Lords Sitting of 30 March 1950

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, owing to the temporary absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the Consolidated Fund Bill precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and of passing the Bill through its remaining stages.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

COLONIAL AND OTHER TERRITORIES (DIVORCE JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make special provision as respects matrimonial proceedings in certain courts outside the United Kingdom in cases of parties to the marriage domiciled in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
The Committee invited the Lord Great Chamberlain to attend their meetings.
2.—Sun-COMMITTEES.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed as follows:—The Earl of Ilchester, the Earl of Drogheda, the Viscount Mersey, the Viscount Simon, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Macmillan, the Lord Simonds, the Lord Lindsay of Birker, the Lord Badeley, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was reappointed as follows:—The Earl Fortescue, the Viscount Mersey, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Henderson, the Lord Badeley, with the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
3.—ACCOMMODATION—HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Committee reappointed the Sub-Committee consisting of the Lord Great Chamberlain or his deputy, the Leaders of the three parties in the House or deputies appointed by them, the Chairman of Committees and the Lord Badeley, with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, to consider matters dealing with the cleaning, renovation and seating in the Lords' Chamber after its vacation by the House of Commons. The Sub-Committee to have power to add to their numbers.
4.—LIBRARIAN.
The Committee sanctioned an extension of service, on a yearly basis, to Mr. Charles Travis Clay, C.B., the Librarian, from 30th July, 1950.
5.—APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL CLERK OF PUBLIC BILLS.
The Committee were informed that the Clerk of the Parliaments had appointed Mr. Henry Montagu Burrows as Principal Clerk of Public Bills in the place of Mr. Francis William Lascelles, C.B., M.C., from 1st January, 1950.
6.—APPOINTMENT OF A CHIEF CLERK.
The Committee were informed that the Clerk of the Parliaments had appointed Mr. Algernon Frederick Roland Dudley Ryder, ME., as Chief Clerk, Office of the Chairman of Committees, in the place of Mr. H. NI. Burrows from 1st January, 1950.
7.—SECRETARIAL ALLOWANCE.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of an annual allowance to the Clerical Assistant who acts as secretary to the Clerk of the Parliaments.
8.—APPOINTMENT OF REGISTRY CLERK.
The Committee authorised a new post on the staff of the Clerk of the Parliaments of a Registry Clerk. They approved the scale of salary for this post.
9.—REPAIRS TO MACE.
The Committee sanctioned a payment for repairs to the silver-gilt Charles II Mace.
10.—RETIREMENT OF CUSTODIAN.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Act. 1949. to William James Branson, an unestablished Custodian, on his retirement on 9th April, 1950.
11.—ESTIMATES, 1950–51.
The Committee agreed to a reduction asked for by His Majesty's Treasury in the estimate for Travelling Expenses of Peers.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything in this Report to which I need draw your attention, and I beg to move that the Report be now considered and agreed to.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) REGULATIONS, 1950
4.12 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 22nd instant, be agreed to. Normally, the Motion would be promoted in a formal fashion and would be put to your Lordships' House without comment, hut, as perhaps your Lordships will have seen, a number of noble Lords ace anxious to say a few words about the Regulations, and therefore it is desirable that at the outset I should briefly explain what they are.
It will be noticed that the Regulations concern England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. Almost entirely, the Regulations are the same, but there is one provision which applies to Scotland and not to England. Your Lordships may be interested to know what it is. Medical practitioners who practise in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have had made to them on retirement certain additional payments because of the character of their work and the heaviness of the duties involved. If, however, before retirement these medical practitioners removed from the area in which they had been practising, and
666
where they had gathered to themselves a credit for the future, they were liable, under the Regulations approved in 1948, to lose those extra payments.
It has been found that what seems at first sight to be a proper financial arrangement is not altogether beneficial either in the case of the Highlands or the Islands, and it is desirable, in the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that men who are approaching their retiring years should, from time to time, be urged to move from the area in which their practice has been and take lighter duties elsewhere. There have been difficulties about that in the past because on moving they would lose the extra payments to which I have just drawn your Lordships' attention. The credit of that medical practitioner will, under these Regulations, go with him into the new area, so that he does not lose. This may facilitate changes of practice and the employment of younger medical men for these difficult and widespread regions.
I do not think there is any other point in the Regulations which show a difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. The draft Regulations follow the Regulations which were adopted little more than two years ago. They have been brought forward by the Secretary of State in order to simplify and ease administration, and to reduce man-power, if that be possible. Sc far as these Regulations take that character of simplification and co-ordination, there is no point to which I need draw attention; I am sure your Lordships will consider that to be a desirable object to attain. The exception concerns any persons who, before the National Health Scheme came into operation, were in the employment of other authorities and were entitled under those authorities to superannuation benefit on retirement. When the National Health Service was brought into operation these persons were given an alternative: they were given three months in which they could opt into the national superannuation scheme or if taken therein could opt out. A substantial number of those formerly employed came into the national scheme, but a fairly large number remained outside. In introducing these draft Regulations to the Whitley Council, the Minister did not himself make any proposal in the matter. The suggestion that there should be a fresh period of option

667
came from the staff side. At first the Minister was rather reluctant to accept the suggestion because it meant considerable administrative change, but on further consideration he ultimately agreed, and now in the Regulations before the House there is a provision which will enable persons who have not yet come into the national superannuation scheme to opt into it within a short period of time. In accepting the proposal that came from the staff side, the Minister believes that, although at first there will be some slight administrative difficulty, in the long rain any increased membership will lead to simplification and the strengthening of the national superannuation scheme.
Since the Regulations were laid before your Lordships' House—indeed, just prior to the meeting of the Special Orders Committee last week—noble Lords who are members of the Special Orders Committee have received correspondence drawing attention to the proposal I have mentioned and asking that the reverse option should be given also—namely, that persons in the national superannuation scheme should be given the option of returning to the original scheme in which they were interested. The Minister has considered this matter and has reached the conclusion that he could not accept that proposal. I am authorised to say that even if the proposal had been made by the staff side through the Whitley Council, he would have been bound to refuse it, because if any large number of persons left the State scheme the effect would be serious. It would weaken the scheme financially, and fresh decisions would have to be taken to make up for the void that would be created. Perhaps I ought to add that the desire for the reverse option has not come from the Whitley Council, which is the body with which the Minister deals in matters of this kind; nor does it come from any of the functional boards working in connection with the Whitley Council. It has come from the Royal College of Nursing; and I believe that some noble Lords have received a letter from the Royal College of Midwives.
I hope your Lordships will believe that at this late stage it will be rather difficult, and even dangerous, to hold up these Regulations. It is desirable that the new Regulations should come into force at the
668
same time as the new financial year commences. After what I have said, my right honourable friend will be very glad to have the support of your Lordships in giving approval to these Regulations, leaving other matters to be dealt with on some future occasion.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 22nd instant, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
4.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, there is little doubt that these Regulations are of great importance to thousands of nurses and other officers in the National Health Service. I would draw your Lordships' attention particularly to draft Regulation 30 (8). This Regulation raises, among other things, the question of such officers as nurses, midwives and so on, exercising an option to enter the Health Service pension scheme. It is true that substantial improvements have been made in the Health Service superannuation scheme, but I think it can be said that they will have little beneficial effect for women. The fact is that the majority of women leave the Service for various reasons, such as marriage, and so on, and therefore would in any case forfeit their pension rights. I feel it is true to say that many of the nurses and midwives have only now had time to appreciate the possible advantages which they would have reaped had they stayed in the old federated scheme of pensions, which includes provision for retirement at the age of fifty instead of fifty-five.
I suggest, also, that there was inadequate prior consultation with all the representative bodies of the interests concerned; in fact, I believe only a short report was made to the staff side of the Whitley Council, and the implications of the Health Service Scheme were not stressed at all. Again, the Association of Occupational Therapists apparently at no time had before them a copy of the print of the revised draft Regulations, nor were many of the amendments of the 1950 draft Regulations brought to their attention, either directly or through the Whitley Council.
Our main objection to draft Regulation 30 (8) is that it does not provide any fresh option to transfer back to the federated scheme, whereas those officers who have stayed out of the Regulations

