Sitting of 20 March 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o' Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL AVIATION

    Gliding Clubs
    Flight-Lieutenant Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what as0sistance or en couragement is to be given to gliding clubs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): My Noble Friend wishes to en courage gliding clubs, but there are at present no suitable gliders available, other than a few German gliders which arc being lent to clubs through the British Gliding Association for test purposes. It is hoped that arrangements will be concluded to enable gliding clubs to purchase other Government equipment of which they are in need.
    Flight - Lieutenant Beswick: When gliders are available, does the Minister propose to give any encouragement, financial or otherwise, to gliding clubs?
    Mr. Thomas: It is not proposed to give direct financial assistance, but as gliders become available we will consider the matter.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Cannot assistance be given to gliding clubs in the same way as to light aeroplane clubs?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. The help given to light aeroplane clubs is by the sale of surplus aircraft, but no surplus gliders are available.

    Charter Services (Pilots and Engineers)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if companies operating charter services are employing pilots with B licences and ground engineers with the necessary qualifications.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Yes, Sir. So far as I am aware these requirements, which are laid down in the Air Navigation (Consolidation) Order, 1923 are being com plied with by charter operators.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: If I give the Parliamentary Secretary details of irregularities, will he look into the matter further?
    Mr. Thomas: Certainly, Sir.

    Passenger Safety
    Colonel J, R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is now prepared to supply parachutes to passengers on civil air lines.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir. The safety of passengers is a paramount consideration with all those responsible for the operation of air services and engages the constant attention of my Noble Friend. The advisability of supplying parachutes has been exhaustively reviewed, and as a result it has been decided that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that in an accident which occurred near Gibraltar, of nine passengers, seven were saved by the use of parachutes?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not know the circumstances, but I do not think that they were such as to come under the control of my Noble Friend. It does not follow that these passengers would not have been saved by other measures.
    Colonel Ropner: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what are the disadvantages of parachutes?
    Mr. Thomas: The use of parachutes would require passengers to undergo parachute drill, and we do not think that

    1843
    it would be practical to ask passengers to undergo such drill. There are also pyschological disadvantages.

    Clifton Aerodrome
    Mr. Turtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to state what will be the future of the Clifton aerodrome near York; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the surrounding residential area from the nuisance of night flying.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: It is not desirable to make statements regarding particular aerodromes in advance of a comprehensive statement regarding aerodrome policy. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise, but I can assure the hon. Member that in all cases every effort will be made to minimise the nuisance of night flying.
    Mr. Turton: Before reaching a decision, will the Minister take into consideration the fact that this aerodrome is in the centre of a residential area, with schools all around it, and that there are six alternative aerodromes which have not this disadvantage?
    Mr. Thomas: I will look into the cir cumstances mentioned, but I cannot, as the hon. Member well knows, accept the suggestion that there are six alternative aerodromes.

    Hurn (Passenger Transport)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why rail services are not used to transport air passengers between Hum airport and London.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The railway service is used to transport air passengers between Hurn and London, but passengers are also conveyed by road.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that passengers have arrived from America at midnight and that they were put into a coach which took four and a half hours to reach London? And will he try to arrange for train services to meet air passengers arriving at midnight?
    Mr. Thomas: I know that there are disadvantages owing to Hum airport being so far from the Capital, but this was a wartime necessity and the real answer is to get Heathrow operating as soon as possible.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: As Hum airport is so frequently fog bound, why not divert the traffic to Prestwick?
    Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: Is the Par liamentary Secretary aware that when the rail services are used only Pullman tickets are offered? Will he sec that ordinary third and first class tickets are available?
    Mr. Thomas: I will consider that.

    Airports (Government Control)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he can now state which airports in this country are to be taken over by the Government.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: My Noble Friend hopes to make a statement on this subject in the early future.

    Dublin Air Conference
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he can now report to the House the outcome of the Dublin Air Conference; and whether he has arranged for the siting of the trans-Atlantic Safety Organisation at Prestwick, or whether it is to be at Rineanna.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The Dublin Conference is still in session, and I am not in a position to say what its final recommendations will be. The matter referred to in the second part of the Question is one of those under discussion at the Conference.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that international air delegates at Dublin are reported to have been officially pre vented from going to Prestwick and, if so, will he take steps to counteract that?
    Mr. Thomas: I will look into the matter, but I am rather sceptical about it.

    British European Airways (Scottish Division)
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the proposed functions and powers of the Scottish division of the British European Airways Corporation; and whether these will include the power to inaugurate new services or to modify existing ones in accordance with Scottish needs.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: As I stated on 13th March, the Scottish division of British European Airways will be responsible, as

    1845
    part of that Corporation, for the administration of air services within and radiating from Scotland. It follows that the division will be able to make proposals for the inauguration or modification of services in accordance with Scottish needs.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does the answer mean that they will not have power to inaugurate new services or to modify existing ones?
    Mr. Thomas: The ultimate responsibility will lie with the Board of British European Airways. As the part of the Corporation responsible for services in Scotland their proposals will naturally have great weight.
    Mr. Willis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this does not satisfy the deep feeling in Scotland on this matter, and that Scotland feels it should be given power to provide services in Scotland within the organisation?
    Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that full weight is being given to Scottish feelings in this matter It is my Noble Friend's desire to do what we can to meet them.
    Mr. Kinley: If decisions are made in London in respect of these services will the hon. Gentleman see that they are taken by Scotsmen?

    State-Operated Lines (Statistics)
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if preparations are being made to publish receipts, expenditure traffic and other statistical details of the three State-operated civil air lines at regular intervals, in the same way that the privately-operated railway companies published information about the results of their activities.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I ask the hon. Member to await the Civil Aviation Bill which will, I hope, be available in the near future.

    Training Ship Cadets
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware of the anxiety felt by cadets serving on training ship H.M.S. "Conway," and other similar ships, concerning the delay in announcing arrangements for such cadets
    1846
    to take courses which will fit them for careers in civil aviation; and if he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: As the reply is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the reply:
    My Noble Friend was consulted some months ago by the authorities of H.M.S. "Conway" schoolship regarding a proposal to revive a prewar air training scheme to fit their cadets for entry into civil aviation as pilots, air navigators, etc. My Noble Friend informed the schoolship authorities that he saw no reason why such a scheme should not be re-instituted but it was expected that for some time to come the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the proposed new Corporations would be able to recruit almost all necessary staffs from men coming out of the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm. My Noble Friend added that if the authorities of H.M.S. "Conway" decided to reinstitute their scheme he would be very willing, if they so desired, to arrange a meeting at which the schemes of training could be discussed with representatives of his Ministry, the Corporations, the Air Registration Board and the training authorities of the Service Departments. A reply to this suggestion has not so far been received.
    My Noble Friend has not been approached by any other similar ships or institutions regarding this subject.

    Minister's Oversea Tour
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, if he will make a statement about the recent overseas tour of the Minister; and what results were achieved.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The Conference which my Noble Friend attended in Wellington recommended the establishment of a South Pacific Air Transport Council, for the co-ordination and development of air services in that area. It also recommended the early establishment of a new organisation to be called British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines to operate services between Sydney and Vancouver and between Auckland and Vancouver in parallel partnership with

    1847
    the Canadian company, Trans-Canada Airlines. The new organization will comprise the interests of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
    In Canberra my Noble Friend discussed future arrangements for services between the United Kingdom and Australia, and negotiated a bilateral agreement between the two countries.
    In New Delhi he discussed technical problems of common concern to India and ourselves.
    My Noble Friend proposes to make a statement himself at an early date.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is meant by the words "parallel partnership?" Does it mean that the partners have been extended and so far produced that they will never meet?
    Mr. Thosmas: I certainly trust that the aircraft will never meet in this parallel partnership.
    Mr. Pickthorn: What does "parallel partnership" mean? The Parliamentary Secretary has not told us that.

    Trans-Atlantic Service
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what date B.O.A.C. will resume a regular trans-Atlantic air service.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The British Overseas Airways Corporation has been operating a trans-Atlantic service between Prestwick and Montreal six times a week since September, 1941. It is expected that this will be supplemented by a service between the United Kingdom and the United States in July.

  TRANSJORDAN (TREATY)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement as to the progress of the negotiations and the terms of the agreement relating to the proposed termination of the Mandate for Transjordan.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The negotiations with His Highness the Amir of Transjordan have made very satisfactory progress. It is expected that a Treaty recognising the independent status of
  1848
  Transjordan in substitution for the present Mandatory regime, and providing for cooperation between Transjordan and His Majesty's Government in future, will be signed towards the end of this week.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that as the legality of the whole transaction may be open to question, this House will have the opportunity of discussing all the terms of the proposed Treaty before it is signed?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Treaty in the ordinary way will be laid before the House and prior to ratification will lie on the Table for 21 days.
  Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what steps have been taken to comply with the provisions of the United Nations Charter in this matter in view of the fact that, according to that Charter, the United Nations organisation should be consulted before any difference is made in respect of man dated territories?
  Mr. Creech Jones: There is no requirement that any formal action should be taken by the Government in regard to the termination of the Mandate.
  Mr. Janner: Has the hon. Gentleman taken any steps to bring the matter before the United Nations organisation?

  WEST AFRICA

    Higher Education
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a decision has yet been reached on the Report of the Commission on Higher Education in West Africa.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. During the recent West African Council, my right hon. Friend discussed with the Governors the very complicated issues raised by the reports. The recommendations of the reports are now receiving active attention in the light of the Governors' reports and the information gained at the West African Council.
    Mr. Turton: Has not a long time been taken by the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind? I thought he gave some indication to West Africa that he had his mind partly made up on this matter. Has his mind deteriorated?
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that it was a

    1849
    matter on which the fullest opportunity' should be given for the West Africans to express themselves and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to learn at the recent West African Council the views of the Governors and the local people.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Are there any educated West Africans who would put into English the phrase "complicated issues "?

    Food Production
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any encouragement has been given to the West African colonies to expand their production of wheat, rice and millet, in order to ensure the adequacy of their food supplies in the prevailing world shortage.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Ever since the war started the West African Colonial Governments, in common with other Colonial Governments, have been urged to do all in their power to increase production of foodstuffs both for local consumption and export, and to keep me informed of progress made and assistance required. The question has again received special emphasis and attention in recent months. As far as cereals are concerned, the West African Colonies are expected this year to be virtually self-sufficient in rice, maize, millet, and native seed crops. Wheat can be grown only in small quantities in Northern Nigeria and flour therefore has to be imported, but the quantities required are very small.

  MALAYA

    Rubber Industry
    Major Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when supplies of acetic and formic acid are likely to be available to estates which have joined the Malay Rubber and Estate Owners' Company, Limited, and which are now in production.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Malayan Rubber Estate Owners' Company has placed orders through the Ministry of Supply for 134 tons of formic acid and one-third of this quantity is now awaiting shipment in this country. I understand that the company has placed, and has had accepted, orders for acetic acid in Australia, but I have no information as to the date when these supplies will be shipped.
    Sir B. Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the basis on which plantation supplies are being made available to estates which have joined the Malay Rubber Estate Owners' Company, Limited.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Malayan Rubber Estate Owners Company was formed among all companies and owners of over 100 acres of rubber for the purpose of ensuring a fair distribution of equipment and services which were thought likely to be in short supply. Arrangements have been made whereby the company's requirements of supplies in this country are ordered at its request by the Colonial Office from the Ministry of Supply against an undertaking by the Company to take them over on a c.i.f. basis. The distribution of such supplies after the c.i.f. stage is a matter for the Board of the Company.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the Under secretary aware that some estates which are now in full production have received nothing from this organisation so far except requests for subscriptions and reams of paper? If it cannot produce supplies of essential materials would it not be better to wind it up?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The delay is not on the side of the Government. These orders were placed in December and the Ministry of Supply is handling them.

    British Citizenship
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, under what pro vision of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, Orders in Council conferring British citizenship upon inhabitants of a foreign country are promulgated.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware of any Orders in Council made under the provisions of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, which confer British nationality upon the inhabitants of a foreign country.

    Transfer of Assets
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, under what pro vision of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, it is proposed to vest in the Crown all lands in the Malay States not in private possession and to issue titles to such lands as Crown grants; whether the explanatory note supplied to Sir Harold MacMichael referred to this proposal; when it was communicated to the rulers of the Malay States; and whether it is

    1851
    contained in the treaties recently concluded with these rulers.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the proposed transfer of assets described in paragraph 12(a) of Command Paper No. 6749 as qualified by the exceptions noted in paragraph 12(d) of that Paper. The answer to the first part of the Question is that the necessary powers are conferred by Section I of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. As regards the remainder of the Question, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to Sir Harold MacMichael's report recently published as Colonial Paper No. 194. As stated in paragraph 10 of Appendix I to the Report the explanatory note handed to each Ruler contained a clear statement of His Majesty's. Government's intention in this regard. That note was given to each Ruler, after a full verbal explanation of its contents, at interviews which took place on various dates between the 18th of October (Johore) and the 21st of December (Trengganu). It was not necessary for the treaties with the Rulers (the texts of which are contained in Appendix II to the Report) to deal specifically with this matter.

  FAR EAST INTERNEES (ASSISTANCE)
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in how many cases internees and prisoners of war returning to this country from the Far East, and intending to remain permanently in the United Kingdom, have been able to obtain from the Crown Agents for the Colonies a grant for the purchase of furniture, house hold goods, etc., in accordance with the provisions of the message from him circulated to these persons on their arrival in this country in October, 1945.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Grants have been paid in 47 cases, and 12 cases are in course of payment. A further 32 applications are at present under consideration.
  Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these unfortunate people are in some instances in a very difficult situation, and will he please give more consideration to the matter?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly, Sir.

  GOLD COAST (FURNITURE INDUSTRY)
  Flight-Lieutenant Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is given to native furniture-building co-operatives in the Gold Coast.
  Mr. Creech Jones: There are no furniture building co-operatives in the Gold Coast at present. Assistance in the form of technical advice and timber supplies is being given to African makers of furniture by the Industrial Development Board and the Forestry Department of the Government.

  PALESTINE (PROPAGANDA)
  Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the pamphlet, "Where to go in Tel Aviv," a copy of which has been sent to him; if he will inquire where this pamphlet was printed; and what steps the Government are taking to prevent this kind of propaganda in Palestine.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have seen the pamphlet to which the hon. Member refers and have addressed an inquiry to the High Commissioner for Palestine. I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I receive the High Commissioner's report.
  Mr. Astor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of these pamphlets intended for the Middle East as Zionist propaganda and that they are published in this country presumably by Zionists here—theycould not be said to be published by Arabs—and will he look into the matter with a view to curtailing these activities?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question. The Question referred to a specific pamphlet and suitable action has been taken on that.
  Mr. Astor: I think my hon. Friend might find that this pamphlet or one very similar to it is being published in this country.

  WEST INDIES (TOURIST TRADE)
  Captain Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the need for restoring the tourist trade to the island of Jamaica,

  1853
  he will consider making arrangements to abolish the wartime regulations compelling visitors to Jamaica to produce pass ports, as has been done in Bermuda and the Bahamas.
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is not considered advisable in present circumstances that passport requirements should be entirely abolished, but I am glad to say that it has recently been found possible consider ably to relax the regulations regarding visas. United States citizens, who constitute the majority of the visitors, are not now required to obtain visas for visits of less than six months duration, and persons in transit and passengers on tourist vessels may also visit the island without visas. These relaxations extend also to the other West Indian Colonies, and I hope that they will have a beneficial effect on the tourist trade of these Colonies

  MALTA (WAR DAMAGE CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the service which the people of Malta have rendered to the United Nations, he will arrange for the cancellation of the ordinance under which the Maltese people are the only subjects of the Crown still called upon to pay war-damage contributions.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The legislation in Malta providing for schemes of compensation for war damage follows closely the lines of the similar legislation in the United Kingdom, and I see no grounds for cancelling the balance of contributions due under it, the payment of which ex tends over the same period as contributions in this country. In accordance with the proposal submitted to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 10th November, 1942, Parliament have already made clear their appreciation of the services of the people of Malta by voting a free gift of £10 million for meeting liabilities under the legislation and for other expenses incidental to the rebuilding of the Island.
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in Malta feel that this money should be found by Italy, and will he give consideration to this very reasonable proposal?
  Mr. Creech Jones: A very substantial contribution has been made already, and there is no reason to depart from the existing arrangements so far as war damage is concerned.

  JAMAICA (STRIKES)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to make a statement about the strikes in the mental hospital, railways, fire service, printing office, and part of the Public Works Department, Jamaica.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Government Printing Office employees returned to work on 25th of February. The strikes in other essential services ended by agreement with the Trades Union Council on nth of March. As I informed the House on 13th of March, this enables any out standing matters affecting the workers to be settled by negotiation.
  Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that at the back of these strikes is the rivalry between the T.U.C. union and Mr. Bustamente's union, and may I ask him if Mr. Bustamente's personal union is liable for registration under the trade union laws of the Colony?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The latter part of the question should obviously be addressed to the Governor of Jamaica and I am unable to answer it. Undoubtedly, a great deal of the trouble has arisen from internal union rivalry.

  SYRIA AND LEBANON (FRENCH TROOPS)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has represented to the French Government that the proposal to retain French troops in the Lebanon until March, 1947, is not in accordance with the resolution of the Security Council, accepted by the French Foreign Minister, that these troops would be evacuated as soon as practicable; and whether he will assure the House that the promise given to the Lebanese, that British troops will remain in the Lebanon until all French troops have been with drawn, will be maintained.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the

  1855
  negative. Both His Majesty's Government and the French Government are bound by their acceptance of the United States resolution, which represented the majority view at the recent meeting of the Security Council, to withdraw their troops from Syria and the Lebanon as soon as practicable. It is not for us to determine the time required for this operation by the French authorities. We have, nevertheless, offered them our help in the way of transport. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would point out that our undertaking to the Security Council to withdraw British troops as soon as practicable supersedes all previous arrangements in this matter.
  Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say why the French are not withdrawing at the same time? Is the difficulty one of transport facilities?
  Mr. Bevin: There are certain long standing difficulties in regard to heavy equipment. We have not been there quite so long.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA (EMBASSY STAFFS)
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons are accredited to the Soviet Embassy in London; and how many are accredited to the British Embassy in Moscow.
  Mr. Bevin: The number of persons recorded in the Foreign Office as comprising the staff of the Soviet Embassy in London, excluding domestics, is 103; 86 persons, excluding domestics, are employed on the staff of His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow.

  PARLIAMENTARYDELEGATIONS (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements for all party delegations of Members of Parliament to visit Belgium and Czechoslovakia, in response to invitations from these Governments.
  Mr. Bevin: A reply has already been given on the subject of a delegation to Czechoslovakia. Subject to the invitations of the respective Governments, I
  1856
  shall be happy to make any necessary arrangements at a suitable time.
  Mr. Peter Freeman: Are any reciprocal arrangements made with these countries to send delegations here?
  Mr. Bevin: I am continually pressing them to send delegations here.
  Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements for an all party delegation of Members of Parliament to visit Hungary, in response to the invitation from the Hungarian Government.
  Mr. Bevin: I hope that arrangements can be made for such a visit during the Easter Recess.
  Flight-Lieutenant Haire: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend.

  GERMANY (GOVERNMENT)
  Mr. John Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allied Control Council is for international purposes the recognised Government of Germany.
  Mr. Bevin: The Allied Control Council is the agency through which the government of Germany is carried on, but its position and that of Germany itself are without precedent. The foreign relations of Germany as a State are in abeyance, and the status and functions of the Control Council for international purposes must, therefore, develop according to circumstances.
  Mr. Foster: Which is the recognised Government of Germany?
  Mr. Bevin: The Allied Control Council is absolutely responsible, but there are many other things such as prewar debts and obligations, which have not yet been definitely transferred.

  U.N.R.R.A. (FOOD PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE)
  Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the present food shortage in Europe, and the need for successful harvests this summer, U.N.R.R.A. is taking steps to distribute

  1857
  widely, seeds and agricultural machinery, especially to Hungary, where these are in short supply.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. U.N.R.R.A. is taking steps to provide seeds and agricultural machinery for the countries in which U.N.R.R.A. is operating. In all these countries it is expected that there will be a notable recovery in food production this year. As regards Hungary, U.N.R.R.A. is not authorised to do more than provide medical and sanitary aid and supplies and other emergency relief supplies for persons in greatest need such as children and nursing and expectant mothers. It has not so far been held that this provision covers the rehabilitation of agriculture.
  Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of Hungary, which was once regarded as the granary of Europe, and which has millions of acres of fertile soil, the pro vision of agricultural machinery and seeds would be a most useful way of providing us with food this year?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, I realise that, but there are many other problems connected with Hungary which make the task very difficult.

  FOREIGN SERVICE (WOMEN'S RECRUITMENT)
  Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the Government's proposals for future recruitment to His Majesty's Foreign Service; and especially whether it is their intention to establish equality of opportunity in this regard as between men and women.
  Mr. Bevin: Recruitment to His Majesty's Foreign Service is now con ducted by the Civil Service Commissioners in accordance with the policy set forth in Command Paper 6567, which deals with recruitment to established posts in the Civil Service as a whole during the Reconstruction period. With regard to the second part of the Question, a Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers to examine the admission of women into the Foreign Service, and I have now received their Report, which is unanimous. A copy of it will be placed in the Library. His Majesty's Government have agreed
  1858
  to accept the Report and, on the assumption that a general marriage bar will be imposed, which I shall have the power to waive in exceptional circumstances, we have accepted the Committee's recommendation that women shall be equally eligible with men for admission to the Foreign Service.
  The Committee, however, recommend that during the reconstruction period— which is affected by the recruitment of men who have been debarred by war ser vice from normal entry—the numbers of women to be recruited should be limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. of the total admitted from the Reconstruction Com petition as a whole. We have accepted the Committee's recommendation that when making appointments to posts abroad women should be eligible equally with men for appointment to both diplomatic and consular posts. The necessary arrangements are being made by the Civil Service Commissioners to give effect to these recommendations.
  I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Sir Ernest Gowers and the Committee for performing this notable service.
  Mrs. Middleton: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that women in this country and many other parts of the world will welcome the acceptance by the Government of the principle of equality of opportunity for men and women in His Majesty's Foreign Service?
  Mr. Bevin: My predecessor and I were guided in this matter by the Committee.
  Mr. William Williams: Is there any differentiation in the standard of remuneration of men and women in the Foreign Service?
  Mr. Bevin: I am not certain, but, generally speaking, there is a difference in such remuneration in the Civil Service. I cannot say at the moment, however, whether that applies to this case or not.
  Mr. Warbey: Is it not a fact that candidates entering the Foreign Service are interviewed by a special board com posed of Foreign Service officials, and that the finding of that board is decisive in the appointment of a candidate?
  Mr. Bevin: I should like notice of these questions about appointment, which do not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.
  Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend say in what circumstances the marriage bar will be operated and will be waived? Does he think the marriage bar is necessary?
  Mr. Bevin: This is a very difficult problem. I cannot say in what circum stances it would be operated or waived, but I do know of the difficulty with men sometimes, the other way round.

  PERSIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS)
  Mr. Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the approximate number of additional Soviet troops that have recently entered North Persia in contravention of the Tripartite Treaty to which this country is a party.
  Mr. Bevin: I am not in a position to give the information asked for.
  Mr. Chamberlain: In view of the gravity of this matter, will my right hon. Friend make it his business to obtain the information, so that it can be either dismissed or confirmed?
  Mr. Bevin: It has now gone to the Security Council, and I think it ought to be left there for investigation.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that very wild exaggerations are being published in the Press?
  Mr. Bevin: The hon. Gentleman's source of information is better than mine; I do not know.

  SECURITY COUNCIL (GOVERN MENT REPRESENTATIVE)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the issues which are likely to be raised at the forthcoming meeting of the U.N.O. Security Council, arrangements will be made for the United Kingdom to be represented at that meeting by a Minister of the Crown.
  Mr. Bevin: The Security Council is about to begin its regular meetings under Article 28 of the Charter. Sir Alexander Cadogan has been appointed Permanent Representative of His Majesty's Government for these regular meetings. He will act on instructions from His Majesty's Government and will, of course, keep in the closest touch with me I am satisfied with this arrangement, which corresponds to Article 28 of the Charter and to the
  1860
  practice of other Governments represented on the Security Council.
  Mr. Warbey: In view of the grave and far-reaching responsibilities resting upon the shoulders of the British Permanent Representative on the Security Council, will the Government consider appointing a Minister resident at the scat of U.N.O. for this office?
  Mr. Bevin: I think the arrangement that has been made is a very good one, and I stand by it.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider very seriously whether his personal presence is not most desirable at this particular meeting at which such very grave issues may arise?
  Mr. Bevin: I must follow events, but one can cause trouble by dramatising too much as well as by being mundane.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Demobilisation
    Mrs. Castleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the rate of demobilisation, in groups, up to June, 1946, of officers and warrant officers in the following branches of the R.N.: medical officers, dental officers, chaplains and Naval schoolmasters.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 11th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Major N. Macpherson).

    Rosyth Dockyard(Future)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has considered the resolution from the Dunfermline Trades Council and Burgh Labour Party sent to him by the hon. Member for Fife, Western, calling for an immediate decision on the future of Rosyth naval base; and what answer he has made.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the anxiety of Scotland to be given a definite decision on the future of Rosyth Dockyard. This must, however, depend upon the size of the postwar Navy, and the commitments which it is required to undertake. These questions are engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government, but it is likely to be some time be fore any firm decision is reached. As soon

    1861
    as I am in a position to make any statement concerning the future of Rosyth, I shall do so. The reply to the resolution will be on these lines.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the question of Rosyth should be considered in relation to Scotland and not in relation to the plans for the South of England, and will he consider it from that point of view?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly consider the urgent need of Scotland, but I am primarily concerned with the urgent need of the Navy to have the bases in the right places.

  WIRELESS LICENCE (OLD AGE PENSIONERS)
  Mr. Langasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the protest sent to him by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, on behalf of 4,000 old age pensioners, against the increased cost of wireless licences; and what action he proposes to take
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir, but I regret that I am unable to add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 5th February in reply to similar Questions on this subject.

  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the difficulties caused to holiday resorts by the selection of the Saturday before Whit Sunday as the official day for the celebration of victory; that residents in holiday resorts must work at this period to cater for their visitors; and whether he will produce alternative suggestions so that victory celebrations may be shared by all.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am aware that some holiday resorts feel that the selection of 8th June creates difficulties for them. As the House knows, this day was chosen after a very careful review of the many factors involved and was found, on balance, to be the most suitable day for celebrations by the whole community The celebrations for which the Government are responsible are being confined to London and Edinburgh; elsewhere they are a matter for the dis-
  1862
  cretion of the local authority concerned. I have no doubt that, where appropriate, the local authority will take into account the difficulties to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but I must make it clear that there can be no question of a day other than 8th June being the public holiday for victory celebrations.
  Mr. Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to make it possible for visitors to holiday resorts to obtain meals and rationed foods on 8th June, or to warn visitors that most retailers and caterers will be closed on that day.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I would refer the hon. Member to the de tailed reply which I gave on 13th March on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson). I am sending him a copy. As stated by my right hon. Friend on 27th February, a statement as to the arrangements for Victory Day will be made in due course.

  GERMANY (BRITISH ZONE, VISITS)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will reconsider the application of an English woman to visit her mother in Hamburg, who is aged 73, nearly blind, and who can be reached by sea.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): In view of the conditions in Germany, which are still very difficult, it is not possible to allow private persons to visit the British Zone. I am, however, considering whether an exception can be made in compassionate cases and I will let the hon. Member know when a decision has been reached.
  Mr. Keeling: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy give an assurance that each of these applications will be considered on its merits, intelligently,. humanely and sym pathetically, and not merely by rule of thumb?
  Mr. Hynd: I have not given any assurance that the door can be opened. I am considering whether exceptions can be made for compassionate cases, and if such concessions are made, of course applications will be dealt with on the strength of the compassionate claim.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Queue Priority Labels
    Mr. Gordon-Walkerasked the Minister of Food how many food officers are. without supplies of the special cards for giving pregnant women priority in food queues; why these cards were allowed to go out of print; and what steps he intends to take to grant pregnant women priority in food queues until the cards are again available.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: No food office should be without supplies of the queue priority labels for expectant mothers, but I am aware that certain food offices in the London area failed to replenish their stocks of these labels and some offices were without supplies for a time, although ample stocks were available and the form is not out of print. This position in London has now been remedied and steps will be taken to see that similar circum stances do not arise again.

    Importers (Selling Organisation)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Food why he is insisting that importers without selling or wholesale premises should sell through first hand salesmen to wholesalers; and whether he will consider allowing them to sell direct to wholesalers as in prewar days.
    Dr. Summerskill: Importers, whether they have selling premises or not, may sell direct to wholesalers. They may not themselves act as wholesalers unless they did so before the war and hold a whole sale licence.
    Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Lady aware that these first hand salesmen are additional middlemen between the tomatoes and the public, and will she look into the matter again?
    Dr. Summerskill: The first hand sales man and the wholesaler have the same licence, and the importer can deal with either. He does not have to deal with both. They are not an extra link in our chain of distribution.
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Food why he has introduced into the distribution machinery for tomatoes from the Canary Islands a superfluous category known as first hand salesmen; whether he is aware that these men were not used
    1864
    before the war and that they will serve no function other than raising the retail selling price; and whether he proposes to establish first hand salesmen pools for the distribution of other fresh fruits and vegetables which he has promised to have imported from the Continent.
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member is referring to the two associations which have been established to secure as far as possible equitable distribution of Canary Island tomatoes, these are in no sense an additional or superfluous category of distributors. They do not affect the importer's freedom to sell to any wholesaler. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Lady aware that a certain group of importers of Canary tomatoes did offer to bring them across to this country and sell them to the public cheaper, provided that the first hand salesmen were dispensed with?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. These organisations are sponsored by the Ministry of Food, but they are non-profit . making. There is no question of their getting an extra margin. We set them up merely for the purpose of ensuring equitable distribution of the avail able tomatoes.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Will my hon. Friend examine again the Tomatoes Order of October, 1945, in which she will find there are additional middlemen?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am very anxious that additional middlemen should not be introduced. I can assure the hon. Gentle man that I have examined these Orders very closely, and I cannot agree with him.
    Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is a distinct difference between the Ministry's definition of a first hand sale or a first hand salesman in the Tomatoes Order, 1941, and the Tomatoes Order, 1945, and that it is a fact that, if a first hand salesman does not make a profit, he receives a definite, substantial and almost totally unearned increment?
    Mr. Marples: What happens to the difference between the buying and the selling price of the tomatoes paid to and received by the first hand salesman?
    Dr. Summerskill: Of course, we have middlemen at the moment. What I have

    1865
    told the House is that we have not introduced any additional link in our chain. During the war, when we set up our machinery of distribution, we decided to use the men who were functioning in the particular industry, which I think was equitable, and for the time being we are using them; but I cannot at the moment tell the hon. Gentleman what the shape of things to come will be.

    Food Ships (Destination)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Food why ships carrying food for storage are being diverted from Glasgow to London and Liverpool.
    Dr. Summerskill: No ships carrying food intended for storage in Glasgow are being diverted to London or Liverpool, but the normal interchange of destinations necessitated by the food position in this country has taken place.

    Victory Celebrations
    Mr. Greyasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the approaching victory celebrations on 8th June, he will afford bakeries an increased amount of sugar, fats, tea, etc., so that children and old people may partake of a public tea as part of the day's celebration; and if, to regulate possible abuse, he will make it obligatory that persons organising such a function shall obtain a certificate of bona fides from the clerk of the local authority, or the food officer for the area.
    Dr. Summerskill: The arrangements for the victory celebrations on 8th June are being prepared, and a statement will be made in due course.

    Blue Peas
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Minister of Food what is the price being paid per cwt. for the bulk purchase of blue peas by his Department in Holland.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend does not consider that it would be in the national interest to state publicly the prices which his Department pay for their purchases.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the hon. Lady prepared to give any reason for that statement?
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Sir. I think every businessman in the House realises that the Ministry of Food are in
    1866
    part a trading concern, and it is not advisable to disclose all the prices we give.

    Wheat and Flour Reserves
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Food whether he will state the amount of wheat and flour held in reserve at 31st December, 1943.
    Dr. Summerskill: It is not possible to say what quantities of wheat and flour were regarded as being held in reserve at 31st December, 1943. At that time provision had to be made for a number of contingencies, and stocks were held to the extent to which cMr. Stokes: Is. the hon. Lady aware that Stamford University. California, in June, 1943, computed that the reserves of wheat and flour in this country stood at 3,500,000 tons, and if they can give the figures, why cannot the Government do so?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot understand why my hon. Friend put his question if he has already got the information.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the most unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early opportunity.

    Custard Powder
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Food" if he will now release more custard powder for sale in the shops.
    Dr. Summerskill: There is at present more custard powder available for sale in the shops than before the war. Starch, the main ingredient in custard powder, is in short supply and no more can be released for the manufacture of custard powder at present.
    Mr. Shephard: Would the hon. Lady look into the question of the stocks which are held in Manchester and which, I am given to understand, are rotting?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentle man will give me details of the particular place where they are being held I certainly will.

    Horticultural Products
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Minister of Food, having regard to the fact that crops such as endive, chicory, early lettuce, celeriac, forced turnips and

    1867
    radishes have developed into important branches of the horticultural industry, if he will control the import of such pro ducts so as to give the home grower the opportunity to expand production of those crops and of others which were subject to restriction during the war.
    Dr. Summerskill: The importation of all the commodities the hon. Member mentions is fully controlled and the arrangements under which their importation will be permitted during 1946 were dealt with in a recent Press announcement of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    Soft Fruit (Quick Freezing)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether, notwithstanding the Government's policy to pre-empt soft fruits for jam making, he will give favourable consideration to an allocation of some portion of the soft fruit crop this year for the quick freezing process.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the supply of soft fruit likely to be available is sufficient to justify any allocation to the quick freezing process this year.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the hon. Lady appreciate that this quick freezing process is one which is very valuable for distribution in all periods of the year and that the principle is capable of great expansion?
    Dr. Summerskill: I agree that the quick freezing process has a great future, but I am afraid that at the moment we cannot encourage it because we have not sufficient fruit.

    Fruit Canning
    Mr. Dc la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider giving encouragement at the present time to factories engaged in the preparation of both frosted foods and canning, as regards making available additional food and especially for the purposes of encouraging growers to develop crops to a greater extent because of the certain knowledge that there was a market at home which would absorb them.
    Dr. Summerskill:, This will be done so far as possible, but allocations of fresh fruit for these purposes must take second place to the needs of the consumer for fresh fruit and jam.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider removing the restrictions on the canning of fruit, at least to some extent, to enable a fair and wide distribution of fruit in view of the difficulties of transport and distribution of fruit in its fresh state, and having regard to its perishable nature.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 27th February, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that I am always particularly courteous to ladies?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I should like to undertake to. do all these things he asks, which are quite reasonable. The only difficulty is that there is a shortage of fruit.

    Bread (Size of Loaf)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food whether he will direct the production of a much larger proportion of one pound loaves of bread, and of the smallest size of bread rolls, in order to reduce to a minimum the waste of bread.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend has already appealed to the baking industry to produce more I lb. loaves so far as is required to meet the public demand. The weight of bread rolls is restricted to a maximum of 2 oz. and many bakers produce rolls of lighter weight. I do not consider that any significant reduction of waste would result from adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion on this point.
    Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Lady consider the fact that there is a tremendous waste of bread by the use of rolls, and that if a smaller roll were brought into use it might avoid the necessity for a portion of the advertising which is going on for the prevention of the waste of bread?
    Dr. Summerskill: The reason we have kept rolls is that we are aware that the workers in Scotland like their baps. So far as the English roll is concerned, we have given the matter consideration and find that if we give a roll smaller than two ounces people are tempted to take two.

    Potatoes (Export)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister "of Food if he will inquire into the position

    1869
    of potato stocks held in the United Kingdom in order to find out if any substantial quantity will be available for export; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: A substantial tonnage of potatoes has already been exported, including 54,880 tons to the British zone in Germany, and 193,000 tons to the British and United States Forces. A census of stocks is now being taken which will indicate whether further quantities will be available for export.

    Canary Seed
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the interest which thousands of people have in the breeding and exhibiting of canaries, budgerigars and other small-cage and aviary birds, he is prepared to allow facilities for the importation of a few thousand tons of canary seed at an early date.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Food if he is now able to agree to the importation by way of ballast of canary seed to enable many working men to enjoy their hobby of keeping birds.
    Dr. Summerskill: Food for human needs has a prior claim on all our resources available for the purchase of foodstuffs abroad. It is not possible to agree to importation of canary seed even by way of ballast.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that in replying to Question 51 the hon. Lady indicated that we were taking food from the Canaries? Now, I merely suggest that we should take some food to the canaries.
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not think there is any hardship involved in keeping canaries outside cages.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. Lady say why it is not possible to bring canary seed in by way of ballast? Is she aware that canary seed is not used for human food?
    Dr. Summerskill: I did not suggest that it was, but I have said that if we have any space to spare we must bring in human food.
    Mr. Laversasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, prior to the war, British-bred canaries to the value of some£35,000 were exported: and, in view of this, will he consider permitting
    1870
    the resumption of the import of canary seed into this country and so enable British canary breeders to recapture overseas markets.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am aware of the prewar value of the export of live cage birds. To commence importing canary seed to recover this small export trade would mean a greater expenditure of foreign currency than could be recovered by the sale of the birds. As I have indicated in my replies to earlier questions today by the hon. Members for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), our available resources must be utilised for human needs.

    Cotton Seed
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, prior to the war, the United Kingdom imported about two-thirds of the en tire Egyptian cotton seed crop, the average tonnage imported during the five years, 1935 to 1939, being, approximately, 312,000 tons per annum, where as today we are receiving none; and, in view of the fact that we are in need of this cotton seed today which would be a valuable addition to our supplies of edible oils, has he approached the Egyptian Government to inquire if, and when, the supplies of Egyptian cotton seed are likely to be again available.
    Dr. Summerskill: During the war the acreage under cotton in Egypt was greatly reduced to permit of a large in crease in food production. Taking Egypt and the Sudan together, only small surpluses of cotton seed have, during the past few years, been available for export to this country. My right hon. Friend is securing and will continue to secure all the supplies he can from these sources.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is the hon. Lady aware that Egypt is using the products of the seed, namely, oil and cakes, partly for fertiliser and partly as fuel owing to the shortage of coal? Would it not be possible to make arrangements whereby we could ship coal in exchange for the cotton seed, which would increase the equivalent amount of margarine available to this country by over 1,000 tons a week?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are quite pre pared to take the exportable surplus, but unfortunately it is not there.

    Fruit and Vegetables (Importation)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food what trade organisation he calls in for consultation in the matter of the importation of fruit and vegetables.
    Dr. Summerskill: The organisation generally consulted on matters relating to the importation of fruit and vegetables is the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades, Ltd., though representatives of other interests are also consulted if necessary.
    Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Lady whether, in view of the great importance of what is known as the "growers" industry and the amount of employment it gives, there is the fullest consultation with representatives of that industry?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the Noble Lord of that.

    Syrups
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food what syrups are being sup plied in Aberdeen and the North-east Coast of Scotland which contain vitamins; what is the average content, in terms of international units, of these syrups; and what are the present points requirements in connection with the purchase by retailers of these vitamin-containing syrups.
    Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is rather long and includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    Following is the reply:
    Under the Ministry of Food's Welfare Foods Scheme orange juice and cod liver oil compound are always available to expectant mothers and to children holding R.B.2 ration books, and, as an alternative to cod liver oil, expectant mothers may obtain vitamin A and D tablets. Orange juice jelly, which is in good sup ply, is available to hospitals and to children and young persons under 18 years of age at school canteens and feeding centres and at day or boarding schools and orphanages.
    Blackcurrant puree and blackcurrant syrup are normally available in retail chemist shops for children up to the age of 18, and to invalids and persons needing special supplies of vitamin C. Rose hip syrup, and proprietary brands of cod
    1872
    liver oil and vitamin syrups are also on sale without restriction in chemist shops.
    The minimum vitamin C potencies guaranteed for orange juice, orange juice jelly, blackcurrant puree and blackcurrant syrup, expressed as international units (20 units equivalent to I milligram of vitamin C) are:
    Orange juice—1,200 units per fluid ounce.
    Orange juice jelly—240 units per ounce weight.
    Blackcurrant puree—400 units per fluid ounce.
    Blackcurrant syrup—400 units per fluid ounce.
    The vitamin C potency of rose hip syrup is about 1,140 units per fluid ounce.
    The vitamin A and D potencies of cod liver oil compound and vitamin A and D tablets are:
    Cod liver oil compound—28,000 to 32,000 units vitamin A per fluid ounce; 5,600 to 6,400 units vitamin D per fluid ounce.
    Vitamin A and D tablets—4,000 units vitamin A per tablet; 800 units vitamin D per tablet.
    No points are required for the purchase of any of these items.

