Commons Sitting of 20 June 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Eirene Lloyd White, East Flint.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with Argentina and Chile in settling the problem of the Falkland Island Dependencies.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I have nothing to add to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe).
  Mr. Dodds: But will the Minister explain why this Government have for so long been so meek and mild with Argentina and Chile? Does not he realise that much better was expected of a party which, when in opposition, had such hard words to say to us about Abadan and the Suez Canal?
  Mr. Nutting: So far as Abadan and the Suez Canal are concerned, this party has settled both problems. About the Falkland Island Dependencies, we have done all that lies in our power, which is
  1004
  to make application to the International Court of Justice; to lay before that Court the facts of the case and the grounds upon which we consider our title to our sector of Antarctica to be firmly rooted of Antarctica law. We can do no more.
  Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that neither the case of Egypt nor of Abadan could have been settled by this Government had it not been for the policy of the Labour Government, and ought not the Prime Minister to give attention to these very serious matters raised by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about Abadan in this Question.
  Mr. Shinwell: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, is it not true to say that when the Labour Government were in office, in the case of Abadan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—this is arising out of the reply—we did precisely what the right hon. Gentleman's Government have done in the case of Argentina and Chile, that is, we made reference to the International Court of Justice? Is not that the case?
  Mr. Nutting: You, Mr. Speaker, have already enjoined me not to go further than the Question on the Order Paper, but, subject to your Ruling, I would say that the questions of Abadan and the Suez Canal were settled as a result of three years of patient labour and negotiation by the present Government.

  GERMANY (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of the United States of America, France and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries with a view to preventing the handing over of nuclear weapons to Germany.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): There is no proposal to hand nuclear weapons to Western Germany and, therefore, no discussions have been held.
  Mr. Warbey: Yes, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the debate on the Paris Agreements, the

  1005
  Foreign Secretary said that this would be a matter for discussion between the countries concerned? Do not the Government propose to initiate such discussions, or are they indifferent to the question whether or not Germany is supplied with nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Turton: What was said during the debate on 18th November last year, to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring, was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who explained that the proposal for equipping the Federal Republic with nuclear weapons would be known in advance both to the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and that both organisations would, therefore, have the full right and opportunity to express their views on this subject.
  Mr. Paget: Surely the position is that N.A.T.O. has control of the atomic armaments of the Atlantic Community, that these divisions are N.A.T.O. divisions and that it is a N.A.T.O. decision as to what ammunition it sends and where?
  Mr. Turton: That, I think, is accurate.

  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to interpret the treaty obligations of the Western European Union consistently with the Charter of the United Nations.
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Minister of State aware that the military obligations of the Western European Union conflict with those of Article 53 of the Charter, which declares that no enforcement action defined as action with respect to threats and breaches of the peace and acts of aggression may be taken under a regional arrangement or by a regional agency for the maintenance of international peace and security without the authorisation of the Security Council? Is the Minister further aware that under Article 103 of the Charter obligations that conflict with those of the Charter cannot be invoked when the occasion arises?
  Mr. Nutting: I am aware of Article 53 and of Article 103, but I am also aware of Article 51 of the Charter, which says:
  "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."

  BURGESS AND MACLEAN
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further inquiries are being made into the disappearance of Burgess and Maclean.
  Mr. Turton: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply he received from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 27th April, to which I have nothing to acid.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that mean that the position is exactly what it was on 31st January, when the Minister said that the information was inadequate and that researches into the matter were not sufficient? If I put down a Question in three years' time to the hon. Gentleman, shall I get a better answer?
  Mr. Turton: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will study very carefully the reply given by my right hon. Friend, I think that he will see the full implication of that reply.

  DISARMAMENT TALKS, LONDON (REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, in accordance with precedent, publish as a White Paper the record of the discussions in the meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, which took place at Lancaster House this year.
  Mr. Nutting: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 15th of June.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister of State say whether Her Majesty's Government will propose that these minutes should be published at the right time—but before the Assembly of the United Nations—in view of the very beneficial effect which publication has had in the past?
  Mr. Nutting: It is, of course, for the Sub-Committee to take its own decision about the publication of its records and minutes and the proposals which are made before it, but I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that publication will take place before the meeting of the Assembly, because the Sub-Committee has to report to the Disarmament Commission, the parent body, prior to the meeting of the Assembly. Therefore, publication should take place before September.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I to understand that Her Majesty's Government will propose that publication should take place?
  Mr. Nutting: I think that it will happen as an automatic act by the Sub-Committee, but we will certainly see that when the Sub-Committee finishes its meeting, which will be before the Assembly meets, the records are published.

  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY AGREEMENT (RATIFICATION)
  Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the association of the United Kingdom with the European Coal and Steel Community.
  Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Government have now ratified the Agreement concerning the relations between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community which was signed in London on 21st December, 1954. The Agreement will enter into force when it has also been ratified by the six States members of the Community.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say why there is this six months' hold-up in this further ratification and whether we are bringing influence to bear on the other States to ratify as soon as possible?
  Mr. Turton: We cannot interfere with the procedure in other countries, but the position is that in the Federal Republic of Germany it has been approved by the Bundesrat and has yet to be approved by the Bundestag. I have no information of the progress of ratification in the other five countries.

  ARRESTED CONSULAR OFFICER, UNITED STATES (PROTEST)
  Mr. Kirkasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning the committal to prison of Mr. Ronald Cook, British Consul at Norfolk, Virginia, by the United States Federal District Judge.
  Mr. Turton: Mr. Cook, Her Majesty's Consul at Norfolk, Virginia, was committed for contempt of court on refusing to take the oath as a witness during the hearing of an action relating to a claim for damages by a Pakistani merchant seaman formerly serving on s.s. "Etivebank" against the shipowners. Later the same day Mr. Cook was released on bail.
  It is the established policy of Her Majesty's Government that consular officers should not be authorised to give evidence either as expert witnesses or in relation to official matters, and Mr. Cook was accordingly instructed not to testify. Article 10 (4) of the Consular Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America specifically releases consular officers from the obligation to give evidence in such circumstances. A strong protest was made by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington to the State Department on 9th June. A reply is awaited.
  Mr. Kirk: Cannot my hon. Friend ask the United States Government to speed up their answer in view of the fact that this matter has been hanging on for two weeks?
  Mr. Turton: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear my reply. I said that a strong protest was made on 9th June, so that there has not been a two weeks' delay. I think we had better wait until we get a reply from America.

  POLAND (ARRESTED BRITISH SEAMAN)
  9. Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the imprisonment by the Polish authorities of a British sailor, Mr. George Lamport, who was arrested by the Polish police on the quay at Stettin on 24th May; what charges were brought against him; and

  1009
  whether any of Her Majesty's consular officers have been allowed access to him in prison.
  Mr. Turton: The Polish Ministry for Foreign Affairs informed Her Majesty's Embassy at Warsaw on 3rd June that George Lamport, a British seaman serving on board a Norwegian vessel, had been arrested at Szczecin by the Polish police. He was stated to have been drunk and to have behaved in an insulting manner towards the frontier police.
  The British Vice-Consul at Gdynia went to Szczecin on 4th June, but, in accordance with Polish procedure, was not permitted to visit Mr. Lamport, as the case against him had not then been formulated. Mr. Lamport has since been charged under Article 129 of the Penal Code with assaulting representatives of the frontier police, and the Vice-Consul is again applying for permission to visit him. He has also engaged a lawyer to defend Mr. Lamport. Her Majesty's Embassy at Warsaw has requested the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to expedite the proceedings against Mr. Lamport or else to release him.
  Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: Can my hon. Friend explain why no notification was received by the British authorities of this arrest until 3rd June, when the arrest was made on the quay on 24th May?
  Mr. Turton: I have no definite knowledge that the arrest took place on 24th May, although I have seen a report in the London Press to that effect, and, therefore, I cannot answer that question.

  BRITISH ANTARCTICA
  Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Chile is still in unauthorised occupation of bases in British Antarctica, namely, Discovery Bay, Greenwich Island and Pendulum Cove, Deception Island, both in the South Shetlands, and two bases in Graham Land; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Nutting: So far as my information goes, Chile remains in illegal occupation of these four bases. Formal protests were made to the Chilean Government when the bases were established. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Her Majesty's Government have also submitted applications
  1010
  to the International Court of Justice in respect of Chilean and Argentine encroachments in British Antarctica.
  Mr. Hall: As it is some eight years since Chile first entered into possession of one of these bases, can my right hon. Friend say what effective action is open to Her Majesty's Government if Chile refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court?
  Mr. Nutting: We still hope that Chile and the Argentine may change their minds and accept the jurisdiction of the International Court, but, of course, we cannot force them to do so, as they have not signed the optional clause. So far as action is concerned, I do not think that it will assist our course and our action to divulge in advance any measures which we may intend to take.

  UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES (BRITISH CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will increase their contribution to the United Nations agencies concerned with the economic development of the undeveloped areas of the world.
  Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government always contribute to such agencies as generously as their other commitments allow. I cannot however anticipate what future contributions they may be able to make to world economic development.
  Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that the proportion of the British contribution to technical assistance has fallen considerably since 1951? Will not the Government really give a lead in September to the other industrial countries by making greater contributions, because it makes good sense economically, politically and morally to do so?
  Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member is really giving a very misleading picture of British contributions to technical assistance. I will give the amounts of the contributions. In 1950–51—a period of 18 months—we contributed £760,000; in 1951—a 12-months' period—£450,000; 1953, £500,000; 1954, £650,000, and in 1955 we raised our contribution to £800,000.
  Mr. de Freitas: But is it not a fact that in each case our proportion fell, which is the point I am making?
  Mr. Nutting: What is a fact is that we still remain the second largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in assessing the part which Britain is playing in supporting the funds for this purpose, regard should also be had to the enormous sums being paid through colonial development and welfare?
  Mr. Nutting: And, I would add, through the Colombo Plan.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is it still the position that Her Majesty's Government cannot and will not give any active support to the proposed special United Nations Fund for economic development until further progress has been made with disarmament?
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. That is the position, because the resolution which was agreed by all the nations at the United Nations Assembly last year envisaged that a fund should be set up when sufficient progress had been made with disarmament, and when there were sufficient savings from disarmament to contribute effectively to such a fund. Her Majesty's Government support that policy.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Minister of State inform the House whether there is any compelling public reason why he should refrain from answering the perfectly proper Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), namely, whether or not it is a fact that this country's proportion of the total contributions has been steadily falling between the dates mentioned?
  Mr. Nutting: I am perfectly prepared to answer that. It may well be that our contribution per cent.—in proportion—has fallen, but the hon. Member ignores the reason. The reason is, of course, that for the first time and for the first occasion the Russians have chosen to make a contribution to a United Nations specialised agency. They have elected to make a contribution to the Technical Assistance Programme. That is why Her Majesty's
  1012
  Government's contribution has been lower in terms of proportion than in other cases.
  Mr. Silverman: Then why did not the Minister say so?
  Mr. Nutting: Because the hon. Member did not ask the Question. He now asks the Question, and I am giving him the answer. It is that Russia is now making a contribution.

  SOVIET MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FACTORIES
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities are given to the Ambassador and his staff in Moscow to inspect Soviet military aircraft and military aircraft factories.
  Mr. Turton: Facilities for the inspection of military aircraft are limited to attendance at air displays. No facilities are given to Her Majestys' Ambassador or his staff to inspect Soviet military aircraft factories.
  Mr. Hughes: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the remarkable speech made last week by his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), in which he referred to the tremendous progress Russia has made in solving scientific and production problems and said that it is due to Russia having given more attention to scientific education? Can the Joint Under-Secretary ask Her Majesty's Ambassador there whether that is true and if that is what is happening under Communism?
  Mr. Turton: I think that my reply shows that the Ambassador does not enjoy facilities for inspecting Soviet military aircraft factories and would, therefore, not have an opportunity. I believe that Mr. Nehru quite recently did inspect one such factory, so perhaps the hon. Member might have a word with him to see if he confirms what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Can my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member opposite that the Russians had great assistance in research from the presentation of Rolls-Royce "Nene" engines?

  WASHINGTON EMBASSY (CIVIL DEFENCE EXERCISES)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements were made for the British Embassy in the recent civil defence exercises in Washington.
  Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Embassy were informed beforehand that the civil defence exercises were designed to test arrangements which included provision for the evacuation of foreign Embassies. It was not considered necessary, however, for the staffs of embassies actually to take part in these preliminary tests.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that, according to the plan for these civil defence exercises, Washington was assumed to be obliterated? Was the British Embassy staff allowed to be left there, and could he tell us how, in certain eventualities, the British Ambassador is to get his instructions from the United States Government?
  Mr. Turton: I understand that the United States Government have every confidence that Her Majesty's Ambassador will conform with all arrangements they are making for his protection.

  WAR DAMAGE CLAIM, LONDON
  Mr. Russellasked the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions expects to complete his inquiries into the war damage claim in respect of 48–70a Oakland Road, Hanwell, W.7, as the delay in making payment is causing inconvenience to the builder.
  The Attorney-General (Sir R. Manningham-Buller): The inquiries into this case have necessarily taken some time, but they have now been completed and the reports made to the Director of Public Prosecutions are under consideration.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    National Assistance Grants
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people were in receipt of National
    1014
    Assistance allowances during the first week in April, 1955; what was the total cost; and how this compares in numbers and in cost with the first week in May, 1955.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): On 29th March, 1955, the number of regular weekly National Assistance grants was 1,807,466. On 26th April, the number was 1,693,364. Most of the grants are paid at post offices, and I regret that information showing total expenditure by weeks is not available.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people were in receipt of National Assistance allowances at the latest convenient date; what was the total amount paid out; and how it compares with a similar period in 1954.
    Mr. Marples: The number of regular weekly National Assistance grants on 31st May, 1955, was 1,648,549 compared with 1,782,287 on 25th May, 1954. As regards the cost, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous Question.
    Mr. Dodds: Was not the answer given by a previous Government, and could not that Parliamentary Secretary give the figure now for the benefit of the House?
    Mr. Marples: The cost by weeks is not available. The cost by calendar months is available, but it takes two months before the information can be collated and presented.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. McKibbinasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons there are in Great Britain in receipt of the 10s. widow's pension; and how much he estimates it would cost to double the pension to these recipients.
    Mr. Marples: About 155,000 widows are now receiving the 10s. widow's pension. The extra cost of doubling their pensions would be about £4 million a year at present.
    Mr. McKibbin: Does my hon. Friend know that in Northern Ireland there are, in addition, 2,804 expectant 10s. widows waiting for him to do justice to the

    1015
    widows over here so that the Northern Ireland Government can follow suit and give them a quid pro quo?
    Mr. Marples: I would ask my hon. Friend to let me have a note of the expectant widows in Northern Ireland.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to receive the review now being made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee upon widowhood provisions and the question of the 10s. widow.
    Mr. Woodasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will arrange for the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the position of widows receiving a pension of 10s. a week, to be available before the Summer Recess.
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has now received the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the position of the 10s. widow; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Members for Itchen (Dr. King) and Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 13th June, and to what was said about this in my right hon. Friend's speech in the debate on the Address last Tuesday.
    Miss Burton: I do not recollect the answer given to the Question, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in his speech his right hon. Friend added nothing to our previous knowledge? As the number of 10s. widows is relatively small—as revealed in the answer to Question No. 19—does he not feel that something could be done about this, as it is an urgent matter for most of these women?
    Mr. Marples: I am sure that many hon. Members have knowledge of individual cases of hardship, but, as a general class, the 10s. widow is not as badly off as some who are in receipt of National Insurance benefits. The proportion of 10s. widows receiving National Assistance is 14 per cent., but for all National Insurance beneficiaries it is 22 per cent. As a category, there is no hardship, but if any hon. Member has
    1016
    knowledge of any individual case of hardship, I should be glad to have the information.
    Mr. Wood: I do not recollect the answer either. My Question asked whether the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee will be available before the Summer Recess. Could I have an answer?
    Mr. Marples: It depends upon the National Insurance Advisory Committee, over which my right hon. Friend has no real control. He cannot ask the Committee to report by a given date. The point is that the Committee has most of the evidence at its disposal and has promised to report as soon as possible.
    Mr. T. Brown: Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what is causing the delay in getting the report from the National Insurance Advisory Committee, when as far back as 12th March, 1954, we were promised that this matter would receive urgent attention? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, although he made light of the small number of people involved, this class of persons has been suffering an injustice since the present Government took power?
    Mr. Marples: I could not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The reason for the delay is that it is a complicated and complex matter. The basic assumption underlying the Question is that every 10s. widow is worse off than a comparable widow under the existing scheme. That is not so. Some of the 10s. widows are very much better off.

    Claims Procedure (Delays)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will review the regulations which lay down the period within which claims for insurance benefit and allowances must be made, in view of the hardship caused to insured persons, as in the case referred to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. These time-limits were comprehensively reviewed and reported on by the National Insurance Advisory Committee and the Industrial

    1017
    Injuries Advisory Council in 1952, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for a further review at this time.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware of the many cases that arise of persons who are fully entitled to benefits of one kind or another but, due to some misunderstanding, do not make their claim—sometimes it is just a matter of days—within the time prescribed by the regulations? Is not this very hard, and should not some liberty be allowed to the regional officer to admit such claims?
    Mr. Marples: In 1952 the National Insurance Advisory Committee did recommend the acceptance of later notice of retirement. In principle, my right hon. Friend has accepted that recommendation, but it would require legislation to carry it into effect.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it may be further proceeded with? Is there any chance of it this Session?
    Mr. Marples: It will certainly be included in the next comprehensive legislation introduced by the Department.

    Pensions and Benefits
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that some recipients of pensions and benefits are still actually worse off as a result of the recent revision of pensions; and if he will introduce amending legislation to remove such anomalies.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I should he glad to see it.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that during the recent Election many hon. Members on this side of the House were given examples by the people themselves of how they were worse off? Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee to any people in this country who are worse off as a result of this recent so-called increase that their pensions will be attended to and the increase put into effect?
    Mr. Marples: If hon. Members opposite who have had these cases presented to them during the Election will be kind enough to forward them to my right hon. Friend, every one will be looked into.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of cases not only of old-age pensioners but of people in receipt of sickness benefit who are dissatisfied? I could mention one or two cases that have been brought to my attention this weekend of people who have suffered a reduction as a result of the reduction in their National Assistance pay. Is it fair that these people should be told by headlines in the Press and statements by the Government before the Election that all those in receipt of old-age pensions and sickness benefit would be better off as a result of the Government's statement mentioning 12s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., when many of these people get only 4s. and 2s. 6d.?
    Mr. Marples: The Question on the Order Paper referred to people who are
    "still actually worse off as a result of the recent revision of pensions."
    If hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), or indeed on these benches, have any such case, I shall look forward to receiving a communication from them.

    Old-Age Pensioners, Coventry (Letter)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply he has sent to the letter concerning the hardship of retired persons from the Honorary Secretary of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations, Coventry Area Council, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South.
    Mr. Marples: I would ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's reply to her letter of 17th June.
    Miss Burton: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that letter from the Secretary of the Coventry Area Council concerned the proposed increase in coal prices? Is he aware that these recent pension increases, whatever they may be worth, will do nothing to improve that problem? Is he prepared to do anything to help old people to get fuel in the coming winter?
    Mr. Marples: The letter that the hon. Member sent me was dated 17th June, and it is now 20th June. I would ask her to await a considered reply to that letter.

