Sitting of 21 May 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDERCONFIRMATION BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland), Act, 1936, relating to the London Midland and Scottish Railway," presented by Mr. Westwood; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
ASTLEY AINSLIE HOSPITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Astley Ainslie Hospital," presented by Mr. Westwood; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    East Africa Command (Native Casualties)
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for War what is the latest casualty return of the East Africa Command for the East African and Burma campaigns of the number of natives and Indians killed in action, respectively; and what percentage this is of natives and Indians, respectively, living in East Africa in 1946, or latest available date.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): Nine hundred and forty-one East African natives were killed in action in the African campaign and 377 in the Burma campaign. These figures represent about.005 per cent. and.002 per cent. of the total native population of the territories concerned. No Indians domiciled in East Africa were killed in action in these campaigns.

    Spread Eagle Assembly Hall
    Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish the accounts showing the money received for the letting of the Spread Eagle Assembly Hall for private functions.
    Mr. Lawson: Since 14th March, 1944, this hall has been let on 23 occasions for which the sum of £23 has been credited to the public.

    Church Parades
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War whether the new regulations giving effect to his undertaking to abolish compulsory church parade have now been drafted; and how soon they will come into force.
    Mr. John Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet published instructions to abolish compulsory church parades; and if he will give the terms of those instructions.
    Mr. Lawson: This matter is under discussion between the authorities concerned. I expect to receive the draft regulations for the Army in the near future, but I cannot say yet when they will be published.

    Victory March (Effect on Release)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War upon what dates military personnel in release Groups 29 and 30 will leave East Africa, and upon what dates these personnel will arrive in the United Kingdom; and whether he is satisfied that their date of arrival is sufficiently early to permit these personnel to obtain full disembarkation leave prior to demobilisation.
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by officers and other ranks in Groups

    163
    29 to 31 at present serving in East Africa Command at the delay in repatriating them for release with their groups; and whether he will make a full statement on this subject.
    Mr. J. L. Williamsd the Secretary of State for War (1) if the announcement recently made by H.Q., East Africa Command, that the next shipping opportunity for personnel proceeding to the United Kingdom for demobilisation is not expected to be before June, means that men of Groups 29 and 30 will not arrive until after the dates set for release; and if he will reconsider this matter;
    (2) if he is aware that N.C.Os. in Kenya Colony, due to be repatriated last month after completion of the stipulated term of overseas service, were not allowed to proceed to Nairobi transit camp in time for shipment and had to return to their units to wait indefinitely; and if he will consider means for the early repatriation of these men.
    Major Legge-Bourked the Prime Minister which Department of His Majesty's Government was responsible for making the decision to delay the repatriation of 600 officers and other ranks from East Africa in order that a contingent from East Africa might arrive in time for the Victory parade, and why this decision was made.
    Mr. Keenand the Secretary of State for War why transport arrangements have not been made so that men of the East Africa Command in age and service Groups 29 and 30 could be home for demobilisation in the period set for their release; why men for the Victory parade, and men being demobilised under Class B were given preference to travel; and if he will take steps to alter such arrangements and prevent discontent arising.
    Mr. Lawson: This decision was taken by the War Office in consultation with the Admiralty and Air Ministry. It was considered essential that the contingents for the Victory March from East Africa, Aden, Mauritius, Seychelles, St. Helena and High Commission Territories, should reach this country in time to take part in the parade. In order to ensure this, it was necessary to give them priority over other personnel due for repatriation to
    164
    this country and this unfortunately involved some delay in the release of about 600 men serving in East Africa I very much regret that this delay should have occurred. All those whose repatriation either for release or Python has been delayed are due to sail on a ship which is expected to leave East Africa on about 5th June and should reach this country about the end of June. I am advised that there is unfortunately no possibility of providing a ship before that date.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that as a result of a deliberate decision of the War Office the demobilisation of 600 men has been held up in order to facilitate the arrival of contingents for 8th June?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, that Is so, and I very much regret that the result has been such as it has, but it was not foreseen that it would be the result at that particular time. I have taken steps to see that there is no repetition of this incident in any other part of the world.
    Mr. Keenan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in addition to—
    Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to give notice—
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not give notice while a question is being asked by an hon. Member who also had a Question on this subject.
    Major Legge-Bourke: It was on the previous Question—
    Mr. Speaker: After a previous Question has been dealt with and passed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot give notice of raising that matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Keenan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to those who were being sent home for the Victory Parade, there were men in Group B and also men who have been demobilised, younger men, sent from East Africa? That did cause and does cause discontent among the men. We have all had correspondence over it.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, and the reply given this afternoon, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment on Thursday, 30th May.

    Erie Camp (Headley Mount)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to close the Canadian detention camp at Headley, near Bordon, Hampshire, in view of the fact that this camp, with its ugly hutments, its mass of barbed wire and its loudspeakers, is a nuisance which, though endured by the local residents in time of war, ought not to be perpetuated in peacetime.
    Mr. Lawson: I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Erie Camp, Headley Mount. I do not expect to be able to close down this camp until approximately June, 1948.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say June this year?
    Mr. Lawson: No, June, 1948.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious matter for this neighbourhood, as this camp is, in the close vicinity of Ludshott Common, formerly a popular open space in beautiful country? Is he also aware that oWing to this camp, and the nuisance it causes, and the proximity of bad characters in large numbers, this part of the world is being shunned by a large number of people?
    Mr. Lawson: I am very sorry that all these calamities should happen to any neighbourhood. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman probably knows, the fact is that this is the result of the destruction of that ancient monument, the Aldershot detention barracks. We have had to get somewhere to put these men, and this is the best camp available. They will have to remain there until the barracks are rebuilt.

    Temporary Officers (Regular Commissions)
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War why regular officers who are not recommended for further promotion or who are extra-regimentally employed are kept on the establishment of regiments and corps; and whether he will cause such officers, and also any regular officers who have expressed a wish to resign their commissions, to be seconded or removed from the regimental establishment, in order to admit of the grant
    166
    in their place of regular commissions to temporary officers who have shown in war their suitability for such commissions.
    Mr. Lawson: In calculating the vacancies for Regular commissions, majors who have been superseded for promotion are not taken into account for the Regimental List, but it would be unfair if officers who have not been definitely passed over or who are extra-regimentally employed were removed from the establishment since there is no reason why such officers should lose their chance of command.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been the ordinary practice in normal times for officers extra-regimentally employed to be seconded or placed on a supernumerary list? As we understand that there is peace again, is there any reason why there should not be a reversion to the normal practice? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the block caused has been preventing a great number of temporary officers from getting commissions, because there are no vacancies for them on the establishment?
    Mr. Lawson: I think the hon. and gallant Member has a particular regiment in mind. I know that there are no vacancies for Regular officers in that particular regiment. I wish that were the case in the others, but as a matter of fact it is not.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether it was not the normal practice in peacetime for extra-regimentally employed officers to be placed on a supernumerary list or be seconded?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, but on this occasion I have to use the extra officers for other purposes, because we are so short of officers.

    Units and Formations (Information)
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause to be published the names of the commanders and staff officers of the principal commands and formations of the Army and of the War Office; and whether he will also make known the present stations of battalions and equivalent units of the Army, both at home and abroad.
    Mr. Lawson: In effect, the hon. and gallant Member is asking that a periodical

    167
    Army List, containing the information referred to in the Question, may once more be put on sale to the public. The time has not yet come when the publication of what used to be the Monthly Army List can be resumed. Apart from other considerations, the Army is at present undergoing a considerable reorganisation, and units are being moved with such frequency that any published information would be largely out of date by the time it was published. So far as the names of Army commanders are concerned, the Press are now being informed about appointments of major-generals and higher ranks.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaint, and there is a complaint, would be very largely met if, without even publishing the Army List, he were to publish a list of the principal units and formations and their stations? Is there any reason why that should not be published at least monthly, even without a list of every officer?
    Mr. Lawson: I will have a look at the point, but it would seem that the quick turnover would make the list out of date before it was published.

    Deferment (Information)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War why official military communications on the subject of deferment are under a restricted heading; and if he will consider lifting this restriction.
    Mr. Lawson: "Regulations for Release from the Army, 1945,"Is obtainable from His Majesty's Stationery Office. Subsidiary instructions are issued from time to time through the medium of Army Council Instructions which are restricted."In appropriate cases the instructions contained in them are published in the form of Notice Board Information on which there is no restriction.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when deferments have to take place, the more frank and open the authorities can be about the matter, the less cause for resentment there will be?
    Mr. Lawson: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member has in mind
    168
    a particular case or order. If he will let me know, I will do what I can to straighten matters out. It is the desire of the War Office that there shall be full information.

    Royal Signals O.C.T.U.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the total output per month from the Royal Signals O.C.T.U.; and whether he is satisfied that this is adequate to meet the needs of the Service.
    Mr. Lawson: The average monthly output of the Royal Signals O.C.T.U. during the last five months has been 15. This rate of output has not been sufficient to meet the requirements of Royal Signals officers, but I hope that the response to the Short Service Commission Scheme will be sufficient to counterbalance this deficiency during the next few years.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Are we to take it from that reply that the answer given to a Question which I asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on 14th May about deferments of Royal Corps of Signals officers in the Middle East, and today's reply, imply that there will not be sufficient officers to replace those officers, and that that is why deferments are made?
    Mr. Lawson: I think that is generally so, but I have a further answer to give on that point in relation to the Middle East.

    Suez Canal (Defence, 1941)
    Brigadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what was the total strength of Egyptian army units employed on the defence of the Suez Canal in May and June, 1941, when there was believed to be an imminent threat of an airborne attack on the canal zone by Germany and, in particular, how many were antiaircraft troops and how many infantry and ground artillery; and what was the number of British, including Indian and Dominion troops, stationed near the canal at that time.
    Mr. Lawson: As regards the first part of the Question it would be improper to disclose the strengths of foreign Armed Forces at any given date since this is a matter for the foreign Government concerned, but as far as the second part of the Question is concerned I am taking

    169
    steps to obtain such information as is available from our records and as soon as this is received I will write to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Brigadier Low: Is not the information for which I have asked in the first part of my Question available in the ordinary records of the War Office, and can it not therefore be disclosed?
    Mr. Lawson: As I have said, we think it would be improper to disclose the strength of foreign Armed Forces at any particular time.
    Brigadier Low: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Egyptian Government if he might make this disclosure?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir.
    Brigadier Low: Will he do so?

    Demobilisation Centre (Belgium)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for War what rents are paid for the assembly camps in Belgium to which men in B.A.O.R. are sent prior to demobilisation; and why camps are not established in Germany.
    Mr. Lawson: The total rental of the properties comprising the Release Embarkation Centre at Tournai to which I assume my hon. Friend refers is estimated at approximately £1,000 per month. It is planned to move the Centre to Germany as soon as suitable deep sea shipping becomes available for the Cuxhaven route. The smaller type shipping at present available cannot be used economically from ports in Germany.

    War Service (Retired Pay and Pensions)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to increase the pensions of pre–1939 service pensioners, in accordance with the number of years that they have served since 1939, on the lines of the increases which have now been authorised for members of the R.A.F.
    Mr. Lawson: The scheme for the re assessment of service retired pay and pensions in respect of war service announced in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) on 15th April applied to all three Services, and I would refer my hon. Friend to that reply.

    Release Deferment
    Mr. Martin Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers have recently had their release deferred in Middle East Command; for how long and in what arms of the Service.
    Mr. Lawson: I will, with permission, circulate the latest figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I think I ought to tell the hon. Member that the total number affected is 519.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at times like this it does cause real worry and anxiety to these officers when they are held back?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I can assure my hon. Friend that I share their worry on this matter. I think I ought to say that when the attack upon Japan was developing most of the later group men were sent over there. Consequently, there has been an abnormal number of these earlier groups in the Middle East.
    Lieutenant Herbert Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when deferments do become necessary the maximum possible notice is given to the men concerned as otherwise their arrangements are very much disorganised?
    Mr. Lawson: I am extremely sorry for all these deferments. I can assure the House I have taken very strong steps about it. The longest date for which any are deferred—it is no excuse and no real explanation—but I ought to say that three months is the longest deferment.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread apprehension, especially among troops serving overseas, that this whole policy of deferment is going to vitiate the principle of age and length of service? Can the Minister make any statement on that to reassure them?
    Mr. Lawson: I should share that disturbance of mind if I was overseas myself As I say, I am taking steps about it
    Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman underline the assurance he gave just now and see that it has the maximum publicity? I think I heard him aright and that he said that in no circumstances would the deferment be for more than three months.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
    Following are the figures:
    The numbers of officers serving in M.E.F., who were due for release by the end of May and whose release had been compulsorily deferred on operational grounds at the beginning of this month, are as follows:

    Staff

    …

    26

    Royal Engineers

    …

    35

    Royal Signals

    …

    107

    Infantry

    …

    5

    R.A.S.C.

    …

    286

    R.A.M.C.

    …

    8

    R.A.O.C.

    …

    48

    R.A.P.C.

    …

    2

    A.C.C.

    …

    2

    Total

    …

    519

    The period of deferment varies greatly according to the arm of the Service and the particular appointment held by an individual. I hope that it will not be necessary to retain any individual officer more than three months beyond his release date and in the great majority of cases it may be considerably less.
    Every effort is being made to reduce the number of deferments in the M.E.F. to a minimum by such measures as the transfer of officers from other theatres and from the arms least affected to those where the shortage is greatest. I also hope that the response to the Short Service Commission Scheme will be such as to ease the position before long.

    Leave, Middle East
    Mr. Thomas Brooksasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the complaints of the forces serving in Greece regarding the recent decision to put them under G.H.Q., Cairo Command and Middle East leave scheme which only gives one home leave in 18 months; whereas C.M.F. was one home leave in 12 months and men in B.A.O.R. can get home leave every few months; and if he will take steps to remedy this injustice to the men and their families.
    Mr. Lawson: Under the present rules in both C.M.F. and M.E.F. one period only of 28 days' leave is allowed during the overseas tour, which is at the moment three years nine months. I hope to make an announcement very shortly on the future arrangements for leave from overseas generally.
    Mr. Brooks: Will the Minister answer the Question? The point is that leave for home has been put up to 18 months and others have been having leave in 12 months. What about the families of these men who have to go six months longer before they can get home? Surely we have not had an answer to the Question.
    Mr. Lawson: I think probably next week I will be able to give a very useful answer.
    Mr. Brooks: I do not want an answer next week. Can the Minister tell us something about this matter? Is it true that the home holiday for these men has been put up to 18 months, and that it has been 12 months? That is my information from the soldiers. Has the figure been put up to 18 months? Why should it not be put to 12 months to make them all alike?
    Mr. Lawson: I understand that it is 18 months before they are eligible. I do not know much about the circumstances, but I will look into it.

    Education.
    Mr. SWinglerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on his plans for education in the postwar Army.
    Mr. Lawson: Comprehensive plans for education in the postwar Army have been prepared. These plans are now being examined in detail, and it would be premature for me to make an announcement at present. But I shall do so as early as practicable.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Would my right hon. Friend speed up this statement in view of the fact that this particular generation is the one that suffered most from evacuation? I know my right hon. Friend has a lifelong interest in this matter. Will he make a statement as soon as possible?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I stated in my speech on the Army Estimates that I was very deeply concerned about the younger men who were coming in, and the need for attending to matters of their education. In that respect, I have given a considerable amount of time in order to lay down a scheme. I hope to make a fairly useful statement later on.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Can we have an assurance that when this scheme comes up for consideration women will have the

    173
    same chance of a decent education as men and will not be told later that as they have to work so much harder than the men they have no time for education?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.

    Training Area, Thetford
    Mr. Dyeasked the Secretary of State for War when he will be able to make a statement on the future use or derequisitioning of the battle-training area near Thetford, Norfolk; and whether, before giving up the whole area, it will be possible to relinquish the church at West Tofts which is just inside the boundary.
    Mr. Lawson: Until the other Government Departments concerned have completed their examination of the schedule of land required by the Army for postwar training, I cannot make any statement about the future of any particular area which may be affected. I regret that it would not be possible to relinquish West Tofts church without undue interference with the value of the area for training purposes.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the specific undertaking which was given to these dispossessed individuals—agriculturists, farmworkers and so on—at the time of the dispossession, does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a question of honour for the War Office to see that this decision is expedited?
    Mr. Lawson: I would like to know the exact nature of the promise that was given and the circumstances in which it was given. There are several instances of this kind.
    Mr. Hare: Is the Minister aware that there was an undertaking given not only by his own Department but also by the Regional Commissioner? They were given in very definite terms Is the Minister prepared to reconsider his decision?
    Mr. Lawson: I was, at any rate, a Deputy Regional Commissioner myself and I had to give many promises which I thought held at the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. The word of an important person of that kind ought to be taken into consideration. I certainly will take it into consideration.

