Lords Sitting of 20 October 1953

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

  THE LATE DUKE OF ABERCORN
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, since your Lordships separated at the end of July this House has suffered a grievous loss in the death of one of its most distinguished Members, the Duke of Abercorn. Here at Westminster we did not know the noble Duke so well: no man, however public-spirited he may be, can be in two places at once. But in Ulster, to the welfare of whose people he devoted his whole life, he played an historic rôle. He became their first Governor in 1922, and he remained their Governor unlit 1945, a long and stirring period in the history of Northern Ireland. He had courage, a shrewd common sense and a simple kindliness which endeared him in a rare degree to the people of Ulster: he loved them, and they loved him. He was not a man who liked the limelight. For this reason he was not known here as well as he should have been. But he did a great work for his country, and it is well that we should pay our tribute to his memory to-day. Our sympathy will, I know, my Lords, go out to the Duchess, who shared so fully in his work, and to his children.
  2.37 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to identify noble Lords on this side of the House with every word that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has uttered. Death has laid its heavy hand upon us during this Recess; there are many Members whom we have lost. The convention of the House—no doubt a wise convention—is that we should refer only to those who have occupied certain great positions in the State, but I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that it does not mean
  1242
  that, because we follow that wise convention, we have not others in our mind at the same time. The Duke of Abercorn reminds us of this fact: that those who are shallow enough to think that because we do not see noble Lords at Westminster taking part in our activities here, therefore they are not doing useful service, are taking a completely short-sighted view. Here is an illustration of a man who was, quite naturally, able to devote only a smalltime to the service of this House, but who, in another capacity, was rendering most useful service to his State and to the country. The fact that for some twenty-three years he held in Northern Ireland the great position which he did hold, and the fact, which I think is common knowledge, that he was offered the opportunity of serving His Majesty as Governor-General in Canada, but declined to accept the position because he felt that he ought not to leave Ulster, is a tribute to his simple sense of duty. His task was, indeed, well done. I would associate myself with every word the noble Marquess has said.
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches desire to associate themselves wilt the tributes that have been paid to the Duke of Abercorn. Not many of us are left now who were colleagues of his in the House of Commons in the early years of the present century, when Ireland, and particularly Northern Ireland, was the centre of bitter controversies. He served in that House from 1900 to 1913. He then succeeded to his Peerage, and afterwards was a Member of your Lordshipsh' House for forty years. But during the greater part of that time he held the distinguished office of Governor-General of Northern Ireland, a country where his heart lay, and where he was so conspicuous a figure in its public life. That fact prevented his attendance here, so that few of us remember to have seen him or heard him participate in our debates. All his life he had a very high sense of public duty, and he had an uprightness of character which commanded confidence and respect among friends and opponents alike. It was this quality which gave such high value to his long service to the State. We join in expressing our sympathies to the Duchess, and to his family.

  THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make with regard to the foreign situation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I intend to make a statement a little later in the afternoon, if that will be convenient to noble Lords opposite. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be speaking in another place, and I will make the same statement here.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Leader of the House.

  PICTORIAL STAMPS
  2.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the fact that many stamps of low values issued by Commonwealth and foreign Governments are pictorial stamps of a very attractive nature, whether there is any good reason why there should not be certain categories of British pictorial stamps of lower values than 2s. 6d. which would in like fashion portray to the world some of the scenic beauties and historical monuments of the British Isles.]
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the low value stamps, that is, stamps up to a value of 1s 6d., in their present size do not lend themselves to effective pictorial designs: larger stamps would cost rather more to produce, and would be much less convenient to business people who use them in large numbers. My noble friend has it in mind, however, to make more extensive use of pictorial designs in the higher value stamps of the new reign.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl who has answered, but does he consider his reply a good reason against the introduction of lower value stamps of a small size? Is the noble Earl aware that I have here in my
  1244
  hand twenty-five examples of stamps of a low value issued by Commonwealth and other countries, of small size and of a pictorial nature? Will the noble Earl give further consideration to the issue of low denomination stamps of this kind, and not only of stamps of 1s. 6d. and over? If I may have the indulgence of the House, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that the British Travel Association, the Scottish Tourist Board and all the stamp societies in this country are heartily in favour of my proposal?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that my right honourable friend will consider any point which he makes. I imagine that the noble Viscount is not suggesting the omission from the small value stamps of the Monarch's head, which has invariably been included since the small stamps were first issued about 110 years ago. With the inclusion of the Monarch's head there is not much room on the stamp for an extensive pictorial design.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am unable to answer the noble Earl's question which he addressed to me. May I ask whether he is aware that I hold in my hand a copy of a stamp issued by Northern Rhodesia which shows the Monarch's head on it, and which is only slightly larger than our twopenny-half-penny stamp? I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on another date.

  PROPOSED TRAFFIC CENSUS
  2.45 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to carry out a 24-hour census of traffic on the more important trunk routes.]
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is considering proposals for a comprehensive census on trunk and classified roads, but has not yet reached a definite decision. I might add that such a census would not necessarily be for twenty-four hours; regard would be had to the nature of the traffic at the census points.

