VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES (Hansard, 11 March 1954)

§ Mr. R. H. S. Crossman (Coventry, East)
I do not wish to detain the House very long, because I think that the Under-Secretary of State for War has answered what might have been an extremely long discussion on Vote A. We have a perfect right and duty on the general debate to discuss this Vote and all other Votes, but we know what happens when we do. There are one or two points still left over, however, which I should like to raise with the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for War. This Vote deals with manpower, and manpower has been the theme of our debate throughout last night and this morning.
The longer this debate has gone on the more confusing and less convincing I have found the Secretary of State's speech. I think that the Under-Secretary was a little disappointed that after hon. Members had thought the Secretary of State had done well they criticised him. We thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a clever speech, but he did not convince us on this question of manpower. On the central thesis he said that he must have a strategic reserve but he showed himself unconvinced that he could obtain it and demonstrated that no distribution of forces in the strategic reserve is possible under the Government's existing policy. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was virtually saying, first, that he must have the forces and, second, that he could not possibly have them. He said that we must have a larger proportion of Regulars and then indicated, rightly, that regular recruiting would fail.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State, however, about the British Army of the Rhine in Germany. I should like to quote the right hon. Gentleman's words on the subject in answer to an 2813 intervention of mine when I asked about quarters for British troops in Germany. He said: We have thought carefully about that. However, I do not think the House wants me to go into the details. That eventuality will by no means take us by surprise, and we have already taken a good many preliminary steps towards meeting it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, I could talk half an hour on that subject, … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 2478.] I should like the Secretary of State to talk today for half an hour on the British Army of the Rhine and what will happen when German rearmament occurs.
The present British Army of the Rhine is employing tens of thousands of Germans both as drivers and as skilled workers in tank repair depots. As the Secretary of State knows, a very large amount of the labour employed by the British Army, which normally would be British military labour, is now German labour. I ask him quite specifically to tell me what will happen. How shall we replace that labour in the event of German rearmament and—as we are assured that every plan has been prepared and he is absolutely ready for the job—I do not see why he should not give us the answer.
I must refer to the astonishing reply of the Under-Secretary on the subject of cost of troops and the number of our troops in that area related to cost.

The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid that the question of cost does not arise.

§ Mr. Crossman
I appreciate that we are dealing with the number, but clearly cost is a function of number and one must relate number to cost. One may say that 100,000 cost so many millions and that 200,000 cost so many millions more, so that one may express the number of troops in terms of millions of pounds. I could say that we have in Germany £100 million worth of troops. It is another way of saying the number; we number them in pounds, shillings and pence.

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is being subtle, but this is an argument on the next Vote.

§ Mr. Crossman
We all know what is going to happen to the next Vote. It will be guillotined.

The Deputy-Chairman
Whatever happens to the next Vote, it cannot be discussed on this Vote.

§ Mr. Crossman
I must return to the question of numbers.

§ Mr. Wigg
Obviously my hon. Friend is trying to make up his mind whether he is justified in voting for these numbers or not. In order to come to that decision he must not dilate on the question, but, with respect, he has a right to make reference to cost. Otherwise a discussion of numbers would be absolute nonsense.

The Deputy-Chairman
I was not concerned with the hon. Member's mind, but with his argument.

§ Mr. Crossman
With the assistance of my hon. Friend, we are trying to deal with the number and manpower of the British Army of the Rhine. I have asked the first question about the replacement of German labour. The second question is what is to happen to that manpower. Will it leave when the Germans take over the barracks? Are new barracks to be built for the German troops, or for ourselves?
I do not understand why neither the Secretary of State nor the Undersecretary has been prepared to tell us any of the detailed plans they say that they have ready for the take-over. The House is entitled to know from the financial side and from the sheer side of organisation what it is intended to do in what will be a fundamental reorganisation of the troops in Germany. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on shortening the debate by his answers to the questions which were put to him.