    Engineering Apprentices
    Mr. SWinglerasked the Secretary of State for War what schemes of technical
    174
    education are now operating in the Army for the benefit of engineering apprentices who cannot be posted to technical corps, so that industrial skill and craftsmanship may be maintained and developed during military training.
    Mr. Lawson: Engineering apprentices who are not posted to technical corps have the same opportunities for pre-vocational education under the Army Education Scheme as other soldiers. These opportunities may include classes and courses arranged by units and lower formations and attendance, when practicable, at the evening classes of local civilian Technical Institutes. For men in early release Groups residential courses of one month's duration in engineering subjects are available at formation colleges, and, by agreement with the Ministry of Labour, a limited amount of training in certain trades may be given where conditions make this practicable. Apprentices in the engineering industry are eligible at the end of their Army service for assistance under the Government's scheme for Apprenticeships Interrupted by War Service. Particulars of this scheme are given in a pamphlet of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.,
    Mr. SWingler: Does the Minister realise that this Question refers to people like engineering apprentices who have just been called up where a large proportion are not being posted to technical corps? Will he state what special steps are being taken to see that the training and craftsmanship which these men have already acquired are maintained during the period they are in the Forces?
    Mr. Lawson: As the House knows, we do our best, in the first place, to plant the apprentices, the men who are becoming skilled men, into the appropriate arm where they will exercise and develop their skill. The only thing we can do next to that—because we cannot place all these young men—is to keep them in touch with vocational classes and give them all the training that we can while they are in the Army, and then arrange for the completion of their apprenticeship after they leave.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Arising out of the reference to formation colleges, can the Minister say whether they are to remain a permanent feature of Army education?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir; that is my plan, at any rate.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will the Minister say whether there is an adequate supply of trained engineering teachers, and of plant and equipment to meet the rather comprehensive scheme which he has described to us?
    Mr. Lawson: I would not say offhand that there are sufficient technical teachers outside of the technical branches of the Service.
    Mr. SWinglerasked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of engineering apprentices who completed their courses in the primary training centres during the quarters ended 31st December, 1945, and 31st March, 1946, were posted to technical corps.
    Mr. Lawson: I regret that the information asked for is not readily available and could not be obtained without a considerable amount of research. Although a central record is kept of all potential tradesmen not posted to Technical Corps, this includes many men who have not been engineering apprentices, and does not include men who stated that they had been engineering apprentices but who were considered unsuitable for employment in a trade or for training in one.
    Mr. SWingler: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will investigate this situation where at least 75 per cent. of the men who have done three or four years' training in industry are going into the Forces and not being posted to technical corps but becoming sanitary orderlies and so on? Will he give an assurance that special steps are taken to see that these men will have a chance to maintain their skill while in the Forces?
    Mr. Lawson: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter has the deepest concern, not only of my Department. but of the Government generally.

    Palestine (Mails)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements for the delivery of mail sent from this country to members of His Majesty's Forces in Palestine to be expedited by transporting it there direct rather than sending it via Egypt as at present.
    Mr. Lawson: The possibility of conveying mails direct to Palestine by air was recently examined in consultation with R.A.F. Transport Command, but it was found impracticable to provide a reliable through service of adequate frequency. The existing method is working satisfactorily and mails are arriving in Palestine in four to five days on an average.

    Food Lorries, Italy (Protection)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the danger of serious injury to R.A.S.C. drivers in Southern Italy at the present time on account of the placing of obstructions in the way of lorries containing foodstuffs by gangs of young men intent on plundering such vehicles; and what action is being taken by the military authorities to safeguard British lives and property in this connection.
    Mr. Lawson: I have had a report on this matter from Italy, and I am informed that the suggestion that R.A.S.C. drivers are constantly in danger of serious injury is groundless. Local orders already provide that one man will travel in the back of every vehicle and a passenger will also travel in the driver's cab when sufficient manpower is available. All possible help is being given by the British Army to the Italian authorities to assist in the prevention of pilfering.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Minister aware that windscreens have been smashed by bricks, that bricks have been hung on the ends of ropes from bridges to catch the windscreens of the lorries as they pass underneath, and that young men have laid down on the road in order to stop these lorries so that others can jump in? Is he also aware that I have evidence from men who have served out there, and will he look further into the question?
    Mr. Lawson: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his information. If he will give me the definite facts, I will have them investigated, because I am told that there is nothing.

    Baggage Entitlement
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the amended scales of baggage entitlement, introduced last November, in

    177
    respect of Army personnel proceeding from Kenya Colony to the United Kingdom, enabling officers to take more luggage and other ranks less than before, are still in operation; and if he will take early steps to remove this source of grievance.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 19th February. The whole question of baggage entitlement for officers and other ranks is being reviewed by an inter-Service Committee in the light of postwar requirements.

    Port, Cairnryan
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to future plans for the new harbour at Cairnryan, Wigtownshire.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): This port will be fully required for military purposes until the end of this year. Its subsequent use has not yet been decided.

    Training Area, Kirkcudbright
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to future plans for the tank training ground at Kirkcudbright, Scotland.
    Mr. Bellenger: About three-quarters of this range is on land owned by the War Department. I cannot say what the future of the remainder will be until a decision has been reached on the postwar requirements of land for the Army as a whole.
    Mr. McKie: Will the hon. Gentleman hear in mind the desirability of returning the 25 per cent. for agricultural purposes as soon as possible?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. There are about 1,140 acres under requisition, and we will bear that it mind, of course.
    Mr. Grimston: When does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that a decision will be reached in regard to these future requirements?
    Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give any definite answer to that. This is a matter of wide complexity and considerable importance.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not going back on the statement made by the Secretary of State a fortnight ago that a decision would be reached in the course of the summer?
    Mr. Bellenger: Certainly not. We co-ordinate very well at the War Office.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Weitzmanasked the Secretary of State for War why leave has been refused to NO. Pal/30825 Driver Schmukler to visit his sister who is a British subject resident in London, and who is his only remaining relative, all other members of his family having been killed in Poland by the Germans; and whether he will take steps to see that leave is granted to this soldier who voluntarily joined the British Army.
    Mr. Bellenger: Aliens serving in the British Army are not allowed to visit this country on leave unless they are domiciled here or unless there are extreme compassionate grounds. I regret that I cannot make an exception to the general rule in this particular case.
    Mr. Weitzman: Would it not, in the view of the Minister, be the proper thing, under the terms of the five years' voluntary service, to let this soldier visit this country to see his sister, his only remaining relative, whom he has not seen for 17 years?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, but the matter is not entirely one for the War Office. It is a matter which concerns the Home Office in regard to the conditions under which aliens are admitted to this country.
    Mr. Weitzman: Will the Minister use his good offices with the Home Office to see that that difficulty is removed?
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask the Minister whether, if the facts are accurately stated in the Question, this case would not come within the definition of "extreme compassionate grounds," and, if it does not, will he say what his definition of "extreme compassionate grounds "really is?
    Mr. Bellenger: Generally, we understand by "extreme compassionate grounds "Illness and matters like that, and these grounds are not evident in this case.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Quite apart from its application to this particular incident, is the Minister aware that the application of the general rule to those who fought for us during the war is causing very great and widespread resentment?
    Mr. M. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Solihull can expect a reply to his letter of 27th April, in respect of 14953136 Private Conway, S.G., forwarded to him by the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Bellenger: In order to reply to the hon. Member's letter it was necessary to bring Private Conway before a medical board, which inevitably takes a little time to arrange. I have now received the report of the medical board, and am arranging for a further examination in hospital by a specialist. As soon as I have a final report I will write to the hon. Member.

    Austrian and German Women (Marriage)
    Mr. John Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War by what authority he has forbidden marriages between Austrian and German women and British soldiers.
    Mr. Bellenger: As explained to the House on 15th April, during the course of the Debate on Army Estimates, the orders forbidding such marriages were issued on advice that a General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Forces in occupation of foreign territory is competent to issue such orders, As that advice was challenged, I promised to take the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. That is being done, and until I get their advice, I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what was said on the occasion to which I have referred.
    Mr. Freeman: In that case, will the Financial Secretary agree that, if a soldier, in spite of this order, does go through an ordinary form of marriage with an Austrian or German girl, he will be liable to punishment for disobeying the order, but none the less, the marriage will be perfectly legal?
    Mr. Bellenger: In answer to the first part of the question, obviously, the soldier would be disobeying the order, and in that respect, it would be wrong for him to do so. In regard to the second
    180
    part of the question, I am not in a position to give an answer whether the marriage would be legal or not.

    Sick Personnel (Relatives' Visits)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have now been made for visits by relatives to dangerously-ill soldiers in C.M.F.
    Mr. Bellenger: It has now been decided that one relative may be sent to any place in Europe for the purpose of visiting a Service man who is dangerously ill. Transport costs and the cost of other necessary facilities, such as accommodation, will be met by the public.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the Minister whether that will be published immediately in Army Council Instructions?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know whether it will be published in A.C.I., but, at any rate, we will see that it gets proper publicity.
    Mr. Marples: Will the Minister consider extending the same facilities to the Far East?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. That would be out of the question, I am afraid.
    Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: May I ask the Minister how long an average delay there would be in these circumstances before they actually found themselves there?
    Mr. Bellenger: Practically no delay, obviously, if the soldier is dangerously ill. It would be necessary, if we agree that a relative should go to see him, that the relative should go quickly, and we will do everything we can to see that that is done.

    Pre-Service Units
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been reached to establish a voluntary combined pre-Service training unit in secondary schools.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, but the matter is being considered by the three Service Departments.
    Mr. Lindsay: Could the hon. Gentleman try and get a decision on this matter,

    181
    because as long ago as last January we were told that a decision was going to be made and it is very difficult for schools to know what action to take, whichever way the decision goes?
    Mr. Bellenger: There are difficulties in the way which it is not within the power of the War Office to remove entirely, but I will certainly see that a decision is expedited as far as possible.

    Flour, B.A.O.R.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for War the extraction rate of the flour used for bread in B.A.O.R.; and whether home standards will now be applied.
    Mr. Bellenger: Flour is supplied to B.A.O.R. by direct shipment from the Dominions. The extraction rate must therefore necessarily depend on the extraction rate prevailing in the particular Dominion from which it is imported.

    Release Deferment
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War why all Royal Signals officers of Groups 27–32 serving in M.E.F. have had their release deferred.
    Mr. Bellenger: Not all Royal Signals officers of Groups 27–32 serving in M.E.F. have had their release deferred although it will be necessary to defer a high percentage oWing to the necessity of ensuring a reasonable standard of operational and administrative efficiency in that important theatre. There is a world wide shortage of Royal Signals officers due to the rate of release. A high degree of technical skill is required of such officers and it is therefore not possible immediately to alleviate the position by transfer of officers from other corps.
    Captain Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers serving in Greece and due for release in Group 31 have had their release deferred for a further period of three months.
    Mr. Bellenger: On 4th May there were 12 other ranks in Group 31 serving in M.E.F. who had been warned that their release might have to be compulsorily deferred on operational grounds. I cannot say how many of these men were serving in Greece, but steps are being taken to ensure that Greece does not bear an unfair share of any deferments which may be necessary.
    Mr. Tiffany: Might I ask what are the grounds which have caused this transformation?
    Mr. Bellenger: I cannot say offhand in the case of these 12 other ranks, but they must be very important because it is only the Commander-in-Chief, or a senior officer to whom he delegates his power, who could order this deferment.

    D Reservists (Pensions)
    Mr. Championasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to amend the Royal Warrant in such a way as to accord to Section D reservists commissioned from the ranks the same right to have their pensions assessed at officers' rates in respect of that portion of their service rendered as officers as now applies to Section B reservists.
    Mr. Bellenger: Under a special provision of the Pay Warrant, service retired pay and gratuities may be given to serving Regular soldiers who were promoted to emergency commissions and who do not wish to resume their career as Regular soldiers when their commissioned service ends. The mobilised Section D reservist who is given a commission is clearly not in this category and the special provision does not apply in his case. The mobilised Section B reservist resumes on mobilisation his Colour service on his Regular engagement, and is therefore fortunate to secure the advantages of the provision I have mentioned. I cannot agree that the fact that he does so is any reason for the extension of the benefit to classes, such as the Section D reservist, for whom it was obviously not intended.

    Austria (Families of Personnel)
    Colonel C.rosthwaite-Eyreasked the Secretary of State for War how many applications have been received to take advantage of Operation Henpeck for moving the families of personnel serving in Austria; how many families have actually been moved under this scheme; and how soon it is anticipated that all applications will have been dealt with.
    Mr. Bellenger: Four hundred and twenty-three applications have been received, of which 315 have been approved. One hundred and eighty-seven families have actually left. Fresh applications are being received continually and are dealt with as quickly as possible.

    Installations, Caernarvon
    Mr. Price-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for War if he will announce a date for the release by his Department of the Griffiths crossing installations at Caernarvon, as they would then be taken over by a commercial concern that would provide employment that is greatly needed in the Caernarvon district.
    Mr. Bellenger: These installations are not requisitioned premises due for release but the property of the War Department. Their allocation on lease to a suitable firm is the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and removal of existing machinery is a matter for the Ministry of Supply. If the selected firm will communicate with the War Department, occupation of the premises will be arranged as early as possible.

    Wireless Telegraphists
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary of State for War what number of men were accepted and trained for naval service and who, as wireless telegraphists, etc., were transferred to Army service.
    Mr. Bellenger: In 1944, 511 ordinary telegraphists R.N. were transferred to the Army. In 1945, 148 wireless operators and 15 naval coders were transferred. These men were accepted into equivalent trades in the Army.

    Kinlet Hall Park, Bewdley
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to derequisition Kinlet Hall Park, Bewdley, which is lying derelict and has been unoccupied for two years.
    Mr. Bellenger: The only portion of Kinlet Hall Park, Bewdley, remaining under requisition is the land on which is erected a hutted camp. The huts are' now being removed by the Ministry of Works and when this work has been completed the land will be finally derequisitioned.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that similar replies were given to that Question last December and January, and is he aware that the delay is due to the Ministry of Supply who will not remove these huts from the land?
    Mr. Bellenger: The huts are being removed now. As to whether there has been undue delay, I cannot say. On the face
    184
    of it, it does seem a long time to clear them off, but I do not know that it is entirely my responsibility.

    Clearance of Defences
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give instructions that so far' as military duties permit, troops stationed in Dorset shall render assistance to the local authority in the clearance of road blocks, barbed wire and shore defence works.
    Mr. Bellenger: Local military commanders have already been instructed to use troops, so far as their military duties permit, in the clearance of defences and barbed wire no longer required. The local authorities in Dorset should make application for such military assistance to the local Military Commander at Headquarters, Salisbury Plain and Dorset District, Bulford, Wilts.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they have done that without much success? Will he stimulate the local military commanders into a cooperative spirit?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am sorry to hear that. Certainly the War Office will take action.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same instruction was given to the military commanders in Kent, but it has not been carried out?
    Mr. Tolley: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these men are not general labourers, and this work should not be allocated to them?

    Cadet Force Officers (Compensation)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Secretary of State for War whether compensation for loss of earnings paid to Army Cadet Force officers while in camp is subjected to income tax.
    Mr. Bellenger: I regret that the information on which I based my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Lieut.-Colonel Thorp) on 14th May regarding the payment of compensation for loss of earnings to Army Cadet Force officers while in camp was incorrect. Army Cadet Force officers attending approved courses and attachments of at least six days' duration are eligible for compensation for loss of earnings, under the conditions laid down in Army Cadet

    185
    Force Regulations. but this does not apply to attendance at camp. I understand that it is not the practice of the Inland Revenue, Department to regard these payments for compensation for loss of earnings as liable to income tax.
    Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Might I ask whether that includes travel to and from the venue of the course?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should not like to say definitely. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question down I will try to give him an answer.

  N.A.A.F.I.

    Java (Stores)
    Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the continued shortage of N.A.A.F.I. supplies in Batavia; that airmen are, in consequence, obliged to pay extortionate prices in civilian shops for ordinary toilet necessities; and if he will take steps to ensure that N..A.A.F.I. service in Java reaches a standard at least as satisfactory as that attained by the Indian Canteen Services throughout the Burma Campaign, in far less favourable conditions.
    Mr. Lawson: With the exception of boot polish, no shortages of supplies in Batavia have been reported by N.A.A.F.I. and this is confirmed by the report of the late Air Force Member of the Board who visited Java in April. Despite the difficult conditions in Batavia, N.A.A.F.I have opened a retail store and full club facilities in addition to the normal supply of goods to units.
    Major Symonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the supplies of boot polish he mentioned are four tins per 100 men, which is quite inadequate, and as soap is issued on the basis of only 12 bars per 100 men, men have to go out and buy tablets of soap in Batavia at 45. a tablet?
    Mr. Lawson: I am sorry to hear that statement, particularly in, relation to the Far East, because we know how necessary soap is, particularly in that part of the world. I have no definite information of any shortage, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me specific instances, I will have them investigated.

    Price Agreements
    Mr. Nallyasked the Secretary of State for War the number and nature of the price agreements still operative between the N.A.A.F.I. and manufacturers of proprietary goods.
    Mr. Bellenger: The number and nature of price agreements between N.A.A.F.I. and the manufacturers of proprietary goods are those which are normal between distributors and manufacturers of such goods. It is not usual to disclose such price agreements.

    Undistributed War Revenue
    Mr. Nallyasked the Secretary of State for War what is the total sum now standing to reserve in the accounts of the N.A.A.F.I.; and what action is proposed to ensure that such sum shall be used for the maximum benefit of existing and demobilised Service personnel.
    Mr. Bellenger: The last balance sheet of the N.A.A.F.I., that as at 2nd September, 1944, shows that the net war revenue undistributed at that date amounted to: Navy, £148,088; Army and Air Force, £83,082; total, £231,170. The surplus for the next year will not be known until the year's accounts are complete about August of this year. The surplus will then be distributed by the three Service Ministries.
    Mr. Walkden: Would my hon. Friend suggest to the N.A.A.F.I. directorate that their next balance sheet should include the estimated value of all goods and chattels that are in stock or on their hands, so that we can have a real estimate of what should be surplus at the end at of 1946?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, I will see that that suggestion is brought to the attention of N.A.A.F.I.