669
are now to be given another chance. I see no reason at all why it should be a one-way stream. By these Regulations His Majesty's Government are now allowing a period of six months in which the option to enter the Health Service pension scheme may be exercised. I should like to put it to the noble Lord who moved the Motion that this six-months' period is an indication that the previous three-months' period was all too short a time; in fact, the noble Lord said to-day that there are quite a large number of people who have been left outside. I would ask the noble Lord if he would agree to withdraw these Regulations for further consideration, so that an opportunity may be given for those health officers who may wish to do so to transfer back to the old federated scheme.
4.23 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I feel sure your Lordships will extend to me that kindness and indulgence which is always extended when a member first ventures to address your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships that. I should not have ventured to rise so early in my membership of this House were I not convinced of the importance of these Regulations to the overwhelming majority of the staff to whom they apply. As has already been explained, these Regulations arise out of the National Health Service Act, 1946. Regulations were issued in 1947, and those who were in pensionable positions had three months in which to decide whether or not they would opt out of the new scheme. I think it is true that a considerable number exercised that right. The Regulations were amended again in 1948, and in December last year the Minister further considered them in the light of experience, and submitted to the General Whitley Council, on which all sections of the staff are represented, proposals to amend and improve them. The staff side of the Whitley Council were so concerned at the improvements in the Regulations that they asked the Minister to give to those who had, so to speak, contracted out of the new Regulations, an option to reconsider their position. I would emphasise that the demand came from the staff side, and I understand it will apply to approximately 46,000 men and women.
In view of administrative difficulties, the Minister agreed to the proposal reluctantly. Now, if I may say so with due
670
respect, at the very last moment a spanner is thrown into the works and a claim is advanced that people who did not exercise their option should now have the right to opt out of the scheme. I am reminded of the story—and I venture to recount it to your Lordships—of a well-known alderman-chairman of a health committee in a Lancashire town. There was a proposal before the health committee that the city cemetery should be provided with a wall. The voting was equal, and the chairman had to give a casting vote. He deliberated for a considerable time, and then delivered himself of this judgment. He said: "I do not think we will build a wall round the cemetery—I do not think it is necessary. You see, those who are in cannot get out, and those who are out side don't want to get in."
We all have a tremendous admiration for nurses and midwives. I would not attempt to indicate the important part they play in our lives—that is known to us all. But to suggest that these highly-trained professional women were not able in three months carefully to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the old scheme as compared with the new and reach an opinion as to whether they would remain in it, is, in my view, not fair to the ladies concerned. I would submit this further.point to your Lordships. Obviously, if an option were given, it could not be given only to midwives and nurses—I am sure they would not desire such a position—but would have to be extended to all the men and women now employed in the Health Service. I understand over 140,000 would be involved. I feel sure your Lordships will agree that a problem of that kind would raise administrative difficulties which, quite rightly, the Minister is not prepared to face, particularly as these difficulties have apparently been brought about because of a concession which he has had pressed upon him by the staff side and to which he has acceded. Therefore, on behalf of the staff concerned, and arising out of my very long experience of superannuation problems—if I may say so with due humility—I would commend these Regulations to your Lordships as a fine code for the new Health Service which, when they are in operation, will be a happy augury for the well-being of that Service.
4.31 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I am sure that I shall be meeting the wishes of your Lordships if, in the first instance, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burden, upon his first contribution to our discussions. The way he has dealt with this matter shows that he is likely to take a reasonable view on other matters, though of course he may be a little biased on this question. The illustrations which he ventured to use in order to lighten his discourse had rather a gloomy aspect when they led us to the walls of the cemetery. But cemeteries have their lighter features, because when I was in Dublin I found in the middle of the cemetery the tomb and monument of a very distinguished physician. It had originally been erected opposite the hospital in which he had tried to serve suffering humanity. The inscription read: "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice."
In regard to the question before your Lordships, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who asked us to accept the Regulations, because it must lead to considerable confusion on the actuarial side if there is a shuttle back into a federated scheme in addition to a shuttle out of it now. I think the number likely to shuffle out of the old scheme into the national scheme will be the larger. If I show some sympathy with the noble Lord in his difficulties, and also with the Minister in his, I hope that he will have his withers wrung and will extend sympathetic consideration to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Your Lordships may have some difficulty in deciding on which side I am throwing my support. It is important for these individuals that they should have the opportunity finally to decide, but we must realise also that administrative matters like this should be dealt with by the constituted body, the Whitley Council, and not by sections of the Whitley Council and outside bodies after decision has been arrived at.
4.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say a few words in reply to the very fair debate which has taken place on my original Motion? First of all, I think your Lordships should realise the bait which may induce a certain number of the younger women to contract out if they
672
are given an opportunity. For instance, if a young woman in the State superannuation scheme marries and desires to retire from the Service, she is entitled to take out her own contributions plus interest thereon. But if, before coming into the State scheme, she had been a member of another scheme—one relating, perhaps, to an insurance company—then on marrying and giving, up her duties and service she can take, in addition to her own contributions and interest, the contributions paid into her account by her employers. It will be realised at once that any State scheme could not operate on that basis. I am sure that the taxpayers' money needs careful handling at this moment, and we should all be reluctant to pay out more than we are in duty bound to pay to a person who is leaving the Service in this way.
It would be wrong, however, to assume that all the benefits are on one side. If, for instance, a nurse in the course of her duty contracts a complaint arising out of her duty and she has to leave the Service then, under the State scheme, if her complaint is permanent she is entitled to draw up to two-thirds of the pension she would receive in later life. Now that seems to me to be a point to put against the benefits likely to be obtained by young women who are going to marry and who are outside the scheme at this moment.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was not quite fair to the Minister. There has been no lack of energy or interest on the part of the Minister in this regard. In December he announced that there would be draft Regulations. They were circulated, and they were considered by the workers' side of the Whitley Council. It was not until mid-January that the Minister became acquainted with the desire of the workers' side that this one-way option should be adopted. We are now only at the end of March. Other matters have had to be considered in relation to it, and I do not think anyone can be accused of dereliction of duty in the matter. The Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing who wrote a letter to the noble Lord complaining that she had only just seen a copy of the proposals, is herself a member of the Whitley Council. It is hardly conceivable that in her membership of this Council—which I understand she attends regularly—she should

673
be entirely ignorant of what has transpired. Moreover, the same lady is secretary of the functional board associated with the Whitley Council for midwives and nurses, and copies of the new proposals were despatched to those functional councils directly they were available. Therefore, she must have been aware at that time of what had transpired.
But even if she was not aware of it, we cannot accuse the Minister of delaying matters in respect of this case because the Whitley Council is constituted in this way. There is the employers' side, which deals with all the units for which it is responsible, and there is also a workers' side, working together almost in a corporate capacity with a full-time secretary to look after its business. It is the normal custom for the Minister to approach all organisations responsible for civil servants in matters like that under discussion by way of the Whitley Council, and then through the officers of the staff side to their respective members. Therefore, if there has been any delay or fault—and I am not saying that there has—it is certainly not to be laid at the door of the Minister of Health.
We have always realised, as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson and the noble Lord have indicated, that there may be hard cases, and therefore, I am prepared to give the following undertaking. If the House will pass these Regulations to-day I will undertake to ask the Minister to have these complaints investigated—that is to say, that hardship is being caused to those who have had insufficient opportunity to exercise the original option. The Minister has found ways and means of dealing with the few cases which have been brought to his notice in the past, and I have no doubt that he will be able to continue to do so if others are now brought to him. I hope that on that assurance, and with the background I have given, your Lordships will feel that these Regulations can be approved.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is trying to meet the point that has been raised, but I should have thought that the phrase "undertake to ask the Minister" was not quite strong enough. But if the intention is that the Minister will look into hard cases in the future as he has done in the past I think that might meet the position. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will
674
ask the Minister in any event, but I hope he will be able to say more than he has done. That would, I think, satisfy us.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can make that promise. The noble Lord will have noticed that I read from my brief the undertaking that I am proposing, so that I have no difficulty in agreeing to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD TEYNHAM: I thank the noble Lord for that concession. I have been advised that in one or two cases nurses exercising the necessary option were finding difficulty in coming to a conclusion.
LORD SHEPHERD: At the time when the Regulations were originally put into operation the Minister made arrangements within the period of three months to bring the requirements of the changed circumstances to the attention of all concerned. A book entitled The Superannuation Scheme of the National Health Service was issued, giving details to all members employed in the hospitals of the new requirements. In addition, there was a leaflet which deals entirely with this question of opting in and opting out. As the noble Lord will appreciate, when we are dealing with large numbers of people—in this case almost 300,000–there are some dilatory ones among them who will take no action until the last minute. We are now giving the extended period of six months, not because the previous period of three months was too short but because we are now on the verge of publication following your Lordships' decision and therefore give the extra time in order to meet the shortness of preliminary notice,
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTAS) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1950
4.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, March 22, be approved. In putting this Order before your Lordships, may I first express the regret I feel at the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton? To

675
discuss films in your Lordships' House in the absence of the noble Viscount is rather like attempting to play Hamlet without the Prince. But I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is going to act as his stand-in this afternoon, and that, in some degree, mitigates our loss.
It is now twelve months since I last troubled your Lordships with this rather controversial question of film quotas. Perhaps I should explain that the Cinematograph Films Act of 1948 makes it obligatory for the Board of Trade to present an Order to your Lordships for approval six months before the quota period is due to begin, so as to give the industry notice of their impending liability. The present Order amends the previous Order which was approved in March, 1949, by reducing the quota of first-feature films from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. The quota for the supporting programme remains unchanged. The simple and sad fact is that the reason why I have to come before your Lordships this afternoon to ask for a reduction in this quota is that there will not be sufficient British films produced in the quota period starting on October 1 next of sufficient quality to enable the higher quota to be fulfilled.
The 1948 Act provides that the Board of Trade shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council and consider their advice in the matter before presenting an Order. Noble Lords will understand that I speak on this subject with some diffidence in the presence of the Chairman of the Films Council, my noble friend Lord Drogheda. In previous years I had to confess that the Films Council were sharply divided in the recommendations they had made. I remember that last year the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, wanted to know how the representatives on the Council had voted. This year they have achieved a measure of unanimity, for a very large majority recommended the 30 per cent. quota. I think it will be as well if I follow precedent and tell your Lordships how the various sections of the industry voted on this matter. Those in favour of the new quota were the representatives of the producers, distributors and exhibitors, and the three independent members who were present. Those against were the members of the Association of Cine-technicians and the Electrical
676
Trades Union. The abstentions were the representative of the National Association of Theatrical and Kine Employees (another trade union) and the Chairman of the Council.
Perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I were now to ask my noble friend to move the adjournment for the Royal Commission, and I will finish my remarks afterwards.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I think it would be for your convenience if we adjourned during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.0 p.m.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:
Consolidated Fund.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTAS) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1950
5.12 p.m.
Debate resumed,
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I had arrived at the point of telling your Lordships that upon this occasion the Films Council had managed to come to a majority decision, and I had just explained how the Films Council had voted. The Films Council reached the decision to recommend this new quota after they had considered a statement prepared by the British Films Producers' Association that there might be between 106 and 108 new British films produced during the quota period. But the Films Council, showing a marked degree of prudence and taking into consideration the traditional optimism of the film industry, knocked these figures down to between fifty and sixty, because they thought they might be realised. So upon that anticipated realisation they came to the decision that a quota of 30 per cent. might be more nearly the right figure.
Perhaps I should explain that in the distribution of first-feature films there are

677
three main exhibiting circuits—Odeon, Gaumont-British, and A.B.C. It is necessary for these big circuits, and for the other large cinemas which are liable to a full quota rate, to have one first feature film every week. We must therefore have 156 first-feature films—British or American—to fill the quota. 'This means that if we can realise a production of between fifty and sixty it w ill give us some little elbow room—something in the nature of twelve films—room for what noble Lords opposite would call "freedom of choice." For the current quota year, the quota was 40 per cent., requiring a minimum of sixty-three films. Probably about seventy will be produced, and that, of course, will give a margin such as we all want.
The fixing of the quota is a rather delicate business. We are always on the horns of a dilemma. First of all, its object, as noble Lords know, is to provide some incentive to British production, and the problem always is whether to fix a quota at a level which can be comfortably reached by all the cinemas to which it will apply, or whether it should be fixed at a level which will really be effective for the bigger and more lucrative cinemas which are of most importance financially to the British producer. I do not think I need waste your Lordships' time by saying anything about the question of defaults.
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will be interested to note that, under the new Act, reductions in the quota can be granted when certain conditions are fulfilled. It may be reduced on a sliding scale between 10 and 40 per cent. A reduction may also be made in the case of those who cannot fulfil the quota obligations owing to circumstances beyond their control. In the first period we granted reductions to 1,473 cinemas. In exceptional circumstances there are total exemptions. There are, broadly, two conditions: they have to show first that they have two near competitors, and secondly that their turnover or box office takings do not exceed £100 per week, This year 1,522 were granted reductions, and there were 228 exemptions. Although I have not the figures for the present quota period, because it will not finish until the end of September, I think that the figures will be roughly the same.
678
I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the question of the supporting programme quota, but I should like to say one or two words about the general position and prospects of British production. I have to admit that the industry is not in an altogether healthy position. I sometimes smile to myself when noble Lords opposite chide noble Lords on this side of the House about the losses of nationalised industries and hold up various industries as being the acme of perfection under private enterprise. I have never heard noble Lords opposite hold up the British film industry as a shining example. I think that we must admit that it is the skeleton in the private enterprise cupboard. The reason I think is that there have not yet been produced enough good directors and enough good script writers to reach a really high standard. Certainly there are always outstanding exceptions. I am told—though I confess that I cannot speak from personal experience, because I never go to see films—
A NOBLE LORD: You ought to go.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am told that The Third Man was an excellent film. The wretched tune which is featured in it I do know. It is played incessantly in my house by members of my young family who are keen filmgoers but, if that tune is any guide to the film, then I do not want to see it. However, I understand that The Third Man is very good. I gather that the outstanding British production—I expect that Lord Lloyd knows all about it—is The Blue Lamp. That, I am told, is first-class, and all noble Lords who are interested in the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised in your Lordships' House the other day should go to see it.
The two things of which the industry is woefully short are good directors and good script writers. The third thing, I must admit, is finance. It has not attracted finance, but we have been able to do something about it. When I tell you that the National Film Finance Corporation have been in a large measure responsible for financing 50 per cent. of the films produced I think that your Lordships will agree that a considerable degree of encouragement has been given by His Majesty's Government. We shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter in detail, because the first annual