§ Mr. Mikardo (Reading, South)
I have one question and one point to make, and I can put them both in a very small number of minutes. The Memorandum presented by the Secretary of State, in paragraph 82 on page 14, says that the total numbers of the Army will be 13,000 less in the year under review than in the last year, but Vote A of the Estimates does not show this figure of 13,000 at all. Nor can I trace or deduce it in any way by addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division from the basic data contained in 2815 Vote A. There seems to be an inconsistency, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could explain it to me.
The point I want to put is that clearly we could manage to fulfil all the functions which the Army has with less manpower if we could find some way of getting better use out of every man. In this connection, I put it to the Undersecretary that, notwithstanding the improvements in recent years, there is still some evidence that we are not getting the best value out of the manpower, because frequently we are putting round pegs into square holes and vice versa. I suggest that there is still some way to go before we can be satisfied that there is a proper examination of the aptitudes, the attitudes and attainments of entrants in order to see where they can best be used and to see in what posting they will be of most value to the Army. I repeat that this is important as affecting manpower because, if one can get a 3 per cent., 4 per cent., or 5 per cent, improvement in the utilisation of each man on the average, we can reduce manpower to that extent without loss of functioning capacity.
I know that most people who go into the Army, like most people who come into this House, do not minimise their own valuation of themselves. They all think, not only that they have field marshal's batons in their knapsacks, but that those batons ought to be produced within a very short time. Therefore, one cannot take them at their own valuation and assume that their complaints are justified. Furthermore, one knows that if every man went into the arm for which he opted there would not be sufficient in some whilst there would be great over-establishment in others. But, allowing for all that and for the fact that there has been some improvement in recent years, I repeat that there is still a strong case for saying that people are not properly utilised.
I call to mind two young men in my constituency who were recently called up together. They had been at school together and they had remained friends from the time of leaving school until the time of their call-up. One was a boy with a passion for motors, as so many have. He went into a garage and worked all his time in a garage since leaving school, tinkering with motors. The other 2816 boy had no particular ambition and became an errand boy in a department store.
Both boys went on the same day for their medical and were called up on the same day. The boy with a passion for motors, who had been three years in a garage, was put into the Royal Berkshire Regiment and the boy who was an errand boy and did not know the front end of a carburettor, and did not care, was put in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. Both wanted to change, but neither was allowed to do so. I am sure that there is a great deal of that kind of thing and, if real attention were given to these matters, we could make great progress.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)
I think this is going to be the shortest speech on the Service Estimates debate. I want to put a question to the Under-Secretary in the hope that he will answer it. He will see in Vote A that the total number for the year 1954–55 is 549,000. The latest figure we have of the strength of the Army is for 31st December, 1953, when the total was 440,000. Is the Undersecretary asking us to believe that there is a possibility of the strength of the Army going up during the year 1954–55 to the extent of 109,000 men, women and boys more than it is at present? That seems an unreal figure, which of course will reflect itself in the ancillary Estimates that will come later. I should like the hon. Gentleman to reconcile what seems to me a very wide margin between the actuality of the case and what he is asking the Committee to provide for.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison)
I shall try to answer the three questions put to me, first by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman during this delicate period of negotiation what will be the outcome of the replacement of German labour. The situation will alter, how much I do not know. We have to negotiate with Germany, and at this stage I cannot go further.

§ Mr. Crossman
This was the point on which the Secretary of State said he could talk to us for half an hour. Surely 2817 something must have been decided as to what is to happen to replace the tens of thousands of German personnel? This is not negotiation, but a decision on what is to be done. If there is a half-hour's talk on the subject, this must be one of the first sentences.

§ Mr. Hutchison
It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said he could perfectly well extend the theme for half an hour—

§ Mr. Crossman
Where is he?

§ Mr. Hutchison
—but at this stage my right hon. Friend is prevented from doing it by negotiations. I think that the story, if he was going to tell it, might take half an hour, nevertheless he cannot go into it and I cannot go into it at this stage.

§ Mr. Crossman
Am I to understand that negotiations are now going on on this subject?

§ Mr. Hutchison
It depends on when the negotiations start but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in touch with the West German Government for a very long time on a large number of matters, including this one.