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Rations (Germany and Belgium)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that prisoners of war in British camps in Germany and Belgium, as also in this country, are receiving rations equal to those of the garrison troops in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
    Mr. Lawson: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr, Stokes: Whilst deprecating that form of reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that as recently as the beginning of April, 100 men are said to have arrived at Stamford from a Belgian camp, and it is admitted by both medical officers of health that they were entirely unfitted for work through starvation? If I give him particulars of the case, will he have it thoroughly examined and the responsible person dealt with?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I should he very much obliged for definite information upon that point. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is a long and detailed answer in which we give him all the information at our disposal, setting forth some facts as to calories and other matters. I could not have read it.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister having inquiries made into the conditions that have obtained in the British camps for prisoners of war in Belgium, in view of the very great concern caused by Press statements about this matter?
    Mr. Lawson: That will depend upon the information the hon. Gentleman gives me.
    Mr. Eden: In view of the very grave charges made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), if they are not justified I think the world ought to know they are not justified. Much harm is done to the British name if charges are made and the results of the investigation are not known.
    Mr. Lawson: I was very much alarmed to see in the newspapers this weekend a very extensive statement on this point. I did take steps about it, but my hon. Friend has made a definite statement and I hope he will give me details.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: Surely the Minister has official sources of information without relying, upon the accounts of the hon. Member for Ipswich?
    Following is the answer:
    The Government have always attached the highest importance to a proper observance of the terms of the Geneva Convention even though the enemy Powers have
    188
    during the war in various degrees failed to conform to its terms. They took this view because they regard the Geneva Convention as a code of international behaviour setting forth the standards which civilised nations have agreed should govern the treatment by a detaining. Power of prisoners of war. They do not propose, in so far as practical circumstances permit, to depart from these standards because the enemy Powers are now defeated.
    The Convention says in Article 11 that the food rations of prisoners of war shall be equivalent in quantity and quality to that of the "depot troops."The term "depot troops "Is one well known in European military' terminology but in our own case we do not maintain any troops at depots and the term "depot troops,"Therefore, has no clear meaning. During hostilities, we applied the Convention to the best of our ability by giving nonworking prisoners a ration scale equivalent to that of our own sedentary troops whose food was limited, in rationed foods, to the same amounts as are admissible for civilians.
    On the other hand, working enemy prisoners of war were given a ration scale approximately equivalent in calorific value, though not similar in all its items, to that for active British troops at home, until shortly after the surrender of Germany. In view of the world food shortage and of the serious food situation of the displaced persons and of our Allies on the Continent as revealed at that time, the Government decided that prisoners of war rations should be further reduced. This decision was announced to the House of Commons on 29th May, 1945, by the then Secretary of State for war in the following terms:
    "In view of the world-wide shortage of food it has been decided that the normal scale for German prisoners held by His Majesty's Government must be further reduced and instructions have been issued for a new scale providing approximately 2,000 calories of all items, that is irrespective of whether they are rationed for civilians in this country or not. Two thousand calories is, of course, substantially less than the average civilian consumption in this country. Suitable additions of non-rationed foods, mainly bread and potatoes, will be made to cover the minimum extra needs of working prisoners, but otherwise they will receive the same scale as non-working prisoners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1945; Vol. 411, C. 9.]
    It is relevant to recall that the present food situation in Europe has been caused

    189
    largely by the military and other operations of Germany and her Allies, and it would be wrong not to take that factor;to consideration in fixing the scales of rations of German prisoners of war. The whole of this question was very carefully considered before the decision referred to above was taken.

    Ostend Camp
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many German officers are detained in the Ostend prisoners-of-war camp; how many have died since it was first opened; and whether he will state the caloric value of their rations as at 1st March, 1946.
    Mr. Bellenger: There are two German prisoner-of-war camps near Ostend, one of which contains 73 officers and the other 2,013 officers. Both camps were opened in August, 1945, and there have been four deaths in the first camp and three in the second since then. On 1st March, 1946, the caloric value of their rations was 2,400.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend say whether the ration was changed on or about 1st March, or whether that is the ration which persisted throughout the winter months?
    Mr. Bellenger: That was the ration then. There was a ration of 2,400 calories on the date my hon. Friend mentions in his Question. Since then it has been reduced to 2,000 calories.
    Mr. Scollan: Will my hon. Friend say whether that ration is not as much as the civilian population are getting in this country?
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend for an answer to my supplementary question? What was the ration in the winter months? My information is that it was very much below 2,000 calories.
    Mr. Bellenger: I assume the ration was 2,400 calories. My hon. Friend asked what was the ration on a specific date, 1st March, and I have given him the answer.
    Mr. Stokes: I will put down the question again.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any reason to suppose that the seven deaths were caused by under-nourishment?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have no reason to believe so.

  ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS (COPIES)
  Sir G. Foxasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for all Ministers to use standard size paper when sending Members' answers to Parliamentary Questions and to repeat the text of the question as well as state the answer and not refer to it merely as a number.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The present practice of most Ministers is to vary the size of the paper used according to the length of the answer. That seems to me to be sensible and economical. I am arranging that all copies of answers supplied to hon. Members should include the text of the Question.

  EGYPT (BRITISH FORCES, WITHDRAWAL)
  Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Prime Minister if he will state the total estimated cost of making an alternative place d'armes to take the place of that now comprised in the areas occupied by British Forces of all three Services in Egypt, including the Canal zone; and the cost of moving the stores and equipment of all three Services to Gaza or other centre or centres, including the cost of harbour works at Gaza or any other new naval centre.
  The Prime Minister: Until the present negotiations with Egypt have been concluded and decisions have been reached as to the future location of British base installations, I regret that it is quite impossible to give any estimate of cost such as that for which the hon and gallant Member asks.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that the evacuation of Egypt was decided upon without any attempt to assess accurately the extent of this new financial burden on the United Kingdom taxpayer?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but it is quite impossible to make estimates of hypothetical locations of troops.

  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (BANNED MUSIC)
  Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the rules

  191
  governing the public performance of Wagner's operas in the British zone of Germany and Austria: and whether the same rules apply in the other zones.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): We do not allow any music primarily associated with Nazism of militarism, but this does not mean that there is a general ban on operas by Wagner or any other composer. The banning of works by particular composers was a notorious feature of Nazi rule which we have no desire to imitate. So far as I am aware, the practice of the other occupying Powers is similar to our own.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if he wants to revive Nazism in Germany, the best way to do it is by arousing the deepest resentment of the Germans by defiling the monuments to their dead and by making ourselves ridiculous by banning their works of music?
  Mr. Hynd: The question of monuments is not raised in this Question. If the hon. Member will read the answer I have given, he will see that we do not ban the works of any particular composer, but that we do prevent the playing of Nazi music and other militaristic music in Germany. I might add that I am quite surprised to find this enthusiasm for reviving militaristic and other practices in Germany at the present time.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled, Mr. Speaker, to charge an hon. Member of this House with seeking to revive the military power of a defeated enemy?
  Mr. Speaker: I see no reason to interfere and I suggest to the hon. Member that he himself was to blame for raising a point which really had little to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is widely understood in Vienna that his Department has banned public performances of Wagner's operas and that, in consequence, his administration is regarded in the same light as that of Dr. Goebbels?
  Mr. Hynd: The fact is that a Wagner opera has taken place in Berlin but that, up to date, no application has been made for the performance of an opera by Wagner in Vienna.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: May I ask what form of music has been banned in Germany and Austria?
  Mr. Hynd: No opera by any particular composer, nor of composers generally, his been banned as such, but there are certain pieces of music which it is not desirable that the Germans should play in public at the present time. We have no intention of alloWing such pieces as the "Horst Wessel "To be played.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: We have been long enough on this Question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Wheat Exports (Dollar Exchange)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the 200,000 tons of wheat which this country is sending to the Continent of Europe and which Canada and U.S.A. have promised to replace, will involve this country in a loss of dollar exchange.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. I regret that a diminution of our dollar resources below the level at which they would otherwise have stood, will be an inevitable consequence of these arrangements.
    Mr. Marples: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer,consider making representations to the American and Canadian Governments in order to avoid a diminution in our foreign exchange?

    Japanese Imports (Payment)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if arrangements have now been completed whereby payment of imports into this country from Japan are made in sterling.
    Mr. Dalton: Discussions on this subject are still proceeding in Washington.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor give any indication when the pledge given by his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, will be implemented in view of the very severe drain on our fast diminishing dollar resources?
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman should not assume that they are fast diminishing. We are anxious to reach a con-

    193
    clusion as soon as we can, but when discussions are going on with another Government it is not possible to fix in advance the date of their termination.

    Cheap Money Policy
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in addition to stimulating production and savings and maintaining rationing, price control and cost of living subsidies as preventive measures against inflation, he will now consider, in view of the trend to inflation during the last fortnight, some adjustment of his existing cheap monetary policy.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Dearer money would not stimulate production, rather the contrary.
    Mr. De la Bère: While recognising the need for cheap money, would the Chancellor endeavour to confer with his colleagues in the Cabinet to see whether they can introduce a wage policy in order to check inflation in the future? May I have an answer?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, not to a question which does not arise out of what is on the Order Paper.

    Pensions Commutation
    Captain Marsdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to bring the Regulations for commutation of Government pensions into accord with conditions more equitable with current rates of interest.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. This would require legislation, which might not, on balance, benefit the pensioners.
    Captain Marsden: May I ask the Chancellor whether, in view of the fact that the Act authorising this was passed many years ago, since when values have rapidly increased and the position has greatly deteriorated, he will look into the subject again?
    Mr. Dalton: I have looked into it very carefully, but it would require legislation to alter it. If such legislation were introduced, we could not leave unexamined other provisions in the present law favourable to pensioners, namely, that the computation is based upon gross income with
    194
    out deduction of tax. On balance, I am inclined to think that they have gained more through that than they have lost.

    Requisitioned Property (Compensation)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider introducing an amendment to Section 2 (1) (b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, so that claims for compensation in respect of requisitioned property shall be assessed on the basis of cost at the time when the repairs can be put in hand.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The law provides that compensation shall be paid, whether or not the damage is made good, at the prices ruling at the date of derequisition. This seems to me reasonable.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor aware that the difference of over to per cent. between the compensation paid on identical properties if they were derequisitioned on 31st December, 1945, or 1st January, 1946, and the general increase in wages and cost of materials, create a serious hardship, and that this purely arbitrary action by the War Office makes a great difference to private individuals? Cannot something be done to remedy the position?
    Mr. Dalton: I will have another look at the matter, but I am inclined to think that the present arrangement is, on the whole, as reasonable as one can get. However, I will look at it again.

    Newspaper Advertising
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a number of firms are advertising in the newspapers goods which they cannot at present deliver; that this is clone in order to avoid taxation; and that, in view of the paper shortage, new and smaller firms who are just beginning their businesses, are unable to obtain space to advertise goods they can sell; and whether he proposes to take action in this matter.
    Mr. Dalton: Reasonable expenditure on advertising is admissible as a deduction for taxation purposes arid it is not, in my view, unreasonable for a trader to advertise goods in advance of their being ready for the market
    Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that a large number of people just out of the Services who have started businesses with their gratuities, are unable at present to advertise in the papers because there is no space, and if he does not feel that he can do anything with regard to the bigger firms could he not do something to help obtain more newsprint from abroad?
    Mr. Dalton: The total quantity of newsprint is a different matter and there, of course, we are in the field of foreign exchange problems. With regard to advertising in advance, the people of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks might gain equally from being able to advertise a little in advance the goods which, before long, they will be able to put on the market.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that the reason these goods cannot be delivered is because of the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Mikardo: Is not the position as described in the Question due to unregulated private enterprise?
    Mr. Gallacher: Would not the Chancellor recommend the Government to take over these firms and stop all these rackets?
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: In order to maintain the good will which has been built up over a number of years, is not this "reminder advertising" very necessary?

    University Grants
    Mr. Weitzmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to extend the capacity of universities so that difficulties of admission can be alleviated and no generation denied the opportunity of a university education.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 2nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning).

  HANSARD, HOUSE OF COMMONS (BOUND VOLUMES)
  Mr. McKieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the last bound volumes of Hansard issued covers the period 22nd
  196
  January to 8th February; that inconvenience is thereby being caused to hot. Members; and whether he will take steps to expedite the publication of those volumes.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir, and all steps are being taken to secure earlier publication.
  Mr. McKie: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he remembers saying in this House on 30th January that these volumes would be speedily forthcoming with prewar regularity, and will he take all possible steps to ensure that they do so?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is quite true, and I remember very well answering a Question in that sense. We are doing our best. There are difficulties, but we hope shortly to speed this up.

  SCOTLAND (RURAL HOUSING)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  122. Mr. J. J. ROBERTSON.—TO ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his plans for dealing with the housing problem in the rural areas in Scotland.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Mr. Speaker, with your permission I propose to answer this Question.
  I have completed arrangements for the provision of 3,000 Cruden houses for erection in rural areas and small burghs in Scotland. This is a four-apartment house of the double storey cottage type, constructed with a steel frame and concrete slabs. I shall shortly communicate full details of the house to the local authorities concerned, at the same time offering them an allocation of the houses for then respective districts. It is intended that the houses will be built in rural areas in quite small groups for occupation mainly by the agricultural population and in numbers up to 20 or 24 in the burghal areas The programme contemplates that the 3,000 which it covers will be completed by the end of August, 1947.
  Mr. Robertson: I thank the Join. Under-Secretary of State for his very encouraging statement. I should like to ask

  197
  if his plan for housing is part of a comprehensive plan to deal with water, electricity, and other services connected with community life in the countryside.
  Mr. Buchanan: Those other questions are not before me now. The hon. Gentleman can take it that the Government are seeing to it that all these other amenities, such as water and electricity, are supplied to the areas where they are required.
  Mr. Boothby: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, first, whether this scheme is quite separate from his other plans for the erection of permanent houses; second, whether it is to be confined to 3,000, because that hardly touches the fringe of the problem?
  Mr. Buchanan: I could have made it more but I am not going to repeat the mistake made by others, namely, of laying down a figure that cannot be undertaken by the firm which has to do the work. I much prefer to name a smaller number, to be reasonably sure that some people get houses. I refuse to be bound to an extra figure which, in fact, will not be carried out. This is in addition to the other programmes which are now progressing.
  Mr. Bossom: Could the Joint Under-Secretary say if an estimate has been made of the cost to be allowed for each of these houses and the ancillary services as they come along?
  Mr. Buchanan: I entered into these contracts with the firms concerned, and I have examined them all, including dealing with local authorities in regard to any extra cost that may accrue as against the orthodox, traditional house.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the cost of erecting temporary houses in the burghs, will the Minister see that everything is done to keep the rents for houses in the rural areas as low as possible?
  Mr. Buchanan: The rents will be fixed by the local authorities, not by me. The local authorities will be responsible for it. Meantime, I want to, see rents kept at a reasonable level. My job is also to pursue the policy of building as many houses as I can, because I think that is the most important thing of all.
  Mr. Willis: Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that adequate supplies of steel will be forthcoming during the period that he has mentioned?
  Mr. Buchanan: I have entered into commitments for 5,000 British Iron and Steel Federation houses, and now these 3,000. I have seen the persons concerned, and as far as personal assurances and other inquiries I have made are concerned I have been guaranteed the supplies of steel for them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Arising out of questions on Business yesterday, conversations have taken place through the usual channels and we think there is a reasonable chance of concluding the Report stage of the National Insurance Bill by Thursday night. I would again express the hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will cooperate to make this possible. On Friday a Debate on Egypt will take place in Committee of Supply.
Mr. Churchill: We will certainly cooperate as much as possible to finish the National Insurance Bill in these two days, but we cannot be quite certain. We hope the Government will take the view that, if it is found really necessary for the proper debating of this all-important and not essentially controversial Measure, we can have a little more time next week. I do not want the Debate on Egypt on Friday to be a cause for mutilating proper discussion of the National Insurance Bill. Rather than that, we will have the Debate on Egypt one day next week. I agree that, Friday having been fixed, it is better to stick to it. I hope a little ease may be allowed on the discussion on the National Insurance Bill if necessary.
Mr. Greenwood: I think I said twice yesterday that I understood the position of the right hon. Gentleman, and that it was impossible for him to give a firm undertaking. If it should be necessary, then we must make some other arrangement. I did ask yesterday for the cooperation of the House, and I hope that will be given, in order that the Debate on Egypt may take place as arranged on Friday.
Mr. Lipson: May I ask the acting Leader of the House for a further assurance that the Government will not attempt either to complete the Report stage of the National Insurance Bill within two days or to make a great deal of progress by asking the House to sit unduly late so

