Is real power of co-ordination given in the sense that the other overlords have real power?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope the House will do me the justice of believing that I try to deal with questions that are put to me. I am not resiling for a moment from what I have said. To begin with, it is an advisory and persuasive power that I have. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that, given the administrative set-up that I have at the moment—I do not care with what plan the administrative set-up is approached—there must be a time when the power of a Minister whose duty it is to apply a general conspectus must be persuasive and advisory and the like, and I am not the least ashamed of having taken on the job with that in mind.
  Mr. West: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not referred to the proposal in the policy statement that he should preside at inter-Departmental conferences.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was about to explain that. This is the way it came up. The policy statement was put out in February, 1949. The idea of giving me an assistant was a later addition to the policy. I believe that it is the best use that I can make of that additional power that my hon. Friend should preside as a matter of routine at the conferences. That would not prevent me from presiding—I assure the House that I should do so—if a matter of special importance arose. That is how it came up, and I do not resent the criticism of the hon. Gentleman. That is not in the document, but I have now given the explanation of how it came about.
  Mrs. Eirene White: We ought to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon this because it is a matter not just of an Election manifesto but of substance. We feel that most of the experience of Welsh affairs will be at second-hand, and it seems to me that to ask him to preside over a meeting of this sort once a quarter is not asking too much. There may be occasions when he is not able to do so, but surely it should be the rule that he should preside and the exception that his hon. Friend should preside.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad to have the views of the House. I am giving the House the view that influenced me. The advantage of a debate is that

  1765
  it presents other views, and I shall take them into account. I hope to have many opportunities of accounting to the House for the policy that I pursue. May we leave it at the moment that I will give the hon. Lady's suggestion every attention? I do not pledge myself at the moment to follow that course, for I should like to think it out.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about policy in relation to various bodies. The general answer is that these bodies will maintain their Departmental affiliations, but it may arise—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has two or three matters in mind, as I have, but it would not be convenient to give examples today when one is in the first period of study—that one may have a Departmental interest and at the same time a really strong Welsh feeling which transcends a Departmental interest. That is the sort of feeling to which I have to be able to give vent and I have to see that its influence is properly felt.
  With regard to the local authorities, I shall certainly not act as a buffer or interrupt their view. They will have their approach to the appropriate Department, but, again, my hon. Friend and I will be available for special matters. I hope that the Council for Wales will be continued, and I hope it will go from strength to strength. I cannot put it more clearly than that.
  I was momentarily a little cross with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) about the reference to a part-time job. I want this to be quite clear. My hon. Friend's job is Wales, but, the truth of the matter is that when there are three Ministers in a Department one cannot say that one will not take over a job for another. Human beings and life just do not work in that way. It was because I had only that very small limitation in mind that I did not want it to be regarded as a part-time job.
  The object of my hon. Friend's appointment and of the Bill is to have someone who will deal with Welsh matters. Anything else would be purely ancillary and incidental to the geographical position in which he sits in Whitehall.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Under-Secretary have a secretariat and a Welsh Department in the Home Office?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We are making arrangements for my hon. Friend to have
  1766
  a special relationship, not only in the office but outside it. I should like the hon. Member to give me a little time, because that, again, is not the sort of thing in which one wants to rush about. I assure the hon. Member that my hon. Friend will not be limited in staff in dealing with these matters.
  As for the "nebulous duties," I have tried to answer that criticism in two ways: First, by showing the conception that I have of the principles of my own duty, and second, by showing that in all these matters the assistance of an Under-Secretary would be most helpful. I have mentioned the two other points, namely, the question of the inter-Departmental conferences and the visits to Wales which my hon. Friend will be in a position to make more often than I can, although I hope to make many myself.
  I repeat, for the benefit of any hon. Member who may not have been present at the time, that I hope to be able to make several visits in the next Recess. As hon. Members know, there is an immense variety of problems in Wales, problems that are geographical and, by their very existence, raise different opinions between the people of different parts of Wales. I believe that a good piece of work will be done if we can make these people feel that the access is always open to them.
  I answered the hon. Member's other point about the Council of Wales. I hope I have made it clear that the desire is that it should go on and increase from strength to strength. I have also dealt, I hope, with frankness, but with no desire to avoid it, with the question of the absence at present of executive power. This is a necessary stage, and I look forward to the problem with which I have to deal, not as an easy problem, but as one which is worthy of the greatest attention I can give to it and worthy also of the greatest assistance I can get from any proposals in the House. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way, but I have trespassed a great deal on their time, and I hope that as far as the Welsh section is concerned the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Ede: There are certain duties that are placed upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman direct as Home Secretary. I will give an example: the appeal of a

  1767
  police officer against a punishment awarded by the police authority. The police attach the greatest possible importance to that being dealt with by the Secretary of State. May we be assured that even with regard to a Welsh appeal of that kind, it will be dealt with direct by the Home Secretary?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I give that undertaking completely unqualified. I am sure that no one, wherever he sits, would want me to do anything else.
  5.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene very briefly at this stage. As the House will recollect, we had quite a long debate recently in connection with the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs; and that does not come within the scope of the Bill. I say with gratitude to the Home Secretary that in introducing the Bill he dealt with its general machinery as affecting not only Wales, but also Scotland. I do not, therefore, think that the House would wish me to traverse that ground again.
  The object of the Bill, which has been explained by my right hon. and learned Friend, is quite clear. I will not repeat what he said except to say that amongst other things it enables an additional Under-Secretary of State to be appointed to the Scottish Office. The point which the
  House would wish me to explain is my views with regard to the allocation and functions of the Under-Secretaries of State in the Scottish Office. It has been the view generally that the allocation of these functions should not be too rigid, but that, at any rate at this stage, the changes
  which we are in course of making should be provisional and fluid. They must be liable to review in the event of changing circumstances and to meet special needs. I have no doubt whatever that as a team we can work well together.
  Not wishing to take up a lot of time, because, as the House knows, other business is to follow, I will confine myself, after those preliminary remarks, to giving a brief outline or picture of my intentions with regard to the allocation of these functions or duties within the Scottish Office. Broadly speaking, it is the intention that when the additional Under-
  1768
  Secretary is appointed there should be a re-allocation of functions so that each Under-Secretary accepts primary responsibility for a part of the statutory field which comes within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State himself.
  The intention is that these functions should be allocated in this form: that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) will be responsible for—that is to say, supervising—housing and allied subjects, health, police, fire and Civil Defence; my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden): agriculture and forestry; the additional Under-Secretary, if and when he is appointed—
  Mr. J. McGovern: Who is he?
  Mr. Stuart: I said "if and when he is appointed."
  Mr. Hector McNeil: Will he be in the Commons?
  Mr. Stuart: We have, as the right hon. Member knows, a Minister in the other place, and I think it may be accepted that he will be in this House, although that is not for me alone to state.
  Mr. McNeil: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is departing from his normal custom.
  Mr. Stuart: I think there are only three Under-Secretaries in the other place; nearly all of them are in this House. I sometimes see criticisms of the number of members of another place who are in the Government, but I believe it will be found that there are only three Under-Secretaries there.
  The functions of the additional Under-Secretary would be the handling of education and the Scottish Home Department responsibilities other than police, fire and Civil Defence, to which I referred in connection with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok. I hope that that brief picture will suffice.
  Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about fisheries. Fish and the fisheries of Scotland will be a very important question in the future. Where does that come in?
  Mr. Stuart: I beg pardon. It is my intention, subject to the Under-Secretary being what I would regard as the right

  1769
  Under-Secretary, that he should also have responsibility for fisheries. I have already said that I do not want to take up a lot of time, and we covered a good deal of the ground in a recent debate as to the organisation and allocation of functions within the Scottish Office. I am glad that on this occasion the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), will be satisfied that education has not been omitted, and I hope that with this brief explanation we can proceed further with business.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Many of us are a little disappointed by the speech that the Secretary of State has just made. He has told us of the duties that he has assigned to the Under-Secretaries as at present arranged, and has told us the duties that, he thinks, will be undertaken by a new Under-Secretary if and when he is appointed. He has not, however, told us why it was necessary to have the additional Under-Secretary at all.
  The Scottish public have been led to believe that this reorganisation at the Scottish Office would give to Scotland or to Scotsmen more control over the affairs of Scotland. But there is nothing here which suggests that any more power is being given to the Scottish Office. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that all that has happened with the addition of two Ministers at the Scottish Office is that the work that was previously done by three is now to be undertaken by five.
  I regret very much that a case has not been made out. The right hon. Gentleman might have told us whether it was necessary to have this additional Under-Secretary because the administrative burdens were too heavy for the existing team. He might have told us whether it was necessary for an additional Under-Secretary because of the volume of House of Commons work, or because the Government contemplate a lot of legislation. But he has done nothing of the kind. He has not told us that there is so much work to be done in St. Andrew's House and at Fielden House that it could not possibly be done by the existing Ministers and there must be an addition to the existing personnel. He has not done that, and he has not sought to convince us that there is so much work to be done in the House of Commons by the Scottish Ministers
  1770
  that it was necessary to have an additional Under-Secretary.
  I wonder what is the position, not only of the new Under-Secretary, but of the other Under-Secretaries under the new setup at the Scottish Office. I spent just over six years there as an Under-Secretary, and I think it was clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House that the Secretary of State—and I served under three—delegated a good deal of responsibility in certain Departments to me and to my colleague the other Under-Secretary from time to time.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to give any real work to his Under-Secretaries at all. The right hon. Gentleman said in this House on 21st November:
  "I was asked whether the Minister of State would handle all deputations in St. Andrew's House himself. I am going North at the end of this week, all being well, and I have meetings to carry out there myself. If an Under-Secretary were in Scotland at the time, and there was a meeting with the National Farmers' Union or the Scottish Development Council, there is no reason why he should not be present, as well as the Minister of State or myself, if I were there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 523.]
  It seems that when deputations are now being received in St. Andrew's House, if an Under-Secretary happens to be present when the deputation is being received by the Secretary of State, or Minister of State, he will be allowed to come along and allowed to listen.
  In the last six years or so I found it of great help to me in the work I undertook to receive the deputations myself, and I have some reason to believe that the National Farmers' Union and the associations of local authorities and many other important deputations which came to St. Andrew's House were perfectly willing to be received by myself. We had discussions on matters of considerable importance in Scotland.
  The members of these deputations did not say, "We must see the Secretary of State, it is no good having an Under-Secretary," but I shall be very surprised, in view of what the Secretary of State has said, whether anyone will now be content with an Under-Secretary. This decision is going to lower very much indeed the prestige of the Under-Secretary of State. His status is going to be lowered—has already been lowered. He is no

  1771
  longer an important person. I think of some of the very important legislation we have had in recent years. I think of the Agriculture Bill, the discussions on which interested very much the hon. Gentleman now the. Under-Secretary responsible for agriculture.
  Most of the deputations to the Scottish Office made by the landowners and the National Farmers' Union in Scotland were received by myself for a long period before the Bill was introduced. When the Bill was going through this House, I think I am right in saying that the Secretary of State had not occasion to receive one representation direct from the National Farmers' Union at all. I was asked on his behalf to undertake all that work and the National Farmers' Union never once complained.
  What is to be the position now? Will the National Farmers' Union make representations to the Under-Secretary? Will he be able to meet them and discuss their problems? I should think not in view of what the Secretary of State said, but, if the Under-Secretary happens to be in the same country and in the same town, he can come and carry the Secretary of State's bag, or can scribble notes and pass them to the officials and receive notes back and hand them to the Secretary of State. That is not good enough.
  I wish to refer to another matter. When we made our criticisms of the appointment of the Minister of State, when we conducted our inquiry into the reason for it, we asked a lot of questions and the right hon. Gentleman said that we would have to see how he got on with this thing. He said that he had better not be too categorical or too dogmatic for the time being. Then he was pressed to produce a White Paper to let us see what the set-up was. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), asked:
  "Will a comprehensive picture of all the consequent developments proposed for Scotland be produced, in due course, in the form of a White Paper?"
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "I have not thought about that. This is only one step—' one step enough for tonight '—but we may reach that stage later. I shall be very glad to consider such a proposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 524.]
  In view of my apprehensions that the Under-Secretaries of State are going
  1772
  to have no work to do at the Scottish Office at all under this new régime, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us at the end of this debate that he is now in a position to say that in a few weeks, or soon after we resume after the Christmas Recess, he will present a White Paper to us telling us what these Under-Secretaries and the Minister of State at the Scottish Office are to do.
  We have been told that this has all
  been carefully worked out by the Tory Party. I have the impression that even the Tory Party in Scotland is not very enamoured of this set-up and have taken very little interest in it. One has only to look at the Government benches and one discovers that, apart from Members of the Government, there are four Scottish Government supporters in the Chamber present. I am sorry I did not include the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), who has not yet realised that there has been a change in Government, and is sitting in the seat he occupied before the last General Election.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I point out that the Scottish Liberal Party is in Australia?
  Mr. Fraser: We are not going to oppose this Bill. We think that a Government should be given considerable freedom to work out the organisation of government in the light of experience. My own criticism of this proposal is that it was not made from any experience that the Tory Party had had in government. It was not experience that dictated this course at all. The Secretary of State told us in the earlier debate on 21st November that this was a recommendation of a Tory Party committee. He said:
  "As Leader of the party, the Prime Minister set up a committee to consider how we could make improvements for the better control and administration of our affairs in Scotland. I had the honour of being the chairman of that committee, which contained at least two ex-Secretaries of State. We reported in November, 1949."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 481.]
  I quote that because I think it is worth noting the date upon which this party recommendation in favour of these additional ministerial appointments came out. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot),

  1773
  who made a speech on behalf of the Tory Party and told us all about the party's policy for Scotland when we were debating the King's Speech, also made a speech in November, 1949, at the time when this Tory Party committee reported. He is reported in the "Glasgow Evening Times" of 29th November, 1949, as having addressed a meeting of the Kelvingrove Junior Unionists and as saying:
  "All this emotion which is being generated in Scotland"—
  Nationalist emotion—
  "can properly he turned into the channel of getting rid of the Socialist Government."
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: A damn good thing, too.
  Mr. T. Fraser: When I quoted the "Glasgow Evening Times" of 29th November, 1949, I quoted what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove said, including his words that
  "this emotion could properly be turned into the channel of getting rid of the Socialist Government."
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "And a damned good thing too." I wonder whether it is in order for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): If I had heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that, I would have asked him to withdraw it, but I did not hear it.
  Mr. Fraser: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he did or did not say that.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have every intention now of speaking later in the Debate. If I used an expression which went beyond the bounds of Parliamentary propriety I withdraw it and I should say that it is an excellent thing, a very fine thing, and thank heaven they are on the other side of the House.
  Mr. Fraser: I am really obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because what he has confirmed is that this Tory Party committee made this recommendation in favour of appointing additional Ministers, not because the better government of Scotland made it desirable, but because it was a useful means of attacking the Socialist Government through the
  1774
  Nationalist Party. This was done for party purposes and has nothing to do with the government of Scotland whatever. The mere fact that these additional appointments have been unaccompanied by any proposal to give any additional power to the Scottish Office seems to be proof of my contention.
  It is not our intention to vote against the Bill—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hon. Members are frightened. Go on, back your opinion with your votes.
  Mr. Fraser: We do think that any Government has a right, indeed, a responsibility, to come forward with proposals which it thinks are likely to lead to the more efficient organisation of government. We think that any Government, in the light of experience, ought to be quite free to come before the House and say, "We think this job of government would be better done by the appointment of additional Ministers" and get the approval of the House for the appointment of the Ministers. It would be very foolish for the Opposition at any tim2 to say, "We know more about government than you do." Therefore we think this additional appointment ought to be made.
  That is why we shall not vote against it. We have not, however, been convinced of the necessity for it. I think there is no reason at all to believe that the administration
  in the time of the last Government was not efficiently done by the Ministers at the Scottish Office at that time. These great bodies from whom deputations are to be received by the Minister of State were received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretaries when we were in occupation of the desks at the Scottish Office. I know of no complaint that they could not be received because all of us were too busy in London.
  I think it will be a very bad thing for the government of Scotland if the Secretary of State is going to be sheltered from contact with the local authorities, local authorities' associations and the National Farmers' Union and such bodies, the Highland Panel included, by having the job undertaken by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is absolutely essential for good government and good administration that the policy

  1775
  maker should get as near as possible to the people he is trying to govern. The Minister of State is merely to pass on information to the Secretary of State that could equally well be done by the staff at St. Andrew's House.
  I turn to the Under-Secretaries. I wish I could feel they were to be asked to undertake real and useful work. The hon. Member who is to look after agriculture would do his job better if he were able to have discussions with the National Farmers' Union. If he is merely to look at a piece of paper passed to him by the Minister of State in order to learn what the National Farmers' Union are saying, he will not be so well informed of the views and opinions of the National Farmers' Union as if he were able to meet them himself. It is desirable at all times that Ministers should not only meet representatives of organisations but that they should meet the people they are seeking to govern.
  I very much fear that this new set-up in Scotland will lead, not to more expeditious decisions at all as has been suggested, but to a quite unjustifiable delay in decisions being reached. I think it is inevitable that there must be a tremendous passage of paper between the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Under-Secretaries of State. There must be additional civil servants employed to look after this bigger administrative machine and there will be a lot of paper floating about in St. Andrew's House.
  Somebody said there was a breeze blowing through St. Andrew's House. Well, if the window is open there will be a shower of paper, a bigger shower of paper than ever before, in consequence of the new set-up. I hope that this decision, which was taken for purely electoral purposes, may at the end of the day be found to be one which is helpful for the Government of Scotland. We all profoundly wish it well. We only regret the purpose for which the decision was taken.
  As I said before, we shall not vote against this Bill, but we hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies later in this debate he will be able to tell us a little more about this set-up and be able to say something more in justification of these appointments than was said by the
  1776
  right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove to his junior unionists a couple of years ago. I hope also he will be able to assure us that, as soon as he can, he will produce a White Paper showing what the different Ministers in the Scottish Office are to do in the future.
  6.17 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) seems to be suffering a little from the recent electoral defeat which his party has undergone. There was a particularly querulous note about his remarks. He seemed to feel that his right hon. Friend the ex-Secretary of State had not fully made out a case against the appointment of a Minister of State, and so, instead of devoting his attention to the subject under discussion, namely, the appointment of a new Under-Secretary, he spent most of his time attacking the position of the Minister of State. If the—
  Mr. McNeil: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite clearly suggesting that my hon. Friend was out of order. We are here discussing a Bill and I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend devoted himself otherwise than to the Bill or you, Sir, or your Deputy, would have called him to order.
  Mr. Speaker: So far I have heard nothing that is out of order.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has rushed to the defence of his junior in a very gallant way. The hon. Member needs that defence it is true—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, his senior."]—no, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker does not need the defence of any right hon. or hon. Gentleman in this House. The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) rushed forward to defend his unhappy junior, who was a little unfortunate in his remarks to the House.
  The previous attack against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that he had done nothing in the way of looking after the Departmental administrative of Scotland. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in our last debate spent a long time explaining that not enough attention was being given to education. She went

  1777
  through a careful analysis of the educational records of various hon. Members on this side of the House. She said that education was being left out and neglected, and she trusted very much that further attention would be given to education. That attention is now being given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  The ex-Secretary of State knows as well as anyone in this House that the Home Department was specially given fisheries, which have been taken away from agriculture as that was not the best set-up. Ts the ex-junior Secretary complaining because the Secretary of State is giving special attention to fisheries? This is a typical anomaly of the complaints made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now she complains that special attention is being given to fisheries. Why should it not be given—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes—
  Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and I will not attempt to quarrel on this subject. We are both agreed on the importance of it. But I think it a little rash for him to argue that we are now having demonstrated the importance which this Government attaches to education; for the Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that this new Under-Secretary, if he is appointed, will, among his multifarious duties, take over education and fisheries—and some other odds and ends.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Exactly, and the right hon. Gentleman said "fisheries" in a very denigratory fashion, as if there was some objection to the Under-Secretary giving special attention to the problem of fisheries as apart from the problem of agriculture. As he well knows, the difficulties of the Scottish fisheries require more attention than could be given by the Minister whose main interest is in agriculture. And I welcome the change. I would certainly welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary is to give special attention to the problem of fisheries in Scotland. I think it is a good thing, and a necessary thing, and a valuable set-up. Fisheries, as is well known, occupy a larger portion of our national economy than is the case in England.
  Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that the problems of agriculture and fisheries are so very great that it will take the whole
  1778
  of the time of one Under-Secretary; and that the problems of education in Scotland are so slight that whoever is in charge of education can give far more time to fisheries and other parts of the Home Department?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady has had enough experience of administration not to attempt to spread so obvious a net in the face of, if I may say so, a bird who has at least had as much experience of Scottish administration as she has.
  The problems of agriculture do require a considerable amount of attention and a considerable amount of travel, and the problems of fisheries do also. The problems of fisheries can well require more attention than is given by a Minister whose main attention must be devoted to the problems of agriculture, though they do not, naturally, require his whole time.
  The hon. Lady was just complaining that education was not receiving sufficient attention. Now a new Minister has been appointed, one of whose main tasks will be the task of education; and it is a little churlish to her own remarks if she now says that that is not giving proper attention to education. It is more attention than was given by her Government, a great deal more; and she cannot complain that we are not giving enough attention to it if we are giving more attention than was given by the Administration of which she was a very distinguished, perhaps sometimes the most distinguished, ornament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, she must have been the most distinguished ornament. She was chosen by her party to broadcast. None of the others were.
  The new set-up is obviously good and sound. Scottish administration falls naturally into the three divisions to which the Secretary of State has referred. The hon. Member for Hamilton tried to bring out that the existence of a Minister of State was a bad idea. But he and his hon. Friends should have voted against the appointment of a Minister of State when the proposal was made. But that is their position. They are willing to wound but afraid to strike. They know that these are good changes or they would vote against them. They would vote against them if they think they are bad. But they are perfectly willing to make

