Lords Sitting of 28 April 1953

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

HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf 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 leave be given for the Lord Ogmore's Motion (now standing for Wednesday, the 13th of May next) to be advanced to Wednesday, the 6th of May next.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BULGARIANS IN BRITAIN
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether the Government's attention has been drawn to the new Bulgarian law, not only sentencing to death those Bulgarian refugees who refuse to go back when summoned by the Communist authorities, but imposing savage and inhuman penalties on any of their relatives remaining in Bulgaria; and whether the Government contemplate the expulsion of any mission, agency or person attempting to apply the law in this country by delivering to refugees summonses for their return.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the answer to the first question put by the noble Lord is Yes; Her Majesty's Government are aware of this law. They consider that it constitutes a denial of the elementary principle of justice, accepted by all civilised nations, that no person should be punished for an offence of which he is innocent or to which he is not an accessory. Steps have been taken to add this new evidence of Bulgarian violation of human rights to the documentation already submitted to the United Nations. With regard to the second part of the Question, I can assure the noble Lord that, as I informed him in a reply to a

3
Question in a similar context on October 29, refugees resident in this country can rest assured that they have the full protection of our courts and that no foreign authority can by arbitrary action force them to leave this country against their will. Any refugee who feels that he is being subjected to improper pressure should at once inform the police. If there were proof of improper pressure being brought to bear on persons resident in this country, we should take suitable action.
LORD VANSITTART: I thank the noble Marquess for his reply; I have no supplementary questions to-day.

PHARMACY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to he printed.
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to without amendment; certain others agreed to, with Amendments; one other agreed to and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill.

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.40 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 Rea.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Amendment of s. 7 of Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given notice of an Amendment to substitute "fifty thousand pounds" for "twenty-five thousand pounds." The noble Lord said: With respect to the Amendment standing in my name, I have received a letter from the Minister of State pointing out that, since last year, the procedure in the case of Provisional Orders has been very much simplified in Scotland and consultations with the Scottish Office take place with much more facility, and asking me if I would refrain from moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I am quite ready to agree to the Minister of State's request, but I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Government whether, with respect to all the old liquidated damages and penalties contained in Bills which have not been amended since 1914, these penalties should not be considered, gone into and brought up to date.
I ought to tell your Lordships that I have some interest in this matter, or perhaps some apparent interest, because the premises on the river where I live were run into by a tug the other day and, if it had been my neighbour's house it would have been brought about his ears by the shock. The tug informed me that, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1901, its liability was limited to £8 a ton. I think there must be a great many things of that kind in Acts passed before 1914 that have not been amended since. I submit to Her Majesty's Government that these cases should be looked into and examined, but, with those words and with your Lordships' permission, I will not move my Amendment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
2.43 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 Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of this Act, any person suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise, who carries a weapon for self-defence shall be deemed to have a reasonable excuse."
The noble Lord said: On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill your Lordships decided very heavily against my Amendment not to proceed further with the Bill. I am not in the least discontented with that decision, but I am still anxious about this question of self-defence, and for that reason I have put down this Amendment. I want the Committee to consider for one moment the present situation with regard to the population. The National Health Service is limping because, amongst other things, it is impossible to get sufficient nurses to serve the hospital beds that have to be provided. In addition, it is impossible to get sufficient voluntary workers to carry out visits and so discover the cases that need attention. Some places, I believe, have no such voluntary workers at all. The mining industry is not pulling its full weight because there are not enough miners, and in just the same way there are not sufficient police for the tasks which they have to perform.
The Committee may think that improved conditions will increase the numbers of the police, but I am confident that that is not so. I am told that one great obstacle, amongst others, to an increase in the numbers of the police is that there are not sufficient people in the population of the required standard of physical fitness and character to fill the vacancies, For that reason, as well as because of the competition of other and more attractive occupations, it is very doubtful whether
6
we shall ever have a police force sufficiently large to discharge the duties put upon them. In fact, one of the reasons sometimes given by the police for opposing bail is that that would require the services of more police to watch the culprits. On these grounds alone it is hopeless to expect the police to prevent all crimes of violence, and people must be prepared to protect themselves to some extent, or else to submit to violence. I repeat what I said before, that unless there is a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, then the largest police force in the world will never be able to help them. I should like to put this point: That if every citizen is a constable in the defence of other people—and that is agreed on all sides—then he must of necessity be a constable in defence of himself. There is no reason why that should not be so. Everybody is liable to National Service and I think everybody is liable to help to preserver the Queen's peace.
On Second Reading I gave examples of cases of women in Glasgow who have defended themselves, but I can think of examples from all over Britain, and a. great many from London itself. Last; week, over seventy cases of assaults of various kinds were reported in the Press, and in reading through them one finds that one of the most noticeable features was the difficulty of getting evidence. In some cases the only evidence was that the woman who had been attacked had marked her assailant. If this is no longer allowed, there will be a very much larger number of cases in which, through lack of evidence, no charge is made. Alternatively, are people to go about armed to the teeth? They do not go about armed to the teeth to-day. There are many people who have to go out on duty at nights, and they take with them something with which they hope to defend themselves. A great many women have to go out at night—such as the girls in our hospitals, and in places like the Star and Garter. They come home late at night and sometimes they are attacked. They have a perfect right to defend themselves. If this Amendment fails, unless a girl is fortunate enough to be walking out with a policeman who is entitled to defend her, she is left in a very poor position.
In the Glasgow case, the schoolteachers defended themselves from attack by ruffians at night by arming themselves with water-pistols charged with ammonia. I think I owe an apology to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. In his reply on Second Reading I heard him talk only about pistols, and I did not hear the words that followed, "pistols which may discharge obnoxious fluids." It was entirely out of my mind that a water-pistol would be called a "pistol." and having misheard the noble and learned Lord I tried to correct what was my own error—an error due to my deafness. But when I read the next morning what the noble and learned Lord had said, I had a great shock, because what he said made it clear that he did condemn these Glasgow women who protected themselves from assault with these water-pistols charged with ammonia. I know that there is a Statute forbidding it—I think it is a very silly law. But, if I may say so, it is not surprising that Parliament, which passes between 100 and 200 General Statutes in a year, sometimes makes silly laws. I think this one which we are discussing to-day is another.
I want to ask the Government seriously—if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will answer me I shall be grateful—what is the answer in the case of women who are attacked? What are they to do? The Government say that they may not defend themselves; they may not carry anything with which they can defend themselves. Are they to sit in the Y.W.C.A. singing that they are "afraid to go home in the dark"? Or are they to submit? What is the answer? I have already shown, on Second Reading, that in many cases it is impossible for the police to defend these women, because when a constable is present no attack takes place. Attacks take place only when the coast is clear. These ruffians often have "signalmen" out to give them the word when conditions are favourable. My position is quite clear. I maintain that no Government have the right to deprive any respectable citizen of what is necessary to defend his person and the persons of his family. If the Government take a different view, I think I am entitled to be told what are the
8
answers to the questions which I have put. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL JOWITT: If I may just intervene for a moment, I should like to do so, though I certainly do not want to hold up the answers to the searching questions which the noble Lord opposite has put. On the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that there were certain respects in which I thought it might be improved. Since then I have ascertained these facts. The present Home Secretary, who is a very experienced person, thinks it right to introduce the Bill in the form in which it is now before us. His predecessor, the gentleman who was Home Secretary in the Labour Government, agrees with him that this is the right form in which the Bill should be introduced. That being so, since both these eminent authorities agree on that matter, it is clearly not for me, or anyone else, to rush in where such angels fear to tread. Therefore I do not propose to move any Amendments.
On this Amendment perhaps I may just say this: that it seems to me that anything drafted in a looser way it is difficult to conceive. What, for example, is the definition of someone
"suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise"?
It seems to me that a great many people suffer from bodily weakness. All of us do, more or less—except perhaps that gentleman who is whistling outside at the moment. The term "bodily weakness" is a purely relative term. I do not see how anyone could say what people come into the category and what people do not. Therefore I should be opposed to the Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): I did not quite clearly understand all that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, because a large part of his speech, if I may say so with respect, did not seem to be directed to this particular Amendment. I will try to satisfy him, so far as I can, why I think the Bill in its present form is preferable to the Bill as it would be if it were amended by his Amendment.