199
that very important aspects of the Bill would have to be considered in the middle of the night, which is not conducive to good legislation?
Mr. Greenwood: I am one of those who, 20 years ago, never minded sitting late at night.. However, as 20 years have passed I take a more reasonable view about it. I can assure the House we will take into consideration the feelings of the House, the health and temper of the House, and the prospect of getting all the progress we can, and we will not keep the House unreasonably long if hon. Members will adopt the cooperative attitude which I have invited them to do.
Mr. K. Lindsay: Can I ask the acting Leader of the House whether the Debate on Friday is on Egypt or whether it is on Egypt in relation to the whole question of Dominion consultation? I understood that the acting Leader of the Opposition originally asked for a Debate on the whole question of Dominion consultation, and received considerable support from these benches for such a Debate. I gather the Debate on Friday is on Egypt alone.
Mr. Greenwood: Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman asked us to do last week I would have thought he was concerned with the whole issue: (a) the question of evacuation, and (b) consultation with the Dominions. I have no desire whatever to try to limit the Debate, because I think it is fair to the House that it should be as wide as possible.
Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the question of Wednesday and Thursday, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind
200
that those of us on this side of the House who intervened yesterday have in mind two anxieties? One is to get the Bill as quickly as possible, and the other is that this great and historic, even epoch making, Measure should not be dealt with on the Report stage in a slipshod or hasty fashion?
Mr. Greenwood: In a sense, Mr. Speaker, that is really a matter for you. We had prolonged discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill. We do not want to shirk any issues at all on the Report stage. In view of the present mood of the House, which I think is rather better than it was yesterday, I hope we can achieve the maximum results with the minimum of delay.
Mr. Eden: May I ask the acting Leader of the House if he has any statement to make on the two Government defeats in Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill this morning, and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman in such a frivolous mood—
Mr. Eden: Not at all.
Mr. Greenwood: I have not given the matter consideration up to the moment.
Sir Wavell Wakefield: Will the right hon. Gentleman give it consideration, because, as I understand it, there are to be considerable difficulties for him?
Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that the Standing Committee has not yet reported. Therefore, the House has not been made aware officially that the right hon. Gentleman has to face these difficulties.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings in Committee on Cable and Wireless [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr..Arthur Greenwood.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CABLE AND WIRELESS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.41 P.m.,
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Yesterday it was coal; today it is cables. The Socialist advance, therefore, continues. But I believe that this stage is not controversial. I understand that the Opposition do not intend to divide against the Bill tonight. I naturally welcome that approach to the Measure, and I hope that what I shall say will not provoke disagreement. This is not only a Measure of Socialist advance; it is also a practical Measure of united Empire policy. On this matter we and the Dominion Governments are at one, as I shall indicate later.
  This Bill nationalises Cable and Wireless, Limited, and transfers from private to public control a great network of Imperial telecommunications. The House may like to have a brief picture of the physical assets that are affected by the transfer. The assets owned by Cable and Wireless include 155,000 nautical miles of submarine cable, five cable ships, five wireless stations in the United Kingdom, and some 200 offices and cable and wireless stations widely scattered over a large number of countries, 40 of these being in different parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire. The company also operates some 140 wireless circuits. This short list illustrates the importance of the company's activities from the Imperial as well as from our own domestic point of view. Hence the importance of this Measure. The White Paper which was issued some time ago gives a brief account of the past history of events Paragraphs 2 to 9 of the White Paper briefly summarise the past history of the organisation of the external telecommunications services of the British
  202
  Commonwealth from 1928—I propose to indicate in a moment what happened in that year—until the most recent conference on the matter, the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference of 1945.
  The organisation that was created in 1928 as a result of the Imperial Cable and Wireless Conference was operated on what might be called semi public utility lines. Examples of this character of its organisation were that two of the directors of the operating company were to be appointed by His Majesty's Government; and the company was required to consult an advisory committee, the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee, on questions of policy; and there was financial provision whereby 50 per cent. of any net revenue which the company made in excess of a certain standard was specifically to be used for the reduction of rates, or for such other purposes as the Advisory Committee might recommend. We were already, therefore, out of what I might call pure and undiluted private enterprise even in 1928. Ten years later, in 1938, there occurred a change in regard to the beam wireless telegraph stations, which had been previously owned by the General Post Office. This was not a Socialist advance, but a retreat. The Government of the day disposed of those public assets, those valuable and potentially important assets; but in exchange the Government of the day acquired from Cable and Wireless 2,600,000 shares out of the total of 30,000,000 £1 shares held by the company. So much for that event in 1938, opposed by the Labour Party at that time.
  I proceed to the developments of more recent years. I shall not go into great detail at this stage, but it is true to say—and I say this in no controversial spirit: it is a mere statement of facts—that in more recent years there has been an increasing dissatisfaction in the Dominions with this set-up. They have not liked it. It has become increasingly unpopular. There may have been personal as well as institutional reasons. I do not want to go into that. But the thing has not worked well. There has been friction. The Dominions have not felt they were getting reasonable consideration, and the view has more and more gained ground in the Empire—I am not talking now of opinion in this Island—that we cannot carry on with this very important Imperial telecommunications service being operated

  203
  by a company which is responsible to private shareholders. There has been, on the one hand, a general wish for closer coordination between the various parts of the Empire in this matter; and, secondly, there has been an increasing conviction in different parts of the Empire that this coordination of the Empire cable and wireless services should be on the basis of public ownership.
  This process and trend of thought culminated and crystallised in the last couple of years, and during the Coalition Government, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) will remember, there was a good deal of coming and going, and consultation and so on. Finally, while the Coalition Government were still in office, in the early part of 1945, certain proposals, which had been devised by a committee on which the various Dominion Governments were represented, were referred by the Coalition Government as a basis for discussion to a Commonwealth conference. This met last summer—in fact, just after the change of Government. One of the first duties I had to perform in the office I now hold was to attend a luncheon, a very agreeable function, attended by a number of very agreeable people.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): Agreeable austerity?
  Mr. Dalton: Relatively agreeable. This luncheon was held for the purpose of welcoming 'the various people from the various parts of the Empire who were attending the conference and taking part in the discussions. I remember saying then, that I had not had time to read the report rendered to this conference, but that I had heard a rumour that it was somewhat Socialist in character, and that I would wish to assure-the conference that His Majesty's new Government in the United Kingdom, which had been in Office only a day or two, would not be biased against it on that account. I here only make the point in passing. It would be very wrong to disclose to the House any of the discussions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot and I were parties during the Coalition Government, but I think an outside observer would draw the conclusion, that if the Coalition Government thought that this report should be referred as a basis for discussion, including, as it
  204
  did, a proposal to nationalise these services, then, at any rate, the Coalition Government did not feel passionately hostile to it. If they had they would have preferred other arrangements. I am looking forward to an unopposed Second Reading of the Bill, and I am sure we shall get it. I would have the right hon. Gentleman recall, as I am sure he does, that there was not that united, powerful, hostile feeling in the Coalition Government against this kind of advance
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: If this pact of silence between the Chancellor and Members of the Coalition Government is to persist, and the House is merely to be told that the Empire delegates entered into discussions, no one being told the reason for this Debate, what is Parliament to do? Is Parliament simply to accept this mysterious silence?
  Mr. Dalton: There will be no curtain of silence drawn over what the hon. Member is anxious to know. The only point where we exercise a certain reserve, is in regard to the confidential discussions which took place in the late Coalition Government. The proposals are all described in the White Paper, and I will expound the case for the Bill in a moment. All I say, from outside observation, is that the Coalition Government have shown no hostility to this line of action, otherwise they would not have referred the proposals as a basis of discussion for the Conference which met last summer. With regard to that Conference, some organs of the Press got it wrong. As the hon. Member opposite who is a distinguished contributor to a Sunday paper in which Lord Beaver brook has an interest referred to this, I wish to emphasise that all Dominion Governments have accepted these recommendations. That ought to go into next Sunday's paper as a correction.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon Gentleman has done me the honour to refer to me. May I ask him if he will supply to the House the order of events, so that it may be clear whether any initial action was taken by a Government other than the Socialist Government of Australia?
  Mr. Dalton: It will all come out. There. is nothing to be concealed. I am moving an amendment to the statement in the "Sunday Express."I say that all

  205
  the Dominion Governments, including Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Southern Rhodesia and the Government of India have accepted these recommendations. They are all lined up together, and those whom this bond of Empire has united, let no Conservatives seek to tear asunder. We are very alive to this threat to Empire preference from the other side of the House.
  I now come to what is in the Bill. I am afraid there is a little financial complication, which the right hon. Gentleman will understand better than anyone, but I will try to explain it in simple terms. The so-called operating company —Cable and Wireless Ltd.—that we are taking over, as distinct from the holding company, was created in 1929 to hold and operate all the communications assets of a number of companies, which are set out in detail in the. Schedule to the Bill, together with certain Government cables. It was to operate also the beam wireless stations owned by the Post Office, which in 1938 passed into the possession of Cable and Wireless Ltd. The nine companies named in the First Schedule of the Bill, which may be called the old companies, transferred their communications assets to this operating company in 1928, and as a result they own all the shares in the operating company, except those which were acquired by the Government in exchange for the surrender of the beam wireless stations. The Government own 8.67 per cent., and the other companies, in aggregate, 91.33 per cent. So much for the operating company. When I first studied this subject I was in confusion about the operating company and the holding company, and anyone who has not looked into this matter closely, may easily fall into this trap, if not on guard. In addition to the operating company, there is Cable and Wireless (Holding) Company. We are not taking that over, although the character of its holdings will change. This company was created in 1929, and it owns practically all the shares of the old companies. The shares in the holding company are owned by the public.
  The change we are proposing to make is that the shares of the operating company should now pass into the ownership of the Government. We are taking over the operating company. There will be issued Government stock in exchange, together with interest on the compensation
  206
  during any period that may elapse between the appointed day defined in the Bill for making transfer, and the actual date of issue of compensation stock. The operating company will therefore pass into the control of His Majesty's Government, and the old companies will get Government stock in exchange for their shares. The holding company will not be taken over. The change is made by the transfer of the operating company's shares, rather than by the transfer of its assets. This seems to us to be the most convenient procedure. The procedure varies from one act of nationalisation to another. In this case, it is more convenient to take over the shares than the assets. The issue capital of the company is 30 million shares of £1 each. If the Government own the company, they will own the whole communications undertaking, and in addition certain investments consisting mainly of liquid reserves. There is no need in this case to pick and choose which part of the concern we want. We take all there is; it is a comprehensive transfer, and we are paying a good price. We are making the compensation payments as in other cases, for example in the case of the Bank of England Act and the Coal Bill, by giving Government stock rather than cash to those who are entitled to it.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Frozen Government stock?
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, stock which is not inalienable. It is different from the Coal Bill, but it would be out of Order to discuss that. I am satisfied that in each case the Government have made the right decision. In this case there is no need for inalienability. We were equally right however to make the provision in the other case, and that shows how open-minded we are in these matters.
  With regard to assessment of compensation, that may be fixed either by agreement between the parties, or, in default, by arbitration. It may save trouble if we have agreement, but the Company has so far shown no great keenness to come to an agreement with the Government. Perhaps they are waiting to see.what the result of tonight's vote will be. I must, therefore, count on the possibility of arbitration, and we have made provision for that in the Bill. If arbitration is necessary, we have made provision for setting up a tribunal, and the tribunal is

  207
  instructed to base compensation on the net maintainable revenue of the undertaking. This.again follows the precedent of the Coal Bill.
  In assessing the net maintainable revenue, the tribunal is to leave out of account the effect on the future revenue of the concern, of both this Bill and the Bermuda Agreement. Both of these are to be excluded from consideration when the compensation is being determined. Cable and Wireless have made no secret of the fact that they do not like the Bermuda Agreement, which deals with rates, and they have been conducting propaganda against it, with the shareholders' money. The Bermuda Agreement will affect the operating company's revenue, but by exactly how much is a matter which can only be shown when we get further on and see what the expansion of business and communication work generally is likely to be in the next few years. The Bermuda Agreement was entered into by His Majesty's Governments—I say His Majesty's Governments because, here again, the Empire is united. His Majesty's Governments of the United Kingdom and the Dominions entered into this Agreement after we, in this country, had announced our intention to take over this concern; and, therefore, it is only fair that the effect of the Bermuda Agreement should be left out of account by the tribunal. On the other hand, the Company itself intended, even before the Bermuda Conference was held, to make some changes in its tariffs. It realised that some changes would be necessary. If it had not made any changes in its tariffs, its traffic might have declined, because it was keeping its charges too high, and, therefore, damping down business. The arbitration tribunal is entitled to take such possibilities as that into account. I do not think that there will be any dispute that that is a fair basis for arbitration.
  As to the future organisation that we contemplate, there are two broad alternatives under public ownership. One is direct operation by the General Post Office; the other is operation by a public Board; and both of these alternatives had their supporters. The Government have deliberately not, as yet, reached a decision between these alternatives. We shall do so. There is nothing in the Bill
  208
  about it. The Bill is only a provision for transfer. This matter can be looked at—there are arguments on both sides—and my own opinion is not made up as between direct operation by the Post Office or by a public Board. The Government will examine all this, and they will consult with the various interests concerned including the Union of Post Office Workers and the Postal Engineering Union.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the transfer of the Cable and Wireless private business to the State. Is it possible for him at this stage to say something about what the conditions of the employees of this company will be when the transfer takes effect?
  Mr. Dalton: Certainly. I am very anxious to make that clear. As between these two broad alternatives, the Government are anxious to consult all those who have an informed opinion about it, and then to take a decision, one way or the other, at no distant date. But there is no need to take this decision before passing this Bill, which merely provides for the transfer to public ownership of Cable and Wireless shares. There is nothing in this Bill to prejudge the issue, one way or the other, as between direct Post Office operations, and operations by a public board. The Government will welcome discussions and suggestions on it, at a later date, before we reach our final decision. Whatever the decision is on this major point as between Post Office and public boards, there will have to be an interim period between the appointed date and the date on which the decision can be put into effect, and the new scheme can be got into working order. During this interim period, it is undesirable that the existing directors should continue. They would not like to do so, and it would not be fair to ask them to do so; and, therefore, we must have a new temporary board which will be appointed by the Government. The Government will then be the shareholders, and we shall appoint a small board to carry on in the place of the present board who under Clause 3 (1) of the Bill are required to vacate their office on the appointed day, until we get to the definite new stage.
  With regard to the position of the staff, about which my hon. Friend opposite

  209
  asked me, I am anxious to make a statement, because there has been a bit of propaganda done by those persons who are about to vacate their office on the appointed day. I say quite emphatically that the existing contracts of service of the employees will not be disturbed by the change of ownership. I am not speaking of the members of the board. The employees will not be disturbed; they will continue as now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No improvement? "] Cable and Wireless had plenty of time to make any improvement that might be thought necessary. They will continue as now, on transfer. Moreover, it is the Government's intention, when they become the owners, that any changes in the conditions of employment shall be made only after full consultation with the representative staff associations, and that there shall be appropriate machinery for consultation between the management and the staff on all matters of mutual interest. I hope that that will be regarded as a satisfactory undertaking.
  With regard to the Bermuda Agreement, I think that it is necessary to add a little to what I have already said about it. In the propaganda which they have been carrying on—as they were quite entitled to—Cable and Wireless have been alleging that the Empire is being sacrificed to foreign interests by the Bermuda Agreement, on the grounds that the Bermuda Agreement commits the Government to make rate reductions greater than those which the company itself would have made had they remained in control. The criticism launched against the Bermuda Agreement by Cable and Wireless ignores the fact that, but for the Agreement, American companies would have conducted a rate war, which they have already started. There has already been a very considerable rate war and, in face of that, Cable and Wireless would have been compelled either to reduce their rates in step with the American companies, or else they would have lost a large amount of business to the American companies. They could not just have stood by. The tide was rising. Further than that, the Bermuda reductions were all agreed. These reductions can be defended on their merits. They are a further step towards cheap services for the benefit of trade, the Press, and communications generally.
  210
  I suggest that cheap communications, particularly between different parts of the Empire, are most necessary, and that we should do what we can to bring them to the lowest level of prices that is feasible. I must say that the resistance of the company to price reductions seems to me to illustrate the restrictive outlook which we often find in private monopolies, in contrast to the policy of expansion which marks enlightened public enterprise. [Interruption.] The telephone service is a very good service, and, as patriotic Britishers, we ought to be proud of it. It is a much better service than a lot of the telephone services in foreign countries. Still, on the subject of rates under the Bermuda Agreement, as far as the British Commonweath is concerned rates within it were reduced in 1938 to Is. 3d. a word.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: By the company?
  Mr. Dalton: By the company, but that is a long time ago Time marches on and we must march with it. It is natural that the general reduction of rates should be in relation to the foreign rates generally Here we return to Imperial Preference. The Bermuda rates still maintain the margin of Imperial Preference. The Bermuda ceiling is to be Is. 6d. a word compared with the present Commonwealth ceiling of Is. 3d. There is Imperial Preference in the rate differentiation, whereas the company had in mind—and they admit that they had it in mind—changes which would involve the eventual abolition of Imperial Preference altogether. I hope the Opposition, therefore, will rally for once to the support of the Government in support of Imperial Preference—unlike what they did the other night on the Finance Bill. It is a feature of the scheme that Imperial Preference remains. The Commonwealth aspect of this new scheme is very important. Some of the Commonwealth Governments indicated quite clearly that they would not continue to support the present set up and that they would have withdrawn their confidence from it. They have demanded that a change shall be made.
  Moreover since 1928, when this Cable and Wireless Company was created, many technical changes have occurred which affect the position today. In 1928 it was assumed that direct wireless circuits would not he opened in any way in competition with the Company's system. In 1928 that

  211
  might be assumed, but the war compelled the opening of such systems. Therefore they are subject to competition, although not with undertakings in this country, because there is nobody else to compete with them here, but in the world as a whole they are subject to certain competitive interests. So the position is that the old argument no longer applies, and what we were seeking to do at the Bermuda Conference was to seek an Anglo-American Agreement, as in so many fields, which would give us a practical working compromise between the American preference for wireless working and our own insistence on a balanced wireless and cable system. We think we have done it, and it is clear that neither the Dominions nor India will.accept any reversion to the original form of organisation. If this Bill were thrown out the thing would not stop there, but the Dominions would take their own actions and set up their own organisations under public ownership, with the advantages of a common organisation of telecommunications such as is being set up in this Bill.
  The Commonwealth Governments represented at the Commonwealth Conference in 1945 all accepted the recommendations of that Conference. Some of them are already taking action to carry them out, and we have reason to think that before long all will do so particularly when we have taken the necessary steps in this matter. The Australian Government already contemplate legislation on this subject on similar lines to ourselves. The Government of India have given notice to the Indian Company that they are going to exercise their option to purchase in January, 1947. The New Zealand Government do not need further legislation, because telecommunications there have been a public service for some time. [Interruption.] There is no need for the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to show his dissent. He asks what about Canada. I cannot tell him when the Canadians are going to introduce a Bill, but, as I have said, the Canadian Government like other Empire Governments have accepted the recommendations.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has given a list of the steps taken by the different Dominions and that is why, having referred to Australia and India, I was asking him if he would say
  212
  what was the position with regard to telecommunications in Canada and South Africa.
  Mr. Dalton: What I have said is that both have indicated acceptance of the recommendations, and there is no use in the Opposition trying to run away from that. As to the dates when they will severally introduce their Measures I really cannot say. We shall see in due course, but the lion. Gentleman ought not to throw doubt on the bona fides of the Dominion Governments. They have said that they accept the recommendations. I have given all the information that I have, and the fact that they have accepted is the important point. There can be little doubt —and I know that the Opposition do not like it—that they are in favour of this Socialist Measure. I am sorry for the Opposition, but these are the hard facts of life and we must face the facts of life. These are, therefore, the elements in the background of this matter. I repeat if we do not proceed along these lines there would be a general breakup of the whole of Imperial unity on the matter.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 10 of the White Paper where certain recommendations are laid down, which I think are of great importance to the future of the British Commonwealth. The recommendations are as follows:
  "A Commonwealth Telecommunication Board should be established in place of the Commonwealth Communications Council, with functions mainly advisory in character, but substantially wider than those of the Commonwealth Communications Council, covering all the Commonwealth telecommunication organisations, and including "—
  and here are the very important items on its agenda—
  "The formation of a joint telecommunication policy, including rates; the coordination and development of the wireless and cable systems of the Commonwealth; the coordination with the appropriate authorities of telecommunication matters affecting the defence of the Commonwealth; the coordination and conduct of research and "—
  this is I think considered to be very important—
  " negotiations with foreign telecommunication interests if requested to undertake these by the Commonwealth Governments. Lastly, the Conference recommended a system of pooling revenue, details of which would be worked out by the Board."
  I think that is an extremely promising step forward in Empire cooperation. I

