Lords Sitting of 22 April 1947

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  2.35 p.m.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  COUNTY BOROLTGH OF ROTHERHAM ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF CHIPPING NORTON ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF GLOSSOP ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF MALDON ORDER.
  LORD WALKDENMy Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FIVE-DAY WEEK FOR MINERS.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will lay before the House a statement of (a) the negotiations leading to the decision announced by the Government to introduce a five-day week in the coal mines as from May next, including reports of the National Coal Board on the technical aspect of this change; (b) the actual arrangements made between the National Coal Board and the Mine Workers' Federation as to wages and other conditions of work when the five-day week is in force.]
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on June 26, 1946, my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power announced in another place the Government's conclusion that, as a major step in the campaign to attract more recruits to the coalmining industry, the Government offered no objection in principle, provided that arrangements and conditions could be established with the full co-operation of the miners, to an organized five-day week of a kind which would secure the output of coal necessary to meet the country's needs; but that the working out of the scheme in detail, including the date of application, was a matter to be undertaken within the industry itself, and would proceed as soon as the National Coal Board were constituted. In December last the National Coal Board stated that they had entered into discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers about the conditions to be attached to the five-day week and, being assured of the co-operation of the Union in securing the output of coal which the country needs, the five-day week would come into operation immediately conditions had been agreed or submitted to arbitration, subject, if necessary, to the Government's authorization.
  In March this year full agreement was reached between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers on the conditions which, in the Board's view, offered the best prospect of mitigating any loss of output which might result from the reduction of the normal working week. The Board submitted the agreed terms to the Minister of Fuel and Power and they were authorized by the Government to introduce in the coal mining industry from May 4 a five-day week of the present underground hours on the conditions agreed. The agreement has not yet been
  4
  signed, but when it is signed a copy will be deposited with the Minister of Fuel and Power in accordance with the provisions of Section 46 (2) of the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, 1946.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: I thank the noble Lord for his full answer. May I ask a further question of which I have given him notice? What effect is the agreement anticipated to have on the price of coal, as well as upon the other conditions which, I imagine, will have to be published?
  LORD AMMON: The National Coal Board have undertaken for the time being not to raise the price of coal without consulting the Minister of Fuel and Power, and so far they have made no proposals to him for increasing prices in consequence of the five-day week. This is not to say that an approach will not be made. If all the coal which is at present produced on a Saturday morning were lost, costs would go up. Everything depends on how soon and how much output per man-year improves.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this supplementary question? He will no doubt have seen in the newspapers this morning, as I have seen, a report from the South Wales Miners' Federation, estimating that, at the best, 187,000 tons a week will be lost. Have not the Coal Board, who are charged with this matter, made any estimate of what the effect is likely to be on the cost and price?
  LORD AMMON: That, surely, is a matter that is covered by my answer, in so far as the Government will have to take all these considerations into account and they have not yet come to a final decision.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: That does not in the least improve what he has said; that if the Coal Board do something the Minister will take something into account. What I am asking, and it is a very simple question, is: Before arriving at this decision have not the Coal Board made any estimate at all of what is to be the effect on output and prices?
  LORD AMMON: I am not in a position to answer any hypothetical question about what the Coal Board may have done. One may conclude that they have taken everything into consideration.

  EXPENDITURE ON U.S. TOBACCO AND FILMS.
  2.41 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government how many American dollars they contemplate making available for the purchase of tobacco and films from the United States of America in 1947, and whether, having regard to the accentuation of this country's economic difficulties by the direct and indirect consequence of the recent cold weather and floods, they adhere to the policy announced by the President of the Board of Trade on March 10 last of taking no immediate steps to reduce this expenditure of dollars for unessential purposes.]
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as regards tobacco, it is not yet possible to estimate accurately the reduction of consumption which will follow upon very sharp increases in prices caused by the increase in the import duty on tobacco recently approved in another place. Nor is it possible to foretell the prices which the 1947 tobacco crop will fetch at the American auctions when they open in the autumn. But if expenditure on United States tobacco last year to cover home consumption is reduced by 25 per cent. the saving would be some£8,000,000. The expected expenditure on films, as stated in the Economic Survey (Cmd. 7046), is£18,000,000. If he is a smoker he noble Lord will realize that very strong measures have already been taken to reduce the consumption of tobacco. As regards films, every effort is being made to increase the production of British films of high quality so that more British screen time will be occupied by British films. This policy is having a considerable measure of success, but the whole position is being kept constantly under review. I would remind the noble Lord that the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, will expire at the end of March, 1948, before which time the general policy will have to be fully considered.
  In reply to the last part of the noble Lord's question, I am unable to agree with him in the interpretation which he seeks to place upon the speech by my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, to which he refers. My right honourable friend was not then, so
  6
  far as I am aware, seeking to lay down what is or is not an essential import On the other hand, in his reference to tobacco and film imports on that occasion he made it clear that His Majesty's Government were giving serious consideration as to the best way in which action could be taken to reduce dollar expenditure on these items.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: I thank the noble Lord, if I may, for the manner, rather than for the matter, of his reply. May I suggest that it does not answer my question at all, as to how many dollars in the planned economic system for which the Government are responsible they contemplate spending on these purposes? May I ask, further, whether there is any real reason why the number of dollars spent on unessentials like tobacco and films should be left to be determined by the consumer, while the number of dollars spent on much more essential purposes is rigidly limited by the Government?
  LORD HENDERSON: The noble Lord has bowled a fast ball. I am not able to give the answer. I have indicated in my reply that dollar expenditure will be reduced by reason of the effect of the new taxation. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the point which he has raised in his supplementary question, I think that perhaps the best thing would be for him to put down a question on the Order Paper.

  TREATIES OF PEACE (ITALY, ROUMANIA, BULGARIA, HUN GARY AND FINLAND) BILL.
  2.43 P.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House will remember that the Treaties of Peace with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, after long and protracted discussion. were signed on February 10 last. But these Treaties will not come into force until they have been ratified. Ratifications by His Majesty's Government, the Soviet Government, the United States Government and the French Government—that is to say, four Governments in all—are necessary in respect of the Italian Treaty. Ratifications by His Majesty's Government, the Soviet

  7
  Government and the United States Government—three Governments—are necessary in respect of the Treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary; and ratifications by His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government—two Governments—are necessary in respect of the Finnish Treaty.
  It is also laid down in the Treaties that they shall be ratified by the individual ex-enemy Powers concerned. Although such ratification by the ex-enemies is not an essential prerequisite to the coming into force of the Treaties, nevertheless it is clearly desirable that the Treaties should have been ratified by the ex-enemy Governments before they are actually brought into effect by the deposit of ratifications by ourselves, the Americans, the Russians and the French; and, indeed, it can be argued that the ex-enemy Governments, having signed the Treaties containing the provision that they shall be ratified by them, are under a definite obligation to take the necessary steps with regard to this ratification as soon as practicable. Nevertheless, so far none of the ex-enemy Governments have ratified the Treaties, nor have they taken any action in that direction, such as, for example, consulting their Legislatures, although I understand that the Finnish Government intend to do so in the very near future.
  This seems very short-sighted of the ex-enemy Governments, since this failure on their part to show clearly that they mean to honour their signatures to the Peace Treaties, and to do whatever they can on their side to hasten re-establishment of normal relations, must have a bad effect on the Allied Governments, and may well cause the latter to hesitate about depositing their own ratification of the Treaties. The result, therefore, of this delay on the part of the ex-enemy Governments to ratify the Treaties may well be appreciably to postpone the coming into force of the Treaties. His Majesty's Government would regard this as most unfortunate, as they are anxious that all the Treaties should come into operation as soon as possible, since it is clearly desirable that the technical state of war which still exists should be terminated, the Forces of occupation withdrawn and the former enemy countries able once again to take their proper place in world
  8
  society. His Majesty's Government have already made their views known to the ex-enemy countries and have urged them to ratify the Treaties as soon as practicable. They hope that this advice will be followed.
  In the meantime, they are anxious to ensure that when the Treaties do come into force—and it is hoped that this will be soon—His Majesty's Government should be able on their part to implement such obligations as they have incurred and take advantage of those rights conferred on them under the Treaties. It is for this purpose that this Bill has been prepared. It is in the same form as the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, which was passed after the 1914–1918 War to implement the Treaty of Versailles and other Peace Treaties of that time. I may add that I believe that that was the first example of legislation of that sort. The reason for it, of course, is that whereas Treaty making is part of the prerogative, it is necessary to makes the Treaties part of the municipal law of our country in order that it may be obligatory upon the citizens of this country. The 1919 Act proved quite satisfactory for dealing with the extremely lengthy and complicated provisions of the former Peace Treaties, and it should, therefore, prove adequate to deal with the present Treaties, many of whose provisions, though fewer and less complex, are broadly similar, at any rate, as to those economic and technical points in connexion with which legislation is mainly required.
  The present Bill, like the Act of 1919, confers upon His Majesty power by Order in Council or otherwise, to take such steps as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary for carrying out the Treaties. This will meet the situation which also existed in 1919, that it is difficult to forecast fully in advance the extent to which, and the precise points on which, detailed legislative provisions will actually be required. All the Treaties in question confer the right on His Majesty's Government to take over enemy property situate in this country. Such property is, of course, all vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property at the present moment, but only by way of awaiting the Peace Treaty, so that it still stands in the name of the various enemy owners. The extent to which His Majesty's Government should avail themselves of the