9
The object of his Amendment, as I understand it, is to remove a certain class of people from the purview of the Bill altogether. As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said, it is a very loosely worded Amendment, and in fact there would be great difficulties of definition if it were accepted. There would be difficulties of definition with regard to the words
"any person suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise."
I presume the noble Lord would say that that is something for the court to decide. I have a certain sympathy for the purpose which underlies the noble Lord's Amendment. He wishes to try to defend the weak and infirm. That is something we should all wish to do, and of which we should all approve; but I suggest that his Amendment has a number of drawbacks which make it impossible for the Government to accept it.
Here, I think, I had better reiterate the principle upon which this Bill is founded. I must make it clear that the Government do not wish to lend themselves to the support of the proposition that it is right for the ordinary citizen to arm himself in self-defence. Our view is that the preservation of the Queen's peace is the function of the police. Nothing should be done explicitly by Statute to condone action which implied inability of the forces of law and order to maintain it and which encouraged persons to carry offensive weapons. Therefore, in accordance with that principle, the purpose of the Bill, is to discourage—I purposely use the word "discourage"—all citizens from carrying offensive weapons. I emphasize the word "discourage," because I use it advisedly. If the noble Lord will look at the Bill he will see that there is no absolute prohibition. There is always the safeguard of the words "reasonable excuse" for the law-abiding citizen. He asked me what the lady who has just come back from the "Star and Garter" should do—
LORD SALTOUN: I did not say the lady was coming back from the "Star and Garter": I was referring to the ladies who go up Nightingale Lane to the Star and Garter Home, where they work with disabled men.
LORD LLOYD: I am afraid that I did not quite follow the lady's movements,
10
and I am not clear whether she was going to or coming from the Star and Garter. In any case I am sure that she is on an errand of which we should all approve, and on which she will probably have no lack of escorts, should she wish to have anyone to escort her. In any case, if she has reasonable cause for thinking that she goes in danger of her life she can carry a weapon. There is no absolute prohibition in the Bill. All we say is that if she does carry an offensive weapon, and if, in the unlikely and improbable circumstances which I explained on Second Reading—and I repeat that there are a great many safeguards for the law-abiding citizen—she is arrested by the police, she only has to show that she has a reasonable excuse for carrying a weapon. We feel that that is not such a terrific burden to impose on a law-abiding citizen. If she has to show reasonable excuse, under the Bill in its present form it is left to the courts to judge, in all the circumstances laid before them, whether or not a particular individual, whatever his or her age or physical circumstances, has such a reasonable apprehension about attack on his or her person as to make it reasonable for him or her to carry a weapon of self-defence.
I suggest to the noble Lord that, in any cases brought before them, the courts, before reaching a decision, will take into account all the circumstances, including the physical circumstances, of the individual concerned and the type of weapon carried. Really, I see no reason to suppose that in cases arising under this Bill the courts will act with anything less than their usual wisdom and justice. Therefore, for all these reasons, I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be far better that we left it to the courts to decide these cases on the merits of the individual cases, rather than to create a special and rather amorphous class of people who would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill altogether. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
3.0 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I say a few words on the medical side of the matter, in support of the Minister, and also a word on the drafting of this Amendment? The Amendment refers to
"any person suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise."

11
That means to say, suffering from any kind of physical weakness. To put in an Act of Parliament that any person so affected may use a weapon seems to me to be dangerous, especially as the noble Lord has mentioned an ammonia pistol, which I confess I regard as a very serious weapon—and there may be others of the same class. I think this would lead to much more trouble than leaving the matter to the decision of the courts. I am convinced that we do not want to go back to the Dark Ages. Does the noble Lord suggest that a man or woman with a bad hip, who has difficulty in getting along and must go slowly, ought to be allowed to carry a weapon on account of his or her weakness?—the noble Lord nods. That means to say that a very large number of people would be entitled to carry some kind of weapon, whether it be an ammonia-shooting weapon, a tear gas-shooting weapon or any other kind of weapon. I think that would excite much more antagonism than exists at the present time.
I do not know how many incidents of this kind take place in Glasgow, but I know that in Southwark, one of the poorest districts in London, where I conducted a clinic for schoolchildren for many years and was familiar with the whole district, when it was much poorer than it is now, the number of cases of this kind was extremely small. Except perhaps in special areas (which I do not want to specify),where there may be special reasons, I think this matter can be dealt with better by special reinforcement of the police force than by giving individuals opportunity of using weapons. If we do this, we are unloosing local wars, and I think that would be an extremely bad thing. Those inclined to use weapons of aggression for robbery and other purposes would be much more likely to use them than the ordinary innocent citizen going about on his own business. On that ground alone, I think the Committee should not agree to any amendment in the sense proposed by the noble Lord.
EARL WINTERTON: As one much interested in the police force, and as one who for a short time was assistant Minister at the Home Office, I should not like one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, to remain unanswered. I agree
12
with what the noble Lord who spoke for the Government and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, have said. All expert opinion is against the ideas behind this Amendment—not only the two Home Secretaries, the present and the previous, to whom the noble Lord referred, but also the police and other authorities. I do not want to be unduly controversial, but unfortunately the noble Lord adopted a defeatist attitude towards the police force. He suggested that the existing police force was unable to protect people, because of its paucity, and that the police force would never reach the required numbers. This is not the occasion for discussing the police force, but, as one who has taken part in another place in debates on the organisation of the police force, I would say that if certain things were done in regard to matters of housing and pay, which I hope the Government may do, then I am sure sufficient recruits would very shortly be forthcoming. It would be most unfortunate if it went out to the world, through the medium of a debate in your Lordships' House, that there was as serious an increase of violent crimes in this country as the noble Lord seems to believe there is. Certainly there has been an increase since the war, but if we look at comparable figures of other countries, we see that the increase has been far greater in other countries than it has been here. It would be most unfortunate if the idea went out that there had been an exorbitant increase, and that the police force, properly reinforced, was not able to deal with this violence. I think that in regard to law and order we still have a very fine position in this country.
LORD SALTOUN: I am not in the least repentant. Last week I got together Press reports of seventy crimes of violence (I have them in this book), and they do not include cases where a husband or wife goes for the other partner with a chopper, or something of that kind. I am not at all satisfied with the answer of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. I am not going to press this Amendment, because if the Government do not accept it, even if I carried it to a Division it would be of no avail. But I am dissatisfied with the answer. I have not been told what a woman who has to go to and from work or amusement at night should do. I have been told that the police always protect these women, but

13
this book is evidence that the police do not, and the cases reported do not include crimes for which there is no evidence to support charges. My own advice to women who have to do that is to assume that, so long as the crimes committed amount to this total, they have a reasonable excuse for carrying anything they may think necessary to defend themselves. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said, I would remind him that at the time of the garrotters London had far less crime, and far fewer of certain unpleasant crimes, than it has to-day; and in those days nobody thought anything about a man who had to go home at night carrying something with which to protect himself. With these entirely unrepentant words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, because it is no use pressing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
". Where any person suffers any injury through helping any one who is being assaulted, such person shall be entitled to proper compensation out of moneys provided by Parliament."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, everybody in this country has the duty of assisting the police if called upon and, where no police are present, the duty of acting like a constable and arresting anybody he sees committing an assault. If he has nothing with which to help him carry out that duty, it seems to me that he is liable to be injured.
On the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl who leads the Opposition told me the position was perfectly simple: that an unarmed man should go to the assistance of anybody who is being assaulted. If I were asked to do that I hope I should do so, but the first thing I should do would be to see what I had about me which would serve as a weapon to enforce my duty. I know that a great many people do not take that view. For example, there was a bad case about two years ago where a man in a public-house, who had the duty of keeping order in the bar, turned some people out. Later on at night he was called out and violently assaulted by young men with hammers. In the report of the case the magistrate expressed surprise that it was in a crowded street, with people going to and fro. That man is still paralysed, and
14
probably always will be. If I had been in the position of that man, I should certainly have preferred to have been killed; and possibly he would, also. Anybody who had tried to act as a constable and arrest those young men might have been seriously injured. I certainly believe that if anybody carries out a duty which is laid upon him by circumstances, and by the law of the land, then that law of the land should come to his help and compensate him if he is injured. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD LLOYD: I had hoped I had made clear to my noble friend what is the object of this Bill, but I feel that it is still not clear to him. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I should like to try and enunciate it once again. It seems to me that both this Amendment and the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend are based on a complete misconception of the purpose of the Bill. This Bill is directed at the criminal classes and is designed to limit the extent to which offensive weapons are carried for criminal purposes. I cannot agree with my noble friend that the answer to the disturbing trend indicated by figures of crimes of violence is to be found in encouraging law-abiding citizens to take up arms in their own defence. That seems to me to be a completely defeatist attitude. After all, violence tends to breed violence. Surely, we do not want to give the criminal classes an excuse for increased preparations for the use of violence to achieve their ends. That is a fundamentally wrong approach to the whole problem.
May I take as an example the international field? In the present state of the world defensive armaments are a regrettable necessity; but they are a regrettable necessity because we still have not an international police force. But that is not the state of affairs with which we are faced inside this country. My noble friend Lord Winterton has left the Chamber, but I agree with every word he has said. I am proud that we have in this country the finest police force in the world. I have not the figures with me, but I had hoped to have them in order to show my noble friend how the