  213
  am sure right hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with me. it is a kind of regular association of the various Governments of the Empire, pooling their ideas and exchanging their views as well as conducting research and so on which, I am sure, will be very valuable in the years and days to come. This is the sort of arrangement to which this Bill naturally leads up, but without the Bill this cannot even begin to occur. Therefore, I ask the House to accept my Motion "That this Bill be now read a Second time," on the grounds that this Bill is a very useful step forward along the road of Empire cooperation, which is desired not only by enlightened opinion in this country but also in all other parts of the Empire, and out of it, indeed, greater things may grow.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I think we have been unfortunate to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer in rather bad form this afternoon. He has made some amusing references to private enterprise and various other things with which I shall deal later on. He has also indulged in a little amusing talk about rate reductions in relation to the Post Office, to which also I shall have to refer in passing. I do not think that the Chancellor will demur if I say that I think no substantial reason, other than that of securing Dominion support, has been advanced in favour of this scheme. I do not want to be misunderstood. That is a very powerful reason. In these discussions the matter of maintaining intact the Imperial network of communications, that is to say, both cables and wireless, is of dominant importance, and for the promotion of a lively and expanding trade between the countries of the Empire a completely integrated system of communications is a most desirable object. So I think we on this side of the House should have no objections to any argument which advances the cause of Imperial unity in economic matters. We approach this question of public ownership from that point of view. In anything that we say we shall bear that in mind, but, having said that, I think it is our duty to point out the defects of any proposals in a scheme, whether or not that scheme has been accepted as inescapable by the Governments concerned, or whether, as I rather suspect, the scheme has been imposed on the signatories oWing to the need
  214
  for agreement. It is our duty in this House to bring out these points, and I shall have something to say later about the jumbled and ineffective scheme which has emerged from Lord Reith's negotiations.
  The fact that Cable and Wireless enjoy a semi-monopolistic position makes us less sympathetic, on this side of the House, to any claims that they may advance. I would remind the House that Cable and Wireless was created not from a monopolistic idea, or for monopoly's sake, but for a very particular reason. It was that in the opinion of the Government of the day it was desirable to keep the cable network alive, at a time when the competition of beam wireless seemed likely to put the cable companies out of business, or else involve them in crippling commercial losses. I do not think there is any controversy or disagreement in any part of the House that the decision to place the two forms of communication under single management, under one company, was sound and right.
  Mr. Benson: So you handed Government property over to a monopoly?
  Mr. Lyttelton: It was considered desirable that these two means of communication should be put under a single management. It was thought that the two would reinforce one another. There were some at that time who thought that no great harm would be done if beam wireless were allowed to drive out the old form of communication. That was a wrong point of view, as was proved during the war, when the great bulk of our military and political messages were sent by cable. The Chancellor will remember that. The reasons were, first, security and, second, regularity. There were times, during the war, when beam wireless faded out altogether. Moreover, the ease with which the enemy can pick up wireless messages needs no emphasis. Cable messages can probably never be tapped, although that is not to be stated too absolutely. It is, however, much easier to pick up wireless messages. It is also significant that research into cable communications which has been conducted by Cable and Wireless Ltd. has made it much less certain that cables are uncompetitive, commercially, as compared with beam wireless.
  Mr. John Edwards: Could the right hon. Gentleman give one

  215
  example of technical development for which Cable and Wireless, Limited, has been responsible during the last 15 years?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot do that at the moment, but I have general knowledge of great developments in the use of cables which have been promoted by Cable and Wireless, Limited.
  Mr. Cobb: Could the right hon. Gentleman say where is that company's research organisation?
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, I will not do that. The facts are not in dispute.
  Mr. William Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Cable and Wireless, Limited, took over the beam service in 1928, if it was a dearer proposition than the cable service?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the argument. The argument was that beam wireless might drive out Cable and Wireless, and that that was thought to be undesirable for national reasons. I can supply the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Edwards) with the information he wants if he insists, but I can say now that research into the use of cables, in which Cable and Wireless played a notable part, has made it less certain that beam wireless would drive out cables. The Americans are pursuing the same line of research; they now attach much more importance to cable communication than they did during the war, and are not convinced that there is no place for the old, as well as the new method.
  The Chancellor referred, in passing, to the fact that Cable and Wireless, Limited, was a semi-public utility. I think it right to make that point because, frankly, I do not think that in either attacking or defending Cable and Wireless as such, the matter of private enterprise comes up one way or the other. The Chancellor enumerated some peculiar conditions under which the company worked. He did not actually give the final point of detail, which is that their dividends are limited to 4 per cent., and that on any surplus earned above that rate 50 per cent. goes to reduction of rates and 50 per cent. for the general purposes of the country. I think it is notable, also, that neither the Chancellor's speech, nor the
  216
  White Paper, charged the company with inefficiency. It would have been very difficult for the Government to have laid such charges. They would have given more justification for the action they are taking if they had been able to do so, but the fact is that the services the company rendered to the Empire during the war are too fresh in our minds and that the remarks made by the Dominions Secretary a short time ago—if I have them with me—
  Mr. Dalton: They were made after dinner.
  Mr. Lyttelton: That is an extraordinary intervention. I always imagined that statements made by Ministers after dinner were to be regarded as just as important as statements made by them at any other time.
  Mr. Dalton: I only wanted to identify the occasion. As the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have the note about it. I was trying to help his memory. The occasion was an after-dinner speech.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The Chancellor is now trying to escape from a suggestion which, to ordinary people's minds, conveys something quite different. Whether it was at a free luncheon or a post-dinner occasion I do not know, but I would like to point out that the Dominions Secretary said:
  "I think the people who have worked behind the scenes operating these immense services during the war should have this tribute of my appreciation."
  I am glad that that was said when the Chancellor was making attacks on the management of the company, indulging in some light cavalry charges upon them, and was permitting himself some very sneering references. Those who would like to look up the official minutes of the Communications Conference, in 1945, will find that tributes—I imagine before-dinner tributes—were paid to the efficiency of the company by India, South Africa, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. So, there was no charge of inefficiency laid, either in the White Paper, or by the Chancellor today, against the company. With regard to the decision to acquire the shares and put forward this Bill, it seems extraordinary that the question of how the company is to operate should not have been determined before the assets were acquired. I listened to the Chancellor with astonishment when he came to that point.

  217
  As a rule, and in common sense, those who are thinking of buying an undertaking or a company begin by considering how it would be managed if they were to acquire it, how its business fits in with the other businesses in which the buyer is engaged, what the saving in overhead expenses will be, if any, and so forth. If I have understood the Chancellor aright these matters are not yet determined. I suppose that with a song in his heart he has put forward this streamlined Bill, and when he has finished singing, I imagine he will turn to thinking of what to do with the assets he has acquired.
  I do not think this is at all the way in which legislation should be presented to this House, and I do not think the House is being fairly treated in this matter. If we are to form a proper view of the value of the asset we are asked to acquire we are entitled to much more information upon how it is to be managed and what its relations to the Post Office are going to be. The Chancellor airily waves that aside and says, "Let us acquire an undertaking in a few Clauses and then work out what we are going to do with it afterwards."This is quite unfair because the way in which it is going to be managed, the organisation to be set up and the interlocking of these services one with the other are vital to the assets we are asked to buy.
  Let me admit that I find it very distasteful to have to say on an Imperial matter that I think the scheme will prove entirely unworkable in its present form—as far as that is discernible—and will certainly have to be altered if it is put to the test of actual operation. I fear that these alterations will cause a great deal of subsequent discussion in the Imperial family. I have great admiration for Lord Reith and have seen some of his public services at close hand when we Were colleagues in the Government, but I cannot extend that admiration to the negotiations he conducted on this occasion. He was given the task by the Coalition Government, and I think the Chancellor was almost departing from his usual fairness when he implied that we were bound, if not to support Lord Reith's scheme, at any rate not to go against it. The position is that the Coalition Government sent Lord Reith on an Empire mission to find out whether an efficient scheme could be promoted which had the full support of the Dominion Governments. I do not
  218
  underrate the difficulties of his task, but he cannot himself be satisfied with a scheme which has such obvious disadvantages and which represents a slavish surrender to immediate expediency and agreement at the expense, as I think, of future peace and harmony in the working of the Company.
  I think that when Lord Reith went round the world he immediately formed the opinion—perhaps he started out with it—that nothing but public ownership would satisfy the Dominion Governments. There was some cause for thinking that. The protagonists of such a system at the time were three gentlemen, Sir Campbell Stuart, until 1945 Chairman of the Commonwealth Communications Council, Sir Gurunath Bewoor, at that time Secretary to the Government of India Posts and Air Department in India, and Mr. McVey, Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Australia Lord Reith may have thought that he would have the services of these gentlemen at his disposal to help in the running of a public company. In fact, Sir Campbell Stuart has now left the communications business for the boards of one or two important companies, Sir Gurunath Bewoor has gone, I believe, to the Tata Iron and Steel Company, and Mr. McVey has retired from the public service to take up work with the Standard Telephone Company of America. It would appear from the subsequent actions of these protagonists of public ownership that their objections to privately owned companies were not so obdurate or deep-seated as to be unalterable.
  I turn now to the arrangement under which these assets, when acquired, are to be managed. I am mindful of your recent Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it is permissible to discuss only the financial matters raised with regard to the overriding authority, and I propose to deal only in general terms with other aspects of the position. The overriding authority, in its present shape, is given the task, first, of redistributing the revenues of the company, and I must say quite frankly that in its present shape it is one of the most inept pieces of administrative machinery which His Majesty's Government have yet devised, though they have already earned for themselves an unenviable reputation for ineptitude in these matters. The phraseology is, as usual.

  219
  comfortably vague, and is couched in that flatulent official English which is designed, it would appear, to conceal rather than disclose the meaning.
  As I understand it—and the Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—the overriding authority is to be charged with the task of collecting all the revenues of all the Empire companies and then redistributing them by agreement with the partner Government. I can think of no arrangement likely to lead to greater friction and legitimate grievance than that. What would the shareholders think in an ordinary company, working under the system which the Chancellor does not like, if some of them, in the same class of shareholding, were to receive more of the revenues and be charged with less of the expenses than others? It is common sense that such an arrangement must lead to the greatest friction. The provisions are entirely vague, and "will have to be worked out by the Board ", which I believe is the phrase used in the White Paper. It is impossible to work among such a widely scattered and diverse body as this will be a system by which the various shareholders are not going to receive pro rata proportion of the expenses and profit, if any. After reading the White Paper I gather that members of the overriding authority are not to be resident at the headquarters of the company but will be scattered all over the world, and I should like to ask the Government if it is a fact that any member has the right of referring any matter to a partner Government. If that is so—and I am assured that it is—it means that any member of the Board or central overriding authority can exercise a power of veto over the day to day business of the company. I should have thought that His Majesty's Government had had enough experience of the difficulties of vetoes without wishing to create a new one of their own. Perhaps the Financial, Secretary, when he replies, will give a specific answer to the question whether that is contemplated under the overriding authority.
  How are the continual deadlocks which must arise out of this system to be resolved? Perhaps His Majesty's Government ingenuously expect to find a chairman whose personality will, with a wave of the wand, dissolve these very obdurate and deep-seated difficulties and defects.
  220
  So touching a faith have the Government so far displayed in the House of Lords that I imagine they expect to find a peer —probably not of their own political complexion—who, by sending telegrams, will be able to resolve these difficulties quite easily. All I can say is that if such a peer exists, it is high time he was put in complete control of all our national affairs because his qualifications are obviously superhuman. It would be interesting to know what remuneration is to be carried by this person, and judging by the qualities which he must have I imagine it would be at least five times the salary ordinarily accorded to a member of His Majesty's Government.
  The next subject, and one upon which the Chancellor hardly touched at all, is that of the foreign assets at present held by the company. I think that is perhaps the most important point. Other schemes of nationalisation raise this particular issue in different forms. The moment the State owns an industry or a company which has international connections it is quite obvious that ordinary negotiations are lifted out of the sphere of the industry concerned into that of international politics.
  The affairs of the single industry may become, indeed will become, a counter in this game. At the best, the change of ownership of the shares of the company will bring nearer the day when the foreign concessions may have to be re-discussed. At the worst, some Government in whose territory we now have concessions may wish to follow the example of His Majesty's Government and take over these communications and make them wholly Government-owned without any foreign participation. We must have some assurances—and absolutely none have been given by the Chancellor—that His Majesty's Government intend to defend these concessions to the last. Our anxiety on this point is very natural when we consider our recent experience of the actions of His Majesty's Government in places like Egypt. The Chancellor never mentioned this matter of foreign concessions, but it is a very vital one.
  It would be invidious to specify any particular countries but there are certain nodal points in the system of Empire communications in foreign countries which are of the greatest possible commercial, strategic and political importance

  221
  to the Empire as a whole. If there were not British companies, operating at these nodal points, a large measure of military and political secrecy would disappear, and for political and strategical messages we should have to rely entirely on the good will of the foreign Governments concerned. It is, therefore, in our opinion extremely maladroit, to put it no higher, to raise this particular issue at this particular time. and from the political and military point of view it would be a very grave matter if it turned out that part of the Imperial communications, the necessary links in the chain, had to be transferred to foreign Governments as a result of this change of ownership. I must give a very significant fact. The foreign assets held in countries using other than sterling, by Cables and Wireless, Ltd., exceed, if we exclude Great Britain, the foreign assets they hold overseas elsewhere, and the total revenue follows the position of the assets. The total revenue in hard currencies other than sterling, exceeds the earnings in sterling overseas. I am excluding Great Britain for the moment. If the foreign concessions are endangered as the result of this, we shall be losing a valuable source of foreign exchange. It is not the first time the Government have shown complete disregard for the necessity of building up rather than pulling down our invisible exports. We are on that road again.
  I must here mention that the Chancellor poked some fun at the company and said they had a great resistance to reducing rates and compared them with the Post Office. It apparently escaped the Chancellor's attention, though it certainly has not escaped that of the Revenue, that the Post Office charges have been raised at a time when the company's general rates were going down. If this is an argument—
  Mr. Dalton: I did not institute a comparison with the Post Office. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) raised the subject of telephones. The comparison was from that side of the House, not from me.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman either raised the instance, or suppressed it, but as a general sneer against private enterprise it appears to be a very peculiar argument to compare them with public enterprises in this matter. It is
  222
  common knowledge that Post Office charges have gone up, while the charges of this company have gone down.
  Mr. Cobb: What about the American telegraph companies?
  Mr. Lyttelton: American sates have been higher than those in this country, but they give a rather better service. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have not been bombed."] It has always been the case that the American services have been much better. As we have been told, it is uncertain whether the Government intend to operate the concession they have acquired through the Post Office, or by setting up another national board. I hope if they do buy the assets that they will manage them through the Post Office because I think it will be cheaper. I do not think public ownership is going to make the company more efficient, but I rather deprecate the setting up of more and more public boards, however agreeable they may be to Government supporters, and to others, through the directorship, and so forth that are going round. It is a very agreeable form of State patronage, but all the same I deprecate setting up boards and getting into more and more overhead expenses when it is quite unnecessary.
  The Post Office in their relations with the Dominions have little difficulty over matters like postal rates and if the Government have the courage of their convictions, and have talked themselves into the feeling that the Post Office is highly efficient, they had better follow it through, and let the Post Office take the whole thing over and make the usual loss which this type of State enterprise will certainly make. I think that would be a much better way and, as far as the overriding authority is concerned, I hope the Government will look very closely into it
  The Chancellor also made some reference to the Bermuda Agreement and, if I understood him right, he talked about a rate war, but he did not mention —I think I am correct in this matter—that these concessions to foreign countries were terminable six months after the end of the war. One would have thought that even Government officials would have had a certain negotiating position and would not have reached an arrangement, giving foreign countries the benefit of £1,500,000 in round figures instead of the £260,000 which accrues to public and