  9
  right to take over this property is under consideration, and I shall have something to say in a moment particularly with regard to Italy. Assuming it is decided to exercise this right, either in whole or in part, legislative provision by Order in Council under the Bill will be necessary in order to enable this property to be finally taken over and disposed of.
  Correspondingly, the Treaties provide for the restoration of British property situate in the various ex-enemy countries which has been taken over or otherwise placed under control by the Government of those countries. It may be necessary to set up certain machinery in order to take full advantage of this right. This is unlikely to require an Order in Council but it may, nevertheless, require action of one of the other kinds contemplated by the provisions of the Bill which have been quoted above. I will give your Lordships some examples of action which may be required under the Bill in order to enable His Majesty's Government to fulfil their obligations under the Treaties. There are a number of provisions in the Treaties in connexion with patents, contracts, periods of prescription and limitations of rights of action, which require this country to grant further time to private parties in the ex-enemy countries to resume or re-establish their contractual and other rights in British territory, rights which, on account of the war, may have lapsed or been suspended or of which it may have been impossible for the ex-enemy national to avail himself. It goes without saving, of course, that the Treaties make similar provision for the resumption of such rights in ex-enemy territory on the part of British subjects and other Allied nationals; and it is, of course, important, if we are to obtain these rights, that we should ourselves be in a position to make them available to the enemy nationals who are entitled to them under the Treaties. These are matters for which some legislation by Order in Council will probably be required.
  I do not propose to go into any lengthy explanation of the detailed provisions of the Treaties, since they have been public knowledge for a considerable time past. I simply wish to say that, though the Treaties, like all documents drawn up after long discussions and negotiations, may not be ideal, His Majesty's Government regard them on the whole as just
  10
  and equitable, and as providing a firm foundation on which the ex-enemy Governments can base the political and economic reconstruction of their countries.
  I said that I would mention one specific point in connexion with the Italian Treaty. His Majesty's Government made it clear from an early stage in the Paris Conference that, despite the very heavy material losses caused to British interests by Italian participation in the war; they did not intend to claim any reparations from Italy except in so far as concerned the proceeds of Italian property in this country, which, under Article 79 of the Treaty, was liable to sequestration. As a result of recent discussions with the Italian Government on a number of financial questions arising between our two countries, His Majesty's Government have now agreed, as part of a comprehensive settlement, to waive their rights to sequestrate these Italian assets or the understanding that the Italian authorities would make arrangements to enable pre-war Italian debts to this country to be paid. We have thus given up any claim to reparations from Italy. This I regard as a very real gesture of friendship towards the Italian people, which we have made because we recognize the part they played in the final defeat of Germany, and because we are genuinely anxious to help them in their efforts to restore their economy and become once again a useful member of the world community. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  2.55 P.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, with his usual clarity has fully explained the constitutional position. A debate of this kind is, in the nature of things, carried on within limitations. We cannot alter the details in a Treaty that has already been accepted by His Majesty's Government; nor can we blame the Foreign Secretary, or any member of His Majesty's Government, for this or that item in a Treaty that is the result not of British unilateral action but of long and protracted discussion and negotiation with other Powers. None the less, I well remember that in the debates which took place in similar circumstances at the end of the First World War—debates in which I myself took part—the occasion was always used to make certain comments

  11
  of a general kind upon the Treaties that Parliament was asked to ratify. To-day, therefore, I propose, not, indeed, to go into minute details about these many Treaties, but rather to ask His Majesty's Government certain questions as to why decisions were reached in certain clauses in the Treaties; and, secondly, and perhaps more important, to say a word of warning with reference to certain provisions in the Treaties which, in my view, if they are not very carefully watched, will undoubtedly lead to future trouble.
  First of all, my questions. I wish to ask a question about the clauses that deal with reparations. Each of these Treaties has a number of clauses dealing with reparations, and in each case a different sum has been settled: Italy is to pay$260,000,000, Roumania$300,000,000, Bulgaria$570,000,000, Hungary$300,000,000 and Finland$300,000,000. I wonder how those figures have been settled. They appear to me to be either haphazard, or to be based upon ideological pressure. Before this debate ends I should appreciate it if the noble and learned Viscount could throw some light upon this very obscure subject. My own view is that all these reparations, whether they be great or small, are a serious mistake. I do not believe that any one of these countries, every one of them devastated by war, is in a position to pay reparations; and I believe that what will happen will be either that this or that country will attempt to pay these reparations in whole or in part, with the result that it will seriously weaken its own economy and, indirectly, the economic position of Europe, or that it will not pay the sum and we shall see a chapter of the friction and difficulties from which Europe suffered so much in the years between the two wars.
  There is a third alternative. It is possible that we shall again see take place what took place to a considerable extent in the years after 1919; we shall see the United States and ourselves in actual fact paying these reparations. I regret, therefore, that in these Treaties, dealing with very impoverished countries, these reparation clauses appear. It would have been much better to have had no reparations at all, and to have dealt with the question, not with attempts to exact these
  12
  large sums from impoverished countries, but by some kind of reconstruction loan for the whole of Central and Eastern Europe.
  I pass from that to another question, which concerns refugees, and I take as my example the case of the refugees in Italy. In that country there are about 38,000 refugees from the Balkans and Eastern Europe. I understand that of these 38,000 about 12,000 are under British supervision. It is quite obvious to me that great pressure is going to be put upon the Italian Government by Marshal Tito to surrender these unfortunate men and women, many of whom actually fought for us in the Allied Armies and Navies. I am not at all reassured by the clause in the Treaties dealing with refugees. It is, I think, Article 45 of the Italian Treaty. I take that as an example, but it is a clause which appears in one form or another in each of the Treaties.
  In Article 45 of the Italian Treaty it is laid down that the Italians:
  "shall take all necessary steps to ensure the apprehension and surrender for trial of:
  (a) persons accused of having committed, ordered, or abetted war crimes and crimes against peace or humanity"—
  I draw the attention of the House to the phrase "persons accused of having committed"—and
  "(b) Nationals of any Allied or Associated Power accused of having violated their national law by treason or collaboration with the enemy during the war."
  I fully agree that genuine war criminals should be surrendered for trial, but the provisions in these Treaties are so wide in their scope that the Yugoslav Government might make accusations against any of these refugees in Italy, bring pressure to bear upon the Italian Government by threatening maltreatment of the Italian prisoners in Yugoslavia, and, as a result, obtain the surrender of many of these refugees who are now living in Italy and whose last desire is to return to Yugoslavia, or whatever may have been their original country. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to give the House some reassurance that most stringent precautions will be taken to ensure that there is fair treatment for these refugees in Italy, and that none but genuine war criminals are repatriated to their original countries.

  13
  I come to a third class of question. If noble Lords will study the Treaties, they will see that in each of them there is a paragraph about human rights. I take again, as typical of these paragraphs, Article 15 of the Italian Treaty, which says:
  "Italy shall take all measures necessary to secure to all persons under Italian jurisdiction, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting."
  I am delighted to see clauses of this kind in these Treaties. This is a subject which has greatly interested me for some time past. I feel that unless there is some organization for watching the way in which these clauses are carried out, and for considering complaints about their transgression, they will be little better than waste paper. I remember that in a previous debate upon this question the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, gave a sympathetic answer as to the Government's interest in this question, and I hope that to-day he will be able to repeat that assurance and will be somewhat more explicit than the general terms of the Treaties in telling the House how this question stands. I believe that at the present moment it is being considered by the Economic and Social Council of U.N.O. Can the noble and learned Viscount give a progress report as to what it happening? Is it likely that there will be some machinery for seeing that these very important clauses in these Treaties are properly carried out? That disposes of the questions that I would ask the Government.
  In addition to those questions, however, there are one or two comments that I should like to make upon the Treaties themselves. They are not comments intended to show that these are bad Treaties, or that the enemy countries would not be wise to ratify them with the least possible delay; I make them for the purpose of warning your Lordships that there are several provisions which, unless the greatest of care is taken in the future, will undoubtedly lead to international trouble. I begin with the Italian Treaty, which I personally think is unduly harsh. When I make that statement I do not wish in the least to exculpate Italy for the war crimes that were committed by its Government—the stab in the French back,
  14
  the stab in the Greek back, and the atrocities that were committed in Albania—but, none the less, I believe that the Treaty is harsh. I believe, also, that at the time of time armistice Italy was undoubtedly given to understand that her treatment would depend upon her subsequent attitude in the war and that she could earn for herself better conditions than would
  otherwise have been the case. Italy has lost her Empire; that was inevitable. She has lost territory to France; she has lost her fleet and her air force, anyhow a very great extent; she has lost her supplies of coal and bauxite; she has lost Pola and Trieste, and she has to pay reparations to the amount of$260,000,000.
  Let me compare this treatment with the treatment of Bulgaria. In my view, the action of Bulgaria in the war was certainly no less dastardly than the action of Italy. The worst atrocities in the Balkans were committed by Bulgars. At a critical moment the Bulgars stabbed the Greeks in the back. Yet how has Bulgaria been treated as compared with Italy? Bulgaria is to pay only$70,000,000 in reparations, and indeed Marshal Tito wished to reduce the amount to$15,000,000, as against the$260,000,000 to be exacted from Italy. In addition to that Bulgaria, so far from losing territory, has actually been given an accession of territory in Southern Dalmatia.
  A comparison of this kind makes me wonder upon what standard these Treaties are actually drawn up; whether here again ideological theory has not entered into it, and whether this favourable treatment of Bulgaria is not much more due to ideological pressure than to any general standard of international justice. As it is, I fear that we have left Italy in much the same position of a dissatisfied nation as we left her at the end of the last war. If noble Lords will look back at the Peace Treaties at the end of the First World War, they will remember that one of the causes of future trouble in the Balkans and Central Europe was the fact that Italy believed she had been over-harshly treated in the Peace Treaty. I hope we shall not see a repetition of this discontent in the future, but it is a serious danger. It is made all the more serious by the fact that the future of the Italian colonies is not dealt with at all in these Treaties—another cause of future trouble. Secondly, there is a grave risk of Trieste