15
recruiting of the police force is improving steadily year by year, partly as a result of the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee, and for other reasons into which I will not go now. In any case, I should like to try and persuade my noble friend that this Bill still does not prohibit the carrying of an offensive weapon. What it seeks to do is to ensure that a person carrying such a weapon in a public place may be called upon to satisfy a court that he has a reasonable excuse for doing so. That is all it does. In our submission, against the background of crimes of violence to which the noble Lord referred, that is not an unreasonable invasion of personal liberty.
As to the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved, he knows very well that it is the Common Law duty of every citizen to take what steps he can to prevent a breach of the peace, and that this duty may include the bringing of assistance to the victim of an unlawful assault of which he may be a witness. The chance that an individual, in the performance of that duty, may receive an injury, has always been present, but it would be introducing an entirely new principle to suggest that such a person should have a claim for compensation under Statute. You might just as well say that anybody who jumps into the river to save a child from drowning and gets injured in the process should be compensated under Statute; or that anybody who has a traffic accident, not having control of the traffic, should have compensation on the grounds that he has been run into by somebody and that it is the fault of the police.
Somebody who goes to help the police may have an action against the person who assaulted him. He may equally have a claim in gratitude from the person to whose assistance he goes. If the person assisted were a constable—I proffer this to my noble friend as some consolation—it would be the usual practice for the police authority to make an ex gratia contribution towards any out of pocket expenses, such as damage to clothes. But on the general principle involved, however much sympathy may be felt for the person who receives injury in such circumstances, I really cannot believe—and I ask the Committee to agree with me—that it would be right to put him in
16
a better position as regards compensation for injuries than other persons who may incur equally grave injury in other circumstances in which they are unable to look to the State for compensation. For all those reasons, quite apart from the drafting of this Amendment, which is not really satisfactory—there is no clear definition of the term "proper compensation"—I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will not press it.
LORD SALTOUN: I feel I have not wasted time in moving this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Lloyd, who represents the Government in this matter, has stated emphatically that it is not the purpose of this Bill to prevent people from carrying weapons if they think it is necessary for their defence. I hope that that will be noted.
LORD LLOYD: May I correct my noble friend? I said "if, in the opinion of the court, they have a reasonable excuse"—which is a slightly different thing.
LORD SALTOUN: I accept my noble friend's correction. That is quite enough for my purpose. The noble Lord made an interesting point in his reply when he said that this Bill labels all weapons as offensive unless it can be proved that they are not. The weapons with which the country is armed are all labelled "defensive," yet they are much more potent weapons, and cost a great deal more. It seems to me that the words "offensive" and "defensive" are just used in either case to import a motive to the man behind them. I do not think that that makes a good Bill. In the circumstances, I propose to withdraw this Amendment and not to move the next one down in my name, as I am not likely to get very far with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Any slight criticism I have of this clause in no way means that I do not support its objectives. In fact, the only fault I can find with the whole Bill is that it does not go far enough by reintroducing flogging and much sterner institutions for persons guilty of offences of violence. I

17
feel that our long-suffering police, as well as the courts, will have a great burden thrown upon them to interpret exactly what is meant by "offensive weapon" which, according to the second half of subsection (4) of this clause, means:
"…any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him."
I am rather afraid that what we are going to see is that the type of miscreant who habitually uses weapons which are obviously offensive—such as, on the one hand, pistols or knives and, on the other, razors or sharpened pieces of bicycle chain—will take refuge in using other more innocent material which can be utilised for improper purposes. As I have no doubt that persons who would use them are already well acquainted with the knowledge, I do not think there is any harm in observing, for example, that a tobacco pipe, so I am informed, makes an excellent knuckle duster, and that a small strip of indiarubber tube wrapped round the knuckles and properly applied can split a face from ear to chin. I am afraid we are going to see many cases of the carrying of apparently innocent weapons or potential weapons of such a description.
I agree that our police force cannot be held in any way responsible for these outrages. It has already been said, and said correctly, that we have not nearly enough police. That is something which it is hoped to remedy by measures far outside this Bill. I feel that unless some extension of this subsection can be made to cover the use not only of an article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, but also of a completely innocent object which can be so misapplied, we are going to have, on the one hand, an intolerable burden thrown on the police and the courts in interpreting what an offensive weapon may be, and, on the other, the risk that some of these so-called "cosh boys" may endeavour to continue their evil practices by using such implements.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
3.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am happy to think that I need not detain the House for long in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. I wish to offer only a few observations, first, because there has been some slight misunderstanding upon a point of principle, and, secondly, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was unable to be here on the Committee stage of this Bill. Of course, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is pretty well synonymous with town and country planning. Indeed, I wish we had had him here, because there would then have been at least one noble Lord present on the Committee stage who understood all the Amendments. As some noble Lords have discourteously pointed out, they looked as if they had been drafted by "Beachcomber" of the Daily Express.
As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is only a prelude to the main legislation which we shall have to consider next Session. Its aims are two. The first is to free from liability to development charge all schemes of development begun on or after November 18, 1952, which was the date when the Bill was introduced in another place. That proposal has occasioned singularly little criticism from either side of the House or, indeed, from outside. It seems to be generally agreed that whatever views we may have held about the theory of development charge—a theory which, I freely admit, goes back to the Coalition White Paper of 1944—it has not worked well in practice. The second main purpose of the Bill is to cancel the distribution of the £300 million fund. As the 1947 Act stands, this sum is due to be distributed among the claimants by the end of June of this year. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that it is quite unnecessary to pay out this huge sum in order to secure effective control over the use of the nation's land. As to the need for that control we are all agreed. In any case, it is obvious if development charge is to be abolished, there can be no question of distributing the fund blindly among all claimants, because many among them will now be able to

19
reap the benefit of developing their land. With the abolition of development charge some form of "payment as it hurts" becomes a necessity. I think that that also is common ground between us. The remaining provisions of the Bill are concerned to avoid certain anomalies, for the most part in the payment of compensation, which would otherwise follow from the abolition of development charge and the cancellation of the pay-out.
I would admit at once that legislating in two bites in this way has certain drawbacks. It is not a method which any Government would adopt through choice. Considered even on the narrow ground of tactics, it has the disadvantage that the sugar is handed out before the pill. I think I can fairly claim that, in the circumstances, this was inevitable. No one in this House would suggest that the Government should have embarked on amendment of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act without first making a careful examination of the whole subject. On the other hand, for the reason which I have just given to your Lordships, legislation had to be on the Statute Book by the end of June if payment of the£300 million was to be stopped. Once that sum had been paid out, any far-reaching amendment would obviously have been impossible. It would have been impossible in the time available to have completed the necessary review and then to have produced a comprehensive measure for consideration during the present Session, even had the Parliamentary time been available.
In saying this, I do not want to give the impression that postponement of the main legislation has been a major calamity. Although it means that land transactions must be carried out against a somewhat uncertain background, there is no sign whatever of paralysis in the land market. All the signs are of an awakening activity: land which had been withdrawn from the market as a result of the 1947Act provisions is again on offer. But there is one consequence of the postponement which the Government wholeheartedly regret. Those whose land has been acquired by public authorities or has been restricted against development and those who have paid development charge must wait a little longer for the money which they were expecting to
20
receive this year. In most cases that delay will be amply compensated for by the fact that payment may now be made up to the full agreed value of the claim instead of being limited to about 16s. in the pound, as was previously likely to be the case. But to those who are advanced in years or feel the hot breath of their creditors upon the backs of their necks, the time of payment may be more important than the amount, and to them any postponement is a bitter blow. The Government have sought hard and genuinely for some means of making early payment in cases of hardship, but it has proved impracticable to make any payments in advance of the main legislation. We can therefore only direct our efforts to making the inevitable delay, with the help of all concerned, as short as possible.
But if the present Bill marks only the first stage of our journey, it is none the less important for all that. It strikes at two of the key features of the financial system of the 1947 Act, the development charge and the fund. It does not settle the shape of the new system, but it does mean that it will be very different from the old. Yet even amongst those who express doubts about the Government's positive proposals, few, I think, question the need for the preliminary steps contained in this Bill. I have no hesitation, therefore, in commending it to your Lordships for a Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, there is not much for me to add to the rather long statement which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. A number of the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to-day were, in fact, answered by me then, in anticipation, and I do not propose to repeat what I said on that occasion. I feel that it is most unfortunate that the Government have thought it necesssary completely to upset the existing structure, which, on the whole, was an agreed structure and which, in my view, had never been given a proper chance. It had operated under most abnormal conditions. Many of the difficulties which were encountered, and which it was alleged were due to the 1947 Act, were due entirely to the abnormal conditions