679
report of the Film Finance Corporation will be published, I hope, before the end of April. That report must be presented to Parliament, and I have not the slightest doubt that your Lordships will seize the opportunity of debating the whole question of the British film industry.
I have called attention to the broad position. I have told your Lordships that we shall not be able to have a higher quota than this. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is going to tell me, "We told you so"—I am prepared for it—and I know that he is going to do it in the charming manner which he always displays. I should like to make this suggestion to the British film industry. What it must realise is that the British public are becoming more selective—and rightly so. I am beginning to wonder whether the sex and crime-ridden cinema advertisements which despoil our papers and our hoardings do not repell more decent-minded citizens than the adolescents they attract into the cinemas. If the industry will overhaul its salesmanship a little, and cease to think that vice and lewd advertisements attract the British public, they may be able to increase their receipts. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 22nd instant, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, we are once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his clear explanation of the situation which confronts us and which we had to discuss on finding this Order laid on the Table of the House. There is not a great deal of time before this Order has to be passed. Last year, a similar Order was laid on the very last day possible to avoid chaos in the film industry. This year, we have one day's grace, and we must be thankful for small mercies. We are grateful to the noble Lord for the clear picture that he has put in front of us this afternoon. I join with him in regretting the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who has had a long experience of the film industry and of the work of the various Cinematograph Films Acts. My noble friend is disappointed that he is unable to be here this afternoon, but as the noble Lord knows he had an engagement which he was unable to put
680
off. He will be consoled when he hears that there will be an opportunity of debating the whole state of the film industry on the report which the noble Lord was good enough to mention. I think we shall wish to take advantage of that suggestion.
This afternoon I do not propose to deal widely or at great length with the industry as a whole—for two reasons: first, because the Order deals only with quotas, and although the rules of order in this House are wide, there are certain limits; and, secondly, because on looking up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate a year ago, I find that my noble friend, Lord Swinton, forecast very accurately what would happen if the Government insisted on keeping the quota for first-feature films at 40 per cent., and I can save your Lordships' time by recommending to your Lordships, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, my noble friend's speech of last year. I shall not deal with the questions of sex and crime, important though they are and although I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. A great deal of clearing-up has to be done, but for the moment I am going to confine myself to the clearing-up which I think is necessary because the Government fixed too high a quota last year.
My noble friend, Lord Swinton, said in last year's debate that he would have thought after the recent experience which the Government had had of a 45 per cent. quota the Board of Trade would decide to fix a lower figure, which would carry the good will of exhibitors and encourage the production of good films. My noble friend said he hoped that the Board of Trade would learn from experience and be more realistic. It looks as though that hope has been fulfilled, and that, not for the first time, my noble friend has been right. The noble Lord opposite anticipated that, and I gave him notice that I was going to point the moral. On the last occasion, as the noble Lord told us, the Cinematograph Films Council, recommended (though I know the majority was not a big one) a 33⅓ per cent. quota—and after all, one would have thought it was their recommendation that mattered and not the reasons for making it. This time, they have been much more unanimous. I think it can be fairly said that the only dissentients were the trade union group.

681
I should be the last person to say that I do not sympathise with the attitude of the trade unions in the film industry. Everyone wants to see a state of full employment there, as everywhere else, but if full employment in the film industry has been bought—which I very much doubt—it has been bought very dearly. The 40 per cent. quota has caused an inrush of unqualified people. At the present moment, the bottleneck is not the sort of labour which is collected in the trade unions; it is not even finance, as I shall try to explain in a moment; but it is a shortage which cannot be overcome in a hurry, one to which the noble Lord referred—namely, the shortage of producers, directors, script writers and all those people whom one might call the artistic class of technician. These are born not made, and no amount of money poured into the film industry, no amount of union labour waiting at the door, can possibly increase the supply of the artistic class of technician. Until that supply is increased the only result of trying to increase the quota will be to produce a larger number of thoroughly bad films which disgust the film-going, public and harm the reputation of British films overseas.
I am afraid that that is what has happened as the result of fixing the film quota too high, against the advice of my noble friends on these Benches. But at last we are learning the lesson: that when we are dealing with a commercial matter, such as film production must be if it is to be properly handled, we have to take decisions for commercial reasons. If we try to bring in any extraneous reasons—and I think that a number were in the minds of the Government when they fixed the quota at 40 per cent.—then disaster will follow. We have now got down to a figure, I think the noble Lord said, of fifty-three or fifty-four first-feature films.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: About fifty-five to sixty.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: A figure of between 106 and 108 was quoted. That I am glad to say has been debunked. My information is that that figure of fifty-five to sixty—or, to put it another way, one first-feature film coming from one studio or another every week—is about right, and is in fact attainable if we maintain a proper standard of production, direction, script writing and everything else. That
682
is the bottleneck. I think we can fairly look forward to the production of proper quality films at that level. I do not think that finance is the bottleneck. Most of the money in the Film Finance Corporation has, I believe, been used, and the noble Lord opposite said a word or two about it. He said that they were responsible for the finance of about 50 per cent. of the films produced.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: For helping to finance.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: For financing in some degree or other, I take it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I will not pursue that point further now, because as I have said we should like to come back to that later. However, it occurs to me to wonder among how many real customers that finance was distributed. I will, so to speak, give notice of that question to the noble Lord, and we will come back to it in the debate on the report.
We are now left in the film industry with the business of getting rid of a certain number of the duds—the "spivs" and people of that sort—who flocked into the industry when the time came for it to deal with a bigger quota than it could reasonably be expected to cope with. The first step now will be to restore a proper standard among those engaged in the industry, and on all sides of the House we wish them every possible good luck in that undertaking. It is the first fence to surmount, and until we have accomplished that there is no real hope that the industry will put itself right. The noble Lord cast a fly about private enterprise, and said (as I understood him) that we should not lake the film industry as a conspicuous example of profit making. That may be so, and I will not contest it. But what I would say is that it was very largely due to the action of the Government in messing up the industry by prescribing too big a quota which made it so difficult for those engaged in the industry to run their show properly. I do not think the question of profit making in the film industry will bear a lot of examination.

683
We feel that a right decision has been taken this year. We are sorry that it was not taken last year, because if it had been a certain number of difficulties which have arisen would not now have to be overcome. But that is no reason why we should not express our approval of the quota figure in this Order, and our sincere hope that it will be possible for the film industry to fulfil that quota and restore a 'proper standard in British film production.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, in view of what has, been said by the two previous speakers, and of the large amount of business still before the House, I will be very brief. I entirely agree with everything that my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Bridgeman have said. It is a fact that for once in our history—almost for the first time—the Films Council were practically unanimous on this question of quota: almost everyone voted for 30 per cent. If I myself abstained, it was not because I thought the quota was being fixed too low, but because I was afraid it might be rather too high, and I would have preferred to fix a quota of 25 per cent. However, I hope that it will be possible to live up to the 30 per cent.
One of the disadvantages of having a high quota that has not been touched upon to-day is that it causes a large number of defaults. I cannot help feeling that it is bad legislation to have an Act which says that you must do this and that, and then to have a great many defaulters, whom in practice it is difficult to prosecute, because it is necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the defaults are not due to circumstances beyond the control of the exhibitors. I feel (I said this last year) that no greater disservice could be done to the British film industry than to compel, if we could, the showing of a large number of indifferent films. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned The Third Man and The Blue Lamp, which are two outstanding films. Our difficulties will be solved if we can produce anything like a large number of films of that quality, because we shall not then need a quota—the British public will demand to see British films. I hope that eventually we shall come to the position
684
that there are so many good British films made that the quota will be unnecessary. I am quite sure that finance is not the main difficulty at the moment, and that we should not gain by creating numbers of films rather than good-quality films. What we want, above all, is to encourage the production of good British films. I thoroughly commend this Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEWFOUNDLAND (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
5.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD HOLDEN): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I am happy to inform the House that it is non-contentious in character and entirely of a technical nature. Nevertheless, I feel your Lordships would wish me to explain in a few sentences what are the provisions of this measure. At the time of the union of Newfoundland with Canada, on April 1, 1949, there were in existence a large number of United Kingdom Acts which contained references, express or implicit, to Newfoundland. These either are no longer appropriate or are superfluous now that Newfoundland has become a Province of Canada. The object of this Bill is solely to make the necessary amendments to United Kingdom legislation. The Bill is, consequently, purely a tidying-up measure, if I may be allowed to use that phrase. As will be realised, the task of examining United Kingdom legislation to ensure that, so far as possible, all necessary amendments were made, occupied some time. It was necessary to consult not only other Government Departments but also the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland. For this reason, and also owing to the dissolution of Parliament, it has not been possible to present this Bill earlier.
Clauses 1 and 2 carry out the main objectives of the Bill. It has also been considered wise to allow for the possibility of errors or omissions in the Schedule to the Bill, which details the United Kingdom Acts affected.