  15
  becoming a second Danzig, of an even more serious and difficult kind. Thirdly, as a result of the aggressive policy of the Yugoslavs, the Adriatic will, almost for the first time in European history, become a serious centre of international controversy.
  I mention these facts, not to criticize the Government for accepting this Treaty, and still less to suggest to Italy that the Italian Government would be wise to delay the ratification of the Treaty, but to point to the fact that the United States and ourselves will have to watch very closely the course of events, and do our best to give the new Italy a fair chance of economic and national recovery. I am glad, indeed, that we have set a good example in this direction by waiving our rights to reparations and to the seizure of enemy property within the United Kingdom. I am also glad to note that the American Government are offering, through the Export-Import Bank, a substantial reconstruction loan to Italy. Upon these lines there is hope. I trust that I have done enough to point out the dangers ahead and to show how very necessary it is that we should watch with meticulous and anxious care the course of events in this part of Europe.
  I come now to my last point, which deals with the Roumanian Treaty. Here again, I see grounds for grave apprehension. Roumania is faced with a series of appallingly difficult problems. Rightly or wrongly, it has absorbed hundreds of thousands of Hungarian citizens. It has been flooded with refugees from Bessarabia, and Russian troops in substantial numbers still occupy the country on the ground of keeping open the lines of communication with Austria, although the lines of communication with Austria through Roumania are more than twice as long as they are through Poland. Food is very short, and oil, in the one country in Europe where one would have thought there were almost limitless supplies, is practically non-existent for Roumanian tractors. On top of these distressing problems there is the gravest question of all, which is, so far as I can see, left undefined in the Roumanian Treaty; that is the question of the future of the Danube. This is an old and inflammable question. For nearly a hundred years we and the countries of Western Europe have
  16
  insisted upon freedom of trade and freedom of navigation on the Danube. One of Hitler's first acts, when in 1940 he was over-running Europe, was to attempt to upset this arrangement.
  What is the position to-day? Does the old International Statute still stand, under which Powers that are not merely riparian Powers have an interest in the freedom of Danubian navigation? It is true that in the Treaty there is a clause stating that there will be freedom of trade and navigation upon the Danube, but there is no instrument for carrying this provision into effect. I am aware that it is intended to hold an International Conference upon the subject within six months, but I will tell the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, what makes me so anxious about this International Conference. I have studied the debates which took place during the discussions of the Peace Treaties upon this all-important subject of the Danube, and I was struck by the very strong opposition put up against it by the riparian Powers, Russia—and Russia is now a riparian Power since the occupation of Bessarabia—Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. I wonder, in view of this very strong opposition, how we shall succeed in ensuring effectively this freedom of trade and navigation which seems to me to be the very symbol of the unity of Europe. It may well be that the Lord Chancellor will be able to add little to what appears on the subject in the Treaty and to the fact that there is to be an International Conference in the summer. If that be the case, I shall feel, none the less, that I have not wasted your Lordships' time, in the few minutes in which I have alluded to the question, if I have drawn the attention of Parliament once again to a question of first-rate importance and to a question which, if not satisfactorily settled, will undoubtedly lead to future international trouble.
  I have ventured to deal with a number of points, and now I come to my conclusion—a conclusion that is more serious than those I have reached upon any of the detailed points I have just mentioned. It comes to this: so long as present suspicion exists in Europe between the East and West, these Treaties will undoubtedly fail to succeed. That is a hard saying, but the details I have mentioned to-day will have shown the House how inflammable

  17
  is the material and how, without good will upon both sides, we cannot hope that the Treaties will effect the purpose that we all desire. Good will is the very essence of these Treaties. The difficulty, in the present atmosphere of Europe, is to see how the dangers to which I have referred can be avoided. any own view is that they cannot be avoided by any unilateral surrender upon the part of the United States and ourselves of the provisions that we regard as essential to the unity of Europe.
  I am not one of those who believe that war is likely in Europe, or that Russia wishes for war. Certainly there is no country in Europe which wishes for war less than ourselves. It is because we remember that Central and Eastern Europe have so often been the cause of war in the past that we are especially anxious that the peace in the Adriatic and the Balkans should be permanent, and that we should scrutinize with anxious and meticulous interest the steps that are taken for carrying these Treaties into effect.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: I would like to say a few words only in support of one of the points which has been made by the noble Viscount who has just spoken—namely, Article 45 of the Italian Peace Treaty, which deals with war criminals. What I say will be quite short, because I am in entire agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said. I want Only to emphasize and to underline his remarks. Article 43 compels Italy to take "all necessary steps to ensure the apprehension…of persons accused of having committed…war crimes," and all persons "accused of having violated their national law by treason or collaboration with the enemy during the war." In the official commentary on that clause, which was issued by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the reasons for that Article are given in the following terms:
  "The United Nations have concluded certain agreements between themselves for the bringing to justice of war criminals. Italy, once the Peace Treaty comes into force, would be ender no obligation to assist in this matter. Provision is thus made in Article 45 that she should assist in the apprehension and surrender, both of war criminals and of quislings."
  The suggestion is that all that Italy is being required to do is what the United Nations have agreed between themselves to do in this matter. The question about
  18
  war criminals was elaborately debated in the committees of the Economic and Social Council and other bodies which discussed the question of refugees generally under the United Nations Organization. There appeared in those discussions very marked differences of view between the East and the West of Europe, but the West managed to insert a phrase that no person who, with full knowledge, freely decided to stay outside his country of origin, should be compelled to return. Then the East got in a saving clause that nothing in the agreement should prevent the return of war criminals and traitors. Unless my memory is false, that saving clause put in by the East did not say "nothing shall prevent the return of persons accused of being war criminals or traitors." It left open the fact who was to decide who were war criminals and who were not. I think my recollection of that is right, but if not the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will correct me. I suggest that, even if my recollection is not correct, we, in England, would make a marked distinction between people whom we thought to be war criminals and people who were accused of being war criminals or traitors by the Government of the country from which they came.
  After all, there are differences of view between the East and West of Europe as to what is treason. We know there are many countries to whom the Pilgrim. Fathers would have been quislings and traitors, but that is not the British view or the American view. We cannot alter this clause, but I cannot help feeling that unfortunately it has been very widely drafted. The Commentary does not say that this clause covers the return of persons accused of being war criminals or traitors. That is a fundamental issue. One cannot alter the clause, but I am sure the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will be sympathetic with this point of view because he has already shown himself sympathetic to it. But because the clause is drafted it does make it a matter of vital urgency that we in Britain and also the Government in the United States should take immediate and effective steps in regard to the refugees who are in Italy, because they went to Italy when it was occupied by us. I hope that, although we cannot amend the clauses of the Treaty which have been so widely drafted, we can, at least, draw the practical moral that, somehow or other, we have to make