  1779
  denigratory remarks, and run down the proposal, and invent all sorts of imaginary difficulties. But when it comes to the acid test in the House of Commons, "Are you going to register disapproval by your vote?" oh, no!
  They say that Governments are entitled to have their way. Well, are they? Will hon. Gentlemen opposite give this Government its way in all the subjects proposed? I have not seen much sign of that so far. If they thought they had a chance, either here in the House or in Scotland, they would turn into the Division Lobbies within the next half-hour. It is because these proposals are well liked and well thought of in Scotland that they are afraid to vote against them. Otherwise, they would vote against them.
  These proposals commended themselves to the people of Scotland at the General Election and they have commended themselves since. The right hon. Gentleman has brought up no objection on the part of anybody in Scotland, and a great deal of favourable comment has been made in Scotland about the increased attention which this Government is giving to Scottish affairs. The new appointments have been well received and I venture to predict that this new appointment, if and when it is sanctioned, will also be well received.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton was good enough—and I applaud his intensive research—to quote a speech of mine to the K elvingrove junior Unionists. I recognise his assiduity. I recommend him to read my remarks yet again. Let him go on reading my speeches and he will expand his reputation both at that Box and elsewhere. He is apparently so convinced by those that he did read that he fears to vote against the proposal we bring forward. It is a very strong example of action at a distance, that a speech of mine in November, 1949, has been able to influence a speech which the hon. Member has just been making—
  Mr. T. Fraser: Whether his hon. Friends like to read the speeches of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or not I do not know, but manifestly they do not like to hear his speeches, as there are only two of his Scottish colleague
  1780
  back benchers in the Chamber at the present time.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We on this side of the House have confidence in our Government. It is well known that these proposals have our approval. They have our confidence. We are perfectly willing to let them go forward and, indeed, we do not find it necessary to go on underlining the essentials. I am speaking because the hon. Member for Hamilton chose to challenge me and to quote some of my speech. Otherwise, I certainly would not have troubled the House—
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose— —
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hon. Members opposite must decide among themselves which of them is to rise—
  Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that if I had not quoted him he would not even have troubled to come to the House to discuss a matter which is so essential to us on whichever side of the House we are?
  Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Really, the hon. Member is beginning to fall over his own bootlaces. How should I have known he was speaking if I had not been in the House? The hon. Member really ought to know the line of iris attack before set sets out. If he would exercise more restraint and allow himself to be defended by his right hon. Friend he would be more successful in his career in opposition.
  As I said at the time it was very desirable that the nationalist feeling in Scotland should realise where its main enemy was, and its main enemy is—
  Mr. John Rankin: The Tory Party.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot:—the whole centralising philosophy of the party opposite, and that is—
  Mr. Thomas Hubbard: Hydro-electricity.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Indeed the electrical set-up is one of the worst examples of splitting Scotland down the middle. We shall have something to say about that later. But the whole tendency of the party opposite is a denial and distrust of the national spirit of Scotland. I need not refer to their electoral records and

  1781
  previous policies on the matter. I do say that Scotland is well aware that the centralisation of its forces in London is one of the greatest menaces which the country has to fear and the apostles of centralisation are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. McNeil: This is a subject which affects all of us. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would explain in what fashion devolution from the Scottish Office has now taken place?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman, who challenged me earlier on the danger of getting out of order, would not wish me to risk incurring the wrath of Mr. Speaker, but I will say that a greater increase in the powers of the Scottish administration over Scottish affairs is enshrined in this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, and it is enshrined in the appointment of a Minister of State primarily resident in Scotland.
  Mr. McNeil: This is of tremendous importance. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell the House what additional powers the Scottish Office derives from any or all of these changes? Where is there one single additional power? That is what we want to know.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Is it the case that this debate is supposed to terminate at 7 o'clock, or has it terminated?
  Mr. Speaker: This is not strictly a point for me at all, but I was told by both sides of the House that it was their desire if they could to terminate the debate at 7 o'clock, and that then we should go on to the subject of Christmas food supplies. That is all I know. I have no power to stop the debate.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is a characteristic of our voluble race that, not only do they all wish to speak, but they all wish to speak at the same time, and it is one of our greatest difficulties. Anybody addressing Scotsmen finds that so many wish to interrupt that it is difficult for him to confine his speech within the narrow limits which he would wish to do. It is my desire, as soon as possible, to terminate the remarks I wished to make, but I am being lured on to speak further by
  1782
  a concatenation of admiration from the other side which extends to Ministers. Under-Secretaries and back benchers as well.
  I only say that, enshrined in this Bill, is a greater control and grasp over the affairs of Scotland by Scotsmen, that the Minister of State, who has been referred to, though, naturally, one cannot refer to him at length here, is another example of the greater devolution which Scotland is having. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly. We cannot govern the country from a sleeping car, as everybody knows. I have seen one Secretary of State after another, and one need only quote the case of Tom Johnston, a strong and powerful man, who injured his health in attending to the endless tasks which he had to undertake and which were far more than could be handled by one man.
  The necessity for devolution and reinforcement, and, if possible, a resident Minister in Scotland, could be seen on the features of Tom Johnston, before he laid down his office. He undertook what was obviously more than we could reasonably ask any man to do. The result of that system, even on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock, was that we had eventually a sick Secretary of State, weary and exhausted by the burden he was carrying. We made no complaint when, as he was perfectly entitled to do, he took a few days' holiday. We well remember that he suffered from a painful and troublesome ailment. We knew the burden that was placed upon him was more than one man ought to carry.
  When we take administrative steps to deal with that burden, I think it comes poorly from those who have themselves suffered under that strain to say to us that this is not necessary for the better administration of Scotland. What was it that broke down Tom Johnston? What was it that caused the sickness of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It was the burden of administration. These are the facts.
  Dr. H. Morgan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows nothing about it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan), was once also an inhabitant of Arcady, but he

  1783
  deserted us and left us for another part of the country, Let him not interrupt in a Scottish debate.
  Dr. Morgan: Always ignorant.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton was a speech made with the obvious embarrassment of one who was making a speech against a proposal which, in essence, he admired. He was making a speech upon a proposal which he was neither himself going to vote against nor ask his hon. Friends to vote against. The same process was gone through on the appointment of the Minister of State. There again, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, although they were willing enough to niggle and query, were unwilling to take action and vote in the Division Lobby.
  On account of that, we say that these proposals stand. They have the approval of all hon. Members who support the Government. They also have the tacit approval of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. On that ground, we are glad to see the proposals brought forward and we wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I am quite sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), when he challenges hon. Members on this side of the House to take this matter to a Division, must surely forget that this is not a Bill which simply applies to Scotland, but is, in fact, a Bill for providing some additional Parliamentary Secretaries.
  Having listened to the first part of the debate, I can well imagine that such a Bill, with the addition of a Parliamentary Secretary to deal with Wales, might indeed be the stepping-tone to further improvements, but, having heard the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the speech to which we have just listened, I am satisfied that this Measure is more likely to become a stumbling-block rather than a stepping stone.
  I am satisfied that much of the work which has arisen in Scotland has arisen because of the legislation passed during the past six and a half years, and because,
  1784
  for the first time, there has been some action on behalf of the Scottish people. If there is now additional work being done by the Scottish office, it surely has arisen from that fact, and from the opportunities which the Scottish people have had as the result of the legislation passed in the last six and a half years.
  We might, indeed, have welcomed the Bill if we had understood that there would be a great burden and an increased volume of Scottish legislation to come before Parliament in the near future. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was describing the difficulties of Tom Johnston in regard to his duties in this House, he might also have thought of the time when Joe Westward was Secretary of State for Scotland, when a great deal of legislation, which is indeed benefiting the people of Scotland today, was passing through the House. It was legislation in connection with housing, agriculture, education and many other matters, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland had told us today that it is proposed to introduce further legislation of equal benefit to the people of Scotland, we might have been in a position to welcome this Bill.
  I am satisfied that no one would expect us to welcome that part of the Bill that will apply to Scotland in the light of the fact that no information has been given to us that would justify us in doing so. We have merely been told that a promise had
  been made by the Tory Party that, if returned, they would make additional appointments. Today, we have to understand that the people of Scotland have to pay for the implementation of a promise which the Tory Party gave to Scotland without being told what benefit they are to receive from it.
  I have the agreement of my hon. Friend, who was Under-Secretary of State during the last Parliament, that the closer the contact of the Secretary of State for Scotland with the people of Scotland, the better it will be, not only for the Scottish local authorities, the National Farmers' Union and various other interests, but for the Secretary of State himself. When I realise that, if such were the case, and if any indication had been given by the Secretary of State that this proposal would be beneficial to the people of Scotland and would bring improvement in their lives, we could have welcomed it.

  1785
  We must, of necessity accept this Bill, because it is to provide additional Parliamentary Secretaries. When I realise that the contribution which the people of Scotland are making at the present moment, in regard to mining, in which they have shown the highest increase in coal production of any part of the country, and when, at the same time, I realise that the Scottish miners are actually being paid less than those south of the Border, I think that, if we could have an additional Parliamentary Secretary and that he could in some way solve that problem, we could welcome this Bill today.
  When we also realise the great work which is being done at the moment by Scottish agriculture, both in regard to stock breeding and agricultural produce, and if the Bill were likely to assist in that direction, we would, as I have said, have been glad to welcome it. That is not the position. It is not a question of the policy of the Government being one for helping the consumers of food in Scotland, because they will have to pay more for food as a result of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture. If the Secretary of State could tell us that the people of Scotland and consumers in Scotland would be exempt from the new policy announced by the Minister of Agriculture, we might have welcomed the Bill.
  It is perfectly true that some three million people signed the Covenant Association's plebiscite in Scotland, and that fact had a tremendous effect on the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the junior Unionists. I suggest that, even if they are satisfied that the most extreme nationalist feeling in Scotland is on the side of Scottish devolution, the natural repercussions on the Tory Party will come as a great shock to them at some time in the future.
  While right hon. Gentlemen opposite often make rather sarcastic remarks about the defeat of the Labour Party at the recent Election, I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that every hon. Member on this side has a certain sympathy with his position in speaking from the third bench below the Gangway rather than from the Front Bench. We do not rejoice in that fact; we have a great sympathy with him.
  Nothing has been said today that will give any reassurance to the people of
  1786
  Scotland that they are likely to move any further forward as a result of this additional appointment. The appointment of a Minister of State simply means to the people of Scotland that they are to have a Secretary of State, three Under-Secretaries, a Minister of State and two Law Officers doing the work previously done by three Ministers. That will entail additional staff and additional expense, and all these Ministers are now going to do precisely the same work as was done before, and it does not necessarily follow that it will be done any better. Indeed, my experience has taught me that one very seldom improves anything by splitting it. By this proposal, the Government are splitting responsibility in Scotland without giving any evidence of the benefits to be expected from it.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. David J. Pryde: The prevailing opinion north of the Tweed tonight as the outcome of this discussion in the House will be "Blessed is he who expecteth nothing, because he will not he disappointed." The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) challenged us to a Division. I can assure him that I for one will cast my vote against any such provision as is contained in this Bill, because it is clearly not there for the purpose of improving the lot of the people of Scotland.
  During the recent Election I made a challenge that the Tory Party could not improve the conditions of the people of Scotland. I repeat that challenge tonight, because to give Scotland a Minister of State who is a Member of another place is simply to add insult to injury. To divide up the work at present applicable to the Secretary of State for Scotland among three Under-Secretaries instead of two is a pure travesty. What kind of mixture do we get? Fishes and teachers.
  I want to know whether any one of the three Under-Secretaries will undertake a job which was previously performed by the Departments that determine the fate of the people of Scotland. Is it not perfectly true to say that the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour have a far greater influence in Scotland than some of the functions which are here being divided up? Is it not also perfectly true to say that all we are doing here tonight is to add some other influence on the people of

  1787
  Scotland who, one day, will do what the miners in Scotland did when they did not want some people in the pits. They lifted the rails. The day may not be far distant when the people of Scotland will say. "We are going to lift the rails and man the Border."
  In Scotland, of course, we suffer from ills which are unknown in England and Wales. Look at our housing problem and our unemployment. There are places in my own constituency which under the Distribution of Industries Act have been scheduled for industry. I am not sparing my own people who were in office from 1945 until quite recently, because, even up to today the Board of Trade have paid no attention to that particular Act. In Midlothian and in the Tweed Valley we have unemployment today. There are no subsidiary industries in which to employ the people of Scotland. These are evils due, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove said, to centralisation in London. Only when we get a Parliament in Edinburgh which will deal with special Scottish affairs will the people of Scotland be satisfied that everything is being done to meet their ills.
  Is it not perfectly true to say that the great City of Glasgow cannot lay down a new sewer unless it promotes private legislation which must come before this House and be sanctioned by it? Is it not true to say that Edinburgh must not take powers to regulate certain aspects of public life within its boundaries unless it promotes private legislation which must receive the sanction of this House? And even when such Bills come up for Report, any English Member may rise in his place and object, and force a Division against them. We on this side of the House who have been engaged in industry, and know something about industrial matters, realise that in Scotland many of those operating in industry are worse paid than their English confrères.
  Men in the Scottish mines who are producing a larger output than in certain parts of the English and Welsh coalfields are working for as much as 3s. a shift less. The
  question which really matters is that of the bread and butter of the people of Scotland, and this Bill will have no effect at all on that. I challenge the Govern-
  1788
  ment to come out with a policy for Scotland and show how they will improve the economic conditions of the people of Scotland.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Stuart: While I very much dislike having to intervene again in the debate, I believe that, in view of the time, it will be for the general convenience of all concerned if I endeavour to answer some of the questions before 7 o'clock. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) spoke of the Bill in its particular relation to Scotland. Nobody should know better than he himself the answer to some of the questions which he asked regarding the amount of work which confronts the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretaries in the Scottish Office, because he has a long experience of that Office.
  The other night I gave certain examples regarding the Minister of State's functions. I mentioned the receiving of deputations, but I think the hon. Member knows very well that it is not my intention to crowd out the Under-Secretary or to meet all deputations myself. Indeed, it would not be possible for me to do so. All I meant to say was that when I was in Edinburgh or when it was necessary that I should do so, or it was convenient, then, of course, it would be for me to be present. I have the greatest confidence in the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden) to handle, for instance, deputations from the National Farmers' Union.
  Perhaps ought to have been a little more careful in what I said the other night, but, as the hon. Member for Hamilton knows very well, it would not be possible for me to meet the representatives of all these bodies myself. Therefore, to the best of my ability, I have divided up the functions among the Scottish team, if I may call it that, in what seems to be a suitable manner. I, personally, hope and believe that it will prove to be effective, and that it will work satisfactorily.
  The whole object of the Bill is, I must repeat, to improve the administration and control of our affairs in Scotland, and we hope and pray that that will be so. But nothing is static in the field of government, and as I said the other night, I may not have achieved perfection, but

  1789
  our whole object is improvement. I have considered the point raised again this evening with regard to a White Paper. I really do not feel that in this case it is a necessary production, and in saying that perhaps I might refer once again to what the position really is. There is no change in the Departmental set-up of the Scottish Office. The same Departments remain and operate. All we have done is to have a Minister of State resident in Scotland and an additional Under-Secretary in order, we believe, to improve the management of our Scottish affairs.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman please clear up one point? The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made a good deal of play with the condition to which the duties of the Scottish Office and its powers have brought Mr. Tom Johnston and others. He seemed to indicate that there would now be a change for the better. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of the powers and duties which attached to that Office before this Bill was introduced will now cease to rest upon his own shoulders?
  Mr. Stuart: No, Sir. The responsibilities of the Scottish Office are unchanged, but the Secretary of State for Scotland will have more assistance in that there will be an additional Minister and an additional Under-Secretary. I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) because he has helped me a great deal. It is difficult to talk about one's own labours and the state of one's own health. As the House knows, my right hon. and gallant Friend was connected with the medical profession some years ago, and being a close personal friend of mine he is also concerned that I should be physically capable of carrying out my duties.
  Mr. Woodburn: The suggestion has been made that there will be some great scheme of decentralisation combined with these appointments. What I was asking the Secretary of State was what the new or semi-completed plans for all this cen-
  1790
  tralisation would be, so that we could see the picture as a whole.
  Mr. Stuart: I hope the House will agree that I have given a picture. There is decentralisation in that we have a Minister mainly resident in the capital of Scotland. That is decentralising part of the Ministerial team from Whitehall, and is a step in the direction I have directed.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the decentralisation confined to Ministerial decentralisation? I understood that it was to be in a wide field of industry.
  Mr. Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman would not be correct in thinking that.
  I endeavoured to give the picture the other night and have supplemented it today regarding the position of the new Under-Secretary. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove referred to the fact that the Fishery Department is, of course, a part of the Home Department. The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) mixed up education with fish. But, of course, as all hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies know, there are four Departments in the Scottish Office, and also Forestry. It is difficult to divide either four or five by three, with the result that there has to be one over. It is not one Department per Under-Secretary. I hope I have answered the main points.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: Is it the intention to give a greater degree of responsibility to Under-Secretaries speaking in this House, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and is that part of the reason for the additional appointment?
  Mr. Stuart: The whole reason for the appointment is the improvement of our administration and the conduct of our affairs in Scotland. The degree of responsibility is not altered; it is merely spread between three instead of two. I hope that the House will now be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARIES) [MONEY]
Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend certain provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, relating to Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual salaries not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds each to any additional Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to whom salaries are authorised to be paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
It being Seven o'Clock, proceedings on the Home Guard Bill stood postponed, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

CHRISTMAS FOOD SUPPLIES
7.0 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the decision of the Government not to issue any additional food rations at Christmas.
As I rise to move this Motion, standing in my name and in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), and Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), I am rather surprised at the poor attendance of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. William Ross: Only 20 back benchers.
Mrs. Mann: I can remember when there were more Questions on the Order Paper on this subject from hon. Members than there are Members sitting opposite tonight. The House takes on a strange appearance in these days. No questions at all now from hon. Members opposite on this Christmas bonus issue and the Front Bench is strange indeed. Even the faces have altered; from being broad and exuberant they are now long and careworn, but perhaps not so care-worn as are the housewives whom they profess to serve.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: They are two-faced as well.
Mrs. Mann: The question of a Christmas bonus is not new. We are not asking for something we did not have before. I find, going back to 1945 when my hon. Friends took over the Government of this country, that with a deficit of £860 million, with 9 million men and women in the Forces, Civil Defence and the armament industry all to be rehabilitated and with our export trade gone, yet the Christmas bonus came up year after year. I find that even in 1947, the year of the financial crisis, there was an extra 6d. worth of meat, 11 lb. of sugar and 4 oz. of sweets. In 1949 we had 6 oz. of sweets, 4 oz. of fat; the tea ration was increased to 21 oz. and the bacon increased to 4 oz. Last year we had 6 oz. of sweets, 11 lb. of sugar, 4 oz. of cooking fat and an extra 4 oz. of tea to all over 70 years of age.
Hon. Members opposite insisted that that should be so. No less a person than one whom we used to know as the Radio Doctor in a party political broadcast decried and deplored the miserable equality, the equal shares of misery that the Labour Government distributed. Hon. Members opposite are at some pains now to reconcile their audience with these statements that we were always too extravagant.
In a broadcast last year we had Mr. J. B. Priestley referring to the happy Christmas he had witnessed in 1949. The Radio Doctor in his broadcast said:
"Did you hear that great writer of fiction. J. B. Priestley, supertax payer—and good luck to him—did you hear him tell us that last Christmas was the best ever? Oh! Chuck it Priestley. Anybody would think that we had no memories. My mother bought better toys for a few shillings than you can get for a couple of pounds today.
But we're getting 30 per cent. less meat, 60 per cent. less bacon, 20 per cent. less eggs. Indeed we are getting less meat and bacon and cheese than we were in 1945. You can't have steak but you can have a nice piece of boiled cod.
The essence of a good meal, as distinct from a plate of calories and proteins, is that it should be something you like, something you have an appetite for. There's no need to tell us that, the experts are satisfied that we are having what's good for us. "Our diet is dull and dreary and we know it."
Now the House is strange indeed, and time marches on, but the basic rations are still insufficient; and it is because these

1793
rations are insufficient that we feel we require extra at Christmas. There are 3 oz. of butter—a little piece of butter about two inches square—4 oz. of margarine and 2 oz. of cooking fat. There are mothers who have to manage with the entire family at home. Indeed if I may say so, if all the M.P.s were at home they would understand how poor, how miserable that ration is.
We have to use margarine, and if we use margarine to supplement our butter there is nothing at all for home baking or for frying fish or for browning stews and so on. Therefore, we expect that at Christmas we should have something extra. But there is a supply in existence all the time which supplements and augments the ordinary ration. Many workers, for example, eat in canteens and many people eat in cafés. I have already said that hon. Members of the House eat in the Dining Room. Many children have school meals.
This is the rub. We housewives have the necessity before us at Christmastime of having all our family at home and having to cater for visitors and for sitting up late, as we all do at Christmas, when perhaps we want an extra cup of tea in the early hours. We have the family gatherings we all love and to which we all look forward. In addition to this the members of the family throw their full weight upon the housewife by the closure of the canteens and so on.
I have been taking some quotations from the Ministry of Food Bulletin of 3rd November. I find there are 180,614,000 meals served weekly, on the average, and 254,000,000 hot beverages. I have excluded places that are likely to remain open at Christmas. I have included restaurants, cafés and teashops to a total of 45,853, civic restaurants numbering 350, and 32,899 residential catering establishments and hotels. I have had to include hotels because they are lumped with residential catering establishments. But as far as the residential catering establishments are concerned, I think we can reasonably assume that they include boarding houses and that the boarders will be home for Christmas.
Incidentally, I rather deplore that hotels will remain open. So many gentlemen—perhaps those who make these decisions
1794
at Cabinet level—will be all right while the hotels are open to them.
There are 8,333 Class A industrial canteens and hostels and 23,259 Class B—I think that must be the heavy category—industrial canteens and hostels, 8,337 staff dining rooms and luncheon clubs and 24,910 day schools and nursery schools. I have excluded clubs, snack bars, railway buffets, and fish and chip shops. The total number of establishments is 143,971 providing 400,000,000 meals and beverages. They have a special licence and a supply of food to relieve the housewife's difficulties. These will close and the housewives will have to face the entire burden alone and unaided with no catering licence and nothing extra for the home.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food what justification he has for this. Is he really plundering these supplies given in the ordinary way to the catering establishments and the canteens and the schools? If he is not doing that, I submit it is indefensible to rob the housewives of these supplies that are to his hand and which necessarily must benefit his Department by reason of the fact that they are not being used at these establishments.
When I asked questions in the House about the failure to provide a Christmas bonus the reasons given for the failure were the food supply position and general economic difficulties. Let us take the food supply position. It is not denied that the stocks are there. Indeed, later on in the same reply the fright hon. Gentleman said his intentions were to build up the rations by means of these stocks. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central will have something to say about this.
The Minister actually suggested that he would be able to maintain this present meagre ration only by poaching and plundering the housewives' jam sugar for next year. I should like him to tell us how much he is going to take. There does not seem to be any attempt on the part of the Minister to divert these supplies from the catering establishments to the housewives. Am I right in saying that there is a reserve, that provision was made for a Christmas bonus and that the right hon. Gentleman is dependent on Labour's foresight in providing that bonus to cover up Tory ineptitude and lack of policy?