  EXECUTION OF MAHMOUD SABRY
  2.46 p.m.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any information can be given to the House regarding the execution of the Egyptian Mahmoud Sabry who, according to Press reports, was employed by the British Forces in the Canal Zone until his arrest on 30th November last year.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Mahmoud Sabry was an Egyptian employed by British Forces from September, 1939, until the time of his arrest in November, 1952. Representations were made by the General-Officer-Commanding British troops in Egypt at the time of his arrest, and an approach was made later by Her Majesty's Embassy in August, when it was brought to the attention of the Egyptian authorities that he had been in prison for nine months without any charge being brought against him. On September 23 it was announced that Sabry would be brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal, charged with treason and espionage and with torturing fellow-Egyptians while employed by a foreign Power. The case was tried in camera, and Sabry was condemned to death on October 12 and executed on October 13 without the details of the charges against him being disclosed.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for the full details which he has been good enough to give us, may I suggest to him that the execution of a man who has worked apparently for and with our forces, and who was apparently arrested in British uniform, is hardly likely to encourage other Egyptians to collaborate with the British Forces or with us?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I would not dispute the noble Lord's contention, but he must, of course, remember that this man was an Egyptian national and, as such, subject to Egyptian procedure.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is it not a little disquieting that this episode does not stand alone, and that there have been other cases of a similar nature? May I add that some of us have been quite revolted by the practice of distributing photographs of men on their way to the scaffold.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, certainly with the second part of the noble Lord's question I entirely agree. I think it is a revolting practice, and I hope it will not continue. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, of course it is disquieting. The procedure at this tribunal is a highly summary and unsatisfactory one, to put it very mildly, and certainly not one that would be acceptable in this country.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble Marquess whether any representations, any protests, have been made as to the effect of such action on the current negotiations?
  THE MARQUESS or READING: My Lords, I do not think the two things have, in fact, been linked.

  MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COMMISSION BILL
  2.48 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I appreciate that it is not customary for any observations to be made on what is normally a formal Motion—namely, the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee on a Bill—but, in view of the fact that this Bill has been absent from your Lordships' minds for the best part of three months, I thought it might be of some slight service to your Lordships if, before we launched into discussion of these rather technical Amendments, I were to remind the House briefly of what are the principal objects of the Bill.
  The Bill has a limited scope. Its sole purpose is to enable the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission to be strengthened, so that they can handle a greater number of investigations at any one time. The Bill does not modify in any way either the conditions governing

  1247
  the reference to the Commission of matters for investigation, or the powers and duties of Government Departments when the Commission has in fact reported. The plan for strengthening and reorganising the Commission embodied in the Bill has three main features. The first is this. The Chairman is to be, and up to two deputy chairmen may be, appointed on a long-term and pensionable basis. Secondly, the Commission's maximum permissible membership is increased from ten to twenty-five. Thirdly, the Commission may work in self-sufficient subdivisions or groups. The Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster involve no departure from this general plan; their sole aim is to improve the chances of the smooth working of the Commission. All the Amendments but one are designed to clarify minor technical points about the working of the group system. The remaining one deals with the pension position of a Chairman or deputy chairman who has had previous pensionable service under the Crown. That, my Lords, is all that is involved in this Bill. As I have said, it is a strictly limited Bill. On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Woolton, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Chairman and deputy chairmen of Commission
  1.—(1) The Board of Trade shall appoint one of the members of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") to be chairman of the Commission and may appoint not more than two of the other members to be deputy chairmen thereof.
  2.53 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "four" [deputy chairmen] for "two." The noble Lord said: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having refreshed our memory about the contents of the Bill. I agree that it is a Bill with
  1248
  a strictly limited purpose; and the Amendment which I am moving seeks to amend this restricted Bill in a very restricted way. The noble Lord has reminded us that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Commission to function on a bigger scale. The fact is that, although the Commission has now been in existence for four and a half years, it has not been able to undertake more than a very limited number of inquiries. I believe that up to now it has issued some six reports, and has had referred to it twelve or thirteen different matters. I believe it to be true to say that the Commission would have had referred to it many more matters, had it been able to deal with them.
  The reason for this Bill is to enable the Commission not only to expedite the inquiries that it actually has in hand but to undertake more inquiries which on all sides are regarded as essential if we are to deal with the important question of monopolies. The Bill increases the membership of the Commission from ten to twenty-five, and it is intended, I understand, that the Commission should work in groups of five, so that there could be five committees or groups sitting at the same time. The membership is part-time, and the members are appointed from all parts of the country. I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that there is some difficulty in getting suitable members at all, and it is, therefore, all the more important that the chairmen of the committees or groups should be full-time members and should be capable of giving their whole attention to the work of the Commission. That has been recognised to the extent that, under the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade is empowered to appoint not more than two deputy chairmen. But, of course, two deputy chairmen can preside at only two of the committees; and if it were necessary that all live committees should function simultaneously, there might be a shortage of chairmen.
  The Amendment which I am moving is intended to give the President of the Board of Trade authority—which he would, of course, use only if necessary—to appoint up to four deputy chairmen, instead of two. I realise that the President of the Board of Trade has given the answer in another place that in certain circumstances four deputy chairmen

