Lords Sitting of 22 November 1956

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

PROPOSED TRYWERYN VALLEY RESERVOIR
3.5 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 they have considered the proposal of the Liverpool City Council to flood Tryweryn Valley in Merionethshire, involving the submersion of the village of Capel Celyn and the land of some 20 farmers, for the benefit of the City of Liverpool.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet aware of the details of this proposal, but understand that it is to form the subject of a Private Bill which the Liverpool Corporation intend to deposit on November 27. They are aware of the local feeling against the proposal.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, I would ask him whether the Government will have every regard to this feeling, which is strong among Welsh people, for they feel that this aggression—it is no less—in regard to their land cannot possibly be justified in these days.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will certainly convey what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend.

THE INTERNATIONAL POSITION
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice: Do they propose to make a statement on the international position, and, if so, when?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I should like
528
to inform your Lordships that a statement will be made by the Leader of the House at 4 o'clock. If necessary, the House will adjourn during pleasure until that hour, should Business be completed before then.

CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION (1958) (RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE) ORDER, 1956
3.7 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Order, which is made under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, relates to a Census of Distribution which is to be taken in 1958 in respect of business done in 1957. It will be the second time that a Census of Distribution has been taken in this country, the first one having been taken a few years ago in respect of the year 1950. The Order is concerned only with one very limited aspect of the Census: namely, the question of the possible disclosure of information obtained at the Census about individual undertakings. The Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, itself contains stringent provisions restricting the disclosure of information of this kind, but it allows disclosure to other Government Departments on the authority of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
The purpose of the present Order is to forbid disclosure of this kind, and its effect will be to deny to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade the power to authorise disclosure to other Government Departments. The making of the Order will enable the Board of Trade to give traders the strongest possible assurances that their returns will be treated in strict confidence. We think it essential to reassure traders on this point, in order to allay the uneasiness they might otherwise feel and to ensure that the Census is carried out successfully. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Census of Distribution (1958) (Restriction on Disclosure) Order, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1956
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Order, which will come into operation on January 1, 1957, amends the Order made a year ago under which levies are imposed on the lace industry to finance the Lace Research Association. The effect of the Order is to adjust the rates of levy to take into account changes in the level of trade. The total sum raised is unaltered. The changes, which are similar to those made in previous years, are being made with the agreement of the employers' associations and the trade unions in the industry and are not controversial. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 14th instant, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Patents Act, 1949, in order to allow more time in which to do the work necessary to put an application for a patent in good order for acceptance. This Bill, I think, is an interesting corollary to the important debate we had in the House yesterday on the subject of science, scientists and scientific training. Let me begin by briefly explaining what the present practice is. Before any inventor can obtain protection for his invention in this country he, or more usually his patent agent on his behalf, must, among other things, prepare and lodge at the Patent Office what is known as a complete specification. This document must describe the invention and the best method known to the inventor of performing it. It must end with a claim, or claims, defining the scope of the invention claimed.
After the complete specification has been filed, it is scrutinised by an officer of the Patent Office, known as an
530
examiner, whose duty it is to ensure that it complies with the detailed requirements of the Patents Act. Having examined the complete specification, and having satisfied himself that the invention has not previously been published in the United Kingdom, the examiner must communicate to the applicant's agent any objections to the specification. The applicant must, if he wishes to pursue his application, take action to amend it, so as to satisfy the examiner that all the requirements of the Act have been complied with. On receipt of the Amendments, the examiner must again consider whether the objections are met. If they are not, he must again take up the matter with the applicant's agent. If a specification has not been put in order for acceptance within the overall time allowed, the application becomes void.
I now come to the question of this time limit. Before the war the time allowed between the date of filing a complete specification and the application becoming void was between six and eighteen months, although it was possible for the applicant to extend this period by not more than a further three months on payment of a fee. When the Patents Act, 1949—known more familiarly in the trade as "Lord Lucas's Act"—was drafted, it was envisaged that, when normal peacetime conditions were restored, the Patent Office examiner would make his first report about three months after the filing of the complete specification., and that it would be reasonable to allow a further nine months for the remaining steps to be taken. It was hoped that the arrears of unexamined specifications which had accumulated during the war would soon be a thing of the past. Section 12 of the Act of 1949, therefore, adopted the average of the pre-war time limit and made the period twelve months with an optional further three months on the payment of a fee.
