HL Deb 06 March 1950 vol 166 cc10-29

The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.

2.50 p.m.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—

"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

I am very conscious both of the responsibility and of the honour which have devolved on me this afternoon, and I should like to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for this opportunity. I would also assure your Lordships that I am conscious of the tradition of the House that, so far as is in me possible, I should be non-controversial; I will endeavour to do my best to live up to that tradition.

First of all, I think it would not be wrong for me to refer to the health of His Majesty the King. I am sure we were all glad to see him walk so firmly towards the Throne to-day, accompanied by his gracious and charming Queen, who has not to worry about his health so much now as she had a year ago. I recall the subject of His Majesty's health particularly, because it was shortly after he was last with us, and had told us that he was about to go on a trip to parts of the Commonwealth, that he was struck with his illness. I am sure we are all very glad to learn that it may well be that in 1952 the trip then forecast will take place.

Secondly, I should like to refer to the forthcoming visit, starting tomorrow, of the President of our great friend and neighbour across the Channel—France. On behalf of all your Lordships, I should like to echo the welcome to his guest which His Majesty indicated in the gracious Speech. It is the first occasion since President Lebrun came to visit us in 1939 that this country has had the opportunity of welcoming the President of France, although it is not the first time this country has had an opportunity of welcoming M. Auriol. I think it is worth while recalling to your Lordships the contrast between the method of his arrival to-morrow and the method of his arrival in 1943, when he was smuggled in by an aeroplane immediately following his imprisonment by Vichy France. I am certain that the cordial welcome which we should anyhow have given him to-morrow will be the greater for the knowledge of that earlier visit. I am sure that His Majesty and his guest will find that they have many things in common, not the least being the fact that they are both very great family men. We shall have the opportunity of meeting the President on Thursday and I have no doubt we shall give him the cordial welcome he is entitled to expect. Meanwhile, during the next few days the people of London will have the chance of acclaiming the head of our neighbouring State across the Channel, with whom warm friendship is a pleasant and continuing part of the lives of the British people.

Before I turn to the other paragraphs of the gracious Speech, I make no apology for referring to one group of people in this country who in the General Election had the least of the limelight—I refer to the voters. I think it would be wrong to let the occasion of the opening of this Parliament go by without noting the great evidence of the political maturity of our democracy which was contained in the General Election. The Election was an orderly process of canvass and meetings. It was so quiet in comparison with what happens in other countries, that foreign correspondents writing to their papers from London began to express doubts whether any real interest was being taken in the Election by the British public, and suggested that the electors were apathetic.

Another type of London correspondent, such as the correspondent of the Communist paper in Czechoslovakia, Rude Pravo, was saying that "the bourgeoisie were indulging in open terror and fraud" in order to make certain that they won the election. Communist countries are used to assembling their hordes and marching them to put an automatic "Yes" against the list of candidates selected as the winners. None of those newspaper reporters was right. The facts were that the British people, in a typically British way, got down to brass tacks, thought about things, made up their minds and, old and very old, young and new voters, went, despite wind and rain, to cast their votes according to their conscience. It was a free vote for free candidates by secret ballot; and 84 per cent. of the population voted. Indeed, what must be a world record was created in one constituency—Aberavon—where some polling booths were closed an hour before they should have been closed officially because everybody on the register had already cast his vote. Whatever disappointment any group or Party may feel about the result of the Election, one thing is significant—the way in which it has made us understand that the British public intelligently consider their own affairs.

That same intelligent public will welcome a number of things in the gracious Speech, and it will applaud not least the references to the Commonwealth. The historic meeting of Prime Ministers last year was regarded by the public as evidence of the constant consultation which there should be between representatives of the various countries which make up the Commonwealth. The decision that meetings of the Foreign Ministers should be held to discuss matters of common interest was also felt to be good, and reference in the gracious Speech to the gathering recently concluded in Colombo is of considerable importance. I believe that the selection of Colombo as the meeting place was the fruit of an inspired vision. It was both a compliment to the new member nation of the Commonwealth and an appreciation of the need on the part of all nations in the Commonwealth to study the common problems of South-East Asia and Asia generally.