§ Mr. Crossman
This is a serious point because it would imply that the detailed preparations for German rearmament are taking place before the ratification of the Treaty. If it is really suggested that we are now negotiating for the replacement of these men, then we are taking for granted something which has still to be decided in the French Assembly. I believe this is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. Is it really true that there are negotiations on this subject?

§ Mr. Hutchison
Perhaps "negotiations" is the wrong word, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the situation that has obtained for some years in connection with E.D.C., and he knows that E.D.C., and the Western German attitude to it, dominates the question as to who will pay for these costs and where we are to get the manpower. The hon. Gentleman knows as much as I do about what is going on and, were he in my position, I think he would say that this is not a time to state what we are going to do and what is going to become of the manpower situation, 2818 the German service organisation and analogous questions. It can be called negotiating or thinking forward—I do not mind.

§ Mr. Crossman
But surely we have the right to hear about this.

§ Mr. Hutchison
If the hon. Gentleman is going to talk about rights, he must go to the Foreign Office, because this is a question of negotiation at some stage and not my responsibility.

§ Mr. Crossman
Here is the Secretary of State returning. The right hon. Gentleman talked very differently from his hon. Friend. About 14 hours ago he said: We have thought carefully about that … I could talk half an hour on that subject, but the House would not want me to.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 2478.] Now his hon. Friend says that he could talk for half an hour but that the Foreign Office would not want him to do so. I want to know who is right. I should like to hear for an hour from the Secretary of State, particularly on these two points, one about barracks and the other about what is to happen about the thousands of German personnel now in the Service of B.A.O.R.? How are they to be replaced? The Under-Secretary of State has told me that this is under negotiation, and I should like confirmation from the Minister that it is under negotiation or, if he prefers it, thinking ahead. The British people are extremely interested in what is to happen to B.A.O.R. if the Germans are to rearm. It is the most interesting thing we are discussing, so we should like half an hour's talk any time he likes.

§ Mr. Head
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I said in the extract which he read out that I could talk for half an hour on that subject; indeed, I could probably talk for an hour or even one and a half hours if I put my mind to it. As I pointed out, we have thought about this and we have made arrangements and plans on certain hypotheses about barracks, and also what will happen about the German service organisation. But those are our own thoughts and ideas, conditional on the entry of Germany into E.D.C. I would point out that it would be most improper for me to give our own ideas of what might happen in that eventuality.

§ Mr. Crossman
So it is clear that there was an error made?

§ Mr. Hutchison
I admitted that.
Now, if I may turn to the question of barracks. We do not anticipate any shortage of them. I am not sure what other information the hon. Gentleman wanted than what I have said already. In reply to the question on accommodation and buildings, we do not anticipate any shortage both for rearming Western Germany and for our own requirements.
Then there was the question of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) which puzzled me and still does to a certain extent. He asked me to reconcile the fall of 13,000 in 1954–55 stated in the Memorandum with the total shown in Vote A. I am informed that the totals in Vote A are all maximum figures which do not relate to the figure he quoted. The hon. Member for Brixton—

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
May I put the question again briefly? The strength of the Army is shown in the Memorandum as 440,990 on 31st December, 1953. Under Vote A the Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to provide him with 549,000–109,000 more than in the Army at the present time. Does he not think that this is an unreal increase to look forward to in the year 1954–55?

§ Mr. Hutchison
It would be unreal if the hon. and gallant Gentleman were comparing like with like. I realise that it is misleading on first sight, but Vote A includes colonial manpower and a number of other entries that do not appear in the other calculation.

§ Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)
I have only one brief point to put, and I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who has been very fair to the House, so I should not like to keep him long. However, there is an important point arising out of the Explanatory Memorandum which says that the figures of the total number of troops include a certain number of enlisted boys, and 5,200 are mentioned. I would like enlightenment on this point because I am sure that is not the full figure. There has been a development recently in Leeds, where cadets in the schools are having their service in the Army considerably extended by permission to go out to Germany during the summer period, and 2820 I understand that financial provision is being made for them. In Leeds, very strong protests have been made.
If these boys have willingly gone into the Cadet Corps, perhaps I am not in a position to say that they should not go to Germany. But according to Vote A a very considerable extension is being made in the policy of boys in public school Cadet Corps having part of their Service training by way of a visit to Germany during the summer months. There, I understand—although I seek information on this—they will be taking part in the military exercises arranged for men of a greater age. It is only on a point of information and protest that I raise the matter now.