  1249
  might be unnecessary. He has suggested that it would be a good thing if, occasionally, the Chairman of the Commission himself were to preside at one of the committees. That may well be true, but the Chairman will have other duties to perform. The important thing about these committees is that there should be continuity, and the appointment of, and relying on, part-time members would not provide a guarantee of continuity in the work of the committee. It is for that reason, I imagine, that it is proposed to appoint the Chairman, and it is suggested that the Chairman of the Commission himself might, in the case of an important inquiry, preside. It is also suggested that some of the deputy chairmen might preside at more than one committee. It is even suggested that there may be an occasional part-time member who would be willing and suitable to preside. On the other hand, I would not rule out the possibility of having more than five committees by "doubling up" of the part-time members. Some of the part-time members might be willing—I say "might"—to serve on more than one committee; and if that were the case, it would be possible to hold more than five inquiries at the same time.
  While I agree that these things are possible and conceivable, I also recognise that it may well be that the Commission would be called upon to deal with a number of inquiries of such magnitude and importance that it would not be practicable for any of the deputy chairmen to "double up"—that a particular inquiry might be a full-time job in itself. That is borne out by the fact that in the four and a half years of the Commission's life, only six reports have been published. I imagine that the Commission has been working hard, and the Chairman of the Commission himself recognises the disability under which it has been suffering. I imagine that in the early days, certainly, there will be a number of very important inquiries conducted by the Commission which might well take up all the time of the one Chairman, and that it would not be possible to "double up."
  Therefore, I feel that, if we are going to make progress with these inquiries, it would he wise to have in reserve this power—which need not be exercised until
  1250
  it becomes necessary. It is not mandatory on the President of the Board of Trade: he would exercise it only when he was satisfied that it was necessary. I suggest that it would be wise for him to have this power to appoint up to four deputy chairmen. It seems to me an eminently sensible thing to give this power. There will be five possible committees sitting, with the Chairman of the Commission and each of the four deputy chairmen to preside. If the President of the Board of Trade is right, and it is possible to "double up" so that one of the deputy chairmen can preside over several inquiries, then he will not make the appointment; but if the position is confined to having two deputy chairmen, with the possibility of five inquiries sitting, it looks as if the Government are not serious about prosecuting this matter with the utmost vigour. I do not know whether the noble Lord is empowered to do anything about this except to say "No." but I hope that at least he will feel that there is something in the contention that I am putting forward which is worthy of further discussion with those who give him his instructions—unless he is in a position to accept the Amendment here and now.
  I do not at all want to make heavy weather of this. I hope that we are all out for the same purpose: to make this scheme work. I imagine that Her Majesty's Government would not be increasing the numbers of the Commission from ten to twenty-five unless they meant the basis of the scheme to be broadened, but I maintain that we cannot seriously broaden the basis unless we are quite sure that we shall have the requisite number of responsible chairmen in charge. There is just one other thing that I want to say on this Amendment: I hope the noble Lord will not say that it is always possible to have further legislation if it becomes necessary. We do not want legislation merely to increase the number of deputy chairmen from two to three, or from three to four. It seems a sensible precaution to have the number of chairmen that one might possibly require. I, for one, am prepared to trust the President of the Board of Trade in this matter, not to make the appointments unless they are really necessary but I feel that he should be given the power to make them. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, Line 8, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").—(Lord Silkin.)
  3.2 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: There seems to be little between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself. With much that he has said Her Majesty's Government cordially agree. There is every desire to make this Bill work and to increase the output and energies of the Commission. That is the reason for the Bill. Equally, the Board of Trade will not do anything to flood or overwork the Commission because the Board of Trade themselves have the power to control the amount of work that is given to the Commission. Equally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the amount of work so far accomplished has not been spectacularly large. That, again, is the reason for altering the size and constitution of the Commission; but I think the noble Lord will agree with me that it would have been highly undesirable if the work that has been undertaken had not been undertaken with the meticulous care that has distinguished the Commission's work, if the impression were given that the inquiries had been slap-dash or hurried, and if the firms or various businesses whose affairs were investigated had any sense of injustice from feeling that there had not been a full inquiry into their case. That is the answer to the point he makes concerning the time and detail which has been expended upon the various six or seven inquiries that have so far taken place.
  I agree with much of what the noble Lord says but I think he labours under one delusion the answer to which he almost gave himself. It is perfectly true that the Bill would permit five groups to work concurrently, but it does not follow, in my submission, that five long-term, pensionable appointments are necessary to provide the group chairmen. The noble Lord has almost provided the answers himself. The chairmen and the deputies are full-time, whereas most of the other Commissioners will be part-time. That is how we envisage the Commission will work under the Bill. The full-timers, the regulars, can serve on more than one group. It is obvious that the part-timers may find it difficult to serve more than about once a week. I can envisage the case that the noble Lord
  1252
  mentioned of some particularly enthusiastic part-timer being prepared to serve more frequently than that, but I should think that that is about the limit, and the regulars will have no difficulty at all in presiding over one or two of the groups.
  Nor is there anything to prevent other Commissioners acting as group chairmen—not the regulars, but part-timers acting as group chairmen—and I can see that this might be occasionally desirable, particularly where special knowledge and experience is needed. One other point that occurred to me when listening to the noble Lord was this. Although five members is the minimum size for a group, that does not necessarily mean that five groups will always be working at the same time. As I say, it is up to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to control the amount of work that is fed to the Commission and not to give them more work than they can do. I can only repeat the argument which my right honourable friend used in regard to a similar Amendment in another place, that it is not really very sensible to appoint more than are necessary. My right honourable friend is fully convinced that at the moment the Bill provides for the full number of regulars he requires to make the scheme work as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it would be wrong to come back and waste the time of Parliament by asking merely for one more deputy chairman to be appointed.
  I must confess that there is some slight difference in the noble Lord's Amendment. He makes his power to appoint permissive, whereas I think that in another place the Amendment suggested was mandatory. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, for the reasons I have given. My right honourable friend is satisfied that the powers of the Commission, as envisaged in the Bill, are fully adequate for any work he is likely to give them. The noble Lord put a fairly fat worm at the end of his line when he suggested that something a little less than four might be acceptable. The Government have suggested two, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin has suggested four. I think noble Lords will realise that there is room mathematically for a compromise. I must tell him I could not possibly advise my noble friends on this side of the House to accept his Amendment, but if he feels