  COAL

    Fuel Overseers and Offices (Economies)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why he proposes to close the Osgoldcross Fuel Office in Pontefract.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am awaiting my regional officer's recommendations in regard to this office.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what economy he has achieved in fuel overseers and fuel offices, compared with October, 1951; and what is the financial economy he has thus achieved, per annum, in operating the domestic coal allocation schemes, comparing 1955 with 1951.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: A reduction in the number of overseers and offices from 1,455 to 782 and in the annual cost from £1,142,000 to about £850,000.
    Mr. Nabarro: That is a very satisfactory answer, but can my right hon. Friend say what further progress he now hopes to make towards the elimination of all fuel overseers and fuel offices which are, after all, only a hangover from Socialism?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should much like to get rid of coal rationing, but that depends fundamentally on an improvement in coal supplies.
    Mr. Snow: In the meantime, will the Minister watch very carefully the closing down of some of these fuel offices in industrial areas? For instance, in the case of Tamworth, to which I have drawn his attention, a mining community can be placed in this position: miners who normally receive concessionary coal no longer receive this coal as part of their wages when they are sick and they have to go to the fuel office, and in this case the fuel office has been moved to a very un-get-at-able area about 15 miles away.
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course, this work of securing economy, which is small in relation to the national accounts, but which I am sure the House will agree is well worth while, is quite hard work because of the detailed administrative work involved. So far, however, we have managed to reduce the number of overseers by about half, with very little com-
    1020
    plaint. We look into each case most carefully before a final decision is taken.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the reason for the shortage of coal that the coal which we produce in England and make available here is much cheaper than the coal which anybody else abroad can produce, and that it is therefore more expensive because we have to import a more expensive article?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is an element of truth in that statement, but I would regard it as an overstatement.

    Private Industry (Prices)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will again set up a committee of investigation to inquire into the sale of coal to private industry at prices below the cost of production.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir. Nor can I accept the implication that the National Coal Board discriminate between classes of consumer.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of disquiet in coalfields about this question and that many of the miners are convinced that private industry, particularly the steel industry, is getting its coal at less than the economic price? If that is the case, will the Minister give an assurance that he will look into the matter and put it right in order that nationalised industry is not in the position of having to subsidise private industry?
    Mr. Lloyd: The principles of pricing applied to coal for the steel industry are exactly the same as those applied to the coal supplied to the Central Electricity Authority, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will disabuse the miners of their mistaken belief.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the principal element in respect of subsidy to all classes of consumers of coal is in respect of the large accumulated losses of the National Coal Board, and that is a taxpayers' subsidy?

    Price Increases
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent the prices of solid fuels have been increased recently; and to what extent this has been due to the current strikes.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what increases have taken place in the price of coal since the beginning of the year.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: To the end of May, increases arising from distribution costs varied locally from 6d. to 2s. 5d. per ton. On 5th June, there were increases arising from railway freight charges amounting on average to about 1s. 6d. per ton. During the railway strike many coal merchants incurred abnormal costs, chiefly for long distance road haulage, and in such cases temporary price increases were authorised.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend doing what he can to bring home to the strikers the harm that they are doing to their own country?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not the case that one of the underlying causes of the increase in coal prices is the money that we are losing by importing coal? Why did the Minister decide to withhold any announcement about further price increases, which should have been made in March, until well after the General Election? It was purely for electoral purposes.
    Mr. Lloyd: The underlying reason for the imports is that we are not producing enough to meet our own needs.
    Dame Irene Ward: Could my right hon. Friend let us know when he is going to make a specific statement on coal prices? Does he think it is good practice for chairmen of gas boards and other people to keep on pointing out that there is going to be a rise in the price of coal, in the absence of any authoritative statement? Is it not right that the National Coal Board should make the statement, rather than other people not directly concerned with the matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is a matter for the National Coal Board.
    Dame Irene Ward: But why does not my right hon. Friend do something about it?

    Imports
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported to date this year, and at what cost in dollars and otherwise and of the total proposed imports of 12 million
    1022
    tons of coal this year at an aggregate cost of approximately £80 million, how much will be paid for in dollars and how much otherwise.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Four and a half million tons up to the end of May, at a landed cost of £27½ million, of which nearly £5 million was payable in dollars. It is not yet possible to estimate the dollar cost of imports in the full year, but a substantial part of our requirements will have to be obtained from the United States.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the accumulated deficit of the National Coal Board to 31st March last will be added to now by 12 million tons, all of which is sold at a loss of £2 per ton?. In view of this very large deficit in sight, would it not be advisable to warn all concerned that coal is likely to rise in price by about 10s. a ton?
    Mr. Lloyd: As has been said, there have been a number of public comments about this matter.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman could get out of this difficulty of importing dollar coal if he really set to and tackled the oil monopoly? He would get the price down by at least 40 per cent., from £10 a ton to £6 a ton, and it then would not be necessary to import coal at all.
    Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.

    Railway Strike (Production and Stocks)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the current coal position, with special reference to loss of production through strikes, on distributed and undistributed stocks compared with an equivalent date last year, and on house coal prospects for next winter.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the effect of the recent railway strike upon the production, the export and the import of coal.
    Sir R. Robinsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in stockpiling coal near the pit-heads during the current emergency.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As a result of the rail strike there was little loss of production, little reduction of imports though exports were considerably curtailed, and about one million tons of coal were stockpiled on the ground near the pits. Through disputes at the mines, however, 1·9 million tons have so far been lost this year. Total distributed and undistributed stocks at 4th June, the latest date for which figures are available, were 13·3 million tons against 15·2 million tons at the corresponding date last year. All possible steps are being taken to build up adequate supplies for next winter, but it is too early to make any statement on the prospects for any one type of consumer.
    Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that all these figures point to an extremely difficult position developing, will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not possible to give consumers of all classes a very much greater incentive to stock coal in the summer, especially in view of the near-breakdown of household supplies last winter, largely due to the lack of adequate stocking during the summer months?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am all in favour of summer stocking, but I do not think it would be practicable to change the summer price scheme at the moment. As a matter of fact, the difficulties last winter arose partly because coal which was being stocked in the summer for use during the winter was, in fact, used during the summer because it was too much like the winter.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the million tons of coal which are wasted every year, will the Minister take effective action to secure economy by industry and carry out some of the measures recommended by the Ridley Committee?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. A great deal of progress is being made in that direction by the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, which is making very good progress.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Iron and Steel Companies (Price Fixing)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Supply whether he will direct the Iron and Steel Board to make an inquiry into
    1024
    the practice of steel firms quoting identical prices for structural steel contracts.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): No, Sir. I think the hon. Member's point was covered by the statement made on 16th June by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he said that he expected very shortly to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission on the supply of steel frames for buildings.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Why should we have to wait perhaps two or three years before we get that report and then another year for the Government to consider it when, under nationalisation, the Minister could give directions such as these at any time? Does not this prove the case which we made when steel was being denationalised—that this board is a complete sham and is made to do nothing at all?
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. The Minister could not give directions because the production of structural steel products is outside the purview of the Iron and Steel Board, and it is appropriate for the Monopolies Commission to examine the reference which is about to be made to it.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that at least four or five of the leading firms which make structural steel, and certainly four of the firms quoting prices for the L.C.C. recently, had been publicly owned before denationalisation, and that under nationalisation the Minister would have had a perfect right to give to these companies such instructions as he wanted, instructing them not to carry out such anti-social activities and not to exploit the public? Is not my hon. Friend perfectly right, therefore, in saying that it is denationalisation which has prevented the Government from interfering with these practices?
    Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of investigating those matters for himself when he was Minister.
    Mr. Stokes: Would it not have been possible to suggest to the Minister of Housing and Local Government that where public tenders turn out to be identical, as they so frequently do, he could advise local authorities to insist on a

    1025
    costs certificate on profit and to deduct anything about a certain profit from the tender price? That would be an easy way out of the difficulty.
    Mr. Erroll: I think that that hobby-horse of the right hon. Gentleman will be examined by the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Stokes: I hope it will.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Workers
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern felt in the countryside at the continuing reduction in the number of agricultural workers; and what steps he has in mind to deal with this situation.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service and I are aware of the position, which we know is not easy. Productivity however is rising and while numbers have been going down, total net output has been going up. The Government welcome this evidence of increasing efficiency and will continue to play their part in providing facilities for the training and education of farm workers and in the improvement of amenities and public services in the countryside.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that an improvement in transport facilities and an increased availability of smallholdings would be two very helpful contributions towards a solution of this difficult problem?
    Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend that both those things are very important.

    Slaughterhouses (Report)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now considered the Report of the Committee on Slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amory: I hope to receive the Report next month.

    Bacon (Wholesale Prices)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has, in the last two weeks, increased the wholesale prices of bacon 20s. to 32s. per cwt.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), on 16th June, 1955.
    Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was a most unsatisfactory reply, because it gave no indication why prices have been increased at a time of a seasonal decline in demand, following a reduction in prices for pigs to farmers? There can be no justification for these increases now. Will the Minister say when we are to have some orderly marketing?
    Mr. Amory: I think the steps which have been taken and the price changes which are illustrated in the reply to which I have referred are sensible. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that present prices of bacon are substantially below the prices at the time of decontrol.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at any rate it is suspicious when prices fixed by the Government are decreased during the General Election and increased immediately the Election is over?
    Mr. Amory: I would remind the hon. Member that demand is very much stronger now than it was.

    Horticultural Industry (Inquiry)
    Mr. G. R. Howardasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the horticulture inquiry set up by his Department.
    Mr. Amory: I understand that the Committee, which was appointed on 31st March, began work very shortly afterwards. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the task the Committee has been given is one of great scope and complexity.
    Mr. Howard: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that sufficient publicity has been given to the terms of reference, etc., of the Committee? Will the Committee be touring the

    1027
    country during its investigation? Will flowers be included? Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when the vegetable side of the problem will be considered?
    Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend has asked me four questions. The more publicity given to this very important inquiry the better I shall be pleased. I think the appointment of the Committee has had a good deal of notice in the Press. I am glad to say that the Committee is hard at work. It issued a Press statement on 4th May which indicated the priority of tasks and I think that gives my hon. Friend the information which he requires.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Chronic Arthritics (Treatment)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Health what facilities are available for the rehabilitation of chronic arthritics.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): In addition to those hospitals which specialise in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, most large general hospitals have rehabilitation departments which provide a full range of facilities including various forms of physiotherapy and occupational therapy for chronic arthritics as for those suffering from other disabilities.
    Mr. Remnant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of coinplaints—or, at least there is a strong feeling—that much more could be done for this type of case, which is a very sad one?
    Mr. Macleod: I think it probable that, in general, the facilities are reasonably adequate, but it may well be that there is a certain lack of liaison between hospital authorities and the different welfare services. That certainly is a matter I shall be glad to look into.

    Disabled Persons (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that some of the cars supplied by his Department to severely disabled persons are now more than seven years old; and if he will indicate his proposals for replacement with new cars.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have the whole of this question under consideration now.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that, generally speaking, the men first supplied with the cars are those with the greatest need, and that their continued employment and livelihood depend on the efficiency of their cars? At some later date, could the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of future policy?
    Mr. Macleod: The principle of replacement is accepted. It is the details of replacement which are being worked out and are under consideration.

    General Practitioner, Birmingham
    Mr. Bairdasked the Minister of Health what position Dr. Brian Taylor, of Church Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, holds under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: That of a part-time consultant to the board of governors of the United Birmingham Hospitals and to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board.
    Mr. Baird: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents who was a footplate man on strike a few weeks ago, and his wife, patients of this doctor, received a letter from the doctor saying:
    "I am afraid my principles prevent me from seeing patients who are on strike, except in cases of emergency. Do you mind postponing your visit with your wife? If you 'phone for an appointment when the strike is over, I will try to fix a convenient date."
    Is not the action of this doctor completely unethical? Does it not amount to political discrimination? Will the right hon. Gentleman see either that the doctor changes his principles or that his name is withdrawn from the National Health Service list?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member, I am sure, knows of the difficulty there is in this situation. If there were any question of breach of contract within the National Health Service, it would be a matter for which I would be answerable in this House, and would be glad to answer, but if it is a question of medical etiquette which the hon. Member seems to raise, that is not for me, nor is the matter of a private arrangement a doctor might make with his private patient.
    Mr. Baird: Is it not a fact that this doctor says that his principles do not allow him to see these people? Surely

    1029
    his principles must operate in the National Health Service as a whole and what he is saying is that he will never see a patient on strike?
    Mr. Macleod: Equally, there is a matter of principle involved in my reply. I cannot reply on matters for which there is no Ministerial responsibility at all, and that, I am afraid, is the case in this regard.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a practitioner—a medical person—who makes this discrimination in respect of a man on strike, an official strike, is suitable to be practising in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Member, who is a very distinguished parliamentarian, knows perfectly well the difficulty I am in in responding to this Question. I really do not think I can go beyond what I have said. I do not make the rules of the House. If this is a matter in which there is no Ministerial responsibility, I do not see how I can offer comment on it in this House.
    Mr. Baird: As the reply of the Minister is completely unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

    Mental Defectives (Criminal Offences)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health why, under Circular H.M. (55) 46, of 10th May, 1955, he now requires the police to be informed of sexual acts by certified mental defectives, in addition to the normal report to the Board of Control; whether he is aware that medical superintendents have been informed by his Department that such reports to the police are still discretionary; and if he will revert to the earlier procedure by withdrawing the circular.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The circular was issued after consultation with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department because the earlier procedure, which had only been in force since 1951, did not have sufficient regard to the duty of the police to investigate criminal offences. The circular advises but does not require cases to be reported to the police. I am aware of no good reason for its withdrawal.
    Mr. Robinson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the police should prosecute in cases like this? Is it not the fact that the old arrangements have been working quite satisfactorily? Why does the Minister want to place this additional burden on medical superintendents?
    Mr. Macleod: There are certain cases which, by the 1913 Act, are in effect criminal offences which come within the terms of this circular. The hon. Member referred to the previous practice, but we are getting back to the practice which operated before 1951. This is a matter of doctor-patient relationship, and the final decision whether the police should be notified is left to the medical superintendent.

    Surgical Appliances (Company Contract)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Health what communications he has now received from the Brooks Appliance Company about the termination of its contract to supply appliances through the National Health Service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have received no direct communication from this company. I have seen copies of a leaflet they have given to patients.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the concern caused by this leaflet, does not the Minister think it would be as well if he got in touch with this firm and tried to clear up this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: There are 150 firms which manage under the provisions of the drug tariff to provide perfectly adequate trusses for the National Health Service. I do not accept in any way that those trusses are inferior, and if the company wants to put a case to me on that matter, it is for it to do so.

    Poliomyelitis Vaccine
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further statement regarding the use of Salk vaccine in the experimental treatment of poliomyelitis in Great Britain.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 17th June.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Whilst we welcome the fact that we in this country are to proceed with care and caution and proper research before using this vaccine publicly, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that satisfactory facilities and provision of appliances for research work are now being made?
    Mr. Macleod: That is one of the matters on which, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have asked to be advised by the Central Health Services Council. The Medical Research Council are, of course, already giving thought to that question.
    Mr. Hastings: Is this vaccine still being manufactured in this country by the two firms which the right hon. Gentleman named in a previous discussion?
    Mr. Macleod: I think it is only in active production by one of the firms I mentioned earlier in this House.

  HONG KONG (EX-JAPANESE PRISONERS OF WAR)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware there are approximately 300 ex-Japanese prisoners of war of Chinese race in Hong Kong; whether he has yet received their applications for payment of war claims; and how much they have been paid to date.
  The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): Assets made available to Hong Kong under Article 14 of the Japanese Peace Treaty are not being distributed individually to former Japanese prisoners of war. Most of these assets have been used to establish an endowment fund for Hong Kong University.
  Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that many of these Chinese subjects have made claims and are hoping for some payments? Will he make it quite clear to the House that there has been no discrimination towards those subjects vis-à-vis other subject peoples in the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Hopkinson: No, Sir. Under the arrangements of the Japanese Peace Treaty, it was left to each Government with Japanese assets which are realised under Article 14 to decide what use could
  1032
  be made of them. In this country there was a distribution per capita, but in the countries which were overrun by the Japanese, notably Malaya, Borneo and Hong Kong, the assets were being used for the community as a whole so that there will be no distribution to ex-prisoners of war.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Motor Racing (Safety Regulations)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to lessen the dangers to spectators of motor racing.
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to secure greater safety in motor racing in this country.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I have been asked to reply, also to Question No. 55. I understand that the Royal Automobile Club, which controls motor racing in this country, has instituted a special review of the present arrangements in the light of the recent accident at Le Mans. The information at present before my right hon. and gallant Friend does not suggest that action is called for on his part.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Iron and Steel Companies (Price Fixing)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to forbid companies whose shares it holds from taking part in price-fixing rings.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) on 16th June. The companies, in common with the companies returned to private ownership, are members of a wide range of trade associations. If the hon. Member has evidence of abuse or undesirable practices, he will no doubt bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the

    1033
    Board of Trade with a view to consideration for reference to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Chetwynd: is there not clear evidence that these firms are engaging in price fixing and common tendering? Why should they have to go through the whole process and rigmarole of going to the Monopolies Commission, which may take two or three years, whereas by a simple act the Chancellor of the Exchequer could forbid this practice immediately?
    Mr. Brooke: This is not rigmarole. The President of the Board of Trade is referring the matter to the Monopolies Commission to obtain a report on whether certain aspects of these practices are desirable or otherwise. It would be quite wrong to prejudge the question.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in the present opinion of Her Majesty's Government there is no abuse at all in these practices, that they are perfectly happy to allow them to go on for a year or two until the Monopolies Commission report, and are not prepared to take any action to deal with these abuses meanwhile?
    Mr. Brooke: No. As I told the right hon. Gentleman the other day, I know of no practices that are now extant among these companies which did not exist when he was Minister of Supply. I am absolutely certain that it would be wrong for the Government to do anything to prejudice the present reference to the Monopolies Commission.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is it not the position that this Government are taking action whereas the Labour Government failed to take action?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head precisely.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no single example of such price fixing came to light or was quoted by any public authority or received any comment whatsoever during the period of nationalisation? If such price fixing had come to light, the Government of that day would certainly have taken immediate action to deal with it.
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot be held responsible if there was lack of knowledge on the part of the Labour Government.