Unfortunately, however, the hopes of 1949 have not materialised. Owing to the general shortage of science graduates, the Patent Office is unable to recruit enough examiners to keep abreast with the intake of patent applications. This is nearly 40 per cent. higher than the average pre-war figures and is still increasing, reflecting the technical advances in industry which we discussed yesterday and. which we all welcome. Before the war, the average

531
annual intake of complete specifications was about 21,000. This was dealt with by an average number of about 310 examiners. In 1956, the intake will be more than 29,000.
The complexity and difficulty of most inventions is substantially greater than before the war. The present examining staff of about 340 cannot keep abreast of this intake. By special efforts the staff may, this year, dispose of nearly 26,000 complete specifications. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the excess of intake over output will be at least 3,500. The result of all this is that there is a very large arrear of unexamined applications. It is unusual for the examiner's first report on an application to go out until over twelve months after the complete specification was filed. This leaves no time available to the applicant for meeting any objections raised by the examiner.
Again, patent agents need staff with the same qualifications as the Patent Office and have similar difficulties in recruiting it; consequently they also are in arrear. The nine months which it was envisaged that Section 12 would in normal conditions allow them has proved to be quite inadequate. Sometimes as much as twelve months elapses before an agent makes even a first reply to the examiner's objections. The net result is that, instead of twelve months, nearly three years are in general necessary in which to put an application in order for acceptance.
As I have said, these arrears began to accumulate during the war, when staff was transferred to more urgent work. In order to bridge the gap between the statutory period of twelve months and the actual time necessary and to prevent applications becoming void because of noncompliance with the statutory time limit, the Patent Office made use of the powers conferred on the Comptroller by Section 6 of the Patents, Designs, Copyright and Trade Marks (Emergency) Act, 1939. Under these powers, the Patent Office has granted, and is granting, extensions of the period specified in Section 12 of the Act of 1949 whenever (and this now applies in practically every case) it has proved impossible to put an application in order within the statutory period.
The present delays can be reduced only by the recruitment of a considerable
532
number of properly qualified staff. But, as your Lordships will not need reminding after yesterday's debate, there is a general shortage of the sort of men the Patent Office needs, and this shortage is likely to continue. I am told that the requirements of industry for scientists and engineers will amount to over 94,000 by 1959, compared with just over 71,000 employed to-day. The corresponding figures for central Government are 16,000 by 1959, compared with 14,000 to-day. As my noble Leader told the House yesterday, a minimum goal for the nation over the next ten to fifteen years should be an annual figure of "graduations" in pure and applied science of about 20,000, as compared with 10,000 to-day.
The present delays in the granting of patents must, therefore, persist for a considerable period. It is unsatisfactory that a situation which is likely to go on for some time should continue to be met by the exercise of powers which, although embodied in a permanent Statute, are in essence emergency powers —and in saying that I am certain that I shall carry at least the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with me. It is equally unsatisfactory that the Comptroller should continue to exercise powers which give him a discretion unfettered as to time limits.
On the other hand, we are anxious to do all we can to reduce the time taken to grant patents. We do not, for that reason, wish to lay down a period which cannot be altered without a further amending Act. What this Bill does, therefore, is to provide that the Board of Trade shall have power to prescribe by Order, from to time, the period during which an application for patent must be put in order for acceptance, subject to the limits that this period must not be less than one, nor more than four, years. It is intended initially to lay down the period of three and a half years, which the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents agree is a reasonable period at present; and this will come into force as soon as the Bill becomes law. Should the measures which the Government have undertaken with a view to improving recruitment prove successful, amending rules can shorten this period. Should circumstances, unfortunately, demand that it be lengthened, it will be possible to do so without further legislation.