    Leeks
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage of leeks in this country and particularly in Wales; and why he has stopped all importation from other countries where surpluses arc available.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is aware that supplies of home-grown leeks are coming to an end and has under consideration the question of permitting imports from other countries. I will in form my hon. Friend of his decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Lady aware that all the wholesalers and retailers in Great Britain are having great difficulty in meeting the demand for this special and very delectable article of diet? Would she also consider the serious embarrassment caused to the prestige of the people of Wales by this limitation?
    Dr. Summerskill: I realise that, but unfortunately during the last year farmers were unable to get rid of their crops and have, therefore, used their acreage for other purposes.

    Ethiopian Cereals
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food what surplus supplies of wheat or other grain are now available in Ethiopia; and what steps are being taken for securing such supplies for Great Britain or for use by U.N.R.R.A. in Central Europe.
    Dr. Summerskill: The total surplus of Ethiopian cereals available for export this year is not likely to exceed the requirements of neighbouring territories. No cereals from Ethiopia would therefore be available from this source for U.N.R.R.A or this country.
    Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that we discontinued purchasing wheat from Ethiopia in 1944, and is not this the main reason for the difficulties in obtaining supplies now?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that the wheat surplus last year was used for surrounding countries, and, furthermore, whether we can bring wheat from Ethiopia is limited by the capacity of the railway running from Addis Ababa to Djibouti.

    Brewing Cereals
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Food whether, owing to the world- shortage of food, he will withdraw from the brewers 25 per cent. of the cereals allocated to them of the 1945 crop and devote the grain thus released to food purposes.
    Dr. Summerskill: At the moment I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on this subject on 6th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Colonel Erroll) and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Battley). I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.
    Dr. Little: Will the Ministry of Food make a strong appeal to the brewers in the interests of the starving people of the world to release voluntarily a fair quota of the 819,000 tons of cereals assigned to them from the 1945 crop?
    Dr. Summerskill: In answer to a similar Question last week, I explained that the distillers are no longer getting any allocation, and we have the position of the brewers under consideration.

    Soft Drinks (Fruit Juice Content)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food what percentage of the lime-juice,
    1874
    lemon squash, orange squash and grape fruit squash on sale is the juice of the lime, lemon, orange or grape-fruit.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Soft Drinks Order prescribes that lemon squash, orange squash, grapefruit squash and lime juice cordial must contain at least 25 per cent. by volume of the named variety of fruit juice.
    Mr. Keeling: Would my hon. Friend give me the answer to the Question on the Paper which is, what, in fact, do they contain?

    Fish (Wastage)
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Food what was the exact position in regard to the wastage of fish in Billingsgate Market over the week-end; and whether he is taking any action to avoid wastage in the future.
    Dr. Summerskill: Out of 4,300 tons of fish which arrived at Billingsgate Market during the week ended 16th March, about 41 tons, or 0.9 per cent. of the total, were condemned. This quantity was made up largely of inferior or un popular fish which did not command a ready sale, and is not considered excessive in relation to the extremely heavy arrivals. My right hon. Friend is, how-ever, considering whether it is possible to improve the transport arrangements between the market and the retailers.
    Wing-Commander Millington: Can my hon. Friend tell me the name of any fish which is unpopular amongst the fish starved housewives of two-thirds of this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, certainly: lugs, milts and gurnards.
    Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that a considerable part of the transport' difficulties is caused by traffic congestion near Billingsgate of vans delivering fish, which causes considerable delay, and that the Minister of Transport might be able to assist there?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, we are aware of this, and we are consulting with the Minister of Transport to try and improve matters.

    Bananas and Oranges (Distribution)
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Minister of Food what system is adopted for the distribution of bananas and

    1875
    oranges to retail shops; and if he will agree to permit retail traders to reserve supplies of these fruits for their regular customers, as under the present system the small retailer shopkeeper finds himself besieged and his own regular customers fail to get their supplies.
    Dr. Summerskill: Supplies of bananas and oranges are allocated to retailers on the basis of their grading by local distribution committees which were set up for this purpose and composed of representatives of the wholesale and retail trade. As regards the last part of the Question, it is an essential part of the distribution scheme that all customers presenting an unmarked ration book during the reservation period should be served, and my right hon Friend is not prepared to encourage retailers to reserve supplies for their regular customers.

  LACE CURTAINS (EXPORTS)
  Mr. S. Shephardasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total production of lace net and lace curtains is now allowed to be sold in the home market.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): The only products of the lace industry at present made for the home market are lace curtains and hair nets. The output of these goods absorbs about 17 per cent. of the cotton yarn and 9 per cent. of the rayon yarn at present allocated to the lace industry.
  Mr. Shephard: Is this not carrying austerity a little too far? Is it not time that the people of this country had a fair share of the lace curtains that are made here?
  Mr. Belcher: We are aware of the de sire of the people of this country for an increase in their supplies of domestic goods, but in view of the shortage of cotton yarn, it just is not possible to allocate any more at present to this industry, and, owing to the larger conversion value of the cotton for export purposes, we are compelled at present to divert this rather large proportion to export.

POLISH ARMED FORCES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
Mr. Bevin: I recently told the House that I hoped shortly to be in a position
1876
to make a statement on the problem of the Polish Armed Forces under British command.
I have explained the principles under lying the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter. While we will not use force to compel these men to return to Poland, I have never disguised our firm conviction that, in our view, they ought to go back in order to play their part in the reconstruction of their stricken country. As the House knows, we long ago made it known to the men that trans port facilities would be available for those wishing to return. Some members of the Polish armed forces under our command have availed themselves of these facilities. But from the start I felt that one of the principal causes that prevented a larger number from returning was the lack of certainty in their minds about the conditions upon which they would be received.
For this reason His Majesty's Government have, for many months, been urging the Polish Provisional Government to clarify the conditions which would apply. Agreement has now been reached with the Polish Provisional Government, and we have arranged to issue a document in Polish to every individual member of the Polish Armed Forces. The men will receive it today. This document will be accompanied by a message from myself explaining the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the future of the Polish Armed Forces and of the men themselves. I am stating in my message that His Majesty's Government regard the information set forth in the document as satisfactory, and that they consider it to be the duty of all members of those Forces to decide now to return to their own country. I will not burden the House by reading the full texts of these documents but will arrange for them to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
To my great surprise and regret, agreement had hardly been reached upon the text of these documents, when the Polish Provisional Government addressed to His Majesty's Government, and published a Note in which they declared that they could no longer regard the units of the Polish Armed Forces under British command, as forming part of the Armed Forces of Poland. They asked that those units should be disbanded forthwith, and stated that the men who wished to return should make individual application to

1877
Polish consulates abroad. This Note has since been fully discussed with the Polish Provisional Government, and I have received assurances from them that it does not affect the conditions set out in the document which is being issued to the troops; that these conditions will still apply to all Polish troops returning from abroad; and that they will, as far as possible, deal with applicants for repatriation by categories rather than insist upon individual scrutiny by their consulates.
Arrangements for the repatriation of those deciding to return will be made by His Majesty's Government in consultation with the Polish Provisional Government. There may be some who will decide not to go back. I am explaining in my message to them that, in execution of the policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) His Majesty's Government will give, in collaboration with other Governments, such assistance as is in their power to enable those who fought with us so courageously to start a new-life outside Poland with their families and dependants. But the problem is a difficult one, and His Majesty's Government can, at this stage, offer no guarantee that all of these men will be enabled to settle in British territory at home or overseas. The problem will be studied with the utmost sympathy. What plans can be made will depend very largely upon the numbers of those still remaining, and we shall not know this for some weeks. In any case, the time has now come when a plan for the demobilisation of the Polish Armed Forces must be worked out. If these men had been British soldiers, most of them would have been demobilised already under the age and service scheme. The peculiar circum stances of this case mean that orderly demobilisation will take some time, so there is no question of discharging them overnight.
This problem has been fully explained and discussed by the Prime Minister and myself with General Anders, and with the other Polish commanders who recently came to London for this purpose. We had to make it clear to them that we could not preserve these Polish personnel as an armed force under British Command. We received assurances from General Anders and the other com-
1878
manders, that they fully understood; that they will co-operate in ensuring that the statement is communicated to all the men and that no pressure is brought to bear upon them to influence them against going back; and, further, that they will work with the British authorities in taking all necessary steps for the solution of this problem. The success of the arrangements for the repatriation of these men and their fair and proper treatment on their return to Poland will determine to a very large extent the relationships between our two countries.
I feel sure that the House would wish me to pay a tribute to the magnificent services which these forces of one of our first Allies in the late war, have rendered to the common cause throughout the whole long struggle. His Majesty's Government and, I am sure, the whole House, are conscious of their debt to these men and are determined to deal justly by them. His Majesty's Government, as one of the signatories of the Yalta Declaration on Poland, and in view of the further undertakings they received at Potsdam, cannot disinterest themselves in developments in Poland. When these men go back, they can be assured that we shall continue to use our influence in favour of the strict fulfilment of those decisions, and that we shall watch with the closest interest and sympathy the progress of the great tasks of political and economic re construction and the rebuilding of Poland's independence which the Polish nation are already tackling so courageously.
Mr. Eden: I know the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is difficult to comment fully until we have had a chance to study the documents which His Majesty's Government will make avail able. There are two points I would like to clear up. Despite the later Polish communication to which he referred, is it still the fact that while the men who want to go back will be given every facility, those who do not want to go back will have no pressure put on them to go back? Secondly, as regards those who elect not to go back, are we to take it that His Majesty's Government will do all they possibly can to find another way of life for them within the British Empire, in the spirit of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said at an earlier date?
Mr. Bevin: I think the right hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the position, but I would like all hon. Members not to encourage members of the Polish forces to decline to go back. I feel that these magnificent troops will be such an asset to Poland in her political and industrial re construction, that if too much emphasis is placed on what we will do, a wrong impression may be caused. We are extremely anxious that the Polish troops should return to their own country. Subject to that, we cannot relieve ourselves of responsibility for those who feel in their conscience that they cannot go back.
Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will give general satisfaction to those who have been trying to remove some of the difficulties concerning good relations between this country, the present Government of Poland, and the U.S.S.R.?
Mr. Bevin: It is a matter of profound regret to me that some hon. Friends in this House have coupled the existence of these forces with the relationships of our selves and the U.S.S.R. I think no greater injustice has been done to a body of men than to make these brilliant soldiers the subject of propaganda on either side. I speak with conviction. I have not approached this problem influenced to the slightest extent by the Moscow Radio or by Polish predilections. My desire, and that of my colleagues in the Cabinet, in trying to deal with these matters is to recognise that these men fought in the common cause. I think, having fought for it, they are entitled to a proper stake in their country, and if they do not wart to go back to that stake, we owe a debt to them and must repay it for the sacrifices they have made.
Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his statement which is to appear in the Official Report will contain any reference to Scottish and English women who married Polish soldiers, because undoubtedly some are inclined not to go back unless perfectly certain their wives and families will be properly treated?
Mr. Bevin: I have not dealt with that specifically in the document, but all these are problems in which the Prime Minister helps me. He has appointed a Ministerial Committee who will work with me through all the Departments which deal with these problems.
Mr. Warbey: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether assurances have been asked for and received that attacks made by some members of the Polish Armed Forces on Italian Socialists and Communists will now cease?
Mr. Bevin: I did not know that these did occur, except in the imagination of a number of people.
Professor Savory: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give special consideration to two classes of Polish soldiers: first, those who are domiciled East of the Curzon line and who will not go back in any circumstances; and secondly, the 40 per cent. of the Polish forces who escaped from Russian concentration camps and who also will never go back in existing circumstances?
Mr. Bevin: I cannot tell who will go back and who will not go back. I am not dealing with the return of the Polish Forces on the basis of East or West of the Curzon line. The attitude we have adopted is this,, that they enlisted in the army, under our command, as Poles. My duty therefore is to return them to the new Poland. It is not for me to determine where their domicile is. As there is an arrangement, I understand, to opt to live in the new Poland, even if they go back to the new Poland they are not compelled to go back East of the Curzon line. They will be given the same facilities as those who have come from East of the Curzon line to the West, under the arrangement with Soviet Russia. In regard to concentration camps, I know the hon. Gentle man comes from a sister island which is in the habit of looking backwards. May I suggest that we all look forward in this problem?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think that the more supplementary questions are put, the more likely it will be that the atmosphere favourable for the return of these men to their country will be endangered. I propose therefore that we should pass on to the next Business.
Following are the documents:
MESSAGE FROM THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE POLISH FORCES UNDER BRITISH COMMAND.
His Majesty's Government have many times made it clear that it is their policy to assist the greatest possible number of

1881
members of the Polish Armed Forces under British Command to return to Poland of their own free will and in conditions worthy of their great services to the Allied cause. In accordance with this policy they have in recent months been in negotiation with the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity, which the British Government, like other Governments, regard as the only authority entitled to speak on behalf of Poland, regarding the conditions upon which returning Polish soldiers, sailors and air men will be received back in their own country. As a result of these negotiations the Provisional Government has furnished His Majesty's Government with a statement setting forth its policy on this question. The text of this statement is annexed.
The British Government regard this statement as satisfactory. In the light of these assurances they have reviewed the position of the Polish Armed Forces under British Command. They consider it to be the duty of all members of those Forces who possibly can do so to return to their home country without further delay under the conditions now offered them in order that they may make their contribution to the restoration of the prosperity of liberated Poland. Only thus can they serve their country in a manner worthy of her great traditions.
Those who nevertheless feel compelled to remain abroad in full knowledge of the present situation will be treated as far as our resources permit with due recognition of their gallant service. In execution of the policy announced by Mr. Winston Churchill, the British Government will give, in collaboration with other Governments, such assistance as is in their power to enable those who fought with us throughout the war to start a new life outside Poland with their families and dependents. But the British Government, after the most careful examination of the whole problem, are bound to make it plain that they can promise no more than this. There is no question of the Polish Army, Navy or Air Forces at pre-' sent under British Command being pre served by the British Government as in dependent armed forces abroad, and it is the intention of the British Government to disband as soon as practicable those men who decide not to return to Poland. Nor can the British Government offer to the members of the Polish Armed Forces
1882
under British command any guarantee that they will all be enabled to settle in British territory at home or overseas.
I appeal on behalf of the British Government to every individual member of the Polish Armed Forces to consider carefully the alternatives which are here set before him. I earnestly trust that the overwhelming majority will decide to avail themselves of this opportunity, especially as I am not in a position to guarantee that there will be a further opportunity for them to return to Poland.
Speaking on behalf of the British Government, I declare that it is in the best interests of Poland that you should return to her now, when she requires the help of all her sons in the arduous task of reconstructing the country and making good the devastation caused by the war.
ERNEST BEVIN.

STATEMENT BY POLISH PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
1. The treatment of the Polish Armed Forces returning to Poland from abroad has already been demonstrated in practice, in the case of those soldiers who have returned from France and Italy. The same principles will also be adopted towards those returning home from other territories.

No punitive measures or reprisals will be carried out against returning officers and soldiers, except in the following cases:

(a) Against persons who served in the German Forces.

It should be added here that all persons who served with the German Forces were divided by the German authorities into four groups of "Volksdeutsche." Groups 3 and 4 comprised those persons who had been compulsorily inscribed on the list of "Volksdeutsche." Group 2 comprised those persons whom the German authorities considered as deserving their confidence to a certain extent only. Group I comprised those persons who were considered to be completely loyal to the Hitler regime.

As far as these persons are concerned the general rules regarding the treatment of "Volksdeutsche "will also be applied to members of the Polish Armed Forces returning from abroad. Persons, previously domiciled in territories which were incorporated into the German Reich,

1883
and who had been classified into groups 3 and 4, will be automatically rehabilitated, while persons whom the German authorities classified as groups 1or 2 will have to obtain their rehabilitation before the ordinary Law Courts. For persons previously domiciled in the so called "General government" rehabilitation before the ordinary Law Courts will be obligatory because they adopted German nationality voluntarily and without any compulsion being exercised.

(b)Against persons who are guilty of High Treason—as denned in the Polish Penal Code in force since the 1st September, 1932.

(c)Against persons guilty of common crimes as defined in the Polish Penal Code in force since 1st September, 1932. Returning members of the Polish Armed Forces will not, however, be charged retrospectively with offences under amendments to the penal code introduced by the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity, where the acts in question were committed before the said amendments were introduced.

The Amnesty Decree of 21st August, 1945, will be applied to all members of the Polish Armed Forces returning from abroad.

2.The sacrifices of the Polish soldiers who fought on many fronts under the colours of our Western Allies are accorded equal recognition with the gallantry of the Polish Army formed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Consequently, these soldiers when returning to Poland will be treated on an equal footing with all soldiers of the re-born Polish Forces. This, of course, covers also the right to pensions.

3.Soldiers liable to demobilisation will be demobilised, and those expressing the wish to choose a professional military career will be enabled to enter officers and N.C.Os. training schools and remain in the Forces. Those demobilised may be liable for service in the Reserve on the same basis as other demobilised members of the Polish Forces.

Rank, length of service, decorations and military awards won by officers and soldiers in the fight against Germany—as no matter on what battlefield—as will be recognised and taken into account.

4. Those who are demobilised have the same right to the grants of land, which
1884
is being distributed among soldiers, as the demobilised soldiers of the re-born Polish Forces.

5. War invalids will receive allowances and pensions in accordance with existing laws.

All the points dealt with in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above have been covered in the public announcement which the President of Poland's National Council, M. Bierut, made a Press conference it the Ministry of Information and Propaganda in Warsaw, as well as in an appeal of the Government of National Unity issued to all Polish officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen abroad.

These points have also been the subject of an expose by the Minister of National Defence, Marshal Zymierski, at a Meeting of the Polish National Council on 1st January, 1945. Moreover, they were also included in the Orders of the Day issued by the Commander-in-Chief on the occasion of the First of May, the National Day, 3rd May, Independence Day, 22nd July, and the anniversary of the Battle of Grunwald. Moreover, they have been mentioned in a speech delivered on the first anniversary of the First Division, and in an interview given by Marshal Zymierski to the representative of the Polpress Agency on 2nd August, 1945.

6. The members of the Polish Armed Forces will be allowed to bring their personal belongings into Poland free of duty. They will be allowed to transfer their sterling accounts in the United Kingdom to Poland. For this purpose account-holders will have to make an application to the British authorities for the transfer of their sterling balances, or any part thereof, to an account of the National Bank of Poland with the Bank of England. On this basis an account will be opened for them in Polish banks. The payments from these accounts will be effected accordingly to the current exchange rates as announced by the Polish authorities to the members of the Polish Armed Forces. (The Polish authorities state that their present exchange rate for this purpose is, together with subsidies, 420 zloty to the£ sterling.)

7. On their return to Poland members of the Polish Armed Forces originating from the provinces east of the Curzon Line will automatically be regarded by the Polish Government as Polish citizens if they are of Polish or Jewish race and will

1885
not be required to perform any act signifying that they wish to choose Polish citizenship.

8.Families of members of the Polish Armed Forces, who are now scattered all over the world, for instance East Africa, Iran, Palestine, South America, etc., are allowed to join soldiers, members of their families, in Poland.

9.Telegraphic and postal communication with Poland has been basically restored; it needs only technical improvement.

Persons returning to Poland as demobilised soldiers will be provided with assistance and information in the Polish Repatriation Offices, which have been set up on the frontier and in different Polish towns.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Water (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table.
Report to be printed

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
" That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6 as modified for this Session by the Order made on I5th August, the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at a quarter past Six o'clock this evening by direction of the Chair man of Ways and Means, may be taken after a quarter to eight o'clock.
Ordered:
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —as [The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CAMBERWELL, BRISTOL AND NOTTINGHAMELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.31 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Several hundred years ago, in the reign of her late lamented Majesty, Queen Anne, Parliament at that time, growing in power and in independence, was very much concerned at what was considered to be the menace of having "placemen" sitting in the House, voting in the proceedings, but acting on behalf of the Crown. I apprehend that that menace, at any rate in that form, has long since disappeared, but the Statute of Anne, unlike the Queen, is still very much alive. It has been a source of difficulty in interpretation and application ever since it was passed. In these days, with the increasing calls which the State makes upon the services of private citizens in the administration of the machinery of government, the Statute has become a source of great embarrassment.
  The circumstances nowadays are, of course, vastly different from those which existed in 1707, when the Statute was passed. These are times when, to an in creasing extent, private citizens are being invited, without any great expectation of significant remuneration, to assist by taking part in the activities of the various boards, tribunals and other bodies which are an essential and desirable feature of

  1887
  our administration. This Bill is intended to overcome the application of the Statute of Anne to three private citizens, who, having served the State in that way, be came elected to this House, in order to serve the people of the country as Members of this House, but who, under the law as it now stands, are deemed to occupy what the law, with, I am bound to say, a singular disregard of the realities of the situation, considers to be "offices of profit under the Crown."
  Hon. Members will recall that a little time back this House, which is the arbiter of its own constitution in these matters, appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the three cases which are the subject of the present Bill. That Select Committee has recently presented its report and the Minutes of the Evidence which it took. Hon. Members will not desire me to deal in any great detail with the particular cases, but there were three. There was the case of Mr. James Harrison, who was appointed member of a pensions appeal tribunal established under Statute. He sat as a member of that tribunal on three, and only three occasions, all of them being before the General Election. He was paid, by a grateful Government, in respect of each of those three occasions, the not extravagant sum of 30s., a sum which, according to the evidence he gave before the Select Committee, did not, in fact, compensate him for the wages he actually lost in attending the meetings of the tribunal. He resigned from membership of the tribunal in October, 1945, when the possibility that his membership might involve some infringement of the Statute of Anne was first brought to his notice. But at the time of the declaration of the poll at the General Election, when he was elected as Member for East Nottingham, he was still on the panel of those who were called upon to serve upon the pensions appeal tribunal from time to time, and he was, by reason of that fact, in the conclusion of the Select Committee, the holder of an office of profit.
  Mrs. Corbet was appointed to act as a part-time assessor to sit with the umpire who deals with hardship cases under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. She sat twice in that capacity, both occasions being as long ago as 1943. I think she was paid altogether, in 1943, a sum of 8 8s. for her services, but although she had not sat since, her name remained on the panel of those who might
  1888
  be called upon to assist in the discharge of those functions. Consequently, when she was elected for North-West Camber-well, she was still, nominally the holder of what the Select Committee have concluded was an office of profit.
  Mr. Awbery held a similar appointment, but had not sat as an assessor on these tribunals since the middle of 1944, and actually sent a letter resigning his appointment as an assessor before the declaration of the poll. But that letter was not answered, and his resignation was not accepted until some weeks after the declaration of the poll. Consequently, at the time he was elected as Member for Central Bristol, the Select Committee concluded that he was still the holder of what was technically an office of profit, and was, therefore, disqualified from membership of this House.
  The Select Committee considered the whole of the evidence in regard to the matter, and devoted considerable study to the law. They were satisfied that in the case of none of these Members was there any appreciation, at the time of the General Election, that they were the holders of office of profit. Each of them knew vaguely that there was a Statute which disqualified holders of offices of profit under the Crown from sitting in this House, but it certainly never occurred to them that they were the holders of such offices. That is not surprising, because I am bound to tell the House that it was a matter of much doubt to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and myself whether these were, in fact, offices of profit at all. The Select Committee, after considering the precedents and examining the law in a good deal of detail, came to the conclusion that, in fact, in the technical state of the law as it at present exists, they were holders of offices of profit. But they also concluded that this lady and these two gentlemen had undertaken those services purely from a sense of public spirit, and in no way in order to earn profits. The Select Committee consequently recommended that legislation should be introduced into this House validating these elections. That recommendation the Government, naturally and readily, have accepted, and I anticipate that the House will endorse it, by passing this Bill.
  There is one further matter with which I should deal. The Select Committee made a further recommendation. It drew

  1889
  attention to the unsatisfactory and unclear state of the existing laws in regard to these matters, and recommended that legislation should be introduced, both to clarify the legal position and to make the legal position, thus clarified, more in accordance with our present constitutional arrangements. This, of course, is not the first time that such a recommendation has been made to His Majesty's advisers. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear," but it hardly lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to complain about this matter, if that is what the "Hear, hear's" indicate. In 1926 and 1927, the desirability and importance of introducing legislation in regard to this matter was brought prominently to the notice of the then Government—a Conservative Government. Again, five years later, the matter was brought prominently to the notice of the then Government—a Conservative Government. Again, another five years later, in 1937, it was brought prominently to the notice of the then Government.
  Then it arose, of course, during the war at a time when one could hardly expect legislation to be introduced in regard to it. But earlier, when the Parliamentary programme was not nearly as congested as it is now, there were opportunities presented to the then Government to deal with this matter. The present advisers of His Majesty's Government realise that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with, and we propose to repair the omissions of our predecessors in the matter. In due course, at some convenient time, we propose to introduce legislation for the consideration of the House, which will seek to put this matter upon a more satisfactory and, at the same time, a clearer basis. At by-elections, I imagine, the political parties supporting particular candidates will make quite sure that this matter is taken care of, but before the next General Election—and there is plenty of time—we shall ensure that legislation has been presented to the House, in order that the matter may be clarified and in order that these difficulties may not arise again in any future Parliament.
  3.43 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: I hope no hon. Members will be tempted
  1890
  to treat this Bill as a mere formality, be cause I feel that it touches upon constitutional issues of very considerable importance. Certainly, we do not want to approach these problems in a partisan spirit and to attack them as election petitions were attacked in the Parliaments of the 18th century. It would be equally disastrous, however, to approach them in a spirit of easygoing and careless bonhomie. It struck me very much in the learned Attorney-General's speech that, while he referred to other difficulties which have been met with in the interpretation of this Statute, he did not refer to what was surely most present in our minds, the Coatbridge and Springburn Act which was passed in the first days of this Parliament. Surely, the way in which most of us would approach this problem is not to waste too much time on the repetition of the arguments that were used when that Bill was being debated, but, on the other hand, to pay more particular attention to the respects in which the present situation is a great deal more serious than the situation which the House considered at that time.
  This is a great deal more serious in two respects. The first point is that, in speaking on the Coatbridge and Springburn Bill, the learned Attorney-General specially recommended that Bill to the House on the ground that the circumstances were quite exceptional. The House passed that Bill on the understanding that it was highly improbable that any such thing would ever happen again. Now we find, within five months, that the same thing has happened again. That is something which surely should give us grave cause for concern The second great difference is this: Any hon. Member who has studied the report of the Commission will, I am sure, agree with the learned Attorney that there can be no question of any implication on the personal honour of either of the two gentlemen or the lady. We are very happy to be able to make that clear. It is perfectly clear that from the moment when they had the least suspicion that they had been guilty of impropriety they did not come to this House or vote in this House. There is no doubt about that Nevertheless, we are dealing with facts as they are in an unimpassioned way. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Forman) had not, in point of fact, taken

  1891
  any effective part in the deliberations of this House.
  On the other hand, we have rather different circumstances with these three people we are discussing. Mr. Harrison, as far as I understand, was warned of the situation very early on, and he did not subsequently come to this House, and, therefore, has very rarely voted in this House. Mrs. Corbet voted a few more times, but she ceased to come to the House as soon as-she understood that there was any question. Mr. Awbery came to the House, and played a considerable part in its deliberations for some time. As I say, no personal blame is to be imputed on him for doing so, because his case is one peculiarly deserving of compassion. The Attorney-General said none of these people had any suspicion that they could have been committing an offence. He was not quite clear so far as —
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. and gallant Member should remember that those who are under discussion should be referred to as hon. Members
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: With respect, Sir, I would like a Ruling on that.
  Earl Winterton: Could we have a Ruling? I suggest that a person cannot be an hon. Member until his election has been validated.
  Mr. Speaker: I think he is an hon. Member still, because if this Bill is passed he will not have to be elected.
  Earl Winterton: May I call attention to the fact that the Bill itself, instead of speaking of the hon. Member refers to these gentlemen—these hon. Members; I do not know what to call them—by their names. Is not that evidence that they are not hon. Members?
  Mr. Speaker: As far as I am concerned, they have sworn the oath before me as hon. Members and they should be referred to as hon. Members in this House. They are subject to a fine of 500 for every vote they may have given, but that does not stop them being hon. Members of this House.
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: This is a Bill to validate their election.
  Mr. Speaker: They are not incapable of voting. If they vote, they suffer penal-
  1892
  ties, but they are not incapable of voting, and therefore they are capable of being described as Members of this House That is my Ruling now, and I think it is right.
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: I refer to the hon. Member for South Bristol, then. I say we have every reason for sympathy with him, because he seemed very well informed upon this Statute. He imagined it was his duty to resign, and in fact imagined he had resigned by writing a letter to the Ministry. He did not take into account, in the particular circumstances of his appointment, that the resignation did not take effect until the Ministry replied to the letter. His experience was an experience that may have happened to quite a number of hon. Members, and it was that a number of months elapsed after he wrote his letter before he received the Minister's reply. He therefore never suspected that he might be disqualified until the matter was called to his attention shortly before Christmas
  During that time, to take one instance in my mind, we were discussing one day the decasualisation of dock labour, and there was a keen and interesting Debate upon that Bill. There was a question at some stage whether some hon. Members opposite would vote against the Government, and the hon. Member for South Bristol, I recollect, made a very powerful speech in favour of the Government, and, at the end, nobody voted against the Government. No one can tell how largely that result was the effect of his speech. If the history of the world, as we have been told, has been influenced by the length of Cleopatra's nose, may it not have been influenced by the length of the peroration of the hon. Member for South Bristol, which may have been what just turned the scale, and that the whole history of this Parliament was changed by the action of the hon Gentleman?
  Mr. Wilkins: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member to correct his statement? I think he means the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery).
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: Yes, of course, the hon. Member for Central Bristol. May not the course of this Parliament have been changed by his speech, and by the vote which he was not entitled to give? Therefore, I say that it is a much more serious thing which the House is asked

  1893
  to do than it was asked to do in the case of the Springburn Election. I will not dwell so much on the compassionate aspect of this case. The fundamental axiom of our constitution is that ignorance of the law excuses no one, except the lawyer, and that principle should not be extended to include also the legislator. The very fact that it is one of our highest duties to defend our responsibilities and privileges as Members of this House makes it an equally important duty that we should not, in any way, make ourselves into a privileged class who carelessly indemnify ourselves for any mistakes we make. We have to pay for our privileges, and the price that we ought to pay should be readiness to accept the penalty when we make mistakes inadvertently. Therefore, I would not stress too much the compassionate aspect.
  The reason why I do not think I would be justified in opposing this Bill is, as the Attorney-General has said, the extreme confusion of the present law. It is based on the law of 1707, and on two relevant Sections of that Act, which, at any rate at first sight, seem plainly contradictory. Section 24 says:
  " No person who shall have in his own name …or for his own benefit any new office or place o profit whatsoever under the Crown …shall be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons."
  Section 25 says:
  If any person being chosen a member of the House of Commons shall accept of any office of profit from the Crown, his election … is hereby declared to be void, and a new writ shall be issued for a new election …provided nevertheless that such person shall be capable of being again elected."
  At first sight, these two Sections seem plainly contradictory. Of course, the lawyers over 200 years have attempted to rectify the matter by drawing a distinction between, offices under the Crown and offices from the Crown, and we have got along for 200 years on that definition. The Attorney-General is perfectly right in saying that there are a multitude of instances in which this has worked most unsatisfactorily. In 1873, when Mr. Gladstone was already Prime Minister and also First Lord of the Treasury, he thought fit to take to himself the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and applied to the Law Officers of the day to know whether he had vacated his seat.
  1894
  The only reply they could give him was that strong arguments could be used in favour and strong arguments against the view that the seat should be vacated. Mr. Gladstone did the only thing that he could have done in the circumstances. He took a six months' holiday and never returned to the House till the Dissolution. Mr. Asquith found himself in the same position in the last months before the last war, when Lord Mottistone resigned the Office of Secretary of State for War, and Mr. Asquith duplicated that post with the Premiership. He only escaped from his dilemma by declaring a world war—a remedy which was surely a greater evil than the disease. Sir George Cave, as he then was, when a law officer of the Crown was delegated to inquire into the workings of this Statute, and, after two and a half years diligent inquiry, was able to reach no certain conclusion, except that he himself had vacated his seat by undertaking the assignment.
  As the Attorney-General has truly said, these complexities which have existed in the past have been multiplied by the many petty additions of posts which modern custom has created. There seems to be nothing that is certain about this Statute except the maxim that "an office of profit does not cease to be an office of profit because the holder ceases to derive any profit from it," and even that the lawyers cannot quite agree upon, because there was only the Pringle case, decided on exactly opposite principles in 1924, though, afterwards, they seem to have lost the papers, so no one knows why. We are really forced as our justification on to the maxim of the great Swiss jurist, Vatel, that "no man is held to the impossible."
  I think the greatest question which we have to face is the question which was very acutely raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Merioneth (Squadron-Leader Roberts) on the Coatbridge and Springburn Elections Bill. What exactly is it that we are indemnifying? If we are indemnifying people for having, as hon. Members of this House, voted and sat there when they should not have voted and sat, there is a fairly limited demand, but, if there was impropriety in their not merely acting as Members of this House but in their being candidates, then we are facing a much more serious issue. What

  1895
  obviously happened, strictly speaking, was that no elections took place in these constituencies at the General Election. These people are being declared Members of Parliament by us though, in point of fact, they never were elected Members of Parliament. In his speech on the Coat-bridge Bill, the learned Attorney-General said there seemed to be no case in which an actual election had been validated. I am bound to say that, if I thought that to be true, I should be very doubtful whether I could support this Bill, but I am inclined to agree with this Bill because I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's history. I think his history is all wrong, but that his Bill is all right.
  If this was the first time we had been asked to do this, it would seem a very dangerous precedent, but, surely, it is not the first time by any means. In 1909, the Board of Trade was reconstituted and the President of the reconstituted Board of Trade became, apparently, a new officer under the Crown. Nobody discovered that until 1932, when they suddenly discovered—and there is no doubt about it—that the distinguished states men who had held the presidency between 1909 and 1932 had had no business at all to sit in this House and no business to present themselves to their various electors. In 1932 an Act was passed of which the Preamble runs:
  "Whereas it is apprehended that since the coming into operation of the Board of Trade Act, 1909, persons holding the office of President of the Board of Trade have not been capable of being elected or sitting or voting as Members of the Commons House of Parliament."
  Therefore, we have a very strong precedent before us. Indeed, if the decision in the Pringle case is good law, here is a much more extraordinary position. In the Pringle case it was said that an office of profit was not an office of profit if the holder did not receive any actual profit from it. In that case all the people, throughout the whole of history since Queen Anne's time, who have received the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds have, in fact, not held an office of profit under the Crown. Every resignation has been invalid and every election as the result of that resignation has also been invalid.
  The law as it stands at present is in a state of utter confusion. The argument of the Attorney-General about the sins of past Governments and political parties
  1896
  does not greatly concern me. if it so happened that any of the constituents of these three hon. Members had brought petitions against their election, I presume that the judge who was trying those petitions would have had no option but to unseat them. That has not happened, but I would like definite confirmation that there has not even been anything in the nature of an informal protest from constituents of these hon. Members. If there has been any such protest, however ill judged we may think it, I am bound to say that we ought carefully to consider what our action should be, because throughout history, nothing has been more disastrous than this House setting itself up in any way in opposition to constituents. I gather that we have not got that situation to meet in this case.
  My hon. and right hon. Friends and myself have no wish at all to oppose this Bill, but in not opposing it we should like to make quite clear our standpoint which I hope does not differ very greatly from that of the learned Attorney-General. First, we should like to make it clear that it is far from satisfactory that this anomaly should have occurred, and that we can make no promise, whatsoever, if further instances come to light, that we shall be prepared to share the responsibility with the Government by not opposing their Bill. Secondly, we would not only agree, but would urge upon the Attorney-General, the vital importance of rapidly bringing in legislation on the lines of the 1941 Commission, or some such lines. Thirdly, until that legislation can be brought in, will it not be possible, at any rate, to adopt the recommendation of the Commission which is that every candidate should sign an act of resignation of any office of profit that he may hold, wittingly or unwittingly, under the Crown and that that act should be considered a valid act of resignation. If after signing that act of resignation he accepted any duties or payments, he would naturally become liable, but if he does not do so— as these three hon. Members did not do so —then he should be free of all liability. I would appeal to hon. Members in every quarter of the House not to consider this Bill as in any way a small matter. The whole future of civilisation depends upon the preservation of the law and the survival of the rule of law in the world depends, more than upon any other single factor, on its survival in this country and

  1897
  its survival in this country depends, more than upon any other single factor, on its survival in this House. There can be nothing more vitally important than that in our dealings with one another and within this House we should be strict to the point of pedantry in obeying every one of the regulations we impose upon ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker: I should like to say that advice that I have just received suggests that my view was not correct. Hon. Members referred to in this Bill may be mentioned by name and not by their constituencies as I had thought.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I propose to intervene only for a very few moments. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have given an amended Ruling, because I imagine that some of us, at any rate, thought that these people were never Members of this House. This House, together with the other House and, of course, with His Majesty's consent, is taking upon itself the right of electing Members of the House. That is a very great power to exercise. Therefore, this is far and away more important than the mere question of the liability, or otherwise, of the three hon. Members who undoubtedly acted in a perfectly honourable and upright way. The Committee of which I was a member found that they had acted in a public spirited way without any idea whatsoever that they were offending against the law. But it must be remembered that not only will they be relieved of any penalty, but that this House is exercising an important function, which is really that of the public of this country, that of electing Members to this House. That is a power which we should not exercise, except with the very greatest care.
  The matter has even deeper repercussions than that, and it is time that the situation was clarified instead of being left in the way it has been since the time of Queen Anne. Government after Government have said that they would deal with this matter, but, time and time again, they have postponed it. I am sorry that even the learned Attorney-General in giving his undertaking today, implied that the matter could rest. With every respect to the learned Attorney-General,
  1898
  I do not think it is a matter that can rest. There are two types of persons to be considered. The only type with which the hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing today was the person who was not entitled to be elected by his constituents at all and who, although he was returned by them, and although he came to this House, never, in fact, became a. Member. But there is another type of case, the case in which a person having been properly elected by his constituents, then disqualifies himself by accepting some office which offends against the law. That sort of thing is likely to happen any day. So long as the Act remains as it is, it is difficult to stop all kinds of legal difficulties.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis) to whose very interesting speech I listened with great pleasure, very rightly referred to the opinion given previously by the then Law Officers of the Crown, that strong arguments could be used, on either side, as to the true meaning of this Act. This raises the much more difficult question of the application of the law to the particular facts of a particular case. Such questions are much more likely to arise under the legislation which the Government propose than ever before. Therefore, I hope that the Government will treat this matter, not as one which can be dealt with at leisure, but as one of real urgency. It is not fair to the constituents, to the public as a whole or to the Member who incurs the penalties, that he should have to throw himself upon the mercy of the House to ascertain whether he can escape those penalties or not.
  On the subject of legislation, there is one important matter to which the Committee very rightly called attention. This is not a question merely of repealing this Act and letting anybody who holds any office of profit become a Member of this House. I would refer to the opening words in paragraph 10 on page vi of the Report:
  " Your Committee have in no way lost sight of the importance of the principle which underlies the prohibition of office-holding by Members, namely, the need of ensuring a free and independent House of Commons."
  I cannot emphasise too strongly those words. This legislation, which has lasted ever since 1707, was passed by the House of Commons to maintain its freedom and independence. At that time it feared