ATOMIC ENERGY (ANGLO-UNITED STATES AGREEMENTS)
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now make a statement on the Anglo-United States Civil and Military Agreements on Atomic Energy.
The texts of these Agreements, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred in his statement on 15th June, are being laid this afternoon and copies will be available in the Vote Office at 5 o'clock. These Agreements provide the basis for closer co-operation in atomic matters between our two countries.
Because of the limitations of the United States Atomic Energy Act of last year, the Military Agreement excludes disclosure of information relating directly to the design or fabrication of atomic weapons. It will, however, permit a valuable exchange of knowledge, on a fully reciprocal basis, on other military aspects of atomic energy. These include information relating to the development of defence plans, and to training in the use of, and defence against, nuclear weapons. The Agreement also makes possible the joint evaluation of the capabilities of other Powers in the use of atomic weapons. It will also allow the exchange of information on the effects of all types of weapons.
The Civil Agreement provides, also on a fully reciprocal basis, for the exchange between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the United States Atomic Energy Commission of information on a wide variety of subjects including the generation of power by atomic means. It also provides for the transfer of materials and equipment between the authorities. The Agreement also permits the exchange of information, the sale of equipment, and the use of patent rights between the electricity authorities and private industrial firms who are working in their respective countries in the development of atomic power. These exchanges will take place on a commercial basis and subject to certain safeguards.
By permitting the interchange of scientific and technical knowledge between the two Western countries which are most

1035
advanced in these matters, the Agreement will help to quicken the pace of atomic development and will bring nearer the day when the full benefits of atomic power for peaceful purposes will be at the service of mankind.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: Although one must study the Agreements before one can make much worth-while comment, and while it seems that the Agreement on the civil side is highly satisfactory, is it not a fact that the Agreement on the military side, as far as we can understand it from the Prime Minister's statement, is very unsatisfactory? We were led to believe that under the American Atomic Energy Act there could be exchange of scientific information which might be on a mutually advantageous basis, but apparently, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, no such information may be exchanged concerning the manufacture of atomic weapons at all.
Does not that mean that there will continue to be a ridiculous waste of first-class scientific manpower and of the best scientific brains on both sides of the Atlantic in working simultaneously on the same problems without opportunity of consulting each other and exchanging useful information?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps I can say in general terms, first, that we are satisfied that there is nothing in these Agreements which will in any way handicap this country in future developments. There are several factors, both in the military and in the commercial sphere, which will help us a great deal.
As to the commercial side, I do not think that there is any dispute. When the House studies the Agreements they will be found, I think, to be of great service to both our countries. As regards the military field, there is, of course, a limitation; it is the limitation which is laid down by the Act passed in the United States of America. Everything outside that legal limitation we do, and shall, exchange information about.
Some aspects are, of course, very important. The right hon. Gentleman and others of his colleagues on the benches opposite will know that for a long time we have wanted, for instance, to exchange information about the conclusions we draw from, say, atomic and nuclear activities in other countries. That has not
1036
hitherto been possible. It will now be possible under the Agreements; and so will everything else except the actual manufacture of the weapons.
Mr. Shinwell: As regards the military aspects, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Agreements will embrace other N.A.T.O. countries? Otherwise, how is it possible in the sphere of nuclear defence to promote effective defence? If the Agreement does not embrace other countries or some of them, are there any exclusions? Can we have more information on that point?
The Prime Minister: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, knows that there was an agreement between the United States and the N.A.T.O. Powers on this matter but so far as we and the United States are concerned, our two countries, as anybody in the House knows, have advanced further in this matter than any other nations. Therefore, I think it would be fair to say that this Agreement between us and the United States does go further than the general agreement between the United States and the N.A.T.O. Powers as a whole.
Mr. Neave: Can my right hon. Friend say how far this welcome Agreement affects any arrangement we may have with Commonwealth countries in cooperating in the peacetime uses of atomic energy for civil purposes? Is he in a position to say anything about any agreement that we may have with Canada in that respect?
The Prime Minister: I understand that the United States Government are making an agreement with Canada. So far as we are concerned—I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it—the position of Canada is, of course, of considerable importance. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have had continuous and close-working arrangements with Canada ever since the last war. They have worked extremely smoothly and well without any kind of agreement, and, in practice, the arrangements between these two Commonwealth countries are so good that no kind of agreement is needed.
Mr. Strachey: Would the Prime Minister not agree that this no doubt inevitable limitation in the Military Agreement is

1037
one more reason for the increasing focussing of our own defence effort in this sphere?
The Prime Minister: There is nothing in this which limits our own activity. Outside the actual manufacture of weapons—perhaps I should put it very carefully: outside what the United States law lays down as the limitation—there would be the most complete co-operation. We have satisfied ourselves that it is to our advantage to facilitate the co-operation in those fields where it is possible.
Air Commodore Harvey: Is it the Government's intention to give to the United States detailed information of atomic and nuclear weapons developed in this country while we know that, for certain reasons, we cannot receive that information from the other side?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Everything is on a basis of reciprocity, or not at all.
Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Prime Minister a question that I tried to put to the Foreign Secretary the other day? Does this reference to atomic energy and information about it include the nuclear fusion process? I ask because we must be spending a quite considerable amount of money on developing hydrogen bombs, and although our researches in our work upon them may be for military purposes at the moment, that knowledge may eventually have civil uses.
The Prime Minister: The answer is, yes, Sir.
Mr. de Freitas: Since our Civil Defence planning has been seriously prejudiced by the fact that it was over a year after the hydrogen bomb explosion before we got details of it, may I ask whether this Agreement will prevent such a ridiculous state of affairs from occurring again?
The Prime Minister: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will study the Agree-
1038
ment will will find that it is a marked advance on anything we have enjoyed heretofore. I should say myself that the civil part of the Agreement is of the utmost importance for the future industrial life of this country. It does not compel any firms in this country to disclose anything they do not want to, but it does permit exchanges, which may be very valuable, between our industries and those of the United States. So far as the military side is concerned, I am satisfied it does all that can be agreed within the limits of United States law.
Mr. J. T. Price: Does this Agreement put any limitations on the exchange of personnel freely between the two countries? In any development of this kind, on an internationally agreed basis, the top men in scientific research, who have the "know-how," are most important, as we found in the case of Pontecorvo and other people—to our cost.
The Prime Minister: I do not know that I particularly like that recollection in which the hon. Member has indulged, but on the civil side it is certainly so, and on the military side it is so within the limits which the Agreement lays down.
Mr. Benn: Does the Agreement limit the capacity of the Government to enter into agreements with other countries if they should wish to do so? Further, does it involve any change in our security standards or screening of atomic personnel?
The Prime Minister: Our security standards remain as they are at present, and we shall continue to do all we can to keep them as effective as possible. Our atomic authorities have a number of agreements with other countries, and so have the United States Government and the United States atomic authorities. I think it would be fair to say that this certainly ranks among the most important of them.

ELECTION RETURN, KNUTSFORD
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I think I should inform the House that the Election Return for the Knutsford constituency has now been found. It was posted from Wilmslow sub-post office on Friday, 27th May, in an envelope marked "Election Writ and Return." Post Office rules require that Election Returns should be forwarded by registered post, but this Return was not registered. Registration enables Election Returns to be readily separated from the immense mass of less urgent Election documents which are received in the Crown Office after an Election.
On 28th May, more than 500 Election Returns in registered envelopes were received. Immediate attention was given to them, and, after they had been dealt with, it appeared that the Knutsford Return had not been received. While, at first, it was thought that it might have been delayed in the post, this does not appear to have been the case. Search was made among the unregistered mail, but the Return was not found until 10th June, when unregistered mail relating to less urgent Election matters was being dealt with.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General ask me to say that they very much regret that this mishap occurred, and that they regret the personal inconvenience caused to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport).
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his clear statement and for the expression of regret which it contained. May I ask him, however, whether he is aware of the personal difficulties which I have suffered in this matter? For instance, concerning the possibility of making a statement today, I rang up the personal assistant to the Postmaster-General last week, but the line was so bad we could not hear each other speaking. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an important communication about this matter, posted in my division,
1040
from Knutsford, took two days to go just over seven miles and arrived just in time to be too late? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore not agree that all this justifies my actions since 1945 in trying to get the Postmaster-General's Department to wake up?
The Attorney-General: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to address those questions to the Postmaster-General.
Mr. H. Morrison: We are very sorry to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), who is not exactly a progressive Member of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the Post Office, which has been nationalised for a number of centuries, should have so rapidly deteriorated under the present Conservative Government, but we are very glad to know that he has now been relieved of his troubles.
May I ask the Attorney-General whether the acting returning officer concerned has explained why he did not post the communication in the way required under the Post Office rules, and whether he has expressed his regret? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, further, why it took from 28th May to 10th June, nearly a fortnight, to find this communication among the communications addressed to the Crown Office?
Why was there this delay? What is the matter with the Government and their servants that that should have taken all that time? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman now assure us that the hon. and gallant Member, whose voice we are always glad to hear, has been regularly and properly returned as the Member for the Knutsford division?
The Attorney-General: The answer to the third part of that question is that there is no doubt about that at all. As to the second part, why the letter was not found before, as I said in my statement, there was a large mass of documents relating to the Election, not of an urgent character, ballot returns and things of that sort, which arrived in unregistered mail. Directly it was discovered that the Writ was missing some search was made of that unregistered mail. It did not bring this Election Return to light. That mass of documents did not require immediate attention, but, as I said, it was when

1041
that mass of unregistered documents was attended to that this document came to light.
Mr. Shinwell: Does not this prove that in spite of the gross inefficiency in Knutsford we are always glad to welcome the gorilla back again?
The Attorney-General: I should make it clear that there is no suggestion in my statement of any gross inefficiency in Knutsford. There certainly was no mistake on the part of the acting returning officer. There was a slip in not registering this Election Writ and Return.
Air Commodore Harvey: As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) is a constituent of mine, may I have an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend that my hon. and gallant Friend will not suffer financially as a result of the Writ arriving late?
Mr. Rankin: Has the Attorney-General now revealed the reasons why Earl De La Warr was sacked?
Sir T. Moore: Is it not a fact that this communication was received at the Crown Office on 28th May, and that, therefore, there is no reflection whatsoever on the Post Office in carrying out its job in this matter?
The Attorney-General: It was received, as far as one can say, on 28th May. It would not have gone astray if it had been sent in a registered envelope.
Mr. S. Silverman: I must preface this question with a contingent apology, as am not sure that I can remember the facts correctly, but is it the case or not that on the occasion when the House put these proceedings in order by a Vote
1042
there was read to the House a sworn declaration by the returning officer in which, I think I remember, it was there sworn that the letter had been posted in the normal fashion, in the way laid down by the regulations, namely, by registered post, and that he held a receipt for it?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Member is, I am afraid, mistaken in his recollection. It is quite clear that the Returning Officer did all that was required of him. He is not required by Post Office rules to put it in a registered letter. That is the part of the Post Office, and that is where the slip was made. When the Post Office received the Election Writ and Return, they ought to have enclosed it in a registered letter.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Attorney-General state specifically whose responsibility it was to make quite sure that this particular package should have been registered?
The Attorney-General: The answer is, the Post Office.
[See OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1955; col. 1150–2.]

BILL PRESENTED
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
  Bill to confer certain immunities and privileges on the representatives in the United Kingdom of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community and their staffs, and the family of the chief representative of that Authority, presented by Mr. H. Macmillan; supported by Mr. Anthony Nutting, Mr. Turton, and Lord John Hope; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed.[Bill 12.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GERMAN CONVENTIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill arises from the Bonn Conventions, which were debated in the last House in 1952, and from their amendment, which was part of the Paris Agreements and was duly considered and approved in the debate of 17th November and 18th November of last year.
  The Conventions entered into force on 5th May of this year, but hon. Members may remember that there were certain Articles dealing principally with immunities, privileges, the taking of evidence, and Customs procedure, which require specific statutory authority. This Bill has, therefore, been introduced as soon as possible after the assembly of Parliament to give this authority. As I will shortly explain, it has a very narrow and restricted scope, but it is none the less important as it is part of the process of carrying out the Agreements, which we have duly ratified. The nature of this subject is complicated and technical, but I know that the House will wish me to explain it in detail and I will do my best to make my explanation as clear as the subject permits.
  Clause 1 deals with the immunities and privileges required for three tribunals established under the Bonn Conventions. I will explain in detail the nature of each tribunal and then what the Clause proposes. First, the Arbitration Tribunal: this is established under the Convention on relations between the three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany to deal with certain disputes arising out of the Bonn Conventions, but is not competent to deal with any dispute involving the retained rights of the three Powers, such as Berlin, the stationing of forces, the reunification of Germany or the peace settlement.
  The Tribunal is to consist of one member of each of the three Western Powers, three Germans and a President and Vice-President from other countries than these four. Clause 1 (1) gives these members
  1044
  and agents and counsel appearing before them immunity from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their office or duties. Clause 1 (2) provides for the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to the foreign members of the Tribunal, should the Tribunal ever sit within our jurisdiction.
  Next, the Supreme Restitution Court. This is established under the Convention on the settlement of matters arising out of the war and the Occuption. Its function is to hear appeals from German courts in cases governing the restitution of property to the victims of Nazi oppression.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: And compensation?
  Mr. Turton: No. That is dealt with entirely by the German courts. The function to which I have just referred was previously discharged by the Supreme Restitution Court in the British Zone of Occupation and by comparable bodies in the other two Western Zones. The Supreme Restitution Court is to have three divisions. Each division will have not fewer than five judges assigned to it. Two of these will be nominated by one of the Western Powers, two by the Germans and one from another country than these four.
  Clause 1 (1) gives these judges, State counsel appearing before the Court, and Clerks of the Court immunity from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their office or duties. As the Court will sit in Germany, no diplomatic immunity is conferred outside the Federal Republic.
  Finally, the Arbitral Commission on Property Rights and Interests in Germany. This is established under the same Convention as the Supreme Restitution Court. Its functions are to adjudicate in specified categories of dispute which are set out in the Convention and include restitution of United Nations property rights and interests which were subject to discriminatory treatment during the war, pre-war contracts, war damage compensation, and similar matters. The Commission is to consist of nine permanent members. One is being appointed by each Western Power, three by the German Federal Government and three from countries which were neutral in the war selected by agreement between the four Governments.

  1045
  Clause 1 (1) gives these members, agents and counsel appearing before them, and parties, immunity from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their office or duties or in the presentation of their case. Clause 1 (2) provides for the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to the foreign members of the Commission, and Clause 1 (3) enables evidence for use of the Commission to be taken in due form in English law before a court in this country.
  Clause 2 arises from the provisions of Article 35 of the Convention on the Rights and Obligations of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany. That Article lays down the rights to exemption from Federal Customs duties or taxes of the members of the Forces. It provides that the British Service authorities may, for our convenience, exercise Customs control at our chief crossing points on the Federal frontiers over members of the forces, their dependants, civilian employees and their dependants, and employees of such organisations as the N.A.A.F.I., and, in return, that they should ensure observance of German Customs regulations as amended by the terms of the Conventions. As a result, the British military authorities may have to confiscate contraband.
  The effect of this Clause will be that the owner of the seized goods will have a right to sue in the United Kingdom courts if he considers himself aggrieved. It must be borne in mind that, in addition, Service personnel have a statutory right of appeal under their own codes to a superior authority, and it will be made clear to all civilians concerned that they also can appeal against seizure of their goods to the Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine.
  By the terms of Article 35 of the Convention on the Rights and Obligations of Foreign Forces, the responsibilities which the British authorities have assumed in relation to German Customs regulations became incumbent on them when the Conventions entered into force on 5th May. For this reason, Clause 2 of the Bill has been drafted with effect retroactive to 5th May. We consider it important that the sanctions and safeguards
  1046
  which Clause 2 would provide in English law should be provided without delay.
  The House will appreciate that the uncertainty about the entry into force of the Bonn Conventions, which persisted until the last week in March, and the dissolution of Parliament which followed shortly after, made it impossible to legislate earlier. Hon. Members may recall, however, that a similar Bill received a First Reading in the last House on 31st March.
  After this explanation I hope that the House will regard this Bill as non-controversial in character. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I will reply to any points that are raised so far as I am able, and I have the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General who will be able to deal with any point of law beyond my capacity.
  4.1 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The Bill is rather a technical one within a narrow compass, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, but it is not unimportant for that reason. It raises some matters, about which the House should be careful, such as conferring immunity and diplomatic privileges, with respect to the three courts which are set up under the Paris Treaties, and it provides for the enforcement of German Customs law against British, American and French forces in Germany.
  The provisions of the Bill are machinery and technical ones and, whatever our views of the Paris Treaties may be, it is clearly in the interest of this country to provide the machinery specified in this Bill and to implement its obligations under those Treaties. For instance, there is the provision that the members of the British forces, among others, shall be subject to German Customs law and that provision stands whatever we do about this Bill. However, the Bill provides machinery whereby members of the forces who are subjected to German Customs law shall be dealt with by the British authorities instead of by the German authorities. Clearly, therefore, nobody would suggest that Clause 2 should not be passed by this House with alacrity.
  I wish to raise various points, not with a view to opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, but to obtain information about some difficulties which I felt in

  1047
  going through it, and doubtless some of my hon. Friends will have other difficulties to put before the right hon. Gentleman. The first arises over the question of jurisdiction. Article 9 of the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, which appears in page 6 of Cmd. 9368, "Documents relating to the Termination of the Occupation Régime in the Federal Republic of Germany," provides that all disputes between the three Powers and the Federal Republic under the provisions of the Conventions—
  "which the parties are not able to settle by negotiation or by other means agreed between all the Signatory States, except as otherwise provided by paragraph 3 of this Article or in the annexed Charter or in the related Conventions"—
  shall be dealt with by the Arbitration Tribunal.
  What is excepted is set out in paragraph 3, which refers in particular to Article 2, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his opening statement. Article 2 states:
  "In view of the international situation, which has so far prevented the re-unification of Germany and the conclusion of a peace settlement, the Three Powers retain the rights and the responsibilities, heretofore exercised or held by them, relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole, including the re-unification of Germany and a peace settlement."
  That is outside the ambit of the Arbitration Tribunal, but what does it mean? Does it mean, first, that West Germany is, under this Convention, free to conduct negotiations on her own with Russia about German reunification? Secondly, does it mean that she is free to conclude a treaty for reunification with Russia on her own? Thirdly, has the Arbitration Tribunal jurisdiction over either of the two specific questions which I have just put?
  I pass now from the Arbitration Tribunal to the Supreme Restitution Court and to raise what was obviously in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). From perusing this document I gather that the Supreme Restitution Court deals with the restitution of identifiable property to the victims of Nazi aggression and not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, Nazi oppression. As I understand, Nazi aggression would deal merely with people outside German territory and not
  1048
  with people within German territory. Therefore, there is some importance in the difference between the words "aggression" and "oppression." As I understand, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Restitution Court is confined to the restitution of identifiable property to victims of Nazi aggression.
  That leaves two matters which are referred to in Cmd. 9368 and for which, as far as I can see, no international court or international supervision is provided, and I should like verification of that. Paragraph (b) of Article 1 of Chapter 3 on page 76 deals with
  "the restitution … of property seized under the National Socialist régime from co-operative societies, trade unions, charitable organisations and other democratic organisations. …"
  That is the first matter. The second matter is referred to in page 84 and deals with compensation for victims of Nazi persecution.
  Although those two important matters are included in this Convention and provision is made for them, and they are matters which are obviously of concern to us, is it correct that no international court is provided to supervise or to regulate or to have any say about either of them? If, however, a court or international procedure is provided for dealing with them, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate what it is. If it is not, would he let us know the reasons of policy which led the Government to exclude those two items, which are included in this Convention, from the international supervision and the international court which obviously they need?
  Now I leave the question of jurisdiction to ask what is the position about the appointment of members to these courts. As far as I can gather from this document, the appointments to the Supreme Restitution Court should have been made already. Those to the Arbitral Commission should have been made within thirty days of 5th May and those to the Arbitration Tribunal are not yet due but are due to be made within sixty days of 5th May. The appointments are obviously a matter of some importance, particularly the appointments of those to the Arbitration Tribunal, because in that case they are expected to perform a formidable task for which the qualifications are not only