Nothing but good can come of these Conferences. Mr. Lester Pearson, the Canadian Secretary of State, whom we were glad to welcome here last year, was right when he said that these conferences are characterised by the complete frankness which exists between friends, a healthy respect for each other's opinions, and a genuine desire to reach agreement to keep all working together. That is the kind of atmosphere in which these conferences have been taking place. Do not let us disguise from ourselves that from these meetings and contacts within the Commonwealth come material gains to this country and to the other countries of the Commonwealth. Opportunities are provided for reaching agreements which are materially beneficial both to this country and to the other nations within the Commonwealth with whom the agreements are signed. Thanks to these Commonwealth relations, we have been fortunate because we get guaranteed supplies, by bulk purchases, at prices below those ruling in the world markets. The other countries of the Commonwealth for their part get guaranteed prices and the guarantee of a permanent market, which encourages the producers, provides them with stability and helps the development of their resources.

Your Lordships will recall some of the agreements that we have operating at the moment between ourselves and our sister nations within the Commonwealth. There is the agreement with New Zealand to send us all their exportable butter, cheese and meat up to 1955, and the agreement with Australia to send us the same com- modities up to this year, with discussions about the future. Indeed, over a period of years both those countries had rationed butter in order that the surplus could be exported to Great Britain. The Australian Government, in their Act of October, 1949, decided to build roads to make available easier transit in order that cattle production might be increased. The Queensland scheme for meat and grain, discussed so recently, is within your Lordships' memory; and the sugar agreements, whereby Great Britain has promised to take from Africa and Queensland and all the sugar-producing countries the whole of the surplus, will also be recalled by your Lordships.

These are great and material things inside the Commonwealth. We are more encouraged by the fact that since the war ended no fewer than 300,000 of our own citizens have gone to join those already in Australia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and New Zealand, to maintain and strengthen yet further the ties of blood and affection which link us. Those ties are responsible, too, for many of the personal gifts which I should like to recall to your Lordships. No less than £80,000,000 worth of bulk food has come into this country from our Commonwealth friends and from America during the course of the last four years. Recently, however, our sister nations have been sending us yet more personal gifts, to which I think it appropriate that I should refer this afternoon, because they are so personal to this Palace of Westminster.

We shall probably be moving back into the other Chamber later this year, when the Commons move to the new building being constructed for them. In that new building there are now being placed such items as the Speaker's Chair, made from Australian wood and the gift of the Australian Commonwealth. Canada's wood and workmanship will make up the Table of the House. The chairs of the Clerks are the gift of South Africa. The despatch boxes, of New Zealand wood, are the gift of New Zealand. Further gifts from other Commonwealth friends will mark the personal ties between us when the new House is opened, not the least of which are the doors through which the Members of the Commons will enter, the gifts of India and Pakistan. As I have mentioned those two sister nations, I am sure your Lordships would wish that I should comment in passing on our consciousness of the difficulties which face them, and say how much we hope those difficulties will soon be resolved. I am sure we all watch with great admiration the courage with which India faces her problem. We wish them well.

If I may say so, I feel that this reference to our Commonwealth comrades in the gracious Speech is particularly fortunate, coming as it does a fortnight before the launching of the Lord Mayor of London's Thanksgiving Fund. It is typical of the broad basis of the public life of this country that the representatives of the various political Parties will be joined by the representatives of the Churches, the representatives of commerce, of industry and of the Trades Union Congress in seeking to establish a fund to build a great overseas residential and educational centre in London. Such a centre will give great encouragement to young people of the Commonwealth to come to this country for further education, and will enrich their stay here in surroundings that will ensure the friendliest possible contacts.

I turn now to another reference in the gracious Speech—namely, the suggestion of improved water supplies, particularly in the rural areas. I am sure the present absence of adequate supplies represents a menace to health, is a contributory factor to the man-power shortage in the agricultural community, and is detrimental to agricultural production. As a townsman, accustomed to a bath with two taps which work, when I had to go convalescent to recuperate in Devon about three years ago I took steps to find that the farm was duly equipped with a bath and two taps. It was, and they worked for the first two weeks. But although it was only springtime, at the end of a fortnight the water supply gave out. Down in the village, after a day or two, they had to abandon school teaching altogether; they did not dare run the risk owing to the absence of an adequate water supply for sewage purposes. Yet the school had a good wireless set! Similarly, when I was in a village in the Midlands a few weeks ago I could see H aerials for television sets being put up on buildings in the village, and I could see the weekly cinema show being organised in the village hall. But the village had no piped water. It seemed that we were able to give them all the wonders of the twentieth century in the way of films, television and radio, but we could not give them the piped water which the Romans had twenty centuries ago.