  1899
  the undue influence of the Throne. The Throne was creating offices and giving them to Members in order to ensure that their votes would be on the side of the party supporting the Throne. Very rightly, the House then passed the legislation which has persisted to this day. The position then exercised by the Throne is now exercised by hon. Members on the Front Bench—the Executive of the day. Even in this House something like one-seventh of the Members are Members of His Majesty's Governmen—a very high proportion—which is a matter which the House, in maintaining its independence and freedom, should watch with the greatest care lest the Government take powers under new legislation which will enable them to increase the number of Members dependent for the holding of those offices upon voting for the Government in this House. That would lead to the destruction not only of this House but of democracy itself. When they are considering this new legislation, which I trust will be introduced very soon, I hope the Government will bear in mind the need not only for the reform of this old Act of 1707, but for preserving the liberty and independence of Members of this House.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I hope after what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis),that nobody will think the principle raised here is not one of great importance. The principle is the old one of the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. It is true that the importance of the particular cases here appears, at any rate superficially, to be small; but the constitutional importance of a given transaction is never to be measured by the financial or other considerations that arise in it. In support of that proposition, I pray in aid the famous passage of Mr. Burke in his speech on American taxation when he said:
  " Would 20s. have ruined Mir. Hampden's fortune? No, but the payment of half 20s. on the principle it was demanded would have made him a slave."
  The whole question of Ship Money arose out of a very small transaction, and many of the great constitutional principles of this country have their root in matters superficially of no greater import-
  1990
  ance than that which is before the House today.
  Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not approach this matter in any personal way. So far as I know, the three people concerned are excellent people, although, perhaps, a little eccentric in their political opinions. What is a little disturbing, however, is the fact that this thing has happened again, after the Attorney-General in his speech on the Coatbridge Bill used these words:
  " It is, of course, of the greatest importance that nothing should be done to suggest that Parliament will normally intervene in order to validate an irregular Election, but the circumstances here are quite exceptional." — [Official Report, 12th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 565.]
  I would like to know when in his view circumstances cease to be exceptional, because the House passed that Bill under the assumption that it was the end of such occurrences It would now appear how ever that the Attorney-General's idea of finality has something in common with that of the late Adolf Hitler. The last territorial demand is paralleled by the last demand which the Attorney-General is asking of this House. But, so far from being the last, these three cases them selves might not have been the last, because on the day of the publication of this Report another case was referred by the Attorney-General to the Select Committee; but, happily, no grounds for action such as this existed in that case. I would like to know how much more of this sort of thing we are to expect. How are we to know what other bureaucratic skeleton may not be lurking in the Parliamentary cupboards of hon. Members opposite? If we go on at this rate———we have had five cases, and this Parliament has only been in existence six months or so—it will ultimately be a case of there being" more joy in Transport House over 99 sinners that repent than over one which hath no need of repentance "on the benches opposite.
  I am rather perturbed not by the conduct of these people but by their attitude to this matter and to what I consider the important constitutional principle involved. I would like to refer to the evidence given by them before the Select Committee.Iaddress myself in particular to the questions which were put to the Members concerned, as to how they discovered they had offended, or might have offended, against this principle, and

  1901
  what they did in regard to it. The action of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) is to be found in page I of the evidence. He is asked:
  " May I ask why you resigned on that date? "
  He replies:
  " I was prompted by a casual conversation with one of the junior Whips."
  Then the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) was asked at page 27:
  " You did not read this report that was presented to Parliament on the previous two cases? —No. I did not see the report, but I had my case in mind."
  Then he goes on to describe how, later on, a Whip sent for him, and that is what brought his attention to the matter.
  Mr. Walker: May I ask a question of the Attorney-General? It is in reference to one of these persons. Mr. Awbery resigned from the position—
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I must ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Member was going to ask a question. He may ask a question of the hon. Member, but he cannot make a speech. A question to the Attorney-General should come later.
  Mr. Walker: May I be allowed to put a question —
  Mr. Walker-Smith:I was referring to the reactions of the people concerned, and I was quoting from the evidence given by them in that connection. Lastly, I come to the case of Mrs. Corbet. She was asked, at page 6:
  "The matter was never in your mind at all from the last time you sat until when? —After the Mrs. Mann case, and we had a notice on our Whip, I think, suggesting it to me, and I thought over everything and this occurred to me.
  Did you read the report? —No. I did not read the report
  Did you attend the Second Reading Debate of the Bill?— I must confess to not having been too devout on that''
  There we have three people whose con duct calls in question this great constitutional question who, though there is a parallel case taking place in October, do not take the trouble to attend that Debate or in some cases to read the report. The matter only comes out because of such
  1902
  things as the casual conversation of Whips in the library. This may be a sign of simplicity of mind, and I have no doubt it is, but it does look rather as if they had no very great reverence for the principles involved. Otherwise, in my submission, they would surely have taken much more care to inform themselves when the earlier matter of the Coatbridge case came under the review of the House.
  I think it would be a very serious thing if this House and Members of it were other than extremely conscious of the constitutional principles here involved. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devizes has referred to the complexity of the Act of 1707. I think that from that Act there have evolved two principle of great constitutional importance in this country. The first is the principle that people holding offices of profit "from" the Crown—that is to say political, ministerial office holders—shall be members of the legislature in order to preserve the control of the Executive by Parliament. The second principle which has emerged is that people holding offices of profit "under" the Crown shall be disqualified from sitting in Parliament. From that second principle, incidentally, there comes the independent non-political Civil Service which we have To my mind it is absolutely vital that these two principles should be preserved intact in the future development of this country. According to the learned Attorney-General the one thing that suggests itself as a cure for these ills is the repeal of the Act of 1707. In my view that is not an entire answer to this constitutional problem.
  I think we would be wrong in the case of these three particular Members to strain unduly at the gnat. At the same time, I do not think the question can be satisfactorily resolved simply by the House being asked to swallow the camel; that is to say to repeal the Act of 1707. Though Queen Anne, as has been rightly observed, is dead, I think the constitutional principle which this Act embodies is or should be very much alive. I think it is a prime duty of this House to maintain those principles. They are perhaps threatened more today, for reasons that we know, than they have been in the past For that reason there is the greatest responsibility upon Members of this House to see to it that if this legislation is going to be

  1903
  repealed it should be repealed in such a way as to preserve inviolate those two principles, which more than anything else have made this Parliament in the past one of the most vigorous, freest and purest instruments of government in the world.
  Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Attorney-General through you, with regard to the resignation of the Member for Central Bristol. I understood, not only from him but from the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis), speaking this afternoon, that this resignation was actually put in before the date of nomination, but that it was not recognised or acknowledged by the Department until a month after. What I want to know is this. What, in law, is the correct date of the resignation? Is it the date it is sent in or is it the date it is acknowledged?
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I would 'like to support very strongly indeed what has been said by several hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), in regard to what we are dealing with at the present time, namely, that it seems to most of us that in the individual cases the offices have been quite unwittingly undertaken and we attach no blame to them. They are themselves, as far as we are concerned, genuine individuals. The fact remains that this law, as it has applied over the generations, has been for the very vital purpose of maintaining and keeping the freedom and independence of the elected representatives of the people free from interference by any outside body. Originally this was done because of the dependence of certain Members on the Crown. Today, as has been pointed out, that position is no longer a similar danger. However, there is a danger—and those of us who have been in the House of Commons for some time must have noticed, not only in this Parliament, this tendency and growing danger—that the Member of Parliament is far too much under the influence of the Government of the day. The value and the object of a representative of the people is to criticise and to control the Government of the day, and not to be controlled by the Government. That is why I think it is absolutely essential that there should be
  1904
  a very great deal of attention given to the problem which we have had brought before us today.
  I go on from that to the point raised by the Attorney-General. He said he was going to bring in a Bill to deal with this matter. He was also kind enough to tell the House, with one of those charming smiles for which he is becoming so famous, that there was lots of time. I agree, there is plenty of time. That being the case, might not the Government, in answer to this Debate, tell the House quite clearly that they are going to get the Law Officers to go into the matter now, and that they will, if possible, bring in and pass in the very near future, any how before August, a Bill dealing with this subject? It is easy and possible. They would have the good will and help of all sides of the House. Another question about which I think it right that the House should be told is this. This is the second occasion on which we have had a Bill of this kind. I would ask the Attorney-General whether he has any knowledge of or any suspicion in his mind that there may be, any further cases. It does seem that after six or eight months of Parliament we should have arrived at a time when these anomalies ought to have been found out, the accidents put right, and the Members able to take their full part in the Debates of this Assembly. It is a very serious thing indeed for a constituency if their Member cannot take part in the Debates. I think I am right and quite fair in pressing that we should be told whether or not the Government have gone into it. It is a perfectly simple thing to do. I may be in the wrong myself for all I know. Very likely I am one of the people in trouble. That should be made clear at the earliest possible moment.
  Those are the things it is absolutely essential to recognise at the present time. It is vital, in the interests of the House, that there should be absolutely no control of Members of the House of Commons by any outside or other powerful body. When these difficulties arise twice, as they have on this occasion, in one Parliament within a few months, the whole position should be cleared up as far as the individual Members are concerned, in order that they may be free to carry on their work.

  1905
  Secondly, I think we ought to press for a pledge from the Government that "any old time" will not really do to bring in a Bill of this kind. It is no good saying that other Parliaments have made the same mistake; they did not, if my recollection is right, have two Bills placed before them in such rapid succession as these, and as no other Government has ever had a Law Officer on the Front Bench who has admitted that there is plenty of time; surely not even the Leader of the House can make the least possible excuse for not having a Bill very quickly.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I shall vote for this Bill, if there is a Division on it, although I do not suppose there will be. I shall vote for it because I cannot find that these individuals have been guilty of anything except not knowing intimately the law on this subject I do not take the view that they have shown themselves casual in the matter, merely because it was a casual conversation that drew their attention to the fact that they were in the wrong. Indeed, it is just from such casual conversations, with somebody who knows more about the law than one knows oneself, that one does find, from time to time, that a slip has been made. I see no reason whatever in the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend above the Gangway, for withholding assent to this Bill
  With other Members, however, I attach tremendous importance to the character of the legislation foreshadowed by the Attorney-General for a later stage, and I at once say that the mere repeal of the Act of Queen Anne does not provide an answer to this problem. The problem is extremely difficult, and varies from century to century in its incidence. But the principle remains the same all the way through. At one time the independence of this House had to be protected against the King. At a later stage, it had to be protected against the corruptions of the Treasury. Toda it requires protection from corruption at the hands of the party machines. Now the element in all these situations have been the same. The constant element has been to avoid the economic dependence of Members of Parliament on the Government of the day in such a way as to deprive them of their freedom to speak and vote as they
  1906
  thought right. That is the root of the matter, and whether the cause of their loss of freedom was intimidation from the Crown, which it was at one stage, bribes from the Treasury, which it was at another stage, or jobs from the Government, as it now largely is, the issue remains the same throughout. It is with that issue that I want to deal this afternoon.
  It was recognised many decades ago in this House that the number of Members of the House who depended for their livelihood upon the Government had reached dangerous proportions, and there was a Motion in this House by a Mr. Dunning asking the House to affirm, as a matter of principle, that at no stage should there be more than 40 Members of the House holding paid office under the Government. That number has now grown from about 40 to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100, and there are various kinds of perquisites, quite apart from the actual holding of office in the Government itself. During the war, we legalised for the time being, the holding of seats in the House by men who occupied ambassadorial and other Government posts abroad. Some of those posts have now been terminated and it may be that they will all terminate. But there is growing up in the House a dependence on the Government which I regard as dangerous to the independence of the House itself.
  The question of financial consideration links up with another, namely, the growth of party control. The Cabinet system has led to the assumption that all Members of the Cabinet must vote in the same way in the House. Subsequently, that came to apply to all Members in the Ministries, whether holding major or minor offices. We are now reaching a stage where the doctrine is being bruited abroad that a Parliamentary Private Secretary ought not to vote in a sense contrary to the Minister whom he serves. You have only to add up all the Ministers, all the Under-Ministers and their private secretaries, and there is practically only me left.
  Mrs. Braddock: Not for long.
  Mr. Brown: I do not know whether that is a reference to a possible resumption of my old association with my hon. Friends

  1907
  on the opposite benches. I can only say that one formidable obstacle has been re moved in the lifting of the Standing Orders, and all that is required is an application from the Party opposite to affiliate to me to make possible fruitful negotiations on the matter.
  I regard it as of very great importance that we should not merely destroy the Act of 1707—and I cannot imagine that this can be the Government'sintention—be cause of the kind of difficulty that arises under it, with some examples of which we are dealing in this Bill. We ought carefully to consider what is to be put in its place. The danger to democracy in Britain does not, in my opinion, lie in Fascist or quasi-Fascist organisations. It lies within democracy itself. I remember that it was necessary for the Leader of the L.C.C., who is now the Lord President of the Council, when the Labour Party gained a majority on the London County Council, to Jay down in very strong and praiseworthy terms that it was above all things necessary that a Labour majority on the London County Council must keep itself free from any suspicion whatever of corruption, from any suspicion of using political power for personal and financial ends. If that is true of the L.C.C., it is true of this House. And if we are to destroy the law of Queen Anne I hope very much that we shall put something in its place which will always ensure that there is a majority of Members of this House—and a big majority—who are not dependent financially upon the Government for their day-to-day living and who are, therefore, free to bring to bear, upon the Measures and the Resolutions that come before them, an unbiased and impartial judgment, and to vote in what they regard as the best interests of the community they represent.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I do not intend to detain the House very long. Some of the learned Members are so learned that, as they have flourished their papers, they nave told us that an Act has been kept in being for 230 years or more, although they themselves agree that it should be altered. I speak on behalf of the three persons involved. I was the fourth, but happily I was not so implicated as were the other three, and I want to suggest to the House that, in the middle of a war when new legislation is coming into being, it is too much to ask
  1908
  the ordinary layman, the ordinary person drawn from the factory or even from public life, to understand all the ramifications of the law, especially when the lawyers themselves apparently do not know all about it. During the war, legislation was passed demanding a lot of new activities. Public spirited people accepted office and, I think, in all cases have proved that they were not offices of profit at all. I speak feelingly when I say that I can prove conclusively, to anybody's satisfaction, that in my case it was definitely an office of loss and not of profit.
  That, however, is not the point. I want the Constitution to be maintained, hon. Members on these benches want the Constitution to be maintained, and I am rather concerned when lawyers who have prepared the brief for this proposition to day tell us that they are not desirous of gaining anything out of this. I am not so certain. I am rather inclined to the belief that behind the scene an effort is being made to get some political kudos-out of it. I am satisfied that these three-persons undertook their duties in the interests of Britain, and in no other interest whatsoever, for the purpose of effectively carrying new legislation into effect. I am satisfied that in no case did they attempt to get behind the law for any material gain.
  It has been said from the opposite Benches that this is the second occasion. It is not the second occasion. It is the second Bill that has arisen out of things which happened at the same time. All these people were involved at the same time. It is unfortunate that some of the cases have been found later than the first two cases. Therefore, it would be unfair: to suggest from the Opposition Benches; that something has been hidden from this House. It may well be that there are other cases. It has been proved today beyond a shadow of doubt, to my satisfaction, at all events, that other learned people very high up in what was the Government of the country held such offices for 30 years and were not found out—people, apparently, who should have known better. This Bill ought to receive no opposition at all. These people were elected in the interest of the Party we have the honour to represent by the people of their various constituencies,and they were elected on exactly the same premises as other hon. Members, as

  1909
  being worthy of support from people who did not give support to their opponents. That was the true test of democracy that took place in their constituencies. I suggest that this Bill ought to go through without the slightest demur or opposition from any hon. Member of this House.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: I, personally, have great sympathy with the hon. Members whose position is under discussion, because some years ago I found myself in a very dangerous position because of this same problem. I should like to add a little to what has been said about the definition of an office of profit under the Crown. What happened to me was that I found myself in a position which was not of any profit to me whatsoever, but which came under the same very strange definition of an office of profit under the Crown; and if steps had not been taken to make an honest man of me by way of a certificate, I should have been liable to pay a fine of 100 a day for every day that I continued to hold that office. I hope that in any future legislation which is contemplated, steps will be taken to define more accurately what is an office of profit under the Crown, and how such offices are to be regarded which arc of no profit whatsoever but now come under that category.
  443 P.m.
  Earl Winterton: None of us on this side of the House can admit for a moment that this is a slight matter, or one that can be disposed of without full consideration. I should like, before coming to the point I want to make, to comment on the speeches that have already been delivered, and thus follow a custom which I must say, I hope without seeming to be priggish, has been some what neglected in modern usage, for nowadays hon. Members make speeches and immediately rush out of the House and are not seen again. I have taken the precaution of making notes 0f what has been said, and some interesting points have been made in all the speeches.
  We on this side take no exception to the tone in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General introduced this Bill, but I rather regretted that he thought it necessary to introduce what seemed to me to be something like
  1910
  a Party bias, and to suggest that the anomalous state of the law should have been redressed in the days of Conservative Governments before the war. I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in his brilliant speech about dealing with this matter comprehensively. The real strength of the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge, if there be any charge, against any Government for having failed to deal with the matter would lie in a charge against the Coalition Government, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues were members and of which my colleagues on this Bench were members, but of which, happily or unhappily, neither he nor I were members, so that it is open to us, if we desire, to criticise any action that that Government took or did not take. That Government was presented with a most valuable report from a Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) were members. That Committee presented a most valuable report. I shall come to that in a moment. But I do not think it is fair to say this charge should be brought against Conservative Governments.
  I turn to the most valuable speech which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis). I do not want to hurt the feelings of these two gentlemen and this lady who were, as it proves, improperly elected to the House. They were improperly elected to the House. Do not let us be mealy-mouthed in this Debate. We are being asked now to legitimise a piece of constitutional bastardy. These people were not entitled to be elected to the House. I do not attach any personal blame to them as individuals. The anomalous state of the law makes it extremely difficult to know how we stand in this question, which is not only a question of law, but of Rulings of the House and of Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances it is very extraordinary, as has been pointed out in more than one speech, that some of them, I understand, voted. I do suggest it would have been a gracious act if those who voted improperly in a Debate had offered some apology for doing so. I do not know whether it has ever occurred to hon. Members before that persons not entitled to

  1911
  vote in a Debate actually voted in a De bate. One such hon. Member did, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out. Is that disputed?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does the Noble Lord mean that they voted knowing they were disqualified?
  Earl Winterton: Nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It makes all the difference
  Earl Winterton: It does not make all the difference. The hon. Member is very fond of putting pernickety legal points. I am in possession of the House, and he is not. I want to suggest it would be a gracious act on the part of this gentleman who improperly, as it proves, voted in a Division to apologise. I think it would be proper for the hon. Member who voted improperly to offer some apology to Mr. Speaker, since he was not a Member at the time. It is not a light thing to vote in this House when one is not entitled to vote. It has never been held to be a light thing.
  I turn to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. It was a most useful contribution. I am glad he put the matter, as one might have expected from him, on a very high level, that of a sense of Parliamentary propriety. There is such a thing as Parliamentary propriety. I would venture to lay this down as a general proposition from which no one would dissent. Although in violent, angry Debates in this House—to which I have contributed myself—hon. Members speak angrily to each other, that is not necessarily in discord with the traditions of Parliament. What is in discord with the traditions of Parliament is the carrying out of our procedure in a way that is subsequently found not to be in accord with the traditional procedure of the House. These two gentlemen and this lady have been for a long time—since this Parliament was elected—Members of this House when they have not been entitled to be.
  I pass on to the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) , who drew attention to the rather light manner in which these two gentle men and this lady had treated the matter. The evidence before the Committee shows
  1912
  that. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) seems to think that this is an unimportant matter, and that the poor ignorant Labour candidate cannot be expected to know the Rules of this House, and that if he is improperly elected, well then, it is a matter of no importance. That is not the view which we on this side of the House take.
  Mr. J. Jones: I did not suggest that it was unimportant. I was speaking of the constituencies. That was the word I used.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Member thought it was not a very serious matter if someone found himself improperly elected—we say that it is a very serious matter. I should like strongly to support what was said by the hon. Member for Rugby. I have some hesitation in saying this, because it may seem effusive, but not for the first time has the hon. Member shown himself to be a staunch supporter of the constitutional principles upon which this House is based. As a party politician myself, and as one who belongs to an organised party, I say that it is absolutely right to call attention to the dangers of hidden corruption in our present system, which may not necessarily be entered into by Members with their eyes open or be due to evil intentions. I would call attention to the very strong ' criticism made in the Report of the Select Committee on Offices or Places of Profit under the Crown. In 1941, they wished to limit not only the number of Ministers in this House but the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. During the last 10 years, let alone during the last 40 years, the idea has been growing up that the Government should have a number of janissaries, bound to them by every tie of honour and expectancy, who will vote for them in any circumstances. This would be a serious thing in the old days. It is not only my view, it is also the view of the Select Committee, composed of Members from all sides of this House, and the hon. Member for Rugby did well in drawing attention to it.
  I do not know whether the Press and the public will pay any particular attention to this Debate. Any working journalist knows all about the extreme pressure on space at the present time, and it may be that no attention will be called to this matter, but I can assure the public that it is a matter which indirectly affects them very considerably, and is not merely

  1913
  a domestic question for the House of Commons. This Bill raises that very delicate Constitutional point, to which the Attorney-General did not refer, in addition to its domestic aspect. I hope that I may state the Constitutional point correctly; it would be better for me to put it in the form of a question. Is it not the case that a subject of the Crown who breaks the law and thereby incurs penalties, whether he be a Member of Parliament or not, cannot plead inadvertence? Has it not, again and again, been held that there is no justification for ignorance of the law, even if the law is of an anomalous nature? Have not judges said that they are very sorry for the offender, but that he must pay damages? The inadvertence may affect to some extent the extent of the damages awarded. For the second time, in this Parliament, we are being asked to treat Members of Parliament as if they were sui generis, as if Members of Parliament can commit offences without the penalties which would attach to persons outside. It is not a small matter that, for the second time, we should be called upon to grant a Bill of indemnity. But the matter goes further than that.
  It has been brought out very strongly that we in this House enjoy a number of privileges. We can libel people with impunity. In the course of my long career in the House of Commons, I have heard speeches—I will not use the word disgraceful, because that might be out of Order—attacking some private individual. There are no penalties for making such attacks. We have, in certain circumstances, the freedom from arrest, and we ought, therefore, to be very careful, enjoying these privileges as we do, not to invent new privileges for ourselves. In this case we are giving ourselves a new privilege, namely, that when Members are improperly elected there will be a Bin in each case in validate the election. That creates an entirely new privilege. I do not know whether the Government will agree to my proposal,, but I hope that the Attorney-General will say that this is the last time a Bill of this kind will be introduced, during the lifetime of this Parliament at any rate, and that if it be found that other Members have been improperly elected there will not be a third Bill to allow "Mr. Muggins" or "Mrs. Benson" to take their seats in the House
  1914
  of Commons. We on this side of the House will support this Bill, but we look forward to the production of legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1941. It is in tolerable that we should continue much longer in the present situation, and I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to give some undertaking that a Bill of this nature will be brought in, otherwise, I am afraid, we shall have to organise some group to bring pressure upon the Government. I hope that the Attorney-General will not think I am being unfriendly, because I can assure him that I am speaking with the utmost sincerity. I have been in consultation with my hon. Friends, and we have agreed to support the Government, thereby shouldering moral responsibility in this matter, but we are doing this with some reluctance, because we think that it is a dangerous principle to have two Bills presented in the same Parliament. Our consciences would be very much relieved if the hon. and learned Gentleman would make some announcement in regard to implementing and putting into operation the main decisions of the 1941 Committee.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels:
  I would not have intervened in this Debate, had it not been for the observations made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and the interjections which I made during his speech. So far as I can gather, he has the impression I was suggesting that a Member, who has been elected under conditions which disqualify him, should, nevertheless, vote in a Division in the House of Commons. That is as far from my mind as anything can be. I was anxious to correct the impression which the right hon. Gentleman had, that this Member had voted at a time when he knew that he was disqualified. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend that inference, but that is how I understood it. I am certain that other hon. Members received the same impression.
  Earl Winterton rose—
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I apparently misunderstood the Noble Lord. I say, without prefix or suffix, that it would be wrong and irregular for any Member, knowing that he was disqualified, to stand up in this House, to sit, or to vote, or do any of the things which only a quail-

  1915
  fied Member can do. That brings me to the constitutional point. I do not think that any hon. Member on the opposite benches is more solicitous for the integrity of the Constitution than we are on this side of the House. It is proper, in a matter of this kind, to consider to what degree any constitutional question arises. I agree that where any person occupies an office and knows that the occupation of the office disqualifies him from candidature for this House, but nevertheless presents himself as candidate, it would be outrageous for anyone to come here and ask for that person to be absolved from the consequences of his own act. I do not think that any responsible Government, or any responsible law officer, certainly, would attempt in those circumstances to ask this House for that person to be qualified.
  There must be some sense of proportion in this matter. We must see the whole field of consequences following from what was done, and what would follow if it were not put right. What is the position here? It is not suggested, and the Noble Lord clearly indicated this point, that any of these people deliberately or immorally allowed to happen what did take place. It is conceded not only that what took place was inadvertent, but that it was completely innocent. It is also agreed —the Select Committee apparently agreed —that not only did Mr. Harrison not receive any profit but that he was subjected to loss, by reason of the office that he was then filling. In each of the cases, one can see, upon reading the evidence, that it is clear there was no intention— indeed no knowledge whatsoever—that what was being done was wrong or irregular, or that it was calculated to disqualify the person who was doing it from holding a seat or sitting as a Member of Parliament.
  In the circumstances, are we to refuse to give a Second Reading to a Bill designed to put that position right? Or are we to leave the position, so that the seats become vacant and all the machinery of an election, with the expenses attached to them, has to be set in motion? If the public outside are to be considered in the relationship to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, would the public not think that this House was singularly lacking in commonsense and judgment if, after these facts had been
  1916
  examined by a Select Committee, we did not, in these harmless and unblameworthy circumstances, take the practical course of saying that these three Members should be reinstated, and fully discharged? The Select Committee emphasise and underline the matter by saying that it would like the House to carry out the recommendation of a previous Committee, that matters of this kind should be regulated by Act of Parliament.
  5.7 P.M
  The Attorney-General: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I might reply shortly to some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) directed some criticism to the circumstances in which, following the Coatbridge Elections Bill, the lady and gentlemen concerned in the present case did not at once realise the difficulty of their own positions. I conceive it to be no part of my duty to make excuses for the persons concerned in this matter. We are not asking the House, out of sympathy for this lady or these two gentlemen, to pass the Bill, but unless we are all prepared to cross our hearts, and say that we read all the Parliamentary papers we receive every morning and every line of Hansard, we are doing a little less than justice to the three people concerned in this matter.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am reluctant to interrupt the Attorney-General, but as this matter has been referred to by several speakers I would like to make it clear that I made my observations about the apparently casual manner in which these matters impressed themselves upon the people concerned, as an illustration of the possibility that this House regards these great constitutional principles with less care, alertness and close attention than, traditionally, it has been accustomed to do.
  The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for that intervention. I should be sorry to think that either the Members of this House, or the three persons whose election would be validated by the passing of the Bill, attach less than great importance to these matters. If one looks at the minutes of evidence given before the Select Commit tee one finds that although it might be right to describe his manner as in some senses casual, yet Mr. Harrison, on page 3 states that his casual encounter with

  1917
  the Whips arose in this way: He did not profess to say that he had read the Report of the Select Committee or that he had read Hansard immediately after the Validation Bill for Coatbridge had received its Second Reading. He said that, on 17th October, a letter was written in which he resigned his office. He stated:
  " I sat in the Library on the 16th, the day before reading Hansard—the full report, and arising out of that careful reading of the report a casual conversation arose between one of the Junior Whips and myself."

  Then he was asked:
  "Then it occurred to you that this might be a parallel case?''
  He replied:
  "Yes, and I immediately sought information."
  He had not read the documents immediately they were circulated, but he had taken the trouble, which I venture to think many hon. Members do not take— I do not myself—of going to the Library and reading past Debates in Hansard. Then he realised that his own case might be similar, and he took advice and immediately refrained from sitting in the House.
  In the case of Mr. Awbery, the position was that, before the declaration of the poll, his attention was drawn to the possibility that he was holding an office which might disqualify him from election, and before the declaration of the poll he wrote resigning it. He thought, I dare say, not unnaturally, as an hon. Member behind me thought, that the writing of that letter would be effective in putting an end to the holding of that office. In some cases, it might have been. It depends on the terms of the contract governing the appointment, and the view which the Law Officers, and also the Select Committee, took in regard to this contract and appointment, was that it could not be vacated by a purely unilateral act of resignation on one side until this had been accepted by the other. Not having legal advice in a matter which was certainly doubtful, Mr. Awbery thought that, having sent his letter of resignation before the election took place, he was all right.
  In regard to Mrs. Corbet, she, of course, had not sat in the office to which she was appointed for three years before the election, and she was convinced that,
  1918
  although she might remain a member of the panel she would never be the holder of an office unless she sat as an assessor, which entitled her to receive the small remuneration which went with that position. Even if one thought that the lady and two gentlemen concerned ought to have read the report of the Debate on the Coatbridge case, it is a little difficult to say that that ought immediately to have led them to the conclusion that their position was one in which they might have been disqualified. I was wrong about this, as hon. Members will have seen from my own opinions included in the minutes of evidence. I took the view that, on the whole, these three people were probably not disqualified. The Select Committee, in their better judgment, took the other view. I thought that it was doubtful, and that the Select Committee ought to consider it. I think that on the whole, they probably were not disqualified. Perhaps one cannot blame them too much for not themselves coming to the conclusion that a disqualification existed in their cases.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said that it would have been right and proper if they had apologised to the House. May I suggest to him and to the House that there really has 'been no opportunity for such an apology to be made. Immediately it was suggested to them that their position as Members of this House was equivocal, they absented themselves from attendance. They did not know, at that stage, whether they were disqualified or not. That being so, to apologise to the House would have been to admit disqualification, the existence of which they were not, at that time, convinced. Since that time, they have had no opportunity of coming to the House or apologising to Mr. Speaker in regard to this matter.
  Mr. Charles Williams: When this Bill was printed, they could have written a letter to Mr. Speaker expressing their regrets. That would have made their case much stronger and saved a lot of talk.
  The Attorney-General: I am not at all sure that it would have been a proper thing to seek to influence the House on the view which it took on this Bill by writing letters to Mr. Speaker. This was a matter on which two views could be held, and they probably felt that it was

  1919
  best for them to stay entirely out of the matter and leave the House to deal with it on its merits, as the House will now proceed to do. I indicated in my speech, to which attention has been called, on the Second Reading of the Coatbridge Bill, the reasons why I was suggesting to the House that the cases then under consideration were exceptional cases. I specified them in my speech, and I shall not repeat them. Exactly the same reasons exist in the present three cases. I am not going to commit myself to saying that there may not be a case in future arising on either side of the House. If such a case arose—I do not know of any and I do not anticipate any— would have to deal with it on its merits, and it would be quite improper for me, as a Law Officer, to seek now to fetter the rights of the House to deal with any such case when it arose, in a way that may appear proper at the time and in the circumstances.
  Earl Winterton: May I call attention to the fact that while it is quite true that the learned Attorney-General did say that, he also said that there is no precedent for an Act of Parliament declaring a per son to be a Member of this House who has not been validly elected. Is it his argument that although two Bills have been brought in, in relation to these matters, that he can give no undertaking that a third may not be brought in?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. As I conceive my position, it would be quite wrong for me "to do so. It may be that some hon. Member on the other side of the House may discover—in the very con fused and uncertain state of our law— that because of some appointment that he held 10 years ago and had not heard of since, he was technically disqualified. If such a case arose, the House would have to consider it, and decide whether it was right, in the circumstances of that case, to do what we are inviting the House to do in this case. These matters must be dealt with on their merits. I cannot exclude the possibility—although I certainly do not anticipate it—that there will be some case in the future, even more unusual in its circumstances, than the cases with which we are now dealing.
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and the right hon. Gentleman
  1920
  the Member for Horsham referred to the importance of introducing legislation to deal with this matter and to put the law on a satisfactory basis. I have given an undertaking that such' legislation will be introduced. It will be said, of course, that other Governments in the past have given similar undertakings. I do not know whether, in fact, any formal undertaking of that kind has previously been given. If it has, then all I can say is that this Government differs from its predecessors, at least to the extent that it will carry out its undertaking. I cannot tell the House when we shall introduce this legislation. It cannot be in this Session. I do not, for a moment, doubt or dispute the importance of dealing with this matter as soon as may be, but the Government have a heavy programme, and all the matters on that programme are of importance, and first things have to come first. We shall introduce a Bill in regard to this matter as soon as we can. In the meantime, the Government Departments will take care not to appoint sitting Members of the House to an office of profit, and political parties will take care that candidates at by-elections are not subject to disqualification. When we do introduce legislation, it will certainly not merely be to repeal the Statute of Queen Anne. I fully realise the important constitutional principles involved, which in no way would be solved by a repeal of that Statute, unsatisfactory as it has been. I am sure that on both sides of the House the importance of maintaining the independence of the private Member is recognised as being one of great constitutional urgency, am, it certainly should not be lost sight of, when legislation is introduced to put the law on a clearer and more satisfactory basis. In the circumstances existing, I ask the House to say it would not be right to impose not on the lady and gentlemen concerned, because their position does not matter very much but upon their constituencies the manifest inconvenience of having fresh elections' or deny to ourselves the right of securing the services of these people at the earliest opportunity.
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: I should like to ask one question. Would it be possible to introduce a one Clause Bill making it a condition of election that the candidate should sign a general resigna-

  1921
  tion of all offices of profit under the Crown.
  The Attorney-General:I do not think I could undertake to introduce legislation of this kind. One would want to look at it with a great deal of care. It would mean a unilateral act, on the part of a person chosen to stand for Parliament, who would be under a contract to which he had bound himself with same other body and would thus be freed of the contract. I do not think that legislation of that kind should be introduced for that purpose at this stage. The same result can be achieved by the political parties before they support a candidate finding out that he holds no office which would prevent him taking his seat if elected.
  Mr. Charles Williams: If it is possible for a political party outside to take this care, surely it is possible for the political parties in the House to see that no persons sitting at the present time, are in the difficulty which we are trying to remedy.
  Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am wondering whether the hon. Member is asking a question or making a speech.
  Mr. Williams:am asking whether it is not possible for the Whips to go round, and see that all Members in the House at the present time are not in the difficulty which we are trying to remedy.
  The Attorney-General: I think on this side of the House we have satisfied ourselves, or we believe we have satisfied ourselves, that no such case is likely to arise.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: My party is all right.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Friday. — [Captain Bing.]

  NATIONAL SERVICE (RELEASE OF CONSCIENTIOUSOBJECTORS) BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.
  Ordered: '' That the Lords Amendment be now considered." — [Mr. Isaacs.]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
  CLAUSE 1. — (Release of conditionally registered conscientious objectors.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert:
  " (6) A direction under this section shall have effect only as respects the obligation subject to which the person in question was conditionally registered as a conscientious objector, and accordingly where he is employed in any occupation the leaving of which is subject to restrictions he shall not by reason of the direction be more favourably treated in relation to the said restrictions than wartime workers in the occupation who have not been registered in the register of conscientious objectors.
  In this Subsection the expression ' wartime worker ' means a person employed in an occupation who apart from war circumstances would not have been employed therein."
  5.22 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that a direction, issued by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Clause(1) of the Bill, shall only release a conditionally registered conscientious objector from the conditions of his registration imposed by the Tribunal, and shall not release him from his employment, if the leaving of that employment is subject to restrictions under current labour controls. Thus a conscientious objector who, under the conditions of his registration was employed for example, in agriculture, would, after he had been released from his conditions under the Bill, be in exactly the same position as regards leaving his employment as any other wartime worker engaged in agriculture. The Government accepted the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment which, as it states, is intended to secure that a conscientious objector working in an occupation in accordance with the conditions of his registration, shall not be in a more favourable position, as regards leaving his employment, than a person not a conscientious objector engaged as a war worker in a similar occupation.
  In these circumstances I feel that I must refer Members to a statement which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House, and to explain that although that statement requires some-modification in consequence of the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment, the general purpose of the Bill remains unchanged. My statement was as; follows:

  1923
  " It is the intention to ensure that the purpose of the Bill is not frustrated by the exercise of existing labour controls in such a way that a conscientious objector who has been released from his conditions, is tied to the work from which he has been released under the Bill. We think it is important that that should be noted." — [Official Report, 9th Nov., 1945; Vol. 415; c. 1630.]
  That was the statement that I made. It may be thought that the acceptance of the Amendment is inconsistent with this statement, and I agree at once that up to a certain point this is so. The inconsistency is, however, much less than would at first sight appear.
  The reason which has made us more ready to accept the Amendment than we should otherwise have been, is that the labour controls to which conscientious objectors will remain subject, after release from the condition of their registration, have themselves been very substantially relaxed since I made the above statement. On 13th December last year, I announced general relaxations of labour controls, and in February announcements were made of a long list of industries which would be withdrawn from the scope of the Essential Work Orders on 15th May. Further, the whole question of labour controls is kept under constant review, and I anticipate further relaxations before long. Whereas, therefore, at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill it would have looked like a frustration of the object of the Bill to retain labour controls on a conscientious objector who had been released from the conditions of his registration as such, this is much less so at present. With labour controls relaxed as they now are, and will be, I do not feel any difficulty in providing that a conscientious objector released from his condition of registration should be in the same position as if he had not been a conscientious objector but had been a wartime worker in the same employment. In a proportion of cases conscientious objectors on obtaining their release from the condition of their registration will be at once free from labour controls. This will be the position, for example, of a conscientious objector who is employed in employment which is not scheduled under the Essential Work Order and who is over the age of 30. In other cases, for example, if he is in scheduled employment, he will, if he wishes to leave it, have to obtain permission and seek to make his case for release on its merits apart from the fact
  1924
  that he is a conscientious objector, just in the same way as a worker who is not a conscientious objector.
  As a part of the general relaxation of labour controls, however, I have recently instructed National Service Officers to give greater consideration to applications for permission to leave made by workers seeking permanent resettlement in normal civilian employment and to workers wishing to transfer to employment in which they have skill or experience. Conscientious objectors, like non-conscientious objectors, will have the benefit of this relaxation. At the same time, I do not wish to conceal the fact that the acceptance of this amendment will mean that many conscientious objectors may be retained in their wartime employment somewhat longer than they would have been without this amendment. In view, however, of the general tendency towards relaxation of labour controls, I do not think that in all the circumstances this is unreasonable.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: The Minister of Labour quite clearly showed us that he does not like the Lords Amendment which the Government have accepted. The Bill, in its original form, as it left this House was admitted to do justice to the conscientious objector, and I think in fact it did so. Whether one agrees with conscientious objection or not, Parliament in its wisdom decided that it was going to recognise it and it recognised it in both National Service Acts of 1939 and 1942. It did not recognise conscience at large, but a certain kind of conscience, that which objected to military service, and Parliament made provision that where conscientious objection was established, certain eventualities were to follow. A large number of people were directed to various industries. If the matter had been left without this Bill, then conscientious objectors would have had no redress until the emergency came to an end, or unless special provision legislation had been provided for the position. But what this Amendment does is a serious thing Parliament, having said that a conscientious objector, legally exercising his right, could be conditionally registered as an alternative to military service, and not for any form of essential or industrial work, this Amendment seeks to alter the whole character of the Bill. It discrimi-

  1925
  nates against the holding of a special opinion. Worse, it discriminates between conscientious objectors themselves. An objector who was conditionally registered, but not directed to employment covered by the Essential Work Order, will be released according to his group. Why should that be so, whereas one covered by the Essential Work Order is not to be released according to his group?
  This discrimination concerns, also, the right of free citizenship. That is a fundamental principle which is more far reaching than anything confined to the narrow limits of this Bill. The Minister said, "It will not be so bad as it was a few months ago, because I am relaxing the orders," and I am glad to have that recognition from him. But that is not a point of principle. The principle is that because you do not like the opinions of a certain individual, whose right has been already recognised and conceded by Parliament", you are converting the Act, which granted him exemption, into a penal Act against him in peacetime. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but that is its effect. I regret very much that the Government intend to accept the Amendment. I hope the House will not, and that we shall go to a Division. Why should not all be treated alike in this matter? That is serious enough, but upon the larger issue of the right of the subject to be treated equally before the law I hope the House will decline to agree with the Lords in the Amendment.
  5.35p.m.
  Mr. Basil Nield: The appearance of this Amendment, and the attitude of the Minister towards it, provides a rather remarkable situation. The Amendment, to some extent, would alter the purpose of the Bill which was before this House and before a Standing Committee because, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman is asked to change the attitude which was then adopted by the Government towards the Bill. I would like to see the effect of the Amendment in practice, because I am not certain that I can agree to the observations which have just been made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). It seems to me that the effect of the Amendment is this: that a conscientious objector, whose condition of registration required him to take up some occupation, shall be in no better
  1926
  position for the purpose of release than others who were directed to that same occupation by the Ministry of Labour. I take the view that conscientious objectors themselves would not seek to be preferred over civilian workers who had been directed—
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: That is hardly a fair comparison. The comparison is with those called up for military service under the two Acts of 1939 and 1942.
  Mr. Nield:A bona fide conscientious objector would not be prepared conscientiously to object to this Measure because, in effect, it put him on the same footing as a civilian worker who was directed. I have always held the view that directed labour, for example, to the National Fire Service, has had a rather raw deal in the matter of release. So many men, much against their will, have not joined the Forces. But I can see the force of the argument which was advanced in another place in order to produce this Amendment. The House may recall that the principal purpose of my intervention in our discussions on this Bill was to seek to present a case for a very special section of conscientious objectors, namely, those who served with the Friends' Ambulance Unit and kindred non-combatant services, which were in forward areas of the battle during the war. I sought justice for them by trying to have inserted in the Bill a provision that those who had so served, often in distant theatres of the war, some of whom had been taken prisoners and some of whom had been wounded, should have their pre-tribunal service counted for the purpose of release. I was not successful, save to secure from the Minister an undertaking that these special cases would receive sympathetic consideration. In putting certain specific cases, have doubted whether sympathy has been shown, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not permit any breach of faith in that matter, because they are indeed most special cases.
  The question I want to ask is: Where there is among war workers, as defined by this Amendment, no parallel with the occupation of the conscientious objector, what will be the objector's position? If, for example, a tribunal makes it a condition of registration that a man continues to serve with the Friends' Ambulance Unit when his turn comes there is no parallel