  223
  Empire countries. In any commercial negotiations of this nature conducted by civil servants who are subjected to all kinds of political pressure, the result is almost invariably a very bad commercial bargain. It has happened in this case
  The Chancellor has yet to give a real assurance about the staff I am sorry to see that the hon. Member who asked,a question about the staff is not in his place. The implication in the Chancellor's statement about this was that they were going to be better off, or just as well off, under public ownership as under private ownership. They have, as a matter of fact, been paid very much higher than the Post Office officials oWing to their share in the profits, which is the system adopted by the company. But the Bermuda Agreement has already knocked these profits sideways, and the general assurance that their staff contracts are to be continued will not be at all satisfactory to the staff. What they want to know is whether the weekly pay packet is going to be the same under public ownership as it was under private ownership, and that will involve the Government saying that the special ballast which they throw overboard in the course of negotiations with the Americans or others, is not going to be thrown over at the expense of the staff. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies, I hope he will address himself to this point because the assurances given by the Chancellor—if he will permit me to say so—will not reassure the staff in any way. The Bermuda Agreement has probably put the company "Into the red "for some time—in the financial sense of the term—and the staff want to know whether the Government are going to stand between them and this fall in profits and the fall in the weekly wage packet which will result.
  I sum up by saying that I think it is shown that no other scheme than public ownership is acceptable to the Dominion Governments concerned. I think it could have been otherwise, but I accept that fact now. We shall not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. The issues involved in the matter of Imperial economic union are too great. We shall endeavour while the Measure is passing through the House to suggest important modifications, and we urge the Government to pay attention to the criticisms
  224
  which we have advanced about the method of the overriding authority, the redistribution of the revenue, and various other administrative matters, and we hope that the Dominion Governments will not take it in bad part if we have pointed out quite clearly where in our opinion the defects lie.
  The three main points on the administration are: first, the matter of the foreign concessions received by the company; secondly, the very imperfect definition of the functions and scope of the overriding authority—much further discussion is needed on that; lastly—although this is largely a domestic matter—we call into question the desirability of setting up another national board, rather than proceeding by the method of the Post Office taking over the whole affair. The present scheme appears to be designed to increase the overhead expenditure, and to ignore altogether from the outset the idea of the coordination of the means of communication, because both overseas telephony and certain cable connections with the Continent are left in Post Office hands, and if you have a public board, you will not have the complete coordination of communications which is one of the reasons advanced for this Bill. So, I ask the Government to look into that matter, and I hope that their bias will be against creating another board with important overhead expenses and more billets, even if those billets should turn out one day to be filled by their own supporters.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I ask if he is convinced that the Dominion Governments really want this, or whether it came on an initiative by the Australian Government and that the others would have been quite willing to enter into another arrangement while maintaining the private status of this company? I regret very much that the Opposition will not divide against this Bill—
  Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member rose to ask a question; he is now making a speech.
  Mr. Baxter: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will put my question: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Empire unity is too solidly built to break over a telegraph wire?
  Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend is asking a hypothetical question which I think I answered in the course of my speech. My own opinion is that things might have been differently arranged, but we have to face the fact that, at the present time, public ownership is the only means by which the Dominions will carry this out. I do not think that the matter has been adroitly negotiated, or that it might not have been different, but the fact remains. There it is, and it has to be faced.
  4.54 P.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: I find this a most fascinating Bill. The Bill and the White Paper, the Bermuda Agreement, raise within their compass some of the thorniest of modern problems, and I want to deal with four of them one by one. First, there is this recurring headache caused by the impact of scientific discovery and technical development upon the value of assets which it renders obsolete and good for nothing but to be scrapped. Here we are discussing the competition between submarine cables and wireless telegraphy, and who knows when we may have to reckon with the jet aircraft, or even the rocket, as a means of delivering letters, documents and pictures to far distant parts of the world? The race is on, and the prize will go to the country which most encourages and most successfully carries through research and development.
  Those considerations lead me at once to the great. question mark: What is the right kind of industrial organisation to handle a service of this kind, which has to promote research and development to the full and also has to guarantee that no part of the communications system could suddenly collapse through the destructive results of uncoordinated competition? Then there is the strategic aspect, mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Exactly to what extent does the military security of the British Commonwealth and Empire depend upon an exclusive communications system? And inside that system is there an overwhelming case for the cables against wireless? If it were true, and I do not think it is any longer, that cables could not stand up commercially to wireless, then we ought to maintain the cables like we maintain battleships, and we ought to pay their cost in time of peace by the taxpayers' money, while we were developing wireless and any other competitor in the field of commercial communications to the full.
  226
  There is another race besides this race between scientific discoveries, a race in ideas. There is a race between the ideas which underlie Christian democracy and those horrible propositions which threaten to engulf civilisation once for all. No one who cares for the British way of life could over-estimate the value of cheap and swift communications in spreading our news, our thoughts, and our ideals. I do not think any price would be too high to pay for unity of moral outlook among all peoples, and I do not see any instrument more necessary to securing that unity than a really efficient communications system.
  Finally, there is the fact that this Bill brings us right up against a major change in the relations between the British Empire and Commonwealth and the United States. I propose to address the last part of my speech to that problem. I want to take first the competition between cables, wireless and aircraft. I do not know whether hon. Members do as I do on a Sunday evening. I very often enjoy listening to the "Scrap Book" programme of the B.B.C. A week or two back that programme recalled the year 1901, and one of the incidents described was the first transmission of wireless signals across the Atlantic from Cornwall to Newfoundland, where Marconi was sitting anxiously at his little reception set. This Bill is the direct descendant of that experiment. In the nineteenth century British engineers were ahead in the development of the cables. From 1900 onwards Marconi—his mother was British—with the aid of his British colleagues, and much encouraged by the Post Office, also led the way in the development of wireless telegraphy. This British company, with Marconi at its head, finally opened the beam service in a commercial stage in 1927 when direct circuits between here and Australia, here and South Africa, here and Canada, and between here and India were set up. When that happened the American engineers prophesied failure. They were certain the service could not pay, but within one year the cable companies were knocking at the doors of the British Government and of the Dominion Governments and saying that something had to be done or the cables, that were so necessary on military grounds, would be commercially ruined. The Governments concerned shared that apprehension and the cable and wireless merger was the result.

  227
  I take a somewhat different view from that of my right hon. Friend from this point of the history onwards. I say that from the day when that merger was formed the technical leadership in wireless telegraphy and later in cables passed to the United States, where private enterprise, private companies competing with one another, took up our inventions and developed them with such vigour that when 1939 came there were no less than 80 direct wireless circuits between the United States and countries in Europe, Asia and South America. What had the merger done in those 10 years? They had not added one single wireless circuit to the Imperial system. We still had the circuits from here to the three Dominions and from here to India, there was also a circuit from Montreal to Melbourne, but there was no circuit from here to New Zealand, none from Australia to New Zealand, none from Australia to South Africa, and worst of all, there was no single Dominion which had direct wireless communication with India. There is a very striking contrast between the development of private enterprise working through competing companies in the United States, and the lack of progress under a private monopoly in this country.
  As happens in the industrial world, and as has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, when a new invention overtakes some old method, after a little while something happens which gives the old method a new lease of life. That is just what is happening with the cables, and this new invention, which centres round the 'auto-repeater, which will be paid out with the cable on to the bed of the ocean and there it will boost the messages along, will change the position of cables and wireless once again. But, be it noted, the Americans are ahead of us in the development of the auto-repeater, and perhaps we are now entering an era when there will be a true marriage between cables and wireless, when the transmitting and receiving at the terminals will be done by wireless and the messages will pass between the terminals through these cables with their auto-repeaters, thus cutting out all the fading which has been mentioned as being associated with beam wireless. I do 'not know how these developments will go; I do not know whether the rocket will be a competitor, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member would
  228
  venture on a speculation of that kind, but I think I should carry the House with me if I said that what we all want is that these technical developments, whatever they may be, should be pressed ahead irrespective of the possible effect on the value of existing assets in some other line of the communications business.
  May I return to the cables and wireless merger, because it was formed, if my memory serves me aright, precisely to coordinate progress between the different forms of telecommunications, between cables and wireless, and that progress did not happen. Therefore I must go on to ask why it did not happen, because if it is true, and I think it is, that inherent in monopoly is an inability to push forward technical development, it is something very serious. If that is inherent in monopoly, what guarantee have we that by exchanging a private monopoly or quasi-monopoly for a public monopoly we shall get rid of the faults which were manifest in the cables and wireless merger? [An HON. MEMBER: Back to the Post Office."] Well, I do not know. I would put it this way. It looks to me, in the old phrase, as if we are moving out of the frying pan into the fire. It is a very real and burning question. We shall meet it next week in the debate on iron and steel. We shall meet it again when we come to discuss the Government's proposals for gas and electricity. Are we right to prefer a public monopoly structure to a private monopoly structure? Sometime or other this great question will have to be thrashed out by this House on its merits.
  I, like my right hon. Friend, am certain of one thing: that the actual structure proposed in this Bill—I am thinking particularly of the overriding authority—is bound to be so cumbrous, so lethargic and so incompetent that the advocates of Socialism will not have a chance to prove their own theories. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) pointed out, perhaps it is too late now to go back to private competing companies, to break the thing up and have cables on one side and wireless on the other under Government supervision, but as the Bill stands now the Government can be charged with a lack of rudimentary commonsense in the selection of the instrument they have chosen to carry

  229
  through the conduct of this public service. Perhaps I might go a little further in this direction and make the supposition—I know it is a very wild supposition—that the Government should not have consulted one noble brain but should somehow have devised a really sensible scheme of public monopoly. But even if they did, would they have got rid of the faults that are manifest in the private monopoly?
  I know what hon. Gentlemen opposite will, say. We heard their arguments on the Coal Bill, and they will repeat their slogan—it is nothing more than a slogan —that there is a superior virtue in State management because the profit motive is no longer there. That just is not true. As we look at the Bills and listen to speeches of Ministers opposite, we see that the profit motive is still there in their nationalised projects. They still have to cover their costs, and if they have to cover their costs they must pay attention to their losses. That means that this State enterprise will have to defend its profit and loss account before a much more critical body of shareholders than the private monopoly had to meet. It will have to come before this House. Hon. Members are professional experts in criticism and their probings, if successful in shoWing up waste or loss, may upset the Minister. How then is he positive that an organisation of this kind, working under that kind of supervision, will be flexible and will run the risks which it is necessary to run to maintain the rate of progress which even the private monopoly could not achieve? I think it is still less likely. The private monopoly was protected because it did not have to fear competitors; the public monopoly starts with that advantage—or disadvantage—and goes on to be afraid of Parliament. Taking these two things together, the chances of technical progress seem to me to be nil, especially when one remembers what Treasury control can do to damp down enthusiasm and the spending of money for which no certain results are to be seen at the time it is spent.
  In these monopolies stability instead of progress is bound to become the guiding star, and that is exactly what we do not want in a business where technical development is rapidly changing. There is another reason why stability overcomes progress. It is because, when a business gets so big,
  230
  promotion has to go by seniority and not by merit. Those directing the affair cannot know the qualities, they do not even know the names, of most of their servants. How then are they to pick out the young man who has something remarkable in him? They cannot do it, and he has to rise step by step as he does in the Civil Service.
  I have made it my business to talk to some of the young engineers in the communications business. They tell me that they cannot get on quickly enough—the good ones. They are very despondent about their chance of getting on more quickly when the business goes into public ownership. I do not think for a moment that technical men cannot give their best to any form of organisation be it public ownership or private monopoly. Of course they can, if they are given the chance. It would be absurd to suggest that Post Office engineers are idle or second-rate just because they are employed in the Post Office. What matters is whether that type of organisation really can give the rising young man his chance. We have seen examples already which show that it is most unlikely to do so. When I look at the structure proposed in the Bill I am afraid that the handicap is too heavy to be surmounted.
  To show what we expect of these technical men, let me try to describe the sort of communications service that the Empire needs. Any citizen in the United States can telephone to any other citizen at any minute of the day and get through at once. It is broadly true to say that he can also telephone to any other citizen North or South of him in the Continent of,America. The subjects of His Majesty the King are scattered all round the globe. If they are to have a communications service equal to that of America we have to grasp and conquer technical telecommunication problems of far greater magnitude. British engineers can do it. They led the way in the 19th century with cables, in the first quarter of this century with wireless, and in the last six or seven years with radar. If they are given a chance they can do it. The real question is, Will they have that chance under the proposed monopoly structure? Only time will show, but I am sorry to say that I am pessimistic about it.
  I come to my final remarks, which are concerned with the Bermuda Conference

  231
  and the relations between this country and the United States. I know that I see this matter rather differently from some of my hon. Friends, but I think we differ only on the surface. I have read in the Press some bitter criticisms of the Bermuda Agreement. It was said that His Majesty's Government had given away far too much of our prospective dollar earnings and had acceded to the American demand to keep open wireless circuits between certain places in the Commonwealth and Empire, and the United States, although an agreement to the contrary had been made during the war, and although the necessities of the war have passed. In short, it is said that weak, if not disgraceful, concessions were made at Bermuda, as one of the conditions of the American loan. I do not defend the Bermuda Agreement in detail, but I do defend it in principle, and I must give the House the best reasons I can. The criticisms of the Bermuda Agreement really amount to saying that the high policy, strategy and unity of the British Commonwealth and Empire demand that telecommunications between the Commonwealth and the outside world should be vested, at any price in Anglo-American friendship, in a chain of Empire monopolies, in spite of the two important points that the Empire system was found wanting in the war and that the maximum development of communications is a basic factor in spreading the ideals of democracy.
  The survival of the British Commonwealth and Empire depends upon the faith of the Anglo-American peoples in the ideals of democracy. No man is right to put obstacles in the way of the propaganda of that faith. Therefore, the Bermuda Agreement forces us to ask the essential question whether war between us and the United States is now a possibility or not. If it is, it is of course right to prevent any encroachment on the exclusive system of communications inside the Empire and between the Empire and the rest of the world; but if the day has come when war is ruled out between the United States and ourselves, we ought to sit down and work out the practical consequences of that great change in our policy. We ought to sit down with the Americans and work out an area of free speech and expanding prosperity so wide and so powerful that the United Nations could rest upon that
  232
  special relationship while the building up of the world society is going forward.
  In my judgment, there is no survival for the British Commonwealth and Empire except upon the basis that we and the Americans never go any more into conferences thinking, "Well, the time may come when we shall have to fight each other."It is a case of pooling everything now, or losing out by ourselves. This is my answer to the argument about the loss of foreign exchange. If the productive resources of the British Commonwealth and Empire and of the United States were to be developed by parallel policies of expansion, who can doubt that such an enormous increase would occur in the traffic passing over the lines of communication in the dollar and sterling areas that any loss we might suffer by some reduction in the exclusive character of the Imperial system would be more than made up by the gain in the absolute size of our share in the world's traffic in words and ideas?
  I am convinced that Anglo-American cooperation alone will bring us the volume of international trade which is necessary if we are to survive as an Empire. My regret about the Bill is that the Government have, as usual, lost a fine opportunity to set up a great instrument of peace and progress. They have botched the business, as usual, by incompetent planning and by their failure to rise above the most obvious defects of the economic system which they so loudly proclaim they, have left behind. I would break up the merger into competing companies under Government supervision. But I agree that it may be too late to do that now. Therefore let us put it all under the Post Office. What has happened is that a fine opportunity has been lost. I resume my seat, as Walter Pater said,
  " Saddened by the shadow of the great things from which we shrink."
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. John Edwards: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). Many of us who sit here find ourselves in agreement with a great deal of what he has to say. I want to consider some of the issues which are involved in these matters. It must have been clear to everybody that the Dominions could not continue, and would not continue, to be satisfied with any arrangement less than an equal part-

  233
  nership in Empire telecommunications. I think it was "The Economist "which, when this matter was first announced, said:
  " By an odd sport, Imperial policy has produced nationalisation on the side."
  It is clear from what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said that his conception of Commonwealth cooperation presupposes domination by Britain, and certainly no notion of equal partnership seems yet to have been embodied in his ideology. If that is not his view, it is very difficult to interpret his words. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair to Lord Reith. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government that sent Lord Reith on a mission with, if not precise instructions, at any rate the job of endeavouring to secure an agreed scheme. Lord Reith succeeded in producing an agreed scheme.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is making rather large draughts on his imagination.
  Mr. Edwards: The voice was the voice of the right hon. Member for Aldershot, but the words were the words of the chairman of the board of Cable and Wireless, who, naturally, is a little peeved because one of his directors resigned to go to do a job for the Government, the result of which has been a decision to take over the shares of Cable and Wireless, Limited. It is also clear that the Dominions would not wish to give up the direct wireless telegraph circuits which, quite necessarily, they opened during the war, and it is equally clear that the company would not be prepared to acquiesce in the Dominions continuing to operate these circuits.
  It is, I think, also certain that the Bermuda Agreement—with which Cable and Wireless do not agree and in the implementation of which Cable and Wireless have shown not the slightest disposition to cooperate—could not be implemented without the Bill which is now before the House. There is need for quick action. With every month that passes we lose time and opportunities. That is why I believe the Government are right in introducing this Bill now, leaving to he settled later the precise form of organisation. It will not be until Cable and Wireless pass from private ownership to public ownership that we
  234
  shall be able to have any implementation of the Bermuda Agreement, and even though the precise form of management of telecommunications may not be settled, as soon as Cable and Wireless pass into public hands there can be, at any rate, the maximum of informal cooperation.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot said that no substantial reasons had-been advanced for this Measure, apart from the point about Commonwealth cooperation. I wish to advance one reason which the Chancellor did not put forward. I should be the last person to deny the very great contribution made by Cable and Wireless to the war effort, or to seek to diminish in any way the high appreciation which everyone ought to have for the loyal and conscientious work of the staff of the company, but I do say that Cable and Wireless have been behind in planned development and research. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give a single example of a contribution made by Cable and Wireless during the last.15 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) asked for some indication of the scale of research, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know the facts. That was an extraordinary admission for him to make. Even if he did not know the facts, the Benches opposite are littered with flowers, which have at one time and another adorned St. Martin's-le-Grand. The right hon. Gentleman might very well have asked one of them for information. The truth is that Cable and Wireless have done no research work. They have more cable length than anyone else. One would have expected that they would have pioneered in the field of submarine repeaters. As far as I know, they have not a single submarine repeater in operation, whereas the British Post Office have worked hard on submarine repeater matters, and, although they have relatively short cables, they have already one submarine repeater in operation. As late as 1930, Cable and Wireless could still claim to be in competition with the Post Office in technical matters. In March, 1930, there was a Debate in the House on the question whether international telephones ought to go over to Cable and Wireless or not. It was then decided that they should not. The technical views then advanced by Cable and Wireless have since been disproved, and what people then said was impossible for