21
which existed from the time the Bill became law until the present time. Take, for instance, the necessity to restrict capital expenditure. That was a fact that could never have been anticipated; it was something which was abnormal and which was the cause of a good many of the restrictions on building which were attributed to the 1947 Act.
I do not deny that I have said in the past that this rather complicated measure—the complexity of which is always exaggerated—after a number of years of experience, had shown some signs of the need for amendment; and nobody would have complained if the Government had brought in an Amending Bill, even a Bill for the postponing of the payment of the £300 million, on the lines that I indicated in my Second Reading speech. Suggestions have been made by all sorts of people interested in this matter—practitioners in connection with land and others—as to Amendments to the Bill; they were Amendments which, in my view, would have worked and would have rendered unnecessary the throwing of the whole question of the planning of land into the melting pot. I appreciate with gratitude that the planning provisions of the 1947 Act are not in dispute. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made some rather flattering observations about that section of the Act which I greatly appreciate, but I would ask him to bear in mind that the financial provisions were an integral part of the planning provisions and were regarded as necessary in order that the planning provisions might be carried into effect.
It was recognised until recently that, unless something on the lines of these planning provisions had been introduced, planning would have been ineffective; and one is very much concerned about the fact that the financial provisions have been completely disturbed and that, so far as we know, nothing equally effective is being put in their place. I respect completely the sincerity of those who desire that our land should be used and planned in the most effective way in the interests of the community as a whole. I think that noble Lords opposite are as sincere in that desire as we on this side are—there is no quarrel about that. But those of us who have been concerned with this subject know that for many
22
years planning has been rendered ineffective through there not being any satisfactory financial provisions. My great fear is that we are not going to have satisfactory financial provisions now; and my fear is based upon what I read in the White Paper and upon my doubt as to whether anything substantially different from what is contained in the 1947 Act will be effective. I have said all this before, but I still beg leave to reserve my doubts on the matter.
Moreover, this Bill creates a number of hardships. Lord Mancroft was quite fair in indicating the hardships that will arise as a result of this measure; and in those circumstances I do not understand what he meant by the sugar coming first and the pill afterwards: I thought these hardships probably were the pill: certainly they are going to affect a considerable number of people. It is really not a matter of people having their payments deferred; it is the great uncertainty that exists as to whether they will receive any payment at all; or, if so, when. The noble Lord spoke as though it were quite certain that within a relatively short time the classes of persons he mentioned—and I accept the fact that, broadly, they represent the people who are suffering as a result of postponement of the payment of compensation—will get their full compensation, possibly with interest. But I would refer the House to what the Bill says.
If we look at Clause 2, subsection (1) (a) we find these words:
"claims for such payments duly made to the Central Land Board under the said Acts shall be satisfied in such manner, in such cases, to such extent, at such times and with such interest as may hereafter be determined by an Act of Parliament passed for that purpose."
That provision is not quite so definite as Lord Mancroft made out. It still leaves room for a great deal of doubt. I myself, if I had a claim, should not like to assume on the strength of this paragraph that I was going to be paid is full within a very short time, with interest, on the amount of my claim. A great many reservations are made—and perhaps wisely: I do not complain. Incidentally, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to say a few words to-day, but I should like him, either on this or another occasion, to tell me whether anything similar to this has ever occurred in any

23
other Statute. Has there ever been a Statute containing a reference to another Statute which is to be passed in the future for the purpose of meeting the claims which have already been approved? If so, I am not aware of it. It may be an innovation which is desirable or otherwise, but it seems to me a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
I remain completely unconvinced that this Bill, which amounts to a repeal of the 1947 Act, will have beneficial effects on planning, or will make planning more effective. And the ostensible reason for introducing this measure is that the 1947 Act has, in many ways, broken down. I have grave doubts as to whether, even if the White Paper is in due course implemented, it will bring about any improvement. On the contrary, I think there is a great danger that we may go back to the days before the war when we had relatively unrestricted building taking place. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I have very grave doubts indeed as to whether we shall not go back to those days, with our ribbon development and extended towns, with open spaces and green belts built on. After all, the 1947 Act brought about a financial settlement of all these matters. We should have made our payment once and for all, and after that, for all time, we should have had complete control over the development of our land. In this measure all that is taken away and, as I have said, the thing is thrown into the melting pot.
I deeply deplore, not for any personal reasons, what has happened. I greatly fear that not only shall we have these evil results but that once more planning will be turned into the cockpit of politics. One of the great advantages of the1947 Act, apart from its settlement of the financial aspect, was that it brought about stability. People did know, for better or for worse, where they stood. The difficulty about planning and about land legislation generally has been that no Statute has been on the Statute Book long enough to give it a fair chance of implementation. There has always been an element, an atmosphere, of uncertainty, of instability; and here we have it again. It may well be that certain land that was not in the market has come into the market to-day, but I wonder whether the noble Lord has inquired about the prices that are being
24
asked. I have, and I find that, in many cases, prices asked for land to-day have doubled, and even trebled, as compared with what was being asked only a year ago. If the noble Lord takes the trouble to make inquiries, he will find that what I say is correct: that there have been enormous increases in the value of land. If he imagines that, with these vast increases in the cost of land, and the high cost of building to-day, there will be any substantial increase in development, I think he will find himself sadly mistaken. This is a very sad parting with this Bill. I face this Bill with great apprehension and anxiety about the future of our land. I can only hope that I may be mistaken.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXPORTS TO CHINA
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the procedure in Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921—as amended in accordance with the White Paper (Cmd. 2327)—under which applications for the imposition of duties were first considered by the Board of Trade, and then referred to an independent Committee set up ad hoc by the Board, if in its opinion a prima facie case had been established; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of setting up a Committee or Committees similarly to give assistance to the Board of Trade in relation to the issue of licences for the export of non-strategic materials to China. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before putting the Question which is standing in my name on the Order Paper, I desire to make a few observations explanatory of my purpose in putting the Question down. My Question arises out of a Question which was put to Her Majesty's Government on March 24, to which there were several supplementary questions from myself and from other noble Lords. When the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave me the substantive answer to my Question he used these words. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 242):
"Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider, in consultation with other

25
nations, the addition or deletion of any item if strategic considerations warranted such action. They would be prepared to consider in this context any suggestions the noble Viscount may care to submit."
Subsequent to that, it was conveyed to me that, were I to raise the matter again, Her Majesty's Government would consider it more convenient if it were raised in the form of an Unstarred Question. That being so, I put down the Question which stands on the Order Paper to-day.
This matter is concerned with the licensing of exports to China. I submit that our export trade is vital to the existence of this country. It is vital, indeed, to clothe with a living reality the slogan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Trade, not aid." It is from that angle that I propose to approach the subject. May I say to begin with, however, that I fully appreciate the Government's difficulties in this matter? I fully realise the difficulties and I appreciate the understanding with which the Board of Trade is approaching this matter. There was a period in my life when I had the good fortune to be Parliamentary Private Secretary in another place to an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade and also to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. During that period, I got to know the Civil Service intimately, from the inside, and ever since those days I have had the greatest admiration for the Civil Service, as a body and as individuals, and I am glad to be able to pay them that tribute to-day.
The refusal to issue export licences for goods to China is being carried out following on a resolution of the United Nations which was passed on May 18, 1951. I am not one of those who consider that a United Nations resolution is necessarily sacrosanct. I think that if we held that view, it would soon lead to the abrogation of sovereignty on the part of this country. I suggest that the United Nations evaded its responsibilities in regard to this resolution placing an embargo on the export of strategic materials to China. In my submission, it ought to have drawn up a list of materials which all the member nations subscribing to the resolution would have had before them as a guide when they were imposing the embargo. Instead of that, the United Nations left each nation to decide which particular materials they were going to
26
place upon their own list. The consequence is that there is evidence that the United Kingdom is imposing tighter restrictions on trade wilt China than are other countries who are operating a strategic embargo.
In that connection I should like to quote something which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said on March 24 when he was replying to a supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Stansgate. At the end of his answer Lord Mancroft said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 244):
"Unfortunately, many other countries do not carry out their part of the bargain with the same scrupulous accuracy as we do. That has been the cause of much of the trouble."
I ask this question: who is to determine the standard of accuracy? In my submission, that is where the United Nations failed in regard to their resolution. Surely it was for the United Nations to determine the standard of accuracy which other countries imposing an embargo could have lived up to. With great respect to Her Majesty's Government, I cannot really subscribe to the view that that is the right method under which to impose this embargo.
As I have said, in my view the United Kingdom is imposing tighter restrictions on trade with China than are other countries who are operating a strategic embargo. May I quote a few instances to support my argument? For example, an export licence has been refused by the Board of Trade for the first instalment of an order for £2 million worth of penicillin, streptomycin and sulpha drugs. Now it is understood that these are to be supplied to China by West German firms. Licences have also been refused in recent months, in October 1952, for the export to China of pumps for coalmines, diesel engines for industrial purposes, other stationary engines, electric drills for detecting water in coalmines, electric coal drills, aerial rope, die-stocks for pipes, chasers for die-stocks, twist drills, gear cutters, electric dynamometers, mercury rectifiers, magnetic separators, lightning arresters, voltage detectors and other items, making a total of £10 million worth of general industrial machinery. In addition, a licence was refused at the end of last year for the export of £500,000 worth of cables. It is known that in regard to these items Sweden. France and Germany have been