The National Farm Survey of 1943 showed that only 47 per cent. of the farms had a piped water supply. I no longer wonder at the difficulty of obtaining clean milk. I am aware that the eventual need is a national water grid, with economical planning and uniformity of practice, neither of which can we expect under the present chaotic system. I find that water is dealt with by 780 local authorities, 48 joint boards, 173 statutory companies, 80 other companies and about 1,000 private proprietors. In my view, only national ownership can fulfil the ultimate need. Meanwhile, we must utilise the powers now possessed under the existing Water Acts, as assisted by whatever plans are forecast to-day.

I also welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the proposals further to encourage the transfer of industrial undertakings to development areas. To my mind there has been nothing more dramatic than the transformation that has come about in the distressed areas of the past—areas where there was no hope, where one-seventh of His Majesty's subjects suffered unemployment, from the results of unemployment or from the shortage of work. What The Times described in 1937 as a challenge to the efficiency of Government and of the democratic system has been revolutionised. That lack of hope is gone. The tragedy of economic waste and much human suffering has been swept away as a result of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. Noble Lords on all sides of the House were interested in the development of work under that Act. For instance, last year your Lordships welcomed the information, given in a debate on other subjects, that 784 new factories had already been completed in those areas. Those factories afford opportunities of employment to the people, opportunities to the people who take over the control of the factories on behalf of firms, and to the nation which has now become possessed of rehabilitated areas, equipped with factories utilising new industrial processes or, in certain cases, actually creating new industries altogether, all of value for export. I am confident that the Government can rely upon support for any proposal they may make to extend the trend of providing alternative industries among these great aggregations of the community.

The final item which I have selected, and upon which I would like to say a little to your Lordships, is the reference in the first paragraph of the gracious Speech to the "sustained endeavour" of the people. That very real sustained endeavour is due entirely to the excellent combined efforts of those responsible for running industry, and the technicians and workers within the industry. Only by the co-operation and combination of all that is best in the brains and the administrative ability of those who own and control great firms and the workers and the unions within those firms, can this country hope to attain the clear position it desires by the time Marshall Aid ends in 1952. Whatever people may say elsewhere, I have enough confidence in the British people who constitute what is called the employing class in this country to say that the mere fact that they opposed some of His Majesty's Government's schemes curing the General Election will not militate against their making the greatest possible effort during the months immediately ahead towards the same common goal to which all were directing themselves before the General Election.

I hold a similar view about my trade union friends. I know that they will continue to make their contribution. It is useless to deny that this high endeavour and the wages of the workers, both at present and in the future, are closely related. The wages structure in the country must be sufficient to encourage effort, but it must not be such as to encourage either high costing or high spending with the inevitability of an inflationary spiral. The sustained endeavour to which the gracious Speech refers must be accompanied throughout by sustained restraint of consumption and in respect of wages. This relationship was made clear by Mr. John Kenney, chief of the E.C.A. Mission to this country, when he was reporting to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee within the last few weeks. I will venture to quote his statement to your Lordships because, owing to the pressure on space of General Election material, few of the newspapers of the country gave that long statement the publicity it merited.

I am not going to trespass on your Lordships' time by reading it all, but I should like to quote two significant paragraphs of relevance in this connection. He said: The voluntary policy of restraint in seeking wage increases followed by the Trades Union Congress has resulted in wage increases of only slightly over 1 per cent. during 1949, even in the face of a higher cost of living caused by devaluation, and a 5 per cent. increase in industrial productivity. This evidence of the willingness of British workers to exercise self-discipline for the common goal of economic recovery is a most heartening and encouraging feature, and has played a prominent part in the struggle against inflation. A little lower down he says: The labour force, aware that a high rate of productivity means full employment and leads to economic recovery, has delivered a production effort in much the same spirit as that prevailing during the war. The hours lost per worker since the war through disputes in Britain have been one-ninth of the hours per worker lost in the United States of America. I ventured to read that to your Lordships because I think a tribute of that kind is well worth our looking at, placing on record and remembering. I think that might be some encouragement to those in the trade union movement who, let us admit frankly, are encountering great difficulties.