685
Consequently, the Bill contains Clause 3 to permit of amendments being made by Order in Council. The object of this clause is, of course, to avoid the necessity of amending the Act should any such errors or omissions be found. Any Order in Council will have to be laid in draft before Parliament. I can give a fuller explanation of the clauses of this Bill if your Lordships so desire, but I think it is probable that you may not think it necessary. Therefore I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2–.a (Lord Holden.)
5.41 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, so far as we on these Benches are concerned, we have no objection to this measure. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he moved the Second Reading, which is, I believe, the first he has moved in this House. There is certainly nothing contentious in this Bill. The only part which might be contentious is the subsection which the noble Lord has explained to us. It is subsection (1) of Clause 3, and it is the kind of subsection which one always looks upon with suspicion. It says:
"His Majesty may by Order in Council make such further adaptations in any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed before this Act, or in any instrument having effect under such Act, as appear to him necessary in consequence of Newfoundland's becoming part of Canada."
One is always a little suspicious about an umbrella-like power to make Orders in Council. However, the noble Lord need not be worried, because subsection (2) still leaves it in our hands to object to the draft of any such Order should it go beyond what I have no doubt are the noble Lord's intentions. With those words, may I say that this Bill can go forward with our blessing?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.43 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 Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Certification in England and Scotland of midwives trained outside the United Kingdom]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment, together with the next two Amendments, is drafting, in order to correct an omission to translate the reference to, the Midwives Act, 1902, into a reference to the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, at end insert ("the Midwives Act, 1902").—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I have no objection to this Amendment, and all I would say is that I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, with us again. Last time we were discussing the Midwives Bill we tried to obtain the figures for Scotland. They were not available, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that we could have them on this occasion. I do not know whether it is appropriate, when considering an Amendment which deals with Scotland, for the noble Lord to give us those figures.
LORD SHEPHERD: The figures will be supplied later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, after ("Secretary of State") insert ("the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915") and insert ("the said Act of 1915").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Rules as to midwives' uniforms
6.—(1) The power of the Central Midwives Board under section three of the Midwives Act, 1902, to frame rules shall include power to frame rules with respect to the uniform which may be worn by midwives.
5.47 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved to add to subsection (1)
"and which they shall have the right to wear should they so desire."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may think that I have some temerity in rising to address your Lordships about ladies' dress, but this is hardly to be described as a dress: it is a uniform. I should like your Lordships to consider carefully whether it would not be wise to insert in the Bill some provision by which these nurses and midwives, who have striven for a generation for the right to wear a uniform, and the exclusive right to wear that uniform, shall not be prevented from wearing it by some regulation of a local health authority. It is generally agreed that it is desirable that a nurse or midwife should have a uniform which is exclusive, so that it cannot be plagiarised by anybody without committing a misdemeanour. Many nurses who have been deprived of the right to wear a national uniform feel that they are aggrieved, and I have had representations made to me that in the case of midwives we should try to ensure that they still have the right to wear the national uniform should they so desire it, even though they are in the employment of a local health authority.
It may be cited that a nurse who joins the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force must wear the uniform of that Force. But that is a national uniform, and what they are being asked in many places to substitute for the national uniform of their profession is a local uniform. Moreover, that local uniform is supplied by the county council. I understand that it costs in each case about £70. It remains the property of the county council, which implies that they are going to use it again if the midwife departs and another one comes. It is not a very pleasing prospect to step into a second-hand uniform. Moreover, each county council may have a different uniform, and in some counties they have put all their domiciliary staff into uniform with only a badge to distinguish between the uniform of a State registered nurse, a State registered midwife, a health visitor, a home help and so on. I feel that these ladies have the right to your Lordships' support, and that is why I have proposed the Amendment. I hope it will receive a
688
good measure of support from your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
LORD SHEPHERD: The clause which the noble Lord seeks to amend is similar in all respects to that contained in the Nurses Act of a year ago. If the clause were to be amended as desired by the noble Lord, the conditions under which the midwives would be wearing uniforms would be different from those which apply to nurses. The noble Lord said that he did not wish the regulations of any local authority to prevent the wearing of the official uniform provided by the Central Midwives Board. It is something more than regulations with which we have to deal. The use and the provision of uniforms is a matter of negotiation between the organisations representing nurses and midwives and other persons who are called upon to wear them, and the local authority or other body concerned. The noble Lord in this Amendment is suggesting that, without any consultation, indeed without any official discussion with the organisations with which nurses and midwives are concerned, the local authorities, Parliament should provide an over-riding authority to nurses to wear something different from that provided in the conditions under which they are employed.
The present position as regards the uniforms was introduced by the Rushcliffe Committee; and, as your Lordships know, Lord Rushcliffe stood very high in the regard of this House by virtue of his association with the Health Services, and in particular with nursing. This was the Rushcliffe Committee's recommendation, and under it local authorities and other persons are now working:
"Whilst it must be left to the employing authority to say what uniform is required to be worn by domiciliary midwives, the authorities must provide any such uniform, paying full cost."
So that what the noble Lord is really proposing here is this: the responsibility for providing the uniforms, and the cost involved in providing them, should rest on the local authority; but that it should be left to another body, the Central Midwives Board, to indicate to those local authorities what their midwives should or should not wear.

689
When the noble Lord mentioned this to me first, I felt that he had a right to raise a question of this kind, especially if he has been approached by nurses and other persons concerned. But I did hope that he would be persuaded not to press this Amendment to-day, in view of the circumstances which I have related. His proposal is not that all nurses should wear a uniform prescribed by a national body; it refers only to midwives. He is, therefore, seeking a decision which is only a partial one. I have been unable to obtain from the Minister an indication that there would be an immediate occasion on which the noble Lord could raise the matter in general. The Minister, however, has assured me that this subject is really one for the Whitley Council. If it were brought before the Whitley Council, it could not only be fully discussed and dealt with by the Minister, but the nurses, the midwives, the sick visitors and the like would, through the machinery of the Whitley Council, be able to frame their own proposals and endeavour to get a joint settlement. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press this Amendment to-clay, but should consider the point I have just made and advise his friends that the course I have suggested would be the best. In the circumstances, I am sure that that would be the proper course to pursue.
5.55 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have listened quite impartially to what the noble Lords, Lord Webb-Johnson and Lord Shepherd, have said. I must say that if the course suggested by Lord Shepherd is followed, I think this Bill is going to make nonsense of itself. In Clause 6 as at present drafted we extend the power of the Central Midwives Board to frame rules, including the power to frame rules with respect to the uniform which may be worn by widwives. From that, I presume that the Central Midwives' Board may prescribe a uniform. It must be a uniform for midwives recognised by the Central Midwives Board. According to Lord Shepherd, if that is done any local authority employing midwives may say, "We care nothing for this uniform prescribed under the Act by the Central Midwives Board; we are prescribing our own." That is going to be the position as outlined by Lord Shepherd. What, therefore, is the good
690
of giving the central body power to prescribe the uniform, if any employing authority may say, "So far as our midwives are concerned, they shall not wear it, and we will not supply it"? That, surely, is an absurd position.
Lord Webb-Johnson's Amendment is quite a simple one. It goes on to say merely that once this uniform has been prescribed, these midwives shall have the right to wear it, should they so desire. I do not see why they should not have that right. After all, what is the use of giving the power to the Central Board to prescribe a uniform and then allowing any employing authority to prescribe any other they like? There might well be a case where the Central Midwives Board prescribed an appropriate uniform and not a single employing authority would provide it That would be a "wash-out" and an absurd thing to happen. I consider that all over the country midwives should have a recognised uniform—and one far better than the dress of the midwives who used to he pictured in the last century, going round with an umbrella and a bag containing various appliances. Now that we want to give midwives a status, it should be recognised, wherever they are, by this uniform. Then, if they are transferred from one county to another, as they may well be, they can wear the same uniform. Surely this would be better than for the various county councils to prescribe a different uniform which would have to be handed in if the midwife left the county, and handed out as a second-hand uniform to the person taking her place. That would be rather a mean attitude towards people who do this extremely vital and important work.
I had hoped that we should have had something much more forthcoming from Lord Shepherd. He gave us an undertaking during the Second Reading of this Bill that he would look into this matter. I thought then that he would be able to come forward at the Committee stage and say "We are giving the power to the Central Midwives Board to prescribe this uniform and, at the same time, we are giving the midwives the right to wear it should they so desire." I am most disappointed, and I think Lord Webb-Johnson is right in the Amendment he has put down.
LORD SHEPHERD: As I indicated, the clause is exactly the same as that with which we dealt last year in respect of nurses. If all the forebodings of the noble Lords have any reality about them one would have expected that since that time they would have arisen in the case of the nurses' uniforms, but, so far as I am aware, no question has been raised at all. What I have suggested is that the noble Lord should withdraw the Amendment to-day and that those interested who have been in touch with him should take the course of proceeding through the Whitley Council. I say that for the very reason that the clause is worded in the way that it is. This clause gives power to the Central Midwives Board to frame rules. It does not say that it may or it must provide a uniform; it says simply that it may frame rules. The rules will in due course have to come before both Houses of Parliament for approval. Obviously, in connection with rules of this character, discussions and negotiations take place, and the proper venue for such discussions is not on the floor of this House, prompted by individuals, but amongst the official organisations of the nurses and midwives concerned. I suggest to the noble Lord that, if he will consider that point for a moment, he will come to the conclusion that I have been rather forthcoming. Although I can give no promise that there will be an immediate opportunity provided by the Minister, I have suggested the course that has been mentioned to me—namely, the course that is always open and by which all kinds of nurses can raise their common problems for joint settlement.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I do not know whether it is intended to press this Amendment to a Division. If not, I need not take up your Lordships' time when there is another debate to come after this. But, if there is any possibility that there may be a Division, I think I ought to say a word or two in deprecation of that course. I submit to your Lordships that this is not a matter about which this Committee, after a debate such as we have had, can come easily to a conclusion. If the detail of the many considerations on the one side or the other had been examined first by a Committee of your Lordships' House, hearing various parties and being able to report and to advise the House,
692
well and good; but that has not been done. We have heard contrary views expressed this afternoon. I think that any one of your Lordships who is not familiar with the details of the case would find it difficult to say at the moment which way he ought to give his vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that as it stood this clause made nonsense and would not work. On the other hand, the spokesman of the Government says that it merely applies to midwives what is already the law in precisely the same terms with regard to nurses. If that is so, how is it that the Nurses Act has not been made nonsense of in the same way? Prima facie one would imagine that, if this House and another place legislated in certain terms last year or recently with regard to nurses, when a precisely similar case comes forward with regard to midwives they would not wish to act inconsistently in the one case as compared with the other. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in charge of the Bill has said that in the normal course this is the kind of subject which would be referred to the Whitley Council, in which both the employing authorities and the nurses and midwives could have their views expressed and considered. I confess that for my own part it would seem better that the Committee should leave the matter to be dealt with by the machinery already provided rather than this afternoon, merely on the strength of the debate that we have had, come in deus ex machine and decide this matter offhand without sufficient information 'to justify our doing so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This seems to be a very simple point which does not need a great deal of investigation by a Committee hearing evidence. If you give power to the 'Midwives Board to prescribe a rule setting forth what a midwife's uniform is, will that midwife afterwards have the right to wear it or will she not? It is a very simple point that we are discussing. I should have thought it did not need much intricate knowledge of the subject. I am always with noble Lords opposite when they go back to tradition. They say that because this matter was not in the Nurses Act therefore it may be wrong to put it into the Midwives Bill. I should have thought that this was not one of the matters that was best left for discussion by the