§ Mr. Hutchison
I think that the hon. Member is confusing boys in cadet organisations with the boys, of whom there are about 5.000, who are whole-time in the Army. Those boys could perhaps be called young Regular soldiers. The cadets from schools are unpaid— and only part-time anyhow. These boys are members of boys' battalions and organisations within the Army.

§ Mr. Hudson
Are the Government increasing the total number of boys to be trained under arms—boy auxiliaries from the schools—who for quite a period in the summer are to be engaged in armed service in Germany?

§ Mr. Hutchison
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him on this point. It is rather complicated. There has been a small increase in the boys' Army units.

§ Mr. Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
I certainly think that we ought to report Progress. Although I know that everyone is very tired, and particularly the Ministers who have been 2821 on the Front Bench so long, I should like to make one point to the Leader of the House.
In all these Estimates debates we have been under some difficulty this year. One difficulty has been the uncertainty about procedure. That uncertainty has now been removed by Mr. Speaker's Ruling yesterday—and by your own Ruling, Sir Charles—as to what is in order in these debates. But that produces the situation where these debates must inevitably consist of speeches that are partly Second Reading and partly Committee speeches. That makes it extremely difficult for Ministers, and for the spokesmen for the Opposition to wind up.
It would help if an assurance were given before the debates began that there could be a genuine Committee stage. It would not then be necessary to make the main Estimate debates so long in order to include Committee points as well as general points on the Service Estimates themselves. But so long as there is a threat of reporting Progress plus the Guillotine procedure which is going to apply next week, it is inevitable that Estimates debates must become very long so as to include Second Reading and Committee speeches.
I do not expect the Leader of the House, in the light of Mr. Speaker's Ruling yesterday, to be able immediately to give us enlightenment on this, but the Government ought to consider it. To me the case is overwhelmingly made out for at least two Parliamentary days to be properly allocated to each Service Estimate. It is really fantastic to carry on trying to rush these Votes through in one day.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank)
There is nothing in the world to prevent the Opposition asking for those days out of Supply Days.

§ Mr. Swingler
The Leader of the House knows that the Opposition has only a limited number of Supply Days and a large number of questions to raise. I do not think that he would really argue that the Service Votes are Opposition questions. This is obviously Government business. I should have thought that the Leader of the House would agree that these Estimates are now of sufficient importance—involving so much money and such big questions—as to warrant a day 2822 for the general aspect and the next day for details arising on the Votes.
We now have a debate which includes the general speeches on the Estimate and detailed matters arising from the Vote all mixed up together, because there is no opportunity at all of having a proper Committee stage on the Votes on the agenda. If we could have an assurance that we could have a proper debate on the Service Estimates, divided from the Committee stage on the Votes, the debates would probably be much less harassing, much more coherent and carried through in a much more reasonable time.

§ Mr. Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)
I think it right that I should add a few words to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). In the previous debates whenever the Leader of the House, the Patronage Secretary, or those acting for him, have moved to report Progress after taking Vote A, the Leader of the House has said in defence of the Government's action that he was carrying out the normal practice followed since the new system was introduced in 1948.
I am sure that the Leader of the House made that statement to the House in good faith. Indeed, when he made the statement he was perfectly well aware that other hon. Gentlemen on this side had said much the same thing, because they also believed that it was the normal practice—since the new system was introduced in 1948—to report Progress immediately after Vote A was taken. But in 1949 no such Motion was moved after Vote A. We went through all the Votes on that occasion. In the Navy and Air Force Estimates in 1950 there was no such Motion, although it was moved on the Army Estimates. In 1951 no such Motion was moved after Vote A. Therefore, on only one occasion out of a possible nine under the previous Government was the Motion moved in the fashion which the Leader of the House moved it, although in the debate on the Navy Estimates he said he was following normal practice.
If it is proved—and the Leader of the House can check these facts—that, quite under a misapprehension, he thought that he was carrying out normal practice, 2823 that seems to me a further argument why he should reconsider the whole question of the Estimates, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and make a statement to the House. It might avoid a Sitting which continues through the night, and give hon. Members a better opportunity to examine in detail—as is their right—the Estimates presented to the House.