  1049
  judicial—perspicacity and integrity—but which requires a remarkable degree of statesmanship.
  I am afraid that we are moving into an era where judicial and political functions are going to be mixed up more and more as we have more and more international co-operation and provision for decision of political questions by some form of a tribunal which is expected to act in some sort of judicial capacity. I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would give us as much information as he can about the appointments to these three Tribunals; and the kind of person whom he contemplates drawing upon for the offices which have not yet been filled.
  Now I come to the specific provisions in the Bill itself. The first is the provision about immunity from suit. I appreciate that the Clause follows the provision in the Conventions. In so far as it says that a member of a tribunal shall not be liable to any legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in connection with judicial duties, that follows the ordinary conventionally accepted view or expression of the immunity of judges in this country.
  But when it comes to deal with counsel and the parties who are also given immunity in the same terms, then is the Solicitor-General satisfied that that goes no further than the immunity which is given to counsel and parties in this country? Speaking for myself, I must say it appears to me to go substantially further, and, as far as it does that, it obviously confers a quite unnecessary immunity, because we in this country do not suffer any handicap from the more limited immunity which is given to counsel and to parties.
  I should be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would clarify that and let us know whether or not these persons who are given immunity in Clause 1 other than members of the tribunal have an immunity greater than that enjoyed by corresponding persons in this country. If that is so, perhaps he would tell us the reason for it. Then there is the provision with regard to what are amusingly referred to in connection with the Arbitral Commission as "natural persons." Natural persons have a right to appear before the Arbitral Commission, but they have no right to
  1050
  appear before the Arbitration Tribunal which is confined to disputes between States, or before the Supreme Restitution Court.
  Natural persons are given immunity in this Clause in separate terms to that which applies to counsel and agents and to representatives of parties. It is provided that a natural person shall have immunity in that he
  "shall not be liable to any legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the presentation of his case."
  Why do we have these words in whereas we do not have similar limits applying to counsel who appear for a natural person but we have counsel given immunity in the same terms as the judges?
  Mr. Turton: That is not in my Bill.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: A "natural person" is referred to in the Blue Book itself and that is the reason, presumably, why provision is made in Clause 1 (1) for a party to proceedings. After referring to a member of the Court, counsel and other persons, it refers to a party to proceedings who appears in person. That can only be a natural person who
  "shall not be liable to any legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the presentation of his case."
  I say that that is confined to the case of the Arbitral Commission, because it is only before that Commission that a natural person has the right to appear at all.
  The Blue Book, in page 109, in Article 11, says that
  "Any natural persons appearing in person shall enjoy the same immunity"
  as the agents, representatives and counsel, though that is not inserted in terms in the Bill. What I should like to know is, first, why the departure in the wording in the case of natural persons; secondly, why the identification of counsel and others with the members of the Tribunals when it comes to conferring immunity and giving immunity in the terms of immunity from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their official duties; and, thirdly, whether that immunity conferred on counsel and other representatives goes further than that conferred on similar persons in this country.
  Then there is the provision about diplomatic privileges. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us why this con-

  1051
  ferring of diplomatic privileges is necessary at all. I must say I am a little puzzled about this. These people, as members of the Court, already have immunity from suit for what they have done in their official capacity. Why is it necessary to confer diplomatic privilege?
  May I put it in the form of a dilemma? If it is necessary to confer diplomatic privileges upon foreign members of the Court for the purpose of enabling them to exercise their function as members of the Court, why is it not necessary to confer similar privileges upon nationals of this country who are members of the Court? It seems quite clear that the whole purpose of conferring diplomatic privilege is to enable these persons to exercise their judicial functions properly. I cannot myself see why diplomatic privilege is necessary for that purpose or, if it is necessary, why it is justifiable to make a distinction between a member of the Court who is a foreigner and a member of the Court who is a national of this country.
  Then I want to refer to the scope of this diplomatic privilege. Does it cover such things as running-down cases? If a member of the Court is involved in a car accident does he have diplomatic privilege for that, or what exactly is the scope of it? Does it not go much further than is necessary to enable them to perform their functions as members of the Court?
  There is one objection which arises in the case of diplomatic privilege conferred upon members of the Court which does not arise in the case of diplomatic privileges conferred upon diplomats, and it is this. The diplomatic privilege of diplomats is a privilege which is conferred upon the soverigns whose representatives they are, and the privilege can be waived by the foreign sovereign, or the matter can be dealt with through other channels by the foreign sovereign concerned. Substantial justice and substantial compensation in proper cases can be given by the foreign sovereign, dealing with the diplomat who is enjoying that diplomatic privilege in his name.
  But when we come to members of this Court, I do not see that there is any possibility of any foreign sovereign waiving that diplomatic privilege at all. It becomes a hard and fast provision which
  1052
  cannot be dispensed with, and it seems to me to be one which goes much further than is necessary to enable these functions to be performed.
  I understand that diplomatic privilege applies in the cases of the Arbitration Tribunal and the Arbitral Commission, and that it is limited to those two cases, where there may be sittings or official acts performed by the members of the Court in this country. Although it does not appear on the face of Clause 1 (2), I assume that diplomatic privilege will be limited to the time when these persons are in this country for the purpose of performing these official acts or holding sittings of these two Courts, and for no other purpose and no other time at all. I think that that must be so, but I should like to have confirmation of it.
  That disposes of the difficulties that I myself feel about Clause 1, and I now come to the provisions of Clause 2, which deals with German Customs law. Here, of course, the members of the forces are made subject to German Customs law, and we are simply providing machinery to enable our authorities to enforce it, instead of having the matter enforced against members of our forces by the German authorities. Obviously, that is to our advantage. The provision is that these powers are to apply to any person
  "… serving with the Armed Forces of the three Powers or other sending state"—
  and that phrase is defined in the Blue Book as a country which sends troops in association with one of the three Powers, such as Commonwealth forces, if there happen to be any, in association with the forces of this country. But is it intended that the British military authorites should have the obligation of enforcing German Customs law not only against members of the British Armed Forces but also against the forces of the French and American Governments? Are the three forces pooled for the purpose of enforcing German Customs law?
  There may be good practical reasons for doing it in that way which I can well imagine, but, from a lawyer's point of view, it seems a very strange provision, and I should like to have a little explanation how it comes about and how it would work. For instance, we have in Clause 2 (2) a provision that the Customs

  1053
  goods may be seized by the British authorities and be forfeited to Her Majesty. How does that work, and what is really intended about it?
  When we enforce German Customs laws against members of British forces and some of the goods are forfeited, what will happen? Do they go to the Treasury, although they are German Customs laws which we are enforcing, or will they be handed over to the Germans? What will happen in the case of goods forfeited from French and American forces? Do they also go to the British Treasury? What will happen about them? It is an odd provision in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2. There may be a very good practical reason for doing it in that way, or it may be a matter of convenience, since I appreciate that all this has been done by agreement between the three Powers and the German State. Nevertheless, it is a rather curious provision, and I should be grateful to be told how it is intended to work out.
  The Bill as a whole is one which is based on the Paris Treaties and various provisions in these Conventions. It is obviously to our advantage, and for that reason we certainly welcome it and shall support it as a Bill which carries out an obligation which this House decided we shall enter into. Nevertheless, in applying it there are difficulties, and we shall be concerned to know what the answers to these questions are with a view to formulating the course which we shall have to take when the Bill comes to the Committee stage.
  4.26 p.m.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I rise to make a mild protest at the extension of diplomatic privilege once more. The rest of us do not get these privileges. The bulk of the population, when they go through the Customs, have to pay the duties like other men and women, and have all the inconveniences in connection with the examination of their baggage. We have to pay tax on our drinks, and if we have an accident with a motor car, and are responsible, we have to appear before the magistrates.
  These privileges are accorded to a vast array of foreigners coming to this country. We have had list after list of them in this House, and we have another list
  1054
  before us at the moment. On the Order Paper today are four immunities and privileges Orders, which are to be dealt with shortly, concerning the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa south of the Sahara, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, Western European Union and the World Health Organisation. Now, a vast number of people are covered by Clause I.
  In the past, the Foreign Office has always judged every case on its merits, and we have been forced to agree. The development of the United Nations and all its satellite organisations has been a justification for doing it, and it is impossible to oppose every case officially in the House. None the less, this is a new fashion. Before the war, the only diplomatic immunity and privilege that was given was that accorded to the ambassadors of foreign States. The clerks, officials and others were treated like the rest of us. It was a real privilege given by the Government on behalf of the Sovereign, and we accepted similar privileges in return.
  There now seems to be a headache of international courtesy, with which we cannot disagree in theory, but which seems to me now to be vast in quantity. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how many foreigners may now come into this country as members of this new postwar privileged class, however justified each individual case may be on its merits.
  I do not object to Clause 2. In spite of its somewhat unusual character, I think it is right, and it will certainly be convenient for the British forces in Germany. I see every Foreign Office reason for Clause 1 (1), but I wonder why it is necessary to include "parties." I can understand the reasons for judges and counsel not being liable to any legal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the exercise of their official duties—one expects lawyers to be respectable people—but is it really necessary to give the same freedom from legal liability to the parties to disputes who may come to this country to plead their cases? I hope I am right in saying that only the members of the Arbitration Tribunal or Arbitral Commission are covered by diplomatic immunity, and not the counsel, clerks, agents, lawyers and parties referred to by my right hon. Friend in dealing with Clause 1 (1).

  1055
  Naturally, I cannot oppose the Bill because the Foreign Office has justified it, as it always does these cases, on its merits. However, I want to enter this mild protest about this extension of diplomatic privilege, which is a precious thing which we ought to extend to foreigners entering this country with some reluctance and the greatest possible care.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: As I see it, Clause 2 gives power to the Service authorities acting in Germany to seize or detain goods which are being imported or exported in contravention of the German Customs law. To put it in simpler language, and, I hope, not incorrectly simplifying, if British soldiers, sailors or airmen or their dependants try to smuggle goods in or out of the Federal Republic, it will be in the power of the Service authorities to confiscate the goods which they are trying to smuggle. Also, if I understand the provision aright, the Service authorities will not have any power to impose any further penalty for the attempt to smuggle than confiscation of the goods, for I see no further power referred to in the Clause.
  If my interpretation of the Clause is right in that respect—I make no complaint about it—it will lead to a rather remarkable position. I should imagine that a citizen of the Federal Republic attempting to smuggle goods in and out of his country might, in certain circumstances, be liable to heavier penalties than confiscation of the goods, and British subjects who try to smuggle goods in and out of this country can be subjected to heavier penalties than confiscation of the goods.
  The Clause would appear to create the situation that British Service personnel or the other persons listed in subsection (3) who try to smuggle goods in and out of Germany can do so in the knowledge that the worst that can happen to them is that they will have the goods taken away. I should like to know whether that is, in fact, the effect of the Clause. There appears to be nothing in the Clause about the imposition of any further penalty than confiscation for attempted smuggling. I shall be quite happy if that is the position, but we ought to know exactly what it is.
  I would make this comment in general upon Clause 2. The extreme technicali-
  1056
  ties of the Bill ought not to disguise from us the importance of the principle involved in the Clause. It is another invasion—to my mind, a welcome invasion—of a conception of territorial sovereignty which has prevailed in Europe for the last four or five centuries. It has generally been assumed during that time that the law to which one was subject depended not on who one was but on where one was. Further back in history that was not so. For instance, if one was a merchant, priest or knight in the Middle Ages one carried certain legal rights with one wherever one went. Then came the national conception of law which meant that, whoever one was, one was subject to the law of the territory in which one was, and that has been the general rule for a long time.
  Now we are beginning to invade that position. We are again saying that if one is a soldier of a certain force or the wife or other dependent of a soldier of a certain force one carries certain legal rights with one and one is not entirely subject to the tribunals of the country in which one is. That is comparable to our law which makes special provision for American troops in this country.
  For that reason, I welcome it. It is one of the signs of the very gradual melting away of an old rigid concept of national sovereignty. I think that in time the Government, with the Governments of Allied Powers, will have to inquire into the whole body of principles on which this new approach to jurisdiction and sovereignty is to be made. At the moment, we are making one invasion here and one invasion there as the needs of the Atlantic Alliance or the Paris Treaties may require. What we are doing—perhaps we are not fully aware of it—is bringing back a much older conception of how law ought to be applied.
  I make that general comment in welcoming the principles involved in Clause 2. I hope it may be possible for one of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench to answer the question which I put at the beginning of my remarks about the actual effect of the Clause.
  4.37 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I will endeavour to answer some of the points which have been raised and which are within my field.

  1057
  I will begin with the points under Clause 2 relating to the problem of Customs enforcement. First, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) as to the destination of goods which are lawfully seized, one must deal with various different cases. It is the intention, because of its obvious convenience, that British military personnel forming part of the forces within the meaning of the Convention, when assisting German Customs officers to enforce shall, if necessary and proper, make confiscation from the members of Forces of our Allies.
  They may well seize goods from a member of the French forces or a member of the United States forces. Should that happen, the intention is—it is purely administrative and does not require any law—that the property seized shall, with a proper report of the circumstances, be handed over at once to the superior force authorities of the person concerned, and all questions thereafter arising as to disposal or whether or not there has been a contravention of German Customs law and the like, will be dealt with by the Service superiors in the man's force.
  As to the case of a confiscation by one of the members of our forces from one of the members of our forces, the intention is, always assuming the seizure to be lawful, that the goods will be disposed of for the benefit of Army funds, subject to payment of the requisite amount of Customs duty to the Germans.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) raised the question of a member of the Services committing a violation of German Customs law and there being a penalty in addition to seizure. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way operates to prevent the ordinary Service penalties being imposed. My recollection is that where this has arisen before, and there has not been a specific order—and the intention is that now there will be—this used to be dealt with as "conduct to the prejudice" and additional penalties could be considered in that way.
  It is not the intention that civilians should be subject to any penalty of court-martial in addition to confiscation, so in the case of a civilian member of the forces, within this definition, the penalty would be confiscation alone. So far as one can see, a member of the
  1058
  forces will be subject to his Service discipline and additional penalty under that. I hope that I have replied to all the queries about Clause 2.
  Returning to Clause 1, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East was a little suspicious, if I may use that phrase, of the way in which what the Convention calls the "natural person" and he and I call "the party" is dealt with. It was not intended in any sense to make any distinction between him and the others for the purposes of the Convention. But, without discourtesy to international conventions, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that they are sometimes a little difficult to interpret.
  The Article to which he drew our attention, in page 109 of the Blue Book, talks about duties in relation to agents, counsel and representatives. The difficulty, so it seemed to us when drafting, was that a natural person does not have any duties at all, so it seemed fair and proper to express the clear intention of the Convention in the words which we have here used. That is why there is a distinction. It is not meant to effect a difference. I hope with that explanation I have covered the questions which I should answer.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: With permission, I want to deal with some of the less abstruse legal questions posed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). The position about the Arbitration Tribunal is as is stated in Article 2 of the Convention, which is that matters relating to the reunification of Germany are excluded and that the Arbitration Tribunal will deal only with disputes between the parties on other matters. The hon. and learned Member put to me a number of questions about West Germany's freedom and about what at first sight appeared not to be matters that could be brought before the Arbitration Tribunal. No doubt they could be matters that might well arise in another connection outside the scope of this debate—whether, for example, they were in conformity with undertakings given by the present German Federal Republic. However, those would be outside the scope of the Tribunal.

  1059
  He then asked me about the Supreme Restitution Court and asked me why there was no international supervision of the restitution of trade union property. My answer is to remind him of a directive issued in 1947 by the Quadrupartite Control Council, under the Potsdam Agreement. That directive enjoined that trade unions and other democratic organisations were to receive back their property which was still held by the Nazi Party. In 1948, in the time of his Government, responsibility under that directive was given to three German Commissions one of which was to handle trade union claims, and more than 400 claims have been decided. So the answer is that that matter has been handed to German Commissions and the working out of these claims has proceeded far and satisfactorily and there has been no complaint.
  Another question he asked related to the German compensation law, the compensation of victims of Nazi oppression. That is not subject to this Court, because again it was decided that it should be settled by German law and German courts. I do not think that I can say that the matter has proceeded as speedily as I should have hoped, but it is under constant attention by the Federal Government. They have set up a working party to see whether the law could not be improved. They are trying to speed up the appeals and I can assume the hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter has my constant attention, but this is outside the Supreme Restitution Court's jurisdiction.
  The next question which he put to me and which has not been answered concerned appointments. The answer is that we have not yet announced appointments, but we have made considerable progress towards that and the passing of this Bill will no doubt speed the progress. I do not think that anything can be done quickly about the Arbitration Tribunal; for the Restitution Court we are considering names, and quite clearly those who have taken part in the work of the Court's predecessor will obviously be included in that consideration. The same applies to the Arbitration Tribunal. We have, in fact, made provisional nominations, but I do not want to make them public this afternoon, and we have a list of neutrals whom we think eligible for the three
  1060
  bodies, but in their case we have to get the agreement of the Powers and of Germany.
  I want now to deal with the question of diplomatic privilege, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether these privileges were really necessary and, if they were really necessary, why British persons did not also participate. The answer to the first question is that they are necessary. Here are tribunals which are normally situated outside this country and for certain purposes people may have to come into the country. Diplomatic privileges to be given include exemption from Income Tax, but not from water rate; immunity from arrest—it would be highly inconvenient for these people to be arrested on a visit; Customs immunity and inviolability of residence.
  These are granted to foreign members and not British, because that is the common procedure. It is quite right that every British person should pay his Income Tax and it is very unfortunate when we find people evading that Income Tax. Equally, Customs immunities should not be granted to them. The immunities are given under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1950, so we are acting on common form in this question of the immunities granted to international organisations and no question of waiver arises.
  I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus that we are watching very carefully, as did our predecessors, the number of people receiving diplomatic immunity. We believe diplomatic immunity to be most necessary in the case of these gentlemen presiding over tribunals who come for short periods to this country. However, I must say that the large number of people who receive diplomatic immunity does need consideration, especially to see whether such immunity is reciprocal and that we are merely giving what we are receiving. The Somervell Committee, appointed by the Labour Government, made a most interesting Report which the Government are duly considering.
  Captain Duncan: My right hon. Friend did not give the numbers of people who

  1061
  are entitled to diplomatic immunity. If he cannot do it now, will he do it when he submits the four Orders which are on the Notice Paper?
  Mr. Turton: I do not think that it would be in order to give the number of all those enjoying diplomatic immunity on an Order which merely deals with some matters in the South Sahara.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South): Am I right when I ask whether we have not many more British subjects in international organisations and tribunals abroad who receive diplomatic immunities than we are ever likely to have foreigners here who receive immunities from us?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Allan.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.52 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I offer the Bill to the House as a practical and permanent solution of a problem which has been thrown into relief by the war; that is to say, the employment of aliens, under proper safeguarding conditions, in the service of the Crown. I hope that the Measure will be uncontroversial, but I say at the outset that I am sure that this is a matter in which Parliament should take an active interest and about which it should remain ever vigilant.
  There are three main categories of these aliens. The first is that of aliens who are employed in the service of the Crown overseas. Perhaps I can illustrate this category by reminding the House of the many people, such as doorkeepers and cleaners, who are employed—and naturally employed—in our embassies abroad. Another example is that of the substantial numbers who are employed in Service establishments and the like, such as the Spaniards who go to work in Gibraltar.
  1062
  The second class consists of those groups of aliens who are employed in the United Kingdom, not so much because of some special individual characteristics of their own but because they can give good service to the State and because their services are needed in certain kinds of employment and are of value in certain areas of the country. There are, for instance, many Poles employed in the Polish hostels and hospitals which are provided for Poles who are making this country their home. There are also many of those who are known as European voluntary workers, displaced persons most of them, who are employed in ordnance depots in remote areas, and there are other foreign workers who are employed in forestry in remote places. That is the second category.
  The third consists of individuals—those aliens who, because of some special personal qualification which they have, are of value to the State.
  The legislative history of this matter is interesting. Section 3 of the Act of Settlement, 1701, has a bearing on it. That Section provides, among other things, that:
  "… no person born out of the kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereunto belonging … shall be capable … to enjoy any office or place of trust either civil or military. …"
  I do not think that it is necessary to delve into the details of the Act of Settlement because, for all practical purposes, the Statute with which we must concern ourselves is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.
  Section 6 of that Act flatly prohibits the appointment of any alien:
  "… to any office or place in the Civil Service of the State."
  For that reason, none of these people whom I have described might be legally employed at present were it not for the existence of Defence Regulation 60D, which was made during the war, and which says:
  "…an alien may, notwithstanding anything in the Act of Settlement or in section six of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, be temporarily employed, with the consent of the Treasury, in any civil capacity under the Crown if the authority by whom he is appointed is satisfied—

  (a) that he possesses special qualifications or experience fitting him for that capacity: and

  1063

  (b) that suitably qualified British subjects are not at the time of his appointment readily available for employment in that capacity."