  19
  certain that the British-American principle that you are a criminal only when you have been proved to be one and not when you have merely been accused of being one, shall be applied to all refugees in Italy.
  3.3o p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I have hesitated until the twelfth hour as to whether I should intrude upon your Lordships' time by making any observations upon the semi-accomplished facts which are now before us. As I have one point which seems, to me at least, to be of very great importance, I will venture to take up a few minutes of your time. These are imperfect Treaties. I am sure that His Majesty's Government recognize their imperfections. I thought that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack slightly overstated the case when he described them as "a just and equitable basis." I would say that, possibly, they are the best that we could get in the circumstances, and that we must make the best of them. To me the disquieting thought is that but for Mr. Bevin's monumental patience we might not have had even this defective instrument, and I think that a tribute should be paid now to that patience. After the last war I had a considerable, though of course very subordinate, hand in various conferences and attempts at peace making. But we had nothing like this to contend with. To begin with there was no Eastern bloc.
  These Treaties could be criticized upon a number of different points, but to-day I propose to confine myself to just one or two matters which will enable me to make my concluding point, which is the one to which I attach great importance. As has already been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, Italy has had a harsher deal than any other of the ex-satellite States which, from being former satellites of Germany, have now passed to being satellites of Russia. But in one respect, at least, which is to our credit, Italy has been treated with great financial generosity, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, when he opened this debate. We do not usually get much credit for our generosities, and I would very much like to see our Press and radio combine to emphasize this generosity, because frankly I should like to see more done
  20
  occasionally to counteract the perpetual pull on Italy to dislocate her from her Western orbit and put her in some subservient position in the Eastern bloc. Here is a chance, and a very legitimate one, which should be taken. I think that it might also be emphasized that it is not our fault that it was not possible to make a better job of Trieste. Owing to Russian and Yugoslav pressure that territory seems to have assumed a shape which can best be described as an "unlikelihood."
  To take up and carry further the point made by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, I would point out that in 1943 we promised Italy that if she "worked her passage home" (that was the phrase) due account would be taken of it in the settlement. I am a little puzzled to see where account has been taken of it by anyone except us, and by us it has been taken very markedly. But owing to Soviet pressure in other respects Italy has been considerably worse treated than Bulgaria, though her record is a far better one. I think we might look at that record just for a few minutes. Italy has fought once on the right side and once on the wrong side, and for part of the second occasion—that is, for the last eighteen months—she fought again on the right side and rendered quite considerable service. That may not be a white record, but it comes out as something rather like a grey one when you compare it with the black record of the Bulgarians. They have twice fought on the wrong side, and the period for which, on the second occasion, they were on the right side was less and less useful than the performance of the Italians. Moreover, the Bulgarians three times in our lifetime have invaded Greece, to the accompaniment of considerable atrocities. Indeed, throughout the whole of my professional career the Bulgarians have invariably been described as "the Prussians of the Balkans." There is some substance in the charge. In any case it goes back a long way, because your Lordships will recall how, in the most celebrated work of satire in the world, Voltaire's Candide, when the writer speaks of "les Bulgares" he means the Prussians, and he seems to have had a prophetically low opinion of both of them. "Les Bulgares" have very nearly established that aggression pays, for, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, pointed out, they have come out of all this with an accretion of territory. With

  21
  Soviet encouragement, no doubt, they are now continually pressing their claim that they should have Western Thrace as well. So far as Bulgaria is concerned in this settlement we have come rather uncomfortably near to putting a premium on crime, and I am afraid it is due to one very obvious cause.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said he wondered if some of the settlements were not due to ideological pressure. I am of the opinion that it is due to something more obvious, because one of the objects with which the Kremlin has approached the once solemn business of treaty making is to show that you can get away with almost anything if you are a member of the Eastern bloc. I should imagine that also lies behind the allocation of Transylvania. Roumania gets the lot. It would have been perfectly easy to have arranged a partition whereby some of the obviously Hungarian sections of that country should have gone to Hungary but, at the time, Roumania was a member of the Eastern bloc and Hungary was not, though great pressure of all kinds is now being exercised upon her to join. I am exceedingly glad to see from the Order Paper that on May 15 we shall have some opportunity of commenting upon this procedure.
  I am well aware that much of what I have said will not appeal to certain ostensible supporters of His Majesty's Government, notably, I think, the type embodied by Mr. Mack, M.P., who in his volatile excursions in Bulgaria has achieved the record of getting kissed more often in an upright position than any of the world's great screen lovers, from Charles Boyer onwards, and has then come home to tell the world that his oscillating and osculating Bulgarians must have Western Thrace. I have mentioned the apolaustic Mr. Mack only because he seems to embody the type of the opposition which Mr. Bevin encounters. To any ordinary member of the audience like myself, Mr. Bevin seems to be subjected to an undue number of missiles from the back row of his own chorus, who seem unable to appreciate a star when they have got one, though stars do affect the runs of plays.
  There is another reason why I wish to exercise considerable reticence to-day. Same of Mr. Bevin's critics imported a Very woolly Mr. Wallace at the moment when he was most likely to embarrass
  22
  Mr. Bevin in the conduct of his arduous and thankless task. Mr. Wallace devoted a great deal of attention to slamming President Truman's policy in Greece, a policy which might prevent Mr. Mack and "les Bulgares" from occupying Western Thrace. But never once did Mr. Wallace mention that the Kremlin has been doing a hundred times more in the Eastern bloc for the past two years.
  Mr. Wallace came here to open an exhibition of bad taste, because he and his impresarios and his fans have done everything in their power to prevent the Secretary of State from dealing with the Soviets on a basis of reason. I think that was rather a dirty trick.
  That brings me to my concluding point, to which I attach really great importance. I feel that we should pass these Treaties with a sigh, recognizing that good and just Treaties seem as unattainable as ever. But if, after even longer negotiations, an even less satisfactory Treaty is propounded to us in the case of Germany, it would be impossible to exercise similar indulgence, and it would then be necessary, and would be our duty, not only to be far more critical but even to reject a defective and dangerous Treaty. If that day should come (and if it did, it would be in my judgment, in part at least, due to Mr. Bevin's opponents in his own country) then I would have no difficulty whatever in producing a dozen good reasons why we should be far better off without a quadripartite agreement than with a bad German Treaty. If you make that abundantly clear, and clear, above all, to Moscow, you may find that your difficulties will diminish; but not otherwise. That is the moral of these five Treaties now before us and shortly to be behind us.
  3.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I rise to draw attention not to matters arising between this country and foreign countries, but to matters affecting the life of the Commonwealth. I am curious to ascertain whether or not notice was given to the nations of the Commonwealth when these Treaties were negotiated so that they might have an opportunity of expressing their views. Nothing has engaged the attention of the Dominions more than the question of the negotiation of Treaties. In 1921 and 1926, after it was determined that we were of equal status,

  23
  certain principles were arrived at for the purpose of determining the position of the nations of the Commonwealth with regard to the respective Treaties that were being negotiated by these countries. Elaborate rules were laid down in 1926, but it was not until the Imperial Conference in 1930 that they finally arrived at the course of conduct that should be observed with respect to the negotiation of a Treaty. It was determined by that Conference that when a Treaty was being negotiated by this country, or by any of the nations of the Commonwealth, all the other nations of the Commonwealth should be informed, so they might have an opportunity of determining what action they would take. I would like to know from the learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether or not notice was given by this country within the terms of that rule.
  I took the trouble to look up the rules as they were laid down at the Conference. They are very simple. In the Report of the Conference it was laid down that the main points to be considered are as follows:
  "(1) Any of His Majesty's Governments conducting negotiations should inform the other Governments of His Majesty in case they should be interested and give them the opportunity of expressing their views, if they think that their interests may be affected.
  (2) Any of His Majesty's Governments on receiving such information should, if it desires to express any views, do so with reasonable promptitude.
  (3) None of His Majesty's Governments can take any steps which might involve the other Governments of His Majesty in any active obligation without their definite assent.
  The Conference desires to emphasize the importance of ensuring the effective operation of these arrangements."
  That being so, it follows that every one of the Overseas Dominions which are nations of the Commonwealth had the right to receive from the Government of this nation an indication that they were about to negotiate a Treaty; that is, if the other nations were interested. Obviously some of the nations had some interest in the matter, for there are many thousands of dead (of one country at least) in Italy. They were also interested for other reasons that are apparent in the terms of the Treaty. Were they advised? Did they have the opportunity
  to express their views? Did they
  24
  express their views? Did they say they had any further interest in the matter?
  It will be recalled that when the conclusion was arrived at that these nations were autonomous communities, the Prime Minister of this country stated that they were recognized as such by the nations of the world. They had signed the Peace Treaties of the First World War, and they had generally exercised the rights and privileges of nations. That being so, the Statute of Westminster gave effect only to the conclusions that were then arrived at. It will be recalled that at the Imperial War Conference the conclusion was reached that we should have a Constitutional Conference to deal with the whole matter of the relations between the nations of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately it was concluded that sufficient had been granted and obtained to obviate the necessity for that Conference being held. In 1921 it was decided that no Conference should be held, and in 1931 the Statute of Westminster was enacted by this Parliament. It is of great importance, I submit, that there should be no misunderstandings at this time with respect to matters of this kind. The Dominions have taken an active part in the war; they have made great sacrifices and great contributions to victory—Australia and New Zealand in the far Pacific, Canada across the Atlantic, while South Africa's troops fought in three continents. That being so, it is of the utmost importance that there should be no misunderstanding with respect to this matter. If there is, it is just the germ from which may result consequences so dire that we hesitate to consider them. That is all I rose to say. I have felt, from the discussions in the Press and elsewhere, that there was apparently no appreciation of the fact that, by common consent, a certain line of conduct and action had been determined, and it was important that a statement should be made as to whether or not that line of action had been followed.
  3.50 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, without prejudice to the answering of other questions by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, perhaps I might intervene to say a word on the point raised by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I should like to assure him fully that we