693
Whitley Council. It is true that they go into conditions of pay, working hours and conditions of service, but I do not know that they have any power to tell any council—
LORD SHEPHERD: Will the noble Lord not appreciate this point: that amongst the terms of service, including salaries, hours of work and conditions of employment, the uniform is part of the bargain made by the local authority with the nurses? It is not a small matter. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, in my hearing indicated that the cost of a nurse's new uniform in these days is in the region of £70. You have only to total that up in the light of the number of nurses and midwives employed to realise that quite a large sum of money is involved. I would plead with the noble Lord to accept the advice that we have given and allow this matter to go before the Whitley Council, instead of deciding it in this Committee over the heads of the local authorities.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I finish what I was saying? So far as I can see, the Bill gives the midwives concerned only the right to wear the uniform. It does not enforce the financial obligation on the employing authority to provide it—that may well be a matter for the Whitley Council—but it does give the nurse the right to say: "If I want to wear the uniform of my calling, then I can wear the prescribed uniform." It does not necessarily say that the employing authority have to pay for it. I agree that that is a matter to be decided on the Whitley Council.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: Naturally, I give sympathetic attention to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I understand his difficulties, but I feel that I should be as justified in pressing him to accept my Amendment as he feels in pressing me to withdraw it. I feel that, if there is a
future discussion on the whole general question, the position of myself and my friends will be stronger if it is already on the Statute Book that midwives shall have this permission. It is only permissive that she shall be allowed to wear it should she so desire. In regard to the nurses, also, I should like to inform your Lordships that this is raised because of the experience of the nurses in finding that, although after a struggle for a generation they obtained a national uniform, many of there employed under local authorities are not allowed to wear it. They have to wear the local uniform. In regard to the expense, that is already accepted by those local health authorities, the county councils. When they ordain a uniform they pay the cost of it. They could easily save expense by giving a uniform allowance. As a nurse or midwife arrives under their employment, she will arrive already equipped and will have only an allowance for maintenance. I feel that I must persist in my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Does the noble Lord contemplate that within the same town there should be some widwives wearing one uniform, the national uniform, and others wearing the local uniform?
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I envisage the possibility that the noble Viscount has put before us; but there would still be a recognisable badge of office, though in order to recognise a midwife in the local authority uniform the inquiring person, at any rate at my stage of life, would have to put on his glasses and gaze at some part of her torso to ascertain whether she was a midwife, a nurse, a health visitor, a home help, or what you will.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted:
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-contents, 14.

CONTENTS

Salisbury, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hawke, L.

Brocket, L.

Hindlip, L.

Bathurst, E.

Broughshane, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Clydesmuir, L.

Llewellin, L.

De La Warr, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

St. Just, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Sempill, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gifford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Long, V.

Hampton, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Holden, L.

Burden, L.

Kershaw, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Chorley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stansgate, V.

Darwen, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Adams, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
6.18 p.m.
Clause 7 [Information as to midwives]:
LORD SHEPHERD: This is really a drafting Amendment, although it affects a rather important point. Under the Bill midwives who gave notice to practise during the month of January, 1950, would not be registered at all; so we are extending the period to thirteen months in order to enable that to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, at end insert:
("Provided that, in relation to the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one, this subsection shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to twelve months of a reference to thirteen months.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: There is no objection whatsoever to this. If it had not included January, of course, it would have been a straight twelve months every time.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Allowances to members of the Boards
".—(1) The Central Midwives Board may pay to the members thereof sums (to be calculated in accordance with directions to be given by the Minister) in respect of any loss of earnings they would otherwise have made or any additional expenses (including travelling and subsistence expenses) to which they would not otherwise have been subject, being loss or expenses necessarily suffered or incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to perform duties as members of that Board.
(2) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution, for references to the Central Midwives Board and the Minister, of references respectively to the Central Midwives Board for Scotland and the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: This clause is similar to that which appeared in the Nurses Act last year. It is to enable loss of
696
earnings to be met, together with any additions to normal travelling and other expenses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD MORRISON: Like the last three Amendments that I moved, this Amendment is drafting. Before I move it perhaps the Committee would permit me to answer the question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, as to the figures for Scotland. In so far as I have been able to ascertain any figures, they show that there are 19,000 midwives on the Scottish roll. Of that total 2,400 are practising, 750 being employed in hospitals and 1,350 by local authorities. That is the best information I have been able to get. This Amendment, as I have said, is drafting. The first part of it repeals a provision in the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, which is now replaced by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the First Schedule. The second part of the Amendment repeals a provision in the 1915 Act, which will be replaced by the proposed new clause after Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, column 3, at beginning insert ("in section three, the words from 'the Board may act' to 'from their own number' and the words from 'and the members shall be paid' to the end of the section.")—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for having obtained those figures. I believe that my noble friend beside me is doing a quick calculation and is working out that Scotland has its fair proportion of midwives.
LORD SHEPHERD: The last Amendment is consequential on the adoption of the new clause following Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 22, column 3, at end insert ("Section four.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

THE COLOMBO CONFERENCE
6.23 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON rose to call attention to the handling by His Majesty's Government of questions before the Colombo Conference; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name may I say that I realise that the hour is late and it is necessary for me to be as brief as possible. I trust therefore that if, by reason of the brevity with which I treat this subject, I appear to be somewhat curt in some of the questions I ask, it will be understood that I am not treating either the subject or the Government with a discourtesy which is not merited.
I should like to start by saying that I have no wish to decry the value of the Colombo Conference or its achievements. But I suggest that its values have been distorted somewhat by the statements made by the right honourable gentlemen, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If one observed merely what they have said about the results of the Conference one might carry away a false impression of the actual practical results achieved. I suggest that the great achievement of that Conference was the establishment of good will through the representatives of the various members of the Commonwealth talking to each other about the various problems confronting them. I further suggest that nothing practical resulted from the Conference in the way of action which is urgently needed.
I should like next to refer the subjects which, according to the Central Office of Information Commonwealth Survey, the Conference discussed. It is said that the Conference
698
"comprehensively reviewed the current economic and political problems of South-East Asia and developments in the Far East, and discussed future relations of Commonwealth countries with China, and the conditions of a peace settlement with Japan."
No doubt those matters were discussed, and I should like to ask these questions. Why was it that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs recognised the Communist Government of China when he did, a few days before the opening of the Conference which was, presumably, to discuss that very subject? Is it a fact that the Canadian Government had requested deferment of recognition until after the Conference? Who advised the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to take this sudden step? Did the Colonial Office have the opportunity of offering their advice and, if so, did they support recognition of the Communist Government of China? Was Mr. Malcolm MacDonald consulted in the matter and, if so, did he support this move? After all, he is a person who is eminently qualified to offer opinions. What benefits were expected, and what have in fact accrued as a result of this recognition? Is it not a fact that, since the recognition, outrages in Malaya have increased and that apparently its effect on the falling morale of the Communist guerrillas has been to stimulate them into renewed action?
I do not wish to go into the detail which I would otherwise have done about discussions which took place at that Conference. I should like to say, however, with due respect, that although the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has taken the trouble to inform the world that the great question is how to create better living conditions and raise the standard of living in Southern Asia, and by so doing lessen the appeal of Communism which chrives on distress, and to say that countries need help in their industries and so forth, he need not have gone to Colombo to find that out. It is a matter which has been known to all of us for a very long time. It is no new contribution to the subject to mention any of those things.
I should like to refer to the terms on which, as your Lordships are aware, the Government of India were asked to recognise the Communist Government at the beginning of October, 1949. They thought about the matter for three months, then

699
decided to recognise that Government, and they recognised it on these terms—on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual interest and mutual respect for sovereign territorial rights. A similar assurance was given to Burma. Nothing was said of Thibet. Mao Tse-Tung has emphatically asserted his intention of rendering strong support to Russia's international policy, and the major plank in that policy is the aggressive infiltration of Communist influence in other countries. Two rival systems, as your Lordships will see, now face each other in Asia. If China, aided by Russia, Russian capital and technical skill and so forth, can show a higher rate of economic progress than countries which adhere to our side in Southern Asia, then the outlook is indeed very grim for us, because the example will be obvious. That is why it is no use talking about what we will do, or appointing consultative committees.
Those committees have been appointed one after the other for the last two or three years, but nothing in fact has been done. There is no time to appoint yet another consultative committee. Action is what is required. When the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations says that the only thing which matters is the improvement of economic standards of living, surely he is ignoring the fact that we cannot improve the economic standards of living until we have peace, law and order in a country. Therefore the first essential thing to do in, for instance, Malaya (and Malaya is not the only country where government is rocking to its foundations) is to restore stability. Most of South-East Asia is suffering from these conditions and it is futile to talk of improving the conditions of life until we have the basis on which we can improve them. Apparently it is overlooked by the two Secretaries of State that it is not a case of improving the standards of living in South-East Asia but of getting back to the standards which obtained before the war. In many cases they are four times as bad as they were then, and there is still a long way to go. From Indonesia to Siam, the whole position is prejudiced by that very fact.
I appreciate that the position of the Indian Government is also a difficult one. They have a severe internal problem of a similar kind, which is to make the
700
resources of the country balance with the increasing population. That is a problem which is going to try them to the utmost without their being able to render assistance to anybody else. I should like to mention in passing the fact that political stability and economic activity go together, and at the present moment what deters the merchant in Malaya is insecurity and uncertainty and, may I say, the strong probability that if he does well he will be victimised either by taxation or by being taken over by the State. It is the existence of Socialist policies which is the main threat to prosperity in non-Communist South-East Asia, although the Socialists believe themselves to be the only bulwark against Communism. It is the presence of these policies which will serve to maintain the poverty which Communism exploits.
I can appreciate that in all probability the British Government were in a difficulty in having to discuss at Colombo the recognition of Communist China. They found themselves faced with an Australian Government which was pledged to strong anti-Communist action, and, seeing it was unlikely that there would be unanimity on the question, it is possible they realised that they would have to take unilateral action in any case, and so they took it at once. I do not know whether that is true or not. Coming back to the terms on which the Indian Government recognised the Communist Government of China, let us consider what they imply in regard to Malaya when the British Government do it. Can one conceive that the Chinese Government are now going to have the right to establish legations and consulates in British Malaya? It seems an impossible suggestion; but is it likely that Mao Tse-Tung is going to be fobbed off with anything less? What does recognition mean, and what is going to be the position of the authorities in Malaya? I need not go into details of what must inevitably happen. It is part of the main plank of Moscow policy, which Mao Tse-Tung has publicly said he follows.
At the end of the Conference, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:
"The work of the conference will never be undone. It will go on until the last shreds of difference are dissipated and the links of unity are forged."
I do not know what those words mean. It is a very tine sentiment, but I do not