  One of the purposes of the Bill is to repeal that Defence Regulation and replace it by permanent statutory provision. In Clause 1 (1, a), the aliens employed overseas are referred to. That is the first of the categories I mentioned. It says that an alien may be employed in a civil capacity under the Crown in overseas territories
  "in service of a class or description which appears to the responsible Minister to be appropriate for the employment of aliens."
  I would say in passing that no change in practice is intended by the Bill. It is not desired to seek wider powers to do anything which is not being done and has not been done under all Governments since the war. The House might care to know that there are about 25,000 aliens employed overseas in the service of the Crown, and if the House accepts this Measure the legal propriety of thus employing them will be determined by this subsection.
  Subsection (1, b), refers to the other two classes, the categories of aliens employed in this country in some particular work or area, and the individuals who have special qualifications. The numbers in these two categories are about 4,500.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Might I ask whether subsection (1, b) means that the person to whom a certificate has been issued may also be employed abroad as well as at home, or does that deal entirely with certificated aliens employed here?
  Mr. Brooke: I think I am right in saying that it would be possible to use paragraph (b) to furnish a certificate in respect of someone employed abroad.
  The main intention, however, is to apply paragraph (a) for employment abroad—it extends only to employment abroad—and to use paragraph (b) for employment at home. The solution suggested in paragraph (b) is that a certificate in respect of the alien's employment must be issued by the responsible Minister with the consent of the Treasury.
  In Clause 1 (2) will be seen the conditions to be considered before a certificate of this character is issued. In the case of the individual alien, the certificate shall
  1064
  not be issued unless it appears to the responsible Minister
  "either that no suitably qualified person being a British subject is available for employment in that service or that the alien possesses exceptional qualifications or experience fitting him for such employment."
  In the case of classes of aliens who may be employed, not because of their individual qualifications, but because of their general suitability for certain types of work, the certificate shall not be issued unless it appears
  "that suitably qualified persons being British subjects are not readily available, or available in sufficient numbers"
  for that employment.
  Those are the main conditions, but a third limitation is inserted in the Bill—that no such certificate shall be permanent. It is to last for a maximum of five years but it can be renewed at the end of the five years. Every certificate must, in that way, come up for re-examination every five years. If the House will look at subsection (4)—and recall what I said a few minutes ago about the importance I attach to Parliament keeping a vigilant eye on all that was happening—it will see that the Bill requires the Treasury every year to lay before each House of Parliament a return containing particulars of all the certificates in force and of the number of aliens who, on the stated date, were employed under those certificates.
  I may be asked—perhaps the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) had it in mind—why this certification procedure may be appropriate to aliens employed in this country but does not extend overseas. The broad answer is that where it is a matter of employment overseas, the factor of competition with British labour does not arise.
  In the ordinary instance, the reason why an alien is employed in an embassy or elsewhere overseas is because there is no suitable British labour in the place. I do not think that anyone would dream of our seeking, as it were, to import British citizens into such places in order that they might replace those already employed there. I wish to stress the further point that the Bill applies only to aliens, and not to any of Her Majesty's subjects at home or abroad.
  Hon. Members may ask about the security aspect of all this. Every Government has a close interest in the

  1065
  security aspect of people taken into the service of the Crown, whether they be aliens or British subjects. I would add that the security considerations are especially to the fore—and quite naturally and rightly—where an alien is concerned. But there is nothing in this Bill which alters or in any way reduces the security precautions which it may be thought proper to take. Neither have the Government in mind that there should be any relaxation of that sort.
  It may be asked whether, under the Bill, an alien can now become an established civil servant. The answer to that is, "No," because no alien employed here at home can hold a certificate which would have more than five years' life; and establishment could not be granted to somebody employed under a time-limit of that kind. As I say, this Bill is an honest endeavour to find a fair, reasonable and practical solution to this problem of the employment of aliens in the Civil Service where the State can gain by their employment and where no British subject can suffer harm thereby.
  It will have the further advantage of enabling us to proceed a step further with the dismantling of the Defence Regulations. Defence Regulation 60D will be revoked by Clause 2 (4), if the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and I must confess to some private pride at being the first Minister in this new Parliament to have the opportunity of proposing the repeal of a Defence Regulation. It is not, however, just on that ground that I am submitting this Bill to the House. We need to look ahead and to make sure that our arrangements in a matter of this sort are fair and reasonable to everyone, and I hope that the House will agree that this is a proper permanent provision to be made.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman was right to hope that this Bill would be non-controversial. I can assure him that we on this side of the House have no intention of dividing against it.
  This is a short Bill, but it undoes something which has stood on the Statute Book for over two hundred and fifty years, and also an Act passed after the First World War of which Section 6 prevented any alien from being employed in the Civil Service. As was pointed
  1066
  out by the right hon. Gentleman, that provision has been abrogated by Regulation 60D of the 1939 Defence Regulations.
  The Bill does two things. First, it permits the employment of an alien in this country, for limited periods, if the Treasury consents; if the Minister responsible himself issues that certificate and if no British subject is available, or, if available, has not the particular and special qualifications possessed by the alien concerned. I understand very well why certificates are to be issued only for a limited period. Experience has shown that when aliens are employed it is unfortunately essential sometimes to have the necessary power to revoke that employment.
  The Bill also puts right something which, apparently, has been going on illegally for a long time. It allows a Minister of the Crown to authorise the employment of aliens outside the United Kingdom in any capacity, with no limitation as to the numbers who may be so employed, whether British subjects may be available or not.
  I wish to put one or two questions lo the right hon. Gentleman. It may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will have some other points to raise. I would, first, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Whitley Council for the Civil Service was consulted before the Bill was introduced. What does the Civil Service think about it so far as the employment of aliens in this country is concerned?
  I realise that, if anything, the limitation laid down in the Bill are even more stringent than those in the present Defence Regulation in that now, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, the Treasury has to make a yearly return to Parliament of the number of aliens employed, and there is an overall limit at any one time of a five-year period of employment for the alien. As far as I know, these limitations do not exist under Defence Regulation 60D.
  I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question concerning the employment of aliens overseas. He told us that about 25,000 are now so employed. I take it that some of these are in Malta, some, perhaps, in Cyprus, and a fairly large number of Spaniards in

  1067
  Gibraltar. What I do not understand is why it is assumed that all of them are engaged in civil employment. It appears to me that some, at any rate, employed in the dockyards in Malta—if any are—and certainly those so employed in Gibraltar must be on work which cannot strictly be described as civil.
  It assumes that one of the reasons for the Bill, for giving these new powers to the Treasury and to the responsible Minister is to permit this country to employ either in scientific or highly technical work aliens with special qualifications. If some of them have been employed—as certain aliens have at Harwell and at other centres—where secret work, not necessarily of a civil nature, has been going on, how does the present Bill permit the employment of such individuals if the whole emphasis in the Bill is based on the assumption that the work must be civil?
  Further, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in certain localities, not necessarily, perhaps, where aliens are now engaged by the British Crown, but in some other localities which may presently be so used, the definition of an alien will permit full protection for what are known as British protected persons in those areas? I see that the definition of an alien in the Bill is that of the British Nationality Act, 1948. There an alien is described as "a person who is not a British subject or a British protected person or a citizen of Eire."
  In those parts of the British Commonwealth where we get British protected persons it may well be that the provisions of the Bill may have to be used in connection with work going on in those localities. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that British protected persons will not be ousted from work in those areas because of the fact that there are no limitations in the Bill for aliens so employed overseas.
  In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman answered some of the queries which I might have put to him, and if he can assure us on the points which I have raised and also answer any questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) may put to him. I can assure him that we on this side will not only not vote against Second Reading, but will do everything in our
  1068
  power to expedite the passage of the Bill to the Statute Book.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I have studied its legislative ancestors, and, like him, I have read the Act of Settlement. I notice that in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is tampering with a Clause which also prevents aliens from becoming Members of this House. I do not know whether the Bill would enable the Minister to give a certificate to an alien enabling him to present himself as a Parliamentary candidate.
  At all events, I, along with a number of hon. Members of this House, have an interest in the problem of aliens, because they are a very large group of people living in this country who are subject, if the Government choose to make use of their power, to the use of arbitrary powers. Therefore, I welcome anything which liberates them from restrictions placed upon them, provided that it is within the broad framework of our national interest.
  I also welcome the transformation of the Defence Regulation into a Statute. At the same time, this is a very narrow Bill, and I propose to ask the right hon. Gentleman certain fairly specific questions which I shall be glad if he can answer when he winds up the debate. The right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave us the number of aliens in the service of the Crown abroad. I think that he said that their number amounted to 25,000. But there are two categories employed, under Defence Regulation 60D, in this country.
  As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the first group consists of those employed in classes because of the need to recruit people in a general category of work, and the second are those whom I might describe as having had personal permission to work under the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman lumped them together as totalling 4,500, but it would be of great interest to know how many of them hold their employment by virtue of personal qualifications and how many do so because they come within the category thought fit to work under the Crown.

  1069
  Further—and I think that this is a reasonable request since, if the Bill becomes law, these figures will be published 12 months from now, and those aliens at present employed under the Crown will automatically acquire certificates—can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether the number of aliens employed has been rising or falling since the war? Perhaps he could give some very general indication about that.
  More important is the second group of questions dealing with the conditions of service under which aliens work in the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) dealt with the Whitley Council and with what the other civil servants felt about the Bill. I should be interested to know whether there is any provision that aliens shall receive the same pay and enjoy the same conditions as others employed on similar bases and work.
  I mention this because there is a statutory precedent for this in the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, which amended one of the many pieces of panic legislation passed just before the First World War. That Measure provided that aliens employed in British ships should receive rates of pay not less than those paid to merchant seamen. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any policy in that regard for the employment of aliens in the Civil Service.
  Finally, I should like to know whether there are any provisions for safeguarding an alien against the arbitrary revocation of his working certificate. Again, we come up against the difficulty of the alien. He is entirely at the mercy of the Home Secretary so far as residence is concerned, and now he is to be at the mercy of the responsible Minister in that his certificate of employment may be revoked.
  May I ask whether the Bill makes any provision, or have the Government any provision in mind, with regard to an alien's loss of his own foreign citizenship? An American citizen loses his citizenship on taking up foreign employment. I do not know how many countries apply such a rule, but I should like to know whether there is any provision in the Bill, or is anything contemplated, which would enable aliens to work in
  1070
  the Civil Service without forfeiting the rights of their own citizenship.
  I came to the House this afternoon to address a few remarks sympathetic to the Bill, but having heard the right hon. Gentleman move its Second Reading it seems to me that it is really an unnecessarily complicated Measure. Why introduce a system of certificates? Why make it necessary for the responsible Minister to issue a certificate for an alien to be employed when that Minister is already responsible for deciding whether the person should be employed? I see no reason for this piece of useless bureaucracy. I welcome the transference of the rule from the Defence Regulations to the Statute Book; I welcome the trend against the Act of Settlement and against the Act of 1914, which says that an alien cannot be employed, but what is the point of introducing a lot of bits of paper which have to be filled in merely to permit a Government Department to do what, in any case, the first part of the Bill allows?
  If the wording were "subject to the following conditions a Minister may employ an alien," all the organisation which is so well and carefully set out in one part could be eliminated. The alien would then apply for a job to the responsible Minister, who, in deciding, would have before him all the considerations now, contained in the Bill, and would issue a Treasury directive to the Civil Service to say that the alien might be employed but not established. If it is not wished to retain the services of alien civil servants there is no difficulty because, presumably, if they are not established they can be dismissed at a month's notice or, if they are undesirable aliens, can be sent out of the country.
  There is no case for the certification, and if the right hon. Gentleman really believes in a little freedom in this regard I hope that in Committee he will, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, put down an Amendment to delete the unnecessary paper work prescribed in the Bill by an over-enthusiastic Government Department.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I think that the answer to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is that when a

  1071
  Minister issues a certificate it may contain various restrictions and limitations of greater or less degree, and it is as well that the alien should have that information in writing so that he understands the limitations of his employment.
  Mr. Benn: Those are exactly the limitations which are incorporated in an agreement or contract when a man is engaged.
  Mr. Doughty: Whether it is put in writing in the form of a contract or in a certificate makes no difference—someone has to sign it. Clause 1 (4) reads:
  "The Treasury shall lay before each House of Parliament in every financial year a list containing particulars of all certificates in force … during the previous financial year, including the numbers of aliens employed during that year. …"
  In that way it will be known what restrictions, if any, are put on aliens in regard to particular employment under particular Ministers.
  Mr. Benn: Surely the Government could publish a return of aliens employed in Government service without a statutory certificate. It could be done without putting it in the Bill.
  Mr. Doughty: I follow that, but I think it misses the point that the information which the Treasury it obliged to lay before both Houses is to consist not only of the number of aliens having this employment but full particulars of the restrictions and limitations, if any, under which each individual alien has been placed. If the suggestion of the hon. Member were to be followed Parliament would be deprived that information.
  It may be that the hon. Member does not want it but the Bill says he has to have it, and, that being so, the information laid before the House would contain particulars of each certificate. I think that the system of certificates should be retained and that this House should know under what restrictions aliens are placed in their employment.
  With regard to the Bill in general, I give it my blessing—like all hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure. It only carries on what has been done for a great many years. We have to employ many aliens abroad. We could not carry on either the consulates or a great deal of Government work abroad without them. We use the services of
  1072
  aliens in this country to a very large degree where their particular specialised knowledge is required, and we are glad to have those services.
  Of the two points which I had in mind when I read the Bill, my right hon. Friend has referred to one and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East to the other. The security aspect is important. There have been one or two cases, to which I shall not now refer, in which the employment of—certainly some—aliens—very few I am pleased to say—in Government Departments dealing with secret and semisecret matters has not always proved very successful. Although I heard my right hon. Friend say that the security aspect was well in mind, I should like to have some information as to what precautions are to be taken.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East referred to revocation of certificates. The Minister can give a certificate for five years and renew it at any time, but can he revoke it within the five-year period or are there limitations on his power to do so? If an alien, for any reason, is found to be undesirable—although he may not be capable of being summarily dismissed for gross misconduct—can his certificate be revoked within the five years? It may be in the country's interest that it should be revoked. Subject to those points, which, I am sure, the Financial Secretary will explain more fully, I join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in giving the Bill a blessing.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. H. Brooke: I should like, with permission, to reply to the questions which have been raised. The Bill has certainly had a kind reception on both sides of the House; and I am very appreciative of that, and am the more anxious to give the information which is sought.
  The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) asked whether the Whitley Council had been consulted. The Whitley Council has been consulted about the general terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's speech so soon, but experience teaches one to be rather wary of the language used. I should like to ask not only whether the Whitley Council was consulted but whether it approved of the Bill.
  Mr. Brooke: My information is that the Whitley Council approved of the Bill. It was consulted about the general purpose which the Government have in mind in presenting this Bill, and approval, in general terms, was expressed by the Whitley Council.
  The right hon. Gentleman next asked whether all aliens employed overseas would be employed in a civil capacity. As a matter of fact, the aliens covered by the Bill will be the people who are employed not in uniform. Of course, many of them may be employed in connection with national defence, as a great many civilians are employed in this country under the defence Departments, but it will all be civil work.
  When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Malta and Cyprus, I feel sure that he appreciated that the Bill would not apply to Maltese or Cypriots. It will apply only to aliens. My answer to him must be on similar lines with regard to employment at home—at Harwell and elsewhere. The employment concerned may have defence implications, but it is essentially employment in a civil capacity which is covered by this Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman's last question expressed his concerned about the position of the British protected person. I can give him the undertaking which he desires, that the British protected person is not affected because he is not regarded as an alien in terms of the definition here.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That was not my point. It may well be that I expressed myself badly. I was thinking of the British-protected person in areas which would undoubtedly be abroad, who might be prejudiced because there is no limitation whatever in the Bill against the employment of aliens for any length of time in any numbers and in any capacity. It was the British-protected person vis-à-vis an alien in those areas that I was thinking of, and about whom I sought an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I am in a position to say more than I have said. I can refer the House to the first words of Clause 2:
  "In this Act 'alien' has the same meaning as in the British Nationality Act, 1948;"
  1074
  and the definition of "alien" in that Act is that
  "'Alien' means a person who is not a British subject, a British protected person or a citizen of Eire."
  If the right hon. Gentleman has any further point that he would like me to consider, I will willingly look into the matter.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked if I could split up the figure I gave of 4,500 aliens, to which reference has been made. I can certainly do that in a way which I hope will provide him with the information he desires. About 2,500 of them are European voluntary workers who are employed largely in ordnance depots in out-of-the-way parts of Great Britain. There are about 250 employed as forestry workers in remote areas. There are about 1,000 Poles who are employed in Polish hospitals and hostels. Then, apart from those, which are definite classes of aliens, the number of individual aliens at present in employment is not more than about 100. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the kind of picture that he wished to have.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the number of aliens in Crown service had been rising or falling recently. The answer is that the number in this country has been falling. He asked whether they would be employed in Crown service on the same basis as British citizens. The answer is that they would receive the same pay and conditions of service for comparable work such as British citizens might be well suited to do. But, of course, their employment would be temporary. It would not be established service.
  Mr. Benn: To that extent they would be worse off than they are under the present Regulation, which says that the Minister may engage them but puts no limit on their period of engagement. They are now to have a five-year period, whereas in the past they could look forward to an indefinite period of service.
  Mr. Brooke: The Regulation includes the words "temporarily employed." They are not being deprived of any assurance, even if it was only a moral assurance, of permanent employment.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the position in relation to the foreign citizenship of those concerned. That is something, I am afraid, on which I cannot