533
The Bill also continues the existing provision of the 1949 Act for allowing the applicant an additional three months on payment of a fee. I do not think I need dwell on the remaining provisions of the Bill. Clause 2 deals only with transitional matters—applications already made at the time the Bill comes into force. Clause 3, for the avoidance of doubt, makes it clear that the extensions of time which have been granted under the Emergency Act of 1939, to which I have just referred, were validly granted. Clauses 4 and 5 are formal. After the Bill becomes law, the Comptroller will, of course, cease to exercise his statutory powers under the Emergency Act to grant extensions of the new statutory time limits. This Bill, which has not yet been considered in another place, is, I am afraid, a slightly complicated Bill about a very complicated subject. I hope that I have convinced your Lordships as to its necessity, and I recommend it to your Lordships' House for a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the clear way in which he has explained this most complicated subject. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is not here to deal with this Bill, because he is a master of the subject and I am not; but the speech of the noble Lord discloses a very disturbing set of circumstances. It is a serious matter that people who apply for patents may well have to wait for four years, and under this Bill three and a half years, before they can have their patents approved. In the meantime, as the noble Lord will appreciate, a great deal of valuable industry and valuable production may be lost. I recognise that in the present circumstances it is essential that that time should be extended, in order to regularise what the noble Lord has explained is a slightly irregular procedure and, even more important, that the Bill makes permanent matters which ought to have been made permanent long ago, instead of still being dealt with by Emergency Regulations.
534
We cannot be satisfied that this long period should be permitted for the purpose of approving patents. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether the Government are taking serious steps to increase the number of examiners, because that seems to be the crux of the whole matter. Three hundred and forty examiners seems a very small number out of the total number of scientists and technologists that we are hoping to be able to train. I should have thought that this was a matter of the highest priority. This is not the occasion, and I am not qualified, to ascertain what are the rates of remuneration of examiners. They are obviously men of the very highest skill, and it may well be that the existing remuneration is nor sufficient to attract people of that calibre. If so, I would suggest that the Government might examine this matter again to see whether these highly trained men could not be offered a sufficient inducement to attract the very limited number that we require.
The price that we might have to pay would be small in proportion to the benefits we should secure in getting these patents approved at an earlier date. Although there might be repercussions (that is a favourite word in the Civil Service, and one that is always used to frustrate any urgent action), I think the Government ought to be prepared to face up to the problem of repercussions in order to get people urgently for this purpose. I hope, therefore, whilst I appreciate that the noble Lord will not be able to give any assurances this afternoon, without reference to his masters, that he will make the strongest possible representations to ensure that we do get at the earliest possible moment the number of examiners necessary in order that this shocking period of three and a half years may be substantially curtailed. Subject to those remarks, I recognise that we have to approve this Bill, although, personally, I do so with considerable anxiety.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, must rather welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to this debate. I have great sympathy with him in what he said. Anybody who makes a practice of attending exhibitions in this country must be struck by the extraordinary manner in which, at one moment, one

535
problem presents itself to an industry or profession and everybody makes a similar contribution in solving that problem. I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said about the importance of paying sufficient money and so getting sufficient quality in the examiners, because the question of whether or not an idea is patentable is a difficult one and requires a high degree of judgment and knowledge. That, I think, is an important point. This is a financial point, and perhaps not one properly resolvable by your Lordships, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft will bear it in mind.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, per-haps I may reply briefly to the two helpful speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Saltoun. I cannot quarrel with the words they have used. We are fully aware of the difficulties, and we are doing the best we possibly can to attract more men into this difficult and important work. Let me tell your Lordships, briefly, what we are doing. We have started a recruiting drive. Action has been taken to attract graduates and undergraduates to a career in the Patent Office. The Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade has made this matter his particular responsibility. The Patent Office sends representatives on recruiting tours, and pamphlets are distributed describing the work of the Patent Office and the conditions of service there.