701
think it expresses in actual fact any practical achievement whatsoever. What were the achievements of the Conference? On our own statement, a consultative committee of representatives of the Commonwealth countries was to be appointed, to meet in Sydney. In 1947, six nations—Australia, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, signed an agreement for the establishment of the South Pacific Commission. That has been done, and largely under the instigation of Australia the Commission has met. They have also set up two permanent auxiliary bodies, a research council and a South Pacific Conference. The South Pacific Conference is to include representatives of local inhabitants of the territories concerned; it is to have that democratic basis. And still another consultative committee is to be appointed, when it is not talk which is required, but action. If action is not taken at an early date, and action of a nature to restore law and order, then it will be no use to continue to talk.
Another achievement was the suggestion of a loan to Burma. I do not wish to say anything about that, except that I gather that it was also proposed that the British Government, naturally, should bear the greatest share and the others should pay their share out of sterling balances. Another decision was that it was desirable to conclude a peace with Japan. I do not think it was necessary to go to Colombo to come to that conclusion, and I do not think it is in Colombo or London that the final decision will be taken on that proposal, but in Washington. It was also decided that the problems of Asia had the sharpest urgency. I do not think it was necessary to go to Colombo to decide that. Anybody who had read the debates in your Lordships' House eighteen months ago could hardly have failed to gather that impression. And, meanwhile, the sands of time were running out. Nothing was done to deal with the problems which result from devaluation and on which there are differences of opinion in the Commonwealth.
I realise that this Conference did not deal with internal questions. They found them possibly too difficult, and it is so much easier to discuss big problems on
702
a world basis when you have no power, as this Conference had not, to translate your talk, however beautiful that may be, into action. If the people of this area are to have the master plan of which we hear, they are entitled to know what it is. Is it to be a British plan, and, if so, what is it? If it is not to be a British plan, and it obviously could hardly he because it is only the United States which has the resources to give assistance on the scale which is required, then the United States presumably will have to be consulted. We have not got very much further with that. I think the people of South-East Asia have had their fill of blueprints and that kind of thing. What would appeal to them far more than blueprints from Whitehall, or Colombo, would he some Burma rice. I appreciate that the Conference met only to discuss and report to their respective Governments, but there was room, none the less, if only on the level of high international debate, for constructive leadership, and that constructive leadership did not come from where it should have come—from the representatives of the British Government.
During the last two or three years, we have had a large number of United Nations reports on economic conditions in South-East Asia. Those reports are merely the raw materials for Governments to work on and act on. That is what we are needing at the present moment. We have a vast mass of extremely ably collected material from the United Nations organisations, and nothing has happened in the way of action on it. The United Nations report on this subject is perfectly clear. It points out that at present all the countries of the region are interested in the possibility of restoring the flow of foreign investment, upon which their economic development has so greatly depended in the past, and in particular in the prospects of attracting dollar investments. Not only are the United States of America the only country who now have a large surplus to invest, but it is also evident that the balance of payments, the stability of the exchanges and the restoration of multilateral trade can hardly be achieved while the U.S.A. require no more than their present imports, unless there is an inward flow of dollars on capital account in that region.
These are the facts of the situation. The greatest difficulties in the way of such development are probably political. The countries have to make conditions of investment attractive, and to ensure the political, social and economic stability required for productive activity. That subject could be enlarged upon, but I will not enlarge upon it at the moment. I suggest once more—I want to underline it—that the very stability of government is shaken throughout that area, and we must be sure of our own policy and carry it into action. It is a policy of action that is required at the present moment. If we take the case of Malaya, once more we find that the Government there are being left to fight this menace. That is where I suggest the Colombo Conference might have turned its attention to some effect. Money which should be spent now on bettering conditions in Malaya is being poured out to fight a war which is not so much a Malayan war, but a British Empire war—it is the British Government's affair. Until some of that responsibility is taken from the Malayan Government, then social progress, and all the progress we want in improving conditions, cannot proceed.
If I may, in conclusion, I would quote from a communication I received to show what I mean about the way in which the tropics seem to have affected our representatives in causing them to drip platitudes and exude the finest sentiments, but to do nothing more than that. This is one of many communications I received from Malaya. It says:
"Whatever theoretical value, exhortation or appeal by wireless by high Government officials in Malaya may have in relation to the more educated Chinese, it is of little value regarding the rest of the Chinese community unless backed up by strong military and police forces. It was the failure to realise these facts by the Colonial Office, when in March, 1946, the Government prematurely withdrew the military forces without either clearing the country of the potential bandits well known to be in hiding, or leaving an adequate police or other force to accomplish this task, that is largely responsible for present terrorist activities in Malaya."
I suggest that that sums up the position. What is required is not conferences, resolutions and committees, but a policy of action. That is the lesson of Colombo: that sooner or later references to other Governments, and consultations with other Governments, fail to conceal the
704
deficiencies of one's own. I beg to move for Papers.
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have listened to all except the opening sentences of the noble Lord's speech, and I have been asking myself most of the time when he was going to talk about the Motion on the Paper. Apparently we have committed great wrongs in the handling of matters connected with the Colombo Conference. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he would not go into details of the discussions. I wonder if he knows anything about them. How does the noble Lord know about the details of the discussions at Colombo? They have not been published in a White Paper, or otherwise. I suppose he has picked up a certain amount of gossip in club armchairs, which he now cites to us with a number of rather malicious innuendoes which can do no good to anybody and can only cause trouble between the different members of the Commonwealth. Personally, I do not think the noble Lord has been making proper use of his opportunities in this House, and I am bound to say so. He said over and over again that action is required—that was his theme. The noble Lord was extraordinarily careful not to tell us what action.
I do not myself feel any further forward in being able to answer his question by being entertained to a long string of platitudes on the facts relating to this region, which have been well known to everybody for many years. I do not think the noble Lord will have done any good by his disparagement of the action of our heroic fellow countrymen in Malaya, who are doing everything humanly possible to put down these bandits in a very difficult country, as the noble Lord knows. What more action he requires, the noble Lord failed to tell us. What he did say was that before we do anything else we must restore law and order. I entirely agree, and we are making great efforts to restore law and order there. Our heroic fellow countrymen, with the assistance of the Malay troops, are doing everything they possibly can to clear this jungle. It is an exceedingly difficult task, for many of these bandits are men who were taught by us to fight the Japanese,

705
and they are well supplied with arms from dumps left over in the last war.
But all this has nothing to do with the Colombo Conference. In my opinion, the Colombo Conference was one of the most successful conferences in making arrangements for united action that our history has presented over a long period of time. Let me tell the House something about that Conference. I happen to know what the proceedings were, because I have had the advantage of seeing the report of the Conference which the noble Lord clearly has not. This Conference arose out of the discussions of the Prime Ministers' Conference in London. It was felt desirable that, instead of sporadic and irregular meetings, there should be some regular system of conferences on foreign affairs between the members of the Commonwealth. It was to meet that necessity, clearly expressed and focused at the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1948, that the Colombo Conference was arranged. It was agreed that the Conference should be limited, not to discussing ourselves but to discussing our various relations with other countries; and that it should be specifically a conference devoted to the discussion of foreign affairs between the different Ministers of the Commonwealth countries. That was the purpose of the discussion; not to roam over the wide, wide world, but to discuss these matters. Therefore, the Foreign Ministers of the different members of the Commonwealth assembled there.
The Conference would have come a little earlier because in 1948 it was hoped that there would be Conferences of this kind more or less every six months, but that was not possible, owing to the Conference called with regard to Indian affairs in April, 1949. Therefore, the first Conference was postponed until it was convenient to everybody concerned, and the date finally agreed upon was January of this year. As anybody who has had first-hand dealings with Commonwealth affairs knows, it is necessary to consult a large number of people in different parts of the world, having different Parliamentary Sessions and all the rest of it, and it is not an easy matter to arrange a date convenient to everybody. This date was fixed as soon as ever it could be.
There is one action of the Conference to which the noble Lord did not refer—
706
namely, that it was felt very desirable that there should be a common agreement, so far as it could be reached, as to what were the basic requirements of a peace treaty with Japan, which of course it will not be for us finally to determine. We are just as well aware of the difficulties as the noble Lord is, but it is true to say that as a result of the discussions at Colombo.en this first topic there was a great measure of agreement. I should like to say that, so far from the misgivings and ill-feelings which the noble Lord seems to suggest ran through this effort, as a matter of fact it was characterised by extraordinary good will from start to finish, and was regarded by everybody as a very successful Conference. It was the first of its kind, and it was a united Commonwealth Conference, not in general terms but to deal with specific problems.
The second question to which the Conference addressed itself was the position in Burma. We did not need this speech to tell us that poverty end hunger are the most distressing features of large populations in South-East Asia, and it was in order to try to relieve, some of these hardships that these discussions were promoted. I need not go into the details in the case of Burma, for it is a long story and a very sad story. We have lost a good deal of money at different times in trying to help Burma but on agreed terms it was decided that there should be a loan to Burma. It was arranged that each member present should contribute her quota, and the total of the loan was to be about £6,000,000. The United Kingdom's quota was naturally the largest, and it was £3,750,000. India was the next, with £1,000,000; and the others, Pakistan, Australia, Ceylon and so on, each contributed their portion. That was an agreed contribution for a specified purpose, all the members of the Commonwealth uniting for this helpful effort. That is action—a very valuable action and a very humane action. It was agreed upon by the members of the Commonwealth at this meeting, and it was almost the first effort of that kind promoted in this way.
The next main topic was the position in South-East Asia, both economic and political. It is true that we did not need to go to Ceylon in order to know what the conditions were. The noble Lord

707
need not be under any misapprehension about that. It is only too sad a story, and we knew it perfectly well before we went there. The world knows what the position is with regard to many of the inhabitants of these countries. What the Conference set itself to do was to consider: How can we be helpful in these matters? This consultative committee which was finally focused by Mr. Spender, the Australian representative, was given terms of reference—with which I will acquaint the House in a moment—by which it was to set to work, not simply to talk, but to devise ways and means which we could adopt in unison of giving assistance in Burma. That is surely a sensible method of approach. I cannot imagine what in the world the noble Lord is complaining about. It seems to me to be the only way to tackle the problem, if we are to tackle it unitedly.
Let me here and now remind the House of the business of this consultative committee, and the work for which it was established. The working parties are already at work, and they are to meet in Australia on May 15. Our colleague here, my noble friend Lord Macdonald, will represent the Government, and I hope that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald from Singapore—the region in which he has authority—will also be there. It will be a very representative committee for the purpose of devising useful action. They are to receive an indication of actions which Governments outside the Commonwealth consider it feasible to take in response to the recommendation of the Colombo Conference. Other terms of reference of the committee are:
"To examine the methods of co-ordinating development councils in South and South-East Asia, in association with international and regional organisations concerned with the object of raising the level of production and the standard of living in the area; to examine the desirability of promoting international commodity agreements for basic products, which would benefit the area and could be recommended for consideration under the Havana Charter; to consider whether the economic development of under-developed countries of the area would be assisted by the drawing up of a co-ordinated plan of development and by the establishment of special machinery; to make recommendations to Governments."
Those are extraordinarily business-like terms of reference. That is not action
708
taken in isolation by cables between London and Sydney, or wherever it is, but by the different members of the Commonwealth sitting round a table devising what they can do. I myself have had some experience of Commonwealth matters, as has the noble Marquess opposite. I do not know what his view may be about this effort, but it seems to me one of the most promising and useful efforts which has been undertaken for a long time, ensuring practical Commonwealth co-operation for a beneficial purpose. I am not going to enlarge upon the troubles of that region—they are only too painfully obvious to each one of us, and they are not included in the terms of the Motion.
I should like now to say a word about what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said on the recognition of Communist China. That had been under discussion for many months. I listened anxiously to learn what the noble Lord wanted us to do, and I did not receive any guidance, because the solid fact is—and there is no getting away from it—that the Communists are in control of China: they are the Government of China. I want to know what the noble Lord would have wished us to do about it, other than what we have done. I gather that he did not want us to do anything. That does not seem to me to be very good sense. We have enormous commercial and other interests in that part of the world, and we anxiously discussed this matter with the members of the Commonwealth and with other countries.
There were discussions or conversations going on over several months. It was clear that it was not possible that all could act in the same way on the same day. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor explained this to your Lordships on a previous occasion. India was very anxious that we should recognise the facts of the situation. They themselves did so recognise them—before we did. It is true that this country had to take its own decision in the light of such advice and guidance as we could get. What we have done is to effect an entirely businesslike recognition of the facts of the case in that region. I can see no advantage in playing the game of the ostrich, burying our heads in the sand and trying to persuade ourselves that things are not what, in fact, they are. It was an inevitable decision.