1795
As to the other reason—the general economic difficulties—is this something which has just been discovered? I understood from every Tory booklet and leaflet that I have read that this country was bankrupt, that it had been bankrupt ever since Labour got into power. Hon. Members opposite should drop the pretence about the skeletons and about discovering the skeletons only when they reached Whitehall. They were bringing the skeletons out of their brief cases and dangling them before every audience. According to them, the country was bankrupt; we were down and out, and with tearful voices they said they did not know what was going to happen when Marshall Aid came to an end. Strange to relate, never were there so many people tumbling over each other to take over a bankrupt concern. Never so many sending cash contributions to the noble Lord for this purpose.
It is the noble Lord in the Cabinet who is responsible for this shocking decision. He knew there was a deficit. He based his promises on a deficit. I have his broadcast speech. There was no dubiety about it. Before making the promises he said:
"You saw it only this morning in the papers, didn't you? We are down by something like £927,500,000 in nine months on the balance of our imports over our exports."
We cannot think he made his promises in ignorance. He wooed the women with false promises. Never since the episode in the Garden of Eden were women so assiduously wooed and courted. One recalls the blandishments and the cooing, dove-like notes with which the noble Lord spoke to the women by the fireside—
Miss Irene Ward Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth) rose—
Mrs. Mann: I will give way when I have finished my sentence. I was saying that the cooing, the blandishments and the dulcet tones with which we were addressed makes the great screen lover Charles Boyer but a clumsy lout.
Miss Ward: For the purpose of historical accuracy, I wanted to suggest to the hon. Lady, to whom I am grateful for giving way to me, that it was Eve who wooed Adam and not Adam who wooed Eve.
Mrs. Mann: I would refer the hon. Lady to the first Chapter of the greatest Book in all literature, and I think that she will understand that the analogy was not Adam but the serpent.
Mrs. Braddock: Is not this a subject which the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) knows nothing about?
Miss Ward Miss Ward rose—
Mrs. Mann: I would remind the House that the debate is very short: I do not wish to take up too much time.
I was referring to the blandishments and the promises. May I remind the House of some of them?
"I believe that one of the best things we could do to make us all feel able to work harder would be to give us more red meat to eat."
Why close the canteens at Christmas and then not pass on the meat to the housewives? The noble Lord deplored our monotonous diet of
"not very tasty, starchy foods. We need a better diet and we can get it."
Yet the first thing the Government have done is to cut down the supplies of tinned hams and meats, biscuits, preserves, confectionery, nuts, canned fruits, vegetables and fresh fruit. I say to hon. Members opposite: Another such victory, and you are undone. A remark more calculated to fetch the housewives than this one—it was in last year's broadcast—cannot be imagined:
"What is needed is that we should make the buy more."
[Laughter.] I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he laughs best who laughs last.
"We Conservatives can do it. We must do it"—
and then there is this definite promise:
"When the Conservatives return to power we will bring down costs and we will all be better off.
Well, now, is this clear enough? I have said tonight, and I repeat it: 'We'll reduce the cost of living '."
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: From which broadcast is the hon. Lady quoting?
Mrs. Mann: As I said, this was last year's broadcast. The disappointed housewives are not the only women who have been led astray by glamorous men,

1797
who have foresaken honest, homely men for glamorous promises; and they are not the only women to find that, when the time comes to put the promises into action, these gentlemen make themselves scarce. The noble Lord is in another place. Like Mark Antony, his
"credit now stands on such slippery ground."
The Minister of Food said his decision was due to the general position and the food supply position. I think it is obvious that there is no policy. At any rate, it has not been put into practice. It is probably like the principles of hon. Members opposite, which are always good; they ever remain good because they have no intention of wearing them out in practice. I searched for the policy in the same broadcast, and this was it: that we relied on food traders in the old days to give what we wanted. This country was one of the best markets in the world for food. Food producers came here from everywhere to try to sell their goods to us and now, under Government control, we go to them. We go to buy.
I understand that we do not intend to send out these food traders to look for the food. I understand we have not the money. Well, someone might pass round the hat at least to pay their fares for them to see if there is anything which can be picked up reasonably cheap. The noble Lord said all we needed was to get rid of bulk purchase and the traders would be rushing to us. Well, where are they? Are they coming during the Recess? Are they coming at all?
Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Is not the hon. Lady aware that the Empire sugar producers are here at the moment?
Mrs. Mann: Then why not give us an extra Christmas bonus?
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Because it takes five years from the planting of sugar to bring it to the consumer.
Mrs. Mann: I think that should have been mentioned in the broadcast. I think it was not unusual in the history of the Labour Government, not only for Empire producers to come about sugar, but for quite a number of others to come. Hon. Members opposite had quite a lot to say about the Cuban sugar growers being here.
1798
The cupboard is not bare. The cupboard was well stocked for Christmas. The policy is bare, however, and the right hon. Gentleman knows there is no hope of the promises being implemented. The policy which has been put into operation is one to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I have some questions to ask, which I hope he will answer. Instead of variety, as I have already said, cuts were imposed on the very varieties which made our tables attractive. Here is the first question. Why should food carry the highest burden of these cuts? Why not cut imports of wines and spirits, which are running at £16 million a year? Why should the luxury class of non-utility textiles be excluded from these cuts? Why should tinned meat and meat products be cut by such a high percentage—56 per cent. and 57 per cent.—while imitation jewellery and sports goods carry such a low percentage? Why should apparel, footwear, drugs, glassware, imitation jewellery, wine and spirits have priority over food?
I do not want hon. Members opposite to think that the women of this country are not conscious of the burden this little nation has been carrying since 1945.
Mr. Martin Lindsay: A Socialist Government.
Mrs. Mann: If it were a Labour Government, why did the present Prime Minister tell Morgenthau of America that the country was bankrupt? Why did he go on to say:
"I hesitate to face the ex-Service men because I will be the most unpopular man in England"
I have said—[Interruption.]—of course, it is quite useless to talk to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott); I can give him a reason, but I am sorry to say I can never give him understanding. As I have said, we, the women of this country, are fully conscious of our responsibilities to the nation. I do not wish to make party capital out of any issue as important as this, and I make an earnest appeal to the right hon Gentleman opposite—and I particularly address my appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows that the fuel for the engine is in good food. He knows that we must press our people, on both sides of this House, to work harder and to produce more, and I am sure he would

1799
agree that, if he had the whole of the British pharmacopoeia in front of him, there is still nothing to beat a good square meal.
Now, if that is agreed, why put the housewives at the end of the queue? The housewives ought to be at the beginning of the queue. As the noble Lord said, to work harder we must have some red meat. Perhaps the House will excuse a personal allusion. During the war I found my family of five, looking, as we say in Scotland, "peely wally"—looking under the weather. I knew we were not getting good food. One had absences from work, another difficulty in getting into an early class in medicine that started at 7.45.
I went out and I bought 12 black leghorns—good laying hens. I knew nothing about hens, but when they began to lay I was able to supply the family with poached eggs on toast, and they picked up immediately. They went out, and they went away smiling. I wish that that analogy would go home amongst hon. Members opposite. I wish they would press for more oil for the engines—and give it to the housewives to step up production.
I am afraid that they have started off on the wrong foot—or should I say with the right foot on the accelerator and with the left on the brake? I know that some of the back benchers need their plugs decarbonised. It is my belief that a higher level of feeding is required, and that that process should be embarked upon. I feel rather sorry for hon. Members opposite—
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Do not worry.
Mrs. Mann:—because of the position that they are in, having promised so much and on such a slender foundation, and having now a background which removes the decisions from their own level to elsewhere. I do believe that they themselves would have been more generous to the housewives of Britain. I do wish that they may be able to extract much more than they have got, and I believe that it is in the first interest of the nation that the housewives should have first priority.
Mr. J. Slater: I beg to second the Motion.
1800
It is not my intention to take up the time of the House in seconding the Motion, which, in my opinion, has been most ably moved by my hon. Friend. I think she has covered a wide field and that she has presented a case on behalf of the Opposition in this Parliament that will be readily received by the people in the country because of the great promises that were made during the past election by the present Government.
7.40 p.m.
The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): With a good deal of what the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) said towards the end of her speech—I emphasise, the end—a good many people would agree in all parts of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Decarbonising?"] No. I would only say on that that putting the foot on the accelerator is not much use if one has not much petrol. It is quite obvious that this debate, up to now at any rate, has been conducted in the Christmas spirit. The hon. Lady enjoyed herself very much indeed at the beginning, and her hon. Friends enjoyed themselves even more. They referred to the careworn—and, I think, the thin—faces on this side, but they cannot have been referring to myself or to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I shall deal with some of the points later, but first I would remind the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that her speech has been a very good indictment of the Government she supported in the last six years. She said the basic rations were not sufficient. She surely cannot blame us for that.
Hon. Members: Why?
Mrs. Mann: This side of the House recognised that they were not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends told everybody they were not, but have done nothing. We always gave warnings.
Major Lloyd George: I am sure the hon. Lady does not want to be unfair. One of the things that struck me at the beginning of this Parliament was, that on the very first day hon. Gentlemen opposite expected that all things promised would be fulfilled on the very first day. It comes ill from people who made so many promises in the past and hardly fulfilled any of them.

1801
I want to make one reference to what the hon. Lady said about the caterine establishments, canteens and school meals. I am sure that she will forgive me saying so. but when I was last at this Ministry I had a great deal to do with canteens and school meals. In fact, we were responsible for the development of most of them. [Laughter.] It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite laughing. That is true.
Mr. Norman Dodds: We are talking today about Christmas, 1951.
Major Lloyd George: It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.] I am going to stand here until I have finished what I have to say. If hon. Gentlemen interrupt me it simply means that I shall take longer and that means that a few other people will not get in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that I may be allowed to make my speech as the hon. Lady was allowed to make hers. The hon. Lady asked me about the canteens. The catering establishments are based in their allocations of food on the meals they serve, and if the canteens or the catering establishments are not open on Christmas Day there is no allocation to those establishments. Their allocation is based on the meals they serve. That has been so a very long time, and that is the answer to the hon. Lady's question.
Let me come now to the position with regard to the bonus, to which the Motion refers. Everybody will agree, of course, that it would be a very good thing if we could at Christmas time give extra bonuses if they were available, but I confess that, in times such as these that we are going through at present, I would prefer to keep a reasonable even flow of rations rather than occasionally to dish up a little extra at Christmas time.
I realise that the amounts of some rationed commodities must be changed from time to time because of the very nature of those rationed commodities, but I cannot help feeling that we have had more changes than we need have had in the past, and particularly in regard to meat, the ration of which, since the war finished, has changed 32 times—I think I am right in saying; and this year alone there have been 12.
I cannot believe that that is a good thing. The principle I intend to work upon is to use available food supplies in
1802
keeping as steady a ration level and -as high a ration level as I can. But whether we believe in giving bonuses or whether we believe, as I do, in keeping the ration level at as high and steady a level as possible, giving a bonus depends on two things. It depends on the stock position, that is to say, what we have in the larder. That depends upon our supply position and what we expect to get in.
As I pointed out the last time I addressed the House, it is not customary in peace-time to keep over-large stocks of food commodities, but when we get into difficulties of supply, as at present, it is obvious that the stock position becomes of much greater importance. Let me say at once that on the stock position as we inherited it, and, more important, on the financial position as we found it—in other words, as the late Government left it—no Minister with a sense of responsibility would have given a bonus this Christmas.
Let us look at some of the suggestions made by the hon. Lady with regard to bacon and fats, tea, sugar and so on. With regard to bacon, this Christmas I am in the position to raise the ration to 4 oz. from 2nd December. Last year the ration stood at 3 oz. A Christmas bonus was given of 2 oz., which made the effective weekly supply 3½ oz. for the four-week ration period, and this year it will be 4 oz. [An HON. MEMBER: "The stocks must have been there."] We do not store bacon.
Mr. Charles Royle: Is it not a fact that we do store bacon, that bacon was in cold storage in this country constantly throughout the war, and has been since the war?
Major Lloyd George: The point is that when large supplies come forward it has been the practice to pass it on and not to store it. That is the position. Of course there are stores but not sufficient.
Let me come to the next thing to which the hon. Lady referred—sugar. I would ask for her attention because this is a matter of some importance. This year, owing to bad weather at home, our own sugar crop will be 100,000 tons to 150,000 tons below what we expected. Owing to the very serious climatic conditions in Australia, as the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), will confirm, the supplies from there, with the

1803
crop at home, will amount to stocks about 400,000 tons less than was expected. This deficiency can only be made up from dollar sources. There is no other source available.
The late Government cut the allocation of sugar to manufacturers and caterers by 75,000 tons in a full year. Since that cut was made, as the House knows, our financial position has worsened. This was forecast then, and it has made a Christmas bonus out of the question. At any rate, we have been able to maintain the ration at 10 oz. and I would remind the House that for most of the period since the war the sugar ration has more often been at 8 oz. than at 10 oz., and that it is an interesting fact that if all the bonuses of sugar that have been given since 1945 could have been used to increase the weekly ration, it would have enabled the ration to be kept over all those years at a level of 10 oz.
Mrs. Braddock: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is correct that Tate and Lyle in Liverpool have stopped a number of men within the last couple of weeks on the statement that there was so much sugar available that there is nothing for them to do?
Major Lloyd George: I know nothing about that. With regard to sweets, the cut in sugar made by the right hon. Gentleman, although when he made it the stocks of sweets was high, is bound to bring the ration down fairly soon. But since then the situation has worsened. A bonus would have eaten into the stocks very much more quickly. In any case, although the sweet bonus was 6 oz. last year the ration then was only 5 oz. This means that the ration plus the bonus last year, over the eight weeks in which it could have been taken, equalled only 5¾ oz. a week, whereas the ration this Christmas will be 6½ oz. a week.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie may laugh, but it is no use her laughing. She has asked questions and she must take the answers.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose— —
Major Lloyd George: I cannot give way too much. The hon. Lady, when I answered a Question on bonuses some weeks ago, referred to the fact that butter was, I think she said, 6 oz. last year.
1804
There has been no butter bonus since the war and not likely to be.
Mrs. Mann: I said 6 oz. of sweets, 1½ 1b. of sugar and 4 oz. of fats.
Major Lloyd George: There has been no butter bonus since the war—[An HON. MEMBER: "In 1945."] The war was not finished then. Margarine and cooking fat imports include a substantial dollar element. My main anxiety is to prevent any reduction in the domestic ration. The import cuts which had to be made will involve very heavy cuts in trade allocations, and only by this means shall I be able to maintain the domestic ration as it is.
With regard to tea, a totally different position has arisen. In practice, we cannot give a bonus of less than a¼lb. of tea, and this would mean about 14 million lbs. The difficulty there is the question of supply. As the House knows, there have been very considerable difficulties in the unloading of tea. There was a time at the beginning of November when the ration itself might have been in danger and, therefore, it was quite out of the question to take any risks in view of the situation in the docks.
To summarise the Christmas position, there will be more bacon and sweets than last year. We are keeping up the sugar ration to 10 oz. instead of 8 oz. We intend to keep up the fat ration, and. in the case of tea, I have mentioned the special difficulties
Let me say a word about Christmas supplies of unrationed foods. Supplies of fruit and other Christmas fruits, like crystallised sweets, should be reasonably good. The Christmas allocations of dried fruits are in the shops or about to reach them, and they are only very slightly less than last year. A large distribution of canned fruit has been arranged to reach the shops in time for Christmas. There is always some uncertainty about the supplies of turkeys and poultry, and this year this has been particularly aggravated by the presence of disease in the exporting markets, but there has been a considerable increase in the quantity of turkeys and poultry from our own farms, and I hope this will be sufficient to bridge the gap. Although we cannot put up the ration of carcase meat, we are releasing 3,000 tons of tongue, which will be in addition to the usual supplies.

1805
The Opposition have been trying to make party capital out of a situation for which we are in no way responsible. Hon. Members opposite must know perfectly well in their hearts that had they faced their responsibilities, as it was their duty to do, they would have had to make drastic cuts just as we have had to do.
Mr. Percy Shimmer: On luxuries but not on food.
Hon. Members: What about the promises at the General Election?
Major Lloyd George: It was the promises of 1945 which have got us where we are now. Hon. Members must realise what the position is. [Interruption.] They know perfectly well what is the case on their own side, and they should know that I am trying to develop my case. If they
would listen and talk less they might learn something. [Interruption.] I do not want any more of that from you.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): On a point of order. In view of the threat by the Minister in saying that he did not want any of that from me, would you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, please inform me what protection a Member has? Will you kindly call the Minister to order, make him explain or make him withdraw what he said?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I did not hear a threat.
Mr. Popplewell: In view of the fact that the Minister said he did not want any more of that from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "And he does not"]—what other interpretation could be placed upon it?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Neither the right hon. and gallant Gentleman nor any other Member of the House has any right to address anyone except me.
Mr. Popplewell: But he was.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the word "you" was used then it must have referred to me.
Mr. Popplewell: It did. Will the Minister be made to withdraw such a statement?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would just say that every Member of the House must address their remarks to me.
Major Lloyd George: If I may be allowed to proceed, I said that any Government with a sense of responsibility and in the last one that is a big assumption I am afraid—would have had to make the drastic cuts that we have been forced to make. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), said so in this House during the debate on the Address. He said that whatever Government came into power would have had to take drastic action quickly—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should allow me to develop by argument. I am not being allowed to go beyond one not being allowed to go beyond one sentence at a time.
What I was saying was that the right hon. Gentleman said that whatever Government came into power would have had to take drastic action quickly. Would that drastic action not have included cuts in food imports? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say it would. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), whom I am glad to see in his place, said that had it not been for the help of our American friends we should have had big cuts in our rations. That was in 1948. The level of rations in 1948 was better than in 1950.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not bring irrelevancies of this kind into the debate. What I said about a period that has now passed was true, but that is no defence for what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing now.
Major Lloyd George: I do not agree. It is completely relevant.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not mind his Tory masters in the way he is doing now.
Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman says that what I said was completely irrelevant, but I say it is relevant and he does not like it. He said that had it not been for the help of our American friends we would have had to have big cuts in our rations. The point has been made that cuts in food imports should not have taken place, but knowing

1807
the facts perfectly well hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had the effrontery to come here and criticise us for not having given Christmas bonuses. It reminds me of a debate which we had during the war when Stalingrad was in a critical state and the question was whether it was going to be completely captured. At that time there developed a discussion in this House, in which hon. Members took part, about the shortage of tomatoes.
If hon. Members opposite had faced up to the situation things would have been different today, and they must realise now that it is not a question of Christmas bonuses
which are involved but the very rations themselves which may be in danger. The fact of the matter is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have deluded the electorate for so long that they have now succeeded in deluding themselves. We as a nation are not earning enough at this moment to give us all the good things which we want. We are bound to be in difficulties in getting the things we want, and particularly the food we want, and it is an especial tragedy that our position here should be so worsening that we have not only to curtail imports from dollar areas but from sterling areas as well, and particularly from our traditional markets in Europe.
I think we are entitled to inquire from the Opposition—they have asked a good many questions since this Parliament started—why the drastic action that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said would have to take place whatever Government was in power did not take place before the Election? It was known that the situation was deteriorating rapidly. I was very interested in a speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) recently in the House in which he said that it was because they knew the seriousness of the situation that they went to the country in order to get a Government strong enough to put into operation the measures to correct it.
I have a few comments to make on that. Why did they not take the House of Commons into their confidence before the Election? Why did they not disclose the proper position and ask for power to apply the remedies which they said they
1808
had ready? I am satisfied that had they done the proposals made would have been supported by the overwhelming majority of this House. [Laughter.] The hon. Members who are laughing—
Mr. James Callaghan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not here.
Major Lloyd George: I happen to have been here on one occasion before when the Government of the day did disclose to this House what the situation was before they went to the country. That was in 1931, but when the Election was held the electorate were in full possession of the facts and cuts had already been made.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and eallant Gentleman should remember that in 1931 the Government got back to power on the basis of a promise to keep Britain on the Gold Standard. Within a week they had gone off it.
Major Lloyd George: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I tell him that his observation was even more irrelevant than the observation of his right hon. Friend.
The point I was making was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens had told the House that the Government had the remedies ready, and I suggest that the Government would have had the support of this House as, in fact, they had in 1931 when remedies had to be enforced. It was said that the party opposite went to the country to get a large enough majority to enable the measures they had in mind to meet the situation to be put into effect.
What I am saying is that it is rather surprising that the late Government did not disclose to the electorate the serious situation which existed. It is rather surprising that they did not tell the electorate what they wanted the majority for. We are constantly being told from the other side that the position was made clear all the time during the Election. I have been looking at one or two of the more important publications.
Mr. Dodds: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should look at his own.
Major Lloyd George: Mine is the most gloomy document that has ever been written. I shall be happy to send the