  25
  are diligently endeavouring to live up to the letter and the spirit of those undertakings which have been mentioned. All the Dominions were kept fully informed with regard to this matter, and that practice is maintained from day to day. As the noble Viscount knows, the arrangements for consulting them, as well as some other belligerents, were not satisfactory—as was rather painfully made manifest by the Conference in Paris. But, of course, all of those countries are signatories to these Treaties. The Conference in Paris was very prolonged, and not altogether edifying. But so far as we were concerned, I can assure the noble Viscount that it was our constant endeavour and determination to see that the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth were kept as fully informed in these matters as was humanly possible.
  With regard to the discussion on the German Treaty, I can inform the noble Viscount that almost daily, while the meetings of the deputies of the four Powers, as provided for at Potsdam, were taking place in London, the High Commissioners of the Dominions met with representatives of the Foreign Office and were kept fully informed from day to day of what was going on. Endeavours were made, and are still being made, to secure that the rights of the self-governing Dominions to be consulted and to have their views considered with regard to those Treaties—on which the noble Viscount has quite properly insisted—shall he given effect to. But I am sorry to say that, so far as the procedure for these purposes in regard to the German Treaty is concerned, the progress in Moscow has been very disappointing. Nevertheless, we are doing our best to sustain our point of view.
  VISCOUNT BENNETT: May I thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the statement which he has made. I receive it with the greatest satisfaction, and I am sure that it will be received with the greatest satisfaction also by the country in which I was born.
  3.54 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe I may speak again only with the leave of the House, but as I have been asked certain specific questions I am sure your Lordships will grant me that concession. May I say that I felt it right that the noble Viscount who leads the House should reply to the last
  26
  question, because he is in a much better position than I am to speak with regard to that matter. I do know how insistent he has been throughout—just as insistent as the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett—on the rights of the Dominions being observed to the fullest extent. All I can say of my own knowledge is that they actually signed, and were parties to, those Treaties in Paris.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, asked me some questions and made some general observations. I will endeavour to answer the questions, but I should like to say one or two words about his general observations, with which I entirely agree. He said that whatever Treaty you sign, whatever piece of paper you put your name to, in the last resort its validity really depends upon the removal of suspicion between the East and the West of Europe. With that I agree. Unless we can get a basis of trust instead of distrust, a basis of good-will instead of ill-will, and a basis of understanding and not misunderstanding, then indeed all our labours may well be in vain. Therefore, as I see it, it is to-day the task of statesmen throughout Europe—a task which our own Foreign Secretary has always recognized and is fully sustaining and maintaining—to remove every possible cause of mistrust which may still exist. With regard to the particular question of the comparative degrees of guilt that weighed in the scales so far as Bulgaria and Italy are concerned, I do not consider it necessary to say anything. I do not think it is competent to weigh that matter. I speak for my own part, but I am sure I shall have the support of the Foreign Secretary when I say that, beyond any doubt, I regard the claim which Bulgaria is making on Greece as quite outrageous and one which cannot possibly have the support of His Majesty's Government at any stage; indeed, exactly the contrary.
  I come then to consider the specific questions that I was asked. With regard to reparations, I was asked how the amounts were arrived at.
  I think that the sums actually are$260,000,000 in the case of Italy;$300,000,000 in the case of Roumania, Hungary and Finland and about$70,000,000 in the case of Bulgaria. I was asked how these figures were arrived at; by what standard or scale they were weighed, and so on. Let me be quite

  27
  frank. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we regret that there are any provisions for reparations. The figures were arrived at on no definite principle. We did the best we could in each case to reduce those figures to the lowest possible measure. If we alone had been responsible for the Peace Treaties there would have been no figures of reparations at all, and all we have done is, by a measure of hard bargaining, as I have said, to try in each case to get the figure down to the lowest possible figure; and the result your Lordships see in the Peace Treaties. The problem for us was to know whether to agree to those Treaties, which, as I said before, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said, involved most protracted negotiations. This was the best that we could do in this regard, and I submit that on the whole it was desirable to get the Treaties signed.
  I then come to the question of refugees, about which I was asked some questions by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Our interpretation of Article 45 of the Italian Treaty is that the Government concerned, the Italian Government, are entitled to surrender only persons against whom a prima facie case of war crime or quisling activities is made out, and not persons against whom mere vague allegations are made, still less persons whose sole crime is opposition to their own Government. And let me assure the noble Lord that perhaps the best way of dealing with this matter will be to remove as many genuine Yugoslav refugees from Italy as soon as we can, even before the Treaty comes into force. We have that matter in hand and I hope the noble Lord will agree that the answer which I have given him is sympathetic and realistic.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me? I apologize for interrupting him. He has said that a prima facie case has to be made against those individuals. Who would decide that a prima facie case was made out? That seems to me to be an essential point.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the view that we shall maintain in the Council of Ambassadors. That is the body which will decide this matter. Let me make our view quite plain. I think
  28
  that "accused" means that there must be a proper charge similar to that which we should require for extradition in this country; that is to say, a charge giving details of the offence, the time, the place and so on; and not mere vague general accusations of being Fascist-minded or anything of that sort. That is the view which we shall endeavour to maintain before the Council of Ambassadors. However, as I have said, whether we maintain that view or not, it would be well to remove a large number of these people beforehand.
  Then I come to the question of human rights. That subject, as the noble Lord knows, is under active discussion by a committee of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Some sort of initial charter is aimed at but as yet we have come to no definite conclusion. Again, of course, disputed points will go to the Council of Ambassadors of the four major Powers, in the case of the Italian Treaty; of three major Powers in the case of Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary; and of two major Powers in the case of Finland. In our recent recognition of the Bulgarian Government your Lordships will remember that we said we recognized that Government on the assumption and on the understanding that Bulgaria intended to abide by the human rights clause. All we can do—and I can give this assurance—is to press as far as we possibly can that that right, which is of fundamental importance to us, should be observed and maintained.
  I was asked a question, or at any rate some comment was made, upon Article 36 of the Roumanian Treaty dealing with the Danube. That Article expressly provides for free and open navigation of the Danube. A separate protocol was drawn up by the four major Powers, providing for a conference in six months from the coming into force of the Treaty to settle the whole matter. In the view of His Majesty's Government the existing statutes of the Danube were only suspended by the war and are revived in peace. We attach the greatest importance to the free navigation of the Danube and, as your Lordships know, we strongly pressed this matter at the Peace Conference. When the Conference takes place in six months time we shall press for a proper international regime for the River Danube for complete freedom of navigation and for non-discrimination. I have stated as

  29
  firmly and simply as I can what we shall press for and, as your Lordships know, when Mr. Bevin presses for a thing he does press for it. What the outcome will be, however, I cannot tell your Lordships. I hope that I have answered the questions which were put to me.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  NAVAL FORCES (ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES) BILL.
  4.5 P.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the purposes of this short Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving this afternoon, are, I hope, non-controversial. I am afraid that the amendments to existing legislation which are required and are covered by the Bill are somewhat complicated, but I shall endeavour to explain the Bill in as few words as possible. It is required to bring the Navy into line with certain methods of payment now used by the Army and the Royal Air Force. The Army and Air Force provide that the amounts allowed to a soldier or airman, after deduction for the maintenance of his family, shall be not less than a quarter of his pay, in the case of the ordinary soldier or airman, and not less than one-third in the case of a warrant or non-commissioned officer not below the rank of sergeant. The Navy, however, have continued to work under a different system from the other two Services, and the present operative legislation for the Royal Navy is contained in subsection (2) of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act. This limits not the proportion but the actual amount of deductions which can be made from pay.
  In the course of time marriage allowance has increased, and the amount that must be deducted in order that the marriage allowance may be paid has to be increased correspondingly. We have found that in the course of time the money limits laid down for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines under the existing legislation, to which I have referred, have come to be inadequate in certain cases. Prior to the introduction of the new pay
  30
  code in July last, the allotment necessary to qualify a chief petty officer for marriage allowance was 17s. 6d. a week; and it he allotted this sum, 24s. a week was paid to the wife, with additions for children. If the man did not voluntarily allot the sum of 17s. 6d. a week, Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act empowered the Admiralty, in appropriate cases, to enforce such a deduction. To-day, however, under the new pay code, the qualifying allotment for a chief petty officer is 245. 6d. a week, and the existing legislation does not allow a deduction of this amount to be enforced from the man's pay without his consent; the maximum amount is 21s. Accordingly, the present position is that where a man refuses to make an allotment to his wife, all that the Admiralty can do is to make a compulsory deduction of that amount. As a temporary measure it has been the practice to increase this amount by a special contribution from the State of 3s. 6d. a week, in order that marriage allowance may be issued. It will he obvious, therefore, that amending legislation is necessary in order to permit enforcement of the appropriate deduction from a man's pay.
  Two other points on which the present legislation has proved to be defective have been provided for temporarily by the provisions of Regulation 13 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, which were made under the Emergency Powers Act. Although these provisions are in force at the moment, they will in due course expire, and it is appropriate that in seeking an amendment to the permanent legislation these temporary provisions should be incorporated. In particular, Regulation 13 (iiA) gives powers for the compulsory continuance of allotments for the maintenance of wives and families; that is to say, to continue allotments qualifying for marriage allowance in those cases where a man has requested that such an allotment should be terminated. The object of this is to ensure that the family shall be properly provided for while attempts are made to effect reconciliation in cases of matrimonial dispute or until the Admiralty can be thoroughly satisfied by inquiry that the action of the rating is reasonable. Where an allotment is continued after the man has applied for it to be stopped, and on inquiry it is found that the man has justifiable cause and the allotment is stopped accordingly, the