27
acting on a more conservative interpretation of "strategic" from that apparently adopted by the Board of Trade, and it is to be expected that much of the export trade in machinery to China will in consequence find its way to suppliers outside this country. Another commodity in which trade badly needed by this country has been lost owing to the refusal of export licences is a commodity to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred in the course of the interchange which took place on March 24—namely, the tinplate industry.
Now I turn to examples which have come to light quite recently illustrating the impracticability of maintaining an embargo on the comprehensive scale now attempted. I suggest that this is a very important matter in connection with the picture which I am attempting to paint. In February Ceylon concluded a 5-year agreement on trade with China to the value of 250 million rupees a year. China is to supply a minimum of 200,000 tons of rice annually, together with other goods to be agreed upon each year, including green peas, coal, wheat flour, newsprint and sulphur.
Ceylon will send China 50,000 tons of sheet rubber annually. The Prime Minister, Mr. Senanayake, said that he considered it of great importance to Ceylon's economy to secure a steady and dependable market for rubber at a fair price. It was pointed out also that whether or not rubber was a strategic material for China, rice was a strategic material for Ceylon.
I now turn to sales to China of rubber and constructional materials which have been resumed by Burma. The quantities reported to be involved to date are 1,500 tons of rubber and 300 tons of iron and building materials. At the same time, the Government of Burma has foregone any further financial aid from the United States. Now I turn to Japan. The news that Japan had lifted her embargo on the supply of no fewer than 97 classes of commodities to China is now followed by the announcement that she is to resume the sale to China of textile machinery and fertilisers in return for Chinese coal. In the course of the next three months alone, 157,000 tons of Kailan coal will be delivered to Japan in exchange for 860,000 dollars' worth of textile machinery and 400,000 dollars' worth of chemical fertilisers and other goods.

ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH
3.58 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Viscount, and indeed I should not have done so had it not been for the fact that I cannot spare very much time to make to the House a statement which I feel the House ought to have, as it is now being made by the Prime Minister in another place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will understand if I intervene at this moment. The statement refers to research into atomic energy, and runs as follows:
"As the House knows, considerable strides have been made in the development of methods for using atomic energy for industrial purposes, and these aspects are coming very much to the fore. In order to secure the most rapid and economic development in the field of atomic energy, both military and industrial, Her Majesty's Government have set up a Committee consisting of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who will be Chairman, Sir Wallace Akers and Sir John Woods, with the following terms of reference:
'To devise a plan for transferring responsibility for atomic energy from the Ministry of Supply to a non-departmental organisation and to work out the most suitable form for the new organisation, due regard being paid to any constitutional and financial implications.'
"It is clear that the form of non-departmental organisation appropriate in this case will differ from any existing model: overall policy must remain firmly in the hands of the Government and the method of financial control will have to be closely studied, since for some time to come almost the whole of the cost will have to be met from public funds. No further statement on the precise form of organisation can be made until Lord Waverley's Committee has proposed a plan in detail and it has been studied by the Government.
"Her Majesty's Government think it is right to state that, whatever changes may be decided upon, the rights and interests of the existing staff will be fully respected. Consultation with the staff representatives will take place at the appropriate time."

29
That, my Lords, is the statement which I have to make. I thought that the House would wish to have it as soon as possible.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Marquess for making that statement. It is a statement which the House would certainly desire to have. It is difficult to comment upon it at the moment. I confess that I do not know what is contemplated by a "non-departmental organisation"—I suppose that it is an organisation which is responsible to no Minister. If that is so, we should desire to reserve our rights in regard to the whole scheme. And I would ask that we may have an opportunity, at a very early date after the Committee's Report has been made, of debating and discussing it before final conclusions are reached, while the minds of the Government are still in a formative stage and at a time when they may profit from suggestions and criticism from this side of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble and learned Earl that we will bear very much in mind what he has said.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, as an infant in these matters I hesitate about making a statement of opinion upon them. On the surface, however, apart from taking the matter out of the Minister's hands and putting it into the hands of a Committee of this kind, I cannot see what can be proposed by the Committee that is not being done now, either for using atomic energy industrially or for using it for military and offensive purposes. I understand that in the country it is being used and studied in industrial concerns, and just exactly what the change will achieve I cannot understand. I am pleased that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said that we shall want to have some discussion upon this matter when it comes before us in some set form. I do not suppose that when it does come before us I shall make any very material contribution to any discussion we may have, but I am a very much puzzled person over the Government's intentions in this matter.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I wish to put this to the noble Marquess. We live in days of constitutional innovations, and presumably the money that is going to be given to this new organisation has got to
30
be carried on some Vote. What Vote is it going to be carried on? Will there be some Minister, in another place, and presumably also someone in this House, to answer for the expenditure of the money?
LORD TEVIOT: May I ask this question? Is there any great difference between what is suggested now and the ordinary inter-departmental Committee which is set up to discuss matters with regard to various Departments?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I really think it would be best, if I may say so with all deference, for noble Lords to see what is recommended by Lord Waverley's Committee before we go into these details. Indeed, I am not in a position to do so to-day. What I will certainly undertake to do is to bear very much in mind what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, have said with regard to future discussions in this House. I do not think I should say anything more at present—indeed, pending further inquiries, as I say, I am not in a position to do so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess will realise that it is rather strange to inform the House that Lord Waverley is going to preside over a Committee which will dispose of public funds, and yet he is unable to tell us on what Vote those funds are to be carried. We should be interested to know whether Lord Cherwell has any continuing interest in these finances. It is right to reorganise public administrations, but, it is wrong to announce that public money is to be spent when you cannot say on what Departmental Vote it will be carried.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount should remember this. Lord Waverley will, we hope, devise a plan, and the noble Viscount had better look at the plan before asking for details of how exactly it will work out. I agree that there must come an appropriate moment when the matter should be fully discussed by Parliament—there is no difference between us about that. It would be impossible for me to answer the noble Viscount's question on a matter which is an integral part of a plan not yet produced.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope that this new duty will not interfere with Lord Waverley's very important duty of presiding over the Committee which is investigating the causes and prevention of floods. I should have thought that that task was far more urgent than the work of this new body.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not for me to give categories of urgency in these matters. I feel certain, however, from what I know of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that he will be perfectly capable of dealing with these two tasks.
EARL JOWITT: I hope the noble Marquess will realise that what is worrying us is this. It is not that we distrust for one moment Lord Waverley's experience or his discretion. It seems to us, however, that in the advice which he is to give, and the plan which he is to draw up, Lord Waverley is to be confined to this non-departmental organisation. We should very much rather have the matter arranged so that Lord Waverley could advise and plan as he liked, rather than have all this completely novel constitutional procedure as we understand it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I fully appreciate the noble and learned Earl's point. If he would like to put down a Question on the subject, I will of course do my best to answer it. But I should rather not go any further to-day.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is a simple constitutional question. Are we to understand that the noble Marquess's announcement means that some global sum is to be presented to some non-Governmental organisation for dispensing, or will it appear in a Parliamentary Vote? He has told us that this work is to be taken away from the Ministry of Supply which, in regard to money expended, is responsible to Parliament. Shall we be allowed to ask Lord Waverley what he has done with the money?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount must preserve his soul in patience for the moment. I did not say that this was a non-Governmental organisation, I said that it would be a non-departmental organisation, which is quite a different thing. I really cannot go any further to-day. If noble Lords
32
like to put down Questions, I will do my best to answer them. In any case, there will be opportunity in due course to resolve those problems.

EXPORTS TO CHINA
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, we come back from the tempestuous seas surrounding atomic energy to the more peaceful waters surrounding the subject of my Question. When the noble Marquess rose to make his statement, I was referring to the resumption of the sale by Japan to China of textile machinery and fertilisers in return for Chinese coal. In the course of the next three months alone, 157,000 tons of Kailan coal will be delivered to Japan in exchange for 860,000 dollars' worth of textile machinery and 400,000 dollars' worth of chemical fertilisers and other goods. This represents a definite break by Japan with United States policy on the banning of trade with China. It is significant and interesting because in the speech which I made on the Japanese Treaty in this House, on November 29, 1951, I referred to the attempt to tie up Japanese economy with the West, and I said that it was bound to break down in the course of future years. That is exactly what is happening at the present moment. The breakdown was bound to come, and it has come. And let us remember, also, that it means a saving for Japan of no less than six-and-a-half dollars a ton on imported coal. The present United States price is 17.50 dollars a ton, against 11 dollars for Chinese coal. It will also mean that prices for Japanese iron and steel will be lower, and Japanese competition will become fiercer and fiercer as the months go by. I suggest that there is urgent need for revision of this matter of export licences.
The impression given to me by statements made since the Foreign Secretary's visit to Washington and in particular, by the reference (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 512, No. 75, col. 2075) to attempts
"to get other maritime and trading nations to co-operate with us,"
is that the Government, I do not say intentionally, have set themselves an