LORD SILKIN: Can the noble Lord tell us what is the remuneration paid?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, certainly. The remuneration has certainly been revised. The new recruit starts at £605. This runs up to £1,345, in a scale which contains two advances; and one promotion will take him up to £2,000. Those salaries (here I speak subject to correction) are, I think, generally similar to those given by the Scientific Services for the same qualifications. It might be maintained that, at the lower ages, they were inferior to those offered by industry, although I believe that, for the average man, the long-term prospects in the Patent Office are probably better than those in industry.
There are also attempts to widen the field of recruitment. The academic qualifications required have been extended and
536
a supplementary competition arranged to appeal to candidates above the normal age. Consideration is also being given to the possible transfer of suitable officers with these necessary qualifications from other Government Departments. I hope that I have said enough, without elaborating the point, to show the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we are making our best endeavours to attract the right sort of men into this sort of work.
The only other point, upon which I should like to conclude, is this: it is important that we should not, if we can possibly avoid it, lower the standard of either the examiners or the patent procedure. I believe that, in the long run, that would be detrimental to everybody. We are aware of that, and we are doing the best we can to meet this difficult situation. I shall not make all the twenty-odd speeches that were made yesterday in the debate on the scientific advancement, but I think every point made in that debate applies cogently to the problem that faces us in this Bill. But this Bill is a practical attempt to meet the practical difficulty which faces industry and science at the moment.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE, FIRE AND PROBATION OFFICERS REMUNERATION BILL
3.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I must apologise for speaking so much this afternoon, but this is my last effort. I am happy to say that this Bill is a short Bill, with the simple purpose of enabling retrospective effect to be given, in appropriate cases, to pay awards made to members of police forces, fire brigades and the probation service in England and Wales, and in Scotland, whose pay is prescribed in statutory regulations or rules.
In October, 1946, the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders in another place drew attention to certain statutory instruments which purported to have retrospect effect in cases where the parent Statute in fact conferred no express authority for retrospection. The Government of the day was advised that these

537
statutory instruments were ultra vires, arid since then it has been the policy of successive Governments not to make statutory instruments with retrospective effect in tae absence of express authority in the parent Statute so to do. This has naturally worked to the disadvantage of members of these three services, whose pay is prescribed in regulations or rules made under governing Statutes which confer no authority for retrospection, but who, despite this, had an occasion previously been granted retrospective in-increases in pay. This short Bill is designed to put the matter right.
The Bill does not, however, relate only to the future. It provides that the power to backdate awards should itself be backdated to operate from 8th September, 1955. This will enable effect to be given to a recommendation by the arbitrators appointed by the Prime Minister that a police pay award of December, 1955, should have effect from the 8th September of that year. The negotiations on that occasion were protracted, which is sometimes inevitable, and the arbitrators—addressing their minds purely to the merits of the case and not to the legal aspects of the position—considered that a measure of retrospection was justified.
In order to achieve its twin purposes, therefore, this Bill provides two things. First, that rules or regulations, made under the relevant Act, and prescribing the rates or pay and allowances of members of police forces, members of fire brigades or probation officers in England and Wales, and in Scotland, may be made with retrospective effect to a specified date; secondly, that such regulations or rules may be made with retrospective effect to a date not earlier than 8th September, 1955.
My Lords, in addition to these main provisions, the Bill provides that reductions, as opposed to increases, in pay or allowances shall not operate retrospectively. It does not apply to Northern Ireland, where these matters are within the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland. This is, as I say, a short Bill, and I really do not feel justified, having talked so much this afternoon, in taking up a great deal of your Lordships' time in inviting you to give it a Second Reading. I think it will be generally agreed that it is a very necessary measure. In the absence of power to
538
grant retrospection, negotiations must always be conducted with one eye on the clock or on the calendar. This is not fair to either side; it is liable to place either side in an embarrassing position, and makes it less easy for negotiations to be conducted in a spirit of good will and co-operation. With the passage of this Bill those problems need no longer arise, and much will have been done to facilitate the smooth working of the negotiating machinery for three services which, in this House and in the country at large, are, I think, rightly held in very high regard. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.37 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I feel that I ought to apologise to the House for appearing so frequently at this Table. This Bill is welcome, of course, because presumably it will benefit certain worthy sections of the community. I should just like to ask two or three questions. First, have payments already been made retrospectively, payments which are now regarded as being ultra vires, and is the purpose of this Bill to regularise these payments? Or is it that the Government have felt unable to make these payments until these regulations have been made authorising payment retrospectively?