  31
  Admiralty practice is to refund to the man the deductions made.
  There are two other matters which the legislation now proposed is designed to modify: first, the provisions for compulsory deduction from pay for the maintenance of wives and families are now, for the first time, to be applied to officers as well as to ratings; secondly, the deductions and other procedure cover court orders from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. This is being continued at the request of the Governments concerned.
  I have explained the points which the Bill is designed to cover and I should now like to say a few words with regard to the form which the legislation takes. It was considered that the most appropriate method would be to deal with deductions of the nature in question through the machinery of the Naval Pay and Pensions Act of 1865, which provides that pay and allowances in respect of services in the Royal Navy or Royal Marines shall be paid in such manner and subject to such restrictions that are from time to time directed by Order in Council. This Is provided for in Clause 1, and will have the effect of including deduction for the purpose of providing, first, for the maintenance of the wife and children (whether legitimate or illegitimate), and secondly, for the payment of any sum adjudged as costs or awarded as expenses incurred in obtaining an order or decree in respect of maintenance of the wife and children. The proviso to subsection (1) fixes the minimum amount of pay to be left to the members of the Royal Navy concerned, in the same way as the Army and Air Force Acts to which I have already referred. This subsection, supplemented by the Orders in Council which will be made under it, will take the place of the first part of subsection (2) of the present Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act. This will overcome the first defect in the existing legislation which I have mentioned.
  The first clause of the Bill then goes on, in subsections (2) and (3), to provide protection for men from whom deductions are made, and repeats the present safeguard in Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Acts that deductions under an order in court or decree shall not be made unless the officer or man concerned has had a reasonable opportunity of appearing
  32
  himself or has appeared by a legal representative. Subsection (3) protects men who leave the Royal Navy against committal to prison for non-payment of accumulated arrears payable under an order of court, unless they have in fact the means of paying. It is considered proper to transfer this provision to the new Bill. Subsection (5) revokes Defence Regulation 13 (ii) and provides that orders already issued under that Regulation shall continue in effect where they are within the scope of Orders in Council coming into force by virtue of the new legislation. The second Clause of the Bill continues the restriction on the discontinuance of allotments at present provided for in the provisions of Regulation 13 (ii).
  Your Lordships will observe that the intention is to make the Act operative on a date which the Admiralty will appoint by order. This provision is required for two reasons. First, the Naval Discipline Act applies to certain of the Dominion Navies and it is necessary for the Dominions to have time to consider whether they require a corresponding modification of their own legislation. Secondly, it gives time for the necessary Orders in Council to be prepared by the Admiralty in consultation with the other Service Departments. As your Lordships will be aware, the corresponding legislation for the Army and the Royal Air Force is being amended in certain respects by the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill in order to bring the three Services into line. The principle that a man should maintain his wife and children is, of course, a part of the general law of this country, but the normal machinery for obtaining maintenance orders through the ordinary courts of justice is not always available in the case of the sailor, who may be at sea or serving on a foreign station, sometimes out in the Pacific. As I have previously mentioned, special provisions for dealing with these cases have in fact been on the Statute Book for very many years. Both the old and the new provisions nevertheless contemplate that where it is possible for the normal machinery of the civil courts to be employed, there is a ready means for enforcing their orders or decrees in these particular cases. The Bill which is now before your Lordships merely brings up to date Admiralty procedure in relation to the civil courts in this matter of the naval man's wife and children,

  33
  and in so doing it provides for the adaptation to this end of the simple machinery of Orders in Council so that future modifications may more readily be made. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
  4.18 p.m.
  LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Viscount for the clarity with which he has put before us the few changes which are embodied in the Bill. I know I am speaking for all those who sit on these Benches when I say it is always a great delight to us when we are able, on any Service matters, to say that we entirely agree with the proposals laid before us, from whatever quarter they omanate. I am glad to be able to say that that is the case to-day, and I can only hope that it may be so when bigger matters with regard to the Services come before your Lordships in the not too distant future. The noble Viscount has explained that it is desirable that the three Services should, so far as possible, work on comparable lines. He has pointed out that the system at present in vogue in the Navy is somewhat different from that in force in the Army and Royal Air Force, but that as nearly as possible the system is to be worked upon parallel lines, and I am sure that that is sound.
  May I say that we are particularly pleased to see that two amendments have been embodied since the original proposals were made? They deal with two points; the first is the fact that a limit is now set on the amount of deductions which may be made (which is undoubtedly desirable and which I think rounds off the Bill), and the second is something which some of my friends were rather anxious about—namely, that the person who is affected shall have the opportunity of attending in person or of being legally represented in whatever court the case may be tried. With those improvements, I think that all Servicemen will be agreed that the Bill is a good one, although perhaps some of us may be somewhat reluctant to see officers compelled to be brought into the present scheme for compulsory deductions. At the same time it must be clear to all of us that now there is in vogue the general system, by which men come to commissioned rank through the ranks, it must be desirable
  34
  that where these deductions are made while the men are serving in the ranks the system should be continued when the men are commissioned. We on these Benches entirely support this measure, as we did the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and think it is a great improvement.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions on this Bill? The noble Viscount spoke about giving the Dominion Governments time to bring their legislation into line with this legislation. Does that include Eire? There arc a number of Irish seamen serving in the Royal Navy, and we all hope that they will continue to do so. Is this Bill to apply to them, and will the cases have to be enforced in the Southern Irish courts? There is also the case, for example, of the Maltese. We have reference to courts in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, but there are a number of Maltese serving in the Royal Navy, and have been for many, many years. Do the Maltese courts function in the same way, and do they come under these provisions?
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the replies to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, are as follows. Eire will be informed of this Bill, and if there are any persons who are there involved, and legislation is proposed in Eire covering the points covered by this Bill, then it will he for the Government of Eire to bring their legislation into line with the existing legislation here. I am under the impression that the Maltese will be covered by this Bill.
  LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Viscount a question of which I have not given notice, and for which I apologize? It may not be strictly relevant to the subject under discussion, but could the noble Viscount tell me whether there is any intention to bring the W.R.N.S. under the Naval Discipline Act?
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I think on all sides of the House it is agreed that where an officer fails to maintain his wife and family, there should be a compulsory provision for maintenance, as is now outlined in this Bill. But in the debate last week on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, I raised the point whether, provided that an officer made adequate provision for his family, he could do so in any way

  35
  that he thought fit, and would not necessarily have to make a compulsory allotment out of his pay. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who answered for His Majesty's Government, was good enough to write me a very courteous letter in which he agreed that where there is no question of an officer having failed to maintain his family, he may provide for them in any way he thinks fit; and there would not necessarily be any compulsory allotment made from his pay. I should be glad if the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, could give me an assurance that a similar state of affairs will exist in the case of a naval officer.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I will certainly look into the point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and he may be assured that we shall endeavour to walk step by step with the other Services in any matter affecting the Services. In regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, about bringing the W.R.N.S. under the Naval Discipline Act, I may say that that proposal is not included in this Bill. So far as I am aware, at any rate, there is no question of so doing at the present time.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  4.25 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Payments for copies of proceedings of court-martial.
  3. In Section one hundred and twenty-four of the Army Act (which entitles a person tried by court-martial to obtain a copy of the proceedings thereof upon payment therefor at the prescribed rate, not exceeding twopence for every folio of seventy-two words) for the words "at the prescribed rate, not exceeding two-
  36
  pence for every folio of seventy-two words" there shall be substituted the words "at such rate, not exceeding the rate representing the estimated cost thereof, as may be prescribed."
  LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the first Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Pakenham. Its object is to leave Section 124 of the Army and Air Force Acts worded as at present, with the sole amendment that "fourpence" is substituted for "twopence" as the maximum rate of charge to be made to an applicant for every folio of 72 words in a copy of the proceedings of a court-martial furnished to him in pursuance of the Section. The clause in the Bill, as drafted, would have left the rate to be fixed from time to time, in accordance with the cost of obtaining a copy, whatever that might be. In deference to views expressed in another place, my right honourable friend promised that an Amendment with the effect described would be carried into the Bill. The interests of the applicant will thus be protected by a statutory maximum rate which can be amended, if need be, in a future Annual Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 20, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 23 and insert ("word 'twopence' there shall be substituted the word 'fourpence'").—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Liability of officer to maintain wife and children.
  4.—(1) At the end of Section one hundred and thirty-seven of the Army Act (which specifies the deductions which may be made from the ordinary pay due to an officer of the regular forces) there shall be added the following paragraph:
  "(5) In respect of the maintenance of the officer's wife or child, or of any bastard child, or towards the cost of any relief given by way of loan to his wife or child, any sum ordered by the Army Council, or any officer deputed by them for the purpose, to be paid as mentioned in this Act."
  LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "bastard" and insert "illegitimate." The noble Lord said: The series of Amendments on the Order Paper are really connected, and with the permission of the House I will speak on them together. The object of these Amendments is to meet the view expressed

  37
  by my noble friend Lord Kershaw on the Second Reading of the Bill—a view with which I am sire noble Lords were in sympathy. It was that we should take this opportunity of beginning a general elimination of the term "bastard" in favour of the term "illegitimate". These Amendments will remove the former term altogether from the Army and Air Force Acts. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 29, leave out ("bastard") and insert ("illegitimate").—(Lord Henderson.)
  LORD CROFT: I welcome this delicate improvement in the nomenclature.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 37, leave out ("bastard") and insert ("illegitimate").—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 9, leave out ("bastard") and insert ("illegitimate")—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Amendments of Army Act, Section 145.
  5.—(1) In Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act in subsection (1) (which renders a soldier of the regular forces liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and children as if he were not a soldier) for the words "not a soldier" there shall be substituted the words "not a member of the regular forces;".
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 11, after ("In") insert— ("Section one hundred and thirty-eight in paragraph 8, and in Section one hundred and forty-five, of the Army Act for the word "bastard", wherever that word occurs, there shall be substituted the word "illegitimate".
  (2) In the said")—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 11, leave out ("of the Army Act").—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.