1809
hon. Gentleman a copy. The hon. Member who made that observation hardly referred to the situation in his own Election address at all. The Labour manifesto did not once refer to the balance of payments position, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who says he came along and gave plenty of warning, made hardly any reference to it in his Election address. The Prime Minister's broadcast, which lasted about half an hour, contained a reference of about five seconds' duration to the balance of payments. The rest of it was taken up with saying what a wonderful time we were going to have. Having gone through all these things, I find little cause for alarm for any timid elector about the terrible things that were going to happen, although we are told that they were made quite clear.
The real reason why the party opposite went to the country was that they hoped somebody else would be elected to clear up the mess. I am bound to say that they succeeded very well in that. The House will remember the declaration of policy which brought the first Labour Government into power in this country in 1945. It was called "Let us face the future." Since the beginning of this Parliament the party opposite have been more and more concerned to forget their immediate past. Their decision to hold an Election last October showed perfectly plainly that the one thing they did not want to do was to face the future.
The hon. Lady who moved the Motion said that she deplored the decision of the Government not to issue extra food at Christmas. She told a very moving story about the disappointments which people would suffer. Actually, it would have been more appropriate if she had addressed those remarks to my predecessor rather than to myself. Neither I nor the present
Government have any responsibility for the position as it exists today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] None whatever. I think the House will agree that the hon. Lady has shown considerable skill in getting two of her right hon. Friends to put their names to this Motion. If the Motion is pressed to a Division she is to be congratulated upon having persuaded them to join her in doing what I have no doubt she has long wanted them to do, to move a vote of censure on her own Front Bench.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has hidden himself behind a display of bad temper. He has repeated his rather unimaginative electioneering speeches to avoid replying to the charges now being brought against him. In the debate on the Address, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that the Government were not looking for alibis. If that is their intention, there has been mutiny among the Departments for which Lord Woolton is responsible as co-ordinator, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman since his appointment has done nothing but seek alibis.
He has rather changed his ground tonight, but he cannot escape from what he said previously. On every occasion that he has been obliged to make a statement which he knows very well will disappoint severely the many people who were duped by Conservative election propaganda, he has adopted the alibi that he has been driven to follow his particular course because of the low stocks of foodstuffs in this country.
That is not in accordance with the facts. If what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said so often and suggested tonight were true, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to have done what he has already done. What the Chancellor said in describing the economies to which the Government were going to resort is that he was going to slow down the stockpiling of food. He is only in a position to do that because of the satisfactory progress in food stockpiling made by the Labour Government.
When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman shook us all, and especially hon. Gentlemen behind him, by saying that there were to be no Christmas bonuses, what did he tell the House? Not quite what he said tonight. When he was pressed, he said:
"I had to see what was there. I could only distribute what was there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 977.]
I am going to deal tonight shortly with what is there. I am in this difficulty. Of course I know full well what is there, but it is not my intention to reveal Ministry of Food stocks. I have always taken the view that commercial prudence meant that it was unwise and undesirable to reveal those stocks. However, if hon.

1811
Gentlemen opposite are of the same mind as they were in the last Parliament let them drive the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to reveal those stocks. I challenge them to do it. I will only deal with those stocks as they are dealt with by publishers of well-known statistical information.
First of all, sweets. There was a Christmas bonus last year. I gather from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is now saying to us on these benches that we gave our people too many sweets, but he made the point that the ration was—
Major Lloyd George: I did not say anything of the kind. I indicated quite clearly that the actual amount of sweets available to us would be greater than last Christmas.
Mr. Willey: The amount of sweets being greater on the ration this year is not an argument that there should be no Christmas bonus—unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing that the present level of the sweet ration is too high. If that is his argument, he ought to have told the electorate that. The position in regard to sweets stocks is, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows and as the manufacturers and the trade have repeatedly called to our attention, that there are abnormally high stocks. That is why the manufacturers have consistently and repeatedly pressed for an increase in the sweet ration.
I remember one of the leading manufacturers making personal representations to me not very long ago, that he was embarrassed at the size of the stocks he was carrying. Talking about sweets, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say: "I can only distribute what is there, and that is the reason for there being no sweets bonus." He can say, if he wishes, that there will be no sweet bonus because he is looking forward to next year and is doubtful whether he can maintain the ration. If he is saying that, he must accept responsibility. If the ration is to be cut it is not any action of my right hon. Friend that is at fault. It is the action which the present Government have taken in banning imports of foodstuffs containing sugar which were used by the manufacturers.
1812
Tea has been mentioned. Although we were last year facing exceptional difficulties about the supply of tea—far greater than the difficulties being faced now—we gave all people over 70 a 4 oz. tea bonus. Looking at the Trade and Navigation Returns, it is clear that the imports of tea during the past 12 months have been greater than they were in the previous 12 months. Anyone making an elementary calculation, even if erring on the cautious side, must be driven to the conclusion that the imports have been greater than the rate of consumption, and so it must be a fact that the stocks are today higher than they were 12 months ago.
There are difficulties about tea, but the matter has been discussed in the House and we have explained the difficulties, and now it is incumbent upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to refer to present difficulties but to say why he has not taken the action which my right hon. Friend took 12 months ago. I have mentioned tea and sweets first because the House ought to appreciate that the primary purpose of the Christmas bonus since it was first introduced has been to help the children and the old people. It is now for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain to these people why he has let them down this year.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to cooking fats. Was not my right hon. Friend very properly worried about the world position of oil and fats supplies 12 months ago? Has not my right hon. Friend faced very real difficulties over the past 12 months? However, he can say that, notwithstanding those difficulties, we have been able to obtain the whole of our programmed supplies. A significant feature about our supplies is that this year we obtained in lard greater imports than even pre-war, so far this year 76,000 tons against the less than 2,000 tons we obtained in the previous year. From a physical stock point of view, the position today is that we have the stocks—I am satisfied that we have them—to issue a bonus if the right hon. Gentleman chose to do so. He has admitted in the House that the position regarding world's supplies is considerably better than it was 12 months ago. It is for him to make out his case why, having the supplies available, he has chosen not to distribute them to the housewives at Christmas.

1813
Sugar has been mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the last Parliament, and I excuse him for that, but that does not excuse him for not reading HANSARD. This is not the first time the House has heard about the difficulties in Commonwealth sugar supplies over the last 12 months. We had two debates during the summer. I then explained to the House the difficulties over the supplies from Queensland and Fiji. I made an estimate of the loss in supplies from Queensland. I was over-cautious, but I said then—it was in fact the supply position—that we should be able comfortably to maintain the present position through. out 1951.
During the second debate an hon. Member opposite claimed that we had an extra 1,500,000 cwt. of sugar in our bonded warehouses compared with the position a year ago. Looking at the returns, it is clear from the increased imports, the record beet sugar harvest last year, the consumption figures, particularly allowing for the effect of the cut in consumption by manufacturers, and the drop in exports, which has been particularly sharp following the cessation of exports to Persia, that we have the physical stocks and that the right hon. Gentleman could give a sugar bonus if he so wished.
What the right hon. Genteman has done in the case of sugar is something far more serious than not giving a Christmas bonus. In explaining the Christmas position to the House, he said that we should not only be forgoing our Christmas bonus but should also be forgoing some sugar bonuses next year. That is a cut in the domestic ration—
Major Lloyd George Major Lloyd George indicated dissent.
Mr. Willey:—because when we programmed our distribution we always made an allowance for the bonuses which would be given over the year. My right hon. Friend always explained to the House that his primary objective was to maintain the domestic ration for the housewife as a matter of policy. The right hon. Gentleman has already departed from that policy, and the House is entitled to a better explanation than it has so far had.
The right hon. Gentleman has also mentioned bacon. When the cut was made, it was expressly made as a temporary cut, and was expected to last for five
1814
or six weeks. It has lasted much longer. It is incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House why he has been so dilatory in restoring the bacon ration. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the stocks as against the ration. Will it be his policy to hold the heaviest stocks possible? Will it be his policy to deter consumption? If that he the case, he is embarking on a very dangerous course, because this is livestock production and everyone knows the difficulties of encouraging increased production after one has once let it run down.
Butter was also mentioned by him. When the butter ration was cut again, it was cut temporarily. The present ration is not the basic ration. When we made our estimates as against supplies, we did not anticipate being on a 3 oz. ration. Owing to supply difficulties, we reduced the ration to 3 oz., and we said that that would be a temporary reduction. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that he wishes to keep the ration stable? If he wishes to keep the butter ration stable, that is, in effect, a reduction in the ration.
Here again, we know that the supplies are available. The right hon. Gentleman may not avail himself of the supplies because he has not the currency to do so, but, if that is the position, again it is incumbent upon him to explain to the House why he has not taken the opportunity of obtaining those supplies when the present ration is below what we on this side of the House, at any rate, regard as a suitable ration to maintain in this country.
I want to say a word about cheese. Why on earth has not the right hon. Gentleman given a cheese bonus? I fully explained to the House some time ago how we were driven to reduce the cheese ration and fully revealed what the supply position was, but, knowing full well what the supply position was, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite voted for the ration to remain as it was. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman curry favour with his hon. Friends by increasing the cheese ration?
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House on what occasion the Socialist Party has issued a cheese bonus since 1945 for Christmas or for any other occasion?
Mr. Willey: I shall continue to make my speech in my own way. The point I was making, which I will repeat more simply for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, is this: I have always regarded the view of the party opposite to be that they could make the cheese ration what they wished it to be, regardless of supplies. At any rate, they owe the House an explanation.
Mr. Nabarro: Where is the bonus?
Mr. Willey: Finally, I want to say a word or two about meat. The meat ration today is lower than at Christmas last year. I am sure we all know that the stocks of meat are higher now than they were then, but the position of the housewife is worse because, as the right hon. Gentleman said on an earlier occasion, whereas the meat products and ham that we were getting through private sources amounted on an average to about 3d. per person per week, they are now being drastically reduced and heavily cut. That is, in effect, a further reduction of the meat ration during the year as compared with 12 months ago.
It is also quite clear, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it has to be accepted by all of us, that the supplies of poultry will not be as great as 12 months ago and that there will be less available this Christmas. In these circumstances, why cannot we have an extra meat ration for Christmas? The right hon. Gentleman can do it if he wishes. I believe he could do it without any undue risk, even looking forward to the stock position that might obtain until next summer. I realise, of course, that that may not be so, because I am aware that the assumptions upon which the Ministry of Food act have to be altered from week to week in regard to the supply position.
If I am wrong, surely the right hon. Gentleman should come to the House and explain, if such is the case, that he is having current difficulties regarding the supply of meat from the Argentine. In view of the fact that it is the action of the Government that has prejudiced the housewife in regard to the extra meat she could have obtained for Christmas, we are entitled to a better explanation than we have had so far.
I remember very well how 12 months ago, when my right hon. Friend made his announcement about the Christmas
1816
bonuses, the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, rose to his feet and rather sneeringly referred to us "graciously doling out favours." The present Minister of Food is an unrepentant, unreformed Scrooge. He is ungraciously withholding from the housewife supplies, which if she were fully cognisant of our supply position, she would choose to enjoy at Christmas.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: When the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), began her speech, she said that the House was a strange place. She said, "Time marches on." indeed, time does march on and this House is, in fact, a strange place. I enlivened some of the hours of the Sitting on Tuesday night by reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT one of the speeches which the hon. Lady made in a similar debate shortly before Christmas, 1948.
The hon. Lady, who said that she wanted to call the bluff of the Opposition, said:
"I say that, in spite of the shortage, there is hardly a housewife in Britain tonight who has not got a tidy bit of food stored away for Christmas. It would astonish most people to know what housewives have actually got stored in their Christmas stocking."
That was in December. 1948. What was the ration at that time compared with the present ration? At present, the ration of sugar is 10 oz.; in December, 1948, it was 10 oz. The ration of meat today is 1s. 5d.; then, it was is. The ration of bacon today is 4 oz.; then, it was 2 oz. The ration of fats at that time was just the same as at present-9 oz. In 1948, the sweet ration was 12 oz. for a four-week period; now, it is 26 oz. Tea was 2 oz. then and is 2 oz. now—3 oz. in both cases for old people over 70 years of age.
On the whole, therefore, our rations are higher now than at the time when the housewives, as the hon. Lady, who is herself a housewife, told the House, had no reason to fear Christmas for they had got a good tidy supply tucked away in their Christmas stockings.
Mrs. Braddock: Is the hon. Member suggesting that my hon. Friend was referring to rationed goods? If so, he is completely wrong. People cannot store rationed goods. They have never had sufficient to be able to store them.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Then I wonder why the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie said so?
Mrs. Braddock: She did not say "rationed goods." There was no reference to rationed goods.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Very well, we will go by the words which the hon. Lady used. She said:
"I think we ought to adopt an altogether different attitude. I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, 'Why this gloom?'"
That is what the hon. Lady said in an exactly similar debate about Christmas bonuses, three years ago.
Mrs. Braddock: Will the hon. Member answer my question?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie went on to say:
"I close by telling hon. Members opposite that, generally speaking, the housewives throughout Britain are going to have a very fine and happy Christmas—ever so much happier than it would have been had hon. Members opposite been in power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1948; Vol. 459. c. 929, 931, 932.]
Mrs. Braddock: Was not that Christmas happier than it is going to be this year?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was going to pass to the question of the Christmas bonuses and the ration as a whole. Let us see the position as compared with recent years. We are to have, first, more sugar than at Christmas, 1949. As regards sweets, we are to have a higher average for the four-weeks period than we have had over the average of the last three years—1948, 1949 and 1950—even including the Christmas bonuses. But we are noticeably worse off in the case of fats, which at 9 oz. are back to the position in 1948, and in meat. No one would attempt to deny that in these two things we shall be worse off than in recent years. In both those cases—let us be honest about this—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hon. Members opposite ought to have been honest in the Election.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: In both cases, my right hon. Friend the Minister was dependent entirely upon what he
1818
inherited from hon. and right hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is perfectly true.
Mrs. Braddock: The hon. Member has not been listening.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It would not be honest—I put this forward as my view, but I believe it is shared by a great many people in the country—
Mr. Shurmer: Try them and see.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It would not be right and honest to convey an impression, which would be fictitious, of prosperity by making so-called bonuses at Christmas when the stock position and the position of the country as a whole would not warrant it.
I know that on the other side of the House there are a great many hon. Members who wish to speak and on this side of the House there are a great many who want to speak too, so, quite deliberately, I shall leave out a lot of things I had hoped to say, but, in conclusion, I wish to ask the Minister about the turkey position at Christmas. When the hon. Lady was speaking two years ago about the Christmas position, we were a great deal better off in our expectations of Christmas poultry and turkeys. At that time we were receiving turkeys not only from our own country, but imports of table birds—largely the smaller type of bird which is so badly wanted at this time—from Poland, Hungary, Denmark and France, a few from Sweden and a number from Holland.
It is an unfortunate thing that before the war, when we had an ample supply of meat for the people of this country, there was no restriction in the amount of poultry which came into the country. Poultry and turkeys came in great quantities and the shops were full of them, both home-grown and imported.
Mr. Julian Snow: And our agriculture was dead.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not making a political point, but saying that it was unfortunate that before the war when we had a higher supply of meat for the people of this country we had ample supplies of poultry—
Mr. Shurmer: How much did a turkey cost before the war?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: If the hon. Member would allow me to make my point it would be much kinder to his supporters, who are anxious to take part in the debate.
Now, when we have so little meat and so badly need these reinforcements of imported poultry and turkeys, supplies are shut down against us. It is not the fault of the present Government and I do not think it is the fault of the Government which preceded it. I do not think it was their fault, but, through no fault of any Government, there is an embargo on the importation from Poland, from Hungary, from Yugoslavia and now from France and from Holland. One of the last acts which was performed by the Government which went out of office last month was to place embargoes on imported poultry from France, Holland and Canada.
I hope very much that we shall get poultry from France, where there is a great supply of turkeys and poultry which has been eviscerated and is ready to be sent over to this country—turkeys which have been produced from parts of the country free from fowl pest and which have been properly inspected and tested. They are ready to come over and we fully need them here. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, if he can tell us what is the position about the importation of poultry from abroad this Christmas and, in particular, the position about imports from France.
8.39 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I am sure we all enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), which was very wittily expressed and made even the Parliamentary Secretary laugh at some jokes which were not his own. We are quite certain that there will be at least one article of Christmas fare which will not be in short supply for hon. Members on the benches opposite, and that is chickens which have come home to roost.
I am certain that the housewives of this country will feel that they have been let down by the Members of the Front Bench opposite, because we are convinced on this side of the House that this withholding of the bonus of Christmas food is a piece of deliberate hypocrisy. We have been assured by my hon. Friend
1820
the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who was until recently in the Ministry concerned, that the stocks are in fact there and could be distributed if it were the policy of the party opposite to do so. We believe they may be quite deliberately doing this so that they will be able to say, "Ah, the first Christmas after we came into power, because of the Labour Government, we could not give you any bonus." Then by next Christmas, if they are still, unfortunately, in their present position, they will say, "Look how much better we have done in this 12 months."
I warn the housewives that they should not submit to this policy of not having a bonus this Christmas because not only have we had the Election speeches ad nauseum but the constant pressure from hon. Members who now sit opposite when they were on this side of the House. I have here quotations from debates just before the summer Recess when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were pressing my right hon. Friend to take sweets off the ration, tea off the ration and margarine off the ration. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) said on 25th July concerning margarine:
"The stocks are there. Why is this commodity still on the ration?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th July, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 603.]
Sugar is something of particular interest to the housewife at Christmas time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, said, we had a very full debate on this matter last June. These difficulties about sugar supplies which the Minister
mentioned as an excuse for not giving the housewife sugar this Christmas were fully known. The Queensland floods, Fiji droughts and the low sugar beet harvest in this country were all perfectly well forseen, but in spite of those difficulties, which were quite well known, my hon. Friend was able to say that it was the intention to keep the basic ration at 10 oz. and also to provide a bonus from time to time which in effect gave the housewife a ration of 12 oz. a week.
Now we are told that these bonuses are not to be forthcoming. I think that apart from the political hypocrisy involved in this issue, there is also a mistake in psychology, and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary, who will be replying, might instruct his right hon. Friend, as I believe he specialises in that.

1821
I think this policy is mistaken and I am speaking for once as a housewife. Anyone who has studied industrial psychology knows that if a person is doing something which is
very monotonous it is encouraging and stimulating to have an occasional bonus. I believe the housewives of this country prefer the system of having some extra food at the time when they most need it.
I therefore fully supported the policy followed by the last Government, particularly regarding the sugar ration, of giving the housewife some extra sugar at the time of the year when she needed it most, for the summer jam-making, and the Christmas period. If we do not have it when we need it it means that we try to keep it, and the men of the household are apt to take more.
Seriously, this question of Christmas bonuses is a very important one. In previous years we have heard a great deal from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the necessity to encourage home baking, for example. We have heard really sentimental speeches from some of them. But there is this justification for it: that at Christmas time in particular we like to have so far as possible our family meals and our little extras which make so much difference to the mother in the home who is concerned to give her family the extra enjoyments at Christmas to which they all look forward.
I do not propose to labour that point, but I think it is a matter of psychology, as well as physical supplies, which is of great importance to the housewife who has to face difficulties which we all understand throughout the rest of the year. She should have some extra alleviation at Christmas-time which will enable her to face the Christmas season, and to give her family the best possible fare over that period.
I do not wish to pursue the argument too far, except to make it very clear that we shall consider it our duty to inform the housewives of the country that we believe they could have these Christmas bonuses; and that we believe it is a deliberate act of policy on the part of the party opposite not to grant them this Christmas. We need not remind them, because they will know for themselves, that the party opposite made promises of
1822
which we heard so much and which they are now clearly failing to carry out.
Mr. Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady has said that she and her friends will consider it their duty to inform the housewives that she and her hon. Friends think these bonuses could be made possible. Would not it be more honest for the hon. Lady and her friends at the same time to make it clear that before the late Government went out of office this country was plunged into a crisis of the greatest magnitude?
Mrs. White: That question is hardly worth replying to, because the promises made by Lord Woolton and many others during the Election were made in the full knowledge of the facts.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. John Henderson: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) is not present in the Chamber, because I want to say how much I enjoyed her speech up to a point. She was extremely entertaining and informative, and she went over a very wide field indeed. I think she was at her best when referring to her domestic affairs. She has a family of which she must rightly be proud. I happen to know them personally and they are a fine family indeed.
As their mother, she was rightly concerned when her sons were attending the University of Glasgow. She began to notice that they were drawn and not looking their best, "under the weather," I think was the term she used. Then she went into poultry keeping; after a short time, as a result of the poached eggs on toast which she was able to give to her family, she saw a remarkable change for the better. That set me thinking of the position of the Labour Government so far as poultry production is concerned.
On the question of Christmas bonuses, I do not think anybody worries about a sweets bonus. The shops are full of sweets. The trouble is the sweets are far too dear for many people to buy them—[interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to proceed with my argument. If he has any pertinent interjection to make I shall gladly give way. I do not think that the public are worried very much about sweets.