The traditional attitude of the trade union movement is to fight for more wages, and not to say to the rank and file: "We desire to restrain you from making any wage claim." The particular problem of the lower-paid worker, which the economic committee of the Trades Union Congress must face when they meet on Wednesday of this week, is one fraught with great difficulty. I hope—and I am sure we all hope—tint they will be able to find some solution to this problem. There is no denying the growing magnitude of the problem, a problem which is enhanced when great firms boast of the way in which their profits distribution has been increased. Last week the head of a big industrial concern was lauded in tae Press as the leader of a great revolt against the policy of restraint of dividends. If a docker describes himself as the leader of a revolt against wages restraint, he is termed "anti-social."

I think the restraint must be general and the sacrifice common if the lower-paid workers, who are already suspicious of inequality of sacrifice, are not to get beyond the control of their trade union leaders. The employer of the type to whom I have referred ought to bring himself into line with the rest of the great employers of the country, who try to play the game. The good employers are taking their workers more and more into their confidence, and are trying to make those workers understand the situation now arising for the first time in a country with full employment. I am sure that Sir Vincent Tewson, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., is right when he says that the trade union movement should rationalise the wages structure in this new full employment situation, for the workers could benefit under a less traditional system than that which now operates. By securing greater efficiency in industry, if wages were related to output it would still be possible for total earnings to be increased, side by side with increased production and lower costs. That is the new and difficult problem which the trade union movement has to face. The courage and the loyalty of the trade union movement will be vitally tested between now and September; but by the continuance of the same high standard of self discipline in restraint, and with sustained endeavour, the Government's objective can be attained.

This people, which stood alone against Nazi might and refused to tire, can bring again that same true patriotism to bear. I make no apology for using the word "patriotism." I know there are some who think the word "patriotism" is related to militarism and flag-wagging. It is nothing of the sort. It is no part of a particular doctrine or policy of any one Party, section, or class of this community. It is an essential part of democracy, in whose name is demanded the patriotism of the people. De Tocqueville defined patriotism as a perception of the personal interest of the citizen related to his having a share in the government of his country and identifying himself with its security and prosperity. That is the patriotism we need to-day from all; it is part of the life blood of this country, and an inspiration to stability and progress.

In the final analysis, the economic security of this country rests, not upon His Majesty, not upon His Majesty's Government, not upon this House, not upon the other House: it depends entirely upon the efforts of the people. By the growth of the understanding of the reliance upon each other of the individual members of this nation this sustained effort, referred to in the gracious Speech, can be maintained; and we look to 1952 with the certain belief that we can achieve our objective. What is mainly necessary, in my submission, is that every man and woman of this country shall appreciate the Biblical injunction: Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—

Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—(Lord Crook.)

3.23 p.m.

LORD WILLIAMS

My Lords, I am privileged this afternoon to have the honour of seconding the Motion which has been so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Crook. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House for his kindness and consideration in giving me this opportunity. I propose to deal with one or two matters in the gracious Speech, and I should like first to refer to that section which deals with the dollar shortage and with the renewed efforts which will be required in order to secure a balance in the country's overseas trade. I have been associated with business long enough to be able to say that it is a truism that it is far more difficult to sell than it is to buy, and that people who are charged with the responsibilities of selling in the export market have on hand a far more difficult job of work than those who are buying from other countries. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that most of the export drive will have to be undertaken by private enterprise; and it is to private enterprise that we must look for the effort to earn the dollars that will bridge the gap. Failure to recognise that will lead us into difficulties.

In that connection I want to deal for a moment with two very important points which I think may be of real assistance to our industrialists who are catering for the export market, as welt as to our people who are engaged in home production. The first point is that of food subsidies. I have been warned by my noble Leader that I must not be controversial, and I do not think that anything I now say will lead to controversy. But emphasis has been placed on what the consumer has got out of food subsidies. We have been apt to neglect in our considerations what producers get out of food subsidies; and I hope to show that not only have our agricultural producers received benefits but that our industrial producers also have received very substantial benefits. Of the sum of £465,000,000 paid by way of food subsidies, no less than £260,000,000 has been paid in respect of food produced within our own country—so that agricultural producers have received very substantial benefits.