33
objective beyond that of the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, which expressly limited itself to
"arms, ammunition and implements of war, atomic energy materials, transportation materials of strategic value, and items useful in the production of arms, ammunition and implements of war."
After making every allowance for the difficulties of distinguishing between goods which have direct or indirect strategic value and those which have not, I submit that on the basis of this resolution it is very difficult to justify the Government's embargo on the export to China of antibiotic and sulpha drugs, manilla rope, carbon diaphragms for telephones, die stocks for pipes and all mining equipment.
There is a noteworthy border-line case that I should like to submit to your Lordships in which perhaps the Chinese might have been given the benefit of the doubt—and I think there is a doubt—in view of their continuous efforts to improve their internal communications. I refer to road-making machinery, which has been on the Board of Trade embargo list since June, 1951. At the end of March of this year, the Chinese indicated that they would be interested in purchasing road construction machinery from this country to the value of approximately £l0 million sterling. In view of the small percentage which this represents of the Chinese economy in relation to the war effort in Korea, this seems to me a borderline case which might have been given the benefit of the doubt. Recently, when asked in another place whether he did not think it was scandalous that reputable British firms should lose the opportunity of trading with China in non-strategic items, letting it go instead to other countries, the Secretary for Overseas Trade replied (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 509, col. 1191) that
"The manner in which the various N.A.T.O. countries carry out their duties differs. This country has the highest standard of all."
I referred to that standard in my remarks in connection with the question of accuracy, which was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on March 24. In relation to all these very difficult matters in connection with the export of non-strategic materials to China, I have put down this Question on the Order Paper. I have put it down with the object
34
of giving the Government assistance in their onerous task of making decisions connected with export licences to China. With this in mind, I Lave quoted a precedent which, although it may not be a true precedent in every respect, is the only one which I could discover. I now beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
4.15 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend on this Question, I want to make two things clear. First, I am not in any way attacking the Government or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, or any other Minister in this matter. My noble friend has put his Question in a friendly way and I shall try to keep my remarks in a friendly sense, because I realise that the Government are in a very difficult position. As a member of the United Nations and as a member of N.A.T.O. they have certain obligations and they are under continuous pressure from the United States of America on this particular business. At the same time, this country has an old, traditional and valuable market in China which we hope one day to regain. I am sure your Lordships will agree that not only is China the greatest country in the world in population but it is also a country of immense natural resources, where for the first time for centuries the old shackles of tradition and feudalism have been broken away and the whole people are on the march. Therefore, it may in the future become a country of tremendous importance, politically, strategically and commercially.
I want to make clear also that I am engaged in business all over the world, including the sale of coalmining machinery to many countries. Small quantities were sold in the recent past by my company to China and also to Japan, but that trade has now been stopped. I am making no complaint, because it is only a small market, but I have an interest in this matter. I have no wish to criticise here, if only for the reason that the original list of articles considered to be of strategic importance was introduced in another place by my right honourable friend Sir Hartley Shawcross, when he was President of the Board of Trade. In other words, this was initiated by the Government of which three of my noble

35
friends below me were at one time or another such brilliant ornaments.
The whole question of what is of strategic importance is difficult indeed, as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has said. The simplest approach is that everything is of use to a country in case of war and therefore is of strategic importance. I quote the classic example of the First World War, of which I have reason to know some details. It was not convenient for us to declare a blockade of Germany, because of the position of certain neutrals, the most powerful of which was the United States of America, but we imposed severe restrictions of German sea borne trade by enforcing a list of contraband articles of strategic importance—a list which was continually extended. I used to get the list because one of my duties was to try to enforce it. In the end, I think the only articles of commercial exchange which were not on the strategic list were ostrich feathers. For a long time oranges were not on the list; and then somebody said that oranges might go to the German troops in the trenches, and so we put them on. You can say that everything is of strategic importance. The list is a formidable and a long one. The noble Viscount has quoted the case of certain humanitarian healing drugs, road-making machines—which he said is a borderline case—and many other articles which really have no direct connection at all with military operations but which have an indirect bearing as supporting the economy of the country which is at war.
The criticism of Her Majesty's Government which has been voiced by the noble Viscount is that they are being too honest, too scrupulous and too conscientious. That is what we might well expect. We have, first of all, an extremely honest Government—all Her Majesty's Governments are honest—supported by a superlatively honest Civil Service. The last people to whom they give any consideration are the unfortunate British traders, who have to earn the money to pay the taxes to support this very honest Administration and its professional advisers. The French, the Japanese, the Burmese, the Singalese and the West Germans are all admirable and honest people, but not quite so honest and so scrupulous as Her Majesty's Government in Whitehall. So
36
we have the ridiculous situation which was mentioned by my noble friend, of rubber, which is for British economy one of the most important articles of commerce, being stopped from being sent by the Mincing Lane merchants to China, which is a traditional market, while the Ceylon Government break into that market for the first time, because they want rice and because they are not quite so honest, so scrupulous and so conscientious as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and his colleagues. As the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, suggested, we can be certain that as the Japanese become freer of the shackles of American control, and as they gain more and more their sovereignty, so will they turn to their traditional market in China. They must do that to live. They have an increasing population; they have lost many of their old markets, and they must turn to the China market to find an outlet for their manufactured goods and to secure certain raw materials—coal, foodstuffs and so on—which they require.
Perhaps things will improve shortly. What I have in mind is that we may hope that the negotiations in Korea will proceed smoothly and successfully; that higher direction will knock together the heads of the soldiers on both sides, so that we may get an agreement; and that we may then get the beginnings of peace in Asia. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will then be well prepared to knock off quickly these artificial restrictions and allow our merchants and traders to get busy; and I hope that our merchants and traders are getting ready for a change of climate and a change of temper. This is a great market, and we cannot afford to neglect it in the future. May I give just one example? In the constituency of Hull, which I had the honour to represent at one time, we were the pioneers of the soya bean. We brought in soya beans from Manchuria and crushed them into the most valuable edible oil. This country is short of edible oils, and that is why we have to ration margarine, butter, lard and so on. We cannot afford to buy the quantity of fats that we should like, because the main source of supply is in dollar markets. If we could again bring in soya beans there would be more work for my old constituents in Hull and the British housewife would benefit. The soya bean is

37
grown in profusion and most cheaply in Manchuria. That is only one example, and I think it is worthy of consideration.
In the first two months of this year, in spite of all these embargoes and before the new licensing of shipping came in—which I think is also rather unfortunate, unless it is liberally and generously applied—we brought in imports from China, which were badly needed, to the extent of nearly £1,500,000, and our exports to China, in spite of these obstructions, were worth over £2 million. If that could be done in these times of difficulty, with warfare in Korea, and at a time of great obstruction, with many obstacles in the way, what could not be done if the barriers were cast down? For that reason, I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has performed one more of his many services to the country in asking this Question.
4.27 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has raised this matter. As President of the Anglo-Chinese Chamber of Commerce, I should like to tell your Lordships of some experiences we have had in the last two or three years. So far as we have been able to find out, there is a good deal of exaggeration about these large orders—the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, mentioned an order of something like £10 million. We get information of that sort, and through our Chinese friends we try to trace whether these orders are really going through with these other countries. In many cases the information we receive is that the order is not nearly so large as is represented. So far as the question of licences here is concerned, noble Lords will know the functions of the Chamber of Commerce. We do not embark on any of the business ourselves. What happens is that the Chinese come and ask us where they can procure this or that. So far as I know, we have had no sort of complaint from those sources that they were unable to get a licence to carry out through firms we have recommended the business about which they have come to us. I do not remember that any orders they wanted placed were of strategic importance, and perhaps in that case the licences were granted.
38
I feel that we should do everything we possibly can to increase the trade between the two countries. The Chinese are only too delighted to assist us in every way. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, there are enormous potentialities. China is a rich country, with vast reserves of raw materials. Certain feelers have been thrown out to us, from sources that I should not have expected, asking whether we would assist to increase the trade between our two countries. For that reason, I think that if publicity is given to what the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has said, and to this debate, it will help to show that here the spirit is willing to help to increase the trade between our two countries.
4.30 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, for bringing this matter before us this afternoon, because for some considerable time many of us have felt concern over this question of strategic materials. Obviously, none of us would wish war materials to go to China or, indeed, to any of the Communist countries, particularly to those countries who are carrying on the war in Korea. That is not in issue at all. What we are concerned about is whether, by some definition, materials are said to be strategic when really they are not. That is the issue before us this afternoon.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has cited a number of materials which, he informs us, have been held to be strategic and which certainly seem to be rather odd. If articles like pumps and the other things he mentioned can be regarded as strategic materials, then almost anything can be regarded as strategic. I know that this matter is one which is capable of almost unlimited dispute, because we can all decide in our own minds what is strategic and what is not. Therefore I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, this question: Who actually decides this important question, and has there been some definition laid down for strategic materials? Obviously, as this is a recommendation of the United Nations, made in May, 1951, the sixty member nations of the United Nations should obey it equally. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that it is regrettable that some definition was not laid Idown-—if that is the case—by the United