1823
It may interest hon. Members to know that so far as shell eggs are concerned, for the 11 months of this year, according to their registration books, the people of this country have been deprived of 26 allocations—26 allocations short compared with what was supplied to them last year. I think we might take a family of four as a fair average; I do not think any hon. Member will differ with me on that. Every family of four persons in Britain has, during the 11 months of this year, received 100 shell eggs fewer as compared with the 11 months of last year.
If the two hon. Ladies opposite who have spoken and the Members of the Labour Government had faced up to this question of eggs alone, and had seen to it that the Ministry had obtained adequate supplies of this most valuable foodstuff, a great public service would have been rendered to the country as a whole. I can give the figures of some of the allocations. In September, there were only four allocations for the four weeks. In October, there were five allocations for the four weeks. In November, there were again only four. Yet, if there is one section of the agricultural industry which has responded to appeals for greater production, it is the poultry industry.
These are facts. The Tory Party, it is true, has made promises, but nothing comparable to the promises made by the Labour Party in 1945. Given time—[Interruption.] It is perfectly amazing to listen to some of the remarks from the other side. This Government has been in power for only four weeks. What do they expect? The former Chancellor of the Exchequer just before the Election told us how the gap in our balance of payments, which had been closing, had suddenly burst open again, so that we cannot balance our exports and imports. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want us to run into debt, or run the country on "tick"?
Mr. Shurmer: We are not grumbling about what you are not giving to us, but about what you are already taking away.
Mr. Henderson: Since I have been in this House, you have been grumbling for 5½ years.
Mr. Snow: On a point of order. I did not hear you grumbling at all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think I have been grumbling, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I have.
Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think you are aware that I would be the last person to apply any such remark to you.
In reply to the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), I would say that all I have been hearing from him during the last few years is "What about the means test?"
Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order. Is it not usual that, when a ham and egg merchant is dealing with these commodities, he should declare his interest?
Mr. Henderson: I am not a ham and egg merchant, and the hon. Member is misinformed.
I think the Minister has touched on the vital spot—the question of stocks and supplies—and I am convinced that, if the Ministry could buy the necessary stocks and see that further supplies are coming forward, he would be the first in this House to grant extra supplies during the Christmas period.
What has happened? My right hon. Friend has been left a legacy of incompetence, mismanagement and blundering, and yet, within four weeks of trying to right the old ship of State, which was almost on the rocks, he is assailed with this suggestion that we are trying to deny the housewives of this country of something to which they are entitled.
I hope that the House will show its good sense by rejecting the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Lady opposite.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. David Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): I remember 12 months ago, and a matter of nine months ago, too, a deputation of the ladies of Liverpool coming to this House about food supplies. The deputation numbered 20. They travelled first-class on the railway and stayed in London hotels, which must have cost them at least a "tenner" a week. That represented £200. I have nothing to say about people coming up to London to make representations, but I would point out to the Tory Party—and there is a big assembly of 19 of them gathered on the benches opposite tonight—
Mrs. Braddock: Twelve.
Mr. Frederic Harris: We make up in quality.
Mr. Logan: I could talk for half an hour on this, but I do not want to because I promised to take only five minutes. I would point out to hon. Members that we have a poverty line in Liverpool, and I would have no fault to find with any deputation coming here which was truly representative of such people to put their case before the Members of this House.
I have received a telegram tonight from 59 families living in Victoria Square, Liverpool. I did not ask for it to be sent. The Tory Party are running true to policy. I remember not long ago a late Prime Minister getting up on the Front Bench opposite and saying that it was not wise to tell the people of this country the truth. His party won an Election on a falsehood. I make the same indictment against this Government. They won the last Election on a false issue because they were afraid to tell the people the truth. But we are now face to face with facts. The present Government told the people that they would do great things, but so far they have shown no ability in that direction, but only duplicity. They have got their position through fraud and have no right to be sitting on the benches opposite.
The people of this country know they
have been fooled by the Tory Party. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary who is a medical man. You must know from all your tuition and knowledge and from the speeches you have made on the radio that the policy being advocated tonight is one which should never have been brought in, and that every medical man would support me in that view. I do not know from whence you derived any knowledge at all.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not a medical man.
Mr. Logan: When I said "medical man," Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was not alluding to you. I was speaking to a responsible Minister from whom I want to know whether he thinks this is the right policy to pursue today. I suggest that every medical man in the country would agree that the people ought to receive these small benefits at Christmas time.
1826
Our party ought to have an illuminated address made for my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). Her words should be repeated from every public platform. She showed an example to all of us on these benches. I want to say to the poor people of Victoria Square, Liverpool, that their case has been well handled by an hon. Lady competent and clever enough to express it. The Government's Policy is wrong, and if there were another Election tomorrow they would be defeated.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: Like all hon. Members on occasions when they have a direct interest in the subject with which they are dealing, I must at once declare my interest in this matter. I have been in the business of buying and selling food for some 40 years. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) showed an admirable knowledge of human nature in her electioneering speech, which has been followed by many electioneering speeches from hon. Members opposite. But I do not feel that she showed a very great knowledge of the procurement of food. In fact she showed great ignorance of the grim economic facts which have obliged this Government to take the steps they have taken.
I want to deal with two points—one raised by the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie and the other by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie suggested that as part of Conservative policy, declared in our Manifesto, it would be our intention to pursue the procurement of food by free enterprise instead of by bulk purchase. She suggested that the first result of our efforts in that direction had led us into the position of not being able to give the bonuses this Christmas.
I want to draw her attention to one simple fact. I think she mentioned the matter—if not it was the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. It was said that the supply of cooked hams had been part of the meat ration. Hon. Members should note that this was a reference to cooked ham at 10s. a pound. It was

1827
suggested that accordingly ration was now reduced.
The point to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and other hon. Members is that during the period when cooked hams and other things of that kind were the subject of open licences a great quantity of cooked hams were obtained for the people of this country. The public were very glad to have them, and it was under a system of private enterprise that they were bought and brought from abroad to this country.
The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie suggested that the producers in those countries were not coming to this country as readily as they should do. But they came with these hams when free enterprise was in a position to be able to procure them. I think I am right in saying that during the effective period upon which import restrictions are to be based, no less than £26 million worth of cooked hams were brought into this country.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, suggested his Government had provided for certain rationing to continue, with certain bonuses in prospect. If he made provision for the entry into this country of the necessary foodstuffs, what provision did he or his Government make to pay for them? That, of course, is the complete answer to any charge that may be laid at our door that we are not giving the people all the food that this country can really pay for.
So I ask him that question. It may be perfectly true that they had made such arrangements as were necessary to maintain the rations at the existing level, but they had indeed put the country into the position of not being able to pay for those rations or for anything in excess of those rations when they left the government to our hands.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Charles Royle: I am sure the whole House will sympathise with the three hon. Members on the Tory back benches who have had to join their right hon. Friend tonight in the apologia that we have heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) opened this debate with a devastating attack
1828
which so far has not been answered. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is to wind up this debate, of the main question that she put to his right hon. Friend and which, in fact, was not answered, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman before he concludes tonight will be able to give an answer to that question. Why do the proposed cuts, because of the world economic situation, have to fall solely or in the main on food when many other things could have been tackled with a great deal more profit?
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty tonight; I sympathise with him greatly. During the last few years he has not been in the same position as Lord Woolton and the Parliamentary Secretary in so far as he has not taken the opportunities that they have taken to go round the country slanging the Labour Government for faults which they now find were not faults at all. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, the National-Liberal Tory-Unionist Member for Luton, when he comes to wind up this debate tonight, will be as successful in answering the points that have been made from this side of the House as he is in passing over the radio personal insults when there is no one on the other side of the table to answer him. I suggest that he should be very careful because he might be speaking in front of the children.
I think it is not unfitting that one Member of this House—and in this case from this side—who has been engaged all his life in the retail food trade should join with hon. Friends in the Motion which is before the House. I think I can claim that I have had a long shop experience. I am not declaring my interest in this matter—I no longer have a personal interest—but I think I can claim that I have behind me a vast experience in that regard, and it was my lot during the war to serve the Ministry of Food in the capacity of meat agent.
Up to the moment when I came into the House in 1945, I took my part in serving the meat ration over the counter to the housewives in the district in which I worked and lived. Because of my experience, I appeal to the Government Front Bench to remember the housewife's point of view, as I saw it, particularly at Christmas time.

1829
I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that at Christmas time there are two week-ends in seven days. The housewife's big problem in these days, as in all other days, is to provide the food at the week-ends. I noticed from Gallup polls recently that one-half of our population feed in canteens and cafés during the week. They will not be eating in those canteens and cafés at Christmas time, and the housewife and the mother will have the difficulty of providing rationed food for two week-ends for her family. That is the point we must bear in mind.
My shop experience taught me that at Christmas time, particularly since the introduction of controls and the problem of shortages, the housewife is up against it because she has to provide the weekend food and yet, by the Tuesday, as it will be this year, she is faced with the problem of finding food for the Christmas festivities. This year, in effect, the housewife will have her family at home from Friday night until the following Thursday morning. She has a great problem.
Mr. Peter Remnant Mr. Peter Remnant (Wokingham) rose—
Mr. Royle: I am afraid I cannot give way. The debate is running very late. I say with respect that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite come in the main from the higher income groups. They can afford to eat out at Christmas time. I have the honour to represent the working class constituency of Salford, West. I have referred to it before in this House as the constituency about which Walter Greenwood wrote when he wrote "Love on the Dole." Anyone who remembers that story and that play can imagine the district I have in mind. Can those people go into restaurants like those of the West End of London and buy expensive foods in the way so many people will be able to buy them this Christmas?
Mr. Remnant: Rubbish.
Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman says it is rubbish. I am getting right under his skin. He knows that what I am saying is absolutely true. I make my statement based on the experience of the people I represent. I suggest that if the party opposite and the Government have a slogan, then we think that the slogan they have adopted is "Christmas cheer
1830
and joy through income." That will be the test this Christmas time.
I have been a meat trader, and my mind runs on those lines when I am taking part in a debate of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in the Labour Government, has told us tonight something about the meat situation.
Out of my knowledge of the industry I am saying very determinedly that the Government could afford to give a meat bonus this time. What is the alternative to meat? One hon. Gentleman opposite talked about poultry, and the right hon. Gentleman said he hoped there would be quite adequate supplies of poultry. What is this poultry we are talking about? There is no price control. We are to have no Continental supplies, except a very small amount from France.
Look at the important point. I opened the trade paper this morning and saw the Smithfield quotations this very day for wholesale prices of poultry. The best chickens are quoted today at 5s. 4d. 1b. wholesale; ducklings are at 4s. 4d. 1b.; turkeys are at 6s. 3d. 1b. wholesale. Even then we are faced with a crazy marketing system which I know from my experience.
Mr. F. Harris: What were the prices last year?
Mr. Royle: Last year they went up to frightful prices. I am very glad at that interruption. This is late November, and I make bold to say that within 14 days of Christmas those prices will be as they were last year.
Mr. Remnant: What were they towards Christmas Day?
Mr. Royle: I know that market, and I have had to go year after year amongst the wholesalers busy with the Christmas trade, and they did not know how much to ask for their poultry. Experience in the retail trade during those three hectic weeks before Christmas is a miserable experience, and it has to be gone through year after year.
I wanted to say a lot more, but I was not successful in catching your eye, Sir, earlier, and I think that at this stage of the debate it is only fair that I should allow my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary full time to make their winding up speeches. So I shall end

1831
by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie told us what the bonuses were in earlier years and tried to compare them with the present spirit being displayed. I want to quote the Tory Election Manifesto at the last Election and remind the House of what it said:
"Our housewives have gone on bravely trying to feed their families on two ounces of this and ten pennyworth of that."
I suggest that that is exactly how the Tory mind works. They do not appreciate what that 10d. means to the housewives of this country in the industrial areas. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if it turned out that the stocks were as low as the Government are suggesting it would be very well worth while, over a month in the springtime, to make up what he now could give to the women in the form of Christmas bonuses.
Scrooge has been referred to tonight and during the last few days. I would remind hon. Members that in that great book of Charles Dickens that man had an awful dream, but, as the morning broke, he found it was Christmas morning and that his dream had been only a dream. He threw up his window and a boy was out in the street, and he ordered him to bring that one turkey that was left.
At this late stage, only a few weeks before Christmas, and at the end of this debate, the Government have the opportunity to change their minds, and, in spite of the things that have been said across the Table—for that sort of thing always happens in such a debate as this—I appeal to them to accept this Motion, re-examine their figures and their stocks, and try to make this Christmas as cheerful as possible for the people of this country.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Webb: I think that the simple question that the House must face in this debate is. Was this decision really necessary? Was it really something that we had to do at this time in the light of our stocks? After my experience in the Ministry of Food, I should be the last person to want to make improvident use of our resources. I know that they are limited, and that there are no resources that we can just throw around without care and concern. I must say, however, that I think it is
1832
a pity hon. Members opposite did not realise the inherent gravity of our food situation before they aroused expectations of some lavish increase during the Election.
May I say at once, bearing in mind all the shortages, that, despite these shortages, I believe, and I shall try to prove, that this decision was not necessary. I shall try to show that we can safely afford and should afford and can provide within our stocks, this essential extra home supply of food at the Christmas season. It is an extraordinary decision which the Government have taken in this matter. It is both callous and stupid. It is not only mean, but, even on the most cynical assumption of possible political advantage which they may have calculated, it really is a childish error of judgment.
I wonder who is responsible for it. In these days of super-Ministers it is very difficult to know to whom to attribute the blame and the responsibility. I do not know. It may be that the Minister is trying, as any Minister of Food ought to try, to safeguard the rights to the supplies of food of the consumers of this country. That may be so; I do not know. We can only hold responsible the Minister in the House of Commons. To judge the situation, as we must, we must judge it against some sort of accurate idea of our stock position. Since this Government came into office, every effort has been made to alarm the public and create the impression that our food stocks are non-existent.
The right hon. Gentleman said, in a previous debate on food supplies, that our foodstocks were worse than in 1941. His overlord, if I may use that phrase, repeated the same thesis in another place. He said that he was shocked to find that we were not carrying the stocks we had in 1941, and the same story has been told in Conservative newspapers, and in very many letters from back bench Conservative M.Ps.. There was never a more grotesque distortion of the situation.
Of course, the carry-on stocks these days are less than in 1941. Only a Government of half-wits would carry in peace-time the carry-on stocks that are carried in war-time. Nobody in his senses would at this time try to carry perishable stocks that he would try to carry under siege conditions. As a matter of fact,

1833
1941 was the peak year for the supply of foodstuffs of all kinds. We decided for quite good reasons—I do not complain about them—that we would kill off a large part of our herds in order to grow cereals. Therefore, we had a very large meat supply. There was a consequent saving of animal feedingstuffs. We built up the stocks of those kinds of foods that we could store in those circumstances.
In 1941 under siege conditions we undoubtedly had large reserves of stocks of food. But, no one in his senses would dream in peace-time of carrying stocks of that order. The real test is not with 1941 at all. The real test is a very simple one. Do the stocks of our basic food supplies in this country provide the coverage which normal commercial prudence would regard as adequate? We must apply that test to our food stocks now.
I say at once that with one or two exceptions, due not so much to lack of currency but to inescapable world shortage, the stocks in the pipe-line, the reserve stocks of this country and the main articles of our diet are now and have been broadly upon the level which we should regard as safe and adequate in peace-time. It is true we should like more. All countries would like to have more stocks at their disposal, but it is grossly misleading the public and abusing their anxiety about our food supplies to make what I think is the erroneous and false comparison between now and 1941.
My difficulty is that I am not free to state facts which, for quite proper reasons, I cannot reveal. I say this—and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food who is going to follow me can refute my claims if they are wrong that in the case of some two-thirds of our basic rations the existing stocks for commercial use—that is supplies to the trade as distinct from our stock piles to which I will come in a moment—provide an average coverage of at least 12 weeks' or three months' supply. That in peacetime was regarded by the advisers I had as quite normal.
I want to make it quite clear that, taking the broad figures of our stocks, when I left office they were quite adequate for the purposes we are considering here tonight. In addition to that the Minister knows that in the case of at least two or three of these basic commodities, what we might call storable commodities, he is
1834
now holding strategic stockpiles which are abreast if not ahead of the buying programme worked out after Korea. None of us can feel easy with the food situation as it really is, but it is an abuse of public anxiety to create these alarmist pictures that our larder is denuded and empty. Apart from anything else, these suggestions are a grave reflection on the very skilful public servants who have worked in the Ministry of Food in the last 10 years to build up our supplies.
What I have referred to covers about two-thirds of the main foods and basic rations of this country, the things that go into the basic food stocks. In the case of the remainder of our basic foods, stocks are not high, for quite clear reasons. They are not high in the case of bacon and cheese because we do not normally stock bacon and cheese. They are things that you can stock, but you do not normally in peace-time try to stock them for a long time. Perhaps there is a seasonal shortage on top of the continuing shortage of foods in this country at the present time. Even here, in the case of this other third, something should have been done.
Let us take meat, which is in this category. Despite our acute meat position, some small extra supply of meat at Christmas should have been possible. When I settled, when I was Minister of Food, a long-term programme for winter and spring, I planned in detail the terms of the weekly ration, running down from the seasonal peak supplies, when the home-killed meat is at its peak, as it is in September and early October.
We agreed in the Ministry of Food, with the most expert advisers, who are quite objective people, on a basis of rundown which would provide a reasonable quantity, on a ration throughout the winter of Is. 5d., and a Christmas bonus. The details of that programme are on the record. It was agreed by the most responsible persons there that by running down as we did from the peak home kill we would have enough in hand to maintain the Is. 5d. ration right through until early summer, and to permit a small Christmas extra ration. I agreed to the programme on that understanding.
What has happened to that meat? Where has it gone? Where is it? It was there then. It cannot be said that supplies are not catching up, because

1835
Argentina is abreast of the programme on which we made that calculation. The right hon. Gentleman has had information from his Dominion sources of supply that they are pepared to come in and help us. There can be no complaint that supplies are less than they were then. They are, in fact, greater than those calculated supplies on which we programmed for the winter and spring and provided for a Christmas bonus of meat. I want to know what has happened. Where has it gone to?
Meat is only one of the extra supplies of food which people want at Christmas. The whole point about these extras is that they try to provide the answer to the special feeding problems of our country at that time, as has been well said by other speakers.
These extras at Christmas time are not some sort of bonus dished out by a rather kindly Government. They are simply a recognition of the difficult circumstances of that particular period. Factory canteens are closed, offices are closed, there are more family parties and cooking, and there is a diversion of our food supplies from other places to the homes. The whole of this was arranged on that assumption. These extras were not just a contribution to some sort of seasonal pleasure. They were always regarded as essential to the proper use of our food at this special holiday time. Yet this year of all years, this Government, of all Governments, which promised to waft us all so quickly into a world of plenty, has placed this grievous extra burden on the housewife.
Let us come back to the actual facts. I can perhaps put it most clearly before the House by stating, quite frankly, what I should have done in the light of the supplies
which I know we have got. There should be the extra meat which I have mentioned. There ought to be, and could be, 1 1b. of sugar. There ought to be, and could be, at least 1 1b. of sweets. There could be a small allowance of cooking fats. I should have thought that an extra 2 oz. for each person would have been well within the stock figures on which the right hon. Gentleman is now sitting. For the old people at least, there should have been 4 oz. of tea at Christmas time.
I do not put forward these propositions recklessly. If we could not afford this,
1836
I should be the first person to say that it cannot be done. I did that from the Government side of the House, and was ridiculed by hon. Members who were then on the Opposition side. These are very modest demands indeed, and they are demands which I insist are completely within our available supplies at this time, and the Government ought to make them available to the people who ought to enjoy them.
I will now sum them up. I want to make quite clear what I am putting forward. If there is any answer to it, no doubt we shall have it. The meat ration for at least one week—the Christmas week—and possibly for two weeks, should have been of the order of Is. 7d. or ls. 8d. There should have been a special Christmas bonus of 1 1b. of sugar. There should have been, and could easily be—quite easily be—1 1b. of sweets for the children. There could have been 2 oz. of fats. There could have been 4 oz. of tea for the old people.
That is what I say. I am in the difficulty that I am not free to reveal the facts. The House and the country must make up their minds, but I say, with a very strong sense of responsibility, that the food supplies of this country at this time permit these very modest—very modest indeed—claims that we make. Why has this lamentable decision been taken? I do not know; it does not make sense to me. It may be for reasons of political calculation, but, if that is so, this is the first time any Government of this country has played political jiggery-pokery with the food of this country.
Mr. Nabarro: We have had it for the last seven years.
Mr. Webb: We announced a reduction in the meat ration the Sunday before polling day. That is not playing jiggery-pokery with our food supplies. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot escape their fundamental problems of food in this way. They can only solve them by accepting our idea of building them up through the kind of undertakings we have given to our Dominions to add to our food supplies. What the Government are trying to do in a position which is completely indefensible, is to try to create the impression that somehow it is all due to some neglect on our part. If that is their purpose, we are quite happy to allow them to live in that world of illusion.