I am informed on good authority that if subsidies were abolished there would he a rise of not less than twelve points in the cost of living index. I am going to ask a very simple question. If that rise did take place, what would be the reactions of the trade unions of this country with regard to wage increases? The first reaction would be a demand for an increase in wages; and wages being an element in the cost of production, any increase without corresponding increase in productivity would result in an increase in price. And we know full well that when it comes to the sale of commodities in our overseas markets the question of both quality and price is a vital consideration. Any step taken to increase prices which results in increased costs must therefore be to the detriment of the export market. I am certain that consideration needs to be given to the effect of the payment of food subsidies on keeping the basic wages in our industries down to a reasonable level. If these subsidies were abolished, then the fact that wages would automatically increase would result in increased costs.

I should now like to touch upon another point affecting the export trade. It has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Crook, but I should like to expand it. It is that payment should be on the basis of increased output. During the last two years I have had the opportunity of close contact with a number of experiments that have taken place in respect of the payment of incentive bonuses. Agreement was reached with the trade unions that an investigation should take place by time-and-motion-study engineers, in collaboration with trade unions and management. Certain standards were fixed, and if there was increased production over and above that standard, the workers benefited by way of increased payment. Those experiments have been very successful, and are being extended. From the point of view of the work-people, the result of the experiments is that at the week-end they go home with larger pay packets; they feel that they are part of the undertaking; and there is a much greater good will existing between themselves and the management. In addition to these advantages, the costs of production have been reduced, and in my opinion that is essential to-day so far as the export industry is concerned.

I would commend to the attention of the Government the need for approaches to the employers and to the trade unions with a view to serious consideration being given to the introduction of the payment of incentive bonuses in industry throughout the country. The trade unions would still be charged with the responsibility of fixing basic wages nationally, and the introduction of bonus schemes would be on the basis of a factory or workshop level, though still under the control of the trade unions working in conjunction with the management. If we are going to get the best results, we have got to bring down costs, but we shall not do that if the workers have a feeling of frustration that though they may increase production they will reap no benefit. These bonus payments allow of that benefit being given, and I am confident that management in turn will take full advantage of that.

May I say two other things on this issue? I have already said that we have to rely on private enterprise to carry out this export drive, but in my opinion it is not much use pulverising, private enterprise at week-ends and on Mondays exhorting it. For the present, at any rate, we must look upon private enterprise as a partner in the scheme of things; and it must be treated as such. In addition, may I remind your Lordships' House that there are millions of workers in this country whose livelihood and future employment depend upon the success of private enterprise in the particular industries in which they are engaged? If they are to maintain full employment, then the Government must give full encouragement to those industries, while there remains private enterprise.

I should like to refer to that part of the gracious Speech dealing with the United Nations. I was particularly interested to read that: My Government will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that My Armed Forces are ready to meet their responsibilities in all parts of the world. We may have an abundant faith in the United Nations, but twice in our generation this country has been caught unprepared for war, and we have had to pay a big price on each occasion because we were not prepared. It is interesting to note that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to ensure that the Armed Forces are adequate. I think it is true to say that, so far as this country is concerned, it has no aggressive designs against any other country; but it is also true to say that, if this country is attacked, then it is prepared to defend itself to the utmost. I sincerely hope that in the course of time we shall have built up within the United Nations a strength that will stand against any onslaught, but until that time arises it is our bounden duty to ensure that this country at any rate is protected to the limits.

I have not time to refer in detail to some of the projected legislation. Agriculture has already been touched upon and no doubt will be fully developed in the course of the debate. We on this side of the House, like your Lordships on the other side, are in complete agreement that there is need for a vast extension in the food production of this country. I was pleased to note that allotments also figure in that programme. May I also touch on one point already referred to by my noble friend Lord Crook, with regard to the transfer of industry to the development areas? I was born in the Rhondda Valley. I remember those valleys—periods of prosperity and periods of distress. Although I left that district many years ago, I have had an opportunity twice or three times in each year of paying visits. Nothing was more heartbreaking in the period from 1931 to 1938 than to see crowds of miners at street corners, honest men who prided themselves that they always paid their twenty shillings in the pound, standing there, without work or any prospect of work; to see their children ill-clad and ill-fed. We are apportioning no blame in respect of those conditions, but I think I am voicing the opinion of the House as a whole when I say that we do not wish to revert to conditions which provide that kind of thing. Anything that is done in the meantime should try to ensure that if for any reason a slump hits the main industries there will be more of the lighter and smaller industries on which we can fall back.