  1927
  among civilians. Will he, therefore, be entitled to be released under the age and length of service scheme which appertains to the Forces?
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. Sorensen: I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister, because I know that his heart is not in the Amendment which he has recommended to the House for acceptance. It is obvious that he and his colleagues and advisers must have thought of the point in the Amendment before the Bill was drafted, and that at that time he saw no reason why the content of this Amendment should be embodied in that Bill. Moreover, in another place, I understand that it was not on the initiative of the Government representative that this Amendment was brought forward. It was only after some observations had been made in another place by opponents of the Government that there were consultations, presumably through the usual channels, and it was thought fit to draft this Amendment. I can only express great regret that such an Amendment should have arisen out of that opposition, and that the Minister should now recommend the House to agree with the Amendment. This is an instance of an undemocratic interference with the democratic decision of the House. We are elected Members of Parliament, we came to a certain decision, and, although I know there have been other instances of a graver character, this is a recent illustration of how those who are not elected can interfere with and bring pressure to bear upon elected Members of Parliament. For those reasons, I am sorry the Amendment has been recommended for our acceptance today. Whether we should go as far as has been suggested and vote against the Amendment remains to be seen, but I think we ought to put on record our great disquiet at this Amendment.
  Conscientious objectors do not wish to have any preferential treatment over those who are not conscientious objectors, but it is only human and natural for them to expect their case and needs to be dealt with in a just way. I submit that this Amendment penalises conscientious objectors. It is true that there are controls over agricultural workers, and that a, large number of conscientious objectors were directed into agriculture. It is equally true that agriculture is a very honourable industry, and requires all the
  1928
  assistance it can secure; but the fact remains that, except for a very small minority, no one has been directed from other occupations into agriculture, except conscientious objectors. They accepted the direction, they performed their tasks well, they obeyed the law, but now they are to be penalised because they were directed into that occupation rather than into other occupations. Simply because they were conscientious objectors, they are to have an additional penalty imposed upon them. I think that they, and others who may not agree with them, but who appreciate their stand, are entitled to feel a definite grievance. The assurance which the Minister gave in introducing the Bill has now been modified out of existence. There is discriminatory treatment in this respect. Merely because a man obeyed the law and was directed into a particular occupation, he now finds that he must continue in that occupation until the controls are taken off, although he would not have chosen that occupation. There are some who have taken up agriculture as their normal job during the war, whether they were conscientious objectors or not, and they may continue. No penalty is imposed on them. I am thinking of those others whose services to the community might be very much more valuable outside agriculture than within it.
  I am very glad that the Minister has given an assurance that recommendations have been made to relax the existing regulations, and that being so, we may find that some of those who are in agriculture now will be able to transfer their services into some field much more useful to the community. But that is not the basic test. The test is rather the one which I mentioned a moment ago. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter, in view of the observations that have been made, and which, I submit, have not been answered up to now. I am glad the Bill is likely to be passed today, because numbers of conscientious objectors are already well behind their brothers in the Forces. If this Bill had been brought forward and passed into law earlier, many of them would have been released. If the Bill is to be passed into law with this Amendment, I must register my criticism, indignation and regret that the Amendment has been recommended to the House by the Minister and that the assurance which he gave

  1929
  to the House, I am sure quite conscientiously, has now been modified so drastically.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler:think the Minister's statement was rather more serious than some hon. Members have realised. As he said, he made a. general statement, in introducing the Bill, that the purposes of the Bill should not be frustrated by conscientious objectors being tied to their work. I remember that statement, and I accepted his guidance at the time. We now find ourselves in a perfectly logical position, and I do not see how we can do otherwise than accept the Amendment which has come from another place. Somehow or other, mistaken guidance has been given to the House. In logic, I can see that the Government would not desire to make the situation easier for a conscientious objector than for any other war worker who would be tied to his job on the land. Representing, as I do, a rural constituency, I would regard that as intolerable. I have desired to help conscientious objectors through this Bill, but I do not desire to place them in a better position than any man who is tied to his job on the land. Therefore, I cannot see that the Government have any alternative than to ask us to approve the Amendment.
  The mistake the Government made was to make the sweeping and general statement they did in introducing the Bill. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to think very seriously what really is the object of the Bill now, and what was the object when he introduced it. What would have been the position if there had not been this relaxation of labour control? The Minister has to escape from the dilemma by saying that he has announced a relaxation. That is the only way in which he has been enabled to accept the Amendment, because it is the only way in which he can retain any of the original objects of the Bill. Therefore, I am forced to the conclusion that when the Minister introduced the Bill, he knew he was going to relax labour control, and therefore, he knew there was something in what he said; otherwise, what he said had no foundation in fact. Hon. Members must realise that the House and the country
  1930
  have been misled in respect of this Bill by what the Minister originally said. Let us examine what the position would have been if the Minister had not relaxed labour control. Had this same Amendment been moved and brought to us from another place, not only would there have been the case of agriculture, but of a great many other employments as well, to which conscientious objectors would have been tied, and that would have made nonsense of the whole Bill.
  I must say sharply and definitely to the Government that it seems that, in introducing the Bill originally, they were relying on proposed administrative procedure later in order to make the Bill work. That is not a manner in which legislation ought to be brought to the House. We hear of the dangers of delegated legislation, but I think this is a danger about which the House and the country should be warned; namely, that the only way in which the Minister can make this Bill work is by taking administrative action, of the need for which he may or may not have been conscious when introducing the Bill, after the Bill in order to substantiate statements which he made in introducing the Bill. That seems to be the position logically, and it is the only manner in which the Minister has been able to come in a white sheet this afternoon and ask for our indulgence and permission to let him have the Amendment. I see that the Minister is smiling, but it really does make nonsense of the Bill to make a general statement of that sort at the beginning, and then have to save from the wreck of his own inconsequent remarks the larger part of the Bill in order to bring some sense into a logical situation which arises in agriculture. It is a dilemma in which I have never been landed, and I have every sympathy for the Minister in the position in which he finds himself.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) went a little bit too far when he said that this is a deprivation of the right of free citizenship. The position of the agricultural worker at the present time is a very special one. The agricultural worker finds himself among the few people in the country who, owing to the shortage of food and the shortage of agricultural labour, is tied to his job on the land. That is no reflection on work on the land. It is the best work than can be done for the country, and

  1931
  one of the finest trades there is. The effect is that the man is tied, and I think it would be undesirable if a conscientious objector, after having received this direction, were put in a different situation from the ordinary worker, who had to do his job on the land during the war.
  Mr. Sorensen:Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the difference between the man who has had to continue in a job which has always been his, and a man who is directed, and who because it is not his normal job, is less competent?
  Mr. Butler: I appreciate that point.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris:May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Take the case of two students who are directed to work. If one is not covered by the Essential Work Orders he can at least be free to resume his duties under this Amendment. The other man who may be subject to the Essential Work Order cannot be so released but will have to continue to work in the industry to which he has been directed. The real comparison is not with the war worker, but with the class to which the conscientious objector belongs.
  Mr. Butler:I was about to enter into the realm of the argument of the hon. Member for Carmarthen and of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). They both have a substantial point. Vis-à-vis the other conscientious objector, the man retained in agriculture has a grievance, but the agricultural worker who has to stay on the land would have a grievance if the conscientious objector were permitted to leave his job on the land. This is the dilemma according to the lucid and pellucid arguments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen. Vis-à-vis another conscientious objector, this man would have a grievance. As I interpret the Minister's argument, his position is that there would be an even worse grievance if the man on the land felt that the conscientious objector could be taken away from that employment before he himself was permitted to leave. Therefore, as I see it, this Amendment must be accepted, because that greater grievance is rather more serious than the grievance between one conscientious objector and another.
  I must confess, however, as I said in my opening remarks, that the biggest
  1932
  grievance is the one the House has against the Minister himself. The conscientious objector and the House have been misled as to the original object of the Bill. That is a very serious fact, and one which the Parliamentary Secretary should attempt to clear up when he replies. In logic, the position between one conscientious objector and another is not now as fair as it was when the Bill was introduced. The only way in which this can be remedied is for the right hon. Gentleman to continue with his relaxation of labour controls and, perhaps, subject to your discretion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—since I do not want to launch into the subject at this hour—it would be convenient, on another occasion, for the Government to tell us what further relaxation of labour controls they intend to introduce. Are they or are they not going to introduce a relaxation of labour controls in agriculture?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should not expose the Minister to such a temptation.
  Mr. Butler: The point I wanted to make was that when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill he must have known that he was going to relax labour controls, otherwise he would not have made that special statement on the introduction of the Bill. Has he in his. mind a further relaxation of labour controls? If so, we should be told now because we should then know whether the acceptance of this Amendment was important or not I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us frankly when he replies on this occasion what they have in their minds on the subject of future controls.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Again I must point out to the right hon. Member that the Parliamentary Secretary will only be allowed to speak on the Amendment before the House and therefore cannot answer such a question.
  Mr. Butler: I must apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, with all respect to your Ruling, I did not want the House to be put in the invidious position in which we were before, namely, that in order to make sense of a Bill, the Minister" has to relax labour controls. If we are not taken into the confidence of the Government on this subject the Minister and his henchmen may find themselves in an odious position for the second time,

  1933
  and if they delude the House a second time the consequences for the Government may be fatal. I will not pursue the matter further in view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would ask that the Government should "come clean," and tell us what they have in mind for the future of this type of control, so that we shall know what is the likelihood of duration of this kind of Amendment, and what its lasting effect is likely to be.
  5.56 p.m.
  Professor Gruffydd: I desire to add only one or two words to what has already been said. I agree with the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) as to the character of the Amendment. This is not an ordinary Amendment to a Clause; it is an Amendment that makes nonsense of the whole Bill. It is not something we can accept because it does not matter very much; it is going to destroy the whole meaning of the Bill. I shall not go into the merits or dements of the Amendment itself but should like to point out something which I think has not been discussed in any of the speeches made so far. We are dealing not with a person who has been ordered to work under the Essential Work Order, but with a conscientious objector who is a different kind of person altogether. If this Amendment is accepted by the House, is the conscientious objector —when the time comes for his group to be released—to be relieved of obligations under the Essential Work Orders or not? Unless he is he will be free under the provisions of the Bill. It does not matter what happens because, as I see it, he can be kept longer only under the Essential Work Orders. We are asking in the original Bill that the conscientious objector should be released from the result of his conscientious objection and not of any obligation he has under the Essential Works Order. I do not think that hon. Members who have spoken so far have kept these two things separate.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Benn Levy: I had not meant to intervene in this Debate, but it raises a principle of such importance that I want very briefly to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have protested against acceptance of the Amendment. I should like to take
  1934
  up the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who said that he now found himself in a logical dilemma because he would, by rejecting this Amendment, be in the position of advocating an advantage for the conscientious objector over the civilian worker. That seems to me to be a purely superficial and logical dilemma, because in fact, as has just been pointed out, the conscientious objector is not a civilian agricultural worker—he has been put into the category of a Service man not in the Services. By the same token, he is liable for release under the same conditions. The soldier, when he is released, is not subject to re-direction, and therefore it seems to me" quite unreasonable that the conscientious objector, when his date for release comes, should in effect be subject to re-direction.
  I do not believe there is in this House any real prejudice any longer in this year of grace against the conscientious objector. Many of us know how rigorous and difficult, and burdensome, was the life that the conscientious objector led during the first world war under the "Cat and Mouse Act," and the tremendous endurance that was required to go through with it. Although those rigours have been diminished during this last war, it still needs a great deal of courage always to swim against the tide. So I feel, if there is any prejudice left, even in a vestigial form, in anyone's mind, that it should not influence them in their vote on this particular Amendment. The conscientious objectors are a small minority and, as such, it is up to this House to make a special effort to see that their interests are safeguarded.
  6.2 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): A very cogent case has been put against us this afternoon from both sides of the House. I am not complaining about that. The first thing that has to be recognised is that if the purposes of this Bill are to be passed on to the conscientious objectors, we must have it as quickly as possible. Already, some 20 odd categories, had they been in the Army or the other Services, would have been released, but conscientious objectors up to Group 25, in some cases Group 30, are still held to their positions because of our delay in passing this Bill. Therefore, the question of speed is the factor which must weigh

  1935
  in our minds. The second point is this: it seems to me that the general purpose of this Bill has not been correctly understood. It is to relieve the conscientious objector of his liability under the National Service Armed Forces Act. It was not to make him a free citizen or to take from him his obligation as a citizen; it was merely to take from his shoulders the shackles imposed under the National Service Armed Forces Act. The Bill, as put forward, in our minds provided for that purpose, as was explained to the House. The matter went to the other place, and there this anomaly was pointed out, that you could have two school teachers, one in agriculture because of direction, and the other in agriculture because of the condition imposed by the tribunal.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is there any instance at all of a teacher being directed to agriculture, who was not a conscientious objector?
  Professor Gruffydd: That is the question I wanted to ask:
  Mr. Ness Edwards:Perhaps in cases where school teachers, at the time they were called up, did not satisfy the medical category which would entitle them to go into the Armed Forces. My information is that some of them were directed to agriculture. However, we will put the school teachers aside and take two other men from the same walk of life, the same profession. They go into agriculture, one as the result of direction, the other as the result of the condition imposed by the tribunal. What was said in the other place was this, that the one ought not to be released from his civilian obligations before the other, and that argument has been accepted. The consequence is that we find ourselves now in this position, that unless some other action is taken in those cases in which conscientious objectors are in industries which are controlled, the purpose of the Bill could be thwarted.
  How are we to face this dilemma? We must be fair to the directed worker and we must be fair to the conscientious objector. Yet we must not give to the released conscientious objector a greater measure of civilian liberty than we give to another person who has been directed to the same form of employment. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, for a large field of employment controls have
  1936
  been taken off, and it comes down mainly to the question of those who are engaged in agriculture. In those cases instructions had already been issued that in the case, for instance, of the directed workers to agriculture who had gone from their ordinary employment into agriculture and who have been therein for a number of years, their cases would fall to be considered by the National Service Officer, and they would be entitled to put their case forward to be released from agriculture in order to be restored to their normal walk of life. Now it is proposed that in those industries in which conscientious objectors are now engaged and which are the subject of control, which is a field that is becoming more and more limited, as I have said before—
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not a fact that no conscientious objector was directed into an essential work job, because it was very obvious that he not merely objected to military service but would have a conscientious objection against being put into an essential work job?
  Mr. Benn Levy: It depends on the conscientious objector.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am talking about the conditions made by a tribunal in order that a man might have his name put on the register of conscientious objectors—
  Mr. Sidney Marshall rose—
  Mr. Ness Edwards:As I have only a short time at my disposal, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. We propose, under the powers now given by this Bill, in order to give effect to the original purpose of the Bill, that there shall be a progressive relaxation to men who, in civilian circumstances, are in the same position as conscientious objectors. That is the only way in which we can safeguard the purpose of this Bill
  To come back to the point was making when I was interrupted, every man who has been away from home and from his normal occupation for a number of years, should have the right to submit his case for release and permission to go back to his normal occupation and to be resettled. Conscientious objectors will have the same right. Under Clause 1 (2) of the Bill, the Minister has the right to release con-

  1937
  scientious objectors from the conditions of their registration if he is satisfied that their use in the national service can best be served by giving them their freedom and returning them to their normal occupation.
  There was the other point, which was made very forcibly, about the difference in the treatment of the conscientious objector who is in a controlled industry and one who is in a free industry. There is discrimination there, and we can only get over it by the machinery I have described. However, it is not limited to conscientious objectors. After all, that discrimination is a common discrimination in our general life. We have men in controlled industries and men in uncontrolled industries, and the discrimination between conscientious objectors is no greater than discrimination between workers in civilian industry generally. We are not perpetrating any penal conditions on conscientious objectors by accepting the Lords Amendment. What it means is that we must take extra administrative action in order to give full effect to the purposes of this Bill. In regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), I want to repeat the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend. That undertaking will be fully implemented. I think those are most of the points which have been raised in connection with this Amendment and I am content to leave it there.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: This Amendment raises a most important point of principle, and I hope full opportunity will be given for its proper discussion. I have rarely heard a Minister more uncomfortable in commending an Amendment to the House than the right hon. Gentleman was this afternoon. Let me say a word also to the Parliamentary Secretary. We know how eloquent he can be. He used all his eloquence in defence of an Amendment, which he certainly would not have supported originally. I wonder what he would have said in the old days when he sat on this side of the House, if this point had been raised, especially if it had come down from another place. His first point was that conscientious objectors at present are penalised, that we have to try to release them from those penalties as quickly as
  1938
  possible, and that the speedier the Bill becomes law the better for the conscientious objector. I have never heard from those benches such a wonderful defence of appeasement. The easy way to get a Measure through, apparently, is to agree with what your opponent puts forward.
  The point which the Parliamentary Secretary made in answer to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) was that the Amendment will work but only in this way and that machinery will be introduced through the Ministry of Labour. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden very rightly asked him to tell us, before we agreed to this Amendment, what is the extent of that machinery. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right in saying that the origin of this is found in the National Service (Armed Forces) Act of 1939 when all under a certain age were made liable to conscription. But there were Sections of that Act which gave exemption from service to persons having conscientious objection to service. The comparison with that class can only be made with the Servicemen. An hon. Member quite rightly said that it was desired to give equal treatment to the conscientious objector and the Serviceman and that the conscientious objector should not be given an extra privilege nor penalised. Servicemen are the people who have to be compared with the conscientious objectors and the question has nothing whatever to do with the civilian who is outside the Act altogether.
  Under this Bill as it was originally drafted by the Government and commended by this House, they were placed on an equal footing with the Serviceman. In another place they say that if, perchance, the conscientious objector has been directed as a result of his refusing. service, into some work subject to the Essential Work Order, he shall be kept there although the same class of Serviceman is released. Is not that a penalty put on the conscientious objector as against the Serviceman? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear cheers from the other side of the House because I am sure this is a point that they would have been making and a point to which they would have given effect—
  It being a Quarter past Six o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding stood postponed.

  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [By Order]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.16 p.m.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: On a point of Order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to this Bill? I understand intimation has already been given by the promoters of their intention to abandon all the operative Clauses with the exception of Clause8. That seems to be an arrangement come to between the promoters and the Minister of Health, and even Clause 8, as it stands in the Bill, is to be in a modified form. In that case, we would like to know what we are to Debate. It would seem that, if the majority of the Clauses of the Bill are to be withdrawn, we shall in fact be wasting time in debating it and that we shall be discussing matters which need never have been traversed. May we have your guidance?
  Mr. Speaker: It is unusual for me to ask an hon. Member what he has to say. I know nothing, I can know nothing, of what is going to happen to the Bill. The interests concerned are entitled to withdraw or carry on with the Bill as they think fit. I cannot anticipate what may be the intention of the promoters or anyone else in regard to the Bill, and I cannot suggest what discussion should take place until some statement has been made.
  Mr. Kinley: I want to make a point associated with that which has just been put to you, Mr. Speaker. We are presented here with what was deposited as a Bill. Since it was deposited, it has been completely altered, and now only seven lines of the original Bill remain. Is it in Order for us to waste our time on one Clause and call it a Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: I would refer the hon. Member for Bootle to what I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Stock-port (Sir A. Gridley).
  Sir A. Gridley: For clarification, could we have a statement by the Minister?
  Mr. Speaker: The Bill has yet to be put before the House.
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: This seems a little unconstitutional. The promoters of the Bill have given notice to hon. Members of this House that they are going to withdraw the whole thing. If we proceed with Second Reading today, something entirely different will be substituted in Committee, because every operative Clause of the Bill is to be withdrawn.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a submission, but as far as I am concerned I am in complete ignorance of it.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It may save the time of the House considerably if I state now that the Bill has been reconsidered, arising from discussions which the County Council had with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. It is now proposed to proceed with Clause 8 only, and that Clause is being amended to enable the County Council to make financial contributions in respect of expenditures incurred or to be incurred by county districts, in the exercise of their statutory functions. The House will not, therefore, wish me to deal with the Clauses which it is proposed to withdraw on Committee stage.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. May I bring to your notice, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I have just now been to the Vote Office to get a copy of this Private Bill, in order to see what is being discussed in the House? I have been informed that they have no such copy. May we have some information as to what is contained in this Bill, and whether it is identical with the other Bills? It seems to me very wrong that we should be debating a Bill, no copy of which is available to any hon. Member of this House.
  Mr. Speaker: At present the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) is moving the Second Reading, and he is entitled to make his remarks as he thinks fit. I suggest that the House might listen and hear his arguments.
  Mr. McLeavy: If I may comment on the point raised by the hon. and gallant

  1941
  Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower), I would say that I have obtained a copy of the Bill from the Vote Office outside this Chamber.
  I submit that the Bill does not now raise any question of national policy, being confined purely to domestic financial problems within the family circle of the administrative county. I have read with some interest a circular letter which has been issued on behalf of the General Purposes Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which advises Members not to withdraw their objections against this Bill. The two main points in the circular are that such powers as those now proposed should not be given, except by general legislation, that amended Clause 8 would give very extended powers to the county council, and that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect one county district to contribute to the execution of statutory powers in another county district, especially in regard to such matters as housing, and that the effects of the amended Clause might very well block future applications of the county borough councils for the extension of their boundaries.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower:On a further point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order to refer to a Clause in this Bill when other hon. Members are not in a position to obtain a copy of the Bill in order to see what it is about?
  Mr. Speaker:I am informed that extra copies will be supplied, and that it was because of the demand that the supply of copies ran short. The usual numbers were supplied. We cannot hold up proceedings because of that shortage.
  Mr. McLeavy: I would like the House to give consideration to the objections to which I have referred, and to examine them in the light of the actual position. The most astonishing thing to me is that the General Purposes Committee of the A.M.C. do not appear to be up to date with their information on the powers vested in county councils, particularly in connection with public health and housing problems, and the increased powers and financial responsibilities which are proposed under the new Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Under the Public Health Acts the county councils are empowered to make grants
  1942
  in respect of sewerage and water schemes undertaken by county district councils., and to debit the cost to the general county rate.
  Under the Housing Act, 1936, county councils have not only an obligation to make a contribution to the rural district councils towards agricultural houses of £1 per year over a period of 40 years, but they are empowered, under Section 115 (4), without prejudice to those provisions, to make, with the approval of the Minister of Health, a further annual contribution of such an amount and for such a period as may be authorised by the Minister. The Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill further extends the financial responsibilities of county councils by increasing their contributions to rural housing from £1 per house to 1 10s. What is more important is that it extends such contributions which had hitherto been confined to rural areas to county district councils described in the Bill, with a population of low ratepaying capacity. This means that inevitably the county rates must meet an increased expenditure in connection with the Minister's housing grants.
  It is clear, therefore, that the point made by the General Purposes Committee of the A.M.C, namely, that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect one county district to contribute to the execution of statutory powers in another county district, reveals a lamentable lack of knowledge as to the existing practices. In fact, the case for the Bill is that such contributions are already made to county district councils, and will be increased, under the new Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and that it would be beneficial to municipal boroughs and urban district areas to have some of the heavy financial expenditure involved in housing the population put upon the broader shoulders of the county rate.
  The second point of objection by the A.M.C. is based upon the assumption that certain financial provisions, if granted, might well block future applications by county borough councils for extension of their boundaries. Personally, I should not be surprised if this was not the sole reason for objection on the part of the county boroughs. I do not accept the view that the passing of this Bill will in any way prejudice any scheme for extension of boundaries which may be

  1943
  placed before the Local Government Boundary Commission, as it is well understood that the Boundary Commissioners will be concerned and influenced by many factors other than those of housing needs. I would ask Members of the House to refer to Statutory Rules and Orders, dealing with Local Government, England and Wales, Alteration of Areas. Hon. Members will find, on page 3, in connection with the Schedule "General Principles" the following statement:
  " Paragraph 1. The object of all alterations in status of local government authorities and of all alterations in the boundaries of local government areas is to ensure individually and collectively effective and convenient units of local government administration. This object is the governing principle by which the Commission are to be guided in exercising their functions under the Act."
  Paragraph 2 goes further. It reads as follows:
  " In attaining this object all factors relevant to the areas under review should be considered by the Commission.''
  The following are some of the main factors placed in alphabetical order — I will read them because they are of importance in view of the claim made on behalf of the county boroughs:

  "(a) Community of interest.

  (b) Development, or anticipated development.

  (c)Economic and industrial characteristics.

  (d)Financial resources measured in relation to financial need, including in particular, but not exclusively, the average rateable value per head of population, rates raised per head of population and the estimated product of a given rate poundage.

  (e)Physical features including in particular, but not exclusively, suitable boundaries, means of communication and accessibility to administrative centres and centres of business and social life.

  (f) Population — size distribution and characteristics.

  (g) Record of administration by the local authorities concerned.

  (h) Size and shape of the areas,

  (i) Wishes of the inhabitants."

  I think it is well that the House should look into the heavy financial burdens which will fall upon county district councils if the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which has now passed its Second Reading, becomes law, particularly having regard to the case made out by the A.M.C., to which I have referred. For the information of the House, I will cite two cases which, I
  1944
  trust, will give a clear picture of the financial position in which the district councils may be placed.
  My first case is of a Lancashire urban district area situate on Merseyside. The council estimate that they will need to build 1,000 working class houses. Their financial resources are very small; in fact, a penny rate produces only 440. It is clear that upon the figures which have been supplied by the council's accountant, the balance of cost falling upon the local rates will be in the region of 10 per house, as against the annual rate fund contribution, stated in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, of 5 10s. The rate poundage for these 1,000 houses will be approximately is. o½d., or a sum of 5,500. My second case is of a reasonable sized municipal borough also situate on Merseyside. It is an authority with which I have had many years of happy association. The average rateable value of council houses is 16. The local rate of 15s. 6d. is divided as follows: county council precept, 10s. 4d.; borough council, 5s. 2d. The rate received per annum, from each new council house built, is 12 8s., of which 8 5s. 4d. goes to the county council, the balance of 4 2s. 8d. being the share of the local authority. The local rate contribution per house per annum is 5 10s., and the loss per house per annum is 17s. 4d. This does not take into account the extra cost of providing for the normal public services for the tenants of the new houses.
  Therefore, it will be seen that, if this Bill becomes law, the county council will be in a position to make an annual financial grant in such cases and will be able to spread the grant over the whole of the county rate. I should like briefly to refer to the urgency of the problem of re-location of population and industry. That question has been commented on in the Barlow Report. The magnitude of the problem in the Manchester area, affecting the counties of Cheshire and Lancashire, is shown by the survey prepared for the Manchester and District Regional Planning Committee. That estimate is that from 50,000 to 100,000 houses are required outside the Manchester and District Regional Area to accommodate "over spill." The problem for Cheshire and Lancashire is, however, still greater. There are other county boroughs besides

  1945
  Manchester and Salford which have "over spill" problems. For example, in the Merseyside area a planning scheme has been prepared in which the "over spill" population is estimated to be 256,000 persons, but additional provision is made for an increased population and diminished density. In dealing with the "over spill" population generally, the county district councils will be called upon to undertake the provision of houses, or the requisite services, such as roads and sewers, and many of these authorities will not have financial resources equal to the task.
  Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House to which Clause he is now referring?
  Mr. McLeavy: I am referring to Clause 8, which allows the county council to give financial assistance to the county boroughs for the purposes which I am describing to the House.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. Member allow me? We have all been circularised[Interruption.]
  Mr. McLeavy: I was saying that the Bill would enable the county council to provide them with the necessary financial assistance. I have dealt at some length with the financial provisions in regard to the county district councils. I speak with some personal knowledge of the deep desire of the Lancashire and Cheshire County Councils to co-operate with the Government and all concerned in the speedy provision of houses. Surely, that is one of the most important problems which confronts the nation today. It is of interest to be called that it is now three years since the Lancashire and Cheshire County Councils—
  Mr. Kinley: On a point of Order. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when you had not heard anything about the Bill, you were unable to give a ruling as to whether it was or was not in Order. Having heard that the Bill has been cast overboard, except for one Clause, that that Clause is also to be amended, and that no one knows in what way it is to be amended, may I be allowed to ask you whether it is in Order that the time of the House should be further wasted?
  Mr. Speaker: I was in some doubt what the hon. Member was saying, but I thought he was expanding Clause 8 at
  1946
  rather great length. To what extent it can be altered has nothing to do with me. That is a matter for the Committee stage.
  Mr. Hale: I asked the hon. Member to give way in order to find out what it is that he is moving. Surely, we are entitled to know whether the Bill is being moved, whether a Bill not before the House is being moved, or whether an agreement has been reached about something that is not in the Bill. The hon. Member has said that he is not going to refer to Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 or 10, because he said that these were being dropped, but he said he was going to refer to Clause 8 We have been circularised with what appears to be an official document, which says that Clause 8 will be amended and altered and will not be in the form in which it is in the Bill before the House. The result of that, in my submission, is that if there is anything before the House at all, it is a menu card with no items on the menu. If it is in Order, Mr. Speaker, may I refresh your memory with authorities which have been laid down in the past, including the Home Reservoirs Bill, 1849? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is a very unusual proceeding, and it is very difficult to find something comparable without going back over a long time—almost into the Dark Ages. I submit that, on this authority, where a Private Bill, which has had to go through the Private Bill procedure to get authority, has been so altered and amended that it has ceased to be the original Bill, a Ruling should be given that it should be sent back to the examiners, or be withdrawn. I suggest that the proper proceeding, which has not been adopted here, is to place on the Order Paper an instruction to the Committee, to which this Bill will be referred, as an instruction from this House, that the Clauses are to be deleted, and I suggest that it is impossible for the hon. Member to move that we should refer to a Committee a Bill which. is not really before the House
  Mr. Speaker: I confess that my memory does not go back to 1849. The hon. Member is moving this Bill, which is before the House. There are going to be future stages—Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, and that Clause can be struck out and the House can deal with it later. At the moment, we have this Bill before us, and the hon. Member is entitled to make his case as he thinks fit.
  Mr. McLeavy: I must say that one regards this question of local government authority as of vital importance to the well being of the country, and it is not a matter which we in this House can treat very lightly. It is an important matter to which we ought to give very serious consideration, and, if I am unduly long with the case I am putting forward, it is because I believe that all the facts should be fully placed before Parliament and that it is essential that we should know every particular point in favour of giving a Second Reading to this Bill. When the point of Order was raised, I was referring to the fact that it is now three years since the Lancashire and Cheshire County Councils agreed to discuss the "over spill" population problem with the Manchester, Stretford and Salford Councils. Negotiations have already taken place with representatives from those places on the question of dealing with "over spill" populations and relocation of industry. There is no doubt in my mind whatever that, without offending against the principles of good town planning, the greater part of the surplus population from the Manchester and district area could be accommodated within a radius of 20 miles of the northern boundaries of the County of Cheshire. Consultations have taken place with the county district councils directly concerned, with the three associations of Cheshire local authorities, and the Manchester, Salford and Stretford authorities have been informed that, subject to the county council being able to obtain the necessary power, they will be prepared to financially assist the county districts concerned.
  At the time, considerable publicity was given to the Cheshire plan, and I would like to give to the House the views expressed by Councillor T. Nally, Chairman of the Manchester and District Regional Planning Committee and a member of the Manchester City Council. Referring to the Cheshire scheme, Councillor Nally said:
  " It was a very great gesture on the part of Cheshire. It shows their realisation that re-planning can be carried out only by co-operation between all adjoining authorities, and is a step which may well be followed throughout the country"
  Commenting upon the proposals of Cheshire to build existing towns to reasonable-sized authorities, Councillor Nally said:
  1948
  " While Manchester favoured the establishment of satellite towns which would still belong to the parent city, there is a good deal to be said for the idea of bringing all existing towns in Cheshire up to the optimum size and providing new industries."
  These expressions of view, coming from a gentleman so closely associated with the housing and town planning schemes and one so well fitted to give an impartial opinion, cannot be lightly ignored by Parliament.
  I entirely endorse the views of Councillor Nally and believe that "replanning can be carried out only by co-operation between all adjacent authorities." Both Lancashire and Cheshire county councils have offered such co-operation, but we cannot play our part in this great housing drive upon equal footing unless Parliament grants the financial powers which this Bill will provide.
  I would like to make one final point. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear.''] I am glad that that remark receives the acclamation of the House. I believe—and I am prompted in that belief by many years of local government experience—that the time has arrived when county councils should be empowered, subject to the approval of the Minister of Health, to assist county district councils financially to discharge their normal functions. It seems tome to be regrettable that county boroughs should seek to deny powers to the county councils which they themselves enjoy. I am proud to think that three county councils have taken the step along the road towards co-operation with other authorities, which, in the words of Councillor Nally, "May well be followed throughout the country." It represents one of the most promising signs of the beginning of fruitful co-operative effort and should commend itself to this House.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Messer: I beg to second the Motion.
  I promise to do what I have made a custom of doing in this House and that is to speak briefly. I am interested in this Bill, and the other two Bills which are to be taken later, not because I come from Lancashire, Cheshire or Nottingham, but because I am deeply concerned about housing. I think that the test of this Government is going to be on the question of housing. The test of this Parliament is going to be on that question, and anything which is done by any section of the

  1949
  House to make housing difficult, will be judged in accordance with the facts. The Bill before the House is not in its complete form, and not in any amended form, but I want to refer specifically to Clause 8. Clause 8 gives a county council power, provided the Minister of Health agrees; it does not give it power without the Minister of Health giving sanction. We are not taking power away from a county borough or any other authority and passing it over to the county council. That is an entire misconception. The position is that there are county districts with a very low rate product, whose councils cannot undertake housing because of their low rate-raising ability. Under these Bills, the Lancashire, Cheshire and Nottingham county councils, if the Minister of Health agrees, could say to a county district, that they were prepared to assist it financially if it got on with its housing. If there is a Member in this House who obstructs housing for any reason at all, then he will be judged by the country.
  I admit that there are valid objections to this Bill and that they ought to be faced. The first is that this Private Bill is giving to a certain county council powers not possessed by county councils generally. That is true, but it is also true of every Private Bill. There is not a county borough that has introduced a Private Bill into this House for any purpose except to get power which it did not otherwise possess. A county borough introduces a Private Bill because it has not the power to do a special job. There is no valid argument for opposing this Bill just because certain county councils, recognising their need, have asked for powers. The second objection, which I think is a valid one, is that if this thing is good, then it should not be good only for three county councils but ought to be national. That is a valid objection and I think the county councils concerned should recognise it, but it is not their fault that the nation has not done this. The only way the)' could do it was by promoting a Private Bill. If it is to be made general, so that all county councils get this power, then, as far as I can see, there would be no purpose in the Bill at all. That is the whole point.
  Mr. Lipson: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is sound, and this Bill is necessary in the interests of housing, why is not the initiative taken
  1950
  by the Government and a Bill brought in covering the whole country?
  Mr. Messer: That question should be addressed to the Government, and not to me or to the counties. I am not the Government, and that is a Government responsibility. In point of fact, what difference in principle is there in what is being asked for and what already exists? There might be, within the boundaries of an administrative county, an urban district which can only raise 200 by a penny rate. It is also possible to have within the boundaries of that county council a rural district that can raise three times that amount. Under the law as it exists, the county council is not merely empowered, but is compelled to contribute to rural housing. In principle, therefore, this Bill is asking no more than what already exists in regard to rural housing.
  Lancashire has a deservedly good reputation for its high service. As a matter of fact its tuberculosis service is one of the finest in the country. Dr. Nissen Cox has organised a service there, which is a credit both to himself and the county he serves. He can organise treatment in sanatoria under the administration of that county, patients can be taken to them from all parts of the county, and thousands of pounds can be spent on them. Yet they can be discharged and sent back to the slums which gave them the disease because the county council has no power, authority or influence to get houses for the people who need them. If powers were granted it would be possible for the county council to agree with the county district, who would otherwise be unable to afford it, to, build houses, some of which could be specially allocated to those who, at present, may be living in circumstances which are certainly not helpful to their physical condition.
  I promised not to speak for long, and I am going to keep my promise. I want this thing examined in the light of the needs of the people, and not in the light of the claims of county councils or county boroughs. The test should be whether it is going to help or hinder housing. If hon. Members can satisfy their consciences that by opposing this Bill they will be helping housing, then they should oppose it. But they should not oppose it if it means depriving anybody of the conditions which would lead to life, and

  1951
  the absence of which, might mean their death.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I put this point? He said this Bill does not alter the law in any way. In fact, Clauses 3 and 4 alter the law in respect of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.
  Mr. Messer: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to make a technical point—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: No, I do not.
  Mr. Messer:The hon. and gallant Gentleman says he does not want to, but he has already done so, and he may get what pleasure he can out of it. It is understood that the operative Clause is Clause 8. Give us Clause 8, and we are prepared to concede the rest. We cannot do it now, but when the Bill has passed its Second Reading such Amendments as are required may be put down.
  7.1 p.m.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: We have had from the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) an excellent paper in favour of this Bill. I was wondering what was his association with Lancashire and Cheshire, and I thought he was going to develop a "War of the Roses." I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so because the constituency which I have the honour to represent is in a peculiar position in that the River Mersey divides it, one half of the constituency being in the county of Lancashire and the other half in the county of Cheshire, so that we stand to be bombarded from the front and the flank. The county borough councils are very concerned about this Bill. The position of Stockport is this: At present there is an urgent need to provide accommodation for 27,000 persons. There is an immediate and pressing-problem, according to the latest information I have received from the town clerk, to deal with over 3,000 applications for houses, of which over 2,000 are from ex-Servicemen, most of whom have married during the war. In addition to that—and of this, I confess, I am a little ashamed—the medical officer of health has intimated that immediately it becomes practicable, he must consider making representations to the council for slum clearance action in respect of at least 3,000 houses which
  1952
  are now occupied," they are unfit for human habitation and are incapable of being made fit. In my post bag, now that so many Servicemen are coming back, I have had in recent weeks the most distressing letters from Servicemen who find it impossible to get anything like comfortable accommodation for themselves and their families.
  A short time ago my county borough council, applying their minds to this urgent problem, made an application for a compulsory purchase order to acquire land just outside the borough, in the area of an adjacent urban district. That compulsory purchase order has been granted, and has for some time been awaiting the formal sanction of the Minister of Health. I do not know what is delaying it at the moment, because I believe all the procedure has been completed. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough, when he returns to his office, to inquire what is holding it up, as the local authority are anxious to get on with the scheme.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): How does the hon. Gentleman know it is being held up?
  Sir A. Gridley: From information which I have with me, in respect of the Brinnington site—in the Brinnington urban district—a compulsory purchase order was made last month, but it is subject to confirmation by the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Bevan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, give his enthusiastic support to the other procedure, which would mean they would not need a compulsory purchase order.
  Sir A. Gridley: I do not know that that matter is before the House at the moment.
  Mr. Bevan: Neither is this.
  Sir A. Gridley: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that matter his favourable consideration. We have had from the hon. Member for East Bradford a suggestion that the Boundary Commissioners need not do their job first. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. In the case of my constituency, the Boundary Commissioners will, no doubt, have to decide on the readjustment of boundaries here and there. From the commonsense point of view, I think that as Boundary Commissioners are appointed

  1953
  —and I understand they are to proceed with their work with all reasonable expedition—their work should precede that of the county councils, so that my county borough may take control of land which otherwise might come under the control of a county council within the next year. I do not think it is right that we in this House should pass a Bill which will put two or three county councils in a position entirely different from the position of other county councils. Why should these areas be treated differently from others?
  I have heard no argument from the hon. Member for East Bradford or from the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) in justification of the granting of these powers. When you, Mr. Speaker, asked the hon. Member for East Bradford to which Clause he was addressing his remarks, and when he replied "Clause 8," I did not know whether he referred to the Clause 8 in the Bill or the Clause 8 which it is proposed to substitute. Until we see the proposed Clause it is difficult to discuss it; in fact, it is impossible. With Clause 8 as it now stands in the Bill, if the county council were of the opinion that the sewerage system, or some other public service in a borough, was not adequate, and they suggested to the smaller local authority or borough council that they should improve the service, the other councils which have already provided adequate services of that kind in their boroughs, will be called upon to contribute to the cost. [An Hon. Member: "They are now."] Only to a very limited extent. This Bill will widen the powers considerably.
  For the reasons I have given, do not think this House should agree to this Bill receiving a Second Reading. So far, we do not really know what powers will be sought. This is not a party matter, and I believe the great majority of Members in this House are strongly opposed to it. I therefore urge the rejection of this Bill
  7.10 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage. I should have thought the discussion had already gone very much further than the necessities of the case warrant. We are unused to having Private Bill legislation
  1954
  in the House of Commons; we are all a bit rusty about what happens in regard to it. However, it is by no means unusual. In fact, it was the practice that when Private Bills were promoted by local authorities, in order to try to save expense, and in order to try to reach a compromise, a considerable amount of negotiation took place, and all kinds of arrangements were made, which, as a matter of fact, were made known to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the form of proceeding that has been followed in regard to this Bill. What is wrong is that such long speeches had been made, with such small compromise. I propose to detain the House for a very few moments.
  The issue before the House has been grossly exaggerated. Most of the Bill, as indicated, will be withdrawn and only Clause 8 will remain. Clause 8 is one of the subordinate Clauses of the Bill. The other Clauses of the Bill gave rise to very considerable controversy between county councils and county boroughs. That controversy forms the background of the existing Debate. It no longer forms the foreground, because it has fallen down. Those issues are not now before the House, because the promoters of the Bill have indicated that they do not wish to persist in it. I am telling the hon. Member now, and I am quite certain that his perceptions are so quick that the belatedness of the information will not interfere with his reception of it. The position is this. As has already been explained, at the moment county councils have a power, and, indeed, an obligation in regard to rural housing rates. Under the Bill now before the House, they will be called upon to make a contribution of 30 per house per year. The county councils already make contributions as to water and sewage, because it has been found necessary for good planning that they should do so. In many cases they also had to make a contribution in kind for infectious diseases' hospitals. Therefore, there are instances where the county rate already deals with services to which the country districts already make a contribution, so there is no real confusion here at all.
  With the county council drawing its revenue from a wider area, and a wider planning area, it can make the appropriate contribution to needs of a particular

  1955
  part of the county although that particular part may already have made a contribution in its own right. There is no difficulty about it at all. I do not regard this as of fundamental importance. Nevertheless, if such powers are to be conferred upon these county councils, and if it is good to confer them, then it is good to confer them upon all county councils. This matter may as well be tidied up. Therefore, I propose to move an appropriate Amendment to the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in Committee, enabling county councils to apply the principle universally in schemes approved by the Ministry of Health. In those circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Bill.
  Mr. McLeavy: I thank the Minister for the statement he has made. With the permission of the House, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn

  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (RELEASE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL
  Consideration of Lords Amendment.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  EDUCATION BILL
  Order for Consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee) read.
  7.17 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): I beg to move,
  1956
  " That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 1, page 1, line 23, Clause 10, page 6, line 1, and Clause 14, page 7, line 22, the new Clause (Compensation for certain officers of county councils), and the Amendments in Schedule 2, page 14, line 28, and Schedule 2, page 14, line 31, standing on the Notice Paper in my name."
  In the Committee stage I gave various undertakings to hon. Members on both sides that I would consider their Amendments. I have now done so, and certain of these Amendments are being put forward by me officially. These changes will add, in some cases technically, and in other cases actually, to the charges arising under the Bill. Therefore, it is necessary to recommit.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  EDUCATION BILL

    CLAUSE 1. —(Enlargement of controlled schools.)
    Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    " (2) In this Section the expression ' enlargement,' in relation to the premises of a school, includes any addition to those premises, and the expression ' enlarge ' shall be construed accordingly."
    This Amendment is mainly drafting. It is intended to bring Clause t into line with the alteration to Section 114 of the main Act on page 15, line 19. The alteration to Section 114 is due to the general desire to clarify certain points of doubt in the main Act. One point of doubt was whether "enlargement" was quite the right word to describe an addition of some separate site or building of a school. Clause of the Bill was intended to cover both ' enlargement "and" addition ". As things are, the difference between "enlargement" and "addition" is that an addition may be a quite separate building on the other side of the road. This Amendment is intended to put that matter right for clarification.
    Amendment agreed to
    Clause,' as amended, ordered to stand' part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10. — (Travelling Expenses.)
    Miss Wilkinson:I beg to move, in page6, line 1, to leave out "constituted for," and to insert: "having functions in relation to."