1837
What I say is simply this: This is a lamentable decision. We must now give some spur and fillip to our people. If we are going to face our economic problems, pay our bills and find a way out, we must give them some inducement. We shall never do that merely by driving them along, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think, by depriving them of what they are entitled to. We do not take that view. This decision was not needed. There is no case for it. It is a contemptible thing to have done. If it cannot now be altered, at least let us on this side of the House vote against it in the Lobby.
9.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): In the relatively short time that is available to me—I make no complaint about that—I think that the House would wish me, in replying to what has been said, to concentrate on what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) and at an earlier stage by his former Parliamentary Secretary, the hon., Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey).
The right hon. Gentleman posed the issue when he said, in an opening sentence: "Was it really necessary?" It has been put in other ways, as it was by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), when she accused the Government of hypocrisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] In fact, she suggested that the Government willingly and deliberately took a step which it knows to be unpopular. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I propose to deal with that general allegation, bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North listed the various items in what would have been his own series of bonuses and bearing in mind that the right hon. Member has made specific reference to certain commodities. I propose to deal in turn with the commodities which the right hon. Member has cited.
I begin with meat. There was, of course, no meat bonus last year. There have been, I think, four since the outbreak of war. The right hon. Member said that a meat bonus is possible this year and that it is, to use his delicate expression. "jiggery-pokery" to deny it to the people. First of all, let it be plain that the stocks of meat are higher
1838
than they were a year ago—that is admitted. After all, a year ago the right hon. Member, for other motives—
Mr. E. Fernyhough: He did it then.
Dr. Hill:—which I do not necessarily criticise. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the children?"] The right hon. Gentleman made his speech without interruption and I hope that the House will bear in mind the short time I have in which to speak.
Last year, the stock of meat in the country at this time was dangerously low. It is now high by comparison because we are comparing the dangerously low with the barely sufficient.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. F. Wiley Mr. F. Wiley rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Dr. Hill: I do not want to appear discourteous—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The time is very short before the debate comes to an end. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a patient hearing.
Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has wisely allowed himself a short time to reply. I was dealing earlier—
Dr. Hill: As the hon. Member suggested I had wisely left myself a short time in which to reply, whereas the right hon. Member knows I had no control over that and have deplored the shortness of time. I think I should proceed with my speech.
During the last year the meat ration rose to an unprecedented high level and the first point I would make, particularly as jiggery-pokery has been referred to, is that at a certain phase of the last year, short, but nevertheless there, the meat ration was raised above the level that in fact the meat position justified and was met only at the expense of imported meat which should have gone into store.
Mr. Webb: This, Mr. Speaker, is a most grave reflection on the Ministry of Food, on the people with whom the hon. Gentleman is now working. We must have this quite clear. The meat ration as fixed throughout that period was done on the advice of the responsible advisers. These are very serious things to say and I would beg the hon. Gentleman to con-

1839
sult the records in the Ministry of Food to see how far I in fact carried out the advice of the advisers.
Dr. Hill: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a pity if in fact an attempt were made to bring into this field of ultimate responsibility the Minister's advisers in this matter.
The position now is, as the right hon. Gentleman himself announced, that it is only on the basis of certain assumptions, including the shipments from South America, that there is a prospect of maintaining the ration of 1s. 5d. He is not accurate in saying that these shipments are abreast of the target, or of the plan, for they are not. He is not correct in saying that in the calculation as to the possibilities of 1s. 5d. an allocation was made for a Christmas bonus. So, if the position is as he stated, that it is only with reasonably good fortune in relation to factors over which we have no control that the ration can be sustained in the months ahead at 1s. 5d., it would have been imprudent, unfair and senseless so to weaken the position—[Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman has said that a sugar bonus was possible.
Mr. Shurmer: Be sweet over it.
Dr. Hill: Yes, I will do my best. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in July last, because of the factors of Queensland and home production to which reference has been made, he was anxious about the sugar position; which led him to make a cut to manufacturers and caterers to the extent of 75,000 tons a year. He knows, further, that the position in relation to sugar is worsened as a result of the balance of payments position.
He knows that it has been necessary to make a substantial cut in sugar materials and he knows that in fact the dollar situation prevents us from obtaining more sugar. In other words, he was uncertain about the prospect of maintaining the ration as the position was in July last before the balance of payments assumed its worse proportions. He was uncertain then—the position has deteriorated—and he now tells the House that a sugar bonus at Christmas time is possible.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, referred to butter and cheese. Incidentally, there has never been a
1840
cheese bonus and there has not been a butter bonus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said so."]—but I am saying so. He knows that such is the supply position throughout the world—[Interruption]—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Dr. Hill:—that there is no immediate prospect of a change in the situation. Knowing that, he tells the House that it would have been appropriate to have given bonuses in butter and in cheese.
A further line which has been taken in this Debate is that, as the balance of payments position has fallen on food, it has been asserted by some that it has fallen improperly on food, and should have fallen in other places. The right hon. Member
for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), referred to this in a recent debate. In a speech full of charm and inaccuracy she asserted that the imports of tobacco in this country amounted to £126 million a year—approximately twice the real figure. The value of imports of dollar and non-dollar tobacco into this country is about £65 million in value, in respect of which the Chancellor receives rather more than £600 million.
I repeat that in respect of imports of tobacco to the value of £65 million the Chancellor receives over £600 million. And so, had there been a cut in tobacco, to take that as an example, of some 10 per cent., there would have been a contribution to the Balance of Payments problem of £6½ million. There would have been a fall in the revenue of the Chancellor by £60 million—and I doubt whether that would be regarded as a contribution to Christmas cheer anyway.
I want to come to the Election pledges. On 3rd October the former Chancellor uttered his warning in a Mansion House speech dealing with the position as it then was. He told the world the facts as they were at that time—
Mr. Ross: Not in front of the children!
Dr. Hill: That is appropriate, for the Socialist Party deliberately refrained from any mention of the balance of payments problem in its Manifesto. If the Prime Minister made some short reference in his broadcast, the "Daily Herald" in its report of that broadcast was very careful to omit those words.
I suggest that, perhaps, there is one reason amongst others why, in fact, this

1841
position of the great and growing gravity in the balance of payments field was concealed from the country. It is that the party opposite was much too busy trying to delude the people into believing that they were the angels of peace—[Interruption.]
May I come, then, to the desire of the House for red meat? The hon. Lady who opened the debate quoted the actual words:
"I believe that one of the things we could do to make us feel like working a lot harder would be to give us some red meat to eat."
Anything wrong with that as a
principle? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: This debate is really becoming much too noisy. It is impossible for the Chair to hear the words addressed to it. I hope the House will allow the hon. Gentleman to conclude.
Dr. Hill: I may summarise the position in this way. Our stock position, our prospective supply position and our economic position, in the aggregate, make Christmas bonuses impossible without imperilling the ration. The immediate stock and supply position and the financial position we inherited from the party opposite. Now, they find it difficult to conceal their glee that the responsibility for clearing up the mess has fallen to my right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his contribution, for, speaking of Christmas bonuses, he said:
"It is a mean action, taken not for reasons of real necessity, hut as a matter of miserable political tactics."
I suggest to the House that, in fact, the party which is responsible for the stocks. position as we found it, the party that is responsible for the supply position as we found it, is the party which, by its actions and failures, makes the withdrawal of Christmas bonuses inevitable, and that those tactics we have witnessed tonight come within the category of miserable party tactics.
Question put,
That this House deplores the decision of the Government not to issue any additional food rations at Christmas.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mrs. Braddock(seated and covered): On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Member of the party opposite to punch me on the other side of the Bar when I was on my way to the Division Lobby? May I have your Ruling on that matter?
Mr. Speaker: It is certainly completely out of order for any hon. Member to punch another.
Mrs. Braddock: The Member concerned is the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate).
Mr. Speaker: I will inquire into this after the Division.
The House divided: Ayes, 264 Noes, 301.

Division No. 23.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Bowden, H. W.

Daines, P.

Adams, Richard

Bowles, F. G.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

Albu, A. H.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Brockway, A. F.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Deer, G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Delargy, H. J.

Awbery, S. S.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney. S.)

Dodds, N. N.

Ayles, W. H.

Callaghan, L. J.

Donnelly, D. L.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Carmichael, J.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Baird, J

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Champion, A. J

Edelman, M.

Bartley, P.

Chapman, W. D.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Chetwynd, G. R.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Bence, C. R.

Clunie, J

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Benn, Wedgewood

Cooks, F. S.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Benson, G.

Coldrick, W.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Beswick, F.

Collick, P. H

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

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

Cook, T. F.

Ewart, R.

Bing, G. H. C.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Fernyhough, E.

Blackburn, F.

Cove, W. G.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Blenkinsop, A

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fienburgh, W.

Blyton, W. R

Crosland, C. A. R.

Finch, H. J.

Boardman, H

Crossman, R. H. S

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Bottomley, A. G

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Follick, M.

Foot, M. M.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Short, E. W.

Forman, J. C.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Slater, J.

Gibson, C. W.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Glanville, James

Manuel, A. C.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Snow, J. W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mayhew, C. P.

Sorensen, R. W.

Grey, C. F.

Messer, F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Sparks, J. A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Milner, Maj. Rt. Hon. J

Steele, T.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mitchison, G. R.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Monslow, W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Hall, John (Gateshead, W)

Moody, A. S.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Hamilton, W. W.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Hannan, W.

Morley, R.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Hardy, E. A.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Swingler, S. T.

Hargreaves, A.

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

Sylvester, G. O.

Hastings, S.

Mort, D. L.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Hayman, F. H.

Moyle, A.

Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

Mulley, F. W.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Herbison, Miss M.

Murray, J. D.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hobson, C. R.

Nally, W.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Houghton, Douglas

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Hubbard, T. F.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

Thurtle, Ernest

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

O'Brien, T.

Timmons, J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oldfield, W. H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oliver, G. H.

Tomney, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

Orbach, M.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Oswald, T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Padley, W. E.

Usborne, H. C.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge HIM)

Paget, R. T.

Viant, S. P.

Irving, W J. (Wood Green)

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

Wallace, H. W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Watkins, T. E.

Janner, B.

Pargiter, G. A.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford. G.)

Jay, D. P. T.

Parker, J.

Weitzman, D.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paton, J.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Jeger, Dr Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

Peart, T. F.

West, D. G.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Popplewell, E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Porter, G.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)

Wigg, G. E. C.

Janes, T. W. (Merioneth)

Proctor, W. T.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Kenyan, G.

Pryde, D. J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Kay, Rt Hon C W

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)

King, Dr. H. M.

Rankin, John

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Kinley, J.

Reeves, J.

Williams, David (Neath)

Lea, Frederick (Newton)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Leo. Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Held, William (Camlachie)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Rhodes, H.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Richards, R.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Lewis, Arthur

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Logan, D. G.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

MacColl, J. E.

Ross, William

Wyatt, W. L.

McGhee, H. G

Royle, C.

Yates, V. F.

McGovern, J.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

McInnes, J

Shackleton, E. A. A.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McLeavy, F.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Bullard, D. G.

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

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Alport, C. J. M.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Amery, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Burden, F. F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

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

Arbuthnot, John

Birch, Nigel

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Bishop, F. P.

Carson, Hon. E.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Black, C. W.

Cary, Sir R.

Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bossom, A. C

Channon, H.

Astor, Hon. W W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

Bowen, E. R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S.

Baker, P. A. D.

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

Boyle, Sir Edward

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Braine, B. R.

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Banks, Col. G.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G.(Bristol, N.W.)

Cole, N. J.

Barber, A. P. L.

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

Colegate, W. A.

Barlow, Sir John

Brooke, Henry (Hempstead)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Baxter, A. B.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Cooper, San. Ldr Albert

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Ball, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

1844

1845

Cranborne, Viscount

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Raikes, H. V.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M

Rayner, Brig. R.

Crouch, R. F.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Redmayne, M.

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Jennings, R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Robertson, Sir David (Caith)

Davidson, Viscountess

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Robson-Brown, W.

De la Bère, R.

Kaberry, D.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Deedes, W. F.

Keeling, F. H.

Roper, Sir Harold

Digby, S. Wingfield

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Ropner, Col. L.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Russell, R. S.

Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA

Lambton, Viscount

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Donner, P. W.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Doughty, C. J. A,

Leather, E. H. C.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Drayson, G. B.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Drewe, C.

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

Scott, R. Donald

Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lindsay, Martin

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Linstead, H. N

Shepherd, William.

Duthie, W. S.

Llewellyn, D. T.

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

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Erroll, F. J.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Fell, A.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Finlay, G. B.

Low, A. R. W.

Snadden, W. McN.

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Soames, Capt. C.

Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Speir, R. M.

Fort, R.

McAdden, S. J.

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

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

McCallum, Major D.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Gage, C. H.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Stevens, G. P.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

McKibbin, A. J.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Gammans, L. D.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Storey, S.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Godber, J. B.

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

Studholme, H. G.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Summers, G. S.

Gough, C. F. H.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Sutcliffe, H.

Gower, H. R.

Markham, Major S. F.

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Gridley Sir Arnold

Marples, A. E.

Teeling, W.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Maude, Angus

Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Maudling, R.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)

Medlicott, Brig F.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Mellor, Sir John

Tilney, John

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Touche, G. C.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Turner, H. F. L.

Hay, John

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Turton, R. H.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Vane, W. M. F.

Heald, Sir Lionel

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Heath, Edward

Nicholls, Harmar

Vosper, D. F.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nicholson, G.

Wade, D. W.

Hicks-Beech, Maj. W. W.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nutting, Anthony

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Oakshott, H. D.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Odey, G. W.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N)

Watkinson, H. A.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Ormsby-Gore. Hon. W. D.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Holt, A. F.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wellwood, W.

Hope, Lord John

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Hopkinson, Henry

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Partridge, E.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Horobin, I. M.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Perkins, W. R. D.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Peto, Brig. C H. M

Wills, G.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Peyton, J. W W

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Wood, Hon. R

Hudson, Rt Hon. Robert (Southport)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A

York. C.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Pitman, I. J.

Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.

Powell, J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kurd, A. R.

Price Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Brigadier Mackeson and

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Mr. Butcher.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Profumo, J. D.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) wish to renew her complaint?
Mrs. Braddock: I do, Mr. Speaker. I was proceeding into the Division Lobby, and from behind me I heard some rather angry words. I was outside the Bar of the House. I turned round to see what was happening and found the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) having an argument with another Member of the House. I made some comment to the other Member of the House and immediately I was pushed on the left shoulder—
An Hon. Member: Dirty dog! [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I beg the House to remain silent for the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Braddock: I was pushed very hard on the left shoulder and I commented about it. I do not know what happened afterwards, but I want to say that had that happened to me outside this House the hon. Gentleman would not have been on his feet for two seconds.
Mr. Arthur Colegate: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Lady has begged her own case because she said that she did not see who pushed her on the left shoulder.
Mrs. Braddock: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Colegate: Apparently she thought that I pushed her on the left shoulder. So far from being true, the facts of the case are these. As I was going out I said to the hon. Member for the Spark-brook division of Birmingham (Mr. Shurmer) that I thought it was a pity that our man—I am quoting the words I used—was not allowed to speak with as much order as we listened to the ex-Minister of Food.
I think it was not an unnatural remark to make in the circumstances. Where-upon, the hon. Member squared up and was joined in an obviously belligerent attitude by the hon. Lady representing the Exchange division of Liverpool. But before anything else could happen. a Member of the party opposite, whom I cannot identify, quietly intervened and advised the people discussing the matter to go quietly to the Division Lobby. I immediately walked into the Division
1848
Lobby, but, as I went in, I looked back and saw what appeared to be an angry group of people discussing things, still in a somewhat excited manner. I will not repeat what has been said by former hon. Members of the House, but we all have a great regard for the pungent comments of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange division, and I can assure her that she was totally and entirely mistaken.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: On proceeding out to the Division the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) came alongside me, Sir. There was not much room because all Members were crowding out. In a threatening attitude—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) has been mentioned in connection with this affair and he ought to be allowed to speak.
Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Member for Burton said, in a threatening attitude, "If your people start barracking our people we will barrack you." His attitude was definitely threatening. I immediately pushed him away from me—and that is the actual incident. Nothing would have been said had not the hon. Gentleman come forward in a threatening attitude and told us what they would do to some of us.
Mr. Maurice Orbach: As the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) referred in friendly tones to my intervention in the early part of the fracas. I regret that he was not good enough to tell the House that in withdrawing from contact with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] A moment later, when he realised what he had done, the hon. Gentleman said, "Anyway, I did not intend to." [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with this matter seriously, but hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to think that there is a double meaning to the words I am uttering. I think that if the hon. Member was good enough to make some sort of apology beyond the Bar to my hon. Friend, he should make an apology to this House.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened to this strange story with great interest. As Speaker, if an assault is seriously complained of, it is my duty to suggest that

1849
the matter be inquired into by the appropriate Committee, but if I may speak for a moment as an old Member of the House, and as the best of temper has hitherto been shown over this incident, I would advise all parties to put it out of their minds and to forgive and forget.
Mrs. Braddock: I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's apology. The statement I made to you, Mr. Speaker, was perfectly true. I know nothing of what happened before. I accept the apology even though the hon. Gentleman has not yet made it.
Mr. Colegate: If I may venture to say so, Mr. Speaker, you diagnosed the situation very correctly. If any words of mine will help to smooth this over and to maintain the friendly relations that ought to obtain in spite of our party differences I shall be very pleased to offer them.
Postponed proceedings resumed.

HOME GUARD BILL
As amended, considered.
HOME GUARD BILL

  Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND STATUS OF HOME GUARD.)
  10.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
  "or
  (c) to carry out duties in connection with an industrial dispute."
  I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members that we should also consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor)—in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
  (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no member of the Home Guard shall be required to perform, as a member of the Home Guard, any duty in any industrial dispute.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that may be a convenient course, if the House agrees that is to say, to have a discussion which embraces those two Amendments. If these two are discussed together I shall not, of course, allow separate discussion upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles, but I should, if he desired it, allow a Division upon it.
  Perhaps it will be convenient if, at the same time, I state that I do not pro
  1850
  pose to call the manuscript Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) or that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman). I think the discussion which I have outlined may embrace the points made in both these manuscript Amendments.
  Mr. Head: The Amendment which I am moving is consequential on the Amendment originally moved by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). The only change is in the drafting. When the right hon. Gentleman put down his Amendment, I undertook to see if I could find a form of words which would be satisfactory. I hope that he will agree with me that the words proposed in my Amendment have an almost identical meaning, but are more satisfactory in relation to the Bill.
  The Amendment is not quite so simple as the few preliminary remarks I have made, because, in fact, the Amendment originally tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, although almost identical to my own, is very different in effect from the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). I think, therefore, that it is only right that I should go into the differences between the two Amendments and make some attempt to explain the reasons why I am fully prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman and why I cannot accept the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eccles.
  The difference is this: The Amendment tabled by the right hon. Gentleman was put down to ensure that in time of peace, that is to say, before the Home Guard is mustered, there should be no question of the Home Guard in time of peace taking part in any way in carrying out duties in connection with an industrial dispute. That has been met, and, indeed, the Amendment makes it quite clear. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles goes very much further, in that it provides that the Home Guard should not take part or carry out duties in an industrial dispute, not only in time of peace, but also in time of war.
  I am well aware of the anxiety, especially among hon. Members opposite, concerning the Home Guard taking part in an industrial dispute under any circumstances whatever. I am quite certain that many of them would with reluctance allow a Bill to go through Parliament which even allowed the Home Guard to

  1851
  take any part in an industrial dispute even in war. I shall attempt to make clear to the House why I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles.
  It will be appreciated that one of the major reasons for the Measure now before the House is that the Home Guard should have the task, among others, of guarding vulnerable points, and that precautions will be taken in order to secure that certain factories and other installations essential to war-time production—and I am now talking only about war—shall be secured against any possibility of sabotage or other forms of injury or destruction
  10.30 p.m.
  What I want to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite is that if I accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles I do not believe that it is at all unfair to suggest that we can visualise circumstances in time of war where—taking an imaginary industrial town—we might have considerable industrial disturbances. In those circumstances, there might be riots and so forth. I know I am taking a dismal view, but we had better face the fact that it is possible. In those circumstances we cannot really exclude the possibility that in those riots a particularly dissident and violent element, possibly inspired by Communist leaders or elements, might incite certain measures which might damage or affect installations such as a factory guarded by the Home Guard.
  I hope hon. Gentlemen will excuse me from the charge of making a far-fetched point. They will appreciate that the dividing line between industrial disputes and civil disturbances is very difficult to define. It is very difficult to say where one starts and the other ends, and if we have a Home Guard with a liability in war-time to guard vulnerable points I suggest that if we were to include the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles it would be more than doubtful whether that particular guard on a vulnerable point would be justified, in the event of unrest in a city, in resisting certain steps taken by rioters, or in a civil disturbance, which might result in the damage of that factory.
  I have been very well aware throughout all stages of the Bill of the anxiety of the Opposition that the Home Guard should not, in any way, be a strike breaking
  1852
  organisation. I think the words we propose to put into the Bill make that impossible in peace-time, but I ask hon. Gentlemen to consider very closely the effect—when we are at war and the Home Guard has this liability of guarding the vulnerable points—of putting words in the Bill which might invalidate that point which we consider to be an extremely important one as far as the Home Guard is concerned.
  I do not wish to make any Committee or cheap points on this subject, but I would inform hon. Members that we have followed absolutely the Amendment put forward from the Opposition Front Bench. I am not trying to score a point, but the right hon. Member for Easing-ton did agree, and did recognise, that in time of war the Home Guard might have to play a part in civil disturbances.
  Mr. E. Shinwell Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington) indicated assent.
  Mr. Head: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nods his head. To try and define the dividing line between industrial disputes and civil disturbances is extremely difficult. In putting forward this Amendment, what I have attempted to do is to give assurances that the Home Guard will on no account take part in industrial disputes in peace, and in war they will be scattered and confined to the duty of guarding vulnerable points. But if I were to include the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eccles, I might well invalidate one of the main purposes for which the Home Guard is being formed.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman referred to Communist-inspired disturbances. Are we to assume from that that Communists will not be allowed into the Home Guard?
  Mr. Head: It is very difficult to recollect one's speech, but I think I said a Communist-inspired movement against the Home Guard. I said it was possible, in a state of great tension and civil disturbance, that a situation might arise in which Communist-inspired riot or civil disturbance might result in some action against the vulnerable point guarded by the Home Guard.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question.
  Mr. Head: There are to be certain precautions against who joins the Home Guard. There are two types of Communist: those who openly say they are Communists, and I do not regard them as a fruitful field for recruitment, and those who do not say they are Communists—what might be called crytoCommunists—and it will be our endeavour to prevent that type from joining the Home Guard.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to approach this difficult question with a desire to reach a solution. During the Second Reading debate he appeared to me to acquiesce in the view expressed on this side that the Home Guard should not be used for strike-breaking purposes. He gave us assurances to that effect, and I ventured to say to him that asssurances were not adequate in the circumstances because of the strong feeling that existed on this side, and among trade unionists in the country, and that therefore it would be desirable to embody words in the Bill to make the meaning and intention clear beyond doubt.
  He is entitled to reproach me, and he has done it mildly and with courtesy, for having agreed to introduce an Amendment which followed upon his declaration that he was ready to find a form of words that would meet the views expressed on this side of the House. I confess frankly that some confusion arose, unwittingly, because we inserted the Amendment in the wrong part of the Bill. We did not take note of the fact that there was a dividing line as between peace-time and an actual state of emergency. This is in relation to the question when, in the opinion of the Government, the Home Guard should be mustered.
  In war-time the Government do not require this provision at all. The Government could obviously exercise the powers that would be vested in them under the Defence of the Realm Act, or Emergency Powers, to ensure that any force could be used to deal with an industrial dispute. Difficulties might arise—there might require to be discussions with the trade unions, and the employers, but the Government could if it cared exercise such powers in the interests of the country and for the prosecution of the struggle in which the country might be engaged. If the Government is in
  1854
  possession of such powers this provision becomes superfluous.
  The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government do not intend that the Home Guard should be used in peace time in an industrial dispute. He does not propose that the Force should be raised for such purpose. But the Bill does proceed—and here is a point of real substance—even in this amended form with the words he suggests should be included, to provide for the mustering of the force if there should be apprehension in the mind of the Government of a possible emergency. In other words, mustering might precede the actual outbreak of war, and if the words which he seeks to insert in the Bill were accepted, then the Home Guard, with the country still in a condition of peace although with a possible emergency in the future, could be used in an industrial dispute.
  Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman has touched on a matter raised during the Committee stage last night, namely, how far back can apprehension go? I gave an undertaking last night that I would try to find a form of words to limit apprehension in order to ensure that the General Officer Commanding should not apprehend an attack so far back that one got a condition which the right hon. Gentleman fears. We discussed the point at a very late hour last night, and the fact is that we were not in time to get that Amendment on to the Order Paper. But I can tell him that we have got an Amendment which I am putting forward through another place; and I would explain that that Amendment, in which I have the greatest confidence, and about which I have an optimistic feeling, will meet the point.
  It is that the Home Guard shall not be mustered except when a Proclamation is made ordering the Army Reserves to be called out on permanent service, or except when men of the Territorial Army are called out for actual military service. These two circumstances are such that there is no possibility whatever that the Home Guard would be mustered before, if I may be permitted to use a colloquialism, "the balloon goes up." I think that the form of words will be found to be a clear expression of a state of emergency, and I hope that the kind of occurrence about which the right hon. Gentleman worries could not happen.