I will not detain your Lordships much longer, except to say that we are likely to have a difficult period in front of us, and that only hard work will enable us to turn the corner. Unless we within the nation are prepared to work harder, then the benefits of our social services are likely to be lost; the security which we at present enjoy is likely to be lost, and our standards are likely to be considerably reduced. That lesson has to be brought home to each one in the nation: that we have got to give a little more in order that we shall get a little more; and that sometimes the giving of the little more must be for the benefit of those who are not able to do anything for themselves. That is the lesson that we have to learn, and the success of our learning will depend on how that message is put over. In these difficult times, whatever the Party conflicts may be, in the final result we all stand to put the interests of the nation first. May I end with a quotation which I think is most appropriate at the present time—the origin of it I have forgotten. It is this: May we be given the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I beg leave to second the Motion.

3.39 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, as our Lordships know, under the new arrangement which has been reached between the Leaders of the various Parties in your Lordships' House, it is my duty to rise to move that the debate be now adjourned. In doing so, I should like, if I may, to offer my respectful but very warm congratulations to the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion on the admirable and, I think I may say, remarkable way in which they have performed their tasks. It has never fallen to my own lot to perform that duty, either during the time that I was in another place or since I have been here, but I have always regarded it as one of the most difficult with which any Parliamentarian can be faced. Fortunately, perhaps, on the present occasion this is rather less so than usual. The main problem before noble Lords, as I see it, at least so far as the gracious Speech itself is concerned, is to make bricks without straw. Both noble Lords surmounted that problem triumphantly; and I thought they did it by the simple device of reading rather between the lines than actually on the lines of the Speech, and that what they found between the lines was on the whole more agreeable and acceptable to all of us. Any gracious Speech, which, after all, incorporates the policy of the Government of the day, is bound inevitably to be controversial to same extent, however anodyne that Speech may be. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, it has to be dealt with in an uncontroversial and agreeable manner, causing no offence to anybody in any quarter of the House. That obviously requires Parliamentary gifts of no mean order. But in my view it requires something else—something rather rarer; it requires the type of personality that by itself commands the respect and affection of the House.

Now, my Lords, if I may say so with all deference, I think that that type of personality is possessed in a marked degree by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who moved the Address this afternoon. The noble Lore has not been a member of this House for very long, but he has already male a deep impression on us all by his common sense, his sincerity and his deep sense public duty. I thought these qualities were very evident in the remarks which he addressed to your Lordships this afternoon, especially—if I may pick out any part from a speech which was uniformly so admirable—in the remarks he made with regard to our relations with the Commonwealth. I thought that what he said on that subject, and also what he said about the relations between wages and output, was instinct with wisdom. Wages and output is a difficult subject with which to deal, but I thought he dealt with it with moderation and great skill. I am certain that the wise speech which he has made to us this afternoon will serve to enhance the high reputation which he already enjoys here. Indeed, there is very little in it with which any of us can disagree.

Broadly speaking, I think that was equally true of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who seconded the Address. He, too, emerged from his trial with great success. There were some passages which were perhaps a little more controversial than others, and we would not all agree with everything which the noble Lord said. Broadly speaking, however, I think the general tenor of his argument would commend itself to noble Lords in every part of the House. Lord Williams is already known to your Lordships for his objectivity and independence of outlook, and what he has said this Afternoon will, I think, certainly confirm the impression we gained. I hope that the words he spoke with regard to incentives will be listened to and pondered both by employers and trade unions, and, if I may make bold to say so, by the Government themselves. Such men as those two noble Lords, if I may say so without impertinence, are indeed a very valuable addition to this House and an ornament to our discussions. I know I shall be voicing the opinion of the whole House when I say that we shall look forward to hearing them both again at an early date, and especially on those subjects to which they have addressed themselves to-day and upon which they speak with such long authority.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

3.45 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I feel sure that it is for the convenience of the House that to-day we should not address ourselves in any way to the contents of the gracious Speech from the Throne but should limit ourselves strictly to the acknowledgments which we feel are due to the proposer and the seconder of the Address.to the Throne. They have had to perform a task which is notoriously difficult and delicate. The strict rule requires that their speeches should not be controversial, should give the House no fresh information that might be inconvenient to the Government, and yet should not be wholly obvious. They have to avoid too much latitude on the one hand, and too much platitude on the other. That these two speakers have certainly succeeded in doing. Lord Crook's references to the recent Election and to the need for greater industrial effort were most felicitously phrased and were admirably objective. I would also mention, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has done, how much the House appreciated his special tribute to the Commonwealth for the help that they have given in many ways in these difficult times, as typified and symbolised by the gifts which have been bestowed upon the new building of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, who seconded, dealt also with some delicate matters when he spoke about food subsidies, incentive bonuses and the like. He trod delicately and all that he said I think was acceptable to the House.