    1957
    This and the following Amendments are drafting Amendments. The point is that there is some dubiety about the meaning of the word "constituted" in relation to the executive of an exempted district. The word suggests an executive which is constituted anew. The purpose of using the words "having functions" is to cover the divisional executives where the council is realty the executive
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 14. — (Interpretation, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 7, line 22, leave out "constituted ", and insert" having functions." — [Miss Wilkinson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE. — (Compensation for certain officers of county councils.)
    (1)If in consequence of any alteration in the arrangements for discharging the functions of a county council relating to education, being an alteration attributable to the coming into force of the principal Act, any person who was, immediately before the commencement of Part II of that Act, an officer employed by that council suffers, at any time after the commencement of the said Part- II, direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments, he shall, unless provision for his compensation for that loss is made by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, be entitled to receive compensation from the county council under this section.

    (2)For the purposes of any claim for compensation under this section, the provisions of Subsections (2) and (3) of Section one hundred and fifty of the local Government Act,1933, shall have effect as if—

    (a)any such alteration as aforesaid had been effected by virtue of an order made by the Minister of Health under Part VI of the said Act of 1933 and coming into operation upon the date of the commencement of Part II of the principal Act; and

    (b)the expression "existing officer" in these Subsections, meant any person who, immediately before the said date, was an officer employed by the council of a county in connection with any functions exercisable by that council under any enactment repealed by the principal Act.

    (3)For the purposes of the determination and payment of compensation under this Section, the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933, shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

    (a) references therein to the Minister shall be construed as references to the Minister of Education, and sub-paragraph (1) of para-
    1958
    graph thereof shall have effect as if after the word "prescribed "there were inserted the words" by the Minister of Education ";

    (b)references therein to a scheme or order shall be construed as references to the principal Act; and

    (c)any period during which a person has been engaged in war service within the meaning of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, shall be reckoned for the purposes of the said Schedule as a period of service in his office, and where any such period is so reckoned, his emoluments during that period shall, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4of the said Schedule, be deemed to be such as he would have received if he had not been engaged in war service.

    (4) Without prejudice to the general effect of the requirement that this Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act, this Section shall be deemed to form part of the principal Act—

    (a)for the purposes of paragraph (6) of the last preceding Subsection; and

    (b)for the purpose of construing any reference to "the special Act" in the Compensation of Displaced Officers (War Service) Act,1945.— [Miss Wilkinson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be. read a Second time."
    This new Clause meets the case raised by the hon. Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden). The existing provisions of Section 98 of the principal Act are confined, to two types of compensation. First arc the cases where compensation is required because of direct pecuniary loss suffered by an officer in consequence of the sweeping away of the Part III Authority's powers by which he may be employed; second are the cases where teachers are to be compensated under Subsection (2) by reason of an alteration in the nature of their school or otherwise. The principal Act, we found, did not provide for compensation for county officers who suffered loss through the setting up of Divisional Executives and the delegation of powers to them. The new Clause meets the case of those officers, and in view of that explanation I hope the Committee will agree to the Clause.
    Mr. Basil Nield: The general purpose of the Clause, which is to provide compensation for officers who suffer loss as a result of our new arrangements, will, I think, appeal to all hon. Members. If we so legislate that a loss is caused, we must further provide for compensation, but there are two or three

    1959
    rather technical legal points which I think ought to be raised before the matter is finally left. The right hon. Lady has told the Committee what is intended in regard to the word "officer," but I would point out that there is no definition of that word in the new Clause, in the Bill, or in the principal Act, and I am wondering whether it applies to teachers. The Committee will notice that the caption to this Clause reads: '' Compensation for certain officers of county councils," but as I have pointed out, there is no definition of what is meant by "officer." The only assistance I can find in trying to define the word is in Section 150 of the Local Government Act, of 1933, where it is stated:
    " The expression" office ' means any place, situation, or employment and includes the office of superintendent-registrar … and the office of teacher in a public elementary school maintained but not provided by a local education authority, and the expression ' officer has a corresponding meaning."
    That is the only assistance I can find, and it includes the teacher at the sort of school mentioned. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will say whether it is intended that teachers should be brought within this compensation scheme or not, and if so, I think it will be necessary to define the word "officer "in the new Clause. As we know, there is in the Compensation of Displaced Officers (War Service) Act of 1945 a special scheme for the compensation of teachers specifically named— teachers who have abandoned their profession for war service and who are later prevented from returning to it by the operation of the new educational arrangements. This new plan does not deal with war service, but with pecuniary loss as a result of the new scheme, and there may be some difficulty in the assessment of compensation for those officers—who, I hope, will be defined—for these reasons. The new Clause suggests that those who are to be compensated are those who suffer direct pecuniary loss, but there is a qualification that they are not to be compensated twice. In other words, if a compensation scheme is provided by some' other enactment, no compensation is payable under this scheme.
    There are some difficulties which present themselves to my mind in this matter. Several problems may arise; for example, if an officer has taken the precaution of insuring against loss of employment, presumably that would not bar him from
    1960
    compensation, because he would have paid his premiums, but there may be some instances of a contract providing for compensation in the event of loss of employment. If I am wrong the right hon. Lady will correct me, for she knows so much more about these matters from the point of view of teachers' and officers' contracts, but I am wondering whether it would not be safer to insert in the new Clause a provision that compensation shall be paid "unless provision is made by contract or under any other enactment," in order to make the position amply clear. I speak solely for myself, of course, but I welcome, in particular, that part of this new Clause which indicates that where an officer is to have compensation and the question of his length of service is to be taken into account, then such war service as he has given shall be counted in as part of his service. I am sure hon. Members will think that is an eminently fair and proper provision to make. I hope I have made the points clearly that I desired to make, and if the right hon. Lady or the Parliamentary Secretary can find it possible to direct attention to the two specific points I have raised, perhaps the Committee will find that useful.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Burden: When this Bill was upstairs the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) generously called the attention of the right hon. Lady to the two Amendments which were on the Order Paper in my name but which, unfortunately, could not be moved. I want to express my appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman for the generous help he gave on that occasion. I should also like to express my appreciation to the right hon. Lady for putting down this new Clause. I take it that it meets the specific cases, the Lancashire cases, which were raised and have given rise to the need for these Amendments. My pleasure and thanks are tempered only by a measure of regret that the second Amendment, which is in some way related, has, unfortunately, not received the support of the right hon. Lady. I have put down an Amendment on the Order Paper, but I believe there will be a difficulty about it. The point was brought out in the discussion on the displaced officers' war service, but it does leave some very real difficulties for the people concerned. I rise only to express

    1961
    Our appreciation to the right hon. Lady for putting down this new Clause and to ask her to give the same sympathetic consideration to the other Amendment on the Order Paper.
    Mr.Rhys Davies: I was intrigued by the reference which the hon. Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) made about Lancashire. As a Lancashire man myself I may, perhaps, say a word. I am interested in this new Clause because the Minister of Education might, in her reply, give the Committee some guidance which would help us on other Bills dealing with compensation for displaced employees. What she does in this Clause may provide a guide for us in much more important Bills which concern this form of compensation. The first point I should like to put to her is this. Will compensation be based on monthly payments or will it be by way of a lump sum? There are, of course, many forms of compensation for displaced officials. I will give the Committee one, which I hope will not be followed in any case. I know several small local authorities which amalgamated. Parliament in its wisdom made a provision that some of the officials displaced by the amalgamation must receive a pension so long as they. were out of employment, provided that the pension would end when they secured similar employment elsewhere. They never tried to secure employment; they went into business on their own account instead. I am all in favour of compensation for displaced officials, and I trust it will be on a generous scale. I repeat that I should like this point to be answered—whether there is to be a lump sum or whether the compensation is to be paid by way of monthly payments?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I also should like to thank the right hon. Lady for moving this new Clause, which meets the point of the hon. Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden). The hon. Member has always rendered great service to the cause of education, particularly in this respect. I am sure we are all very much obliged for the Clause being moved. I have no further observations to make, except to say that I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he replies, will pay some attention to the point raised by the hon.
    1962
    and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield). I hope, too, that the point raised by the hon. Member for the Park division of Sheffield will be met in some mysterious way, that is to say the one which has not so far been met in any way.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): The first principle from which we start is that where loss has been caused there must be compensation. That is only fair. But I am advised that in the Local Government Act, 1933, the term "officer" includes servants and is, therefore, an all embracing term. Teachers are already provided for as local government servants. All the points that have been raised, I am advised, are covered by the Local Government Act, 1933. Some days ago, on looking through the Debate that took place on the main Act of 1944, I noticed that in Committee and in the House these points had been dealt with at very great length, and that they had been thoroughly investigated. From those Debates it seemed apparent, as I am now advised, that the Local Government Act did cover the cases that have been raised.
    In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) the second Amendment to which he so obliquely referred, has been ruled out of Order by the Chair. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) whether payment of compensation shall be made by lump sum and how it is to be based, it depends upon the interpretation put upon the cases in the Local Government Act. I do not think that in reply I can do anything further than say that it is perfectly true that the instances that have arisen in Lancashire are mainly the basis for this proposed Amendment. We feel that all the points raised by Members on both sides of the Committee are covered by the Local Government Act, and the definition of an officer in the Local Government Act means a servant in any capacity.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Miscellaneous Amendments of Principal Act.)
  Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, column 2, after "hereof" to insert:

  I963
  " for the words 'for the purposes of establishing or carrying on the school ' there shall be substituted the words ' in connection with the provision of premises or equipment for the purposes of the school,' and."
  This Amendment is a clarification that is considered necessary to Section 15 (3) (a),the purpose of which is to split the expenses of maintaining schools between the managers and governors on the one hand, and local authorities on the other. Section 114 (2) of the main Act throws the bulk of the maintenance of a voluntary school on to the local authority, except in the case of aided or special agreement schools those expenses which are thrown on to the managers. It has been thought that the words "establishing or carrying on the school "might conceivably be held in certain cases to include the payment of teachers' salaries. That never has been the case, and it is not intended that it should be so. I want to make it clear that in future new equipment required for a voluntary school will be a matter for the local education authority In the past, in the case of the grammar school, it was always a matter for the governors, subject to any assistance from the authority. This is a simple Amendment, but I wanted to clarify the issue.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 31, column 2, leave out "and," and insert "In subsection (3)."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

  NEW CLAUSE. — (Power of local education authorities to execute work for the purposes- of controlled schools.)
  Where a local education authority are liable to pay the expense of carrying out any building work, repair work or work of a similar character which is required for the purposes of a controlled school, that work shall, if the local authority so determine, be carried out by persons employed by the authority; and it shall be the duty of the managers or governors of the school and of any trustees thereof to provide the authority and any such persons with all such facilities as they may reasonably require for the purpose of securing that any such work is properly executed. — [Mr. Hardman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Hardman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  1964
  This new Clause meets the point which has been made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) relating to the enlargement of controlled schools. It enables the local education authority to carry out repairs and other similar works to controlled schools. The justification for the Clause is that the authorities are solely responsible for paying for such work, and, therefore, it is, very sensibly, suggested that they should be in a position to see that the work is done as economically as possible. It may be argued that the Clause should extend also to aided and special agreement schools. This has been considered, but we are unable to agree to it. The general principle is that where authorities are responsible for payment, they are naturally entitled to see that the work is carried out economically.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to welcome this Clause, in that it makes the position more clear and more efficient. Many of the controlled schools will need considerable improvement and alteration, but as I have spoken on this point on several occasions recently, I do not think it is necessary to speak at any length. A great number of these schools are in a bad way, and it will be necessary to bring them up to an efficient standard, if they are to play their part in the development plan. All who admire the work which has been done in the past by church schools, realise that their premises need bringing up to standard, and the most efficient way of doing this is to give powers to the authorities. It will be necessary for the trustees, managers or governors to give every facility to such persons who undertake the work of alteration. This provision will be considered satisfactory by those who live in the villages, where many of the controlled schools are situated, and they will feel that the instrument for bringing about improvement will be efficient. Therefore, I consider this Clause to be most useful.
  7.45p.m.
  Mr. Nield: As I understand it, this Clause empowers local education authorities to execute the work, and it imposes on such persons as managers, or governors, the duty of giving facilities to carry out the work. The question which occurs to me is, what will be the penalty if the managers do not give these

  1965
  facilities? I raise this point for a particular reason. I have always urged that there should be a duty imposed on the managers of what used to be called non-provided schools, adequately to insure against third party risk and accident. The right hon. Lady will remember the Liverpool case. One of the difficulties there was the question of finding penalties In this case we have the duty imposed on managers to give facilities for work to be done, and, as far as I can see, there are no sanctions or penalties. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the grants are withheld in such cases.
  Miss Wilkinson: If it really came to a question of sanctions, and the managers were being completely stupid, the sanction would be mandamus. In regard to the point raised in connection with compensation, perhaps the hon. and learned Member will wait until we deal with a later Clause.
  Sir William Darling: It is stated in the Clause that the work shall
  " be carried out by persons employed by the authority."
  Will the Minister tell us whether this includes direct and indirect labour? Certain authorities have their own staff, and in other cases the staff are employed by contract. It seems to me that the repairs cannot be carried out, except by persons employed by the authority.
  Miss Wilkinson: The people are employed by the contractor, and the con tractor is employed by the local authority.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Powers of local education authorities to provide temporary assistance for voluntary schools.)
  Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 45, after "school," to insert:
  " for pupils who are attending the school or whose parents desire them to attend the school"
  This Amendment covers the point raised by another Amendment which was moved during the Committee stage. It merely reproduces words in Section 109
  1966
  of the main Act. The justification for the inclusion of these words is that Section 109 is intended to deal, among other things, with blitzed schools where pupils have been dispersed and can now be re assembled if temporary accommodation is provided. Section 114 (7) of the main Act treats such temporarily suspended schools as if they were in existence but, until the pupils are reassembled, it is difficult to maintain that there are pupils who are actually in attendance. This is one of those matters where people are being rather finicky, but, as they feel anxious about this point, I always believe in doing the best I can.
  Mr. Logan: I am anxious about this Amendment because it will carry an obligation in my neighbourhood, particularly in respect of many deficiencies arising out of the blitz. I cannot understand how the local authorities will be able to do their duty to parents in the congested areas. I am re to the actual facts of the situation. There are six schools in my area and they were all blitzed. The children are scattered in other schools. They are in a congested area. The traffic problem is very great. In fact, one child lost her life when crossing the road. The parents are therefore very perturbed, and so am I. I am sick and tired of trying to get the-authority to make some alteration, but when parents are not able to get their children properly educated and there is danger to life and limb, it is essential that somebody should move in the matter. The Minister ought to have greater authority. I know that the authorities in Liverpool—I take it that that means the school managers as well as the local education authority—should make representations to the Minister, if they are agreed on the matter. On the other hand, if they do not agree and do not move, what action must parents take to move the authorities and induce them to give the attention which is necessary for the children? Liverpool was well blitzed. For five years the children have been tolerating all the evils of the day, in that climate too, and not well wrapped up because they were not able to get the clothing. There should be an end put to this position.
  This is the first speech I have made in this Parliament. It is well worth while. I hope the Minister will pay some atten-

  1967

  tion to this matter. I do not intend to be so easy going in the future as I have been in the last month or two. If possible, the Minister should give us an assurance that will send a hopeful message from the House of Commons to the children of Liverpool. I have taken part in Debates on all the Education Bills for many years. I played a certain part in regard to the 1944 Measure. The ex-Minister of Education, who is sitting on the opposite Front Bench and was the pioneer of that Measure, will be able to say that we really dealt with the subject. An agreement was come to, known as the special provision for the City of Liverpool. I will not go into the merits or demerits of it, but I will say that many differences of opinion ceased to exist. For the first time we were able to come to a unanimous agreement, and that was rather uncommon in Liverpool. We do not want those happy relations to be broken up. There fore, I ask the Minister whether the new arrangements under the Bill will affect that agreement. In my opinion they will not, but my opinion does not always count for anything. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give an answer which will allow the people of Liverpool to rest securely in their homes.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: On this purely technical Amendment, the Minister is, I understand, being asked to give a message to the children of Liverpool and to resolve religious problems connected with the settlement in Liverpool. I hope that the hon. Member who made that request will get a suitable reply. My personal view coincides with his; he has nothing to fear from the Bill in regard to that settlement. Perhaps I might also ask the Minister to include in her reply on this purely technical Amendment a message to the children of Saffron Walden. Although they wrap up well and are particularly hardy, they have a very varied educational provision provided for them by a singularly enlightened authority. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not disappoint me.
  Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend has been asked to give a word of inspiration to the children of Liverpool and of Saffron Walden. I am happy to be able to do so, and to extend it to the whole of the country. It is the purpose of the Bill to give that inspiration. In reply to the first and rather rhetorical question of the hon.
  1968
  Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), about what action parents should take to get the local education authority to move, per haps a recent experience of mine has shown that parents can take very direct action indeed. I am glad that they have such an interest in the education of their children.
  Mr. Logan: Is the Minister suggesting that the parents of Liverpool should take such action?
  Mr. Hardman: I do not suggest that they should take any action merely in imitation of action that has been taken in the past, but I repeat that parents are very well aware what action they can adopt to induce local education authorities to take notice. In regard to temporary accommodation for blitzed areas, it is in the power of the Ministry to see that local authorities do their duty. I think the final point to which the hon. Member referred can have a categorical answer. It is that no alteration has been made in the agreement between the Ministry and the Churches. That agreement stands. I hope that that message will go out not only to all the children but to all the parents.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out from "Minister," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
  " there has been a sufficient opportunity for permanent accommodation to be provided for such pupils in accordance with the development plan for the area."
  The Amendment is intended to meet a large number of doubts and fears that have been expressed about the duration of the temporary accommodation and whether there is any guarantee that permanent buildings will really take their place. The Amendment is to make the position quite clear. As a Ministry, we attach great importance to the fact that, under Section 109 of the Act, temporary accommodation shall last only until such time as permanent accommodation can be provided. I am anxious that there should be no loophole for anybody to maintain that once temporary accommodation is provided it will go on indefinitely.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: This Amendment does reassure one, although we shall have to

  1965
  use this temporary accommodation for some years. The right hon. Lady, I think, did a service when she last spoke on this subject by describing some of the temporary buildings to be provided as very satisfactory for an interim period, as they will have to be used to make the raising of the school leaving age a reality, and by drawing attention to the fact that these are not merely huts and that it will be possible to use some of the temporary accommodation for some years ahead in order to case a very difficult situation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  FIRST SCHEDULE (Maintenance 'of Voluntary Schools),
  Amendment made: In page 8, line 6, leave out "in substitution for," and insert instead of."— [Miss Wilkinson.']
  Mr. Stokes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, at the end, to insert:
  " Provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall prevent the managers or governors from making a transfer of the school premises to the authority under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act or serving on the Minister and on the local education authority under Section fourteen of the Principal Act a notice of their intention to discontinue the school."
  Before discussing this Amendment may I shortly express the appreciation of my denomination for the regard given to us in the Committee stage by the Minister? May I also express our appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) who, in the absence of anyone of my denomination, was good enough to move the Amendments which we put down. We appreciate, too, that the Minister accepted most of them. In moving this Amendment, I do so not out of any churlishness but simply because we realise that Ministers come and go, and we cannot always expect to have people as appreciative of our difficulties as both the right hon. Lady and her predecessor have been. If we cannot get her to accept this Amendment, we should like to have it on record that representations were made and that we have received some assurance.
  By this Amendment, we wish to get an assurance from the Minister with regard to what will happen when the governors of either an aided or special agreement school find that they are unable to fulfil their obligations and have, under the Act, themselves to apply to the Minister for
  1970
  an Order to revoke the Order made in respect of the aided or special agreement school. So far as we understand it, the school would then become a controlled school. But a controlled school has not a status, which, as the Minister and the House know, we can accept. Therefore, we are left with the peculiar situation that we have to apply for an Order to revoke an Order, and yet no provision is apparently made as to what is to happen with regard to the expenditure which has been incurred in connection with the capital cost of the school
  Therefore, we wish to suggest to the Minister that she should consider accepting our Amendment, the effect of which, in our opinion, would be that in the event of this unfortunate situation arising, the school would go over to the county council as a county school. In that case, we would suggest that the capital cost incurred by the governors should be reimbursed by the local education authority. I think that is a reasonable suggestion to make. In the event of it being decided by the governors that they would wish to go on as a voluntary school, though not aided, I suppose there would have to be some arrangement whereby compensation was paid to the local authority for any capital cost which they had incurred. To understand that on the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister of Education gave some sort of assurance. She told the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden:
  " I agreed that the Subsection ought not to affect the right of the managers and governors to transfer or close a school, and I do not think there is any danger of that; but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is any such danger, I will gladly look into this matter between now and the Report stage." — [OFFICAL Report, Standing Committee B, 21st February. 1946; c. 35.]
  If the Minister cannot accept our Amendment, I hope that she will give some categorical assurance when replying to this Amendment.
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.
  As the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has said, consideration of this Bill has been very happily free from any animosity, and I do not wish to introduce it now. This Amendment is designed to clear up any possible ambiguity that there may be in the meaning of the word "transfer." There is no intention of the present Minister transforming an aided or

  1971
  special agreement school into a controlled school, but at the same time there seems to be a certain amount of legal opinion that that may be possible under this Bill. Therefore, all that we are asking is that this Amendment should be inserted to guard against this possibility.
  Mr. Hardman: This is a case of keeping the pot on the boil, and maintaining interest in a subject on which, I think, we can give every assurance. It is true that Ministers come and go, but as the position is, I think that an assurance ought to satisfy the two hon. Members who haw proposed and seconded this Amendment. I am suggesting that this Amendment should be rejected as it was rejected in Committee. During the Committee stage discussions, the right hon. Lady pointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary. We have had further discussions on the whole matter with members of the denomination of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), and we are still of the opinion that the Amendment is unnecessary.
  I will give a categorical assurance in detailed terms. The reasons why we consider it is unnecessary are as follow. First, the power of the managers or governors of an aided or special agreement school to give notice of their intention to close their school under Section 14 (1) of the main Act, and their power to transfer their school under the Second Schedule of the main Act are not qualified in any way. The second reason is that the pro visions of Section 15 of the main Act as to the conversion of aided or special agreement schools into a controlled school under Subsection (4) only apply if it is intended that the school shall continue to be carried on as a voluntary school of one sort or another. I feel that this is a rather detailed point and that, therefore, a detailed reason ought to be given why we consider the Amendment is unnecessary. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment be rejected.
  Mr. Stokes: In view of the assurance which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Hardman: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out from the first "to," to the second "to," and to insert: "the trustees of the school."
  1972
  This Amendment and the following Amendment have been put down to meet a reasonable request. We have to make it clear that if there are already trustees of a school any additional site should be conveyed to those trustees. If there is a body having control of a site any addition to that site ought to be vested in the same control. It would be a curious anomaly if there were two bodies controlling two parts of the same site. We suggest in this simple Amendment words to meet a reasonable request to make it clear that any additional site will be conveyed to the trustees. If there is any question of dispute or doubt then the Minister is given power to determine the dispute or doubt.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made:
  In page 9, line 28, at the end, insert:
  " If any doubt or dispute arises as to the persons to whom a local education authority are required to make a conveyance under this paragraph, the conveyance shall be made to such persons as the Minister thinks proper." — [Mr. Hardman.]

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Miscellaneous Amendments of Principal Act.)
  Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 18, column 2, after "Act," to insert:
  "or in accordance with section eleven of the Education Act, 1946."
  This Amendment makes it clear that any committee or sub-committee of a Divisional Executive are included in the. powers given to the Minister by Section 68 of the main Act. The intention was that all bodies having powers delegated by the local education authorities should be included, but the words "the First Schedule to this Act "in lines 17 and 18 of page 10 of the Bill were thought to make it doubtful whether, in fact, these committees and sub-committees,. who are authorised under Clause 11 of the Bill, are included. This Amendment is just to make that perfectly clear that they are included.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, column 2, to leave out from the beginning to "any," in line 3, and to insert:
  " where the Minister is satisfied that the local education authority will require, for any purpose connected with education."

  1973
  The new proviso to section 14 (1) of the main Act, as set out on pages 13 and 14 of the Bill, provides amongst other things for two Amendments to the existing law. It empowers the Minister to provide that the school premises shall be conveyed to the local authority instead of requiring a money payment by the trustees. Secondly, it provides for a payment by the trustees, where the premises are not conveyed, of a value payment. For example, if a site were bought for 5,000 and increased by the time the transfer was effected to 10,000, it clearly would not be fair for the managers to sell that site for the 10,000 and just pay over 5,000. That is a simple illustration. The suggestion that the Statute ought to be able to provide for the conveyance of the premises instead of a money payment came originally from the Ministry, and it was never contemplated that the conveyance should be the means of an authority selling the premises in order to recoup themselves for expenses that they had incurred. In view of the fact that the new Proviso now provides for a value payment, we consider that the power to compel the conveyance of the premises should be confined to cases where the authority need them for educational purposes The authority should not be able to have these premises conveyed and then use them for some entirely different purpose. We want to protect the trustees from that point of view
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I want to say a word on this. I am glad to see that the right hon. Lady has attended to it, because, as I said on a previous occasion when this point was under discussion, it is a little unfortunate that the first persons who were tackled on this subject of land values were the governors of schools who would be more likely to make use of the increased value of the land than anyone else. I merely take note of this in order to say that I hope the Government will deal in a much more comprehensive way with the whole question of the increase of land values.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 10, at the end, insert:
  " in regard to the conveyance of those premises to the authority." — [Miss Wilkinson.]
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported;
  '' That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, with respect to the qualifications of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, to extend temporarily the powers of the Indian Legislature to make laws, to amend subsection (4) of section one hundred and two of the said Act as to the effect of laws passed by virtue o(a Proclamation of Emergency, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the revenues of India of such sums as may "become payable there from by reason of any of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session."
  Resolution agreed to.

  INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Supplementary provisions.)
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move, in page 4 line 41, to leave out Subsection (3).
    This is purely a formal Amendment to leave out what is known as the Privilege Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  FOREIGN SERVICE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr Mathers.]
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Warbey: After some weeks of vain effort on my part, the hand of fate has guided your eye at last, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and has given me the opportunity of raising a matter of which I gave notice several weeks ago. On that occasion, when I criticised certain appointments in our political representation abroad, and drew attention to the present character of our Foreign Service, I was subjected to a good deal of misrepresentation. It was suggested, for example, that I desired to pack the Foreign Service with members of the Labour Party. There were even accusations, in which, I regret to say, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—who is not here yet, but, who I believe, will arrive fairly soon— seemed to join. They were accusations that I desired to introduce into this country the disreputable system of Tammany Hall politics, or what "The Observer," with that pretty, perky wit which distinguishes all the columns pre sided over by the editor of that paper, described as "the spoils for the boys system." I want to say, most emphatic ally, that I did not propose anything of the kind, nor have I ever done so.
  I repudiate most emphatically the suggestion that we, or any party in the country, should propose to reward our friends for their services by giving them what are sometimes called "the plums of office." I wish to make it clear that my point is purely one of a political character. If Members will consult the official record, as they occasionally do, they will find that there is only one occasion on which I suggested that an official appointment should go to a member of the Labour Party. That particular case was that of the permanent British representative on the Security Council of the United Nation's organisation. I made that suggestion for a special reason: the Security Council of U.N.O. has to deal with questions of a very grave and far-reaching character. The permanent representative on that Council has to take decisions, very often from day to day, involving political judgment of the highest responsibility.
  1976
  He has, moreover, to state in public, not only before the narrow audience of the Council itself, but before the whole world—because the world is listening to the debates of the Council—the British point of view on grave international questions.
  Further, the Security Council is a body which occupies a key position in world affairs. If the General Assembly of U.N.O. may be described as the germ of a world Parliament, as it has been so described by members of this Government, then the Security Council may be described as the germ of a world Cabinet, or Council. This embryo world council will have, in the years to come, increasingly to take into its hands the destiny of the whole world. It is, therefore, vital that a position in this embryo world council should be held, on behalf of the Socialist Government, by a Socialist. I, therefore, recommend to the Foreign Secretary the suggestion I made this afternoon, that we should appoint to this position a Minister of the Crown, of Cabinet rank, resident at the seat of the United Nations organisation.
  But this is only the special case of a wider and more general question of the general character of our Foreign Service, to which I now wish to turn. Let us consider what are the functions of the Foreign Service, and especially of the ambassadors, the embassy staffs and the senior Foreign Office officials. One of their most important functions is the collection and collation of information, the sifting and interpreting of information, the assessing and judging of that information and, on the basis thereof, of making political judgments and even political decisions. This is not a purely technical function. It is not, for example, in the same category as the function exercised by an official who has to "yet" plans for a new trunk road, or execute details of a new housing policy. It is a function which is essentially political in character, involving knowledge and experience of political affairs, knowledge of inter national politics, of political parties and political movements of other countries, and of the political reactions of the various social groups in all parts of the world. That is a function which cannot be exercised by political neuters.
  Earl Winterton: What?
  Mr. Warbey: Political neuters. If I may explain the term for the benefit of the Noble Lord, it means persons who have a neutral attitude towards political questions.
  There is a second important function which applies to our Diplomatic Service abroad rather than to our home Foreign Office, and that is the function of representation. It is the duty of ambassadors and their staffs to state the British point of view, to show the case of Britain to other countries. In fact, in those countries the ambassadors and their staffs are the face of Britain. They are, as it were, a mirror in which the peoples of other countries see reflected the character and outlook of the people and the Government of Britain, and unfortunately I am afraid that in many cases the reflection which they see today is a false one. I have said that the function of our senior Foreign Service officials is essentially, by its very nature, a political one, and therefore, it follows that they must necessarily be influenced, in the political judgments which they are called upon to make in carrying out their duties, by their own political views and predilections.
  I am aware that there has been a political tradition in our Civil Service, and even in our Foreign Service, that these officials are able to shed their own political views when they are carrying out their official tasks. That tradition, I suggest, is one which was true, or, rather, apparently true, during the long period of our history when there was no fundamental difference in the social and political outlooks of the political leaders of this country and those of their officials. It was true during that long period when the leading political parties of this country were the Liberal Party and Conservative Party following one another in and out of office without any fundamental change, and without seeking to make any fundamental change, in the basis of our society. During the whole of that long period, our Foreign Service officials were drawn from those same narrow social groups as were drawn the political rulers of this country. They were drawn mainly from the more exclusive professions, from landowning families, and from the higher branches of commerce and industry. During that period there was necessarily no serious, clash of view between the political Government and the Foreign Service officials. They came from the same social classes;
  1978
  they shared the same fundamental social and political outlook.
  Today there is a change. A fundamental change took place in July of last year. The election of the Labour Government of this country by an over whelming majority was no mere chance swing of the pendulum. On the contrary, it was a fundamental political revolution, the first real political revolution in the history of this country since 1832; and that political revolution marked the climax of the long struggle of the common people of this country to enter into the centre of the arena of political affairs, and to play their rightful part in the Government and the conduct of the public affairs of this country. That climax has been reached, and now it has been reached we may regard July, 1945, as a watershed in the political development of this country.
  But while we have had a change in our political Government corresponding to the change in the character and temper of this country, we have had no corresponding change in the character and outlook of our Foreign Service officials. fore, today, there is this situation, that we have a Government which has a certain outlook upon society, a Socialist out look, and represents the broad masses of the common people; and we have officials who are charged with the execution of their policy and with the making of political judgments and decisions whose outlook is necessarily that of the small social group who were politically defeated in July, 1945. This is, moreover emphasised by the fact that the Foreign Service is a very exclusive school. Its members still, today, are drawn from the most exclusive schools. I have taken the trouble to look up the schools and universities which were attended by our principal ambassadors and our senior Foreign Office officials. I have a list of them. I will not read out the names of the gentlemen concerned, but I will roughly indicate the character of the social background of these people. It runs something like this: Eton and Christchurch, Eton and New College, Rugby and Magdalene —
  Mr. Eden: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Warbey: The old school tie rising. It goes on: Winchester and Balliol,

  1979
  Rugby and Christchurch, Eton and King's College, Cambridge —
  Mr. Eden: Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Warbey: I am indicating the general character of the whole lot of them, and not of a few exceptions. I could go on with this list right through the Permanent Under-Secretaries, the Assistant Under-Secretaries, the Private Secretaries to the Foreign Secretary, and so on, and the same general character appears all through, still, today, six or seven months after we have had this political revolution in this country. I mention this, not because I want to discuss the merits or demerits of the education and training provided at these more exclusive public schools, but in order to show that the people who are making responsible political judgments and decisions are drawn from those narrow social groups which are able to send their sons to the more exclusive public schools in this country. This has certain serious consequences. One has the Foreign Service itself becoming a kind of exclusive public school which is able to mould the new entrants who come into it, not by prodding, but by a kind of slow and patient kindness which envelops them until it moulds them into the traditional pattern. I regret to say there is the danger that the political chiefs of the Foreign Service may them selves in time become moulded in the same way.
  Earl Winterton: Now we know what is up.
  Mr. Warbey: What is the result of all this? The result "is that the Foreign Secretary is not able in very many cases to carry out an effective Socialist policy. He is not able first of all because in formation on which he bases his decisions' is collected, sifted, and interpreted by people whose social and political outlook is such that they cannot, except in the most rare exceptions, be in sympathy with that of a Socialist Government. Secondly, his decisions are put into effect, executed and interpreted, especially in our foreign political representations, by people who again cannot lend sympathy in the main to the outlook of the Government. This has its effect also upon the function of our foreign representation because, as I said earlier, the people of countries abroad looking into the mirror
  1980
  which our embassies present to them, see reflected not the face of contemporary Britain, but that of nineteenth century defeated Britain.
  Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Warbey: The face of the Noble Lord.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman may bring any charge he likes against me. He can say that I am a scoundrel, but he cannot accuse me of being a defeatist, either in the last war or the previous one.
  Mr. Warbey: I think the Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. I did not accuse him of being a defeatist. I accused him of belonging to a social and political group which has been politically defeated in this country, and decisively defeated. Coming back to my point— [Interruption]—if the Noble Lord will allow me for one moment with that courtesy we expect from the other side of the House—I am not asking for a clean sweep. I should like one if it were possible, but we have to deal with what is practicable. It will be said that the Foreign Service is being reformed, but the Under-Secretary himself admitted in reply to questions a few weeks ago that the reforms introduced in 1943 cannot have their full effect for some years to come. During the next five to ten years we shall be passing through what will be in international affairs probably the most critical and decisive period in the history not only of this country but of the world. It is vital, therefore, that during that critical period, before these reforms can come into effect, we should have the right kind of representation abroad and the right kind of guidance in the execution of policy in our foreign service as a whole. For this reason I ask the Under-Secretary to suggest to my right hon. Friend his right hon. Friend —
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is he not the hon. Gentleman's?
  Mr. Warbey: —that he should under take emergency action and appoint to our embassies—especially in countries where the common people have over thrown the previous ruling classes as they have here—and also to some senior position in the Foreign Service, men—I do not say Socialists and I have never suggested

  1981
  that they should be Socialists—who are at least not anti-Socialist. They should be men who have a moderate outlook and experience and who are capable at least of understanding what is happening in the world today and of appreciating the movement of the common people in this and other countries, and of interpreting sympathetically the views of this present Government.
  Before I conclude I should like to quote what was said on the subject of a reform of the Foreign Service by Thomas Carlyle in a "Latter-Day Pamphlet" which he wrote in 1850. He said:
  " Everyone may remark what a hope animates the eyes of any circle, when it is re ported, or even confidentially asserted, that the Foreign Secretary has in his mind privately resolved to go, one day, into that stable of King Augeas which appals human hearts, so rich is it, high-piled with the drop-,pings of two hundred years; and Hercules-like, to load a thousand night wagons with it, and turn running water into it, and swash and shovel at it, and never leave it till the antique pavement and real basis of the matter show itself clean again. To clean out the dead pedantries, universities, indolent somnolent impotencies, and accumulated dung-mountains there, is the beginning of all practical good whatsoever. … Political reform, if this be not reformed, is naught and a mere mockery. … Nay, there are men now current in political society, men of weight, though also of wit, who have been heard to say that there was but one reform for the Foreign Office—to set a live coal under it."
  Thomas Carlyle, when his prophet's soul was stirred to its depth, was capable of expressing himself with a picturesque violence of language which not even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) could excel. In humbler and more prosaic terms, I merely ask the Foreign Secretary to infuse into the Foreign Service some new blood. I would not say red blood, but at least fresh and virile blood in keeping with the modern spirit .
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. John Freeman: I do not desire to detain the House for many moments, more especially since I intervened on this same subject a few weeks ago, but I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary one or two questions. First of all I think that my hon. Friends on this side of the House would agree that we should congratulate our hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) on having raised this
  1982
  matter. We are simple people and we have simple ways of judging things. We always feel, among other things, that we are doing quite well if we can invoke some reaction from the noble Lord who sits for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is not our only standard of judgment, but if we can induce intervention from that quarter then we feel that at least we are on the right track.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton knows, I am not entirely in agreement with all his arguments on this matter, and I do not ' want to follow him in detail. I asked the Under-Secretary a few weeks ago whether he could give the House assurances that the 1943 reforms which were introduced into the recruitment for the foreign service by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) —reforms, I may say, of an admirable nature in theory— were in fact being effectively carried out, and he assured us on that occasion that they were.
  Now I do not believe that it is a good principle to make appointments in the Foreign Service by virtue of political colour, though I agree with my hon. Friend that the peculiar circumstances of our representative on the Security Council, and also the time which must necessarily elapse before any wide reform of entry into the Foreign Service can become effective, gives some grounds for considering that as a short term policy. However. I am certain that what the great majority of hon. Members wish to see is a form of entry into the Foreign Service which will enable young men and women of talent, from all ranks and classes of society, to be able to get in and play their part in this singularly important branch of national life.
  Will the Under Secretary answer a few questions on the subject of the present method of selection of candidates for the Foreign Service? I may be wrong in the information that I have and, if so, I shall be very glad to be corrected. As I under stand it at present, however, there is first of all a written examination. This is only a qualifying examination, and the results of that examination are that a certain number of people are qualified for consideration for entry into the Foreign Service. The next stage, as I am in formed, is that there is a weekend party.