  1855
  This form of words sees to it that that could not occur.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's attempt at solution, and even at conciliation; but what I proposed was that the gap should be narrowed between the actual mustering and, if I may also use the phrase, "the balloon going up." To that extent, we appreciate the compromise, but I doubt if it goes really far enough; because it might well be, although I am only voicing a suspicion, without using the word "suspicion" in any sinister sense, that a Proclamation calling out the Reserve and Territorial forces might precede by some weeks the actual outbreak of war, or, for all we know, some months. It is in the interregnum, the peace-time interregnum, that we are concerned about the possible use of the Home Guard for strikebreaking purposes.
  10.45 p.m.
  I want to add one more thing, and then I will conclude, because I believe than hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious to come to a decision. It is perfectly true that on Second Reading—and I think it was referred to again in the Committee stage—I said there could be no objection to the use of the Home Guard in actual war conditions to deal with civil disturbances, not for strike-breaking purposes, but in the event of a civil disturbance taking place. I perhaps spoke for myself, but I believe that many hon. Members opposite were associated with that view.
  But, of course, civil disturbances, it seems to me, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, are somewhat different from an industrial dispute. I can conceive of circumstances where perhaps some commotion may have arisen due to the dropping of bombs, or some attack on the country, or some disturbance may have arisen out of war conditions where it may be required to use members of the Home Guard to deal with the situation. Police and Regular soldiers may not be available. But strike-breaking is an entirely different matter.
  I conclude by saying that we are anxious to help the right hon. Gentleman. We do not want to provide an impediment to the building up of the Home Guard as and when, in our opinion, or in
  1856
  the opinion of the Government, it is required. But I agree with my hon. Friends that there is a strong sentiment among the trade unionists of the country in this respect, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to create a Home Guard without difficulty, it is as well to make the position clear, in view of that sentiment, that the Home Guard will not be used for strike-breaking purposes.
  I would beg the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his desire to find some solution, to reconsider the matter, and when the Bill comes back from another place he may find the form of words, in addition to the form of words he has already discovered in connection with the issue of a Proclamation, which may assist us in reaching a satisfactory solution.
  Mr. W. T. Proctor: I am bound to stress the importance of this matter. This is one of the results of rushing legislation through the House without having the proper time to consider the vital issues which are at stake. I am resting my case on the assurance given by the Secretary of State for War at an earlier stage of the proceedings. That assurance was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in circumstances which I shall not recall because I want this to be a perfectly unanimous arrangement this evening. It was:
  "I can assure the hon. Member that there is absolutely no intention in the creation of this Force of forming any strike-breaking unit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 591.)
  There is no reference there to peace or war; a complete and categorical assurance that it was not intended to use the Home Guard for strike-breaking purposes. Therefore I say that if that assurance is carried out, then something similar to the Amendment which I and my hon. Friends have placed on the Order Paper must go on the Statute Book.
  I want to point out that once this Bill goes from this House to another place we have lost any power of influencing the action of the Executive. Therefore, it is of supreme importance tonight that we should consider the whole of the possibilities—and we cannot take the Bill as anything other than what it is.
  The Secretary of State for War gave an assurance that he did not want the Home Guard to be used as a strikebreaking unit. In the Bill as it stands today the Government take power to use

  1857
  the Home Guard as a strike-breaking unit. I want to point out that the very form of words which he uses in the Bill makes it a strike-breaking unit. As I read the provision as it will be after the Government Amendment is carried, it will be this:
  "…shall not require members of the Home Guard to carry out any duties in connection with an industrial dispute except during any period during which the platoons or other part of the Home Guard to which they belong is mustered."
  All that it is necessary to do in order to use the Home Guard in an industrial dispute under this Bill is to muster them.
  I must call the attention of my hon. Friends to the words in the Bill—now. at this moment, when it goes from here, not when it comes back from another place.
  These are the words in the Bill:
  "The expression 'mustered' means mustered for the purpose of resisting an actual or apprehended attack by a foreign Power".
  I have consulted the dictionaries in the Library, and the Oxford English Dictionary, giving the meaning of the word 'apprehended", says "to anticipate with fear". So all that it is necessary for the Secretary of State for War to do is to "anticipate with fear" an attack by a foreign Power and he can muster the Home Guard. That is, it is sufficient only for him to have fear in his own mind.
  Nuttall's Standard English Dictionary says "being inclined to think" that there would be an attack. I also consulted the Modern Library Dictionary of the English Language, and one of my hon. Friends said "you had better be careful of that Dictionary; it's an American one". That is more conclusive still, for it says, "to entertain suspicion or fear of". That is all that is necessary and you can muster the Home Guard.
  We cannot let this go from this House under these circumstances with a power vested in the hands of the Executive, given by the Members of this House, that can be used on such flimsy evidence as that. That is our duty. If the Minister will give me here the assurance that he gave before, when he said,
  "I can assure him that there is absolutely no intention in the creation of this Force of forming any strike-breaking unit."
  then the position will be different. But he has gone back on that assurance and has actually placed a form of words in
  1858
  the Bill that gives him that power in war and in peace.
  Mr. Head: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have not in any way gone back on my assurance. My assurance to the right hon. Member for Easington was to find a form of words for his Amendment which meant the same thing and put them in the Bill. It is only fair to myself to say that that has been done.
  Mr. Proctor: I am not responsible for that assurance. It has been gone into very carefully and I shall not go into it—I shall not take up the time of the House. The assurance the Secretary of State for War gave to the House was:
  "I can assure him absolutely there is no intention in the creation of this Force of forming any strike-breaking unit."
  That is the assurance.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: May I interrupt the hon. Member. If he reads at the bottom of the column he will see that my right hon. Friend was referring to anything dealing with the outbreak of war—that this Home Guard was definitely not going to be mustered until there was an outbreak of war. The assurance definitely referred to peace and not to war.
  Mr. Proctor: There is no question of peace or war. The assurance there is categorical. What I am pointing out is that the Bill as it stands refers to peace or war. I want to put this point to the House—it is a very wise one. We are a democratic nation. The trade union movement and the Labour movement to which I am proud to belong accepts this democratic basis.
  We know our liberty rests on the sovereign power of the House of Commons, and we know what forces the House of Commons has at its disposal—the Regular Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Police. All these forces at the disposal of the House of Commons can be used as the House of Commons decides, either in industrial dispute' or in anything else. Here we are creating tonight, when we pass this Bill, a new force—for the first time in our peace-time history that I know of we are creating a Home Guard.
  It is a different force. It is a force that lives in the homes of the people. A

  1859
  member of it can be a worker in a factory in the morning and, if it is mustered, a member of the Home Guard in the afternoon. I believe I am speaking for the trade union movement when I say that unless we can get a categorical assurance that this Force will never be used on the authority of this House in an industrial dispute, we shall be unwise to part with the Bill.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I have great respect for the case he is putting and the responsible position he has held for most of his working life. May I submit that an assurance in a matter of this kind is not good enough. What matters is what is going to be in this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Proctor: I quite appreciate that. The Secretary of State for War put the point that only if
  a state of war breaks out do we want this Force. Still I say the Government of the day must take the responsibility for acting in any way they do. The Government with the authority they possess could in half an hour get from both Houses of Parliament all the power they want. I say that is the one reason why we should not give it to them tonight.
  I believe that this very vital issue is the touchstone of the success or otherwise of this Bill and this Home Guard. If the Minister of War is prepared to go all the way and back up his previous assurance, then I believe it will be a success. But if there rests in the minds of millions of trade unionists in this country that this Home Guard can be used for industrial purposes in industrial disputes, I say you cannot make it a success.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: There is one point of definition which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend. My experience is that, among, the duties of the Home Guard in the past, the guarding of factories was an important part, and, even if the Home Guard may not be mustered, I assume that it may be its duty, on a roster system, to guard factories. Indeed, there used to be sections and platoons trained in such factories for the purpose of guarding them.
  1860
  The question I want to put to my right hon. Friend is one concerning the definition of "in connection with." Let us assume that, unfortunately, a strike were to break out in a factory of great importance at which guard duties were necessary. In that case, under the Amendment we are now discussing, would it mean that the Home Guard would have to be withdrawn from their guard duties? If so, I believe it would be unfortunate. Possibly, the Home Guard would have a duty to do in that case.
  Mr. Head: I would ask my hon. Friend whether he is referring to war or peace?
  Mr. Roberts: At the present moment, I am referring to the period before the war actually occurs.
  I should like some enlightenment on this. It is stated that the Home Guard is not to be used to give whole-time service, or to serve away from home or carry out duties "in connection with" industrial disputes. Is it then envisaged that, before mustering takes place, no duties of any kind will be carried out, or will there be duties?
  Mr. Head: The whole point about this is that the Home Guard cannot be called upon to do whole-time duty, or the type of duty which my hon. Friend mentions, unless it can be mustered, and mustering can only take place in the event of apprehended attack. The period about which my hon. Friend is talking is the time, so to speak, a long way from the apprehension of attack, or, to put it in crude words, a long way before the balloon is likely to go up. It is very difficult to legislate for the period when peace turns into war, but, as far as possible, we have made provision for that in terms of mustering.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I would remind hon. Members that we are now on the Report stage.
  Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman that the real issue here is that, in forming a Home Guard, we want to get the maximum of support in the country? The right hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is this feeling among trade unionists. I suggest that he is really taking too much trouble to preserve a power which it is very unlikely he will ever want to be used. The apprehension is that it might

  1861
  be used in the kind of twilight before the main war, and it is a little difficult, because the power of mustering has been given to local G.O.Cs. In the event of war, the Government has the power to call on citizens to perform all kinds of duties.
  The effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) is that they should not be called upon as members of the Home Guard. The right hon. Gentleman says they will be guarding some points, and that is one thing. It is quite another thing to be brought in to work, let us say, a big power station, which could be guarded by the Home Guard. It would be quite unlikely that he would want the Home Guard to work the station, because naval ratings would probably be brought in.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather in danger of forfeiting the support of the trade union movement, or at least of causing suspicion, by trying to take power he will not want, because, when war actually comes, the whole matter will be covered by Defence Regulations, and people can act as citizens. The one point in the minds of my hon. Friends is that they should not do it as members of the Home Guard.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: During the course of the Committee stage I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that many of the Home Guards during the war were, in fact, factory guards peculiar to one factory, organised within one factory, and so on. He was good enough to indicate that the Government were thinking in terms of continuing that type of thing when the Home Guard reached a certain strength. I wish to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, a point which I regard very seriously, and in doing so to support my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor).
  If, in fact, we reached the emergency stage, it is highly probable that once again we should have Essential Work Orders covering all factories and industries essential to war purposes. Within these Essential Work Orders would be certain penal Clauses
  which would place a veto on certain rights to strike of people working in such factories and industries. But it may well be that the very people who will then be members of a factory Home Guard would, in fact,
  1862
  themselves be strikers if a dispute arose within that factory.
  We would then be in the ridiculous position that not only would the people who were striking be liable to civil prosecution for contravening an Essential Work Order, but that the very people who were striking and who were members of the Home Guard could be mobilised owing to the war emergency—which I envisage would then be on—and would, first, be liable to prosecution as strikers, and secondly. as they would by that time be under military law, could be ordered to suppress the very strike in which they themselves were taking part.
  It is for this reason that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am quite certain, has gone out of his way to meet so many of the difficulties posed from this side of the Committee, will see that the distinction which he draws between peace and war is not acceptable to us, and because it is in this very period of emergency, that is, of war, when he would have the power to mobilise or muster the Home Guard. That of itself would place the factory Home Guard under military law, and he who may then be a striker would be forced by military law to suppress the very strike he himself was supporting.
  It is because of that type of situation that we fear the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman draws between peace and war. I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and, indeed, with the provisions of the Bill, that he could not possibly muster the Home Guard unless there was an emergency, but I hope he will see that why we are so afraid of the period of emergency is because it is at that very time that some Minister of War could use the power to force the factory Home Guard man himself to try and suppress his own mates when engaged in a strike in which he himself believed.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I wish to say one other word in support of this argument and to quote in support of it a very respected right hon. Gentleman opposite, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). When he spoke a few words during the Committee stage the other night, I thought I detected warm approval of them from all sides. He said that he was speaking from his own experience in the Didcot area in the last

  1863
  war with the Home Guard which was guarding vital factories. He observed:
  "I think that the Committee ought to realise that it would be impossible to utilise the Home Guard in any way effectively unless its members were assured that they would not he used in cases of industrial disputes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c 1268.]
  He was not talking about peace-time, but about war-time. He said that from his own experience of the last war the effectiveness of the Home Guard in his area was due precisely to the assurance that it would not be used in the way which my hon. Friend was describing a minute or two ago.
  They knew they were not going to be used in industrial disputes. That is why they could join, and that is why they could join in a factory guard. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman's assurance is that so far from assuring it removes the assurance we might have had if he had not written it in the Amendment. If the Amendment had never been discussed maybe it would not have occurred to anybody that his intention was to use the Home Guard in industrial conflicts during war.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he gave an assurance. If he had given the assurance in the form of, "I do not intend to use the Home Guard in industrial disputes until I have mustered them", it would not be much of an assurance but that is precisely the only assurance he gives in the Amendment before the House. It simply says, "I shall not use the Home Guard in industrial disputes in peacetime." That is no assurance. On the contrary; it has the implication in it which decreases our confidence that he will not use it in war-time. If the right hon. Gentleman's desire is that it should not be used in war-time, then he cannot give exclusively an assurance about peace-time. If he wants people to join the Home Guard, once this issue has been raised he must not limit his assurance to peace-time. He must give the general assurance, whatever happens.
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—and I agree with him—the object is to describe the function and purpose of the Home Guard. It is not to describe exactly what a citizen may have to do qua citizen in war-time,
  1864
  but to tell what the Home Guard is for. It may be that individual members of the Home Guard, as civilians, may be called upon in civil disputes but the right hon. Gentleman would not use the Home Guard.
  In a dock strike it may be necessary to use a soldier to assist in unloading, but one. would be a lunatic to use the Home Guard for that purpose because it is likely to be mixed with people concerned in the strike. No sane Government would think of using a local organisation because every industrial dispute is in that sense local.
  Mr. Lee: The point is that during a period when the Home Guard is mustered, if those Home Guards are in fact the Home Guard for that factory, they are the only ones the right hon. Gentleman can use. They are the ones to defend that factory.
  Mr. Crossman: I do not want to detain the House. I believe that on this point the right hon. Gentleman is actually reducing the effectiveness of his pledge by not making it general and supporting the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor).
  Mr. Head: By leave of the House I should like to speak again. I should feel only too pleased if I could now make a statement which would not only reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite on the fears they have expressed but also make them feel any doubts they have concerning the feelings of trade unionists and so forth in this matter were resolved.
  But, speaking again on this rather difficult point, I should like to make clear the reasons why I cannot do that. I hope hon. Members opposite will give me credit for having thought about this matter. The Home Guard, as we are reorganising them on a cadre basis, on a voluntary basis, now, are members of His Majesty's Forces. That is in the Bill. As such it will be one of their duties, apart from their duties to protect aerodromes and so forth, to protect vulnerable points and factories. In that capacity they are members of His Majesty's Forces. If war breaks out one of the first tasks they will have to fulfil is this guard over vulnerable points. Hon. Members are asking us to say they must not take any part in war in an industrial dispute.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: I think we have pointed out—my right hon. Friend and I have ventured to point out—that the right hon. Gentleman can exercise emergenecy powers without any difficulty.
  Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have asked, Why must we have these powers now, because if and when war comes we shall have them anyway? It seems to me that in a sense that argument suggests that whether we make the Amendment to this Bill or not the situation will be the same either way.
  Hon. Members: No
  Mr. Attlee: The whole point really is this. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is, that the man should not operate qua Home Guard. The right hon. Gentleman is putting him in as a member of the Home Guard and, therefore, subject to military discipline for this purpose, whereas if we put him in as a citizen he comes under the ordinary law of the land.
  Mr. Head: I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] I withdraw that unreservedly. The qualification the right hon. Gentleman has made really, in a way, reinforces what I was saying. What I am trying to explain to the House is that the Home Guard will be fulfilling the function—or one of the functions—for which we are introducing this Bill, namely, the guarding of vulnerable points. He is not a citizen, and he is not intended to be a citizen. We do not want to change him from being a member of His Majesty's Forces into being a citizen. His function is to guard vulnerable points.
  If I accept the Amendment and say no Home Guard can take part in an industrial dispute, I come to this fundamental point. It is almost impossible from the legal point of view—and I have had advice here—to say exactly where an industrial dispute ends and a civil disturbance begins. They are not things one can draw a line between easily. A man in the Home Guard, a member of His Majesty's Forces, guarding vulnerable points may be in a situation in which, in order to fulfil his duties as a mustered man of the Home Guard, he may be required to act.
  If I accepted the Amendment we might be in grave difficulty. There is a feeling
  1866
  in the House that the Home Guard in war may be not guards of vulnerable points but—[An HON. MEMBER: "Strike breakers."] Exactly—down in the docks unloading ships, and so forth. That is not the reason why we are creating this Force.
  We are creating it for three reasons. One is guarding aerodromes; the second is vulnerable points; and the third is as assistants to Civil Defence. But it is not any part of the conception of this Force that they are going down to the docks to unload ships. In war-time the differentiation between the fears hon. Members opposite have and the actual functions for which we are preparing this Force for the guarding of vulnerable points is incapable of definition. I do assure hon. Gentlemen that it is absolutely impossible of definition.
  I do assure hon. Gentlemen and the trade unions that this is the reason fur the creation of this Force, the reason why the Home Guard is now being placed in a condition of increased readiness, the reason why we have a nucleus so that at short notice they can fulfil this function. If it had gone a bit further, where the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) is concerned, he would have found it impossible to guarantee in war-time that this Amendment could have been accepted because it is impossible to differentiate between the two.
  The only assurance I can give to the House is that this is a matter of intention, and it is one not capable of legal interpretation. What I do say is that I hope hon. Members will have some forbearance in this particular matter. If we could find a form of words I should be willing to consider it, but I have taken legal advice on the matter. I have met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington up to the hilt as he suggested in his Amendment. He said that where civil disturbances were concerned he recognised the difficulties, and I am sure there is no prospect of my being able to accept an Amendment which would debar this duty entirely.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I think I should say to him that we are really at a point where we might bridge the gap between us. He says that he wants the Home Guard to guard vulner-