  1253
  strongly about it I will see whether I cannot persuade my right honourable friend to agree to three. I may have some slight luck. By doing that I am not suggesting for one moment that I think in is necessary. However, since the noble Lord only wants it to be permissive, and no great harm can result, I will see what can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord will put down such an Amendment on Report stage, which must, of necessity, be very soon. I will do my level best to persuade my right honourable friend to agree to three rather than four but I must confess I do not think there is any burning need for it.
  EARL JOWITT: I should like to enter this controversy very briefly, because I do not think we have had the real answer given to us. I suggest that the real answer, whether the noble Lord knows it or not, is something very different. All we are seeking is to give a permissive power. That is different from the purpose of the Amendment moved in another place. The President of the Board of Trade will not appoint more than the two unless he wants to appoint more than the two. But, as I see it, the point behind the Amendment is this. If at the present time more committees are required than can be staffed by the chairman and the deputy chairmen, the need can be met. There is a group of five, and the Chairman of the Commission, if I understand it aright, can appoint one of the five to act as a chairman. What is the distinction between the President of the Board of Trade appointing some extra person to be a deputy chairman, and the Chairman of the Commission appointing someone to be chairman of a group?
  If I understand it aright, under this Bill the only pensionable officers are those appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. Therefore I suggest that the real explanation of the objection to this Amendment is that the Treasury have insisted on keeping that number to the two—or I hope, if the noble Lord gets into an expansive mood, to three—in order that there may be no risk of anybody else becoming pensionable. They do not become pensionable as of right; they become pensionable only if the Board of Trade get the consent of the Treasury to pay pensions to them. Speaking of the third or the fourth man, if that man has worked very hard, I think it
  1254
  is right that when he retires he should be paid a pension. The only thing between us is this: we can work a scheme perfectly well by the Chairman of the Commission appointing group chairmen, these offices not being pensionable; but if we want to have the right to make those offices pensionable then the person concerned must be appointed as a deputy chairman.
  It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade. I think here we ought to insist that the President of the Board of Trade be given a wide discretion. The grant of a pension will not follow, save with Treasury approval. I think that, save with Treasury approval, there is not a pension as of right; there is a power to grant a pension. If a man works hard and well and gives great service, then it should be possible that he should be pensionable. I hope that the noble Lord will urge his right honourable friends, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see whether the powers of the President of the Board of Trade cannot be extended. I should like that power to be extended to cover the appointment of more than three; but three is better than two. If the need arises he may appoint—he will not appoint unless the need does arise—he will have the right to say that a pension is granted.
  I do not suppose that my noble friend intends to press this Amendment now. The offer of the noble Lord to see what he can do between now and the next stage of the Bill is a very helpful one, but I ventured to rise because I think your Lordships ought to know that I strongly suspect, although I may be quite wrong, that the real reason behind this opposition is the desire of the Treasury not to run the slightest risk that anybody except two deputy chairmen will get pensions.
  LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the noble Lord would challenge that.
  LORD MANCROFT: I would challenge it.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord would challenge anything. One must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose. I must confess that I have stated his case, and I can well see that the additional chairmen might not be necessary—I concede