  1983
  The idea of the weekend party is not so bad as may appear at first sight. That method of grading candidates has been used with some success by the War Office during the war for the selection of officers and I believe, if it is handled in the right way, it can be quite a valuable method of ascertaining merit; but, as I am informed, even that is only a qualifying test, and at the end of that period the decisive bar to entry is the passing of a personal interview with a board appointed, as I understand, by the Civil Service Commission.
  Mr. Eden indicated dissent.
  Mr. Freeman: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington dissents. If I am wrong perhaps it can be explained later on where I am wrong, but I am sure I am right in saying this, that at some stage in the procedure, and at a vital stage, candidates appear before a Board. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to tell us, if he will, how that Board is chosen and of whom it consists, because if, as I suspect, it consists of a few senior civil servants and a few ex-members of the Diplomatic Service, then I do not consider, and I do not believe this House will consider, that that is the best way of getting new blood into the Foreign Service.
  Would it be considered suitable, for in stance, that men of the calibre of the late Sir Nevile Henderson and other men of that type, admirable in their own field as no doubt they were, should judge who, out of the British nation, is most suitable to enter the Foreign Service? We all know, or at any rate, most of us who have had any connection with that form of selection know, how very easy it is to damn a man without ever being too specific about it. I have experienced in the Army, and I am certain many of my hon. Friends have, occasions where .1 man is interviewed for some appointment He has passed all the known tests by which he can be judged, and he is finally condemned by the Chairman of some tribunal or board on the grounds that he is unsound, or that his judgment is not very well balanced. Every hon. Member must know the field that there is for smothering enterprise and initiative in that method of selection. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give us some very much clearer assurance than
  1984
  we have had hitherto that a serious attempt is being made to select men on the widest possible basis for the Foreign Service because, whatever short-term methods we may use to tide us over, that is the only long-term method by which the people of this country can make their opinions felt in diplomacy.
  Before I sit down, I want to make one reference to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) who, I am sorry to see, is not here at the moment, but who, I am glad to see, has been turning an honest penny in writing articles for the "Star" newspaper. I rather hope that the Under-Secretary has seen an article which appeared under the name of the hon. Gentleman yesterday.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs(Mr. McNeil) indicated-dissent.
  Mr. Freeman: He has not seen it? I am sorry because, in my view, as far as it went it was a very sensible article. During the course of it the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was essential that the conditions of payment for junior ranks in the Foreign and Diplomatic Service should be considerably overhauled because it was not possible for members of the British Foreign Service to entertain at the level at which they ought to be able to entertain. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman entirely in the latter part of his argument, but what I think is clear is that the emolument which at the present moment is being given to young entrants to the Foreign Service is such as to put a tremendous bar against anybody going into it who has not independent means. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman entirely in his argument about cocktail parties and so on—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Hudson) cannot taunt me on that point— but I do think that the niggardly salaries which are paid are obviously designed for people who have private resources of their own and intend to go into the Foreign Service as part of their general way of life—the public school, the university, the club, and the Foreign Office—which has been so clearly described by my hon. Friend.
  Will the Under-Secretary tell us, if he has the information—because I think it would be a good thing that this should go on record—how many people at present in the Foreign Service, either at home or

  1985
  abroad, have in fact been educated at secondary schools.
  Mr. McNeil: At non-public schools?
  Mr. Freeman: Yes, at State-aided non-public schools. I shall be very surprised if there are more than could be counted on the fingers of one hand. This is a most remarkable state of affairs. In all quarters of the House—even, I think, in the fastnesses of Horsham—it will be agree that whatever may be the merits or the demerits of the public school—and I hope I am not entirely damned in the eyes of my hon. Friends because I hap pen to have been educated at one myself which I think was a good one—no one will suggest that the whole reservoir of talent in this country lies at present in the public schools. Are hon. Gentle men opposite—who, to quote the words of the psalmist, "raged so furiously together" when my hon. Friend the Member for Luton was talking about this point—aware that it is extremely improbable that if the present Foreign Secretary or the present Under-Secretary of State had tried at a tender age to get into the Foreign Service, either of them would have had the faintest chance of doing so? I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington will agree that a state of affairs in which my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would be almost automatically disqualified from those posts is, in the year 1946, a deplorable state of affairs. I see he nods his head.
  Mr. Eden: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman mistook my movement. It was merely to indicate that I was in exactly the same position as they.
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentle man must allow me to say that whether he tried and was perhaps ploughed, or whether he did not try, at least the bars which I am describing did not operate in his case. I hope the Under-Secretary will assure us that these reforms which were introduced, I am sure, in the right spirit, are being implemented. I hope he will not use as an argument against them what I have heard used, that the difficulties about being able to speak another language and so on are insuperable. The House will agree that that is an invalid argument. During the war we
  1986
  trained soldiers for posts in S.O.E. in the most complicated Balkan languages with a few months special study. That sort of argument does not hold water for one moment. I hope the Under-Secretary in his reply will pay attention to the questions I have asked.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I approach this problem from the point of view of former League of Nations officials, who had very close dealings with the Foreign Office in that capacity. We League officials had a great respect for the Foreign Office. They are not inferior to any other branch of the Civil Service, and our Civil Service is not inferior to any in the world; it is better. But, at the same time there was always a certain antagonism between us because the conception of national interest to which the Foreign Office was geared and which it was defending with all its ability and devotion was, from our point of view as League officials, an out-of-date conception.
  The Covenant never ranked as a major national interest in the eyes of the Foreign Office. The whole conception of our position and our needs in the world implied by our League membership was never fully recognised or accepted by the Foreign Office. The point is, that both in organisation and tradition, the Foreign Office is antiquated and needs bringing up to date in order to serve our needs in the world of today. Foreign affairs have suffered the same fate as domestic politics. Domestic politics used to be purely a matter of keeping law and order while private enterprise did the rest. Now the State has intervened nationally in economic affairs. International matters used to be a matter of diplomacy and. politics. They have now entered every field of public life and become just as much economic social and cultural matters as things dealt with by traditional politics and diplomacy. International relations have become a projection of the whole life of the nation in world affairs and, through our connection with the United Nations organisation, almost every government is going to be drawn into international affairs.
  Even today, before the United Nations organisation has got working, the-Treasury and the Board of Trade have as much to do with important international relations as the Foreign Office. The

  1987
  Board of Trade negotiates commercial treaties, and the Treasury was the chief instrument in negotiating our Loan Agreement with the United States. From the point of view of tradition, the conception of national interest to which the Foreign Office is geared is essentially a 19th century conception. The idea that we have got to advocate in the world is our position as a sovereign State and Empire capable of defending its own point of view with its own armaments against any possible rivals. That conception of national interest clashes with the idea of working with the United Nations organisation or establishing some system of world government in which such national armaments as remain are con trolled and regulated and put at the ser vice of international law and in which we surrender a certain amount of sovereignty. We pool it with other countries.
  Throughout those years between the wars it was very striking how strictly the Foreign Office based its policies on traditional ideas and disregarded the concepts and obligations of the new inter national system. It based our policy in Abyssinia on the 1906 Treaty and not on the Covenant between Italy and Abyssinia. What is needed, first of all, is some overall authority, with the Foreign Secretary as chairman, to co-ordinate the work of the different Government Departments which deal with international relations. What is needed, secondly, is that the staff of the Foreign Office should no longer be a close corporation, as distinct as they are today from, other branches of the Civil Service. They should be brought under Treasury control, as are other branches of the Civil Service, and transfers from other branches should be extended to the Foreign Office. . The long-term system of recruitment should be based on an examination, as in the case of other branches of the Civil Service, and the present method of recruitment should be abandoned except as an interim short-term measure to replenish staff after the war.
  Now, as an immediate measure, we should utilise the possibility that exists in the reform of the Foreign Office, to retire on high pensions officials who are not suitable, and bring in a good deal of fresh blood at a high level from amongst temporary civil servants and officers who,
  1988
  during the war, were doing diplomatic or semi-diplomatic jobs, and would be qualified for drafting straight into the Civil Service. Since we are now committed to the United Nations organisation as the overriding interest in our foreign policy, we should ask young Foreign Office officials, as part of their duty, to take a thorough course in the working ' and obligations of the United Nations, including, if possible, some apprenticeship in some Department of the organisation. We have to break with the old tradition of the Foreign Office, and introduce the new modern conception of what is now our interest in world affairs.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Eden: I intervene with reluctance in this Debate, but as one who happened to be Foreign Secretary for seven years, I feel that it is time I said a word or two. As the discussion has developed I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) that this De bate has probably served a useful purpose, if only to dispel some of the extraordinary clouds, of ignorance which still hover round the heads of some hon. Members opposite. As I listened to the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), I could only come to the conclusion that his experience of the Foreign Office, and of embassies abroad, must be extremely limited. As for the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus), who used to represent us on the Secretariat of the League, I was staggered that he should be so ill-informed about this matter. There must have been something wrong with the Secretariat of the League if they did not understand the foreign services with whom they worked better than that. He says that we based our policy in Abyssinia not on the Covenant, but on the 1906 Treaty. Of course we based it on the Covenant. Our whole action was taken on the basis of the Covenant. There was no obligation to take action on the basis of the 1906 Treaty.
  Mr. Zilliacus: The right hon. Gentle man himself, on several occasions, once in 1935, stated that our policy was based on the 1906 Treaty and not on the Covenant, which would appear to contradict what he is now saying.
  Mr. Eden: Not at all, though I would say it is a good thing to observe one's treaties. It was not the treaty which

  1989
  called for action, but the Covenant. If the hon. Member does not know that he did not know his job on the Secretariat very well. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is shifting his ground because he does not like having his argument answered. I intend to say what I have to say whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not.
  Let me pass to the next point which the hon. Member raised about the Foreign Service which he criticises so much. He thought that they should, with the other branches of the Civil Service, be put under Treasury control. I do not know what the Under-Secretary of State thinks about that, but I would like the House to consider the matter carefully before they agree to do that. I do not concede that it would be wise to make the people in the Foreign Office—I do not know whether this is the idea—circulate from Department to Department. It is to a very consider able extent a specialised service. If the hon. Gentleman had been good enough to read my reforms before he made his speech—if he will listen to me for a moment—he would have seen, as the Under-Secretary knows very well, that part of the reform was precisely to enable those who are joining the Foreign Service to spend a certain period of time with other services, so that they may under stand what might be called the domestic problems of the present day, with which diplomats are apt to be unfamiliar. They should, for instance, serve in the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health, and other Government Departments of that kind. Those are all part of the reforms of 1943 which were introduced precisely for that purpose, of which the hon. Gentle man might well have been aware before he made his speech, and which I have no doubt the Under-Secretary will tell us are in fact being carried out.
  The other point he raised was that people should be retired who were unsuitable for promotion to a higher grade. I entirely agree. That is also in the reforms of 1943, if only he troubled him self to read them. In fact, a number of officials have been retired under this arrangement of 1943. That is just a case, if I may give it to the House, where I think it would be unwise to put the Foreign Service in exactly the same position as the rest of the Civil Service. It is conceivable in the Civil Service as
  1990
  a whole that one can find, shall we say, a niche for somebody who cannot be promoted to the higher posts. In the Foreign Service that becomes increasingly difficult. I felt that very much when I was at the Foreign Office and I tried to break down what had been an old-time tradition that there are certain parts of the world where people less good in the diplomatic service were apt to be sent. I thought that a vicious principle, because the truth is today that all parts of the world are important. We have got to be on good relations with, and understand, the people of any part of the world. So, it is not possible in the Foreign Service, if a man is not fit for the higher posts, after a certain time in his life, to find work for him to do. In that case, it is fair to pension him off at the rank which he then holds and to allow a younger man to come on and take his place. That, I repeat, is exactly what is in the reform to which I did myself devote an immense amount of time and work because I did think it so important to try and get the postwar service on the best possible footing.
  What about the conditions in which these men are coming into the Service? All sorts of things have been said about public schools, and so forth. The Under secretary will correct me if I am wrong— I can only speak from memory and I hope the hon. Gentleman will make the point clear— but if my memory is correct there is no question of the Board, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, being the last fence, as it were, which the candidate had to get over, with the result that the Board, perhaps being rather old fashioned people—as the critics would have us believe—would be apt to exclude the somewhat progressive type of candidate in favour of, shall we say, the "soft shirt" kind. I think the Board is the earlier stage. Then there is the ccmpeti—tive examination, and it is the com—petitive examination that finally decides the result, though it is quite true in the competitive examination—I think I am right—there is a fairly high mark given for the viva voce impression. Here again, I have not got the report because I did not know the Debate was coming on, but I am sure I introduced a pro vision whereby it was open to enter a certain number of candidates, I think it was 10 per cent., or thereabouts, apart from the examination qualification —
  Mr. McNeil: Twenty-five per cent.
  Mr. Eden: May I just say what I had in my mind there? I was not altogether happy that the written examination, especially after a great war such as we have been through, would get the best type of young men for the Service. That is what we really wanted. We could not be certain of that. It is an experiment, I admit. It was done, and the House approved it at the time, and we allowed a certain percentage to come in on the grounds of their records and achievements in the war and so on, if they had the general qualifications. It is an experiment and the working out of it will have to be watched. Perhaps I may read what I said at the time:
  For the Senior branch—"
  and that is the main problem of the Service—
  " —it is intended, as soon as possible after hostilities with Germany cease and in the measure that the continued requirements of the military situation permit, to enable candidates, and particularly men now serving in the Forces, to offer themselves as competitors at a simplified ' reconstruction ' examination such as it should be possible for them to take without special study"—[Official Report, 3rd August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1611.]
  For that examination everybody can compete —
  It being a Quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Simmons.]
  Mr. Eden: Everybody can compete, irrespective of what their previous academic records may or may not have been. The hon. Gentleman quoted Carlyle, and what Carlyle said about the Foreign Office at that time may well have been true, but it was a long time ago, and I personally have never felt myself completely sympathetic towards Carlyle's cast of mind.
  Mr. Warbey: I was not suggesting that there had not been some improvement.
  Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman feels really sympathetic towards that cast of mind, I begin to understand a great many of his speeches. Let me say a word about our representatives at U.N.O., and I really must say this with all the emphasis I can command. Our chief representative has to be someone, as the hon. Gentleman
  1992
  admitted, with great qualifications, a knowledge of international policy and a knowledge of the policies of foreign countries. I know nobody living in this country today whose knowledge of these matters is comparable to that of Sir Alexander Cadogan, and, in reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, whose passion for the Covenant was as real and as vehemently expressed as that of Sir Alexander Cadagan, in the days of the League, and I only wish that 'the late Mr. Arthur Henderson was here o speak on that subject himself. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that Mr. Henderson, as, indeed I myself and every body else at the Foreign Office who worked with him, had the highest possible opinion, of the judgment and courage of Sir Alexander Cadogan. I say that emphatically, and I tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton that I know of no one who could better represent this Government and no one who responds less to the extraordinary description which he gave of the higher Foreign Office officials. The hon. Gentleman says that the senior Foreign Office officials should be political appointments and should more nearly represent the Government of this country. I think that, if we are to change our higher Foreign Office officials with all the changes in the Government of this country, it would be an utter calamity.
  Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I did not say that all senior Foreign Office appointments should be political. I said that there should be some political appointments during this period.
  Mr. Eden: When is the emergency coming to an end? When the Government change? I beg the Government to look at the experience of other countries. I can think of one which tried to cut politics out of the diplomatic service. I never felt myself, when I was working in the Foreign Office, that I was associated with some crusted Tories, and I have not thought of this or that official as holding this or that opinion. I have not the remotest idea how most of those with whom I worked at the Foreign Office voted at the General Election, or in any other General Election. For anything I know, the majority may have voted for hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but I think it quite-likely; I know them better than hon. Gentlemen opposite.

  1993
  But what I am telling the House is that it would be an utter calamity if the Ministers allowed considerations of that kind to sway their judgment in the choice of officials for higher appointments. That I should regard as a disastrous decision. Now and for a great many years past —not in the times of Carlyle—Foreign Office examinations have been open to competition. If it happens that a number of Etonians or Harrovians have been successful in that competition, that shows, no doubt, that we ought to give more people the opportunity to have that education. It does not show, necessarily, that the people who have won are not, per haps, well qualified to have won. At any rate, the competition is open.
  I know, of course, that many members of the Foreign Service have never had that sort of experience at all. There was one, an Ambassador at Addis Ababa, whose father was an engine driver, and there will, of course, be many others. The point I want to make is that the com petition is completely open—if I am wrong I will be contradicted—and every one has an equal chance of securing the appointment. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a watershed at the last General Election. This is his first Parliament and when he has had a few more he will find that there are water sheds at every Election. I implore the Government not to think it necessary to change our Civil Service, or all the senior members of it, because there has been a watershed. Then, I thought I picked out in the hon. Gentleman's speech his real anxiety. He was worried lest the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, both of whom all parties in the House respect so much, should be shaped and moulded by the sinister Old Etonian Foreign Office officials. A terrible thought. What might happen to the Foreign Secretary? He might be shaped and trimmed until he was as completely Eton and King's as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I share to the full all the hon. Member's anxiety on that score. By all means let us eschew that dreadful event.
  Mr. Blackburn: If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are so proud to have a Foreign Seretary and an Under-Secretary who come directly or indirectly from the working class, why should they be so
  1994
  afraid lest we get people of that class filling diplomatic appointments abroad?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. I am not in the least afraid of anything of the kind and, in fact, I should welcome it most warmly. I wish that he and others would read my Report, when they would see that the whole object of it was to make absolutely certain that every body, wherever born, should have an equal chance of serving the country in the Foreign Service. If the Government have any suggestions to make which are an improvement on my Report and which will bring that situation about, I would warmly endorse them. What hon. Members have in mind is that in the old days one had to have 400 a year in order to go into the Diplomatic Ser vice. That was a vicious system, but it is extinct so far as the present entry into the service is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman will study my Report and can tell me that I have failed to deal with that situation, I will support the Government in what they have said.
  After the last war, we brought into the Foreign Service a great many men who have since distinguished themselves. They were brought in without the full examination, largely an account of their war records. They fought gallantly and they had many decorations; they have served the country very well since. I think that is what this Government are trying to do now, and it is the right course to pursue. I really do ask them to proceed with immense care when considering this question and not to allow prejudice, or what they believe to be the political complexion of a Department, to persuade them into taking steps which they may otherwise deeply regret. In seven years as Foreign Secretary, and in many years more in serving in the Foreign Office, I have never known a more devoted and hard-working band of civil servants, and I am sure they serve the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary with just as much loyalty and devotion as they ever served me.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): I am in debted to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) for this opportunity, not only of debating a most important subject, but for removing some

  1995
  of misconceptions which I was astounded to hear existed both inside and outside this House. The Foreign Office, as my hon. Friend found from reading his Carlyle, has been fair game with the British public, and with just about as little reason, as the police have been in every comic paper and music hall. As a decent semi-educated Scot, I must always line up with Thomas Carlyle, but Thomas Carlyle was writing about a Foreign Office which even Palmerston did something about; it was reorganised al most out of recognition during the big internal changes in 1905 or 1906
  Let me deal first with the question of Sir Alexander Cadogan I do not intend to spend much time on this point, be cause both my right hon. Friend and I have dealt with this appointment at some length within the last five weeks. He has not contended otherwise than that we must have a permanent representative on the Security Council. That is obligatory upon us by the first paragraph of Article 28. At any periodic meetings of the Council or when a subject demands it, my right hon. Friend or any Minister he designates will attend, but for the normal and continued session we must have a permanent member. What should be the qualifications of this permanent member? Plainly, he should have a good background of international experience. He should know the workings of the Council, the Charter and the organisation generally, and he should be a man of probity, integrity and honesty I suggest that Sir Alexander Cadogan has those qualifications. He represented His Majesty's Government at Dumbarton Oaks, then at San Francisco, throughout the Preparatory Commission and finally at the Assembly. I think it would be very difficult to match him in these qualifications in this or any other country.
  My hon. Friend suggested we might have a Resident Minister of Cabinet rank. The reason for this eludes me. During a war it might be necessary to make temporary, and I suggest not very successful, experiments of that kind, but the primary job of a Cabinet Minister must be to sit in the Cabinet and regulate policy. One does not make a man a Cabinet Minister by pushing him out to the end of the earth, and making sure that he never comes inside a Cabinet room. If we are to have a Cabinet Minis-
  1996
  ter who does not come inside the Cabinet, all we need do is to appoint another man who, by telegram, radio, aeroplane or courier, will be instructed by the Cabinet or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. [An Hon. Member: "A 'stooge.' "] He is not a "stooge," and do not let anyone talk lightly of our servants in that fashion, whoever makes the policy. I am surprised that my hon. Friend confines this to the Foreign Office. This social revolution does not affect only the Foreign Office. This political revolution that we have won, to the Noble Lord's discomfiture and in which I rejoice —
  Earl Winterton: If they were all like the hon. Gentleman I would not worry
  Hon. Members: Resign.
  Mr. McNeil: With the best will in the world. I must ask for your protection, Sir. Another crack like that will cost me not only my job, but my constituency. To return to my argument, if it is agreed that a Resident Minister does no more than accept instructions, then I think we see our argument clearly, and it is this, that the servant is never responsible for policy making. That refers to the permanent members of the Council as it does to every one of our representatives abroad. [An Hon. Member: "It is a fact."] My hon. Friend says, "It is a fact." The hon. Member for Luton dealt with that, in a fashion, when he said the facts are sifted, the facts are presented, contacts are made or not made—and I will come back to that in a second—but it is still a question of whether the Minister is a good Minister or a bad Minister. A good Minister knows when he has been given wise advice, and when foolish; he knows who is an efficient servant and who is a bad one. Those are qualities that we ask from a Minister. If he does not do that job then this House casts him out rather robustly. If he does not do the job he is going out. I was de lighted to hear of my hon. Friend's concern that the Secretary of State might be moulded in the Foreign Office. I take it that the hon. Gentleman approves of the policy which the right hon. Gentle man demonstrated as Foreign Secretary. He has concealed his approval for quite a long time.
  I turn to the more general question of representation abroad My hon. Friend

  1997
  said that he did not ask for the appointment of Socialists. At any rate, he did ask for the appointment of people who were not anti-Socialist. I, with my strange kind of Scottish logic, think that that does not evade the principle that what I have been asked to do is to make appointments related to a man's political opinion. I join with the right hon Gentleman. I am not making any debating point here; I am not attempting to score for a minute. I ask people like my hon. Friend—whom I knew for many years outside the House, and whom I know to be a good Socialist and a good Briton—to consider most care fully where they go when they press this argument. I thought that was a malpractice which we had buried with Lord North. It is political patronage. It leads to inefficiency; it leads to corruption.
  This Civil Service of ours, in the Foreign Office and other Departments, has disadvantages of course. When I sat on the other side, and when I sat behind—as no doubt I will again—I sometimes wished for a little more celerity and a little less caution. I sometimes thought that the machine was a bit cumbersome and a bit tortuous. So it is, and we must address ourselves constantly to trying to improve it, but this British Service, and the Foreign Office which is a part of the British Civil Service, has an integrity, a zeal and a loyalty which I have never seen matched in commercial enterprise in this country, and which I know is the envy of almost every other responsible Government in the world. So let us take great care of these qualities while we seek to improve the machine. Of course it can be improved, and I want to deal with the points put to me by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman). We are pressing ahead with the reforms, and I take the very greatest pleasure, along with many others, in paying due tribute to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the substantial, persuasive and sensible way in which he dealt with those reforms which the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary have now the opportunity of enjoying. We are going ahead with them and perhaps I might try to deal with them briefly.
  It is not quite true that there are the three steps of an entrance examination,
  1998
  then the Board, and then some other final selection board. There are two processes just now, which I must telescope. There is this reconstruction process and then later we shall have a more normal method of entry, but one based upon the same system. The entrance examination is not designed to test people's academic merits. It is designed to select people of a generally good mental level and of high character and morality. There is a linguistic test, which is not designed to find out how much of a foreign language a man-knows, but whether he has a normal facility for learning it. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that despite all the nonsense which we cheerfully accept about being bad linguists, during the war, in six or nine months, we turned out in the Army first rate men in the Central European languages. In this test very few people have failed. They then go on to what was called the "week-end party," which is really a three- or four-day test.
  Perhaps, too, I might use this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Luton how misinformed he is about the composition of the selection board. I cannot give the exact proportion, but there is a Civil Service chair man, there is an ex-ambassador, there are business men, and there are most excellent Labour men, known to every one on these Benches, men like Mark Hodgson, George Gibson and Lionel Elvin. I cannot give the full details because I never thought for a moment that any one on these Benches would make such an assertion. These men know their job. They have been through the workshops, they have chosen men for our party, perhaps they have chosen some of us on these benches, and they know how to select. That, in the meantime, is the final stage. This worked satisfactorily during the war and will continue.
  Now I come to the figures for which I was asked about the number of people who had been to public schools. Oddly enough, I did take some trouble in looking up the recent entries, and I have a somewhat remarkable discovery to disclose. Of the last 58 young men who have come into the Foreign Service, 19 have never been at any well-known public school. In applying the term "public school" I took a very strict test. If the school appeared in the Headmasters'

  1999
  List, I said it was a well-known public school. Those 19 had never been to such a school. [An Hon. Member: "Was that good? "] I think it is a reasonable figure. At any rate, I am being told from behind me that entrants had come from Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Winchester. It is the opposite. Of this list of 58, only one came from Eton.
  Mr. Eden: Too bad.
  Mr. McNeil: I want to give some other figures.
  Mr. Blackburn: Could the hon. Gentle man make it clear whether it was two-thirds or one-third who had not been to public schools?
  Mr. McNeil: Of the 58 who came in, 19 had never been to a well-known public school. Many other schools were represented, including those of Scottish towns. Montrose was one. Some came from London County Council schools, some from Liverpool, some from Manchester, some from Leeds. They came from schools which I have always considered to be the backbone of the high level of British education. We are only now feeling in the Civil Service and the Foreign Service the full effect of the Education Act of 1902.
  We shall continue in this way in order to get these fellows, because new forces are arising in every country, and we have to make new kinds of contacts. For that reason we are appointing labour attaches. Ten labour attaches have been appointed and some more are going next month; and scientific and agricultural attachés,
  2000
  too We shall use these methods to bring in young men who are really representative Britons. We are doing that as fast as we can. It will not give us quick results, but do not let us throw away substantial gains for doubtful, short term returns. Let us build the machine in the fashion that we are doing.
  Mr. Blackburn: Before the hon. Gentle man sits down will he deal with this point? The argument has not been put from these benches at any stage, that it is desirable to have political appointments in the Ser vice. The argument that has been put, and I would ask him to deal with it, is that we should have appointments of people drawn from the economic and social background which will enable them to understand the economic and social back ground of the world today, where new . forces are arising, all over Europe and elsewhere throughout the world.
  Mr. McNeil: I think I did deal with that. I said that if the Secretary of State does not choose the right people, then he is a bad Minister and the House must, deal with him. But the Secretary of State must choose the men from inside the Service. He must not step outside and arbitrarily take people here and there into the Service, or, he will destroy, from top to bottom, the sense of esprit de corps of the Service, which must not be thrown away.
  It being a Quarter to Ten o'Clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  PRESTWICK AIRPORT (MANAGERIAL POST)
  PRESTWICK AIRPORT (MANAGERIAL POST)
  MAURITIUS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
  MAURITIUS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
MALAYA
  Junior Officials (Rehabilitation Grants)
  Junior Officials (Rehabilitation Grants)
  Ex-Sultan of Selangor
  Ex-Sultan of Selangor
  PALESTINE (JEWISH DETAINEES, DEPORTATION)
  PALESTINE (JEWISH DETAINEES, DEPORTATION)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  CEYLON (GENERAL ELECTION)
  CEYLON (GENERAL ELECTION)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Milk (School Children)
  Milk (School Children)
  Shell Eggs
  Shell Eggs
  Domestic Jam Making(Sugar)
  Domestic Jam Making(Sugar)
  Wheat and Flour (Importation)
  Wheat and Flour (Importation)
  Frozen Rabbits (Dominions)
  Frozen Rabbits (Dominions)
  Stale Bread (Uses)
  Stale Bread (Uses)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Towels (Government Stores)
  Towels (Government Stores)
  Steel Scaffold Tube (Exports)
  Steel Scaffold Tube (Exports)
  Utility Corsets
  Utility Corsets
  Feathers (Bird of Paradise)
  Feathers (Bird of Paradise)
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Postal Service (Germany)
  Postal Service (Germany)
  Millinery Business, Brighton (Licence)
  Millinery Business, Brighton (Licence)
  New Businesses (Supplies)
  New Businesses (Supplies)
  Rubber Prices
  Rubber Prices
  Surplus Government Stores
  Surplus Government Stores
  Hairdressers' Charges
  Hairdressers' Charges
  Cage Birds (Importation)
  Cage Birds (Importation)
  Rayon Clothing
  Rayon Clothing
  U.S.A. and U.K. (Imports)
  U.S.A. and U.K. (Imports)
ROYAL NAVY
  Prize Money (Transferred Personnel)
  Prize Money (Transferred Personnel)
  Landing Craft, Leith
  Landing Craft, Leith
  His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke" (Breaking Up)
  His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke" (Breaking Up)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Re-employed Officers (Widows' Pensions)
  Re-employed Officers (Widows' Pensions)
  Royal Marines (Permanent Commissions)
  Royal Marines (Permanent Commissions)
  Cadets (Entry System)
  Cadets (Entry System)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Paymaster Commissions
  Paymaster Commissions
  Dockyards (Trade Union Negotiations)
  Dockyards (Trade Union Negotiations)
  Requisitioned Property, Cambridge
  Requisitioned Property, Cambridge
  War Gratuities
  War Gratuities
  GERMANY (BRITISH INTELLIGENCE REPORTS)
  GERMANY (BRITISH INTELLIGENCE REPORTS)
WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS
  Interest
  Interest
  Loss of Motor Car
  Loss of Motor Car
  LAND REGISTRY (QUICK REGISTRATION FEE)
  LAND REGISTRY (QUICK REGISTRATION FEE)
  LEASEHOLD PRINCIPLE
  LEASEHOLD PRINCIPLE
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Surplus Bicycles
  Surplus Bicycles
  Missing Aircrews (Poland)
  Missing Aircrews (Poland)
  Airman's Sentence
  Airman's Sentence
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Regular Engagements
  Regular Engagements
  Sudbury Station (Complaints)
  Sudbury Station (Complaints)
  Airfields, Northern Ireland (Cultivation)
  Airfields, Northern Ireland (Cultivation)
  War Prisoners (Reduction in Rank)
  War Prisoners (Reduction in Rank)
  Resettlement (Officers)
  Resettlement (Officers)
  Foreign Nationals (Repatriation)
  Foreign Nationals (Repatriation)
  Missing Personnel
  Missing Personnel
  Obsolete Aircraft
  Obsolete Aircraft
  Drivers, House of Commons Duty
  Drivers, House of Commons Duty
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Iron and Steel Federation (Report)
  Iron and Steel Federation (Report)
  Corrugated Sheets (Store, Leicester)
  Corrugated Sheets (Store, Leicester)
  Kilns, Treforest
  Kilns, Treforest
  PURCHASE TAX
  PURCHASE TAX
  FARNBOROUGH RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT(REDUNDANT STAFF)
  FARNBOROUGH RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT(REDUNDANT STAFF)
  WAR PRISONERS (CHURCH SERVICES)
  WAR PRISONERS (CHURCH SERVICES)
  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS(AGRICULTURAL REPRESENTATION)
  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS(AGRICULTURAL REPRESENTATION)
  ARMED FORCES (CLASS C RELEASES)
  ARMED FORCES (CLASS C RELEASES)
BRITISH ARMY
  Parish Hall, Launton
  Parish Hall, Launton
  Victory Celebrations (Leave)
  Victory Celebrations (Leave)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  African Regiments (Commissions)
  African Regiments (Commissions)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Belgian Property (Occupation Cost)
  Belgian Property (Occupation Cost)
  HONG KONG (ADMINISTRATION)
  HONG KONG (ADMINISTRATION)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (SUDETEN GERMANS)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA (SUDETEN GERMANS)
  TRAWLER FISHING INDUSTRY (CHARGE)
  TRAWLER FISHING INDUSTRY (CHARGE)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Plunket—Took the Oath.

OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEhad given Notice that he would call attention to the scales of pay and allowances for officers of the three fighting Services; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to open this debate on Command Paper No. 6750 which the Government has issued dealing with the "Post-War code of Pay, Allowances, Retired pay and Service Gratuities for Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces." It seems to me that two questions must arise in all your Lordships' minds as regards the new proposals of the Government. The first question is: will the scales which the Government propose shall be paid to commissioned ranks in the Armed Forces attract the best material into those Forces? The second question is: will those scales give contentment to officers serving once they have entered the Forces? On the answer to those two questions depends the view that your Lordships will take on the proposals I put forward. I submit that the answer to these questions is only partially that the scheme can be described as an undoubted improvement upon the pre-war conditions in the Armed Forces. There is no denying that this scheme is an undoubted improvement, but at the same time it has certain anomalies and weaknesses to which I and other noble Lords wish to draw attention, and on which we hope there will be a satisfactory reply from the Minister in this debate.
I said that these scales were a considerable improvement on pre-war conditions, but I would question very much whether the right yardstick to be applied to these scales is that of pre-war
246
conditions. I believe that the terms for a military career must be made comparable to-day not to pre-war conditions but rather to what commerce and industry can offer to men of similar talent and calibre in those other walks of life. Industry does not relate its salary level to pre-war conditions, but takes into account to-day the high taxation level and the rise in the cost of living since before the war. If you compare these scales proposed in the White Paper not with pre-war but with the standards offered by industry at the present time, I think you will say that the scheme can only be considered satisfactory when we leave the present high taxation level. When that will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no doubt unable to say at the present time, and I think your Lordships will agree that the position from the national financial angle looks pretty grim at the moment as regards any substantial lowering of the level of taxation.
With taxation at the present level, and with the alteration in principle brought about by the taxation of allowances with which I will deal shortly, I have grave doubts as to whether over the whole range of married officers there will not be lower emoluments after taxation has been allowed for than the present rates of pay and allowances. It is difficult for me to prove this point—and, I believe, equally difficult for the Minister to disprove it—because to embark on a comparison brings one into a whole maze of figures.
If your Lordships will turn to page 24 of the White Paper you will see Table II, the table that has gained most limelight in the Press, which has been featured mainly as the table giving the new conditions, and which undoubtedly shows considerable increases of pay. But my regret is that that table has received all the limelight, and that the table on page 28 does not give a like comparison, similar to that of Table II on page 24, of the total emoluments which a married officer can expect to receive after allowing for taxation as compared with what he is receiving at the present time. I must say I was surprised, when I was given a War Office pamphlet dealing with the pay and allowances of other ranks, called Why drop out? in which the War Office, referring to the White Paper dealing with other ranks, say, "Press comments are generally good," to find that a Government—I am sure that they will not mind

247
my saying it—of the Left are glad to quote the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, and the Daily Telegraph in support of the favourable rates they have given to other ranks. I do hope that we are not going to get propaganda from the War Office or from any other Government Departments based on these rates in Table II on page 24, because what we would really like are the actual facts of comparison, based on the table on page 28.
Many of your Lordships have friends and relations in the Fighting Services, and I do not think I exaggerate when I say that Army officers are definitely disturbed because perhaps something like 90 per cent. of officers of middle rank who have children will actually in the future lose as compared with what they are drawing at the present time. That is the percentage stated to me by a responsible officer. Such a table as I have asked for, comparing the total emoluments after allowing for taxation with those given on page 28, would certainly either disprove that contention or prove it. Nobody would be more glad than I if such a table were produced and the misgivings of those officers could be set at rest. Married Lieutenant-Colonels of regiments with children are, I believe, the biggest losers. It seems to me peculiar and regrettable that that should be so, because, as your Lordships will agree, the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel is from the regimental or staff point of view the rank where greatest responsibility is carried by an officer. As I understand it, under these new proposals the pay of a regimental Lieutenant-Colonel, allowing for the loss of certain allowances and taking into consideration certain new allowances, will be anything from £100 to £ 130 a year less in the future than at the present time.
I know there is a cushion introduced by the Government to flatten out any effect on officers at present drawing rates of pay which would be lower under the new scale, but I submit to your Lordships that the cushion does not really answer the main question. We have to think of the officers now in junior ranks who when they are promoted will come under the new scales of pay when serving in their higher rank. This lowering of emoluments in certain ranks, and this
248
feeling of misgiving which I have mentioned is largely brought about by the introduction of taxation of allowances. I myself think that the principle of taxation of allowances is sound. I do not believe that we should introduce into the community sections of people who on the one hand do not feel the impact of financial stringency in the country or on the other do not wish to get the benefit in the future when perhaps taxation may be lowered. But I do not agree that the principle of taxation of allowances should be put into execution unless the allowances which are to be taxed are adequate for the purpose for which they were intended after allowing for the taxation element in them. Particularly when a special allowance is made, for instance, like the special allowance for housing, I am quite sure the Government and your Lordships will agree that such an allowance should be adequate for the purpose for which it is intended; otherwise it is really better not to give such an allowance, and not to tell an officer that he is receiving some amount which is insufficient for the purpose for which you are giving it.
In the White Paper, at the bottom of page 16, it is stated that the annual cost of the new rates is estimated, for the same strength of forces, to show a 31 per cent. increase over the old rates. But a great deal of that money is going back to the Treasury by way of taxation. In 1938 there was paid out £ 9,062,000, a considerable proportion of which consisted of tax-free allowances. Of the £11,944,000 to be paid out in future a very considerable percentage is going to be subject to tax. I do not think we can say that there is a 31.8 per cent increase in the cost without taking into account the fact that a considerable amount of that will go back into the pockets of the Chancellor.
I would like to ask some specific questions of the Minister, of which I have given him notice. I hope they are questions that will be of general interest to your Lordships, and I am quite sure that the replies will be of general interest. The command pay for a Regimental Commander has hitherto been 10s. a day, 5s. of which has been taxable. That now goes and in its place there is to be an entertainment allowance of 2s. 6d. a day and qualification pay, which is dealt with on page 7 of the White Paper. This new

249
qualification pay is on a rising scale up to the rank of Major. What I would like to ask the Minister is: Why should not that qualification pay increase as the rank of the officer increases? Surely it is when the officer gets to higher rank that his qualifications are even more important than when he is in the lower ranks. Therefore it seems to me illogical that you should reward an officer for being qualified up to the rank of Major, and afterwards you should say, "We judge your qualifications, even though you be a full Colonel, always to be on the level of a Major."
Officers to-day have official positions to keep up, and I would ask for an assurance from the Government that, when the allowances are finally settled, there will not be, if I may say so without disrespect to the Government, a stingy approach on the part of the Treasury to the scales which are put forward by the Service Departments.
Here I want to put in a plea, which is not always very popular these days, for very senior officers. It is the fashion in these days to reward—in many cases quite rightly—the lower-paid ranks, and sometimes there is an impression abroad that it is rather anti-social to reward a General or Air-Marshal or Admiral because they are really quite well off already. They are not. And I do hope that when the allowances for the Generals, for the Admirals and Royal Air Force officers of comparable rank are decided, the Government are going to take a wide and generous view of the responsibilities and personal expenditure necessarily entailed if these officers are going to fulfil their responsibilities and obligations. To give your Lordships a specific example of what can happen in the processes of government, I can remember that in the war, when great operations were proceeding in North Africa and in France, the Lord President of the Council spent three mornings adjudicating between the Service Departments and the Treasury as to what were the allowances to be paid to those in charge of our Service missions in Washington. I think it was a terrible indictment of what I would call the worst form of Treasury attitude, that we should have to have four Ministers of Cabinet rank, or their deputies, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council, arguing for three
250
mornings as to what allowances should be paid to Generals, Air Marshals and Admirals, while the greatest war the world has ever seen was in progress.
I think we might take a leaf out of Russia's book in this matter. I understand a Russian General's pay is approximately on a level with that of our Generals. I understand also that Russian 'Generals retire on full pay. Recently, when this matter was being discussed with a British General and a Russian General, it was found that, broadly speaking, the rates of pay of General Officers in the two countries were the same. But then our General said: "Of course, there is the tax to be taken into account." The Russian General said: "Tax! Who on earth should make soldiers pay tax? The whole thing is immoral." I do not say we should go so far as that, but I do ask that we should treat our Generals, Air-Marshals and Admirals on a scale which will allow them to keep up the positions we ask them to fill.
Now I want to turn for a few moments to some questions as regards entry into the Army. I have studied this White Paper and I want some more information, as I believe do many others who have studied it. It is made clear in the White Paper—and it was reinforced by what the Secretary of State for War said in the debate on the Army Estimates in another place—that entry into the commissioned ranks of the Army is mainly to be through the ranks in future. I would like to ask what length of service in the ranks is going to be required, and furthermore where a man is going to perform that enlisted service. Is service in the ranks confined to the enlisted man's time in a primary training unit and then at the Cadet Army College, or will he actually serve in the ranks of a regiment or some other military unit before going into the Army College? If the latter, at what stage will he take the examination into the Army College? The White Paper says that the entry into the Army College is at 18½to 19. Will he take the examination when he leaves his secondary or public school, and then have enlisted service and pass to the Army College with the examination behind him; or will he have to serve his enlisted period of service first, then take the examination, having probably forgotten during enlisted service a great deal of what he learned

251
at school, and then go to the Army College?
Furthermore, if we have conscription, or at any rate so long as the present call-up continues, if a candidate comes forward for commissioned service and during his time in the Army College or in the primary training unit fails to make the grade, will he be able to leave the Army at the end of the period of conscription or the end of the call-up period, or will the Army endeavour to hold him for a regular engagement of five years, or whatever it is?
My next question is this. Will these young men, either conscripted or at present subject to call-up, be eligible for Commissions, either through the Army College or through the ranks? Will what is known as the "Y" entry scheme be retained in the future? As your Lordships know, that scheme was designed to satisfy the needs of young men who developed military qualities comparatively late in their military career. They entered the Army as enlisted men and developed those military qualities later, and at twenty-one or twenty-two were allowed to have a Commission with special arrangements for seniority. I would like to know if that scheme is to be continued. Then I would like to know whether any places will be reserved in our Armed Forces for Dominion candidates, so that Dominion men may be invited to qualify or compete for such special vacancies in commissioned ranks. I am sure it is very important indeed, in the attempt we are now making to integrate our Imperial relations without laying down hard and fast organizations, that we should try to give opportunities in our national life, wherever they occur, to Dominion entrants to come and join us. Here in the Fighting Services there seems to be an opportunity for it.
The same questions I have asked the Minister in regard to the Army apply also to the Royal Air Force. I hesitate, in the presence of so many noble Lords with such senior and distinguished service in the Navy, to speak about that service, but I should like to know why the Navy should not act more like the Army and the Air Force in granting a greater number of lower-deck Commissions. If, in the Army and the Air Force, entry through the ranks is made the chief medium of
252
obtaining commissioned rank, I cannot see any reason why we should perpetuate the Dartmouth system of "catching 'em young" at thirteen and a half for the Navy. Perhaps we shall see the picture this afternoon of the Under-Secretary of State for War defending the Admiralty's point of view on this matter.
I conclude with one general observation, but I think it is probably the most important in the remarks I have made this afternoon. If your Lordships will be so good as to turn to page 16 of the White Paper, you will see what I think is an amazing and very disturbing declaration. In Paragraph 69 (i) you will see there is the following declaration:
"The rates of pay and marriage allowance will be subject to review from time to time, though changes will not be made except in the event of a marked alteration in conditions. Any such changes in rates which may be made in course of time will apply without exception to all officers then serving, and there will be no arrangements for granting reserved rights on a permanent basis to individuals to whom the rates and conditions at the time may be more favourable."
If I read that correctly, it is a unilateral declaration by the Government that they may at any time, should they so wish, reduce these rates which we are now asked to approve.
Of course, the Government have an absolute right to do that at any time, but I do submit that there is a contract of honour with those who enter the Services at the present time in permanent commissioned rank that their rates of pay and allowances shall not be reduced by the action of the Government. After all, those who serve in the commissioned ranks of the Services are in two respects in a position different from those who enter commerce. First, if a man enters commerce in either a low or high grade, he has a perfect right to terminate his contract with his employer should he so wish, but the Army officer, the Navy officer and the Air Force officer cannot do that. Secondly, those who enter the Services have not got, as a man in industry has, the right to enter an association for the protection of professional standards, whether it be a trade union or a professional association. Therefore those who enter the Services are at a disadvantage as compared with their civilian opposites.
I think the Government are seeking to introduce a new principle by saying that

253
at any time, if they so wish, they may reduce the rates of pay and allowances. We must accept that because it is the Government's declaration, but I want to ask the Minister whether, if we accept that unilateral declaration that the Government may reduce the rates should they so wish, he will give this House the assurance that should the circumstances be such, either through a change in the value of money, through permanent retention of the present tax level at its present high rate, or because in practice these allowances are shown to create some unfairnesses which can only be exposed after their introduction, that they are detrimental to officers, the Government will lift up the scales with the same freedom as they claim for themselves the right of possibly reducing them. If the Minister can give that assurance to the House, I am sure he will go a long way towards satisfying your Lordships and will at the same time make other noble Lords and myself feel that we can give a greater measure of approval to these proposals than we can give without that assurance. I beg to move for Papers.
3.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I feel it requires a considerable degree of conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty for an amateur and intermittent soldier such as myself to plunge into a debate of this kind, particularly in advance of what I may perhaps respectfully call the Big Three, an Admiral of the Fleet, a Field Marshal and a Marshal of the Royal Air Force, who will take part in the debate at a later stage. Fortunately my main function is to express on behalf of noble Lords upon these Benches their general concurrence with the improvements in the rates of pay for the officers of all three Services and at the same time to associate myself personally with the criticisms and the queries which have been offered by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, in moving this Motion. I confess that the aspect of this matter which causes me the greatest apprehension is the doubt whether, owing to the incidence of taxation upon the combined pay and allowances of an officer under the new system, it is really going to give him any advantage over the existing position. I think many of your Lordships will require satisfying that this is not yet one more instance of a not unfamiliar Treasury device of
254
giving lavishly with one hand and taking away even more generously with the other. I hope very much that the assurance for which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, asked, and which would be valuable and satisfying to those who are genuinely perturbed at the position, may be forthcoming in the early future.
In general, the White Paper has obviously been a matter of careful and prolonged—certainly prolonged—study and solicitude by the Departments concerned. The result is, as I have said, at least on the face of it, a substantial improvement in the conditions governing Service pay. One hopes that that is a genuine and not only an apparent improvement. It is obviously right, I suggest, that the conditions of pay in the three Services should be brought into line and that the rates of promotion in the three Services should also, as far as possible, approximate. I can speak only from personal experience—and that necessarily limited—of the Army, but it is a personal satisfaction to me to be able to support any measure which gives even a degree of better conditions to the Regular officers of that Service. There may have been a time when a certain number of officers joined the Army because it provided, in their view, a restful occupation, giving ample leisure for the enjoyment of more attractive pursuits; but those days are long past, and the Army of to-day is a most exacting, highly skilled and technically qualified Force. There is a strange, tendency in this country to be funny about the Army on every possible occasion. That is not only unfair to Army officers, but I believe it does positive harm in that it creates an atmosphere which definitely militates against the prospect of officers on coming out of the Army getting employment in civil life which is suitable to their qualifications.
If I say something which is very much in my mind, I hope that those officers who have made the Services their career will think it neither presumptuous nor patronizing; it is certainly meant to be neither. As a member of one profession twice projected into the midst of another, I would like to pay a very sincere and grateful tribute to the high standard of efficiency, knowledge, helpfulness and kindliness which those of us who came temporarily into the Army received from the vast majority of those Regular officers with whom we were privileged to serve.

255
I think that is the general experience of temporary officers of all the three Services, who have so much for which to thank their Regular colleagues and mentors.
May I turn quite briefly to one or two points in the White Paper itself and ask for some elucidation from the Under-Secretary of State on a few of them? In paragraph 8 the question of the Army College is brought up, and in that paragraph the White Paper talks about "training at an Army College," but in paragraph 9 it goes on to talk about "the Army College." "An Army College" looks as if there were going to be several Army Colleges, but "the Army College" looks as if there were going to be only one. I think it would be interesting to noble Lords to know which is the accurate statement. Is there going to be only one? Are, for instance, Woolwich and Sandhurst going to be grouped into a sort of Army Cranwell, or are they going to retain an individual and separate existence in the future, and possibly be supplemented by other colleges?
As one who sat not infrequently during the past years on War Office Selection Boards, I would like to say one thing on the question of the selection of officers. The modern practice has been to admit to the discussions which take place, and to the hearing of the application by the candidate before a Board, a psychiatrist, irreverently called in the Army a trick cyclist. His opinion is, in many cases, of great value, but I think it is too often the case that too much importance is attributed to his opinion. He is useful as an adviser, but he ought not, and I think was never intended to be, the directing force behind the decision of the Board. So long as he is kept within the four corners of his private field he is of great value, but if he is allowed to wander at large I am inclined to think there is some danger of his becoming a menace.
I see that the field allowance departs from this world, and I think it may be said that with it goes, I should imagine, the subject which, as one single item, has probably produced the greatest volume of paper of any matter which is commonly discussed in the War Office. It will depart unwept and unhonoured, and largely unpaid, because if one may adapt another phrase, which is perhaps
256
only too frequently adapted: Never was so much disallowed to so many by so few. At the same time it did, with the poker, the inventory-board and the rest, create an amount of work which was really quite out of proportion to the value of the allowance when it was ultimately granted. I am a little unhappy, as I think was the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, about the introduction of this qualifying pay which is said to be for the benefit of those officers who have passed the Staff College or who have got university degrees. The number of officers who will be taken in from the universities under the new scheme is, I am sure, small. This pay is confined to Lieutenants, Captains and Majors. How many of them are going to have passed through the Staff College? Unless you are going to begin taking in officers at a very much earlier stage of their career than was, I think, the principle in the past, these Lieutenants, Captains and Majors will have extremely little opportunity of earning qualifying pay by going through Staff Colleges at those particular ranks.
Command pay also goes. I confess that is a subject upon which I have somewhat bitter recollections, and recollections which make me amenable to any change in the general system of Army pay. I found myself at one stage during the last war, as the result of the honour of having been promoted from Lieutenant-Colonel to full Colonel, 1s. 9d. a day worse off. Having arrived at that somewhat precarious financial position, I came to the conclusion that there must be something peculiar about the Pay Regulations which could result in that somewhat anomalous situation. The abolition of command pay, I think, is probably right, but if it is intended for an entertainment allowance, certainly the scale which is substituted for it can by no manner of means be regarded as generous.
Those are, I think, the main points I wanted to raise on the White Paper as it stands. There is, of course, an improvement, but at the same time the scheme does not really even begin to put any senior officer on the same scale of pay and on the same standard of living as the man Who has, at the same age and with the same attainments, entered industry or commerce. It will need very careful watching according to, one hopes not the rise, but let us say the fluctuations of

257
Income Tax, to see whether the provision now made is really suitable. But it is an advance and it is, I think your Lordships will feel, opportune that that advance should have come at this precise moment when all three Services are being called upon to perform duties which are perhaps even more testing than those which fell upon them during actual war. Occupation of a defeated and devastated country, and in particular police work in Greece, Syria, Indonesia and Palestine, is work which I think to all the Services must be not less wearing and not less repugnant than the duties which the Army was called upon to perform 25 years ago in Ireland. The Services do not make wars, they only make war. Let us hope that they will never be called upon to make it again, but until that hope has become a reality we depend for our security in the last resort upon the loyalty, the skill, the courage and the endurance of the Services, and the least return we can make to them is to see that so far as in us lies they are relieved of their more pressing cares.
3.17 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should not be rising to ask for the indulgence which your Lordships are kind enough to extend to a maiden speech if this were not a subject upon which I feel strongly. I should like to begin by agreeing with the remarks of the two noble Lords that with the general principles upon which this White Paper has been based no real fault can be found. I can only wish the details had been based on a more generous calculation and that they had appeared sooner. I should like, if I may, to turn to the general increase figure and deal with that in a little more detail. The figure in the table on page 16 is given as showing 31.8 per cent. increase over all from 1938 to 1946. I think it is only fair that that figure should be considered in its proper perspective and set against certain other rates of increase for other members of the community. Take first the case of the other ranks in respect of whom the White Paper announcing the increase of pay was recently published. Their rate over all for the same period shows an increase of 61 per cent. In industrial life the contrast is even more sharp. The rates there over the same period, comparing 1938 with to-day, vary between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent increase.
258
It is very difficult to make a fair comparison between the rates of pay earned by an officer and those earned by a man of similar capabilities or experience in business or professional life. No reliable figures are available, and all I am able to do in that case is to work out a typical officer's case. I have taken for this example the senior Captain or junior Major who is married with two children. I calculate that his net pay, after payment of all taxes, is in the neighbourhood of £410 a year. Anybody of that age and seniority, that is about 34 or 35, in civil life who was not earning double that figure would be considered a failure. That is taking into consideration that the officer does undoubtedly receive certain goods and services in kind. I think the figure of 31.8 per cent., which incidentally is only roughly the equivalent of the rise in the cost of living over the same period, cannot at the best be considered extravagant, and when it is realized that the allowances are also to be taxed, the figure takes on a very different complexion. I, too, shall be most interested to see that table for which the noble Lord has asked.
Taking again my case of the Major or Captain with two children, the figures based on the calculation which I have made reduce his overall increase from 31.8 per cent. to 12 per cent. Now it is impossible to tell—at least to my non-actuarial brain it is—how much of this £3,000,000 increase is going back into the Treasury. Indeed it is only one's unshakable faith in the good intentions of the Treasury and, may I add, also of the noble Lord who is going to reply to this debate, which prevents one thinking that the figures have been deliberately constructed to conceal that information. I hope I shall be deemed to be justified in saying that any other reasons that can be found for helping the officer from the facts set out in the White Paper should be seized upon. One which I think would be helpful arises from the matter of outfit grant which is mentioned, I think, in paragraph 19. This matter has been in abeyance during the war. Standards of austerity in clothing, the necessities of battle, coupons and various other matters have really killed it as a problem for the officer. Battle dress was acceptable every-where as a uniform, though most officers did get themselves Service dress. Such matters as mess-kit and blue patrols did

259
not enter into an officer's life during the war. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that most of the uniform and equipment which an officer had to keep up—not only the matters which I have mentioned, but such expensive items as binoculars, compasses, mapboards and so on—were sometimes before the war a very real source of embarrassment to him.
I should like to see some system worked out whereby an officer should be expected to find from his own pocket a sum roughly equivalent to the sum which a man in civil life expects to spend on his wardrobe each year and no more. Anything above that for equipment which is necessary should, I think, be found by the Army. After all, other ranks have most of their equipment and kit found for them, and I see no reason why the very proper doctrine which is set out in the White Paper for trying to equate the two should not be carried sufficiently far to make that possible. I should also like to make this plea. Would it not be possible to extend into peace-time the admirable system whereby nearly all the items of equipment, particularly the more expensive ones, were standardized and made available to the officer either through the quartermaster's stores or the R.A.O.C. at vocabulary rates. One solution I hope will not be taken. I hope that nothing will be done to reduce in any way that standard of turn-out and smartness which was so very properly a source of pride to the British officer.
I should now like very briefly to put in a word in support of two particular officers who I think are a little hardly done by. The first of these officers is the Regimental Adjutant. His pay has now gone. Your Lordships are aware, of course, that the Regimental Adjutant's job has always been considered a difficult, responsible, important and onerous one, and if I may say so, a very unenviable one. I speak from the bitterest personal experience. I spent several of the unhappiest months of my service career as Adjutant to a Commanding Officer who regarded Adjutant-baiting as a legitimate substitute for the pig-sticking which the exigencies of the service denied him.
Before the war, the Adjutant was, very rightly, paid five shillings a day extra, and that encouraged ambitious, able
260
young men to take up that difficult job. That was done away with during the war, and I think that a system was substituted whereby an officer was automatically promoted Captain and received the extra encouragement of three shillings a day. Even if that system goes on, it will not provide proper encouragement because officers are to be automatically promoted to the rank of Captain after six years. I think that in regular conditions in peacetime there will be very few officers of six years' seniority who will be considered fit to take on the job. That, I think, is a very real hardship, and it is added to by the fact that they will also, in all probability, be too young to have gone to the Staff College and so be drawing qualification pay. So, from many angles this particular officer is badly hit, and I do not think the Army can afford to allow that type of officer to be badly hit.
The other officer for whom I wish to put in a plea is the Lieutenant-Colonel, whose case has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I should like to state his case from a slightly different point of view. I think that I am right in saying that before the war not one officer in ten could hope to reach the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and through no fault of his own. In this connexion I must say that one great evil has now been done away with. Promotion up to and including the rank of major is automatic. There is no possibility now of the cases of which one previously heard so frequently of a man serving fifteen years as a subaltern and so on. After the rank of Major promotion is by selection to Lieutenant-Colonel, and selection depends upon the eccentricities of the Army List or on establishments. So a man contemplating taking up the Army as a career is faced with a ten to one chance that when he reaches the age of forty-seven—now, I understand to be forty-five—through no fault of his own he will be put out on to an unsympathetic civil market at a time when with a rising family he can least afford to be put in such a position. The fact that this is a hard case is accepted in the White Paper, and not ungenerous provision is being made for it.
Next, I wish to draw attention to the question of resettlement. Reference is made in paragraph 63 to this. I hope that a very real attempt will be made to see that these officers are launched into civil life properly and fairly and that they do

261
not become a bad advertisement for the Army by becoming unemployed, disgruntled, disillusioned men. Figures have recently been given in another place of the success or otherwise of the resettlement scheme and to me at any rate it is not encouraging. I hope that this matter will receive earnest attention, for it is a very important one.
I hope that these few remarks have not given your Lordships the impression that I am not grateful for what has been done to reach a solution of the problem that has been put forward in the White Paper. Certainly, simplification is one of the improvements to which the White Paper is largely directed, though I must confess that it seems to me that the benefit of nearly all simplifications of the pay code tends to devolve on officials who have to work out the scales rather than the officers who draw them. I think that anything that can be done to improve this White Paper should be encouraged, and I should like to echo most strongly and very humbly the words of the noble Marquess in this connexion. My experience of the last seven years has given me the greatest respect and admiration—and may I say sympathy?—for the Regular officer. He has, in the past, been most shabbily treated, and as an amateur and as a citizen of the country who has paid him I am ashamed of what I appear to have done in the past.
The great strides in mechanization, tactics, science, and weapon development over the last seven years make the calibre of officer required even higher than before. I do not have to remind your Lordships that there are no such people as bad troops; there are only bad officers. If we want good officers, we shall have to pay for them, and I think we can pay a little more than this.
3.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, it is my pleasure on rising to offer the congratulations of the House to the noble Lord who has just spoken on a very brilliant, thoughtful and witty address. I am sure everybody would wish to congratulate him. He is one of a brilliant band of younger members of this House who are coming back to it now, who played their part in the world of men in the war, and are now going to other professions. I think the Fighting Services—and I say Fighting Services or
262
Armed Services, not Defence Services—may look forward in the future to having their flag kept flying, and it will always, be looked after. I am not afraid of saying that revisions will take place in these conditions. If they are necessary they will be forced on the Government, if they are unwilling to make them—if not on this Government, on the succeeding one. I am sure we all look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many future occasions.
I feel rather shy about making these remarks after allusions to the "Great Three." I never looked upon myself as belonging to the trinity before. I speak without any knowledge really of the details because I am out of touch with them, but what I do feel quite sure of is that the departments concerned with the three Fighting Forces have done their best with the amount of material that was handed out to them to give the officers more pay. It does appear to me however that a wonderful chance has been lost by the Government. Why not add a little more and give the Services their reward? They have not been too generous in giving great rewards to the war leaders, so why not hand them to the younger officers? If you want efficient officers you must pay them. You cannot expect a man to be at the top of his form if he is wondering whether his wife has enough money to look after the children properly. The White Paper shows that a lot has been done and it is something to have the pay of the Services linked with that of the general community. When that is done there is no chance of it remaining static for forty years, as it did, your Lordships will remember, before the year 1914. I do not think the pay was raised or altered for forty long years. A great change such as this is is bound to have many weak points in it, and already modifications have been introduced, which show that the Government are open to suggestions upon their new scale.
Much of what I had hoped to say has been much more amply said by previous speakers, and there are only one or two points I should particularly like to address to your Lordships. One course is what is called "simplification of pay." The White Paper dealing with the pay and allowances of the non-commissioned officers and petty officers and men says that these simplifications of pay will make

263
it very much easier—or words are used to that effect—to produce the accounts. That is not what we are aiming at; we are aiming at getting the most efficient men in the Fighting Services in the shortest possible time; and I am perfectly sure that with either officers or men it is a mistake to do away with specialist pay. Take the case of specialist pay given in the Navy to young officers. They deserved it. When they had specialized, they had harder work to do and longer hours to work than anybody else. The one or two specialists in a big ship are always at everybody's beck and call, and to take their pay away now because it is said that everybody is a specialist, except a few, does not seem to me to be fair. If there are a few who do not want to specialize, that is no reason, to my mind, for not paying the others.
I hold that every young officer and every young man ought to have his interest maintained at a rather critical time of life—the age when he can have a jolly good time ashore if he wishes to go ashore, and that sort of thing. Let us give him some little incentive to work. That also holds for the lower deck. I am not always in complete agreement with my colleagues in my own Service. On the subject of the entry of cadets, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion wanted to know why the Navy desired to persevere with the Dartmouth entry. I have always been not in favour of the Dartmouth entry. I have had a number of these boys aboard, so I know what I am talking about. I do not believe it is right to have a boy of 13½ before you and cross-examine him. There are two sorts of little boy. There is the one who comes from a home with a small income, and he is not used to meeting grown-up people. Then there is the other boy from the well-to-do home where the father entertains a great deal, and the little boy learns to talk to the guests and is patted on the back by them and so on. It is this boy who comes out well. I should much prefer to see entries into the Navy after they have completed their studies and general education, and I also, together with the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, think we should have a reserve of officers who have served several years in the Navy and passed into civil life. The wider the range of ideas
264
brought into the Service, the better for everybody.
Before I finish I would like to put in a plea for retired officers. They have got to live in the same world as other people, and to give a man an allowance of £100 or £120 a year more is not doing very much. What is that nowadays, when you think of the value of the pound compared with what it was before the war? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that the pound is now worth 8s. 6d. compared with what it was worth some few years ago. It is very hard for these officers to retire from the Navy, Army or Air Force on pay like that. They are handicapped in getting a job in civil life, and that is added to the hardship of having very little money to live on. Only the other day I read that a man who had a fine record in the field and had reached the rank of Colonel, and commanded a battalion, was now leaving the Service and was going to be a cook somewhere. That is simply throwing away talent. I hesitate to say anything about other officers after what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and I will only talk about Field-Marshals and Air-Marshals and Marshals of the Air Force. They are, of course, very few in number. They are men who have reached the top after fifty years of competition. Only one or two men get to that rank. I do not think that their retiring rate of half-pay compares at all favourably with that of any successful man in civil life. If yon are going to attract the best brains into the Fighting Services—and that is what we want to do—surely it is worth while giving them a higher prize to aim for all through their career.
3.39 p.m.
LORD CHETWODE: My Lords, having overcome the terror of addressing your Lordships for the first time, I am going to venture to say only a very few words to-day. May I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? He is a very much younger officer than I am, and I have never heard a better exposition of the case for the officer in my life. I am going to speak about two things: one is the Income Tax on allowances, and the other is a plea for the older pensioned officer. May I say at once that I disagree absolutely and entirely with the noble Lord who moved this Motion? I cannot understand how it is possible to compare in the very least the position of

265
an officer in the Army with that of one of the ordinary citizens of this Empire. How can you do such a thing? The ordinary citizen goes where he likes when he likes—or more or less so, nowadays. The soldier goes where he is told and when he is told. He is supposed to have a wonderfully good time and I am told that he plays polo and shoot tigers and does that kind of thing. He does not do that nowadays. The "good time" means that he has got to sacrifice his life at a moment's notice in frontier campaigns or wherever it may be. He has to go to any kind of climate. I spent eighteen years, man and boy, of my life in India and that does not do you much good. I have heard a great deal to-day of the word "career" There is no real career in the Army. I was Military Secretary to Mr. Winston Churchill after the last war and on the figures then rather less than two per cent. of the people who held His Majesty's Commission had the chance of going further than the rank of Colonel. That is certainly not a career, and I think it is ridiculous to say there is any comparison with the ordinary citizen when you are flung out on a cold labour market at any age between 40 and 45. The officer must be treated differently.
I should have liked to congratulate the Government on being the first Government to have the privilege, indeed the honour, to propose an adequate rate of pay for the men of the three Services, but I am not so certain of that now. My noble and gallant friend the Earl of Cavan has three pay sergeants working for him and they have not made out yet what the meaning of the word "paper" is! One thing which is most important is to know whether you are going back on us later on, as you did after the last war. I heard a lot of talk of this kind after the last war when we had the inch-cape cuts and the Geddes axe and the cuts in pensions. I was Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff and we had three schools in which we had to teach the man in the ranks some kind of trade before he went back to civil life. I was ordered to reduce the number of schools to only one, so there was only one chance of these unfortunate men learning a trade before they went back to civil life. That is the kind of thing that happens, and it is all put down to the "brass hats" in the War Office. I would remind your
266
Lordships that ordinarily there are three military members of the Army Council and they are always outvoted by at least two, by the civil servants. But we get all the blame! Is it not possible to ask the Government to remove the Income Tax on the allowances of these unfortunate people? It is really too bad to say that they can be compared with other people.
I will not keep your Lordships much longer, except to make one plea for the older officer who has had his pension cut three or four times. In 1934 they began to replace the cuts a bit, but the colonel was carefully left out. That meant that pensions over £600 a year were not to be restored and they carefully put up the pay to £625 so that they were quite certain that they should not be. Is that fair? It is not fair. You are giving the extra pay and pensions only to the people who served in this war. What about the unfortunate men of the rank of Colonel or Brigadier retiring on just over £600 a year? They went through far worse a time in the last war than people did in this war. The casualties were double and the discomforts were double, except possibly in the case of Burma. Yet they have served for two wars and will have to exist on the same pensions as we have. I plead, therefore, for assistance in regard to Income Tax allowances for officers and I ask the Government to give some thought to the men who served in wars before the last one in the matter of their pension.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I carry my mind back to the debate on this subject which I listened to after the last war when the pay papers were published. I was a member of all the pay committees in those days and I can see a resemblance in to-day's debate to the arguments in the debates of that time, in which I am afraid the Service members did not win. I want to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, on his speech. I have never heard a speech which represented so much of what is thought by the Services generally. There is not a single point he has made of which I have not heard from other sources and that shows the advantage of encouraging young members like the noble Lord to speak in your Lordships' House

267
instead of your listening to old people like myself.
There are two points that I wish to take up. Reference has been made to the fact that the Lieutenant-Colonel is not well treated. He is not, nor is the Group Captain, and I should like to go a rank higher and say the Air Commodore and the Brigadier. I believe that the position of those who are going to enter and get promotion is difficult. I do not think you will find that these three ranks, the Group Captain, the Air Commodore, and the Brigadier will be dealt with adequately. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion talked about a comparison with the civilian scale of pay. It is still more important to compare the standard of living which is expected and the standard of pay which is necessary to keep up the ranks of Wing Commander or Air Commodore and similar ranks in the Navy. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, showed that the increase on officers' pay was about 30 per cent. and that the increase to the other ranks was in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent. In the officers' ranks you can find increases as low as 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. All through this pay scheme I cannot help feeling that you are giving quite good pay to the average man, but that the scale of pay is not sufficient to attract the cream of the nation who, in whatever walk of life they went, would expect and get an increase. I think we should do more to attract the cream of the nation and not only the average.
3.50 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, as one who left His Majesty's Army with the rank of Major, I feel a certain diffidence in rising to address your Lordships after you have heard speeches from an Admiral of the Fleet, a Field-Marshal and a Marshal of the Royal Air Force. This revision of pay for the Forces is one of many which there have been, certainly in the Army (during my speech I shall refer to the Army mostly because it is what I know best) since the days when 5s. 3d. a day was considered sufficient for a newly-joined Second Lieutenant and round about £1 a day for a Lieutenant-Colonel. I shall confine my remarks to asking a few questions to which I hope the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War will reply in some detail.
268
First of all, may I say how very much I welcome the accelerated period of promotion which I see in the White Paper, by which Lieutenants, Captains and Majors are to be promoted at the following intervals—two, six and thirteen years instead of three, eight and seventeen years. That is all to the good. My first question, to which I should like a reply in some detail, is with regard to the rate of pay for the commanding officer of a unit, because the rates laid down here are really rather astonishing. If your Lordships will look at Appendix I, Table II on Page 24, you will see that the present rate of an officer commanding a battalion is 43s. a day, in addition to which there is his command pay, which makes it 53s. Command pay is being abolished and is being replaced by an entertainment allowance, and if your Lordships will look at the new rates on the right-hand side of the table you will see that the rate of pay for a commanding officer of less than nineteen years' service will be 47s. 6d.; for a commanding officer of nineteen years' service 50s.; for one of twenty-one years' service 52s. 6d., and so on. In addition to that there has, I suppose, to be added the half-crown a day entertainment allowance. If my arithmetic is not wrong, that means that any commanding officer with less than nineteen years' service is actually three shillings a day worse off than at present. A commanding officer with nineteen years' service is sixpence a day worse off. When he has twenty-one years' service he is 2s. better off. After that an officer with twenty-three years' service scores 4s. 6d. and, with twenty-five years' service 7s.
If I may say so, to me that really seems a most extraordinary proposal. I hardly think that it can be meant. I do not know whether my figures are wrong, but I certainly should be very grateful if we could have some explanation from the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War. Even in the case of those Lieutenant-Colonels who score, their rise of pay is surely not commensurate with the rise of pay granted to Captains and Majors. I should like to add that I agree very much with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his most excellent speech about the taking away of the five shillings or the three shillings a day from the pay of the Adjutant. I think that is a great pity, and a great discouragement. However, I do not agree

269
with the noble Lord that an officer of six or less years' service cannot qualify as an Adjutant. I think in a way that the younger they are when appointed the better.
May I say a word about the entertainment allowance? In Appendix 4 on the last page of the White Paper your Lordships will see the entertainment allowance which is laid down. Captains of the Royal Navy will get eight shillings or five shillings a day. Commanders in the Royal Navy will get two shillings or two shillings and sixpence. Then you get Brigadiers and Air Commodores on land who will receive three shillings and nine-pence a day. And then you have Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, Group Captains and Wing Commanders with two and sixpence a day. These rates of pay are probably all very well for Commanders in the Navy because, although I speak subject to correction by my noble and gallant friend, I rather think that certain commodities can be got a good deal cheaper on board ship. But in the case of a Lieutenant-Colonel, with half-a-crown a day the position is entirely different. What can you buy for half-a-crown? A number of years ago you could buy fifteen pints of beer; you could purchase six small whiskies and sodas; you could buy about seven glasses of light port. What will it buy now? It will buy two pints of beer; it will buy about one whisky and soda; it will buy about one glass of light—very light—port, or if you like you can buy a packet of cigarettes or a rather indifferent cigar. However, joking apart, I do really regard this rate as almost an insult, and I hope His Majesty's Government will reconsider it and give something better. I do not have in mind the commanding officer in a big garrison who probably would not have to entertain very much, but rather the commanding officer in a small station where the unit commander is in touch with the civilian population. He is probably entertained by the Mayor and that sort of thing. He might have to do quite a lot of entertaining, and noble Lords must realize that half-a-crown a day will not go anywhere at all. I do hope that this matter will be reconsidered.
I should like to say a word also with regard to qualification pay, which has already been referred to and is dealt with in paragraph 25 on page seven. I am
270
not at all clear as to who will draw this, and I should very much like the noble Lord when he replies to make it clearer. Paragraph 9 on page 6, states that officers will be granted an outfit allowance on joining. I think we should all rather like to know how much that is going to be. At present the outfit grant is fifty pounds I think. It was forty pounds or fifty pounds just before the war. I have had the experience of fitting out two officers for the Forces, and when I had to do it, some nine or ten years ago, certainly forty pounds would buy a couple of suits of Service dress, a greatcoat and probably a forage cap. What would it buy now? It would buy—possibly—the best part of a suit of Service dress. I hope very much that a really proper allowance will be given, and that the question of full dress will also be given very careful consideration.
I should now like to say one word about the rates of retired pay which were referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chetwode. I should like to go a little further than he did. These rates of retired pay certainly represent an improvement on the old rates, but in this connexion they merely accentuate the very great grievances of those officers who retired under the Warrant of 1919. This Warrant provided that the basic rates of pension should rise or fall up to 20 per cent. according to the cost of living. As long as the cost of living fell the rates of the pension fell with it. Then the cost of living began to rise again. And what happened? The rates rose a little and they were stabilized at 9½ per cent. below the basic rate. If the scale had been allowed to operate property there would have been very little difference between what those officers would have received and the scale which is now proposed in the White Paper. Personally I never could understand why this injustice was done, and although it may not be strictly germane to this White Paper I ask the Government to consider the case of these officers and have the matter put right. They have a great opportunity of doing a very gracious action to some very deserving officers.
I said at the outset that this is the latest of many revisions of officers' pay, and in many ways I think it is a great advance. But there is a question, as everybody who served in the Army will know, which is always asked. The question that

271
is always asked when a thing like this is brought forward is: "What is the catch?" There is an old saying, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes—Danaos in this case being the Financial Branch of the War Office. No doubt the rates at first look better, but of course the catch comes in paragraphs 42–46, which have been referred to, which tax the allowances for officers.
These allowances are given for certain purposes and they have never been taxed before. Here I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour when he said in his speech that he thought it was right, in a way, that they should be taxed. I do not think they ought to be.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Only provided they start on a level which, when tax is deducted, allows them to fulfil their purpose.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg my noble friend's pardon; he did say that. I think they ought not to be taxed. After all, in the next paragraph it is said that ration allowance should not be taxed, and if that is so I cannot see why marriage and lodging allowances should be taxed. It is almost impossible to state the effect of these proposals on officers' pockets. It must depend to a very large extent on their private means, if any. I have heard it said, however—I do not know, but I believe it must be true—that many officers, from the rank of Major upwards, will be to a certain degree worse off under these proposals. At all events, I qualify it in this way: it must be so while the purchasing power of money is so low and the present penal taxation exists.
A friend of mine who is a General Officer met a very high-up General Officer the other day. The latter may have had something to do with getting out the White Paper—I do not know. Anyhow, he asked my friend what he thought of these proposals. My friend said he did not think very much of them. He was asked why, and he explained that he, as a General Officer, would be about £120 a year worse off. "Oh," said the high-up General, "but you are thinking in the terms of nine shillings in the pound Income Tax. You must not think that is always going to be there." My friend
272
replied that he was thinking in terms of nine shillings in the pound Income Tax. And why not? Have any of your Lordships great hopes of any very early reduction? I have not. I do not wish to be a pessimist, and we must all await the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech in a few weeks' time, but I confess I do not see any sign of retrenchment or cutting down, at least not to an extent that will entail a very early reduction in Income Tax. I wish I did. We must also not forget that all General Officers and no doubt a certain number of other officers as well will be subject to Surtax, and that considerably adds to their liabilities. I trust His Majesty's Government will pay attention to what has been said and what will be said during this debate. I can imagine no better place in which to discuss this subject than your Lordships' House, and the Government I am sure will agree with me when I say that there has been no feeling of Party spirit, or anything of that kind, about this debate to-day. In the coming years this country will require a good deal from its Forces, and it is essential that we should have a contented body of officers and men. Let the Government rectify injustices, if injustices there are, and treat all ranks not only justly but generously. I say "all ranks" because all ranks enter into it, although we are to-day discussing the pay and allowances only of the officers. Let the Government treat the officers generously, in the way they deserve. It used to be said in the Army—it may be said still—that the officer's worst enemy is the Finance Branch of the War Office. Let the Government take away that reproach, and they will do a good turn to the Army and the country.
4.5 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, having listened with very great interest, considerable amusement and great advantage to those noble Lords who either by heritage or achievement or both, or like myself by sheer good fortune, sit in this House, I should like to give my views as a "brass hat" sailor, at present the only one I see on the Government Benches. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I thought he painted a very black picture of the White Paper and its contents. When I picked it up and read it through I thought, "Well, the Government are alive to the requirements of officers in the three

273
Fighting Services." On the subject of Commissions from the lower deck, I can assure the noble Lord who opened this debate that the gates are being thrown open ever wider, and in another place he will find that there is great agitation for more and easier means of getting commissioned rank from the lower deck.
Concerning marriage allowances, I may say that I was one of those who married at 23, and I was referred to as "the married Lieutenant" as if I had committed a crime. But I never dreamt of asking the taxpayer to contribute to the support of my beautiful wife. I thought I was lucky, and we framed our financial plans as everybody should. We looked to the future, and somehow we never ran into debt. We were not extravagant. So far as the Royal Navy was concerned, an officer was allowed to entertain his wife on board, and as the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has said, we had a lot of privileges—gin 1s. 3d. a bottle, and whisky only 2s. 6d. When I say the picture was painted black, I mean that all the disadvantages were put well in the foreground and the advantages left unsaid.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in a graceful way, was not nearly so adversely critical. He talked about taxation and implied that it made everything unreal. But, after all, the whole country is bearing this burden of taxation. It is part of the price of victory, and we have all to pay it. But I do think I speak for seventy per cent. or even more in the Royal Navy when I say, quoting the words of Old Bill, "If you know of a better 'ole, go to it." I am proud to have served in the Royal Navy, and I know, as do my fellow Flag Officers who are here, both of them Admirals of the Fleet, that of the three Services probably fewer complaints ever reach the Ministers from the Navy because there is less to complain about; the advantages are realized. I liked the reference of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to the "trick cyclist." I agree with him that too much value is attributed to what the psychiatrist says, and I think if one searched back into the antecedents of psychiatrists one would find that most of them were not very English.
I realize that it is the duty of the Opposition to attempt to pick holes in every White Paper that comes out. In this case they have done their best and I raise my hat to them. Several of your
274
Lordships have compared the position of the officer with the position of the man in commerce. There are many men, like certain of your Lordships, who are outstanding examples of success in their professions or trades, but those men are not typical specimens. The ordinary man in commerce holding a position equivalent to a young Lieutenant has to squash in a No. 46 bus, or into the tube and during the last six years I was glad that I had a Government car to take me on my lawful errands. I cannot speak for the other Services, but I think your Lordships should realize that if this White Paper were put to an officer in the Navy and he were asked, "Having looked through it, what would you do? Would you make commerce your career?" he would say, "No fear, I will do it all over again." I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cork, and the noble Lord, Lord Chetwode, know in their hearts that that is true.
Too much stress should not be laid on the awful cost to which we are put in respect of our uniforms. I know that we have to pay for them, but we do have much better laundry facilities in the Royal Navy than are available in commerce. I think the noble Earl was very generous, and I agree with him, in what he said about the specialist who, in the Royal Navy, is at everybody's beck and call, and who is generally outstanding in ability. I think it is particularly generous as the noble Earl himself did not specialize—perhaps because he could afford not to. To the noble Lord, Chetwode, who so seldom speaks in this house, I would say that he surely can have no regrets when he speaks of India. After all, he was Commander-in-Chief. I was a Commander-in-Chief twice and I found I had privileges which even some Royalty did not have. Those things should not be kept entirely out of sight.
I would say to your Lordships that these White Papers are meant to be read in the spirit and not in the letter. The spirit of this White Paper is generally good. Anyhow, its trend is towards better terms for the officers of the three Fighting Services. I can speak as one who has two sons who have both obtained commissioned rank. Neither of them has ever made any complaint to me about his treatment or the sufficiency of his pay. When I showed them both this White Paper they said,