  1867
  able points in war-time. I think we are all agreed on that. He says also it is not the intention that they should be used in what is commonly called strike breaking—say in the unloading of ships. He says he does not want them to do that, and we are all agreed on that point.
  But his difficulty, he says, is to devise a form of words stating that they can guard vulnerable points but cannot do the actual work of strikers. He said at one time it was "almost impossible," and at another time it was "absolutely impossible" to do it. Is he not exaggerating the impossibility? Is it "absolutely impossible" to say in an Act of Parliament that the Home Guard may not do work, during an industrial dispute due to a stoppage of work, which would be done, but for the dispute, by the people engaged in the dispute? That surely is the only point that divides us.
  If the right hon. Gentleman can find a form of words which will prevent a man in the Home Guard during an industrial dispute doing the work which the strikers would otherwise be doing, and make it apply in war-time, he will still have his power for the Home Guard to guard vulnerable points and protect factories against riots and violence. However difficult the drafting, it is worthwhile bridging the gap between us. Can he see that that is overcome, and since it cannot be done here and now will he -see it is done in another place?
  Mr. Head: A point immediately arises. I have gone into this matter. The hon. Gentleman asked if we could not arrange for the Home Guard not to do a job which someone striking is doing. We immediately come up against the question of the excellent system of factory guards instituted during the war. Hon. Gentlemen will see there that in the event of defection on the part of a factory guard you might well ask a member of the Home Guard to do a duty normally performed by him, and then we are right up against my difficulty.
  Mr. Wallace: In an actual industrial dispute in peace-time there is clear understanding that any duties normally done by the strikers are not to be done by others. There is no dispute about guarding docks. I served in the Home Guard during the war. There was no difficulty then. It was always
  1868
  understood that we should not do work normally done by the dock workers. In an industrial dispute you cannot call upon the Home Guard to do this. You would not get 20 per cent. of the men to do anything concerned with an industrial dispute. Why not come to the simple straight declaration that the Home Guard shall not be used in an industrial dispute'?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not intend to speak, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman had gone a long way towards meeting us, but after the speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) I can see that there is a good deal more in this than I had thought. May I reinforce what he said, and also make it clear that the gap is not as narrow as some hon. Members think? My hon. Friend was chairman of a works organisation in an establishment where in war-time between 20,000 and 30,000 persons would be employed. They had a Home Guard of their own. These men have proved their loyalty by their record. In a large establishment like that there are bound to be day-to-day difficulties, such as disputes about piece-work prices. My hon. Friend was called upon time after time to visit department after department with his colleagues to prevent trouble. It can be depended upon that if in that establishment there was a dispute over piece-work not one tap would be done, because the men are so loyal to each other, and because it means so much. If the right hon. Gentleman can give the people confidence on that, he will get the support he seems to desire to get by the way he has handled this Bill.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I agree that the point is not so narrow as it was said to be on this side. I am thoroughly alarmed by the statement the Minister has made. He may have received legal advice, but he is desperately lacking in industrial experience or knowledge of how working men and women behave in circumstances such as the House is trying to envisage.
  Assume that we were at war, and that there was a strike at a colliery. One version of it was that sabotage was going on, and that some miners had sympathies with a foreign Power. But one never gets a clear, black and white situation like that. What one gets is what there always will be somthing wrong with wages, or working conditions, and if hon. Members opposite

  1869
  want to maximise trouble for themselves, let them try to bring in any outside force. Call it the Home Guard, or whatever one likes, take it to the pit head, and let hon. Members opposite understand the consequences.
  11.30 p.m.
  Another complication is that we are assuming that the Home Guard will be taken from the locality where the work is carried on. But hon. Members opposite should realise that there can be a mining village, while two or three miles away there is a community with a totally different political and social outlook. It would be the easiest thing to bring a Home Guard from a few miles away to create at once the worst feeling and maximise any trouble. I cannot understand why we are making a comparatively simple matter so complicated. Why cannot we have a straightforward, unequivocal statement that the Home Guard will not be used in war or peace in any industrial dispute?
  Sir Patrick Spens: I speak as a former officer of the Home Guard from the Dunkirk period. At that time, I was outside Ashford, where there was a Home Guard detachment, with another inside the railway works nearby; and that latter detachment was recruited entirely from persons employed in the works. We were never mustered; this mustering is a new phrase, but we went on duty, and for the remaining two years and seven months before I went to India, the men served well both inside and outside the railways works.
  There would be any amount of incipent industrial disputes, but the railwaymen were the most helpful in the world. None of the disputes developed, but it would be perfectly possible for any lawyer to have said that on any one night there was an industrial dispute in those works. Yet, not one single man in the Home Guard there ever hesitated to go on duty to protect those works.
  We were in the danger area of southeast England, and those men regarded it as their duty to protect the works; they protected what went in and what came out, and despite many industrial disputes, there was never any trouble. If the Amendment proposed by hon. Members opposite was accepted, the moment there arose anything like an industrial dispute, it would mean that such splendid men as those to whom I refer, could not go on duty.
  The Leader of the Opposition has said that the Minister might call the men up as individuals, but that as organised members of the Home Guard, they would not be able to do duty, nor perform any routine action. If that is the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, and had it been operative in the days of which I speak, then it really would have been quite impossible to carry on in that part of south-east England in the earlier days of the war. I might be one of those whom the hon. Lady who just spoke described as knowing little about industrial conditions; but I have lived and worked with these men, and gone on duty with them in the Home Guard, and in the interests of such men, I beg the House not to accept the Amendment of the Hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 25, at end, insert:
  "and shall not require members of the Home Guard to serve outside the United Kingdom."
  Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 34, at end, insert:
  "(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no member of the Home Guard shall be required to perform, as a member of the Home Guard, any duty in any industrial dispute."—[Mr. Proctor.]
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 170.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES

  [11.37 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Blackburn, F.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Adams, Richard

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Albu, A. H.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Collick, P. H.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J

  Brockway, A. F.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Bence, C. R.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Benson, G.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

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

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Champion, A. J.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Deer, G.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Lingdren, G. S.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Flenburgh, W.

  McLeavy, F.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Finch, H. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Foot, M. M.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Gibson, C. W

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Milner, Maj. Rt. Hon. J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Hamilton, W W

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

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hargreaves, A.

  Moyle, A.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Hastings, S.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Orbach, M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Padley, W. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Hubbard, T F

  Pargiter, G. A.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Wigg, G. E. C.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pearson, A.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Peart, T. F.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hynd, H (Accrington)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Janner, B

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Jeger, Dr Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Yates, V. F.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Ross, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Royle, C.

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fell, A.

  McAdden, S. J.

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

  Finlay, G. B.

  McCallum, Major D.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gage, C. H.

  Mackeson, Brig H. R.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Godber, J. B.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gower, H. R

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

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

  Baxter, A. B.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Birch, Nigel

  Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maude, Angus

  Black, C. W.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Maudling, R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Heath, Edward

  Medlicott, Brig, F.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hope, Lord John

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Nicholls, Harmer

  Bullard, D. G.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nicholson, G.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hulbert, Wing Comdr, N, J.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com, Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Cary, Sir R.

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

  Channon, H.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

  Partidge, E.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Cole, N. J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Redmayne, M.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Russell, R. S.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Drewe, C.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  1872

  1873

  Smithers, Peters (Winchester)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Wellwood, W.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Speir, R. M.

  Tilney, John

  Williams, Charles (Torquay)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Touche, G. C.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Turton, R. H.

  Wills, G.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Summers, G. S.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Major Conant and Mr. Vosper

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT.)
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "of," to insert "such."
  This is purely a drafting Amendment resulting from the insertion of the word "attack" earlier in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end to insert:
  (4) Subsection (1) of Section three of the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) Act, 1948 (which provides for the application to women of the Army and Air Force Acts and other enactments relating to men) shall apply to this Act as it applies to any such enactment as is mentioned in that subsection.
  This is also a consequential drafting Amendment, women having been introduced into the Home Guard.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF ARMY ACT.)
  Mr. Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 23 and 24.
  If it would be for the convenience of the House we might take the next Amendment also, because both Amendments cover the same point. Both are drafting Amendments and are required by the word "duty" having been decided to incorporate "training".
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 36, leave out from "when," to "on," in line 38.—[Mr. Hutchison.]
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Head: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The Bill has, I think, as a Bill received its baptism of fire and a certain amount of rapid fire from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—at one moment it was almost automatic. The fire from the hon. Member for Wands-
  1874
  worth, Central (Mr. Adams) was almost repeater. There has also been a certain amount of catapulting from hon. Members on the other side of the House. But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is perhaps inevitable in a late sitting. There has been a great deal of repetition concerning one remark from the Under-Secretary during the Second Reading, but I suggest that some of the other remarks made by the other side of the House were equally criticised. Perhaps this aspect of the Bill will he left behind.
  I apologise, and perhaps I am out of order for recalling some of these matters; but personally, and I say this with all humility, I think that the Bill at this moment is a better Bill than when it came before the House. I do not think either side of the House would like to claim credit for it. It is the function of this House to improve legislation, and personally I think the Bill has been improved.
  May I, even at this late hour, say one very short word in amplification of the reasons for introducing the Bill. The reformation of the Home Guard at this time means it constitutes an essential link in our chain of preparedness. The Home Guard can be very rapidly expanded to perform an essential function in the country of guarding airfields, vulnerable points and assisting Civil Defence.
  What we say—and this is the reason for this step—is that, were this Measure not introduced now, it would mean that, if war came in 1952—pray heaven it will not—our Territorial formations, which should be mobilising and preparing to fight at a very early stage, would be spread all over the country fulfilling this function, owing to the inability of the Home Guard to form sufficiently rapidly to relieve them of that duty. I repeat that, because it is the justification for this Measure.
  In conclusion, I would only say that there is a great difference of opinion in the House concerning the reasons for the

  1875
  introduction of the Bill and the advisability of its being introduced at the present time. They have, I think, had a fair airing in the last two days, and I believe that, now the Bill looks as though it will, as I hope, go through, the House in general is united in the respect that it wishes the new formation shortly to come into being good fortune in their new role. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, although, of course, criticising in any way any failure of my Department or myself, will, at the same time, exercise some charity during the growing pains of this new Force until it has grown into a very healthy and useful instrument.
  11.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: We have come to the end of a fairly long debate on this Bill, and I shall not detain the House by recapitulating the arguments, put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and by very many hon. Members on this side of the House, why we do not think the main provision in this Bill—the more or less immediate enrolment of the Home Guard—is, on balance, a wise step.
  Let me repeat, however, that there is force in the argument which the Secretary of State briefly recapitulated just now. Of course, undoubtedly, there are some advantages in the immediate enrolment of the Home Guard, but, for reasons which I myself and many of my right hon. Friends mentioned, on the whole, we think it is incontestible that they are outweighed by the disadvantages which we put forward, and we think the balance of advantage lies on that side. That is why we attempted drastically to amend the Bill in its main provisions.
  On the other hand, we did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and, of course, we do not intend to oppose it now. We do not intend to oppose it on Third Reading, for, as the Secretary of State has very fairly and generously recognised, it is unquestionably a very much better Bill now than it was on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman quite fairly said that that was because of the combined action of both sides of the House.
  I am bound to say that my impression is that, on the Committee stage, the share of the labours of improving the Bill was
  1876
  divided in this way; the suggestions came from this side of the House, but, I readily admit, the acceptance of those suggestions came from the right hon. Gentleman. I think he was wise, and that he did it with great generosity, when he accepted a great many of those suggestions, though not all of them. I wish very much that he had seen his way to accept, as still he might, the last suggestion that divided the House a few minutes ago.
  But there it is. The Bill is still not quite everything we think it should be. but we think it improved, and I echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman that, whether or not we think it the right moment to enrol this Force, as it is to be enrolled in the fairly immediate future, all of us wish that Force well, and will attempt to help it by constructive criticism or in any other way which we can do.
  Finally, I wish to congratulate my successor in coming to the end of what must have been a considerable ordeal, the passing through this House of the first Measure under his charge, and one which was by no means uncontested, and going through not only the nervous and mental ordeal, but the physical ordeal of a very long Sitting in this House. I think that on personal grounds, at any rate, he deserves the warm congratulations of every part of the House.
  11.56 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: May I, as the first Member to speak on this side after my right hon. Friend, congratulate him on having reached this stage? I think all of us must be lost in admiration at his patience and readiness to concede points about which some hon. Members felt so strongly. I know that so far as I was concerned I found it very difficult at times to be as patient as he was.
  Before we part with this Bill, I wish to tell the House that during the course of the Second Reading debate, I came across a reference to myself about which I should like to say a few words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it in the Bill"?] I think I am entitled, am I not, Mr. Speaker, to make some reference to what was said?
  Mr. Speaker: The Rules of Order on Third Reading are much stricter than they are on other stages of the Bill, and

  1877
  an hon. Member is only entitled to refer to what is in the Bill.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I fully appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not, of course, wish to detain the House. But, with respect, Sir, it was suggested by both my right hon. Friend in moving the Third Reading and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we should do every' thing we possibly could to make this Bill a success when it becomes an Act. It was suggested that I and one of my hon. Friends should join in making a military film with myself as Don Quixote and my hon. Friend as Sancho Panza.
  So far as I am concerned, I should be very glad to do anything possible to promote the success of this Measure. I know that there are going to be extreme difficulties in certain places, and it would help me very considerably if my right hon. Friend could tell me whether my own division is east or west of the line which has been drawn from Flamborough Head to Selsey Bill. I realise—
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman can ascertain that information by correspondence.
  Major Legge-Bourke: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, we hon. Members were sent to this House to represent our divisions. Surely, therefore, it is our right to insist on knowing whether or not a Bill affects our division in a certain way. We know there is a differentiation under this Bill between the two parts of the country, one east and one west of a line. I am very near the border line, not only in respect to the Rules of Order, but so far as the demarcation line is concerned. I appreciate that there may be reasons of security why not too much publicity should be given to the exact areas in the matter, but surely it is my right as the Member for the Isle of Ely to ask if the division I represent is going to be affected by this Bill or not.
  12 midnight.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I only want to give a postcript on Third Reading to our deliberations on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War may have thought the proceedings were unduly delayed when he had introduced the Bill as a more or less harmless Bill, but I think he has already
  1878
  admitted that our apprehensions, such as they were, were genuinely and sincerely held.
  There is only one thing included in the Bill now which the right hon. Gentleman may think will leave some bitter taste in our mouths in view of the assiduousness with which we presented our case, namely whether the Home Guard should be used in the way he might have wanted it to be used when he or somebody at the War Office apprehended a possible attack
  I think he can have this assurance, and I am sure none of my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends, whether on the back benches or on the Front Bench, will disagree with what I am going to say. Success now depends on the efforts of those who can help to persuade their constituents, or, if they do not represent those constituencies concerned, those who will help form the Home Guard. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—and I think he knows it—that, as in the past, he will receive the assistance of my hon. Friends as much as of hon. Members on that side of the House in trying to create a patriotic, useful Force such as the Home Guard were in the last war.
  I feel sure that when it comes. as it may indeed come, that hon. Members on this side of the House will have to explain the Amendment in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
  "or (c) to carry out duties in connection with an industrial dispute."
  which the right hon. Gentleman was able to get through the Report stage, he will find we shall be able to advance all sorts of arguments to show that what the right hon. Gentleman said is what he meant to do, namely not to use the Home Guard in an industrial dispute.
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: I do not propose to keep the House long and I am certainly not going to cover the ground I covered before during the passage of the Bill. First, I wish the new Home Guard well. There has never been any doubt in my mind that the real issue between us was one of timing. If we must have a Home Guard, let us have the best Home Guard we can and ensure the utmost economy and efficiency. I still, of course, hold the views I have put forward during the debates on this Bill;

  1879
  but certainly in my constituency and in every capacity I shall do all I can to make the building up of this Home Guard go easily.
  The Secretary of State for War said that some of the things said on this side of the House had perhaps cancelled out the hard things said on the other side. As perhaps an early casualty, though not a heavy one, I can console myself over the passage of the years for what I was called on Second Reading with what was once said by a great Liberal—that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I do not claim much vigilance myself, but I do not withdraw one jot of what I said at the beginning about the possible use of the Home Guard in an industrial dispute.
  I accept the assurance of the Secretary of State for War. During the coming months he might bear in mind that what he is facing here is a crisis in confidence. He has to accept the fact that a Conservative Administration cannot do something in the industrial field that perhaps can be done with ease by hon. Members on this side of the House. I am not making a controversial point here. [Interruption.] Well, I do not want to put it in an acutely controversial way. What I am saying is that if the right hon. Gentleman had borne in mind what I said in the debate on the Address he might have avoided some of the difficulties he has had to face on this Bill. Whether he chooses to notice or ignore the view I have expressed is his business, but it is also the nation's business. This view is not mine only, and has not been expressed by me only. It is the view of the trades unions—their doubts; and doubts expressed by them of the people they represent. If he wants to build up rapidly a proficient Home Guard he will be wise to remember those doubts.
  Mr. Head: Another Haldane.
  Mr. Wigg: Lord Haldane was a very wise man. The Secretary of State for War may become a great Secretary of State for War. I am sure he may become a much greater man if he studies the teachings of Lord Haldane. The memory of Lord Haldane can live on in the formation of this Home Guard. I wish the Home Guard well, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting his Bill.
  12.6 a.m.
  Miss Irene Ward: I seek an assurance on one small point. The reason why I have left it so late is because of the sudden decision of my right hon. Friend to enrol women in the Home Guard—a decision which I received with very great enthusiasm. I hope women will be enrolled in goodly numbers. I notice in Clause 1 (4) reference is made to allowances, pensions and other grants in respect of death or disablement. I thought my right hon. Friend said that the code for the payment of those disablement pensions and allowances would be based on that operating in Civil Defence. I am anxious to obtain an assurance that women will receive equal payments should they require them for disablement or injury as men.
  The Civil Defence code, if I may so call it, does provide for equal allowances for men and women. I recollect very well the tremendous battle we had to fight with the Coalition Government in the late war to establish that a woman injured in the defence of our country was entitled to the same compensation as a man. I should like to have it put on the record that now women are being enrolled in the Home Guard, and if the Civil Defence injuries scheme is going to apply to the Home Guard, Regulations will be introduced to secure equality in compensation as between men and women.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: There is just one small point I want to ask about. It is with regard to the position of rifle clubs. I have received a communication today in which there is some anxiety expressed as to what is to happen under the Bill in relation to these clubs.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot see anything in the Bill about rifle clubs. If the hon. Gentleman will direct my attention to where rifle clubs are mentioned I will look at that passage.
  Mr. Janner: This matter is connected with the subject matter of the Bill. I just wanted to know how these particular units were going to be used in the Home Guard. The clubs are constituted in the main of members who were in the Home Guard before. The 3rd Battalion of the Leicester Home Guard Rifle Club have asked me to inquire whether members of

  1881
  those clubs will be given an opportunity of joining the Home Guard and continuing their activities, and in what capacity they can be utilised so as to be of the best advantage to the country, and to the particular objects for which their clubs are formed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The Secretary of State for War represented the views of most hon. Members when he said that this Bill was a much better Bill than it was when it first came before this House. It was in the early days a very miserable little skeleton of a Bill. Thanks to various efforts made in various quarters—as to which it is not necessary to particularise—the Bill is very much better now than it was before.
  There is only one difficulty which still stands out and which is regarded as a blemish by a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, and that is, of course, the position with regard to the possible use of the Home Guard in connection with industrial disputes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps find time to consider the possibility of making some change in the Bill in another place—a change which ought not to be beyond his capacity, and which may satisfy the legitimate doubts that still exist in the minds of certain hon. Members.
  Personally, I consider that the power that he has taken unto himself on the subject of the use of the Home Guard on industrial disputes in war-time is quite unnecessary. If a situation should arise in war-time when an industrial dispute merges into something much more menacing to the safety of the State, all kinds of other powers are available to the Government by way of Defence Regulations which any Government in time of grave emergency in war would, with the backing of public opinion at the time, be entitled to use. I want to join with those who wish the Home Guard well.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I have sat in silently during the Debates on this Bill, and I have been wondering at several points whether the right hon. Gentleman has not been doing what he has been accustomed to do as a soldier, taking the worst case, and in doing so unwittingly misleading hon. Members opposite. It is clear from what my right
  1882
  hon. Friend said that that is the only case in which a Home Guard could be used in an industrial dispute.
  I can understand that it may well be necessary to muster the Home Guard in anticipation of a parachute attack. But in the last war it was always considered that it was only in the case of an immediate threat that the Home Guard would be mustered. The chances of their having to be mustered, and later used in an industrial dispute, are much more slender than hon. Members seem to think.
  I hope if my hon. Friend is going to reply to this Debate he will deal with the point, because I think it would clear up a great deal of misconception in the minds of hon. Members opposite. They have opposed this Bill to some extent, and moved Amendments, in the belief that this is not the right time for this Bill. The purpoe of it is to ensure that we have a trained body of men available for the purpose, and it would be wrong to wait for the fire before you train the brigade.
  Mr. M. Stewart: It has always been said that these men would be fit, to perform their duties as soon as they were called up. There has never been any question of their needing any lengthy period of training.
  Mr. Macpherson: That may be so in many cases, but in the last war it was not simply a question of equipping the Home Guard with a rifle. They were progressively trained in other weapons, they had to learn techniques, to be brought together to train as a team, and to learn their territory thoroughly. The period of training is bound to be longer than during the war, and we ought to do it the right way.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), it would be unfortunate if it were to be thought in the country that there are going to be facilities for women to join the Home Guard immediately. It certainly will not come about for some little while, but it is fair to say that when the conditions under which they will be enrolled are being considered, we shall ensure that they will not be worse off than their sisters in Civil Defence. They will also get in relation to Home Guard

  1883
  work what their sisters in Civil Defence are getting.
  On the question of the rifle clubs, I can recall Home Guards forming these clubs, and in my opinion they are valuable. They help to keep the spirit together, and it will be a question for the local commanders to decide how many members of the rifle clubs they can absorb. If I were a commander, this would be one of the first places to which I would look.
  Mr. Janner: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman issue instructions, or at least give some sort of directive, that a club as a whole could be enrolled? After all, a club would doubtless contain people who have been in the Home Guard before.
  Mr. Hutchison: No doubt they will come forward, but in answer to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that there might be more people in a club than the formation wanted; in these cadre formations, of 50 people or so, there might not be room, but his suggestion is something of which we shall not lose sight. Since the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has mentioned the question. I would say that there is extremely little between us in practice on this question of industrial disputes. One can readily realise how repugnant it would be to a member of the Home Guard to be put in any form of duty such as has been
  1884
  visualised. The real problem was to get the form of words which exclude all other kinds of possible incidents, but virtually there was nothing between us at all.
  I should not like to close this Debate without being able to express the greatest appreciation of the ready way in which the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association has shown itself prepared to share yet another burden. This means a considerable amount of extra work on its shoulders, but those concerned have never shrunk from the duty and will not, I think, shrink from helping to make this new Home Guard a success.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time. and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
Mr. Walter Fletcher discharged from the Select Committee on the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) and Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore added.—[Mr. Drewe.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.