§ Mr. Mikardo
The Rulings which you, Sir Charles, and Mr. Speaker have given have greatly facilitated the conduct of the debate on the Army Estimates as compared with the difficulties we experienced in the two previous Estimates debates. Those Rulings naturally clarify the position only on the assumption that the Standing Order of 1948 stands and that it will be interpreted and executed by the Government in the manner adopted this year.
We have now had the experience of conducting the Air and Navy Estimates with the operation of procedure of the Leader of the House without the benefit of your Ruling, and on the Army Estimates with that benefit. I invite the Lord Privy Seal to consider whether next year—as Leader of the House charged with the duty—and of course desiring— of getting the business of the House done as expeditiously as possible, it would not be advantageous for him to propose an Amendment of the 1948 procedure. Alternatively, to cease to operate the 1948 procedure on the basis that report Progress must be moved immediately after Vote A.
I want to call in aid the words of the Under-Secretary, whose speech was the best advocacy of what my right hon. Friends and I are putting forward. I think I got down accurately what he said, except, possibly, the last few words. He said, and we all sympathise with him: "The trouble with a long debate like this is that it defeats its own purpose, because the mass of questions comes so thick and so fast that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of order."
I am not complaining about the speech of the Under-Secretary; it reflected the very greatest credit on him, not merely because he made the speech, but because he sat in the House all those 2824 hours, leaving only very occasionally for the odd minute to swallow a cup of tea. He annotated every question that was put to him and went to all the trouble to try to answer them, a courtesy which we have not had from the spokesmen of the Navy and the Air Force.
As the hon. Gentleman said in his opening sentence, however, he was in an absolutely impossible position. The reason for this is that he was replying to a debate in which one hon. Member would get up and talk generally about strategy, a second Member would talk about Vote 8, a third about Germany, the fourth about Votes 3, 7 and 10, and so on. There was the poor Parliamentary Secretary, having to mass all that lot together and give a reply.
I put this in all seriousness to the Lord Privy Seal. I have sat through the whole of these three all-night sittings. 1 have watched them carefully and participated in them. I am quite satisfied from what I have heard that if the debate had been chopped up—had we had a general debate on the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" and then separate debates on a number, if not all, of the Votes—there would not have been any more aggregate time taken than in fact was taken. In this debate we were going until five or six o'clock this morning one for one on both sides of the House, and hon. Members opposite made valuable contributions. But what I feel about these debates is that hon. Members on both sides, who had something to say and wanted to say it, managed to get in and say it. They said no more and no less than they wanted to say, and I do not think they took any less time because they had to muck it all together than they would have taken had they been able to deal with one point at a time.
One of the evidences of that is that both on Wednesday morning and this morning, we have had very short debates on Vote A. On each occasion two or three hon. Members put points in speeches all of which were less than five minutes, and the Minister was able to reply in less than five minutes. If we could have done that, not merely for Vote A, but for Votes 1, 2, 3 and the rest, we should have got through with a succession of very short debates instead 2825 of one very long and one very short one. I repeat that I do not believe the aggregate time taken would have been any more.
Therefore, I invite the Lord Privy Seal —he is not called upon to answer now; he has a whole year to think about it —to look through those parts of the debate which he has not heard or read and to consider whether on another occasion we could not have an intelligent debate with no greater expenditure of time. The total time taken in the case of the Air Force was roughly 12 hours; in the case of the Navy, 12 hours, and in the case of the Army, about 20 hours. Whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this total time in each case is better taken by one day shift and one night shift together or by two day shifts, is a matter for him to decide. The only point I make now is that I do not think the aggregate would be increased if we had a proper debate, with separate debates on the separate Votes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this before this time next year.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
I have no wish to detain the Committee, but I should like to say how much I, for one, support what my hon. Friends have said. They have not been talking purely for the sake of wasting time in what they have just said. AH the evidence is that the time allotted at present is insufficient. I rise to make one observation only.
In the brief reply which the Lord Privy Seal gave, I thought I saw the assumption that the suggested change was purely for the convenience of Members on this side of the House. That is not so. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we could use Supply days. But why should we? During the debates that we have had on the Services on these three days, as many Members have got up from the Government side as from this side, and there is no reason whatever why the Opposition should supply time for Members on the Government side very properly to exercise their functions as critics of the Estimates.