Although this is mainly a ceremonial occasion, both noble Lords did not hesitate to deal with matters of substance. They did so in a spirit of common sense which was cordially appreciated by the whole House. If any observers from abroad were present on this occasion and listened to the Speech from the Throne and observed the character of the discussion to-day and of the speeches of two Labour members of your Lordships' House, I think they would have been somewhat surprised. They would have expected to find a Parliament harassed with anxiety, with its two major Parties engaged in a deadly struggle, the ancient Parliamentary machine almost at a standstill; and yet there is a King's Speech from the Throne dealing with such matters as the provision of cattle grids on highways, and the like. I think this would be regarded as a case of astonishing imperturbability—a typical example of le flegme Anglais. I read the other day, after the General Election, that the Italian Press had adopted an attitude which was described as "respectful bewilderment." The proceedings to-day will probably increase the bewilderment, but I hope not lessen the respect.

I take it that the character of the King's Speech may be regarded as an intimation from the Government that business is to be "maintained as usual during alterations." I think it not improbable that after the reconstruction is over and the scaffolding has been cleared away the alterations will be found to be not inconsiderable. That, however, is a matter rather for tomorrow's discussion than for to-day; therefore, I limit myself to joining in the congratulations which have already been offered to our two spokesmen for the admirable manner in which they have performed their duty.

3.50 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, it is very pleasing, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just said, that this House, in common with the nation, presents a spectacle of unanimity, so that although differences of opinion are not disguised, there is complete friendliness of discussion and no disturbance of any sort. As my noble friend who sits behind me and Lord Samuel have both said, this country has presented to the world a very remarkable demonstration of instructed democracy. I am sure it is right that this matter should not pass without comment in this House, and that comment, of course, applies to men of all Parties and of all sections. They have, I think, shown to the world during the last few weeks that somehow we in this country, with our strange insular peculiarities, can make democracy work. I am very glad to accept the Motion of the noble Marquess. It is in accordance with the practice which he himself originally suggested, and which I think is acceptable to the whole House, that we should have a little time to think over the Speech before we embark upon a detailed discussion of it.

I should like to join most heartily in what both noble Lords who have just spoken have said about my noble friends who have moved and seconded the Address. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, remarked, it cannot be said that they have failed to deal with very substantial matters—matters on which, I am sure, we shall be engaged in discussion several times during the coming weeks. They have dealt with them with great frankness. I was particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Crook referred to the increasing closeness of the consultations between this country and other members of the Commonwealth, and also that he emphasised the fact that more than 300,000 people have gone out from these islands to different parts of the Commonwealth since 1945. That means a great fortification of our interests and of our points of view in the Commonwealth. I am sure that every one of us here would like to think over what both Lord Crook and Lord Williams said about production and about incentives for workers. In particular, I would commend the reference which Lord Williams made to eases in which well organised, sensible co-operative consultation has been developed between the employers' and the workers' sides in different industries. I know that the results of the efforts made in some of these cases are exceedingly promising. One can only trust that the example which has thus been set will be widely followed.

I am not going to deal with what the noble Lord said with regard to food subsidies and bulk purchase. I am sure that further reference to these could lead us into, shall we say, controversial matters. For all that, I am glad that the noble Lord developed the point of view which he did as to the effect of food subsidies upon prices and upon other ingredients in our economic machine. I will not follow the noble Lords any further. I will merely say, for the information of the House, that I have already been notified that there will be a considerable number of speakers in the debate on the Address, and it is, therefore, very likely that the debate will occupy more than one day. Possibly other speakers will come forward between now and the close of our business, but even at the moment the list is rather a long one. I expect that it will be generally convenient to have a debate upon the Address in this way. We do not like to sit too late, and the debate will probably occupy both Tuesday and Wednesday. I have much pleasure in accepting the Motion of the noble Marquess.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.