My second question is this. The noble Lord has expressed a general principle; that is, that the Government should have power to make regulations to make payments retrospectively. But why does that apply only to these three sections of the community? Why should it not apply generally? I rather gathered from the noble Lord's speech that he thought it desirable that it should be possible to make regulations for payments generally to operate retrospectively. This Bill appears to apply only to these three sections of Government employees. I welcome this somewhat belated attempt on the part of the Government to put itself in order by regularising all the actions they have been taking in the past which are ultra vires. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether any more of these Bills are likely to come forward in the near future, and how far they have been acting in an ultra vires manner apart from these two particular Bills.
3.38 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, to save the noble Lord opposite adding to the number of his speeches. I want to put a point that I hope he will answer. I am in support of this Bill. I look upon it as a matter that has been dealt with urgently, and as something that shows how democracy can work when the will is there to carry into effect what is generally agreed as being necessary. I know that I must tread warily, in order that I may not get into the position of transgressing the rules that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is so anxious that we should observe at all times—we have had a good lesson on that within the last few days. The point that I want to make is this—and if it is out of order, well, so much the worse for me; I shall be learning in breaking a rule as other noble Lords have confessed to doing in the past.
I welcome the speed at which this matter is being dealt with in this Bill, and I ask this question: is it not possible, in view Of the acceleration that can be applied here, to hasten another reform that I am sure would be agreed by everyone—namely, to give effect to a promise made last April, that, when next April comes, superannuated teachers, many of them old persons, who are now paid quarterly in arrears, may have these payments made monthly? That would be a worthy thing to do. When we see the things that are provided for in this Bill being done so readily, and even with retrospective effect, I ask with great earnestness that the promise with regard to next April should also be given effect to earlier than that belated date. I know people who are in dire straits before the end of the three months' period, while they are waiting for their allowances to come—allowances which are paid in arrears. It seems to me all wrong that these meagre allowances should be paid in this way. And they are meagre allowances to-day, because of the diminution in the value of money, although, as some people have pointed out to me, when they were paying their superannuation contributions those payments were in good money—money much more valuable than the allowances now being paid. The plea that is made
540
—I have put it forward in another place on many occasions—is that these people should be paid monthly, rather than quarterly, and it is a plea to which I hope the Minister will listen. I hope he may say that he will endeavour to see that this new arrangement is dated earlier than April of next year.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Mathers, for their friendly reception of this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that his dark suggestions that we are more ultra vires than he fears or we think is quite unfounded. No payments have so far been made in this respect, and there is no question of being ultra vires; but we hope your Lordships will be able to speed this Bill on its way so that the necessary payments, amounting in some cases to a few pounds, may be made to these deserving people, if possible by Christmas. There has, however, been no question, so far, of ultra vires payments.
The noble Lord asks why police, firemen and probation officers should be picked out. The answer is that they are the only people, with one exception, to whom this situation applies. Nobody else is caught by this particular quirk of the law, and it is for that reason that the Bill has been brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, got very near to the one exception—namely, teachers. The noble Lord warned your Lordships straight away that he might be quite out of order in making the remarks he made, and I suppose, therefore, that I should be equally out of order in referring to them. While teachers have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mathers that, although quite out of order, I will make certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

EGYPT
4.0 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, although the House has completed its Business for to-day, I felt sure that it would be the wish of noble Lords in all parts of the House that we should adjourn during pleasure and then reassemble so as to enable me to make a statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place.