39
Nations at the time. My experience of the United Nations is that they are more inclined to lay down great principles than they are matters of detail which flow from those principles.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that Ceylon, a country which he rather castigated, is not a member of the United Nations and, therefore, I suppose, to that extent can be absolved from not complying. Ceylon has long wanted to be a member, but owing to the refusal of the Soviet Union to have her, she has not been able to become a member of the United Nations. Therefore it is perhaps a little hard to castigate her for not complying with the recommendations of a body which will not have her. We have undoubtedly been stopped from sending a number of these materials, and we have been a little concerned, I think, at a report in The Times of March 31 of this year, relating to Senator McCarthy's committee. It appears from that report that Senator McCarthy certainly wishes that there should be a total elimination of shipping to China, and it would also appear that Senator McCarthy and his committee were trying to get the State Department to agree to that policy. That, of course, would be a very serious matter for us.
It is important that we should consider this question seriously, because from my experience in the United States and from letters I have received from that country there is one matter which upsets people in the United States, and that is the suggestion that we in this country are trading with China and with other Communist countries. Another suggestion is that the United States, of course, is guiltless, as is Japan. When I was in the United States I was on more than one occasion tackled on this very point, particularly with reference to Hong Kong. I pointed out that part of Hong Kong consists of a portion of the mainland of China, and the Island itself was entirely dependent upon the mainland for trade—or was at one time, and is now to a lesser extent. This is a traditional trade, and you just cannot cut off trade with the mainland like that. I also pointed out that when the question of Japan's trade with China arose, the American occupation authorities said that they could not stop Japanese trade with China
40
because it was a traditional trade. If those facts were better known among the American public they would not be quite so critical of us as they sometimes are.
I feel that in this case we should try and ascertain from the Government exactly how we stand in this matter of strategic materials; what they are and who decides upon them. For instance, have the Government had any conversation with the United States as to what is to happen with reference to strategic materials and trade with China if the war in Korea, as we all hope, ends? Is a new situation likely to arise, and have the Government made any plans to meet it? Those are points which we on this side are most anxious to ascertain from the Government, and we should be most happy if the Minister could enlighten us upon them.
4.36 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the position which was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I hope the Government will be able to indicate that the suggestion which he has made at any rate opens up the possibility of some freeing of trade with China. I am not so much concerned with the undoubted fact that we have lost very heavily from these embargoes at a time when our economic situation is not very bright, as with the fact that undoubtedly this drying up of trade is a great hindrance to the growth of a peaceful relationship between our two countries. Undoubtedly a much larger volume of trade would foster peace, and at the particular time when olive branches are being held out I feel that that is a very important aspect of the matter.
I could not help being interested in the reminiscence of my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi, of the First World War, during which embargoes were imposed to the point when only ostrich feathers could get through. What one fears at the present moment is that embargoes are being placed on olive branches, which is a much more serious business. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has just spoken, has indicated the strong feeling which exists in the United States on this matter. Undoubtedly it does exist. It is no doubt under very considerable pressure from the United States that this over-rigid—as I am sure it is—series of embargoes have

41
been imposed. I feel that at the present time, as I indicated in a speech which I made in your Lordships' House the other day, there are very strong forces in the United States—Senator McCarthy's name has been mentioned—who are in fact very anxious that there should be embargoes on olive branches, and are taking all the steps they can in order to keep feelings of bitterness and hatred vivid, keen and effective in the United States and, indeed, as far as they can, over the free world. Perhaps I am straying a little from the exact terms of the noble Viscount's Question, but I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given their authorisation to this dastardly proposal which is reported in the Press this morning—an attempt to bribe a Chinese airman to commit treason to his own country, which, in the whole history of war is, I think, one of the most terrible things that has ever happened.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Would the noble Lord look at the Question with which we are dealing on this discussion?
LORD CHORLEY: I said that I was straying a little away on this Question. The lives of people are at stake in these matters at the present time, and there is great feeling throughout this country that this is a very serious business indeed. I hope the noble Marquess will not allow rigid feeling for conventional proprieties of debate to blind him to the fact that millions of people in this country feel that a mistake, and a terrible mistake, has been made by this attempt to bribe soldiers of another State into committing what is no less than treason to their country. Can anybody deny that if this proposal had been made by the other side it would have brought contumely on the country which made it? I hope the Government will be able to find in the Question which has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, this afternoon some method by which the freeing of trade with China may be secured. I am sure that that would be a very valuable way by which peace could be advanced at this critical time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I have no doubt that as a matter of procedure and order the noble Marquess was quite right not to accept the point raised by the noble Lord as relevant to
42
the debate, but I hope that that will not preclude him or some representative of the Government from expressing clearly a sense of the indignation which this suggestion has caused. I leave it at that.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Does the noble Viscount mean this afternoon, in the course of this rather ample discussion that has arisen?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Of course not. But the matter is sufficiently serious to require consultation and a proper statement by the Government in due course. Naturally it is out of order to have asked a question which is outside the scope of the debate, but I wish to ask a question which I hope is in order, and it is this. We are all desirous of getting rid of this undertaking not to send strategic material. It must be clearly distinguished from sanctions or embargoes. When the matter was before the United Nations, Sir Gladwyn Jebb was careful to say that we were not engaging in any sanctions against China. In fact, when the first resolution declaring China an aggressor came forward, the Government representative was very chary and unwilling to support it. It was not until an amendment was made (this will be within the memory of noble Lords on the other side)—the Lebanese Amendment—that we accepted the definition of China as an aggressor: and many people thought that that was a mistake. Some months passed before the question was raised of what should be done to make the decision operative, and some time later a resolution calling for the prohibition of the export of strategic materials was proposed. Even then there was some hesitation. It was stated that the purpose of the resolution was to induce the Chinese to abandon hostile action in Korea. That was the sole purpose of this resolution prohibiting the export of those goods to China. We implemented that resolution at least as honestly as any other country, and have kept our word.
What are the conditions on which all this prohibition of the export of strategic material becomes ineffective? It was put on on a specific case, that the Chinese would not stop military operations. But suppose that they do stop military operations: are we then to be bound continuously by a resolution put on for a specific purpose? The specific purpose having

43
disappeared, are we to mix this up with the question of an Asiatic settlement? If within the next few weeks Chinese positive action disappears, are we free from the undertaking which we have honoured in this respect? If I might have an answer to this question, and especially if it were a favourable answer, I am sure it would have a very good reception from commercial circles in this country.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with one sentiment expressed in this debate, I certainly agree: it is indeed an onerous and difficult subject. I should like to add my own adjective and say that it is a delicate subject—and I do not think that in saying so I shall be misunderstood. I shall attempt to confine myself to the subject of the Question that I have been asked specifically, and to the supplementaries which arose out of that Question, and not be taken over wide fields into which attempts have been made to lead me. It might be thought convenient if I were to remind your Lordships what are the principles upon which the policy of Her Majesty's Government is constructed in this difficult matter.
As I informed the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, on March 24, the policy stems from the United Nations resolution of May 18, 1951, calling on all members to take all possible steps to prevent the export to China of any goods which would be of military and strategic importance to the Chinese Forces in Korea. The United States and Canada maintain an almost total embargo on trade with China. The United Kingdom keeps strictly to the terms of the resolution by banning exports which it considers to be strategic. Some other Western countries' controls do not include all the items on our lists. There are, of course, bound to be divergences of opinion, as has been suggested in this debate, on what materials are strategic, especially where general classifications are involved; but this divergence is confined to a very few items, and considerable progress has been made since the publication of our original list in bringing other countries up to the same level; and we are continuing these efforts. It is also true that certain goods have found their way to China through loopholes in the control system applied by different Western countries. Of course, these
44
evasions have been galling and irritating in the extreme to reputable firms in this country who have maintained their cooperation in the policy of denying these goods to China. As each country in turn is tightening up its control system, evasion has now become much more difficult.
As to the actual question which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the noble Viscount has suggested the appointment of a Committee to assist the Board of Trade in relation to exports of non-strategic materials to China. I cannot imagine that the noble Lord has in mind the need for a Committee to organise an export drive to China in non-strategic goods. If he is thinking of that, I think the answer is that we consider the existing channels of trade, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I never had them in mind.
LORD MANCROFT: I am glad to hear that. We should prefer to leave that to the normal channels of trade and the trade organisations set up by the Government of China, all of which are adequate to secure any business which the Chinese are willing to place in this country. What the noble Viscount probably has in mind is a Committee to advise us on whether goods should be considered to be strategic. He has referred to a previous Committee set up in days gone by. Experience of a similar type of Committee set up under the terms of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921,was not very encouraging.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is not what the Government said at the time.
LORD MANCROFT: The Government of 1921 or the Government of 1930?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We attacked this Committee repeatedly in another place, and we were, of course, assured by the Government that it was working very satisfactorily.
LORD MANCROFT: Perhaps we may look at that in the light of history. When the Committee was abolished the noble Viscount was, I believe, Secretary of State for India.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord's father was an extremely active and very distinguished supporter of the