  1075
  enlighten him. I am not sufficiently informed about the citizenship laws of other countries. There is no escape provision, within my knowledge, whereby one of these people can escape the penalties that might fall upon him under the law of his own country. I would say that he would have to take that risk.
  I think the hon. Gentleman's main question was why we had all this paraphernalia of certificates. This has been carefully considered, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me in what I am going to say. We are discussing this Bill at a time of full employment, and we all hope and pray that full employment will ever last in this country. But this is permanent legislation, and we must provide for all contingencies. If there were to come a time when there were people seeking jobs and unable to find them in this country and there was a suspicion that large numbers of aliens—numbers probably inflated by the public imagination—were occupying posts in Crown service which would otherwise provide employment for British citizens, I am quite sure that trouble would arise.
  I happen to represent a constituency in which possibly more aliens come to live than in any other constituency, and I know well from my own experience how dangerous is the lack of information. If any anti-foreign feeling should grow up, the best way, in my opinion, to kill that at birth would be to provide for the public authoritative information of what the real situation is. Otherwise allegations become magnified.
  Mr. Ede indicated assent.
  Mr. Brooke: I am very glad that I carry the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with me. He has great experience of public opinion in these matters.
  I feel sure that the House would be wise not to dispense with this system, which requires certificates and requires also that the Treasury shall report to Parliament annually just what the situation is.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) asked about security arrangements in the Civil Service. I hope he will forgive me if, on this narrow issue, I do not dilate on
  1076
  that subject. I know that mistakes have been made in individual cases in the past. I assure the House that we do our utmost to learn by our mistakes, but what I am saying now is that there is nothing in this Bill which would have the effect of relaxing our security precautions, nor is there any intention, by administrative action, when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, to bring about relaxations under the guise of a new régime created by the Bill.
  My hon. and learned Friend asked primarily whether there is power to revoke a certificate. There is power to revoke: there is entire power. The only rule laid down by the Statute is that the certificate cannot run for more than five years but may be renewable, but it is desired to keep the issue of these certificates entirely under the control of Ministers because I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the necessity for having full and continuously working safeguards.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the care with which he has replied to the questions which have been put by my hon. Friends and by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty).
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman where is the specific provision which enables a certificate to be revoked? I do not find it in the Bill. I have been advised, in similar circumstances, that unless there is specific provision for the Minister to revoke, then he has not received that authority from the House. I do not think the words "unless previously revoked" confer the power to revoke.
  Mr. Brooke: I am advised that the words "unless previously revoked" cover the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I will willingly look into the matter further.
  Mr. Ede: It is a small point, but my experience has frequently been that one gets advice from lawyers, when one is presenting a Bill, and gives it to the House in quite good faith; and then when one wants to do what the lawyers have said one can do, another lawyer comes along and says "You should have

  1077
  come to me and not to him." One is then left in a very uncomfortable position.
  I should like to say a word or two on what the right hon. Gentleman said might happen in the case of some drop in the present level of employment. While I was Home Secretary I had a great many applications from aliens to enter this country, and I tried to be as liberal as I possibly could in dealing with them. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, however, his constituency of Hampstead presents peculiar difficulties.
  I was once asked, not by the right hon. Gentleman but by another hon. Member, how many aliens in Hampstead were householders. With a great deal of trouble I obtained the information. Some ingenious people, with a little knowledge of the rules of multiplication, then said: "That is one borough in London. There are twenty-nine boroughs in London. If there are so many aliens in Hampstead who are householders, there are twenty-nine times that number in the administrative county of London. The proportion of the inhabitants of the administrative county of London to those of the United Kingdom is a certain figure. Applying that to the whole country, it is quite evident that the housing problem is caused by the number of aliens resident in this country." That is the sort of thing that passes for logic on the other side of the House on occasion, because it was a question from that side of the House which gave rise to that argument.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman's taunt is a little cheap.
  Mr. Ede: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman must buy it at his own price.
  One of the things which we must bear in mind is that in every country xenophobia is not very far below the surface. I always lived in fear that, in the kind of situation which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, there might be a great reaction against the admission and retention of aliens. I therefore think that it is wise that the House should always be in possession of the information so that real knowledge can be used to answer any of the deductions which might be
  1078
  drawn by people who do not know the full facts.
  While I hope that, as far as possible, the stranger who behaves himself or herself will always be welcome within the gates, I should not myself object, after my own experience, to the method of certification which is provided in the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. J. Nixon Browne.]
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is a Motion on which we should have more information from the Government. We should not agree to it "on the nod."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Under Standing Order No. 60 (2), the Motion must be put without amendment or debate.
  Mr. Hughes: The Motion before the House is that this Bill be remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee, and I wish to oppose its remission.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The way in which that could be done would be for 10 hon. Members to stand in their places to show their opposition to it, in which case the Motion would be defeated.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely we are entitled to have a Scottish Minister on the Bench, even if the Motion is not debatable.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I moved the Motion.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. This is another injustice to Scotland. This is a most important Bill. Whereas the English Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, this Bill is to be referred to

  1079
  the Scottish Grand Committee. I should like to raise the whole question of whether the Scottish Grand Committee is capable of taking the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That could not be raised now. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Standing Order No. 60 (2) he will see that the procedure is laid down. Unless 10 hon. Members stand in their places to signify that they are against what is proposed, nothing can be done.
  Question put and agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  So much of the Lords Message [14th June] as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Wills.]
  So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Wills.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  GROUND-TO-AIR DEFENCE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: The points which I wish to raise in the debate have already been outlined by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air during the debate on the Air Estimates, and he referred to them again in answering a Question which I put to him the other day.
  I feel that the key to the difference of opinion which may exist between my hon. Friend and myself lies in the statement which he made in his speech that it is wrong to think of surface-to-air guided weapons as improved guns. The point I want to emphasise in this discussion is
  1080
  that, whatever the nature of the weapons which are to be forthcoming and whatever their capabilities, it is essential for the home defence of this country that there should be an anti-aircraft organisation of some kind in being all the time. May I make it clear, in passing, that I do not want to press my hon. Friend to give any information about weapons which are on the secret list?
  During the last six months we have had the proposals for the complete disbandment of Anti-Aircraft Command. With those proposals I am in full agreement; in fact, I ventured to raise the matter a considerable time ago and I am very happy to feel that my right right hon. Friends have now come to the point of view I put nearly two years ago. We have had the complete disbanding of the organisation of Anti-Aircraft Command and the R.A.F. is now responsible, under my hon. Friend and his noble Friend, for the ground-to-air defence of this country.
  I submit that it is not enough to say that the new type of weapon is not an improved gun. I think there is a certain contention in the matter. It is necessary to have a clear idea as to what organisation it is intended to establish in place of Anti-Aircraft Command. Anti-Aircraft defence is defence of the home citadel the importance of which has been reiterated time and again in this House. I know my hon. Friend entirely agrees with that. This evening I want him to develop a little more the reasons why we have not been given a more clear indication of the type of organisation which the Royal Air Force now proposes to put into being to replace Anti-Aircraft Command and to provide the necessary anti-aircraft defence of the country, which, I submit, is essential, and which, I think, is generally agreed as intended in the White Paper on Defence.
  I wish to press my hon. Friend for answers on three separate issues. The first is the operational control of the organisation, the second the nature of that organisation itself, and the third the character of the organisation with the very important question of the morale of those it is intended to recruit and place within it.
  To get the matter into correct perspective, I think it reasonable, as we have rather more time now than normally we

  1081
  would have in an Adjournment debate, to go back to a consideration of the organisation we had during the war. The Air Ministry, through Fighter Command, was responsible for the operational control of all anti-aircraft defence. However, control so far as the guns were concerned was exercised through the very considerable network of Anti-Aircraft Command, which has just been disbanded. The reason for that disbandment is quite clear. First, the antiaircraft gun is not capable of dealing with the supersonic threat. It is not capable of dealing with the rocket and, therefore, to maintain a very expensive structure, with many guns involved, is, quite clearly, not a sound proposition at present.
  Secondly, and this is equally important, the whole of the network of reporting, both inwards and outwards and of control, involves such a time lag that it cannot cope with the very much increased supersonic rate of speed in any attack which might be expected. Therefore, I entirely endorse, as I am sure all hon. Members will endorse, the decision to remove Anti-Aircraft Command. The fact remains that there are still some antiaircraft regiments of the Royal Artillery and those regiments are being trained primarily for action in the field force. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that they may be used in the defence of the home front. We have done away with the mechanism of control through Anti-Aircraft Command. How are those units to be controlled in the event of their being required to operate on the home front in a swift emergency? As I see it, at the moment there is no organisation and no rules. Therefore, if they were required to operate I suspect that there would be an element of confusion in the whole proceeding.
  That brings me to the difference of opinion between my hon. Friend and myself about the guided missile not being an improved form of gun. I believe that, technically, it is an improved form of anti-aircraft instrument. The point I would make very strongly tonight is that Anti-Aircraft is an operational theatre of war and cannot be left vacant without any form of replacement. The experience, knowledge and operational procedures—particularly technical procedures
  1082
  —and technicians who have been operating in Anti-Aircraft Command must not be allowed to be scattered and wasted in a way which, at present, I think there is a tendency for them to be wasted.
  That brings me to the second point, organisation. The take-over of the responsibility for anti-aircraft was, I think, a little precipitate. I say this humbly, because I am not in possession of all the factors on which the Government acted in this matter. I am certain that it was right to hand over this responsibility to the R.A.F., because, if we are to have one control in this sphere, obviously it has to be in the hands of the R.A.F. It would have been better if, first, the Royal Air Force had been put into the picture in double harness with the Army. Then the Army could have been slowly eased out, leaving the new form of organisation completely under the control of the R.A.F. in situ ready to take over the new weapons when they were forthcoming and ready to take over straight away existing weapons which, in my opinion, are the basis for any consideration for new types of anti-aircraft defence measures.
  That has not been done and I ask my hon. Friend to tell us whether it is intended, despite the fact that the new weapons are not immediately available, to set up the organisation in order to receive them when they are available. I should have thought that there was a very sound case for bringing the R.A.F. very much into the anti-aircraft picture without any further delay. It appears to me that a blank exists. I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to say that it is intended to fill that blank. I suggest that the R.A.F. Regiment is best equipped to carry out this new rôle but that, of course, is a matter of policy for the Secretary of State for Air.
  I make the suggestion for this reason. We all know that the R.A.F. is a proud, progressive service with a great tradition which, perhaps, puts a little higher premium on those who wear "wings," namely, those who operate in the air. What I am a little nervous of is that the new arrangement whereby anti-aircraft defence is to be handled by the R.A.F. may well mean that those who handle it do not stand quite so high in the R.A.F. scale of things as the anti-aircraft gunners did in the Army scale of things when

  1083
  Anti-Aircraft Command was a very considerable organisation, playing a very considerable part in the Army structure.
  I should have thought that particular attention ought to be paid now—not at a later date—to the building up of this particular arm of the R.A.F. To give it a position of its own, the R.A.F. Regiment, which is a young service with plenty to build on and plenty to build for, should have been given this particular duty so that to a certain extent it could be independent of the normal R.A.F. structure. I am not, however, qualified to advise my hon. Friend. I merely seek advice and express to him my feelings about this problem.
  Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity of dealing with this specific aspect of defence. It is a limited one but is extremely important, and I hope we may hear that the whole of this new organisation is not to wait for the weapons to come forward. Despite what my hon. Friend has said, the weapons are only a development in anti-aircraft technique. At present, there are far too many people who have considerable knowledge but who are not being taken into consultation and whose knowledge is being lost to the Service as a whole. I believe that if my hon. Friend looks at this matter again and gives us and them rather fuller information, it would be in the best interests of the Service as a whole.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) for raising this issue, which is, however, much wider than the rather technical points that he put before the House. The whole question behind it is the defence of this country in the light of the developments of modern warfare.
  Although the hon. Member, from his experience of the last war, has given us some very interesting reminiscences and dealt with interesting points of organisation, yet I feel that this is a subject that the House must discuss at much greater length. We are indebted to the hon. Member for every opportunity which gives Service Ministers the chance to explain what is being done for the defence of this country against air attack in a possible future war.
  1084
  At Question Time, I raised the question of what kind of defence we really have and what state the Royal Air Force is in compared with the air force of the country which is our potential enemy. In the debate on the Address, I listened to the very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing). His speech seemed to me very significant—indeed, sinister—because if all that he said about the developments of the Russian air force is true, this country is lagging far behind.
  At Question Time, I was only able to ask a question as to what information the Government had about the new Russian bombers, which are the bombers which, presumably, will attack this country in the event of a future war. I was rather brushed aside by the Minister, who did not seem to think that it was the job of our Ambassador in Moscow to keep in touch with the developments of the air force of the Soviet Union. I do not know where the hon. Member for Hendon. North got his information, but he certainly seems to be much better informed than either the Foreign Secretary or our Ambassador.
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: It is all printed weekly in "Aviation Week."
  Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I shall certainly pursue my researches into "Aviation Week" before the next Air Estimates are debated. In the meantime, let us see the type of aeroplanes around which the hon. Member for Harrow, East, who initiated this Adjournment debate, presumably wishes to organise defence.
  The hon. Member talked about the Anti-Aircraft Command. What kind of bombing force has the Anti-Aircraft Command to face? The hon. Member for Hendon, North will excuse me if I quote rather extensively from his speech of last week. It was a very important speech. Apparently, I am the only person who has treated it with the respect that it deserves.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, North said:
  "I want to direct attention to something which happened before the General Election and to draw one or two conclusions from it. I refer to the May Day fly-past of the Russian air force. This is always an event of tremendous importance to the Russian people. It

  1085
  is an occasion when the rest of the world, and particularly those interested in defence, examine the new weapons which are shown and try to draw conclusions from them."
  The Minister pointed out at Question Time that our Ambassador did see the fly-past on May Day in Red Square. On one occasion I saw a fly-past. It lasted about a fraction of a second and I was not able to make much of it. But we have been told by the hon. Member for Hendon, North that
  "In that May Day fly-past were seen some of the most advanced aircraft that have ever been produced. They were seen, not singly but in considerable numbers."
  Surely, this is strange, because we thought that Russia was a very backward country and that Communism was extremely inefficient. But here we have the statement that to the surprise, apparently, of all the foreign observers on the Red Square, out of the blue came Russian aircraft which seemed to be infinitely superior to anything that the Royal Air Force has produced. That is a reflection upon the Minister and upon the Minister of Supply.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I heard my hon. Friend's speech. He never said anything about the Russian aircraft being superior to those of the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister will be able to give categorical contradictions later. I have here the hon. Member's speech, and that is the speech that alarmed me. He said:
  "They are aircraft which are at present not matched by any in large-scale production in this country and hardly matched by any in the United States of America."
  Mr. George Craddock: That is good enough.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, of course it is. Surely, if they are
  "not matched by any in large-scale production in this country"
  the evidence is that we do not have such aircraft to the extent that is presumed to be necessary. The quotation I have made from the hon. Member's speech shows the point that I am making. The fact is that the hon. Member does not get up to contradict the Minister.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: He will do so now.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that we must compare like with like. I was comparing the Russian four-jet bomber with a British four-jet bomber. I was not comparing a Russian four-jet bomber with the performance of the latest British fighter. Those are the two aircraft which have to fight it out one against the other. I was merely comparing bomber against bomber and fighter against fighter. Of the Russian jet bombers which I mentioned, 10 or 12 were seen. That is not the very large-scale production which the hon. Member has suggested.
  Mr. Hughes: I had better continue my researches into the hon. Member's speech. If he was not alarmed, what was his purpose in making that speech? Surely, it was not for my edification.
  The hon. Member said:
  "I speak of some 12 four-jet bombers of extremely advanced design which were seen then for the first time. It is true that a prototype flew in a previous year, but it was then felt by the free nations that it might take a very long time to develop it, to put it into production and produce it in sufficient numbers to form a squadron."
  The hon. Member went on to say:
  "As I say, on this occasion 12 four-jet bombers were seen flying over Moscow. That is extremely revealing as showing the tremendous progress Russia has made in solving scientific and production problems."
  This was under Communism. The hon. Member continued:
  "At the same time a fighter, MIG 17, was seen in very substantial numbers. Here we have a supersonic fighter which is the equal of anything we are producing here."
  This is indeed an indictment, and the House and the Under-Secretary of State must be indebted to me for having listened to the hon. Member so that I can now produce what he said and so give the Under-Secretary of State an opportunity of answering it.
  The hon Member went on:
  "There is also a report that the Russians now have an all-weather fighter and a turboprop bomber of advance design in full-scale production. I would not ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—whom I see on the Front Bench—to comment on these developments at this stage."
  The hon. Member was giving the Under-Secretary of State notice, and he was giving other Ministers the necessary notice, too.
  "I am sure that the reports are being examined and conclusions being drawn from them."