  235
  the Post Office engineers to do, they have, in fact, been able to achieve.
  I want now to turn to what seems to me to be the most important single thing that will have to be done when the State acquires Cable and Wireless. The really important thing is that there should be complete integration of telephony and telegraphy. Unless that is achieved by the Government, we shall, I believe, tall short of what is really desirable. As long ago as 1927, the Lever Committee on the Inland Telegraph Service said that they thought the possibility of a complete fusion of telegraph, cable, wireless and telephone services might with advantage be explored. The Bridgeman Committee, reporting on the Post Office as a whole in 1932, said that, with progress in the technique of transmissions, the distinction between oral and verbal transmission had become artificial. What was true of the internal telegraph and telephone systems in 1932 is now, without any kind of doubt, true about international telephones and international telegraphs. The important thing for us all to appreciate is that the whole trend of telegraphic development is to follow telephone development. The modern technique in radio enables facilities to be given from the same transmitter for either telephony or multi-channel telegraphy. It is, I think, quite hopeless to contemplate the right kind of future for telecommunications except on the assumption that these two services are technically one.
  That is why I urge upon the Chancellor and the Government that they should look most carefully into how best to integrate these two services. At the present time, the Post Office have the whole of the international telephones working from this country, they have the Continental cables, they have some Continental wireless telegraphy, they have the ship-to-shore service, they have a number of trans-Atlantic telegraph circuits opened during the war. It is of the utmost importance that this big block should be brought right in and unified with the block of work which the Government are now acquiring under the terms of this Bill. Finally, I hold that this unification is desirable not only on the technical grounds I have explained, but equally on strategic grounds. The change of ownership which we are asked to make in this Bill must only be the first step, a
  236
  thorough tidying up of our telecommunications in order that we may have, throughout the Commonwealth as a whole, a unified service, which will effectively serve all our purposes in the years that lie ahead.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: It is not often that I take my text from the Lord President of the Council. I see, however, that he was reported as saying in Washington the other day in regard to the food situation, speaking with his customary elegance of diction and keen sensitivity of perception, that it "didn't smell good "To him. I adopt those words in regard to this Bill; it does not smell good to me. I want for a few minutes to give the House my reasons for so thinking. It is not because I, or indeed anybody on this side of the House necessarily regards the present setup of communications as being perfect. It is commonly urged by advocates of State monopoly that those who oppose their designs are content with things as they are, and are opponents of progress. But this is by no means so. We are believers in progress; but we do not identify all change and movement with progress, because it may equally well be movement of a retrogressive sort. It seems to me that the Government in regard to this scheme have had recourse to that false syllogism to which we are becoming accustomed—something must be done; this is something; therefore, it is right to do it.
  I am not competent to enter into discussion as to whether Cable and Wireless, Limited, have, or have not, made the proper advance that they should have made in regard to research. That is a technical matter on which I would not presume to speak. But, if they have not made the proper advance in regard to research, surely the reason is that put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). It is because we have retreated from that individual enterprise which fosters the spirit of research and inquiry, and have set up a private monopoly. It is true that the spirit of monopoly is incompatible with the spirit of inquiry and research; but the cure for that is not to create a State monopoly out of a private quasi monopoly. In that case our last state will be worse than our first. In my view, we shall not get the

  237
  research, which may or may not have been lacking in Cable and Wireless, Limited, by setting up this series of State monopolies. Apart from the question of research, it does not appear that in the ordinary conduct of business there is any charge of inefficiency brought against this concern. So far the experience of this Parliament seems to show that there are two reasons for socialising an industry. Efficient industries are socialised in the hope that, in spite of the principle of State monopoly, they may continue to be, at any rate, reasonably efficient; and inefficient industries are socialised because then there will be no adverse standard of comparison when they are inefficient as State monopolies. But there seems to be no charge of inefficiency in this case, either in the White Paper or in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, I think the record of this concern clearly proves the contrary. In the testing time of the six years of war, they have been able to achieve expansion where the Post Office—a State monopoly concern in this country—has imposed restriction, and where the Post Office has had to increase charges, Cable and Wireless Ltd have been able to reduce their rates. On the ground of efficiency, that seems to be a sufficient recommendation.
  For the reasons which prompt this action, we have, it appears, to go to paragraph 7 of the White Paper where two reasons are given arising out of the deliberations of the Commonwealth Communications Council of 1944. The White Paper says, with a studied vagueness of language which would almost serve as a model for the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "The Council felt it was essential that the Dominions and India should have a greater share in the administration of the Commonwealth telecommunications system, with a view to its development as a whole on both the cable and the wireless sides. Moreover, they considered that a company largely commercial in structure, with obligations to private shareholders, might not be in a position to provide a service fully to satisfy public needs and strategic requirements."
  The words "commercial in structure "are not, perhaps. a particularly happy expression of what was acknowledged by the 1938 White Paper to be a public utility. But still more unhappy is the suggestion that it might not be in a position to satisfy "public needs and strategic requirements."It may be that if those
  238
  words had been set down in 1939 we would have heeded them and felt some apprehension. But to record that doubt on the morrow of the great service that this concern has admittedly rendered in the dark and difficult days of war, is, to put it mildly, a piece of most peculiar timing.
  There should be a greater share for the Dominions. I support that and would like to see the Dominions having a greater share in the system of Imperial communications. But it does not follow from this, that we need set up a system of State monopolies in order to provide that greater share. Surely, it would have been possible—and I have no doubt that suggestions were put forward to that end—to achieve a greater degree of Commonwealth participation both in the profits and administration of Imperial communications, without resorting to a system of State monopoly. I would like to see them have a larger share, but I would like to see them have a larger share of a larger cake. If this scheme goes through, the most they are likely to get is a larger share of the smaller cake that will result from the introduction of these principles. It will be smaller, because if there is one thing less efficient than one State monopoly, it is a series of loosely linked State monopolies with a Board with ill-defined powers set above them. The Chancellor referred with pride—and this struck me as being almost the oddest thing about a most peculiar speech—to this Board which is described as having functions
  "mainly advisory in character, but substantially wider than those of the Commonwealth Communications Council."
  If power is to be given—and it will be —to this Board, whose functions are, nevertheless, defined as being "mainly advisory in character," we are being asked to commit the greatest administrative error which it is possible to commit: to give power without responsibility. I shudder to think of the future of this concern if that structure remains as adumbrated in this White Paper. But though it seems to me that failure stares this concern in the face, it is apparent that the Government could not bear the suspense of even the slenderest possible chance of success. Consequently they have taken steps to exclude that by the concessions they have given to the United States of America. The position in regard to the United States of America is re-

  239
  ferred to in the White Paper where, in paragraph 6, it is stated:
  " Such circuits were opened between the United States and some of the Dominions, India and some Colonies, on the understanding that their operation was limited to the duration of the war and six months thereafter."
  That seems to be quite a clear statement. But on the last page of the White Paper, in paragraph 17, we have these words:
  "The Agreement includes a statement of the principles to be adopted in determining whether a direct wireless telegraph circuit should be established between two countries, the intention being that this statement should he presented for consideration at the next International Telegraph Conference. Broadly, the proposal is that such circuits should be opened when justified by traffic or service needs.…"
  That is a vague description of the principle of yielding to the United States of America their right to have direct circuits for inter-Imperial communications. No wonder the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said it was one conference where the concessions were all one way, as the United States had virtually nothing to offer or trade with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham has spoken eloquently on cooperation between the United States and the Commonwealth. I second that. In a modest way I have had some experience of Anglo-American cooperation, having served with Americans for 12 months in the late war. One thing I discovered about them was that they are not particularly impressed by such quixotic actions as this. They rather take the view that people who do business on that footing are people who are losing grip and are less worthy of cooperation. Though I second the policy of cooperation referred to by my hon. Friend, I cannot agree that this "selling out "Is the right way of achieving it.
  I wish to refer to the most important aspect which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend, and—most extraordinarily—totally omitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he found time to include many less relevant and many less important matters. I refer to the foreign concessions. It is surely clear that the introduction of the principle of nationalisation within the Empire is likely to result in nationalisation in foreign countries; and
  240
  who can wonder at those countries where this company holds concessions, which have been of immense strategic value to us in war, if they are not willing to give to a foreign State concern, in their country, concessions which they would give to a private company? I imagine that there is no great secret about where these communications lie. If the principle of State monopoly was to commend itself, for instance, to Egypt, which must obviously lie along our line of communications, or to the Islands off West Africa, or to Portugal, we have only to consider in regard to the strategy of the late war what might be the effects if we lost our concessions and the security of our Imperial communications which was afforded by these foreign concessions. It is most regrettable that the Chancellor has not addressed himself to that aspect. I hope we shall hear the hon. Gentleman upon it later.
  By the action we are taking we are placing in jeopardy the security of our communications in war. I can put it no lower than that. I believe that by this action the Government are weakening our Imperial unity and our strategical position in the event of war. We are invited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that these things are worth while because of the advance that is to be made in Imperial unity. I was glad to find him attaching this importance, even at this late stage, to the question of Imperial unity. But I cannot agree with his premise, when he invites us on this side of the House to say in regard to the enterprise which has served us well in the past:
  "I could not love thee, dear, so much, Loved I not Empire more."
  I do not agree with the antithesis he places before the House. I do not believe that in the long run Empire relations will be improved by the setting up of this machinery, because if this machinery works as badly as we anticipate and fear, what reason is there to suppose that close cooperation in a failure will cement Imperial relations? It would not be in accordance with the usual experience of mankind if that were so. I believe that reproach and recrimination are more likely to follow the frustrations and failures which will be borne of this scheme. I turn to the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman made of myself. He gave me no notice that he intended to refer to my writings.
  Mr. Cobb: Why should he?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I should hardly have expected such a question, even from the hon. Gentleman. The reason, I should have thought, was clear. If notice had been given I would have been in a position to refresh my memory by looking up exactly what I did say. [Laughter.] When the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks a great deal, and the hon. Gentleman who speaks less and perhaps even less to the point, are able to carry in their heads every word of the speeches they utter, I will be able to recite to the House every word that I write. My recollection of what I said is this. I said that it should be made clear whether Canada and South Africa had expressed any preference for this scheme; but the right hon. Gentleman has still not addressed himself to that question. He says that they are all lined up in agreement now. Of course they are. I do not think that is very unlikely. If this Government, who are mainly interested, make no stand, if they give no lead, how can we be surprised that the Governments of Canada and South Africa make no stand either? That is not the point with which I was dealing. The point is that these countries expressed no preference for this thing I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman at once if he will get up and assure us that they expressed a preference at or about the same time that the question was originally raised by the Socialist Government of Australia.
  Mr. Dalton: I tried to make it clear. If I failed I will try once more. This Committee, which was meeting at the time when the change of Government took place in this country, contained representatives of all the Dominions, including Canada and South Africa. This Committee made a unanimous report, signed by the representatives of all the Dominions, including Canada and South Africa, in favour of the public ownership of telecommunications. This report was duly transmitted to the several Dominion Governments whose representatives had signed it and all the Dominions, without exception, have said that they accept and agree with the proposal. No other scheme was presented by the Committee, on which they were all represented. The Committee unanimously recommended this, and the Dominion Governments have
  242
  unanimously accepted the recommendation.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely, it is the fact that the Chancellor has referred to earlier expressions of dissatisfaction, coming from the Dominions, with the existing state of affairs. Surely, it is a fact that these expressions of dissatisfaction came primarily from one Dominion, that being the Dominion which already held 51 per cent. of the shares of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia), Limited, with the result that there was already a partial State monopoly in the Dominion referred to.
  I still say it does not seem to me to be proven that there was any unanimous expression of desire for this system on the part of the Dominions at the relevant time when these matters were first brought forward. I am, of course, prepared to take it from the Chancellor that now they are all lined up if I may say so, "lined up "Is an appropriately regimental and totalitarian expression. Be that as it may, in my view there was not, and there has not been shown to be, any unanimous and spontaneous desire on the part of all the Dominions for this thing. If this scheme works badly, which I am afraid it will, the effect on imperial relations will be to deteriorate and not to improve. We shall find this new imperialism of the right hon. Gentleman is merely old socialism.
  I believe that communications should be the cement of Empire. We have moved very far from the days when Burke regarded communications as one of the limitations on the idea of Empire—
  " Months pass and seas roll between the order and the execution;"
  We have left all that behind. Our communications, if properly handled, should be a part of the unifying structure of Empire. I believe these ties are likely to be unravelled instead of knit more closely by this scheme. When I visualise this scheme in its setting of all that has happened in the last few weeks and months in regard to the Empire at the hands of this Government, I am reluctantly reminded of that passage in the same speech of Burke's when he said:
  " A great Empire and little minds go ill together. "
  There is a limited view on the part of this Government, and of its supporters, of the potentialities of Empire. We are confronted from day to day here with the results of the workings of this limited mentality; but, for all that, I myself place

  243
  my faith in the Empire which I hope they will serve better in the future than they are doing now.
  5.53 P.m.
  Mr. William Williams: I could almost imagine from the manner in which the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) spoke, that he was feeling very bitter about this Bill. Unfortunately so far as I can see, he has not produced a single argument in opposition to its provisions. He has rambled all over the place, but has not given one concrete argument against it. I must apologize to the hon. Member for the fact that I have not had the privilege of reading his articles. I am, therefore, in what is perhaps the happy position of neither having to quote them nor to unquote them. The association which I have had with the Post Office for nearly 30 years, particularly with the telecommunications side, and my more recent associations with the Union of Post Office Workers, who are responsible for the grades who have been working both the inland telegraphs and foreign telegraphs, makes me welcome this Bill. I welcome it because it seems to be an indication on the part of two Governments—I say this advisedly—on the part of the Coalition Government as well as the present Government, that they want to try to unify telecommunications between the Empire countries.
  I was rather surprised to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that there was some doubt in his mind about how far the Coalition Government had gone on this issue. I leave that matter between him and his conscience. I think that is the best place to leave it. My information, which ranges over the past 18 months or two years, was very much in the direction that the Coalition Government were pretty well committed to this. The Labour Government, so far as the decision is concerned, are simply reconciling themselves to the major decision made by the Coalition Government, and perhaps following it up a little in certain directions. Whether that be right or wrong—and only the Front Opposition Bench might be able to resolve that matter—I think I am in the right direction when I make the suggestion that the Coalition Government knew all about the need for this Bill. I believe that it is
  244
  going to cement the relationship between the mother country and the other countries of the Empire. Telegraphs, wireless telegraphy, cables, wireless telephony, and other forms of communication are making this world a very small place. It is in the interests of all that we should understand each other, in regard to these facilities. I believe that the provisions of this Bill will, in due course, increase the efficiency of overseas telecommunications. I say that with no intention of casting any aspersions whatever, either on the Post Office side of overseas telecommunication, or on the cable and wireless side of that service.
  I shall deal later with some of the insinuations made by hon. Members opposite in regard to efficiency. Some hon. Members suggested that there was no charge against the efficiency of the staff of Cable and Wireless. Nobody has suggested they were inefficient. I go further, and say there was no charge of inefficiency against the Post Office staff in 1928, when a successful beam service was transferred to a dying cable company. There was no suggestion of inefficiency. The decision was apparently made on the ground of public policy, and not on the question of the efficiency of the organisation or of the staff. So far as that point of criticism is concerned, I do not think there is anything in it.
  I believe that this Bill will do something of very great importance. It will intensify research in the field of overseas telecommunications The resources of the respective Governments, and of the board, will enable a great deal of headway to be made in telecommunication research. I wish I had the imagination of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I am afraid I have not sufficient of the Jules Verne in my composition to be able to follow him the whole of the way he went this afternoon. But I thoroughly enjoyed the fantasies of his speech and also some of the very practical suggestions which he made. Had he been present now, I might even have submitted for his consideration, that not only in the field of telecommunications but in the field of postal communications, we might find it quicker, as he more or less suggested himself, to send a letter by rocket than to send a telegram by cable.
  Scientific development is going on in many directions and we cannot raise that as an argument for standing still. We

  245
  cannot stand still and hope that somebody will produce certain inventions to make all these common everyday things unnecessary in our lives. I suggest for the consideration of the House that the great tragedy of telecommunications has been the nasty habit of Governments in the past of chopping and changing their policy on communications. Always, there has been this chopping and changing. First, we had private enterprise and private ownership; then State control; then partial State control and partial private enterprise, and now we come to this hybrid arrangement in Cable and Wireless, which is neither one thing nor the other. I subscribe to the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) that the hybrid things are good neither for man nor beast, and I think that the sooner we come down on one side or the other the better.
  That leads me to say a word as to what is happening in regard to the Board. Who is to take over this industry and work it? In my opinion, and I say it without any hesitation whatsoever, the Postmaster-General should take over this job. It should not be handed over to any more boards or any more public utility corporations, and, in this respect, at any rate, I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Aldershot. I believe there is a very sound reason why the Postmaster-General should have the control and direction of this business. In the first place, I see no reason why we should differentiate between internal and external communications. I think it would be true to say that the Post Office, at present, is undertaking about 75 per cent. of the work of the cable companies in regard to accepting telegrams for foreign transmission, transmissions in this country and subsequent delivery in this country. In other words, the Postmaster-General, on behalf of the country and the nation, is now undertaking. I should imagine, roughly, about 75 per cent. of the overseas communications in so far as they affect the internal side here. Why cannot we adopt a system under which he should be responsible for the external side also? He is responsible for the external side of telecommunications in so far as Continental business is concerned. He works the communications to, the Continent, to Germany, France, Holland and Belgium. As a matter of fact, I can recall the great interest which I bad in
  246
  working a circuit from Liverpool to Bremen, Hamburg, Paris and other Continental places, and still have to learn that the Postmaster-General and his staff did not do that job most efficiently. If I may say so in passing, I did my job very well.
  I am perfectly satisfied that this business should come under the direction of the Post Office and the Postmaster-General, and, in this respect, I subscribe to, and commend to the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary, the closing words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in concluding the Debate on the Civil Aviation Bill the other night. This is what he said:
  "It is essential, in a Parliamentary democracy, that there should be these reserve powers for the Minister, in his dealings with public corporations. If they did not exist, these corporations will be far less responsible than private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 6th May, 1946: Vol. 422, C. 727.]
  I never thought that we should ever conceive anything less responsible than private enterprise, but, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, these public corporations, under these conditions are much less responsible than that.
  I would like to make some observations in regard to some of the very sweeping assertions that are being made in the public Press, inspired, I think, by the vested interests concerned. I like other hon. Members of this House, have had a lot of pamphlets and publications from vested interests on this subject, and I have taken the trouble to read some of the very sweeping assertions made. Some of these have been repeated here today, without a single reason being given in support of them. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot has repeated them, without any backing at all for them. I cannot deal with them all —there are 101 of them—but I take two or three. First:
  "The scheme is inimical to the interests of the peoples of the Empire and of all classes of telecommunications users. It is impracticable and dangerous inasmuch as it touches upon cur foreign possessions."
  This has been repeated in this House today. It is very natural for Cable and Wireless to take up a very selfish point of view in regard to this transfer. Perhaps it would be too much for us to expect them to appreciate that they only form part of the Empire communications—a