45
Government. I myself was an undistinguished member of what I am glad to think was a thoroughly hostile Opposition.
LORD MANCROFT: We are obviously going a long way from the subject matter of the Question if we delve into what were my father's activities and the noble Lord's activities on the Act; but, in point of fact, it was repealed; and the reasons for the repeal, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade at the time—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is the noble Lord referring to the amendment also? He referred only to the original Act. That Act was amended by Command Paper—I forget the exact number—and the amendment made a material difference.
LORD MANCROFT: I do not quite know how an Act can be amended by a Command Paper. However, perhaps I may continue—I do not think that the matter is more than a technical point at the moment. As I said, the reasons for the repeal, as stated by the then President of the Board of Trade, were that only nine applications under the Act of 1921 had been received, and in riot a single case had the applicants established a case that the goods were being sold below the cost of production. The history of this duty suggested that it was difficult to apply in practice, but I think I can give the noble Viscount some comfort in this respect, because, as he probably knows, there is in being an inter-Departmental Committee, a strong inter-Departmental Committee, with adequate technical assistance, to advise on the strategic value of goods which are referred to it. That is, of course, the nub of the whole question which we are debating this afternoon.
May I repeat to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the offer which I made to him some weeks ago? It is, I think, important, because this Committee is dealing with a constantly changing problem. There is no hard and fast rule laid down—that is, of course, a point which several noble Lords have touched on. The offer made at the time of the noble Viscount's first Question was that the Government, and hence, too, this Committee, would willingly consider every individual case, and I asked the noble Viscount to bring forward cases, which he has now done. I said that the Government would willingly
46
consider any individual case where it was thought that injustice was being done or that strategic requirements were not really being fulfilled. I repeat that offer to the noble Viscount. The points which he has made this afternoon will be most seriously considered by that Committee, because I readily appreciate that it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule, to say, "This is clearly right; this is clearly wrong; this is strategic and this is non-strategic." That is the purpose of this Committee. This Committee will willingly consider any points put to it from the noble Viscount, and I will make it my business to see that the points he has raised this afternoon are brought to the notice of that Committee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am much obliged to the noble Lord but there is this difference: the Committee now in existence is an inter-Departmental Committee: the Committee set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, an ad hoc Committee, was an outside Committee of independent members. This is merely going from the Licensing Export Department to the Departmental Committee.
LORD MANCROFT: This is an inter-Departmental Committee, and I have no reason to believe that it will not do its tasks satisfactorily.
I should like to try to deal with one or two of the individual points that have been raised in the course of this debate. The question of pharmaceuticals was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the last time the matter was raised, but not, I think, on this occasion. The situation is as follows. Although pharmaceuticals are not included in our China embargo lists, pharmaceuticals of certain types—antibiotics, sulpha drugs and anti-malarials—are regarded as useful to an army in the field. It has therefore been our policy to restrict exports to China to the pre-Korean war level so as to meet only civilian needs. Until recently, most Western European producers were unwilling to restrict their exports in any way, basing their refusal on humanitarian grounds. Thus, large quantities of pharmaceuticals found their way to China and frustrated the object of our rationing controls and the embargo imposed by the United States and Canada. Lengthy discussions on this subject have

47
taken place, and I can inform the noble Viscount that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes to make a full statement on this detailed and particular subject in the course of a very few days.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord whether keeping drugs from a sick soldier is now regarded by the United Nations as humanitarian?
LORD MANCROFT: I really think it would be better if the noble Lord were to wait and study the statement to be made in the near future by my right honourable friend.
LORD OGMORE: I am asking the noble Lord now. What does he mean—"wait and study the reply"? We are having a debate in the House of Lords. I am not going to wait for any reply. I want the noble Lord to reply now.
LORD MANCROFT: It is no good the noble Lord getting angry with me.
LORD OGMORE: I have never heard such a suggestion.
LORD MANCROFT: I was given no notice that the question of pharmaceuticals would be raised to-day. I took the opportunity yesterday to find out what the situation was in that respect. I find that lengthy discussions are now being concluded and in the course of the next two or three days a detailed statement will be made by Her Majesty's Government. I do not wish to be bullied into going any further than that.
Then there is the question of Ceylon. This question has really been answered for me by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who pointed out a fact that is sometimes forgotten, that Ceylon is not a member of the United Nations. The situation on the rubber and rice position, is, as I understand it, as follows. Since the shortage of rice in Ceylon became acute, and particularly since the possibility arose of Ceylon obtaining rice from China in return for rubber, informal exchanges of view have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Ceylon. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have at no time made any formal representations to the Government of Ceylon on this subject, appreciating Ceylon's urgent need of rice in order to
48
protect her standard of living. Whilst it is not customary to give particulars of representations made by the United Kingdom Government to Commonwealth Governments, I can assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom Government did express their concern, before the agreements were signed, at the conclusion of agreements involving the supply of rubber on a large scale to China.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the noble Lord think that this class of pressure by this country on one of our Dominions helps the consolidation of the Commonwealth?
LORD MANCROFT: I did not use the word "pressure" in any way at all. I should repudiate it. I should be unhappy to think that the noble Viscount was able to read the word "pressure" into the very mild words that I used.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, both voiced the hope that normal trade with China in non-strategic goods would be encouraged, and that all would be done to allow these old channels of trade to flow as freely as they used to do in the days when they were so lucrative and satisfactory to both sides. It is clearly, without any doubt, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage legitimate trade with China. Textile machinery, I think, was one item mentioned. Such machinery can be exported from the United Kingdom to China. In January and February of this year we exported £150,000 worth of textile machinery. I give that only as one example. It appears to me that there are three things we can do. We can say, "The United Nations have passed a resolution to which we have agreed. It was ill-defined; it took away from us some of our sovereign power; it has now acted very harshly upon our traders; it is not running to our satisfaction. Other countries are not abiding by it as faithfully as we are, and are profiting thereby. We will now tear up the whole agreement and repudiate it, or we will slide out of such clauses as are to our disadvantage." My Lords, I do not think that anybody would seriously agree with that point of view.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It has not been suggested.
LORD MANCROFT: It has been hinted at.
The second point put forward by more than one noble Lord is that we should attempt to make other nations fall in line more completely and more scrupulously with us. That is a point of view I myself put forward when answering the Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, some weeks ago. I repeat that we are meeting with some success. We have not yet met with complete success. We have succeeded in reaching agreement with various nations who hitherto have not agreed with us on a large number of detailed commodities, and, as I say, we are meeting with increased success. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue with these negotiations and with that policy of trying to bring other nations who are not acting as scrupulously, or as accurately, as our-selves into line, so that our policies shall be the same. I am certain that that is the right policy in this difficult matter.
The third thing we can do, and which we are doing—and I renew my promise to the noble Viscount—is to keep under constant supervision the lists of articles that we consider to be strategic. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, produced our old friend, the ostrich feather. It is almost impossible to devise a list upon which there does not eventually appear an ostrich feather situation unless you keep it under constant review. I am not suggesting for one moment that if the list were laid before anybody a flaw could not be found in it and a good case be put up for the transfer of commodity A to another list. But we have the best advice we can take in this matter, and the lists are under constant review. I have given a guarantee, and I repeat it again, that all the various commodities and the points arising out of the Question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, will be carefully considered; and that, I am certain, is the best method of meeting the legitimate and understandable difficulty which the noble Viscount and those who have supported him have raised to-day.
50
My Lords, I will endeavour to give noble Lords answers to those questions which I have not been able to answer, which have been put to me and of which I did not receive notice. I am sorry that some of these questions strayed so far from the original Question as to take me slightly by surprise. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked the important question, "When does the situation end?" All I can say is that the situation, as he put it before the House, seemed to me to be reasonable and correct, and I would not differ from the proposals he put forward. I think quite clearly it would be reasonable to say that the restriction upon strategic goods which was put upon China as long as the warlike activities were pursued in Korea, cannot possibly be extended to any general overall peace plan stretching far and away beyond Korea. As I understand it, that is the situation, and I thought the sentiments which he expressed in that case were unexceptionable, and, unless I am contradicted from higher and better authority, I think that that statement was correct.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord.
LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry if my reply has, of necessity, been somewhat jumbled but I have dealt with a number of detailed points. I would conclude only by expressing the agreement of Her Majesty's Government as to the importance of this matter, and the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government with those legitimate traders who, in the interests of the United Nations, cur own foreign policy and our desire for peace, have been themselves personally penalised. I think we owe them a debt of gratitude for the scrupulous way in which they have attempted to help this country in carrying out their part of an agreement, from which I am quite certain this House would not wish to see us retreat at all.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very comprehensive Answer to my Question.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
5.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Kershaw be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and that the Lord Milner of Leeds be named of the Committee in his place. In doing so, I think your Lordships would wish me to thank Lord Kershaw for the time and care that he has generously given to this work and to regret the reasons which have impelled him to resign from it; and also to thank Lord Milner for undertaking the task. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lord Kershaw be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Lord Milner of Leeds be named of the Committee in his place.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 16th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.