  1087
  Those of us who are not technical experts, who are merely laymen in these matters, would like some reassuring statement from the Under-Secretary of State, if this is indeed what has occurred, if there has been this tremendous development of the Russian bomber force. The Under-Secretary of State cannot now say that he has not had notice of these matters because he has had a week to think them over, and he has now this debate, which can last until 10.30 p.m., in which he can prove conclusively to us that the hon. Member for Hendon, North is merely an alarmist and that the Russian air force is not the formidable weapon of modern warfare that, in the debate on the Address, we were told it was.
  The hon. Member went on to say:
  "Russian technicians have produced aircraft of very advanced design, with engines of terrific thrust. I am talking not of engines with 10,000 1b. thrust but, perhaps, even of 20,000 1b. thrust, which puts them in a world-beating class. None of these things would have been achieved if Russia had not paid tremendous attention in the last decade to the production and training of scientific personnel."
  This, too, under a Communist Government.
  "It is very difficult to get exact figures, but it seems that for every thousand head of population Russia has 10 whole-time scientific students, the United States approximately one-third of that number, Switzerland about one-tenth and the United Kingdom one-twentieth. This augurs extremely ill not only for our future in defence, but for our future economic stability, exports and prosperity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 316–7.]
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: A pretty good speech.
  Mr. Hughes: That speech should be taken in conjunction with what the hon. Member for Harrow, East said in his speech today, and if these are the facts, then all this talk about the reorganisation of Anti-Aircraft Command to deal with these supersonic bombers, the fastest in the world, and the rockets, is beside the point. The hon. Member has completely under-estimated the problem of defence in the modern age. Other countries are treating this matter much more seriously.
  I want to deal with the interjection of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) at Question Time today. In a supplementary question he said that the Russians had learned because they had received Rolls-Royce engines from this country. That is
  1088
  a curious state of affairs, is it not? Here is our potential enemy, the enemy we are arming against, the enemy always held up to us as the greatest threat to this country, and a firm like the Rolls-Royce company is exporting engines to them to give their bombing force superiority. If the Rolls-Royce company is spending its time helping to equip the Russian air force bombers with the best Rolls-Royce engines, that is a matter which should be inquired into.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that the export of these Nene engines was undertaken by the Government he supported between 1945 and 1950. We of this party were highly critical of the proposal to send 54 Nene engines to Russia. We are still critical of that. Certainly that was a blunder for which the Labour Government, which the hon. Member supported, bear responsibility. I do not recall that at that time the hon. Member raised any objection to the supply of those engines.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member has a very short memory. Not only did I object to that, but I objected to the whole paraphernalia of the Air Estimates, one after another.
  Really, this is a very lame excuse indeed. We have had two General Elections since the time of which the hon. Member speaks, and it is not good enough for the present Government and their supporters, including the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield with his supplementary question today, to explain everything by saying, "Oh, look at what the Labour Government did from 1945 to 1950." This is 1955. [HON. MEMBERS: "But that is what the Labour Government did."] If it was wrong to export Rolls-Royce engines to the Soviet Union in 1946, then instead of merely criticising what the Labour Government did, the first thing this Government should have done when they came into office in 1951 was to have stopped sending Rolls-Royce engines. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what we did."] The logic is unanswerable.
  We have drawn for us this picture of this most powerful air force equipped with Rolls-Royce engines, but hon. Members opposite have not prevented those engines from going to Russia. Presumably, there are certain financial interests not unconnected with the Rolls-Royce company

  1089
  that would not be particularly anxious to stop sending the engines.
  There are trends of thought here which should be pursued to their logical conclusion. If the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is so proud of Rolls-Royce engines, and believes that they are the reason why the Russians have superiority, somebody should be indicted for treason for equipping the Russians with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There might be a very large assortment of people in the dock. However, the responsibility in 1955 cannot be laid upon the Opposition. The Opposition have had nothing to do with this business since 1951. There has been a true-blue, patriotic, anti-Bolshevist, anti-Communist Government since that time—and here they are boasting that certain Rolls-Royce engines are equipping the Soviet Union's air force.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has had his fun and we have enjoyed it, but the fact is that those Rolls-Royce engines that were sent to Russia were sent only under the Government—I will not say the hon. Gentleman supported but to whose party he belongs—and none has been sent since.
  Mr. Hughes: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not quite as innocent as that? The Rolls-Royce company must have known that the engines were going to be sent to Russia. They were surely not smuggled into Russia in some sinister way by the Labour Government? Obviously, the Rolls-Royce engines were sent to Russia with the knowledge and the connivance of the Rolls-Royce company. That is the point.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: They were made by the Rolls-Royce company but they were sent to Russia under the direction of the Minister of Supply at the time, and the then Minister of Defence supported that. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
  Mr. Hughes: I must confess that I made some attacks upon my right hon. Friend when he was in office, but I missed this one.
  However, here we have the inescapable fact that Rolls-Royce technicians, and organisers of the Rolls-Royce company, supplied these engines willingly, and the
  1090
  engines were exported to the Soviet Union, so hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot complain now if the Soviet technicians, about whom the hon. Member for Hendon, North is so fulsome in his praise, have improved on them. The argument of the hon. Member's speech was that the Soviet Union had spent so much money on improving the Rolls-Royce engines of the bombers that she had now built the most formidable air force in the world.
  What are these trifling criticisms of the Ministry, however, in the perspective of the problem of the defence of this country? We have become the most dangerously situated country in the world, and we do not seem to be preparing for attack by one of the most powerful air forces in the world. America is doing better than we are. At Question Time today I asked a Question about air-raid precautions in the United States. I was very interested, because obviously if the menace of the Russian bomber force is so great we should be doing more than pottering about with anti-aircraft battalions in this country. We ought to have something on the lines of what the United States organised last week.
  I tried to press the Government today in order to discover whether there had been any reports from the British Ambassador. We were told over the wireless and in the Press that there was a civil defence exercise in America, that President Eisenhower and his military advisers had left the capital to take refuge in some place three hundred miles away from Washington. Surely, that should be of some interest, and I wanted to know whether the British Ambassador had furnished us with a report, and what part he had played in the exercises.
  We were told in the Press that the assumption of the United States civil defence authorities was that Washington had been obliterated, and apparently the British Ambassador had been left in the obliteration. This exercise is the sort of thing that America is doing—not pottering about wondering about Anti-aircraft Command and small things like that. We are told in the "New York Herald-Tribune" that
  "President Eisenhower directed government operations today from this secret mountain hideaway after 'fleeing' from a sham nuclear bomb attack which theoretically razed Washington."

  1091
  Apparently the President had not great confidence in the Anti-aircraft Command, of the United States. We are told that,
  "The President arrived at the relocation center by automobile late yesterday afternoon—six hours and five minutes after leaving the capital as sirens wailed the approach of 'enemy' bombers. … He also went on nation-wide radio and television briefly to tell the people: 'We are here to determine whether or not the government is prepared in time of emergency to continue the function of government so that there will be no interruption in the business that must be carried on'."
  We are supposed to be in a more dangerous position that the United States. This country is the aircraft carrier of Western Europe. It has become the base of the American Air Force. America is 3,000 miles away, but we here have nothing like the preparations which have been made in that country.
  Whenever we ask the Home Secretary about Civil Defence we receive vague assurances which do not convince anybody; but in this report in the "New York Herald-Tribune" we are told:
  "Serious and even somewhat grim about it all, the President spoke from an army tent erected at the relocation center. About all that can be written about this emergency White House is that it is located in a woody, mountainous area within the 300-mile radius from Washington in which the President and 15,000 other Government employees scattered yesterday."
  The report concludes:
  "This rehearsal of sudden colossal devastation and death was the biggest of its kind in history, embracing 50 cities on the mainland and in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal Zone. With Mr. Eisenhower into hideaways within a 300-mile radius of Washington went 15,000 key government officials. Left behind were Congress and the Supreme Court, the other two branches of the Government"—
  and the British Ambassador. The British Ambassador will not be able to find the latest instructions of President Eisenhower as to what the policy of his country is likely to be.
  Behind all this are the realities. None of the questions that are being put to the Minister comes anywhere near the realities of the problem. I should like to see the House discussing the realities. Last week we had a speech from the Foreign Secretary which contained the usual platitudinous phrases. He told us in one sentence that the Government's policy was negotiation not force, and when we waited for an explanation of
  1092
  that rather curious statement he went on to say that it meant negotiation from strength. But here are the facts about the so-called attempt to prevent the bombing of this country by enemy aircraft.
  One of the strongest air forces in the world can inflict incomparable destruction which could knock us out within about a week. We have been told over and over again that half a dozen H-bombs could destroy our industrial life, yet in a debate on the Adjournment we are talking about pottering anti-aircraft defences. I do not think that the Government will be doing their duty until they tackle this most important problem.
  We should be devoting far more time to discovering whether the Government have any real policy to prevent the destruction of the country in the event of an atomic attack. We have not got anywhere near that point. He should have something more substantial than mere references to the technical points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.
  6.27 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am not going to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) metaphorically into the stratosphere and discuss the weighty considerations which he raised. I am sure that he must have caused the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) some alarm by developing on such a large and, indeed, cosmic basis the theme which the hon. Member introduced. That does not mean, of course, that the points which my hon. Friend raised are not matters of the gravest possible concern. I hope that by the time all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate have spoken, the Under-Secretary of State for Air will have equipped himself with the necessary information to enable him to deal in some fashion with the points raised by my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East has raised on one or two previous occasions the subject to which he has referred in this debate. Like the hon. Member, I was associated in some degree with antiaircraft defences during the war. It is, of course, the policy of the present Government to abolish Anti-aircraft Command as we knew it in those days. I have no

  1093
  objection to abolishing anything which has become out of date or does not meet the needs of the present situation, but what I do object to is abolishing something like Anti-Aircraft Command, however outmoded it might be in some respects, without putting something in its place.
  On the narrow issue, the serious business of the present situation is that the Government have decided to abolish Anti-Aircraft Command but have not devised any kind of machinery or organisation to take its place. The hon. Member for Harrow, East was quite right in suggesting, even at the cost of imperilling his future prospects in the Conservative Party, that the Government have in this particular sector of our defence created a vacuum, which, of course, must be an additional source of danger in the security arrangements.
  The hon. Member referred to the rôle that the R.A.F. Regiment might be able to play. He did not have time or it was not his intention on this occasion to refer to the better use that could have been made of the Territorial Army officers and men who did a good job in anti-aircraft defence during the war and in the years after it. They are being pushed into all sorts of other activities where, perhaps, the skill and experience which they have acquired are going to be wasted.
  There is one other matter on which I have had correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Air and to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East. It is this wastage which he suspects is taking place in allowing some of these people who are civilians and who are highly skilled in radar and electronics to leave the R.A.F. and go into civilian employment. When the Government want such men they will find them extremely difficult to get back. That will be an additional source of weakness in the anti-aircraft defence of this country if it is still to be dependent in the future upon the development of radar and electronic devices.
  I know that the matter is under careful consideration by the Air Ministry and with the interests concerned. I hope that that means that a device will be arranged to prevent the loss of these highly qualified people through their departure to private industry, for if a crisis arises there will be a rush by the Service Departments
  1094
  to get these men back. That will be an additional source of delay and confusion at a time when more urgent matters have to be considered.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to deal with the large and important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. The House is entitled to be told what the Government have decided to put in the place of Anti-Aircraft Command and when the new organisation is to operate. A very legitimate question has been raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East, and the House is entitled to the fullest possible information.
  6.35 p.m.
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), I deplore the vacuum left by the abolition of Anti-Aircraft Command. I agree there is an enormous field of electronics to be investigated, and I should like to say that Portsmouth has probably the best electronic experts in the country. It is very desirable that industry should come to Portsmouth and use the electronic brains which are there instead of, as is happening at present, having them exported to other cities to meet the demand made by industrialists.
  The country needs these electronic experts very badly and if they are concentrated in a particular city like Portsmouth, which suffered so badly in the war, they would be available for the Territorial Army at any time instead of being scattered all over the country. What is required is for industrialists to set up their factories in Portsmouth where these electronic experts are available. One has already done so, and I hope that others will be ready to follow that example. That is all I have to say on this subject.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I agree that this is a very important debate. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) was indeed fortunate to get an Adjournment for about four and a half hours to debate such an important issue.

  1095
  I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) seemed to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) about the supply of Nene engines to Russia in 1945 and 1946. It is a frightful reflection upon Britain's aircraft industry that, after having had Nene engines before the Russians, it is so far behind the Russians now that the Russians are able to produce a four-engined bomber that completely outclasses anything in the West.
  Does that mean that Rolls-Royce have done nothing to better this engine or that nothing has been done to evolve a better engine based on the Nene? What have we done? Does it mean that Russian scientists and technicians are superior to ours? That seems to be the case, because it is not so long ago since there was an offer of £20,000 to any Pole or Russian who would fly to the West an undamaged MIG fighter. Apparently what we cannot produce with brains we will buy with dollars or sterling, if we can.
  That is a serious reflection upon our scientists and technologists. I sometimes wonder whether there is a sort of vested interest in a contemporary product which is reducing good profits and the development of which is prevented because it is felt that the expense of new designs is unwarrantable when a company is doing so well out of it. I do not know whether that is a factor in the aircraft industry, but I know it did prevail in British industry between the wars. A brake on technological development and better designing was that an existing product was producing ample reward and there was no need to indulge in the expense of research for a new product. But, as I say, it is a serious indictment of the aircraft industry that the Russians have developed out of the Nene engine a type of engine far superior to anything that we have developed from it.
  I do not know whether this is correct, but I am led to believe that an aircraft, flying low, cannot be picked up by radar. I do not know what flying low is, whether it is a 100 or 200 feet. I did, however, see a film called the "Dam Busters" and in it seemed to be a new device to enable planes to fly over water at, I think, 60 feet. When the lights from two lamps underneath the aircraft were
  1096
  synchronised the aircraft was 60 feet above the water. I do not know whether any device has been invented to enable aircraft to fly consistently between 100 and 150 feet above the earth. If that could be done, they could not be picked up by radar.
  According to my knowledge of geography, the land between the Ural mountains and the Midlands of Britain is flat, so that aircraft could fly low all the way over and, therefore, could not be picked up by radar. If that is so, how are we to stop them by ground-to-air missiles? I cannot visualise a missile which could destroy aircraft flying at 600 or 700 miles an hour 200 feet above the ground.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: I do not want to enter into a technical argument, but an aircraft flying so low could not safely drop any atomic or nuclear weapon with any degree of accuracy or without blowing itself up.
  Mr. Bence: That is interesting, but if such an aircraft set off from the Ural mountains, flying at 200 feet, when it reached the coast of Britain it could at once rise to a greater height, and how could we get our equipment switched round in time? It would be too late, because the hydrogen bomb would have been dropped, and, although we might kill the man who dropped the bomb, there would be no defence of our people.
  We were told during the last war that the Japanese had suicide men who volunteered to pilot their submarines into British battleships, committing hara kiri in the process. We do not know that the Russians could not get volunteers to fly high-speed bombers at a height at which they could not be picked up by radar until they reached the Norfolk coast. Then they could rise to 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 feet before dropping the bomb, knowing well that they would be destroyed themselves.
  Nothing I have heard will convince the people that the Government have any proposals for defending us against a hydrogen bomb attack. Some of us remember the composite pictures in the illustrated magazines, in 1938, of huge nets stretching across the sky from balloons. It was said that no aircraft could get through these nets. I remember the arguments in a factory in Birmingham. We said, "They will never get

  1097
  through that lot. An aeroplane has only to hit that to crash." We know what happened. The balloons went up—and so did the buildings in Birmingham. The balloons did not seem to make any difference. That was one method. Another was the "Queen Bee," a pilotless aeroplane. Then there was the "Magic Ray," which would pick out an aircraft and bring it down by stopping its magneto or some other electrical part.
  Then the war came, but none of these things existed. They were all part of a fairy tale and the balloons were useless. No, I cannot believe that the Government are doing anything to prevent the civilian population from being destroyed should we be engaged in an atomic war. I do not say that they ought to be able to do something, because I do not believe that the scientists and engineers have an answer to this tremendous weapon of destruction.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: There is only one: stop manufacturing it.
  Mr. Bence: But we have to get the other people to agree. It is the other people who matter—
  Mr. Shurmer: We are always in the right; they are always in the wrong.
  Mr. Bence: Let us be fair about that. It is the people in other countries who make it who will drop it on us, so we must stop them making the bomb.
  Mr. Shurmer: We must stop making it ourselves.
  Mr. Bence: That would not necessarily stop them. If we want to stop the manufacture of hydrogen bombs the nations of the world must get together and compromise on their ideas. Do not let us assume for a moment that there is no need for compromise because we have a defence against the other person's weapon, for we have no defence. The Russians have no defence against our bombing them and we have no defence against the Russians bombing us. People are hoodwinking themselves if they believe that they have a defence against this weapon. That is why all this haranguing is going on, all this talk of arguing from strength, when, in fact, they are all arguing from weakness.
  1098
  There was a cartoon in one of the daily papers—
  Mr. Shurmer: In the "Daily Express" this morning.
  Mr. Bence: —showing two people talking from strength, each with a revolver pointing at the other's chest. We are all talking from weakness, because if we can smash the other fellow, and he can smash us, it is no defence.
  Brigadier Clarke: Before the First World War there was a Geneva Convention to prevent the use of gas. As a result there was no gas used by this country and we had no defence against it; but gas was used by the Germans and there are many people today suffering from lung trouble because it was used. In the Second World War, we had a defence against gas but it was never used. If we abandoned the hydrogen bomb, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman was defending, we would stand a good chance of being bombed by it, whereas it provides a good defence for this country if we have it to retaliate with. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not throw away the defence he has got, since he suggests that no other is any good.
  Mr. Bence: I am not suggesting throwing any defence away. I am arguing that to have a weapon with which to destroy the other fellow is no defence against our own people being destroyed. The hydrogen bomb is not a defensive weapon; it is an offensive one.
  Brigadier Clarke: It is a deterrent.
  Mr. Bence: It is a retaliatory weapon to be used if the other fellow uses his, it is not a weapon of defence. We are making the point that there are no plans and there is no possibility of defending our civilian population.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire spoke of President Eisenhower going to a mountain hide-away, 300 miles from Washington. Let us work it out. We could go to Ben Nevis. Fort William is a lovely spot. I dare say the nation could be run from there, certainly that is about the nearest point. The Isle of Man is 300 miles from the centre of population, but that would be difficult because of the water in between. No, I cannot

  1099
  see how it would be possible to maintain the necessary social cohesion in this island if half a dozen aircraft got through.
  Surely no one would contend that if 50 or 100 aircraft were in the air, half a dozen would not get through our defences. I remember that in the "Dam Busters" 15 or more aircraft set off from a base in this country and only three or four were shot down. The rest got through and burst the dams. They were four-engined Lancaster bombers, and now the hon. Member for Hendon, North is talking about supersonic bombers flying at 20,000 or 30,000 feet.
  Does anyone really believe that if 20 of these bombers started off from Russia and they were not picked up by radar until within ten miles of our coast, some of them would not get through? If 50 such bombers started, only one would need to get through to the southern counties and the southern counties would have "had it." Where does the defence of the people come in? There is no defence at all.
  We should probably destroy the aircraft, but what is the use of that? It might give some satisfaction—if it can be called satisfaction, though it is none to me—to think that at the same time as that bomber arrived here one of ours also arrived over there. It would give no satisfaction at all to me to think that the people of Moscow were being killed at the same time as the people in London. I cannot see that there is any possibility at all of evolving a system of defence against such weapons.
  What are we to do in this country? Surely, if the Government are really concerned about this question, if they believe that there is a possibility of war and of this country being bombed, if they want to protect the civilian population, there are two things they could do. First, they could build deep shelters all along the Clyde, for what is the situation there? There are huge oil storage tanks along the river, which now extend even up to Gareloch, and if anything happened in that area a frightful situation would result. The Clyde would be on fire, and it would be impossible to use any boats at all to get people away from Glasgow, and this would apply all the way to Gareloch.
  What are the Government going to do about these people? Leave them there living in their tenement houses and houses
  1100
  built with four-inch bricks? If the Government are really thinking of defending these people, they need not only ground-to-air missiles, but something that will give these people reasonable defence while the job is going on. The Government should be preparing deep shelters up in the Kilpatrick Hills. As I suggested once before in a debate on the Navy Estimates, we ought to have more aircraft carriers up there, capable of taking 5,000 or 10,000 passengers out of Glasgow and the industrial area as soon as war broke out, so as to get the people away as soon as trouble started.
  I have no confidence at all in ground-to-air missiles preventing bombers from attacking our industrial centres. I just cannot see how it can be done. If we have platforms built in Scotland in order to protect Glasgow, and rockets are discharged, who knows where they will land? They might land on London, in which case the people in London will want to know more about them. If the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees to some of these platforms for the launching of ground-to-air missiles being provided in the Kilpatrick Hills to the north of Glasgow, somebody will want to know where the missiles will land. They might even land in Birmingham, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) would be very worried about it. They might land in France, or in Brussels or somewhere else on the Continent.
  What are these missiles? Are they capable of missing their target when they are fired? They are supposed to be homing rockets which, once they are discharged, are attracted to their target, but are they only to be attracted to a target in the air? To me, the whole thing is just eyewash, and, in my view, the general public will say that this is just another sort of trick to give the people confidence that, if war should come, they will be protected, in the same way as we had the "Queen Bee" and the "Magic Ray," which was supposed to pick out an aircraft and bring it down.
  I am worried about the practical possibility of defending our people against air bombing, and the more I think about it and the more I face this problem of guided missiles, the more I am convinced that this is all too dangerous. I hope that after some of my hon. Friends have put their points to him the Minister will