275
"Did you have anything to do with that, dad?" and I said, "No, but I will take the credit for being on the side that did."
4.15 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, this is the first time in my life that I have been privileged to follow a "brass-hat sailor" in speaking. I hope that as a member of the "Wavy Navy" I shall have extended to me the same kindness I have encountered from R.N. officers in the whole of my service during the war. I look at this new pay code from the point of view of a R.N.V.R. officer who might consider signing on for an active Service Commission. One thing that strikes me is that it has very definitely simplified matters, so that the young officer knows exactly where he is and what he is going to get each month. That was not the case during the war, when one never knew what one was going to get at the end of the month. You might go along to the Paymaster and receive the reply "I am sorry, but you are not entitled this month." If you queried it you would be told, "If you don't like it, write to the Director of Naval Accounts at Bath." That was the end of it; you just accepted it.
In Appendix 1, Table 1, on page 22, there are set out the rates of pay for Acting Sub-Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants. In the case of an Acting Sub-Lieutenant the old rate of pay was 11s. a day and the new rate is 11s. a day. In the case of a Sub-Lieutenant, it was 13s. a day and remains at 13s. a day. I think that some slight increase might have been granted to officers of those ranks. During the war we had very many ratings on the lower deck who were eminently suitable for Commissions and when they were asked "Why do not you go in for a Commission?" they replied, "Well, sir, it is not worth it; I do not gain anything." It does not matter whether it is the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force; it is to the lowest commissioned ranks that you need to attract people. I think that the Sub-Lieutenant and the Acting Sub-Lieutenant have been rather shabbily treated.
I am not really qualified to speak on this subject, but I have had a certain amount of talk and correspondence with young R.N. officers. I think that the abolition of specialist pay is a bad thing for the Royal Navy. Anyone of your Lordships who has had the misfortune
276
to be a gunnery officer in the Navy and to be chased around Whale Island will know that it is worth 2s. 6d. because it is very hard work. The same applies to the torpedo officer and to the navigator—particularly to the navigator, who has on his hands the safety of a large and expensive ship. If the navigator puts his ship aground it is the end of him, but he is not going to get any more than an ordinary watch-keeping officer, if I interpret paragraph 25 correctly. In that paragraph qualification pay is mentioned for the Army and not for the Navy, but it may be that I have wrongly interpreted the paragraph and that it is meant to include the Navy.
As to marriage allowance, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. A naval officer, however, is up against something which is slightly different in the other two Services. If he is fortunate enough to be shore-based for any length of time, there are no married quarters which he can rent at a reasonable price. He is at the mercy—and particularly so because all our major ports have been badly "blitzed"—of unscrupulous, or possibly unscrupulous, landladies. I know from personal experience that in Plymouth it was impossible to get any reasonable house, or indeed any house, for less than five guineas a week. That is more than the marriage allowance. I know it is very difficult, because Royal Naval barracks have no married quarters, but that is one point I would like to put to His Majesty's Government.
The other question is with regard to the position of naval officers' wives and children wishing to join their husbands on a foreign commission. Would it not be possible to grant them one free passage each way during a commission? I believe that the Army and the Royal Air Force have married quarters abroad, whereas, I think, naval officers have to find their own. It would be, I am sure, most acceptable if they could get one free passage either way during a commission.
There is just one final point to which I would refer, if your Lordships will permit me, which is not covered by this White Paper. I do hope that the most sympathetic consideration will be given to the case of the Naval Warrant Officer on retirement, because he has to go the hard way, and at the moment he is not getting a square deal.
4.23 p.m.
LORD HATHERTON: My Lords, while generally welcoming the principles underlying this Bill, there are two points to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention. The first one concerns the position of a Post-Captain in command of a capital ship. He is in command of a vessel to the value of something like £8,000,000 to £10,000,000, with over 1,500 officers and men under him. According to the White Paper, if he has got six years service as Captain he gets £1,350 a year basic pay. In addition to this he gets command allowance of 10s. a day, bringing his total pay up to approximately £1,530 a year, all of which is subject to tax. I do not believe that is sufficient. In spite of all that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has said, there must be some slight resemblance to normal living ashore and normal wages, because the whole purpose of this White Paper is to encourage and attract young people into the Services. I do not believe that anybody in charge of a concern of the value of £10,000,000, with 1,500 workpeople, would get only £1,530 a year all subject to tax. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider this point, and I should like to see this command money at least doubled. Furthermore, I should like to see all command money for any sea-going ships paid free of tax.
The other point to which I wish to refer is the question of table-money, or entertainment allowance, for Commanders-in-Chief. As your Lordships know, the greater part of their lives is taken up visiting their stations, including remote places on outlying seaboards sometimes thousands of miles apart; what is commonly called "showing the flag." On a foreign station this is of empirical importance, and in all these places a Commander-in-Chief has to entertain on a very considerable scale. In the Far East it is perhaps of greater importance, where the question of ceremony and hospitality looms so large in the eastern mind. Owing to the present system of a limited allowance, no provision is made for fluctuating currency values or variations in the course of moving from place to place. For example, the Commander-in-Chief in China might pay a visit to Hong Kong, but carrying out the same entertainment programme in Shanghai he might find that owing to the cost of living he would have to dip very deeply into his
278
own private pocket. I do not think that is right and I hope His Majesty's Government will consider that point as well. No matter what they fix as a flat rate for table-money, or entertainment allowance, if hope they will provide a contingency fund from which a Commander-in-Chief may draw at any time at his own discretion up to any amount, so that he may be constantly encouraged to show the White Ensign in its true colours.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for having introduced this Motion, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that rarely have we had a more fruitful debate with a succession of speeches so much to the point as we have had this afternoon. The points have been so well covered that I shall only mention two or three, and I can assure your Lordships I will not detain you at any length. I should like to add one word of congratulation to those which have already been given to my noble friend Lord Mancroft on his maiden speech, and particularly that portion where he brought tears to our eyes when he related how he had become the alternative target of his commanding officer to pig-sticking. I think we must agree, as he went on with his remarks, that it seemed that it had not been wholly ineffective because of his defence of commanding officers and Lieutenant-Colonels in which he made a demand for increased pay. This subject is one which naturally interests all of us in whatever part of the House we sit, and on this Bench I know I am speaking for all my noble friends when I say that we hope and trust that this new code of pay and allowances will prove attractive to the officers of all the Fighting Services, because we all want, as I am sure His Majesty's Government do, to retain the services of all the best who are now in the Forces and to attract the pick of the young men who are about to enter or who will enter in the days to come.
I think it is common ground that if our countrymen are risking their lives on active service it is of supreme importance that in all three Services every possible life should be saved by efficient leadership. Unless you are to attract to the commissioned ranks of the Services the best brains and the best fighting qualities available, then real all-round leaders of

279
men are not discovered and you are actually endangering the country's youth. Surely, therefore, we are all agreed that you must give these men compensation in their career, not wholly comparable, but in some relation, to what their qualities would gain for them in other walks of life.
To secure the right man to manage, say, fifty men in a business, you aim at getting first-class material, and you pay the man you select accordingly. In this business of modern war—so complicated and so highly technical for all branches of the Services—not only do you want the same qualities of leadership, management, administration, and brains, but, in addition, the special kind of leadership which will cause men to follow anywhere, and in any circumstances, when they are put to the supreme test. You want a leader who will, by his knowledge of the science of arms, guard and care for the fifty lives under his charge, which are in his safekeeping and which, but for his leadership, may be lost.
The officer enters the service of this country with the expectation of active service. That is why he joins the Services. He joins, therefore, with his eyes wide open to the fact that at any moment his own life must be offered in any sudden emergency. This fact in my opinion as a civilian demands from us recognition not only that his work is of equal importance to that of anyone in comparable civilian occupation, but the added recognition that he may as a matter of course have to make the supreme sacrifice in the course of his duty. It is in such a light that I feel we ought to consider and examine this White Paper, and I wish to say at once—for the last thing I would wish to do would be to crab what the Government is attempting to accomplish in this matter—that with the exceptions of those points which have been mentioned by my noble friends and one or two others upon which I wish briefly to offer a few words, we are of opinion that compared to the really niggardly code of pay before the war, the picture does, broadly speaking, taking into consideration retired pay and certain other factors, present an all-round improvement. I am forced to say, however, that if Income Tax remains at the intolerable war-level of nine shillings in the
280
pound, or anything like it, in peace-time, then officers, in my opinion, will certainly not be better off than they were before the war, having regard to all the circumstances of the time and the increase in the cost of living.
In business circles, the burden of Income Tax is generally appreciated and realized, and I think it will be agreed that in many cases men of comparable quality are owing to Income Tax receiving some bonus or other means of lightening the burden as a temporary measure. But, of course, in the Services there can be no such provision. When I say, therefore, that this code of pay is satisfactory, I do so with the proviso that the pay is only satisfactory if and when taxation is reduced. I pray that my noble friend Lord Templemore is wrong, and that it will come down very shortly from a war to a peace level. This, as I think the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government will agree, applies particularly to the withholding of previous concessions in that marriage allowances are no longer to be free of Income Tax. That is a very big point to-day, but, of course, we shall have to wait to see if taxation ever comes back to normal under the grandiose schemes that have been put forward for the benefit of the taxpayers as spenders. I think we must all agree that it does depend upon that.
I would like to ask my noble friend Lord Nathan whether he has anything further to say about the position of Quartermasters. I must admit that I did not give him notice of this, but I understand that it is a matter which is being given consideration. These officers are, naturally, very anxious to know what their future conditions are likely to be. They form such an important branch of the Service that I do hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some enlightenment about it, though I realize that very likely he will not be able to reply on this to-day.
May I say that I welcome the speeding up of promotion with biennial increment? I was prepared to give very warm approval also to qualification pay but for a remark which I think was made by the noble Marquess to the effect that it only applied in the case of officers from the Staff College or to those who had university honours. I am glad to see that the noble Lord opposite expresses dissent. I thought that that could not be so. If

281
those qualifications did indeed apply, it would be rather discouraging, because the number of officers who had passed through the Staff College at that age in their service would be very few, whilst the numbers of those who had taken honours at one or other of the universities would be likely to be still smaller.
One other general comment. In the code of pay for other ranks, pay has been doubled, which is a subject of rejoicing for all of us. I refer, of course, to basic pay. But anyone who is accustomed to attach importance to merit in leadership must, I think, be somewhat disturbed to see that the gap of improvement in basic pay is narrowed in that commissioned officers get no such comparable increment. The basic rate of pay of other ranks, as has been mentioned to-day, is increased by something in the neighbourhood of one hundred per cent. The increase in the cost of the new rates of pay and the marriage allowances for officers, compared with the 1938 standard, is set out in paragraph 70, page 16. It is given as 31.8 per cent. That is the general cost. That compares with increased cost of other ranks of 61 per cent. That is what other ranks get according to the White Paper.
I am told by those more skilful in mathematics than I—for I must confess that I find it very difficult indeed to judge from the White Paper—that taking into account allowances and taxes, the improvement for a large group of officers will only be some 15 per cent. One of my noble friends I think has spoken of a percentage as low as 10. If I read the change aright, the basic rate of pay for young officers does seem to me to be rather inadequate. I am speaking rather more for the young officers to-day, though that does not mean that I do not agree with my noble friends who have spoken of officers at later stages of their career when they seem to be quite inadequately remunerated. I refer to Lieutenant-Colonels and Colonels. But if I read aright the change of which I have been speaking, the basic rate of pay for young officers rises over the present rate by only something like two shillings a day. In the Royal Navy, I think it has been said, it is almost less than that. I must therefore ask the Government—and I do not put the question in any spirit of hostility—what justification there is for failing to extend to young officers the same increments as they have in their
282
wisdom decided to grant to other ranks in relation to the changed circumstances of the times, the cost of living, etc. When it is realized that in the past many and perhaps most of the young officers joining the three Services had some private means, I cannot believe that it is sound policy to grant all the new officers, mostly drawn from the ranks with no private income, an increment so small compared to other ranks.
Are the Government really determined to refuse to give merit its due reward? Are those who excel among their fellows as a general principle to be denied the incentive to take Commissions, as was mentioned in a speech just now, by being deprived of a recognition of the cost of modern life? The case of the Lieutenant-Colonel has been referred to, and I do beg the noble Lord who has to reply to consider that special case, because it does appear that the Lieutenant-Colonel, in his position of great responsibility, is to be less favourably treated than any other rank in the matter of increment. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us we are wrong in our fears in that connexion, and I am convinced that he with his knowledge of the Service and how much this means to the officers, will be ready to consider it.
In conclusion, I wish to take the case of those officers at the very top. In this country, in days gone by, when men won victory, and thereby saved countless lives of fighting men and much suffering to their fellow countrymen, they received great rewards. The present Government seem determined that these great Service leaders of our race in the recent conflict, who have displayed an all-round military genius which I claim has been unequalled in the annals of warfare, are to get absolutely nothing in recognition of the fact that they spared us defeat and the concentration camp and, above all others, were responsible for preserving our freedom.
It is always invidious to mention names, and I know they will probably not forgive me, but I want it to be realized that, when Cunningham, Tovey, Fraser, Allenbrooke, Alexander, Montgomery, Portal and Tedder—these great captains who have by their brilliant leadership in all probability saved the nation in widows' pensions and disability pensions scores of millions of pounds—are in retirement, they will get no more than an Admiral of the Fleet,

283
a Field-Marshal or a Marshal of the Air Force serving in time of peace. I confess to humiliation as an Englishman when I find that these great men who won our undying gratitude are on retirement to be given half-pay of £1,800 a year (which, after paying taxes, I presume, as employed persons amounts to less than £1.150 per annum), when a quite unknown member of the House of Commons, who has floated into another place on a wave of temporary—
LORD QUIBELL: Temporary sanity.
LORD CROFT: —insanity, without having given any considerable service to his country in another walk of life and sometimes with a quite unpronounceable name, immediately on arrival gets £600 per annum under the existing scale and is entitled—although I do not think the country is generally aware of this fact; when I was in another place I never advertised it very much—to have his expenses set against his income for Income Tax or Surtax purposes. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that that is an equivalent of a gross income from any other walk of life of something like £1,000 a year. I am not complaining—dog does not eat dog—because, having spent thirty-one years of my life in that Chamber, I do realize the hardship of the members. What I am saying is purely comparative with the way our greatest war leaders are treated and not because I desire to deny any proper recompense to those who are bearing such responsibilities in another place. But we have all read in the newspapers this week that it is not to end there, and it is now suggested that the members of the House of Commons (and I have no doubt the steam-roller will carry it through) are to receive £1,000 a Year of which £500 will be free of tax.
I am not complaining—it may be right and it may be wise, and it would be out of order for me to debate such a question here to-day—but I do want it to be realized that Cunningham, Alexander, Montgomery, Tedder and the others, at the end of long and wonderful careers, with this nation and all the world grateful to them, will be very little better off than those who have been recently elected Members of Parliament. In other walks of life we are appreciating the fact that the times are changing and expenses are much greater. The war is over. London
284
is no longer subject to "blitz" and there are now regular bus services and many taxis on the streets; but Cabinet Ministers have not, if I understand aright, hesitated now, in time of peace, to add to their salaries of £5,000 a year a perquisite in the shape of a motor-car, driver and garage, all tax-free, which would cost any of us at least boo per annum net, and which would cost an Admiral of the Fleet or Marshal of the Air Force or Field Marshal a similar sum, after nine shillings in the pound has been deducted.
Is it the case that there has been a deterioration in the physique of the new Ministers and that perhaps they cannot last the course in the arduous route march from Whitehall to the Palace of Westminster? But, whatever the reason (and I am sure they are right, because they are all conscientious men) they have not hesitated, like Members of Parliament, to call upon the taxpayer to improve their lot. Our greatest war leaders, it is true, are going to receive the honour of a Peerage from their grateful Sovereign, but from their ungrateful Government they get not a penny to maintain that not inexpensive dignity. When the Government abandoned the time-honoured practice of a monetary award for victorious national war leaders I believe I am speaking for everyone here present when I say that we did expect they would have given something in the nature of an increased Pension. This does not give them the "awful stigma" of having to hand over property to their sons and grandsons. If we are not to increase their pensions, at least we should say that as long as they live these men shall continue to draw full pay.
I ask your Lordships, in conclusion, if we really feel that we are doing what is right and correct from the democratic angle. I would ask His Majesty's Government to find out what is done in this connexion in the United States of America. There, I think you will find, the great war leaders are very differently treated. We have heard already what happens in Russia. There, I believe, there is no reduction in full pay whatever; they carry it on for the rest of their lives. I would like to know what France did for her victorious Marshals after the last war. I venture to think that no other country would treat its greatest heroes like this. I find, in travelling in the 'bus and the tube, that there is a crescendo of adjec-

285
tives applied to His Majesty's Government, but I hope that, for the credit of the nation in this matter, they will not go down to history as the meanest Government of all time and as a Government which, in connexion with the architects of our victory, banished the word "gratitude" from the English language. I do urge His Majesty's Government to think again and to right this grievous wrong.
4.50 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, this has been a fruitful and a helpful discussion and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for the questions, which seem to me if I may say so to be the right questions, which he put at the opening of his observations. He asked whether the new scales will attract and give us contented officers. Those seem to me to be the right questions and it is by that test that His Majesty's Government have been guided in framing the proposals which have been the subject of this discussion. We feel that they will attract; we feel that they will give contented officers. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, also mentioned that the yardstick by which they were to be judged should be industry. Well, if noble Lords will compare the range of scales set out in the White Paper with the rewards to young men entering the professions or commerce—young men who may be assumed to have like attainments to those we wish to see in the Army—I think they will find that the rates are by no means unattractive. I speak as a member of a profession myself and also as the employer of members of the same profession, and I must confess that when I first looked at these figures in an earlier stage and related them to what a young man might be expected to receive in either branch of the law, I was satisfied and I felt, indeed, that they would prove attractive. Perhaps the ultimate rewards of great success in a profession—of the law for instance, or indeed of any other profession—measured in terms of money will be higher than the rewards of the Armed Forces of the Crown or of the Civil Service, but those rewards are reaped by the few, the exceptional, the highly successful men.
286
When considering these rates of pay there has to be taken into account this very substantial fact, that these tables of pay are tables of current remuneration, and that there is also the solid element of deferred remuneration which finds its reflection at the end of a period of service in retired pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Croft, has pointed out, there is a new feature in this scale. There is an increment scale applied automatically up to, and including, the rank of Major by biennial stages. Those scales do not take into account the fact that a Major, retiring at the age of forty-five after twenty or twenty-two years' service, will be receiving an annuity, a payment for the rest of his life, of £475 a year. That sum of £475 a year really has the significance of deferred pay. If the young officer joining the Army were to begin saving in his very first year and were to go on saving until the year of his retirement, after twenty years' service as a Major, at the age of forty-five, it would have been necessary for him to have saved a sum of £400 a year from his initial commissioning in addition to his accretions of regular pay, in order to produce the sum of upwards of £9000 which is necessary to find this annuity for him at the age of forty-five. Consequently the correct way of looking at this table is to add the deferred pay to the current pay in order to see exactly where he stands, and that average rate of £400 a year would have to be added from the very first year when, as a young man, he joined the Service. In what profession in these days is it likely, with taxation at its present rate, with rates of interest as low as they are, that after twenty years, by the age of forty-five, even the successful man will have succeeded in the circumstances we have envisaged in saving the sum of—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: But he will not be out of his job at forty-five.
LORD CROFT: But it is very unlikely that in any other profession his services will be dispensed with at the age of forty-five.
LORD NATHAN: That is quite true, but at the age of forty-five he will be a free man. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in the admirable speech which we all admired for its humanity, its wisdom, its charm and its eloquence, referred to the question of resettlement, as did

287
other noble Lords. I am not prepared to say that the position as regards resettlement of officers at the expiry of their period of service is as satisfactory as it should become. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has on a previous occasion drawn attention to the matter and he has a question on the Order Paper to-day on the subject. I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will take every step that is practicable to ensure that an officer, on leaving the Army, shall have a very real prospect in ordinary civilian life. As I have said, if he retires with the rank of Major at the age of forty-five he will carry with him into civilian life the great satisfaction and safeguard of having the sum of £475 a year available against the vicissitudes of the future. Be it remembered, too, that these pay rates not only rise automatically but are subject to none of the vicissitudes applicable to ordinary civilian life. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, drew attention to the provision of the White Paper dealing with further revision. He told your Lordships' House that he would feel better satisfied if he could feel that His Majesty's Government in making any review would consider themselves free to make revision in an upward direction as well as by reducing rates should there be a marked change in conditions. He asked for an undertaking. Well, I give the noble Lord that undertaking. The operation of this Command Paper will be marked with care. Any unforeseen difficulties that may present themselves will certainly have the greatest consideration with a view to amelioration.
That, I think, will satisfy the noble Lord, because it provides the atmosphere in which he said he wished this document to be discussed. In that connexion I should like to say to noble Lords that this White Paper must not be looked at merely from the point of view of those who are in the Army at the present moment, but also from the point of view of those we are seeking to attract into the Army, those who are looking for a profession. It so happens that I had a letter this morning from my boy who is serving in a Regular regiment overseas. He is, of course, a youngster. In the course of this letter he says this:
"The new rates of pay, preceded by the usual rumours——"
288
I am not quite sure that I know what that means—
"seem pretty sensible. I have not heard anyone say that they should be higher."
That comes from a young man in a Regular regiment, meeting young men of the same age and background. I am not attaching any more importance to it than should be attached to it. I am merely indicating that that is the view of a normally intelligent and normally well-informed young officer.
It was natural, of course, that noble Lords should direct attention to that feature which is new in this White Paper, in relation to allowances, as indeed it was in the case of the White Paper on the pay and allowances of other ranks in the debate which was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. On the one hand, His Majesty's Government take the view that these elements which go to constitute remuneration should be taxed. On the other hand, I would point out to your Lordships that it is a mistake to believe that prior to the war alt allowances were free of tax. It is only during the war that allowances have been free of tax. I do not wish to be understood as saying that all allowances before the war were taxed, but to a very large extent they were. It is not a new principle. It is the extended application of a pre-existing principle, and it seems to me to be correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said that he would like to know how these figures actually worked out. Perhaps it would be helpful if I quoted from the figures relating to the Army, because it is with the Army naturally that I am myself most familiar. I have had the figures taken out in a rather elaborate table for my own satisfaction by way of comparison. I would take the case of the Major and the Lieutenant-Colonel. These are two cases that are perhaps as useful as any other. I would take the case of the married officer with one child. I have had to do it on some basis, and this happens to be the basis. I think some other noble Lord mentioned the married officer with two children. I cannot give a comparison with regard to that, because I have not got the table in front of me. I can, however, do it with regard to the married officer with one child. The position is that in the revenue year 1946–47 the Major will receive an increase in his net remuneration as compared with the

289
year 1945–46. In each case I have taken the time when he first becomes Major; so that is nil year's service as a Major; he has just been promoted from Captain. In 1946–47 as compared with 1945–46 he is at an advantage. That is if he was on what is known as the pre-1942 allowances—lodging, furniture, fuel, light, servant—and living with family; it is not a very large increase; it is £53. But for the year 1947–48, which really is the year to be taken for comparison, as that is the first year in which the whole of the tax will operate at the full rate, the increase is somewhat reduced and is only £10.
I want now to take the Lieutenant-Colonel in command. I am going to take him with his pay at the existing rates. I have included Command pay, War Service Increment, lodging allowance, servant allowance, fuel and light allowance and furniture allowance, and I have taken Income Tax at the rate of 10s. in the pound, because that was the rate prevailing in 1945–46. The Lieutenant-Colonel in command receives a net increase in 1946–47 of £105, though when the full burden of the tax comes to be felt in 1947–48 the increase is only £13.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: £13?
LORD NATHAN: £13. I will now take the married officer with one child drawing post-1942 allowances and living with family. I will take a Lieutenant-Colonel in command. The net increase in 1946–47 over 1945–46 is 160, and the net increase in 1947–48 over 1945–46 is £86. To complete the picture, if the noble Lord would like it, I will give the case of the married officer with one child drawing post-1942 allowances and separated, being in barracks. A Lieutenant-Colonel in command receives in 1946–47 a net increase of £201, compared with 1945–46, and in 1947–48 a net increase of £141 over 1945–46.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving us these examples. He has had the advantage of the statisticians of the War Office. I would, however, like to ask one question. He has given, I am sure, very good average examples, but if he looks through that table can he give us an assurance that in not one single case for 1947–48 there is a reduction?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Before the noble Lord replies may I ask
290
him to say whether it is or is not the case that an officer in one of the ranks which he has mentioned with two or more children will be in a more unfavourable position than those he is quoting?
LORD NATHAN: I was interrupted before I had finished.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I ask the noble Lord one thing? Is he taking into consideration the relative value of money?
LORD NATHAN: I am not. This is a statistical statement. I am not taking into account the relative value of money. I was simply, as the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, will appreciate dealing with a specific case which I have worked out of the officer with one child. I will mention the question of those with more children in a moment. I am going to give the noble Lord the answer to the question he asked me with regard to deficiencies. The only deficiencies are four, and they apply only in relation to 1947–48 as compared with 1945–46. The lowest rank to which it applies is a Brigadier, and the deficiency is £1 in the year—again I am taking one child pre-1942 allowances, living with family. A Brigadier loses £1, a Major-General £12, a Lieutenant-General £99, and a full General £131. I think that is due to the operation, possibly, of the fuller rate of tax becoming applicable at the higher rates of pay. I am bound to tell noble Lords, however, that there is an infinite variety of cases that may arise, as anyone knows who has to deal with Income Tax returns. There are cases, for instance, where there is a large number of children, where there will be some reduction in the remuneration.
Now His Majesty's Government, bearing that in mind, have made specific provision for it in the White Paper by way of mitigation. I think the noble Lord used the word "cushion." They have provided that there shall be supplementary allowances by way of a "cushion," running to the year 1950, and that there shall also, in a case where allowances were issued in respect of children, be an entitlement to the officer to continue with the prevailing rates of allowance until March 31, 1947. So steps have been taken to mitigate that situation. But of course it may be expected—at least it may be hoped—that those officers who would be concerned were the changes to take place now, will by April 1, 1947,

291
when tax on allowances remission will apply for the first time, have been raised to a higher rank. Therefore the actual individuals concerned, were these new arrangements to come into operation immediately, will in fact not themselves, as individuals, suffer this loss. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that it is mathematically impossible for anyone to do so for more than the space of one year, having regard to the operation of the safeguards of this scheme.
I do not wish to weary noble Lords by talking in too great detail on the very large number of interesting and important questions put to me. I feel that the matter with which I have dealt, of the effect of taxation on allowances, is one of great importance, and I have therefore allowed myself to deal with it at greater length than I would otherwise have done, because I regard it as essential that any misunderstanding in the public mind as to what is the actual effect on these allowances should be removed. Undoubtedly, there is apprehension in certain minds that there will be an immediate and substantial reduction in remuneration. I hope what I have said may serve some purpose in removing that misapprehension.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and other noble Lords, raised the question of the command pay of Lieutenant-Colonels. The position at the moment is that a Lieutenant-Colonel gets 43s. and 10s. command pay—that is, he gets 53s. a day. The normal age of substantive promotion is now 45, and if promoted he will get 55s., plus 2s. 6d. entertainment allowance—that is 57s. 6d. In regard to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, it must be borne in mind that though this entertainment allowance is expressed in terms of so much a day, it is not designed as a sum to be spent at the rate of so much a day, but is a contribution towards entertaining. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hatherton, who raised a very similar question regarding entertainment befitting the position of a Commander-in-Chief and the like. Let me say in general in regard to entertainment, that where there are specific reasons for entertaining in an official way this entertainment allowance is not the fund upon which the expense will fall. Special arrangements are made in cases of that kind.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Would the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? He has dealt with the most favourable case from the Government point of view—the Lieutenant-Colonel or commanding officer with 21 years' service, who, of course, scores. What I was getting at, however, was the case of the young commanding officer who, by his zeal and general fitness, gets command before he has had 19 years' service. He is 3s. a day worse off.
LORD NATHAN: When the noble Lord says that the officer scores or loses, he is looking upon it as if it were the same individual with whom we are dealing. So far as the individual is concerned, he will receive his promotion and will be better off than he was before, through the entitlement to a higher rate of pay following upon the higher rank. I do not think it is really right to lock upon all these changes as if somebody was losing, whereas the real truth is that it is a new rate applying to different people—people who are gradually working their way up in the profession. Relatively few of them will be personally, as individuals, affected by a reduction.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked me as to entry into the Army, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, raised the question of the indefinite and the definite article—whether it was an Army College or the Army College. Let me tell the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that, broadly speaking, it is proposed that every entrant into the Army College shall have served in the ranks. By that I do not mean that he shall have served merely in the ranks at the Army College; he should actually have served in the ranks before entering the Army College.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In a regimental unit, or a primary training unit?
LORD NATHAN: That is a matter which has yet to be fully considered. I do not think I can answer it except by saying that it is not intended to be in the Army College itself; it is intended to be genuine service in the ranks.
The noble Lord also asked for the order in which events are likely to take place. There is likely to be the entrance examination before he leaves school, or at all events before he enters the Army on being

293
called up at eighteen. He will then serve six months or more in the ranks and at the age of eighteen and a half or a little more he will go into the Army College. It is proposed that Woolwich and Sandhurst shall be combined into a single Army College. I say "broadly speaking" about service in the ranks and this procedure, because there will be candidates entering the Army as university candidates and there will be those directly commissioned from the ranks who are not what I may call deliberate candidates. Let me assure him that if a candidate should fail in the Army College, provided it is through no fault of his own, he will not be held just because he is an enlisted man but will serve for what may be the appropriate term at the time. As things are at present he would serve until released in the ordinary way. The "Y" cadet entry scheme will continue. Provision is to be made for Dominion candidates.
The noble Marquess asked me about psychiatrists. Psychiatrists have played a valuable part in the selection of candidates and in advising on the posting of officers and other ranks, and I hope they will continue to play what may be their appropriate part in selection. The noble Marquess and other noble Lords have asked about qualification pay. The noble Marquess is mistaken in thinking that to have passed through the Staff College or to have taken an Honours Degree at a university is the sole qualification for what we now call qualification pay. There are other qualifications which have not as yet been fully or precisely defined, but I could indicate to the noble Marquess the sort of qualification which is envisaged by this example. Suppose a young officer has made himself extremely competent in, let us say, gunnery, has taken a long course, and has become an instructor gunner. It might be expected that he would be qualified to receive this extra emolument by way of qualification pay.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will that apply also to first-class interpreters?
LORD NATHAN: They would not get qualification pay. It is intended to maintain the position of interpreters, but I cannot at the moment say exactly what the rate will be.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I ask the noble Lord one question? I gather that
294
qualification pay will be rather the exception. Am I to take it that the very good company officer or the officer who has been selected to be Adjutant will be eligible?
LORD NATHAN: I should have thought not. Qualification pay involves some qualification beyond that of adequate performance of ordinary regimental duties. It is proposed to design the regulations in such a way that probably one-third of the officers of the Army of or below the rank of Major will be receiving qualification pay under one head or another. I should find it very easy to address your Lordships at some length and in some detail upon the various aspects of this White Paper but I trust your Lordships will feel that I have dealt with the main questions that have been raised. In so far as there are any detailed questions to which replies have to be given, I will see that the replies reach the noble Lords in writing. While thanking the noble Lord who opened this debate and other noble Lords who have participated in it, I wish to make it clear that it is the resolute determination of His Majesty's Government that the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in the initial instance shall be answered in the affirmative.
5.25 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: MY Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given me support in this debate today. I would particularly like to take the opportunity of associating myself with the many and well-deserved congratulations that have been bestowed upon my noble friend Lord Mancroft for his eloquent and forceful speech. I admired the way in which the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for War, sailed, as it were, into action, laying a heavy smoke-screen of praise and favourable instances. However, in my eyes, he very largely redeemed those tactics by his assurance that the Government felt free to review upwards as well as downwards. I must say that I thought his smokescreen achieved its most efficient moment when he quoted the case of his own son who wrote to him saying: "Daddy, I can find nothing wrong." I would like to ask him when is his son's birthday.
LORD NATHAN: An unsolicited testimonial!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord gave us instances of four deficiencies—the Brigadier who loses one pound, the Major-General who loses twelve pounds, the Lieutenant-General who loses ninety-seven pounds, and the full General who loses £110. I think those are the figures. I would ask him—and I am sure noble Lords on this side of the House and, I believe, on all sides of the House would associate themselves with this plea—why these most deserving senior officers should not have some added advantage, having regard to the very high cost of living and difficult conditions today as compared with those which existed when the original rates of pay and allowances were introduced.
LORD NATHAN: The noble Lord appreciates, of course, that these figures are all worked out on the basis of taxation at nine shillings in the pound. When—perhaps I should say if and as soon as—taxation is reduced then the figures will take on an entirely different appearance. Will the noble Lord then come to His Majesty's Government and say: "The rates are better than we thought; we do not want the whole of the increase?"
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No indeed. The noble Lord will remember that I made the point that this scheme was moderately satisfactory provided that the Income Tax level did not remain at its pre9ent height. I only hope that the words of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War can go out from this House as an indication on behalf of the Chancellor that there is some hope that taxation will be reduced. We only hope that is going to be so. After all, if you have got a Government which believes in the equalitarian theory and is willing to pay the Chairman of the Coal Board £8,500 and the other members £5,000, I feel they ought to look again at this and not penalize the highest people.
There is only one other comment I wish to make about his examples. I am grateful for the cases he has put, but my noble friend Lord De I'Isle intervened to say they would look worse when officers had more than one child. The cushion, it is true, prevents any existing serving officer from suffering, and by the time he might suffer he will have risen to another rank, but at the same time we want big
296
families in the future from the young men who are now coming on and therefore we may well have to look at these allowances again. Finally, I do hope that the eloquent words of Lord Croft on behalf of the war leaders will find a sympathetic response in the heart of the Under-Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for War, and that he will ask his chief to take to the Cabinet a unanimous feeling in all parts of this House that we should do greater justice to our war leaders than we have hitherto been able to do.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EMPLOYMENT OF EX-OFFICERS.
5.31 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the situation that up to the 14th January, 1946, out of 9,411 ex-officers registered with Appointments Centres only 1,260 had been placed in employment, they are taking any and, if so, what steps to produce more satisfactory results.]
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, an efficient organization, fully staffed and trained, has been built up and the most active steps are being taken by means of personal canvassing and a special publicity campaign to bring the Appointments Service to the notice of employers. As a result I am glad to say that the figures of placings show a steady upward trend. At 11th February, 1946, 8,944 ex-officers were registered as unemployed at Appointments Offices, a reduction of 467 compared with the position at 14th January, while the number placed in employment amounted to 1,718, an increase of 458.
I am hopeful that this improvement will continue at an accelerating rate, but future progress is dependent on the increased notification by employers of suitable vacancies. The Appointments Offices can only submit ex-officers for existing or prospective vacancies of which they have knowledge and I would urge employers to assist in the resettlement of ex-officers by notifying their vacancies to the fullest extent to the Appointments Offices.

RE-OPENING OF BRITISH MUSEUM.
5.34 p.m.
LORD HOLDEN: I beg to ask the question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Faringdon.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government in view of the prolonged delay in reopening the British Museum, when this institution, so invaluable to students, will again be open to visits by the public.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, the postwar disabilities which delay the full resumption of the public services of the Library and the Museum are structural damage and shortage of staff. Certain parts of the Museum (Department of Antiquities) have been very badly damaged. Their repair will involve major building operations which will take a considerable time in present circumstances and no estimate can be made of the date when they will be completed. Repairs begun in October last are being carried out as quickly as possible, subject to available labour and materials, for the reopening of the following sections:

(i) Central Entrance in Montague Place.

(ii) Ethnographical Galleries, first floor, and the following via Main Entrance Hall.

(iii) Entrance, Hall, Roman Inscriptions and Roman Gallery.

(iv) Grenville Library and Manuscript Saloon.

(v) Greek, Egyptian and Assyrian Galleries, comprising 14 rooms.

(vi) King's Library.

(vii) New Parthenon Rooms.

Of the above work, that on the King Edward Galleries will be completed by the end of this month, and that on the Manuscript Rooms is already finished, except for some plate glass which is still on order. Work on the Main Reading Room is also in progress and will be finished approximately at mid-April, while the North Library is already in use. Of the rooms on which work is proceeding, only the King Edward Galleries will be open to the general public without tickets. The Trustees propose to open there a comprehensive exhibition of antiquities and works of art within the next 4 or 5 weeks.
298
The main division of the Library (Department of Printed Books) has been accessible to students in restricted numbers since the beginning of the war. It is housed in the North Library. With the end of the war it became desirable to bring the Great Reading Room back into use, but the copper roof of the dome had been damaged during the war, and work on this was put in hand in February last. It is estimated that the external repairs and internal reconditioning may be completed in about three months from now.
During the war many of the Museum staff were seconded to other Government departments: others joined the forces. A certain number of the staff seconded to other departments have now returned to the library but the urgent needs of other Government departments make the release of all seconded staff difficult at this juncture. It is expected that the speed up in demobilization will result in a reasonable number of the Museum staff returning from the Forces within the next month or two. The staff is not yet up to its full strength. This will cause a certain delay in the rearrangement of the books and will restrict the speed of the Library services. But every effort is being made to see that the Museum gets back a nucleus of its essential staff.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
5.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Westwood.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say a word at this moment in connexion with this Bill. In the first place, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, on piloting this, his first big Bill, of 85 pages, through your Lordships' House, but there is one bad point in connexion with this Bill. It is on very much the same lines and on the same principle as an English Bill which went through Parliament and was passed into law nine months ago. In my experience there have been many Scottish Bills passed on the same lines as English Bills at even greater intervals

299
than nine months, and it puts one in this position. If one has to challenge the principle of the Bill, then one has to challenge it on the English Bill and produce examples from Scotland which are entirely outside the scope of the English Bill. If one waits for the Scottish Bill, one is met with the statement that it is on the same lines as the English Bill, and that these two great countries must move on parallel lines. To that extent, and in that way it seems to me that, at any rate as far as Scotland is concerned, it rather interferes with the proper discharge of Parliamentary functions. I would therefore ask my noble friend opposite if he would convey this to the Secretary of State for Scotland and ask, if possible, that in future when great measures are in question they should be introduced into Parliament at much the same time in order that Parliament may properly consider the principles of the Bill.
LORD WESTWOOD: I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that I will convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland his anxiety at the time elapsing after a Bill has gone through in another place.
LORD SALTOUN: It is the English Bill which was passed nine months ago, and the Scottish Bill comes now.
LORD WESTWOOD: As my noble friend Lord Saltoun knows, the English
300
Water Act became law last year, and the House was afterwards up for a considerable period.
LORD SALTOUN: That is not your fault.
LORD WESTWOOD: As a matter of fact, the Scottish Bill will go through the House much more quickly than the English Bill went through.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON MIDLAND & SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bill committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

TYNE TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Hindlip be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in place of the Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. Read, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.