  1255
  that. But unless the Commission is going to be frustrated in its work, I cannot understand how anyone can dogmatise and say that they will never be necessary. So I would appeal once more to the noble Lord to go back to the President of the Board of Trade and say that we still think that four should be accepted as a maximum. If, however, he feels that he would rather have three than two, although I do not want to lose the number of three, I do not myself want to put down an Amendment. If the noble Lord would put down an Amendment—
  LORD MANCROFT: No.
  LORD SILKIN: Then I must consider the position, because I think that a maximum of four is essential.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Exercise of functions of Commission by groups of members]:
  3.15 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Woolton, I beg to move this Amendment and the next one, which runs with it. I am happy to say that this is an entirely uncontroversial and really rather technical Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that, on any given reference, work may be started before the task has been remitted to the group. Normally, the first stage of the inquiry is the fact-finding work by the staff of the Commission. The real work of the Commissioners does not begin until later. It may be impracticable to name all the Commissioners for the group at the time the reference is received by the Commission; some perhaps may not yet have been appointed and the future deployment of others may be a little uncertain. Therefore, as I see it there must be provision for getting fact-finding work under way before the group is actually set up. Nominally, of course, this work will be in the hands of the whole Commission; actually, it will be supervised by two or three Commissioners who will be the nucleus of the group which is eventually set up. The arrangement that I am proposing in the Amendment is exactly similar to the existing arrangements of the Commission. It merely relates the existing practice,
  1256
  which has proved sensible and workable, to the new form in which the Commission will find itself. I think the Amendment is quite uncontroversial, and I commend it to the Committee.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 47, leave out ("and report on") and insert ("of").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: I quite agree that this Amendment and the rest of the Amendments on the Marshalled List are uncontroversial, and are an improvement on the Bill as it stands.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 2, after ("made") insert ("or (if any stage of the investigation has been begun before the direction is given) continued, and the report on the said matter or question made").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after subsection (5) to insert as a new subsection:
  "(6) Where a person is appointed to be a member of the Commission during the proceedings of any such group as aforesaid, the chairman of the Commission may appoint him to be a member of the group."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also merely formal and technical. Its purpose is to permit a newly-appointed Commissioner to be added to one of the existing groups. Were it not for the Amendment, newcomers might be unable to play their full part as Commissioners until a new group was set up. They could join existing groups only if an accidental vacancy occurred. I think one can readily accept that it might be frustrating if a Commissioner was sitting in a group and his vote was unable to carry any weight. That would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, as the Committee will probably agree. I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  First Schedule [Pensions and Other Benefits for Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Commission]:
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in paragraph 3 (1)(a) to leave out "the Treasury may direct" and insert "may be prescribed." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next two relate to the pension position, to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred in what I hope he will forgive me for saying was a very faintly cynical observation concerning the pension position of the regular members of the Commission. I did not want to interrupt him at the time, but I can assure him that the rather hard-hearted attitude which he attributed to the Treasury was not uppermost in the course of the remarks that I was addressing to this subject. Here we have the Treasury, I think, in a much more benevolent and generous mood.
  The purpose of this series of Amendments is to clarify the pension position of the chairman and deputy chairmen—be they two or three or (though this will never be the case, I hope) four—who have had previous pensionable service under the Crown. Some special provision appears to be necessary in this respect. Otherwise, it might happen that a former Crown servant might serve a substantial total period, partly with the Commission, and partly in earlier Crown employment, without getting any pension for some—or even for all—of his service. To take an extreme example, a civil servant might serve nine years in the Civil Service and he would not then be entitled to a pension from that Service, as he had not completed ten years. Then he might serve four years with the Commission; and, again, he would not be entitled to a pension in respect of that service. So there would be an individual who, after thirteen years of public service, would not be entitled to a pension. That would obviously be very unfortunate. Paragraph 3 was intended to deal with this problem.
  It was criticised in another place as being excessively generous. Some right honourable gentlemen seemed to think that it might permit "double counting"—Service pension in respect of service years, and counting them in full for Commission pension, even though a member had only a few months' service with the Commission. I know that the noble and
  1258
  learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will agree with me when I say that that was never intended at all. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the existing position is not wholly satisfactory. The Amendments follow provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946. The Treasury, in this case, will make regulations (subject, of course, to Negative Resolution) for each case or class of case. I am certain that that is the best way to do it. It is essential that in the case of the pensions of a rather unusual type of person there should be flexibility. Clearly, remarkable varieties of different cases and different circumstances may arise. For instance, pension may have been earned for service in both capacities, in only one, or in neither. Treasury action, in this case, will be within the control of Parliament, because there can be annulment by Negative Resolution. I am sure the Committee will agree that this is the best way of dealing with this rather queer case of pensionable rights. These three Amendments are put down on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Woolton to carry oat an undertaking given to friends of noble Lords opposite in another place. I think that they will find these Amendments satisfactory. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 7, leave out line 7, and insert ("may be prescribed").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: I think it is only right that I should say that we are satisfied that these Amendments do, in fact, carry out the undertaking which was given, and I should like to thank Her Majesty's Government for putting them forward.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move the second in this series of Amendments.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("as") to end of line 11 and insert ("may be prescribed").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(3) In this paragraph the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations

  1259
  made by the Treasury by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and regulations under this paragraph—

  (a) may be made generally or subject to specified exceptions or in relation to specified cases or classes of case;

  (b) may provide that in calculating relevant service either the whole of a person's prescribed service of any description shall be taken into account or such part thereof only as may be determined by or under the regulations;

  (c) may make different provision for different cases or classes of case.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Supplementary Provisions relating to s. 2]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 49, leave out ("and") and insert ("or further investigation and the").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure—I should say until about a quarter to four o'clock.
  Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned during pleasure accordingly.

  THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
  3.40 p.m.
  House resumed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to make to the House a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. This is what my right honourable friend is saying:
  "The House will not expect me in the compass of an Answer to this Question to deal with the whole range of developments in foreign affairs since the
  1260
  end of July. I will therefore concentrate on the major problems which are now exercising our attention.
  "As the House is aware, I have just held a full conference with the Foreign Ministers of the United States and France, at which we discussed such topics of first importance as Four-Power talks, Trieste, the projected Political Conference on Korea, Indo-China and the Israel-Jordan frontier situation.
  "On the question of Four-Power talks I have nothing to add to the terms of the Note delivered to the Soviet Government on Sunday except to say that Her Majesty's Government sincerely hope that the Soviet Government will accept the invitation to a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Lugano on 9th November. Should they do so, I have no doubt that it should be possible to make progress towards a settlement of the German and Austrian question, and so contribute to a significant reduction in world tension.
  "Now I come to Trieste, and I should like to start by saying something about the wider background of the decision announced on October 8 by the United Kingdom and United States Governments.
  "It was in 1945 that Allied troops entered Trieste. The Italian Peace Treaty was signed in February, 1947. Under that Treaty a Free Territory of Trieste was constituted. It was to be governed under a provisional regime until the permanent Statute could be brought into force. It was intended that this permanent Statute would be introduced at an early date and would shortly be followed by the withdrawal of British, American and Yugoslav troops.
  "Unfortunately, the permanent Statute has never been introduced, through no fault of ours. I need not remind the House of the protracted debates in the Security Council in which all efforts to secure the appointment of a Governor were frustrated by Soviet obstruction,
  "In March, 1948, the three Governments, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, issued the Tripartite Declaration. That Declaration advocated the award of the whole territory, both Zones A and B, to Italy.

  1261
  This has been a dominant factor in the situation ever since.
  "In the years which followed, the United Kingdom and the United Stales Governments, in conjunction with the French Government, have persistently endeavoured to promote a settlement by conciliation between Italy and Yugoslavia. But Nationalist feeling in both countries proved too powerful to permit of a mutually acceptable solution.
  "This was the position when the trouble flared up once again in August. Statements and speeches on both sides became more and more violent and the atmosphere dangerously inflamed. Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government consulted together as to how they should deal with this rapidly deteriorating situation. We sought a means to lance this abscess which was poisoning relations between Italy and Yugoslavia.
  "The solution announced on October 8, was admittedly drastic, but it was designed to meet a situation which would have grown more dangerous had we done nothing. It was imperfect in so far as it would leave some Slovenes under Italian administration and some Italians under Yugoslav administration. But the House must recall that repeated attempts to promote agreement on an ethnic basis had failed. The division of the territory along the zonal boundary seemed to be the only practicable course. As we made clear in the announcement of October 8 our action was expected to lead to a final solution.
  "It was not a solution which we had hopes of inducing either side to accept in advance of negotiation. We knew, too, that it would meet with protest and criticism. But from the discussions and contacts which we had had with both parties over many months, there was good reason to believe that it was a solution each side could acquiesce in, if under protest. I do not wish to-day to make any comment on the reaction in Rome and Belgrade. Still less—and I am sure I speak for the whole House—do I want to exacerbate the position. But I do wish to say that Her Majesty's Government strongly deprecate the movement of troops by either party, which can only increase tension and incite public opinion.
  1262
  "Meanwhile, we continue in touch with the United States and French Governments and also with the Governments of Italy and Yugoslavia. I will do my best"—
  this is my right honourable friend speaking—
  "to keep the House informed.
  "If all concerned will recall the overriding need for unity between nations who should be good neighbours, I believe that we may yet find means of bringing both parties to agree to a settlement.
  "Talks with the Egyptian Government about the defence of the Canal Zone were resumed on July 28. I hope to be able to make an announcement within the next few days about the progress of these discussions. They have reached an advanced stage, and I trust that the House will not press me to say any more about them to-day.
  "About Persia I hope that a new chapter has opened. There is a new Government there, and to them, and to the Persian people, Her Majesty's Government wish sincerely to extend once more the hand of friendship. The Persian Government are aware that we are ready to resume diplomatic relations; if this can be done it will then be easier for us to discuss together the complex problem of Persian oil.
  "I should like to say that the United States Government are working very closely with us in these matters.
  "In Korea, the truce has been maintained for nearly three months. Progress in consolidating the Armistice has been slow and difficult. The Political Conference has still to meet. The United States Government, acting on behalf of the nations with forces in Korea, has proposed a meeting of emissaries on October 28 to discuss arrangements for this Conference. I am most happy to learn that the Chinese and North Koreans have agreed.
  "We have also achieved substantial progress in dealing with the exchange of those prisoners of war who desired repatriation. We have all been glad to welcome home our own prisoners of war after their ordeal. A beginning has been made in settling the future of