The House will understand that a debate is taking place in the General Assembly of the United Nations and that my right honourable arid learned friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet spoken. Under these circumstances, noble Lords will understand. I am sure, that to-day I can do no more than make an interim report on the position. I think that this may best be done by giving an account of the replies which are being sent to certain questions put to us by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His first question was:
"Has any withdrawal taken place and, if so, to what extent?"
Her Majesty's Government, as an earnest of their intention to withdraw from Egypt as soon as the conditions they have specified are completed, have welcomed the arrival of the United Nations troops in Port Said and have stated that they are prepared to withdraw a British battalion. Her Majesty's Government are assisting and co-operating with the United Nations Command in the discharge of its task. In particular, they have arranged for the main body of the Yugoslav contingent to disembark at Port Said and to be assisted in transit. They are undertaking to provide the necessary vehicles for the Norwegian medical company and military transport for the Indian infantry battalion which will form part of the United Nations force. Detailed arrangements for meeting these and other United Nations requirements are being concerted by the Anglo-French and the United Nations Commands.
The Secretary-General's second question is:
"Can anything be said concerning the plans for withdrawal?"
542
On this point I would recall the statement made by the Prime Minister to the House on November 6:
"If the Secretary-General can confirm, that the Egyptian and Israeli Governments have accepted an unconditional cease-fire and that the International Force to be set up will be competent to secure and supervise the attainment of the objectives set out in the operative paragraphs of the resolution passed by the General Assembly on November 2, Her Majesty's Government will agree to stop further military operations."
As a consequence of the steps taken to establish the United Nations Force in pursuance of the Assembly's resolution on November 7, Her Majesty's Government ordered the cessation of military operations. We have made it clear that we are ready to hand over to a United Nations Force which will be competent to discharge effectively the tasks assigned to it by the Assembly.
On a number of issues, progress has been and will be made. But here I must say that the unsatisfactory element in the Secretary-General's report which was published last night relates to the clearance of the Suez Canal outside the area of our control. As the House will be aware, the Egyptians deliberately and systematically sabotaged the Canal, sinking forty-seven ships and destroying two bridges. Colonel Nasser has suggested that this was because of the military action we took. This is obviously a fabrication. There can be no excuse for this act of wanton folly. I am glad to report that we have made excellent progress in clearing the part of the Canal which is under our control. Clearance vessels were attached to the Allied Naval Task Force and they began work as soon. as we occupied Port Said. We are also moving up or preparing a large fleet of salvage reinforcements amounting to some twenty-eight vessels. We hope that by the end of this week we shall have cleared a channel 25 ft. draught and 65 ft. beam, which will allow the passage of ships of 10.000 tons by early next week. The way is now clear for salvage forces to go forward beyond the limit of the Allied occupation.
The House should know that the Secretary-General's report does not seem to take full account of the Assembly's resolution of November 2, urging that, upon the cease-fire being effective, steps should be taken to reopen the Suez

543
Canal and to restore secure freedom of navigation, although it is true that he does envisage assistance from sources not directly approached by the United Nations. For all concerned, the clearance of the Canal is vital and urgent. This is the view underlined yesterday in an impressive statement by the International Chamber of Shipping. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has been asked to urge most strongly that, in view of world interest in expediting the clearance of the Canal, in view of our undertaking to begin the withdrawal of our troops and in view of the fact that the stretch of the Canal under our control will very shortly be cleared, there should be no unnecessary delay in starting the work in the Egyptian held area.
Finally, the Secretary-General asks:
"What is in your view the state of affairs as to compliance with the cease-fire?"
The cease-fire has been and is being strictly observed by the Anglo-French forces. Egyptian troops and civilians, who have been supplied with arms, have on several occasions opened fire without provocation on Anglo-French units. Your Lordships will have heard with indignation that the Egyptian Government has seen fit to publish the most reckless charges against the conduct of British troops. The House should give no credence to reports made by the present Egyptian Government. Last week, for example, the Egyptian Government formally complained to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that in violation of the cease-fire agreement, British armoured cars had driven south of the demarcation line. It was at once established and confirmed by the United Nations observers that not only was the allegation untrue, but that no armoured cars whatever had been disembarked at Port Said.