  1101
  answer these serious questions. I hope he will tell us why it is that the Russians, who, supposedly, have not imported any Nene engines since 1945 or 1946, have evolved an aircraft engine far superior to anything which Rolls-Royce or anybody else has evolved.
  I hope that he will also say whether the Government now have anything with which to replace Anti-Aircraft Command. Have they made any provision at all to prevent the bombing of this country, no matter how many aircraft may be sent against us, by hydrogen bombs? What proposals have they for protecting the people against such bombing, assuming that bombers will get through? That is what the people really want to know.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: It is not my intention to follow the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on this question of whether we shall be bombed from the air and what defence we are likely to have. While we have the Under-Secretary of State for Air here, I think it would be interesting to know why there is a certain discrimination in the acceptance of men for the three Services.
  Why is it that some men who are called up and are desirous of entering the Royal Air Force are not allowed into that Service? I have in mind a case, concerning which the Under-Secretary will soon be receiving the correspondence, in which a young man was called up and wished to go into the Royal Air Force. Like many other young men, he went out with his pals and had a merry evening, as a result of which he came in conflict with the police. He was summoned and fined for a supposed assault: I suppose he was just arguing with the policeman. A couple of days after he had reached his R.A.F. station, this boy was politely told "We have no further use for your services here. Home you go, to await being called up into the Army."
  I do not like this discrimination between the Services, because to my mind one is as good as another. They all do their share, and unless it definitely be proved that men are unfitted to do certain work that has to be done in certain sections of the R.A.F. or the Royal Navy, I do not think this sort of thing
  1102
  should happen. One very seldom hears of men being refused for Army service.
  It is always said that the Royal Navy is the senior Service, but the R.A.F. has been arguing with the Royal Navy as to which really is the senior Service. It seems to me that the Army is not regarded very highly, or, at any rate, not so highly regarded as is the R.A.F. I wonder why it is that men are being pushed out from the R.A.F. and told, "You are not fit for the Royal Air Force; you can go in the Army."
  There is another point which I wish to raise. I was astounded the other day—although I had some suspicions about this matter—when I heard that a man who had been called up for his National Service, medically examined and found to be fit for the Royal Air Force, had, when he reached the place where he was to be stationed, to go before another medical board, which found him unfit.
  Is it not silly for the Ministry of Labour and National Service to have these medical boards passing men fit for a certain Service, and then, when the men enter that Service, they have to have another medical examination, the result of which contradicts that of the first? What a waste of time and money to have Ministry of Labour medical officers examining men twice, when we ought to have proper medical officers examining men and finally deciding whether or not they are fit for the particular Service in which they desire to serve.
  The only question which should be the subject of investigation is whether or not the men are capable of carrying out the work that will be required of them in a particular Service. It seems silly that men should be given a medical examination and the impression that they are going into a certain branch of the Forces, and then, when they do enter, another medical board decides that they are unfit.
  There are serious complaints about the time between the Ministry's medical examination of a man and his call-up. I have a Question down upon this subject for answer next week, and I hope that the matter will be gone into. Some men are lucky enough to be called up within a week or two of having their medical examination, but I have recently heard of cases in which men have had to wait six to nine weeks, and one man had to wait

  1103
  twelve weeks. That was before the railway strike, during which some call-ups had to be postponed because of transport difficulties.
  While the men are waiting to be called up their home life, social life and industrial life are completely upset. A man awaiting call-up may be engaged in a very important job, and his employer may find it necessary, in view of the uncertainty, to give the man notice and get another in his place. Such a man is unable to make social engagements as he does not know the date when he will be called up. He may need to buy new clothes, and he is in a difficulty in that respect in that he knows that his life in the Services may well have some effect upon his measurements?
  Why cannot the two-year period of National Service count from the day when the man has the Ministry of Labour and National Service medical examination? As the War Office and the Admiralty are not represented in the Chamber at the moment, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will think about the matter and tell us what he knows about the long period which often elapses between the initial medical examination and the call-up. I suppose it is a matter for the Minister of Defence, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider whether it would be worth while counting that period towards the period of National Service.
  With regard to discrimination between types of men going into National Service, it seems to me that a man who is ready to enter the defence Services is, unless he has a particularly skilled or intricate job, equally fit and eligible for the Army, the Navy or the Royal Air Force. Yet many men seem to be pushed into the Army, which makes it look as if the Army is the lowest branch of the Services.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had no intention of taking part in the debate until I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) raise what I consider to be more important than any of the other matters which have been raised as to whether or not we have the right types of machines, whether Russia has better bombers than we have, and whether the Rolls-Royce engine has been developed more by the
  1104
  Russians than by Rolls-Royce. More important than types of engines is the manpower in the Forces.
  We ought to examine what appears to be the growing practice of deliberately and purposely keeping in the Royal Air Force men, particularly National Service men, who, it is known, are undoubtedly unfit for any type of service. Recently there has been drawn to the attention of the House the case of an individual—his name is known; I shall not state it—who entered the Forces and was found to have something very much wrong with a foot. He was in the Forces for a very short space of time and was then discharged.
  I read in the Press that this man will have an operation and that it is hoped that he will continue his normal civilian occupation. There has been some argument in the Press, and, to my way of thinking, this poor chap has not been fairly treated by the Press. It has been said—it has been hinted in this House—that he has had preferential treatment. It has been said that he has been discharged because he is a national figure engaged in some well-known sporting activity.
  I do not know, and I am not going to pass judgment upon that, but it is strange that in some instances a National Service man is discharged because he has some disablement, which nobody but the Royal Air Force medical branch knows, which makes him unfit to do his service, when many other men, who on medical evidence available are far less fitted to serve, are retained in the Royal Air Force.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has referred in the House to a man serving abroad who has damaged feet and has been excused all activity. He has also referred to a man who was born an invalid and has been more or less useless for any activity since he has been in the Royal Air Force.
  I have supplied the Under-Secretary with details about a constituent of mine. Before the man went into the Royal Air Force, the medical authorities knew that he was physically incapable of carrying out the normal activity expected of a National Service man. Notwithstanding that, the man was taken into the Royal Air Force. He was excused all marching, drilling and sporting activities. He was even excused the wearing of normal Service uniform because it was found that

  1105
  he could not wear Royal Air Force boots: it was eventually suggested that he would have at all times to wear shoes. He was excused all lectures.
  In fact, the man was kept in the Royal Air Force in order to make himself generally useful. That meant making tea. He had to go around doing any odd job in order to keep himself occupied. Hon. Members who have been in the Forces know what that usually means. It means that a man can do anything he likes provided that he hides himself away from the eyes of the commanding officer.
  Since the man has been in the Royal Air Force his disability has been getting worse, although he has had several medical examinations.
  Mr. Shurmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opera glasses are being used in the Gallery.
  Mr. Speaker: No doubt the attendants will deal with the matter.
  Mr. Lewis: My constituent was, and is, completely unfit for normal activities. He has had several medical examinations, and has even been seen by specialists; he has had four or five opinions about his disability, but so far no one has been able to tell him exactly what is wrong. He was told that he was to be issued with special insoles so that he could be fit enough to carry on the activity of making tea. The special insoles have made his feet worse and could have been obtained in any Woolworth's or chemist's shop anywhere in the country.
  I suggest that the Air Force is deliberately taking in men who are known not to be up to the usual standard, and in some circumstances these men could do a much better job in a normal civilian occupation. The man to whom I have just referred happens to be a qualified instrument mechanic. When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that he will seriously answer this point. He knows the details of the case. Surely it is far better, in the interests of the country, in the interests of the Air Ministry, and in the interests of this Service man and the rest of the Service men, for this man to go back to his job of being an instrument mechanic, a job which is essential for the life and well-being of the country, rather than stay in the Air Force, continuing to
  1106
  be excused drills, lectures and other activities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has collected literally dozens of cases such as this. He has been in the Air Force and knows just how a man must feel, knowing that he is there as a passenger being excused all activity, because he is not up to it, while seeing his friends and colleagues getting on with the job. I shall not say that the man who was discharged was unfairly discharged. What I do feel is that there are many men, particularly in the Air Force, who should be back at their normal civilian occupation.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will have a personal investigation made of these dozens of cases of National Service men who have been taken into the Air Force just because the National Service Acts say that they must serve their period of time and because once the men are in the Service it is felt that a duty is owed to the Air Ministry at least to make the men fit when they are not fit.
  I understood that the objective of the original medical examination was to see if a man was fit for service and if he was fit then he was graded and put into a branch of the Forces. If it is known before a man goes into the Forces that he is not fit, surely it is wrong to take him in the hope that by some experimentation, by supplying him with rubber soles, or giving him some help and assistance, he can be made fit to carry out normal duties. Unless something is done to keep out these unfit people, I am convinced that the Air Ministry will never have a satisfactory Service such as we knew during the war.
  7.13 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): May I bring the attention of the House back to the original subject of the debate, ground-to-air defence of the United Kingdom? I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity of trying to put this matter into its right perspective and to say something of the principles which are influencing us in our development of guided missiles and our plans for their development, production and operational employment.
  The first point to make is one which has already been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow,

  1107
  East (Mr. Ian Harvey). It is simply that the methods of air defence which we knew in the last war have been made completely out of date by the performance of modern aircraft.
  As my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary said in the debate on the Address, the Government decided that they were no longer justified in continuing to expend money and manpower on heavy anti-aircraft guns, because their effectiveness had been so radically reduced by the development of nuclear weapons and by the development of long-range aircraft capable of flying at very high speeds and very high altitudes. Therefore, I do not think that there is any great difference of opinion between myself and my hon. and gallant Friend about that.
  My hon. Friend expressed his agreement with the decision to disband Anti-Aircraft Command and I well remember that he was advocating its abolition as long ago as December, 1953. The question is whether it was abolished prematurely. The answer must be in the negative, because if any system becomes out of date, it is absurd to continue spending money and manpower upon it, even though there may be no obvious replacement immediately available for it.
  That brings me to the next question. What is the replacement for it? Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) have spoken of a vacuum. If there is a vacuum, it must be filled. With what? Clearly, if guns have been made obsolete by the performance of modern aircraft, it is no good replacing guns with more guns. The answer is that they must be and are being replaced by a single air defence system in which some of our fighters will be manned and some will be unmanned and expendable. Of course, it would have been a happy coincidence if the reduction of our gun defences could have been accompanied by the introduction of the new surface-to-air guided weapons which will play an increasingly important part in our defence system.
  As I have said, the disbandment of our gun defences was a necessary step on its own merits. The affinity of the guided weapon to the fighter is such that it is
  1108
  quite wrong, in spite of what my hon. Friend for Harrow, East has said—and I have the greatest respects for his opinions —to regard the guided weapon as an improved, but natural successor to the gun. The manned fighter and the guided weapon have this in common, that both can be directed to bring their destructive power to bear upon their target after they have left their airfield or launching station.
  That is the difference between the guided weapon and the gun. With a gun, once one has discharged one's round, there is nothing that one can do about it. But one can guide the manned fighter and the guided weapon after they have left their launching station. The present disparity in range between the fighter and the guided weapon will be progressively reduced. I want to emphasise the point which I have made on previous occasions and which I am sure is at the core of the whole of this matter. It is that surface-to-air guided weapons must be regarded as an addition to the power of our fighters and not as a kind of gun.
  They are a specialised form of fighter and the operational techniques associated with them are most nearly related to orthodox fighter operations. Indeed, so far as we can see, the manned fighter and the ground-to-air guided weapon will continue to be complementary in air defence and it would be a mistake to suppose that we can foresee any decrease in our need for air crews of the highest possible quality to man that part of our fighter defences. It was precisely because we regard ground-to-air guided weapons and fighters as complementary that we decided to give the responsibility for these guided weapons to the Royal Air Force.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East spoke of transferring the responsibility. There was nothing to transfer. We have always had responsibility for the guided weapon. This decision was taken long before the decision to abolish Anti-Aircraft Command and independently of it.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I referred to the transfer of responsibility for ground-to-air defence and, of course, that was transferred, as he had indicated, from the Royal Artillery to the R.A.F.
  Mr. Ward: Only a part of it—only the heavy anti-aircraft. The heavy antiaircraft guns disappeared altogether and The guided weapons were born in the R.A.F. There was no question of transferring them to the R.A.F. Of course, the light anti-aircraft guns still have an important part to play against low-flying aircraft, and these will remain, but their mumber is not great and it is not great enough to justify keeping the whole of the Anti-Aircraft Command structure.
  The guns deployed in the defence of targets in the United Kingdom will continue to be controlled operationally as they have been in the past by Fighter Command through the sector operations centre which has in it the light Anti-Aircraft executive officer who is an Army officer in direct touch with the light antiaircraft units. The detailed system of control is well known and was in force before it was decided to disband Anti-Aircraft Command. There is, therefore, no reason at all why operational effectiveness should suffer in any way from the new arrangement.
  To the men and women who manned Anti-Aircraft Command in the past we owe a great debt of gratitude. Indeed, no one appreciates more fully than the Royal Air Force the great contribution which these people made to the study of our air defence problems. If they have not been selected to man the ground-to-air guided weapons of the future it is only because these weapons set a completely nw kind of problem and require a different organisation. It is certainly no reflection whatever on their skill and devotion in the past. It is merely that the problems that we are now studying fall into quite a different category.
  These problems are still the subject of intensive study and experiment, but it is already clear that we shall need large numbers of highly-skilled technical men, on the one hand, and men who are fully experienced in fighter operations, on the other.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the same kind of air crew "types" as handled the manned aircraft will also be given the job of handling the ground-to-air guided missiles?
  Mr. Ward: I was just coming to that.
  1110
  My hon. Friend spoke of using the R.A.F. Regiment. I would sooner say this: that it does not matter in the least whether a man happens to belong to the R.A.F. Regiment or the general duties branch or even the secretarial branch. What matters are his qualifications. If he has the technical qualifications or the special knowledge and experience of fighter operations then those qualifications will be useful to us. It is quite wrong to tie down the operation of these missiles to any particular branch of the Service without specifying the qualifications necessary in the men we use.
  Reference has been made from time to time to the position in the United States of America.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with defence against aircraft. Will he deal with defence against rockets?
  Mr. Ward: I hope that I may be allowed to make my speech in my own way.
  Mr. Hunter: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to America.
  Mr. Ward: I am, but I am coming back. I have a return ticket.
  It is misleading to try to compare our position with that of the United States. They have to provide continental defence in depth. They are also richer. For their own purposes they have decided to develop and introduce a type of guided weapon system which is in some respects more akin to the gun defences which we know, and which they still retain, than to the sort of system which we think we want for the defence of these islands.
  The object of the air defence of Great Britain, on the other hand, has always been to destroy the enemy bomber as far away as possible from our closely concentrated centres of industry and population. This is more than ever necessary in the nuclear age. As I said in my speech on the Air Estimates, the ideal is, by a combination of guided weapons and manned fighters, to try to bring bombers down well out to sea. I hope that that deals with the fear of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that we might drop them on Glasgow or that the Scots might drop them on London. The object is to bring them down well out to sea.

  1111
  Moreover, we must remember that the Americans started rather earlier than we did. As a result they have been able to put a weapon into service earlier, but, because we started later, and because our needs are different, we have had to set our sights higher and we shall take longer to achieve an operational deployment. Having said that, I should not like it to be thought that we have any reason to be ashamed of the state of our development.
  The problems in so new a field are, of course, enormous. Apart from the warhead, there are four main elements to be dealt with in the missile: aerodynamics, propulsion, guidance and the control system. It is necessary to prove each of these elements separately by experimental firings. They have to be coupled up into a complete guided and controlled missile to be fired at actual targets.
  Then, in addition to the missiles themselves, there has to be extensive development of radar equipment to control them. Radars and missiles must then be proved capable of operating satisfactorily as a system. But there is still more to it than this. With conventional types of weapon one can generally take for granted that when a weapon has been successfully developed it can be successfully produced.
  One can also normally assume that a new weapon can readily be maintained and operated by Service units established for the purpose. But in so new a field as this it is necessary to start virtually from scratch in creating industrial capacity to produce the weapon and to prove that industry can produce not only reliable weapons, but ones which can be maintained and operated by the Royal Air Force under field conditions. Then again, the problem of training and developing new operational techniques is very clearly a different matter from adapting old techniques to suit an advanced type of a basically familiar weapon.
  The development of these operational techniques is further complicated by the need to integrate as closely as possible our new ground-to-air weapons with our existing air defence system, and in addition the whole of our development and trials programme must be aimed at producing weapons which are capable of further
  1112
  development to meet advances in the performance of enemy aircraft in the foreseeable future. This has meant that we have had to develop these weapons along more than one line.
  These are all difficult problems which must be resolved to enable the ground-to-air weapon to nose out the bomber and destroy it. Although we share the natural impatience of the House and of the public to see these weapons in full-scale production, I do not think we have any real reason for dissatisfaction with the progress we have made. Hundreds of full-scale rounds have already been fired. I myself visited the test firing range in Wales last week, and I was most heartened by what I saw.
  There is, however, still much to be done. There is not only a lot of development work but a lot of research work to be done, and I would not pretend for a moment that we are likely to see any large operational development tomorrow or the day after. But provided that all goes well, there is no reason why our programme of development and trials should not merge into large-scale production for operational use by a steady and continuous process in the years which lie immediately ahead. As each new problem arises, it will be tackled by our scientists, and as the threat to these islands develops it will be tackled in new and up-to-date methods.
  I was asked about the ballistic missile. I am certainly not in a position tonight to say what progress we are making—
  Mr. Hunter: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that there is no defence against the atomic rocket?
  Mr. Ward: May I please finish what I was saying?
  I was asked about the ballistic rocket. I am certainly not in a position tonight to say what progress we are making to counter that dreadful weapon, but what I am saying is that we in these islands have the finest scientific knowledge and brains of any country in the world, and if a problem of that kind is soluble there is no one better than us to solve it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.