§ Mr. Ian Harvey (Harrow, East)
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the Committee, but all the speeches since four o'clock have been from his side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman must be speaking 2826 from a brief, because this is the first appearance he has made.

§ Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)
I certainly wish to add a word in support of what my hon. Friends are saying. After all, we have had enough experience of this. It was Mr. Speaker's Ruling, in his wisdom, that the system which we had on the first two Estimates debates would not suffice. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was able to call Mr. Speaker's attention to the need for the modification which we tried out last night and this morning; and none of us, I think, regards it as wholly satisfactory.
Wherever hon. Members may feel that blame lies in this, surely that is a strong argument that this is not a very good system. Before next year it would be worth while for the Leader of the House to look into one or other of these solutions of having either a second day or a Committee stage debate. That, surely, is a satisfactory way of doing it. The general debate could be limited as a normal Second Reading debate, going, perhaps, until 4 o'clock in the morning, unless hon. Members opposite wish to prolong it. These debates would have come to an end then had there been an assurance of a reasonable amount of Committee time. Having been here through the debate and watched it from the Opposition Front Bench, that seems to me the lesson we must derive from it, and it would be worth while for the Leader of the House to consider it.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I hope that the Committee will now be prepared to report Progress, because I am quite seized of the point. Several hon. Members have made it, and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has reinforced it. I am not sure that anything more can he said about it, because it was amplified on the earlier days. The difference on this occasion was that Mr. Speaker had given his Ruling and, therefore, tonight the alternative method was tried out.
It is my duty to listen to what anybody says, from any quarter of the House, on matters dealing with practice and procedure so far as it comes within my function as its Leader for the time being. 2827 But I have not had any representation from anybody about this suggestion. It has emerged during the course of the debate. It would be wrong if I tried now to give any ruling or to express any kind of opinion. Of course, in matters of this kind 1 generally await representations from the Leader of the Opposition, who speaks for his party, but if other hon. Members, in whatever quarter of the House they sit, also like to put points to me, naturally I take them into consideration.
I do not think that after this very long debate the Committee would wish me to take this matter any further, and as I cannot believe that there is anything fresh to be said about this topic, I hope that the Committee will now agree to the Motion. We have sat for a very long time, to the inconvenience of a great number of hon. Members, at any rate on this side of the Committee, and to all the staff.

§ The Chairman
The Question is—

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
No, Sir Charles. Members of this House have rights, irrespective of certain little arrangements that are come to between the two Front Benches. Those who have taken part in this debate have staked a claim for the rights of Members on both sides of the House, which is more important than some of these nice little arrangements which may prevent discussion.
If the Leader of the House had been as considerate in his tone a few nights ago as he has been now, a good deal of this trouble could have been avoided. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not agree with 2828 the Members who are shouting at me now, and I intend to assert the rights of this House. An hon. Member opposite made the point that the only speeches from four o'clock onwards were made from this side of the House. That might have been due to pressure exerted on Members opposite, who would have spoken freely otherwise.

§ Mr. Ian Harvey
The hon. Member is completely misinformed. No such pressure has been exerted on anybody.

§ Mr. Hughes
Hon. Members on the other side can judge of that for themselves.
We should judge the procedure of 1948 in the light of 1954. These are enormous sums that we are passing without proper discussion—sums of £1,600 million, and £600 million is being rushed through without proper discussion. We have acted in as conciliatory a manner as possible, but we were taking the side of the rights of hon. Members of this House against the Front Benches of this House.