709
It is true that we had no particular affection for that system of government, any more than the noble Lord has; but that has never been a reason for not recognising other Governments. I can well remember—as no doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, can—the cries that were raised a long time ago about the recognition of the Sultan of Turkey. We recognised the Sultan of Turkey and we had dealings with him. We did not like it, but we did it. And we have had dealings, as people who recognise realities, with Governments in Moscow and other places. It is not the colour of the Government concerned which is in question; it is entirely a matter of considering British interests. So far as Canada is concerned, she did not ask us to withhold recognition. We know that Canada wishes to delay recognition for good reasons; but Canada never raised any objection at Colombo to our action, and she quite appreciated that we had acted as we did for the purpose of safeguarding British interests.
I was very much struck with one of the noble Lord's plaintive thrusts. He said that all these troubles were due to Socialist policy in this country. Well my Lords, why in the world did Lord Milverton ever join the Socialist Party? Has he discovered since the days when he sat on this side that all the troubles and hunger and misery in South-East Asia existed because of the wicked men who occupy these Benches? These are old, old miseries, I am sorry to say, going back for generations—almost for centuries. But it was quaint, having regard to the permutations of the noble Lord in political affinities, that he should put down these troubles to Socialist policy, which he says is a threat to the prosperity of these areas. I do not agrees with him in the least. There are many causes for the misery of those areas other than the Government of the United Kingdom. These miseries have not begun since 1946, when the noble Lord professed his adherence to the Socialist Party. He may derive some consolation from these aspersions on his former colleagues and, if so, he is welcome to it, so far as I am concerned; but they leave me completely unconvinced.
7.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: My Lords, I am sure we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord
710
Milverton, for having raised this subject. It is almost tragic that this question should have come up at so late an hour that Lord Milverton should feel it necessary to cut down his observations. I am convinced that the questions that have been raised to-day and touched upon briefly are questions that well merit the fullest discussion in your Lordships' House at a convenient hour when full expressions of opinion can be given. I venture to suggest that the time has arrived when it is very necessary that this matter should be considered and discussed in another place.
I have listened to what Lord Milverton said and to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said; and I have a deep feeling of regret. I have listened to many speeches from Lord Addison. They have been dignified and completely fair. But the speech he made this evening struck me as being in tone and method of expression not of the standard which I have observed in my short time here is usually maintained in your Lordships' House. The speech had a sort of peevish ring which, on an issue of the transcendent importance of this one, seem to me to be extremely unfortunate.
As the hour is late I will not detain your Lordships for long, but there are one or two remarks I wish to make. Lord Milverton's main point, as I understood it, was that peace, law and order and an established Government in these countries are essential before there can be any hope of success in economic endeavours to raise the standard of living of these unfortunate people. To-day, when we all clearly appreciate that South-East Asia is one of the great danger spots of the world, we recognise that those things are essential. But I agree with Lord Milverton that this issue has not yet been faced. It seems to me it goes far beyond our activities—that is, the activities of the British Commonwealth: I believe that there should be discussions with the United States with the object of co-ordinating the responsibilities in that area between the British Commonwealth and the United States, and of determining what action we are prepared to take.
It may be that the decision would be that the British Commonwealth in its present position has all it can do to handle

711
the situation in the British Possessions in that area. Take the case of Malaya. We have had a Conference at Colombo, and Lord Milverton has said that there might have been a little more leadership there. I am in complete and absolute agreement with him. On this issue of Malaya I most certainly think that the whole problem should have been faced boldly. Leadership should have come from the United Kingdom Government, who should have told all the British nations there that the situation in Malaya had to be drastically handled and that the burden was too great for Great Britain in her present circumstances to undertake. The other countries should have been asked whether they were prepared to come in. I have a strong conviction that my own country, Australia, would have been prepared to come in if the whole of the situation and its gravity had been sufficiently emphasised at the Colombo Conference, and if the leadership and action for which Lord Milverton pleaded had been in evidence.
I know I shall be told that discussions are now proceeding on all these matters and that the Government have fully considered these problems. But I believe the present situation is very dangerous and that, as the noble Lord said, this is no longer a time for consultation but a time for specific action. I, at least, can plead, for I have had as much experience in regard to Commonwealth relations as probably anybody; and my conclusion over the years is that we have failed time and time again because we have never been bold enough. I am not making any charge against the present Government, but every United Kingdom Government has been just as afraid to tackle the Dominions, face them up with the issue and give them the direct leadership as to what action should be taken. I believe that in the past we could have done much better if the United Kingdom Governments had done that. I am convinced that times are so serious to-day that it must be done.
In regard to the Colombo Conference, I slightly part company with the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I think it was a most valuable meeting. It suffered from the same thing that every Imperial Conference, every meeting between the United Kingdom and the Dominions has suffered from for the last
712
thirty years—there was nothing like enough drive and force behind it. But on this occasion, quite frankly, I think the Government had a much more delicate and difficult task. We now have three new Dominions in the Commonwealth—India, Pakistan and Ceylon. I am throwing no half-bricks at the general principle of the Government that they found that they could not do all the things they wanted to. But the Conference has done this. It has afforded the first opportunity of getting all these Governments together and trying to obtain some basis of co-operation in order to get somewhere.
The one particular point to which I want to address myself is the economic situation in South-East Asia. Up to a point I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that the setting up of this Committee seems to be just another stage of "Cannot we do something?" instead of considering what we are going to do. However, I have every hope that all that will be cured when the meeting takes place in Australia. I read the Press reports of what took place in Colombo. I thought: "Well, I suppose some of the gentlemen who went to the Colombo Conference have heard a few of the things that are going on in the world with regard to economic aid and technical assistance," but there was nothing in the Press which created the impression that any of them had ever heard what was going on. Fortunately, I was able to get a little more information. I have had an opportunity of talking to both the former Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and his successor. Of course, Mr. Noel-Baker was at Colombo, and the thinking was not quite so confused as I thought, but there is still the criticism there that they did not know very much. One of the burdens of my complaint about a lot of these things is that, if you cross-examine the Ministers in His Majesty's Government here, and if you cross-examine the Ministers in His Majesty's Government in Australia, and ask what is the situation in regard to technical aid and exactly what has taken place, practically none of them can stand up to cross-examination for five minutes.
I am not throwing that out as an insult to the intelligence of Ministers. It is inevitable that Ministers are pre-occupied with their own particular tasks and cannot

713
follow and be fully informed about everything that is going on in the international field. I believe it would be well worth while if there were a Minister whose job was to keep in touch with everything of that sort and keep the Cabinet informed about it. It is true that Ministers go to various conferences. At my Food and Agriculture Conference we have had the Minister of Agriculture present. We have had Mr. Harold Wilson, the President of the Board of Trade. They drop in for a number of days, but they are pro-occupied with other things. Mr. Harold Wilson is very pre-occupied with his great problems in the film industry. There is no getting to grips with these things. That is the cause of many of the troubles.
At the risk of detaining your Lordships for a few minutes, I want to say this with regard to the position of technical aid, because it links up completely with the instructions to the consultative committee as to what they have to do. Technical aid, of course, has made great strides since President Truman enunciated in his inaugural address his fourth point. It was followed up by action by the Economic and Social Council. All the specialised agencies of the United Nations were brought together and formed into a committee. Each of the agencies was asked to formulate not mere advice but specific plans involving what action it proposed to take, what expense in respect of each individual action would be involved, and the number of specialists and technicians required to afford the technical aid.
I went over to Washington on the Food and Agriculture Organisation simply for the purpose of presiding over a committee of all the chairmen of the different expert committees drawn from every nation of the world. We went into the question of technicians, and we came to the conclusion that for the first set of plans it would be possible to get them, but that if this first move—I will tell you the extent of what is contemplated—was successful, there would be an insistent demand to follow it up. That follow-up would mean that there would not be available the technicians and people to supply the help and aid to the backward countries. The first step, therefore, was to approach all universities and technical bodies in all countries in order to encourage them to build up a reservoir
714
of those people. The extent of the first year's proposal for which all the plans have been prepared is 20,000,000 dollars. That may seem very moderate, but in the case of my Food and Agriculture Organisation it means exactly doubling our annual income. We have an income of only 5,000,000 dollars, which is a scandal; but that cannot be helped. We shall have to make all our plans to go ahead with it.
This work is all being done on the basis of regions, and all the countries in the regions are being brought together. All countries in South-East Asia are already meeting together on agriculture and food production. The whole scheme is in train. I believe that a reasonable amount of money is assured because, while Congress is being very coy in getting to the point of taking action at President Truman's request, I am assured from America that there is not a shadow of doubt that they will carry it on. The whole project ought to be launched by this July.
If these representatives are going to meet in Canberra, it is perfectly wild and absurd that they should aim to go off on a leg of their own. What the Canberra Conference will be doing is to recognise the fact that aid to these backward nations, whether it conies from the United States or from some of the richer countries of the British Commonwealth, will not help us to get any distance along that path—for the simple reason that all those backward countries are terrified of Great Power domination. Underneath it is a revolt against the Colonial system. This action has got to be taken through the United Nations and its agencies. President Truman stressed that point when he made his proposal in his inaugural Address. The matter is all in train to be done on the best basis possible. But where I think these conferences can do something is by getting all the Commonwealth nations at least to understand the position. I do not want to be offensive, but I am absolutely certain that they do not know how far all these things have gone. For my sins, I have had to live with this problem. Because of my particular job, I have had to know it backwards, but I should be amazed if any Minister really knew it, because it is something outside his ordinary sphere.