In conclusion, I would only say that we are witnessing an attempt by the United Nations to organise an effective intervention in an area which has long threatened the peace of the world. This intervention has been made possible by Franco-British action. If it succeeds—and we intend to sustain the efforts of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary to make it succeed—a precedent will have been set which will give mankind hope for the future.
4.8 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for the long statement that he has just been good enough to make to the House. There is one point that I should like to raise, but before putting that point I would assure him that we on this side of the House do not in any way accept the reckless charges, to which he refers, which are being made against the British Forces carrying out their duty in that part of the world. With regard to the statement as a whole, I find it a little difficult to understand exactly what Her Majesty's Government intend to do about withdrawal. It is a little difficult, following a rather long statement, to grasp exactly what is intended. Therefore, I would ask the noble Marquess whether he can give me a straight answer to a simple question—I think that this is the only way in which I can submit what I want to put before the noble Marquess. Is it the intention of the Government to withdraw British Forces from Egypt in accordance and in compliance with any decision taken by the United Nations? I put it in that simple form because I think it expresses exactly what we should like to know.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, of course the actual form of the withdrawal must depend upon the discussions which I have no doubt will take place between the Secretary-General and the representatives of the British Government. I read out the statement by my honourable friend the Prime Minister on November 6, which said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 559 (No. 1), col. 76]:
"If the Secretary-General can confirm that the Egyptian and Israeli Governments have accepted an unconditional cease-fire and that the International Force to be set up will be competent to secure and supervise the attainment of the objectives set out in the operative paragraphs of the resolution passed by the General Assembly on 2nd November, Her Majesty's Government will agree to stop further military operations."
That applies equally to the withdrawal. We agree in principle to the withdrawal. Supposing all British troops were immediately withdrawn before adequate United Nations Forces arrive, that, clearly, would create a vacuum which might have deplorable results. But, as I say, we have in principle agreed to

545
withdrawal, and it will really be for us and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to work out the details.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for that answer, but further to it I should like to ask this question. In the statement which he quoted, the Prime Minister said, on November 6:
"If the Secretary-General can confirm that the Egyptian and Israeli Governments have accepted an unconditional cease-fire, and that the International Force to be set up will be competent …"
and so on. I would draw attention to the words:
"If the Secretary-General can confirm …"
I take them to mean that the decision as to whether the International Force is "competent" or not will rest with the Secretary-General. If that is the case, presumably, in the light of this statement and what the noble Marquess has said, when the United Nations call for the complete withdrawal of British Forces, the withdrawal will take place. It will be the Secretary-General, and not Her Majesty's Government, who will decide whether the United Nations Force is competent or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as noble Lords will appreciate, this is a very delicate position for any Government spokesman, because the debate in the United Nations is at present in progress and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is now in New York. He is in close touch with the Secretary-General, and I do not want to say anything which would not be in conformity with what is being done there. All I would say at the present stage is that I do not withdraw from anything said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I do not think I can go further than that to-day.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, of course this is not the occasion for debating the statement, but the noble Marquess will appreciate that on this side of the House it is not considered to be entirely satisfactory. We feel that our Forces have no legal right to be there, and that they ought to withdraw at the request of, and in accordance with the requirements of, the United Nations. It is not for the
546
Government to make conditions. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he has any idea when the Foreign Secretary will be returning, and whether it will be possible to have an early debate, possibly next week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that is a perfectly fair question. I do not know, to a day, when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will return—it depends on events in New York—but I do not expect his return to be at all long delayed. He will be here, I hope, very soon. I entirely agree with the request of the noble Lord that there should be a debate when he has returned and when the time is appropriate. As your Lordships know, it has been our practice in this House usually to allow another place to hold their debate first, probably because the responsible Minister is so often in that House and it is only fair that he should be given the chance of speaking first. Perhaps I may keep in touch with noble Lords opposite, and when the day for a debate in another place has been fixed I shall be happy to arrange a day convenient to them.
LORD SILKIN: We may wish to have a debate at fairly short notice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not dispute that.