  1263
  the remaining prisoners. In this connection, I must pay a tribute to the part played by the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and, in particular, by the Indian Chairman, General Thimayya, and by the Indian troops under the command of General Thorat. With exemplary tact and patience they have controlled the turbulent prisoners and are carrying through the first stages of the difficult process of explanations as provided for in the Armistice agreement.
  "The problem of Arab-Israel relations, which was only settled provisionally in the General Armistice Agreements of 1949, is again causing grave concern. The immediate reason for this is the attack by Israel forces on three villages in Jordan on the night of October 14, which inflicted heavy casualties. This attack was strongly condemned by the United Nations Mixed Armistice Commission and appears to have been an organised operation by heavily-armed forces in response to a frontier incident which was already being investigated by Jordan and Israel police working in co-operation.
  "The House will recall our responsibilities under the 1950 Tripartite Declaration, and Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the United States and French Governments, have therefore asked the Security Council to consider the situation urgently. I earnestly hope that both the Israel and Jordan Governments will meanwhile refrain from any action which might aggravate the present dangerous situation."
  3.55 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, for making such an important statement. I wish to ask a question or two with regard to one matter and one matter only—the matter of Trieste. I quite understand the undesirability at the present moment of discussing any further the question of, for instance, Egypt. Let me say at once that we on this side of the House do not wish to exacerbate a situation which has become fraught with grave peril to peace. I agree that the parties concerned have
  1264
  an overriding obligation to do nothing to endanger world peace.
  Nor do I propose, for the moment, at any rate, to question the substance of what has been done. But I should like to ask a question or two as to the way in which it was done. May I ask whether any, and if so what, information was given to the Yugoslav Government, to the French and to the United Nations before this announcement was made? It has been stated in the Press—the noble Marquess must have seen it—that the Yugoslav Government had only some two hours' notice of the decision, and that the French had none at all. I can hardly credit that, and I think it is desirable that that point should be cleared up. I should also like to ask whether, when this decision was announced with regard to Zone A, any decision was indicated as to Zone B, which, of course, is not contained in the public announcement. I am very glad to infer that there is still a possibility of a conference; but would not the prospect of a conference have been far easier if it had been held before the decision was promulgated, instead of being held afterwards?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl asked a number of questions, the first of which was as to notice. It would not be true to say that the French Government was given no notice at all, nor would it be true to say that of the Yugoslav or Italian Governments. The Yugoslav and the Italian Governments were given—I should not like to speak without the book, but, as far as I can remember, two or three days, and it may have been more. In the case of the French it was a little shorter. If it be suggested that there ought to have been wider consultations than actually took place, I would indicate to noble Lords that for months and months every effort had been made to enable the two countries concerned to come to an agreement. We should infinitely have preferred that; everybody would have preferred it. So far from that being the case, the situation was exacerbated and had reached a very dangerous stage. Therefore, it seemed to the countries concerned that it was one of those cases where the Powers immediately concerned should indicate the settlement which they thought the most desirable. I cannot believe that any