715
I believe that at Canberra they will wake up to what the problem means, and if we can get a concerted policy by all the Commonwealth nations coming in to reinforce the action that is being taken—everybody seeing eye to eye on what is the best way to tackle this question—we shall obtain the co-operation of the United States of America, and they will be prepared to render aid to the "nth" degree. Then, instead of there being a number of vague gentlemen who obviously have no instructions from their Government and do not know what line they ought to take, there will be people present who really know the subject; and if we get all the British nations in line on this problem of economic aid, and America is also in the picture, there is every hope that success may be achieved.
My final word is this. The Colombo Conference is regarded as something good, and I share that view, because it has brought all these nations together, including the new Dominions. There are thousands of questions about which you can squabble and brawl to your heart's content at these meetings, but this is one subject upon which you will get complete agreement and co-operation. I have had the people of India, of Pakistan and of Ceylon at my meetings at the United Nations organisation. They play a most active part. There is one point there upon which I have not the time to dwell—namely, the fourth point in the instructions to the Conference at Canberra about commodity agreements, which should support prices and give some reasonable basis to the farmer. At the present time there is a committee sitting on that particular subject, It was appointed at a moment when we had grown a little tired of international committees which were set up to shelve such matters. The Government of the United Kingdom gave its full assent and they and the United States Government said that there had to be an answer. With a view to trying to arrive at a solution to the problem, it was decided to appoint a full-time working chairman for that committee, and the gentleman appointed is an Indian, Mr. Abhyankar. I stress that point, because I believe that if we get the whole Commonwealth working together on this economic question, we can make great strides towards the solution
716
of the problem and, at the same time, make an invaluable contribution towards laying the foundations for real Commonwealth co-operation.
7.24 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I join with the noble Viscount who has just sat down in congratulating the noble Lord who initiated this Motion. The subject under discussion is very much in my mind, since your Lordships will remember that on four occasions during the last Session of Parliament I tried to initiate such a debate on South-East Asia. Other business, however, crowded out that debate and it never took place, although for the fourth attempt I flew back from Colombo the day before in the hope of submitting my ideas to your Lordships, only to find that the debate could not have taken place before midnight—not a very appropriate time.
Having been concerned with the Far East for some thirty years, and having worked there for several of those years, I find myself from practical experience in agreement with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Milverton. The situation in South-East Asia is deteriorating. This I can confirm from information gained very recently in that part of the world. Having worked there for several months, I can appreciate what the situation is, and I agree with my noble friend that, whereas the rule of law must be maintained by far more vigorous methods, such action has to be taken in parallel with immediate steps to raise the standard of life in South-East Asia. It is along those lines that we shall find the real answer to this problem. Therefore, as I see it, we from the West must make available, far more readily and rapidly, our scientific and technical knowledge and also the necessary capital equipment to translate that knowledge into effect. I personally am in entire agreement with what my noble friend has said with regard to China.
I spent several months in Ceylon last year, and it was a great experience to see this vitally placed new Dominion in action. The Government of Ceylon, with the active support of the Ceylonese peoples, are using to the full the scientific and technical experience of the West—from our own country as well as from others—to raise the standard of life,

717
whilst using all scientific and practical methods to keep out and also to weed out the Communists. In conclusion, I should tell your Lordships—and I know you will be very proud to hear it—of the distinguished rôle that is being played in Ceylon by His Excellency the Governor-General, the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury. Having travelled over all Ceylon in the last few months, I have seen how tremendously his Excellency's leadership is appreciated by the people in general and the Government in particular, led by that outstanding figure, the Right Honourable D. S. Senanayake, the Prime Minister. The development of Ceylon is going forward successfully. As your Lordships know, the Governor-General has very high academic qualifications. His Excellency is the only personal representative of His Majesty The King, in any century, who addresses the Ceylonese people in their own language.
7.28 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I shall be very brief in what I have to say, and I should like to start by saying how sorry my noble friend Lord Swinton is that urgent public affairs at the other end of the country have prevented his being here tonight. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that my noble friend Lord Milverton has done a great service in raising this issue. I was frankly astonished by the attitude of the Leader of the House towards the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, approached the subject with great and praiseworthy moderation. I could not see why the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, should treat him as if he had made some mischievous onslaught. I cannot agree with that.
Every Conference that takes place between Dominion Prime Ministers strikes the public afterwards as having had something of a paucity of concrete results, and I was very grateful to-night, to hear what we already knew about those results expanded by the Leader of the House. A fierce limelight falls on Asia at this moment. China has been engulfed by Communism. I doubt whether any event having one tenth part of the significance of that has ever gone so little noticed among the people of the democratic countries. As we on this side of the House feared might happen,
718
Burma has become gripped by poverty and hunger, and torn by strife. We have our troubles in Malaya. I could not see that my noble friend Lord Milverton had any blame for, or laid any aspersion upon, the authorities in Malaya who are dealing so heroically with those troubles at this moment. And the other nations in that part of the world are watching; watching to see which way the cat will jump.
South-East Asia has become a cant phrase. It has an exact meaning only if used to describe that part of the world which lies between Burma and Singapore. Southern Asia brings in India, Pakistan and Ceylon. India and Pakistan depend on South-East Asia for their rice. As the House knows, the rice bowl lies outside the orbit of the Commonwealth countries there. If for any reason that rice is diverted to China, away from India and Pakistan, the famine which we heard about in China would be as nothing to what our two fellow members of the Commonwealth would suffer. Therefore, we cannot see India and Pakistan as something separate from that problem. This is round two of the cold war. Is it then surprising that we, on this side, and indeed noble Lords on all sides of the House, as well as people in this country generally, should hunger for any crumb of information that we can get about the steps we are taking to fight it to-day.
We hear a lot about the standard of living which, as my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Bruce have said, depends on that framework of political stability which rests on economic stability, and is the principal darn against the flood of Communism. Communism is the enemy, and nothing that happens in the manœuvres of the Communists anywhere can be seen in any unrelated context. Therefore, it is idle to speak, as Mr. Dugdale spoke on March 15 in another place, suggesting that what goes on in Communist China can be separated from what is going on in Malaya. I do not think that anyone will disagree that phase one of the cold war was in Europe. We held them there, but that phase is not over. Phase two is in China, and we are fighting it now. Phase three will be in Africa. But there may not be a phase three if we win phase two.
Since the Colombo Conference Marshal Pibul of Siam has taken the same attitude

719
towards events in Indo-China as have His Majesty's Government. That is one more to our side. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, spoke of the new Commonwealth's pattern, and he also spoke of the delicate task which the Colombo Conference faced, as opposed to the problems faced by its predecessors. It brought these new nations together for the first time. What a tremendous change has taken place in the pattern of the Commonwealth! Only a matter of three or four years ago to every single one of the Dominions, Europe or England was the Homeland. Now such a change has taken place that for those Commonwealth nations of whom that is true, there are now four of whom it is not. We have now what we have never had before—two Dominions facing each other over a land frontier. Europe is no longer the sole maker and unmaker of human destiny. That has been pretty heavily underlined by the last war. New forms bring with them a new challenge, and call for new methods. We must make a success on this new slant of our evolution. We on this side of the House have nothing but constructive criticism to offer.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There was not a word of it to-night.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I cannot agree with the noble Viscount when he says that, and I do not think that in the rest of the House there are many noble Lords who agree with him either. It is a different angle with which we have to compete. If you see the same problem as one of the countries washed by the North Atlantic, it is natural that you see it differently from the way it is seen from a country washed by the South Pacific. We must understand our evolution, so that we can make a real success of it. I think that here lies the danger—I do not say that it is happening, but it is a danger which I envisage, and I think that perhaps many noble Lords will agree. The unity of the Commonwealth is very real. It is an anvil that has worn out many hammers, and it may well wear out many more. But the authority of the Commonwealth is always greater when that unity is apparent to the rest of the world. I feel that some slight danger exists of confusing the absence of disagreement with real positive dynamic agreement. The two are not the same thing.
720
I pass briefly over the Colombo Conference. I have little more to say. I listened with the greatest interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when he spoke about recognition of Communist China. He asked the House—are we to be ostriches and not recognise the state of affairs as it is in China? The whole of the argument which he put forward was an argument for de facto recognition. Yet the recognition given was de jure. De jure recognition of China before the Conference sat, was followed a little later by recognition in theory of Bao Dai and Indo-China. With that, any exact meaning in diplomatic recognition fades into the mists. The trouble about that recognition was that it was quite apparent to the rest of the world—or certainly a strong presumption was created—that unconcerted action of the greatest interest to all countries of the Commonwealth had taken place. It is claimed that it may give us greater stability there, and protect our trade and other interests. Has that been the fact? I do not think so. I am thankful to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for the information which he gave us. One thing to which I listened with the greatest interest was when he assured us that the Spender Committee was not only a consultative committee, but was a committee of specific action. I do not think that I misunderstood him. I hope that that is correct.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not say that it is an executive instrument in itself. It is for recommending specific action.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that information. At the moment it exists only on a piece of paper. It meets in May. One could almost hope that it had met in March. It is going to fight, as I see it, the battle of consumer goods against Communism. It has got a very big battle on its hands. Surely that battle will require the co-operation of a very large part of the world; if not the whole of the free world. Look at the difficulties. There is the ruin left by the war and the phobia of the West on the part of the Japanese, who overran so much of Southern Asia. There is the poison of Communism; there is shortage of food; there is hunger and famine; and there are other difficulties. There are advantages also, as I know. There are great quantities of raw materials. There are by no

721
means inconsiderable numbers of semiskilled workers. Surely the answer is going to lie something like this: that those resources will be found, in the first part, inside those countries we seek to help, and, in the second part, in the countries covered by the Spender Plan.
But there will be a further part, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, said, for which we shall have to go wider for help and co-operation and bring in our allies and friends the United States. A great sum of money is being devoted to helping Burma extricate herself from her troubles. Burma has gone through many difficulties. She is going through them now. She is riven by strife. Why talk about it? The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, asked why. We all know the picture. But in the case of the Burma Joan, and those resources which we shall make available to the countries to benefit under the Spender Plan, surely we must strive towards providing some kind of joint committee where providers and receivers can both forge a plan for the application of these resources. If that is envisaged, I should be grateful if we could have some enlightenment on it.
Last of all, within the purview of this Parliament there lies action only over the field in which we have complete power. Let us do our level best to make this plan a success. We must send out the best men. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has been selected. He is no stranger to Commonwealth problems, and is a man of great energy. I hope he is backed by a really suitable team. Let us make it clear to our colleagues and friends in the Commonwealth that the whole of our vast experience in this field is at the disposal of this or any other committee which may be set up to tackle this work. Let us always be a party to urging speed, because these matters press on us and I do not think that the loser will ever get a second chance.
7.41 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House longer than to say one thing. I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the information which he has given us. I remain of the opinion that this debate has served a useful purpose. Before I ask leave to withdraw my Motion I should like to correct three misapprehensions.
722
The first is that I have ever, either here to-night or at any time in my life, disparaged those working in Malaya. It is quite unthinkable that I, of all people, should ever have done such a thing. The only thing of which I can think is that it was the speed at which I spoke that left such a misapprehension in the mind of the noble Viscount. The second misapprehension I wish to remove is that I have disparaged the good will induced by the Colombo Conference. I thought I had specifically stated that good will was the one result which could be claimed for it. The third misapprehension again must have been due to the speed at which spoke. I certainly did not say, or intend to say, that the ills of South-East Asia were due to Socialist policies. But I did say, and shall be prepared always to say, that recovery from those ills will be hampered by the carrying out in full of Socialist policies. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision of the Mayor, aldermen and citizens of the City of Gloucester, under their Common Seal, together with the proposed Amendments annexed thereto: read and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT JOHN'S CHAPEL BEVERLEY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.