  EDUCATION (EXEMPTIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL or DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Exemption of children from school attendance to assist in potato lifting.
  (2) Subject to regulations under this section an education authority on whom a notice has been served under the foregoing subsection shall grant, on the application of the parent of any child residing in their area, exemption from the obligation to attend school on the days notified as aforesaid in order to enable the child to be employed in the ingathering of the potato crop:
  Provided that—
  (i) exemption shall not be granted to any child who is more then two years below the upper limit of school age; and
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the proviso to insert:
  "and any child so exempted may be so employed notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-eight of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937."
  The noble Lord said: Both the Amendments on the Paper come together, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a few words about them before moving each separately. I will deal first with the second Amendment. It is designed to obviate any doubt as to the age at which children may be granted exemption under the Bill. Section 33 of the Education (Scotland) Act provides that the educational authorities shall fix two or more dates for commencing and terminating school attendance, and that a child shall, for the purpose of attending school, be deemed to attain a given age on a fixed date next following the day on which he actually attains that age.
  In view of this provision, it appears that the wording of the first proviso in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill in its present form might have the effect of preventing the exemption of any child until after the fixed attendance date following his thirteenth birthday. The result would be that a considerable number of children who have passed their thirteenth birthday but who have not reached the next fixed attendance date would not be eligible for exemption and would not, under the Bill, be available to help with the potato

  39
  harvest. It is considered that this would unduly limit the number of children who would be eligible for exemption and might make it difficult to obtain a full measure of assistance to ensure the safe ingathering of the potato harvest. In view of the vital importance of safeguarding our food supplies, it is proposed to amend the Bill so as to make quite clear that exemption may be granted to a child who has reached his thirteenth birthday. If this Amendment is accepted there ought to be no doubt as to the legality of employing children who are exempted.
  That brings me to the first Amendment. The employment of the children is governed by the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937. That Act as amended by the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, provides that no child shall be employed until he has attained an age not less than two years below that at which, under the enactments relating to education, children cease to be of school age. There may be room for argument as to whether the words I have quoted prohibit the employment of a child before his thirteenth birthday or whether the prohibition continues until the next fixed date. I do not wish to be understood as expressing any opinion on this question, but I am advised that the latter view might be taken. If it were sustained we might find ourselves in the position that some children could be exempted for employment but could not be legally employed. We feel that this is a matter in which there should be no room for uncertainty about the law, and we therefore propose to make it clear that any child exempted under the Bill may be employed without infringing the employment provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act of 1937. Your Lordships will appreciate that this Amendment relates only to employment in the ingathering of the potato crop during the limited period while the Bill will be on the Statute Book, and that the Act of 1937 will remain in force as regards all other forms of employment. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("and any child so exempted may be so employed notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-eight of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("child") to the end of line 23 and insert ("unless he has actually attained the age of thirteen years").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed.

  MR. WALLACE'S BROADCAST,
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask His Majesty's Government on what basis on their visits to this country is radio time allocated by the B.B.C. to former Cabinet Ministers of existing Administrations of friendly foreign countries when known currently to be at variance with the fundamental policies of their former colleagues? The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the occasion of a recent visit to Canada, the Lord President of the Council sought, in urging the advantages of State ownership, to instance transportation, including aviation, communications and radio, instancing the B.B.C. and the C.B.C. Your Lordships are aware that we are likely for some time to be dependent to a considerable extent on financial assistance from the United States. For that reason I, in common with many others, feel that a deferential and respectful attitude, where the opposite can be avoided, is desirable towards the United States at the present moment.
  I have recently returned from the United States and I travelled about a great deal while I was there. I was fully alive, as no one could avoid being, to the adverse view that was held by a very large part of the community, made evident by the well-known Gallup Polls, to the attitude taken towards the Government by one member of the Cabinet. The degree to which the line he took was in conflict with the recognized policy of the United States forced the President to call for the resignation of that member of the Cabinet. There is no doubt that in the United States of America there is a growing dislike of collectivism. This is being very largely supported by the general and the steadily mounting dislike of Russian methods. Disclosures in Canada, which have all been published in the Press here, of course increased that dislike a good deal. Now

  41
  I do not need to remind your Lordships that collectivism as a principle is not popular in the United States, and there is no use trying to disguise the fact that there is considerable anxiety about emphasis made in this country on State ownership.
  May I, in homely language, give a few sentences from among the things that have been said to me, in particular by business men? They have said: "We admire England, we admire her valour, we respect her tradition, we like her people; but we do not like being taxed to provide resources for a country which is going so emphatically against the principles of private enterprise for which we stand." I do not need to remind your Lordships of the, possibly, questionable ethics of the action of a former Minister of a Government who goes abroad and pursues a campaign to discredit the policy of, and to make plain his own disagreement with, his former colleagues. That, I think, might generally be regarded as poor ethics.
  What particularly prompts this question is the extreme concern which has been caused by the granting of an especially advantageous time in the national broadcast to an individual whose name will be known to everyone and at whom these remarks are particularly aimed. I assure your Lordships that this question is motivated by no partisan intention. It is based on the view that we should be respectful to the United States, and that we should try, wherever it is avoidable, to avoid causing annoyance to that country. In this particular instance there is raised, with regard to the B.B.C., an important principle. Had the matter this broadcast been referred to the highest level—that is to the Foreign Secretary—I suspect that a negative reply would have been received. In this belief, with a profound conviction of the importance of our friendly relations with the United States, and with a feeling of the danger which may arise should there be any repetition of this, I beg to put this question. Its aim is to clarify the situation and to make clear exactly who is responsible for the allocation of time in circumstances such as those alluded to in my question.
  4.42 P.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this question raises such important issues of
  42
  principle that I would wish to intervene for a moment or two, before the noble Earl replies. But, first, I must congratulate the late Postmaster-General and the present Secretary of State for India and Burma upon his promotion. He has always been a most agreeable member of this House, and if we have not invariably been satisfied with the content of his replies, the courtesy of their form could certainly not have been better. I am confident that 10-day we shall be satisfied in both respects.
  Lord Barnby's question raises three issues, which it is important to keep quite distinct. First, there is an issue in regard to the activities of a distinguished visitor, Mr. Wallace. Then there is the question of the duty of the Government; and, lastly, there is the question of the action of the B.B.C. As regards the first matter, this is still, relatively, a free country, and anyone is entitled to express his own views. How and where he does so is a matter for the taste of each individual. We in this country have long been accustomed to Mr. Wallace, in America, delivering diatribes upon the British Commonwealth and denouncing a form of Imperialism which exists only in his own imagination. On this occasion he decided to change the venue of his activities and to lecture America from England. That is entirely a matter of
  taste, upon which we may all hold our own opinions. We may have varying views about public people who engage in public activities of this kind. Personally, I share the views which were expressed during the week-end by Mr. Churchill. But as Mr. Wallace has been good enough to tell us, as well as the Americans, how we should deal with Communism, I would take leave to add that Mr. Wallace appears to me to be about as well equipped to deal with Communism as a rabbit is to deal with a boa-constrictor.
  With respect to the question of the Government's duty, the B.B.C. are not a Government instrument. If the B.B.C. consult the Government, the Government are entitled to advise and, I suppose, would normally do so. I would have thought that on matters touching foreign policy—which we here keep as far away-from Party politics as we can, and in which we aim at having continuity of policy—there would be some contact. But I think we should all agree upon this:

  43
  that in peace-time the Government are not entitled to issue orders to the B.B.C. If the Government started doing that on one subject, they might easily slip into doing it on other subjects, and that would be very unsatisfactory. In view of all the criticism which has quite naturally been evoked, it is only right, I think, that I should say what I conceive to be the proper position of the Government in this regard.
  Then there is the position of the B.B.C. I think it is entirely right that the B.B.C. should be independent, but independence does not make it omniscient or immune from criticism. The B.B.C. should not only strive to be quite fair and impartial, but should also, I consider, exercise a wise judgment, particularly in regard to foreign affairs or any matters affecting foreign Governments and foreign nations. I think that would be generally accepted as common courtesy and common sense, but there is a particular reason why a wise judgment is so necessary in those matters. That lies in the fact that while we understand the position of the B.B.C., here, its peculiar status is much less fully recognized abroad. This relationship—or perhaps I should more truly say this absence of relationship—with His Majesty's Government (whatever Government it might be) may be misunderstood. For these reasons, I feel bound to add my personal opinion (and I think I probably express a view which goes a great deal further than my personal view) that, irrespective of whether people like, or do not like, the kind of stuff Mr. Wallace has been talking, Sunday evening at 9.15 on. the B.B.C. is a time of particular importance. It commands the largest audience: it commands an even larger audience than either Mr. Dalton on Budget night—or Mr. Woodcock on Budget night.
  LORD MORRISON: Mr. Baksi.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Mr. Woodcock put up a more sporting effort than His Majesty's Government.
  LORD STRABOLGI: But he was knocked out.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: So, probably, will His Majesty's Government be, even with the assistance of so formidable a pugilist as the noble Lord to help them.
  LORD STRABOLGI: Wait and see.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: But Sunday evening is a peculiar time and it would be resented in this country if Sunday evening were used for partisan politics, whether we put on the Prime Minister or Mr. Churchill. I am sure that neither the Prime Minister nor Mr. Churchill would dream of using Sunday evening, however great the temptation might be and however "collective" the invitation. I do not think it would be used. I must say, therefore, that I think the B.B.C. were guilty of a very unfortunate error of judgment.
  4.53 P.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was very surprised indeed when I saw on the Order Paper this question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who has had very great experience in both Houses of Parliament. I had always looked upon him as a man extremely well informed and of common sense. I am still more surprised that, in this extreme assailment jointly of the Government and the B.B.C., he had the support of the acting Leader of the Opposition, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not assailed the Government. I have made it perfectly clear that I thought the Government had no action to take in this matter and, I should assume, took no action, unless they were asked.
  LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount did not actually praise the Government. He personally praised my noble friend, the Earl of Listowel, and I would like to add my congratulations as well, but he certainly attacked Mr. Wallace. He talked of the "stuff he spoke." He had a great grievance with the B.B.C. for putting Mr. Wallace on the air on that Sunday evening, and I am surprised that he should attack a distinguished visitor to this country, who, after all, was our guest and who has now left our shores. However, Mr. Wallace can perfectly well take care of himself, either from the attacks of Mr. Churchill or of his Sancho Panza, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
  This question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, would, I believe, be out of order in another place, because the Government have no control over the programmes, and especially over the talks programmes, of the B.B.C. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that the Foreign

  45
  Secretary should have been consulted is really preposterous. Mr. Ernest Bevin has far too much to do, without attempting to control the programmes of the B.B.C., and I am horrified by the suggestion that the Foreign Secretary should be consulted about talks, whether on a Sunday evening or any other evening. The suggestion is absurd.
  I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, heard the talk, or whether the noble Viscount opposite heard it. I listened to it, and everyone to whom I have spoken who listened to it was loud in praise of it. The noble Viscount spoke about "partisanship." What were the facts? This very distinguished American, whom I also heard speaking in London—I am proud to say I was sitting on the same platform—was pleading for peace. He was pleading for an end to be put to this acrimonious controversy that is taking place on the wireless at the present time between certain great nations. He was demanding peace the whole time, and, in my humble opinion, his whole attitude was extremely sensible. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, took the occasion to make attacks on what he calls "Communism," and so did the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, ranged over a wide field of foreign policy that was quite outside the ambit of this particular question, and I shall not attempt to answer him. Fortunately, in this country we are still sufficiently well balanced, and, I hope, hospitably inclined, to welcome a distinguished American, to feel glad he is put on the air, and to hope that other leading Americans, putting perhaps different points of view, may also be heard by British audiences. I am glad to think, also, that when our own political leaders go to the United States they have the hospitality of the wonderful broadcasting system of America and can talk directly to the American people. I hope they may continue to do so.
  May I tell the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, of a little episode that happened to me in the United States? It may amuse and even interest them. When I larded in New York in the spring of 1932, I was approached by the great Columbia Broadcasting Service and asked if I would go on the air on a "Continent-wide hook-up." They always do me that honour when I visit the U.S.A. I said I
  46
  would be delighted to do so, and asked what they would like me to talk about. They told me to talk about whatever was most topical. The Japanese had just made that unprovoked attack on the Chinese in Shanghai, which was the beginning of the terrible blood-stained train of events that led up to the Second World War, and I said I would like to talk about that. They answered: "That is grand. You can say whatever you like about that." I attacked the Japanese action in Shanghai over the Columbia Broadcasting system that spread right across Canada, the United States, and Mexico. How right I was!The next day the Manager told me he had had a violent protest from the Japanese Ambassador in Washington. The Japanese Ambassador had apparently approached the State Department, protesting because a British politician like myself could go over there and attack his country in the United States. The State Department replied, as I hope the noble Lord will presently reply, that the State Department had no control over the Columbia Broadcasting system.
  The present Government have no control over the B.B.C. programmes, and I hope that neither this Government nor any Government ever will. The Columbia Broadcasting Manager told me that they offered His Excellency what they called "Time on the air" to reply. I said I hoped he would reply. I left for the West, and when I returned I asked the Columbia Manager if the Ambassador had replied on the air. He replied "No, his English was not good enough." That is the American spirit—complete freedom of speech and of broadcasting. It is the British spirit also, and they have inherited that spirit from us. If we cannot tolerate it, if we are not sensible enough to be able to weigh up the statements of distinguished visitors to these shores, then we are not the people we were. But I believe we still have this balance and sense of judgment and are glad to hear on the wireless distinguished visitors to these shores as a privilege and advantage for all our public. I very much hope there will be no countenance given by my noble friend who wi11 reply for the Government to these strictures on this distinguished American visitor who has already done a great deal of good in this country, and will, I believe, do a great deal of good for his own country before he has finished. I hope there will be no

  47
  weakening in our attitude of complete independence for the B.B.C. in the conduct of their day-to-day business.
  LORD BARNBY: I rise on a point of order. With the indulgence of the House, I should like to correct a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Evidently he did not quite understand the meaning of my remarks. I made no suggestion that any addresses by any visiting statesmen given on the B.B.C. should be referred to Mr. Bevin. I only suggested this hypothetically—which is quite a different thing. Therefore, when he attributes such a suggestion to me, I would remind him that the object of my remarks was predicated on the belief that a conciliatory attitude towards the United States was most important at the present time for this country, and, therefore, the representation of views in conflict with the views of the Government of the United States in those circumstances would be disadvantageous to us as a nation.
  LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord's intentions are always good and they always lead to the same place.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount opposite very warmly for his congratulations to me on my new appointment, and for the kind remarks which he made about the form in which I have administered successive doses of Government policy in this House. I have no desire to correct a very small slip that the noble Viscount made, and indeed it was most excusable, because at the moment I stand in a sort of "no-man's land" between two different Government Departments; but I think, for the sake of the Hansard reporter of this debate, I should point out that I am still Postmaster-General, and that I am replying to the question addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, in that capacity.
  Perhaps the best way of answering the speeches that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, would be to remind your Lordships of the policy of the Government in relation to the whole matter of broadcasting. Your Lordships will recollect that in the White Paper on Broadcasting Policy issued by the Government last July it was stated that the
  48
  policy of allowing the B.B.C. complete independence in the day-to-day management of its business would not be altered. That policy was adopted when the Corporation was set up and has been consistently followed by successive Governments. It has not, of course, been varied, whether the Government in power at the time was a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, and during the bulk of the time that has elapsed since the Corporation was set up Conservative Governments have been in power. It is in pursuance of that policy that the Government does not intervene in the B.B.C.'s choice of programmes or in the selection of material, including, of course, speakers for use in those programmes. The Government do not see any reason to alter that policy, which is believed to be the best one for ensuring freedom of expression on the air and for removing from the Party in power at the time the temptation to use State control of broadcasting for a Party end. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that the countries in which broadcasting has been controlled by the State have been totalitarian countries.
  LORD BARNBY: If the noble Earl will allow me, I would point out that Canada is not a totalitarian country.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If I may refer to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I cannot help feeling that there would be some danger in putting the B.B.C. under an obligation to consult the Government about any broadcast with a bearing on foreign policy.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? I do want to make the position clear. I think we are much in agreement on this matter. I had hoped I had made the position clear. I did not think the Government had any duty in the matter, unless they were consulted by the B.B.C. What I said was that I would have thought that the B.B.C., on matters of foreign policy would maintain a certain contact with the Government, but I did not think that the Government had either a right or a duty ever to intervene unless they were asked for advice.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I think his view is that it should be a matter for the discretion of the B.B.C.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: And they should be under no obligation. My point is directed to avoiding any obligation which might be embarrassing to the B.B.C. and drag them into Party politics. I understand that the B.B.C. invited Mr. Wallace as a distinguished figure in world affairs to give his views as a private citizen on the broader aspects of the present international situation. That was the ground of the invitation which gave rise to the broadcast to which reference has been made. I do not think that there is anything further that it would be appropriate for me to add as a spokesman for the Government in relation to the action of the B.B.C.

  CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS.
  The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY);
  Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  NAZEING WOOD OR PARK [H.L.];
  Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL;
  And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petitions for Additional Provision in the following Bills have not been complied with:
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY,
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS).
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEESinformed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: the Orders made on March 13 and March 18 last discharged: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
  SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the South Metropolitan Gas Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the Consideration of the Swindon Corporation Bill: read and agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

  City of Worcester;

  County Borough of Sunderland;

  County Borough of Wolverhampton;

  Borough of Brecon:

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (TEM PORARY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1917.
  Report from the India and Burma Orders Committee, That they have examined the Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order does not raise important questions of policy or principle; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention; and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1947.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order raises questions of policy and principle; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at eight minutes past five o'clock.