  1265
  other course would have led to greater agreement. There were two other questions which the noble Earl asked. One was as to Zone B. I think that the reply is inherent in my statement. I said it was expected that this proposal would lead to a final settlement. This indicated that that settlement should take place on the zonal boundaries.
  EARL JOWITT: That had not been announced before. I have elicited something very important. I understand now that the implication of this statement is that the decision involved that Zone A should go to the Italians and Zone B to the Yugoslavs. But the public announcement, I think I am right in saying, contained no statement whatever with regard to Zone B.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is inherent in the statement by the Foreign Secretary that I have read to your Lordships to-day, that the division along the zonal boundary seemed to be the only practical course. That is perfectly clear. There is no doubt that both the Italian and the Yugoslav Governments were perfectly well aware that that was Her Majesty's Government's view—the view of the two Governments. If there is any further misunderstanding about the information, it would not be correct to say—it is quite untrue, and I am sure the noble and learned Earl did not mean to suggest any such thing—that longer notice was given to the Italian Government than to the Yugoslav Government. They were given exactly the same notice. It seemed to us vital that the two countries should he treated exactly alike in this respect.
  4.1 p.m.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, my noble Leader, Lord Samuel, very much regrets that he could not stay to hear the statement which has just been made by tie noble Marquess. On behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for that statement. In particular, I should like very strongly to associate myself with the remarks made about the work done by tie Withdrawal Commission and in particular by its Indian chiefs. That work is of the utmost importance to all who realise tie tremendously important rôle that India has to play as a bridge between the people of Asia and the people of Europe. There
  1266
  is another point in the statement about which I wish to say a word, and that is the slow progress—though there has been progress—made in regard to holding the Political Conference in Korea.
  For the rest, the statement is not exactly a cheerful statement, and I do not propose to press any further the questions that have been asked with regard to Trieste, except to say that public opinion in this country does feel that there has been a misjudgment in the action taken by the Governments of the United States and Britain, as has been shown by the reaction. We all hope that talks between the four or five Powers involved can, in fact, he got going. The greatest and most valuable statement which could emerge from any of these discussions would be that such a conference had, in fact, taken place. After all, it is a very serious proposal that two countries which have been acting as police in one of the key spots of the world should withdraw in conditions in which the probable result of their withdrawal is war. That, I have no doubt, is a matter which we shall be discussing. I should only like to ask whether the noble Marquess has any views as to the date on which these matters can be discussed. I am quite sure that the whole House will agree with the noble Marquess that the decision must rest with Her Majesty's Government and depend on the state of affairs at the time.
  LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I underline what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said? He said he did not wish to say anything this afternoon that would exacerbate matters. With that I agree. But since this episode occurred, I have sometimes wondered whether the Government really understand one thing about which there should be no illusion if they are going to deal with this matter effectively, and that is the widespread feeling throughout the country that Yugoslavia, a friend who fought with us during the war, has been given a raw deal as against one who was an aggressor and against us during the war. I do not think the Government should be under any illusion as to that feeling, which is not limited to Members on this side of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If that us so, I should like to ask the noble

  1267
  Lord why his Government agreed with the Tripartite Agreement of 1948, which gave both Zones to Italy.
  LORD LAWSON: I should like to remind the noble Marquess that that same Government made a considerable contribution towards bringing Yugoslavia into high consideration throughout this country and the Allied world.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not in the least critical about the part which the noble Lord's Government played. We are all very happy that the attitude of Yugoslavia should have improved towards the Western world. There is, indeed, no difference between the two policies of the two Governments in this respect. It was in the days of the present Government that Marshal Tito paid his visit to this country. But under the Tripartite Declaration of 1948, both Zones would have gone to Italy. Under this proposal Yugoslavia does better than she would have done under that proposal. It is a very difficult matter to find any solution to this problem. It is the view of this Government and of the Government of the United States that these proposals represent the fairest and most acceptable that could be put before the two countries. They represent, so far as one can get such a thing, a middle line, and for that we shall continue to work.
  EARL JOWITT: Is the noble Marquess aware that in the Observer of last Sunday there was recorded an interview with Marshal Tito himself in which he said (I speak from memory) that the only notice he had was two hours. We have now the authoritative statement of the noble Marquess that the time was, in fact, two days.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a very delicate subject. Although the noble and learned Earl thought it right to ask this question, it is an extremely difficult one for any Government spokesman to answer. Personally, I should not wish the House to suppose that the documents which were published reached the Yugoslavs at an earlier period than Marshal Tito suggested. All I meant to suggest was that I thought that Marshal Tito was aware of the general tenor of the proposals before. I would rather not have gone as far as this, because this is such a delicate
  1268
  question, and I do not want any accusations of disagreement on this or that decision. I do not dispute the fact that these documents were published late, but I think both sides were aware before that date of the general nature of the proposals.
  EARL JOWITT: I think it would be desirable, if the Leader of the House agrees, that we should have a debate on this matter—not extending to the whole ambit of foreign affairs, but concentrating on this particular matter. I should very much hope, especially if such a debate is to be held in another place, that we might have the opportunity for a similar debate here. Perhaps I may approach the Leader of the House through the usual channels to see if we can arrange something on those lines.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As soon as we hear that there is to be a debate in another place, we shall be very happy to arrange one here. I should prefer not to have it before the debate in the other place, but either afterwards or simultaneously.
  EARL JOWITT: I feel sure the other place would prefer that we did not have it before their debate. If we had it afterwards we should be flogging a dead horse. I think the best way would be to have it simultaneously. But, as I say, I will approach the noble Marquess the Leader of the House on the subject.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If that debate is arranged, will it mean that no other question, such as the Far East, or similar matters, can be raised?
  EARL JOWITT: I hope that we shall have a debate on foreign affairs very early in the new Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount wishes to raise any particular matter he can always put a Question. He has the right to do so at any time. If a debate is about to take place which will include that particular question, it is often better for it to be left until the debate takes place when it can be more fully expounded. I leave that to the noble Viscount.