  247
  very important part, but, nevertheless, a part—and we here today have to consider the whole of our communications and not just part of them. In my judgment, if we are to accept the condemnation and the assertions made by hon. Members on the other side this afternoon, we must come to one of two conclusions—either, that those who have studied the problem are ignorant of the facts of the case, or that they are knoWingly and wilfully damaging the interests of the Empire and the interest of the service.
  Who are these people who have given this matter all this consideration? Let us forget the Socialist Government. Obviously, they are suspect. It was the National Government that authorized it and which had been giving serious consideration to it, for the best part of two years during the war and long before peace was thought of. Then we had Lord Reith, and I have never heard anybody suggest to us that he was a good Socialist. The Noble Lord may be, but I have never heard anybody suggest it. He conducted a tour of inquiry on behalf of the Government in India and elsewhere, and he felt so much about it that he even resigned his directorship of Cable and Wireless to do this. I do not want to be nasty here, but I hope that there is not another plum coming his way, instead of that.
  The first people to discuss this matter were the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada. I have always assumed that hon. Members on the other side regarded them as most reasonable, responsible and intelligent people, who were part of a great Empire and who would not do anything inimical to the interests of the Empire. I do not want to go any further on that. I could, it necessary, quote that very moderate newspaper, "The Times,"To which the right hon. Member for Bromley referred last night, all in the direction of proving that these very reasonable men, these very patriotic men, these very considerate people, came to the right decision in the interest of the Empire and in the interest of the peoples of the Empire. I am afraid I have not time to deal with apprehensions regarding the powers of the new Commonwealth telecommunications. But I would like to ask the Minister who is to reply to give the House some informa-
  248
  tion; to move the curtain aside a little bit; for my edification, if not for that of hon. Members on the other side, as to the degree of control and power which is to be vested in and exercised by the new board. It is very important that we should have some idea about this if the Minister can possibly give it without breaking the Secrecy Act. The company maintain that nowhere have they been charged with inefficiency or lack of enterprise. That has been done here this afternoon. May I pay a tribute, from my personal knowledge of them, to the people who have been working Cable and Wireless, not only during the war, but before the war? They are a fine lot of people and a fine staff. There is not a better staff in the country dealing with telecommunications. I pay them that tribute even though I come from the rival organisation, the Post Office.
  There is another point to which the Chancellor might listen and on which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot. The people employed by Cable and Wireless are better paid than the people in the Post Office doing the same kind of work. I suggest that the Chancellor should bear that fact in mind and take it back with him for further consideration. There is no question here, as far as I can see, of a charge of inefficiency against either the organisation or the staff. The only purpose of this Bill is to coordinate and unify all the services and make them more effective and comprehensive. According to hon. Members opposite, the company say that the Post Office are not reducing their inland charges, although they are reducing their charges on telegrams. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot spoke that way this afternoon. Before I deal with that charge, it would be interesting—although, perhaps, impertinent of me—to ask who raised the charges on inland telegrams, and what were the reasons given for so doing. Those of us who have been trying to follow recent history know, of course, that the charges were raised by the Chamberlain Government in 1940, for the purpose of augmenting wartime income.
  Mr. Lyttelton: May I ask the hon. Member whether the charges have been reduced by the Socialist Government during peacetime?
  Mr. Williams: In answering that question, it might not be a bad thing to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. If the alternative had been to reduce the postal, telegraph and telephone rates and to leave the Income Tax at 10s. in the £ and the Excess Profits Tax at what it was before, would the right lion. Gentleman care to tell me where Ms choice would be?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that public ownership of industry is to be regarded as a means of raising revenue. I do not agree with him?
  Mr. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to answer the point I put to him?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry, but I could not.
  Mr. Williams: I am sorry you do not take up the challenge. As far as I am concerned, I should like to see the Post Office able to use all its profits in the development of its own work and services, on research departments and in reducing the rates to the people. I would like to think that the telegraph service of this country was available to every man, woman and child, if necessary, irrespective of income, and that the charges should be as low as possible. But you cannot have it both ways; you cannot have it off your tax and off your rates at the same time. As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly happy to take it off the rates and to let the Chancellor took elsewhere for his taxation.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether, in his repeated use of the word "you,"The hon. Member is addressing his remarks to me, or to hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Williams: I offer my very humble apologies to you, Mr. Speaker. You, with all due respect, would be the last person in the House to whom I would wish to refer in this way. "You," on this occasion, referred to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I believe that this Bill is likely to consolidate the position within the Empire, and that when it comes into operation, it will give an overall improved efficiency. Finally, I believe that the research undertaken under the provisions of the Bill will make a great difference in international telecommunications, not only of the Empire, but of the world.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. Williams) always addresses the House with such kindliness and good humour that one is inclined to congratulate him rather than to say—as I have now to say—how much his speech has encouraged us on this side of the House in our amicable opposition, because I still do not understand why we are not going to divide on this Bill tonight.
  Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman can divide.
  Mr. Baxter: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to suggest that I should divide, but that is rather an insular operation. If I can get two or three more to make sufficient noise, I shall, with Mr. Speaker's permission, divide. The hon. Member added to our doubts and disbelief when he said that this new great venture should be put under the Postmaster-General. We have already seen the telephone system and some of us have even tried to use it from time to time. Some of us have even sent telegrams to people in this country and have arrived before the telegram. It is now proposed to put Empire communications under the Post Office as well. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been in New York where all these things are under private enterprise and where, when one arrives at a hotel, messengers come with telegraph forms, and every facility is offered. They do business there because they are privately owned. If I may have the Chancellor's attention for just a moment—
  Mr. Dalton: Certainly.
  Mr. Baxter: The Chancellor is always the most courteous of Ministers. We welcome the Chancellor today in his new role of Empire champion. Today he has stood for the Empire against the Conservative Party, and for the unity and unification of the unbroken front of the Empire. I hope that when the Americans collect their charge for the loan we shall find the Chancellor standing there in the same mood as he is today. Are we going to hear, "Hands off Imperial preference," or are we going to hear in that suave, charming way of his that it will all come right in the end? The Chancellor is having a most profound effect on the stimulation of private invest-

  251
  ment and on shares everywhere. He is the greatest "bull "The world has seen outside of Spain for a long time. All this "Ferdinand of the Front Bench "has to do is to make a speech, and the shares go up. Since the White Paper was published on the Cable and Wireless Bill, the shares of Western Union have shot up. They are competitors of Cable and Wireless, Limited, and now they see that it is to come under State control there is more whisky being drunk in Western Union offices in New York tonight than has been drunk there for a long time. This is great news for them.
  When the Chancellor was outlining this streamlined Bill today it was a relief to find that it was not in the mandate. At last we had some nationalisation Measure which had not been in the mandate. But the Chancellor did infer that there were many things to be said against the Cable and Wireless Company. He did not particularly want to say them. They had been said at the telegraphic conference, but he was not going to spill the beans. In fact, he was not going to spill any beans anywhere if he could get out of it, and I do not blame him. But I wonder that he did not, out of the essential fairness and decency that are part of his character, pay to Cable and Wireless the tribute that is due to it. According to the inference of the Government, and the Chancellor particularly, Cable and Wireless is basically inefficient. Yet it has held its own in opposition to the privately owned streamlined cable companies of the United States. If the running of traffic and the keeping down of cost is the yardstick of measurement, why has nobody on the opposite side of the House said today that Cable and Wireless, in open competition, brought down the Press rate within the Empire to the lowest charge ever made in cable communications —a penny a word—and why have they.not referred to the congratulations that went to the company in 194o from the Government and the Ministry of Information? It was the former Minister of Information who told me about it.
  I know the effect all over the Empire of that wonderful achievement. Yet here we have the Government talking as if they had just discovered American unity and American communications for the first time. Sir Edward Wilshaw and his staff
  252
  have had far less than fairness done to them in this Debate. It has been ungracious of the Chancellor not to give a fair picture. There have been several references today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who writes in the "Sunday Express."I myself have been known to write articles for publication.
  Mr. Dalton: I have read some of them.
  Mr. Baxter: I also write a weekly cable for American and Canadian consumption. I do business as a writer with Cable and Wireless. It is important that my contributions should be despatched quickly and they are, therefore, cabled. I can telephone any time of the day or night and ask for a messenger, and a messenger arrives at my house. They are courteous and efficient, and it is all done at this penny a word rate. I do not know if the Postmaster-General has become the great high connoisseur of all forms of communication in the air, on the ground and beneath the water Can I telephone the Post Office and ask them to send a messenger because I want to send a cable? We only get that service from private enterprise or semi-private enterprise, such as Cable and Wireless. I do not intend to stress the point of foreign stations beyond saying—and this is a most serious point to which the Government should give their attention—that some of our Empire circuits run through foreign countries. That has all been established today. If, unhappily, a war should come again our circuits will run through neutral countries. The maintenance of a State owned belligerent station might well be construed as a breach of neutrality. This will not be so with a private company. I think the Government ought to give consideration to that fact.
  I wish to conclude with two points. In his candour today the Chancellor gave us to infer that the Empire and the Governments of the Dominions, in one of those spontaneous movements which sometimes come from peoples spiritually allied with each other, have said with one voice, "Let us have a Government-controlled cable and wireless service." Out it came, across the Pacific, from the Mediterranean and from everywhere. Sometimes we must not be blamed in this House if we listen very carefully to the phraseology that is used. The other day

  253
  we had the unfortunate example of the statement about Egypt when we were told that the Dominions had all agreed, whereas they had all been informed. I wonder if the Canadian Government asked for what this Bill provides. I wonder if South Africa asked for it, or whether they said, "Here are the socialistic Governments of the Empire all trying to build up State control," and agreed rather than asked for it. At any rate, I suggest that those Members opposite, who, a little belatedly, are finding their enthusiasm for the Empire—because for years in this House their party was a "little England party "—are possibly looking upon Empire unity as rather too easy a thing which can be maintained merely by a system of cables and beam services. It is much more elusive than that, and, because it' is much more elusive, it is much more enduring.
  Finally, I believe that, although the company may be mechanically efficient, from a salesmanship standpoint, it will be deplorable and it will become sluggish. Another thing which I must view with very serious alarm is the groWing centralisation of authority, the spread of Government patronage, the power of awarding contracts, the killing of initiative and the paralysis which will spread across the country until all adventure, imagination and thought are confined within this half square mile which centres on Whitehall. For that reason I once more express my regret, first, that the Chancellor did not pay to Cable and Wireless the tribute that was due to them, and secondly, that the Conservative Opposition should not divide against this Bill. I think they should, because this is one of the 39 steps to perdition which the Government are taking. I think the Conservative Opposition should oppose them at every step, because this Government, even when they are Right, are wrong.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Skeffington: I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Beverley Baxter) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the very gloomy thoughts which he has just uttered, and if I do not discuss Empire subjects with which he has just dealt. I would make one passing remark on what he has said in connection with the very valuable reduction of Press rates made by the company to 1d. a word, in
  254
  1940. I understood that when beam wireless was introduced it was claimed by the engineers and those connected with it that it would have been feasible to have used beam wireless for inter-Empire communication at Id. a word all over the Empire, and that was one of the reasons why the Government at that time decided there should be the merger between beam and cable. If my information is wrong, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me, but it does not necessarily follow, therefore, that under the new scheme we may not be able to have a service which operates quite as efficiently, and certainly quite as cheaply.
  Before I raise one or two specific points may I say that in general, in considering the steps which His Majesty's Government propose to take, I have discovered very little opposition to the proposals? There seems to be a groWing belief that where we are providing a community service there is a great deal to be said for having it organised and controlled by a public body responsible to the whole community. If that is true within the confines of a State, I see no reason why it should be less true within the Empire. In this case, where we have the agreement, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not, of the partners in the Commonwealth, it does seem that the general principles upon which this Measure is founded are overwhelmingly reasonable. I was very glad to hear in the Chancellor's opening speech that he proposes the fullest possible consultation with the various trade unions. He mentioned one or two, and I understand there are others such as the Association of Scientific Workers and I was surprised to find that the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers have a large membership. I think this aspect is of the utmost importance, because in a service like cable and wireless one of the major factors of success is the operation of the service. When taking over various industries there are assets like machinery; when taking over the coal mines there is the coal itself and the ancillary manufactures. In this instance, apart from the actual instruments of transmission, the quality and success of the service can only depend upon the operators themselves.
  I thought there was some point in what was said by the hon. Member for Wood Green in one respect. Perhaps we have

  255
  been less than generous so far as the whole organisation of Cable and Wireless, Limited, is concerned during the war, particularly in regard to the staff. They have provided, as everybody in a position to know testifies, unrivalled service during the war. Many of them have worked for continuous periods of seven days; as a matter of fact, I understand that oWing to staff shortages they are still continuing to do so. They have lost their normal holidays, and they have lost their Sundays and week ends. They have made an invaluable contribution during the war and in this very difficult phase through which we are passing. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor will see that, in all aspects of policy where they can make a contribution, the appropriate elements of the staff are consulted. There is a little uncertainty in their minds—I speak as one who has some constituents engaged in this service—in regard to a phrase used by the Chancellor this afternoon. They remember that in the previous merger in 1928, a phrase was used to the effect that their conditions should be no worse than they were previously. In fact, that has tended to a levelling down rather than a levelling up in the peculiar wage structure of this industry where, in addition to the normal rates, there is a large share of profits. It is important that the financial implications of the scheme should be mentioned, so far as is possible, at this stage. I refer particularly to paragraph 10 (V) on page 6 of the White Paper which mentions the pooling of revenue within the countries participating and goes on to say:
  "The essential feature would be that the Commonwealth organisations would pay their net revenues from overseas telecommunications services into a Central Fund to be administered by the Board. From this Fund would he met the expenses of the Board and, in certain circumstances, a contribution to the upkeep of the cable system."
  We find that as a result of the Bermuda Agreement it has been estimated that £2,000,000 has been already knocked off the revenue of Cable and Wireless. In the wage structure of this service profits are very important, because I understand the basic rates of pay are still what they were in 1939; staff pension rates are still calculated. upon prewar conditions. Therefore, I think some assurance might well be given to the staff in relation to this aspect of their future terms of employment.
  256
  A little has been said about the nature of the Board itself. I regret that I do not necessarily share the view expressed by an hon. Member on this side of the House, that this new enterprise could best be administered by the Post Office. I have the highest admiration for the Post Office and the conduct of the service which it already administers. Incidentally, when the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) talks about research being absent from monopoly, I only hope that, if he has not already done so, he will go to see the Post Office establishment at Dollis Hill, where standards are not behind those of any country in the world. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that there might be some advantage in concentrating this new venture in an entirely new organisation. However, I am not certain that the Post Office is not already too large. One of our troubles in modern large scale industrial and commercial development is to find the right size of enterprise. If a thing gets too large nobody is really in charge, and no one has an overall picture of what is being done. It is necessary to find the optimum size for each enterprise. One has seen examples during the war where, for instance, the Ministry of Supply became too large. It may be that the new board would be by far the best method of administering this service. I think we must commiserate with the Opposition today, because it seems to me they have neither the courage to wound the Chancellor, nor the heart to come out and give him support in this issue. They are in a very difficult position. Therefore, I conclude by commiserating with them and congratulating the Government on their commonsense action in relation to this Bill.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) that the Post Office may be too large to take over this industry and administer it efficiently. If my hon. Friend fears the Post Office is too large, I direct his attention to what happened in the development of wireless telephony after the wireless cable section was removed. Later Cable and Wireless, Limited, attempted to secure control of wireless telephony in the same way that it secured control of wireless and cables. This is not the occasion, I think, to repeat

  257
  what was said in 1928 about the way in which cable wireless was appropriated to this private monopoly. Today, hon. Members on the opposite benches have criticised monopolies. They find that monopolies stifle enterprise. I understand they will not oppose this Bill. The suggestion I would make to them is not to favour a State monopoly which would not be open to public criticism. My suggestion is that Cable and Wireless should go to the Post Office for the reason that it would be open to the direct criticism of this House; which, I think, is very valuable. Moreover, I think this House should have full and free opportunity to express its views about the charges that will be made. There have been occasions when in connection with telegraphs and the telephone and postal services, criticism in the House of Commons, and the responsibility of the Minister to the House, have been of advantage to the public. I favour forms of public ownership and administration.
  The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) is opposed to the Bill. He found comfort in what was done in America; for example, that a telegraph boy would meet one in an hotel and supply a telegraph form. But the hon. Gentleman has only to go to St. Pancras Station or Paddington Station to find a telegraph boy who would hand him a telegraph form. I do not see that he was answering the case made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor emphasised that it is only on the basis of public ownership that agreement can be reached with the Dominions. I myself find it worthy of note that agreement within the Commonwealth is to be reached only on the basis of public ownership. I think that hon. Members opposite have to realise that public opinion changes. I do not share their fear that, when this Commonwealth organisation is set up, because this service will be a State-owned service, this country may run the risk of war, or of offending neutral countries, who might not like a State service, or who thought it would deny them some advantage. If there should be another war, will there be any neutrals?
  On the other hand, I feel that the coordination of the Commonwealth services should make it easier to bring about a coordination of world services. If we have faith in the United Nations cooperation,
  258
  then I think that in the sphere of communications that we may get a real world institution serving the world. If hon. Members opposite are correct, as I think they are, in saying that means of communications can be a method of cementing friendship and understanding, then, I think, they ought to welcome this proposal. They ought to welcome the opportunity which will come tomorrow to bring about this world coordination of communications and a better understanding among all nations. It may be suggested that this is idealistic, but I would rather face the world with that hope today than talk in this House about strategic advantages, and war.
  I want to express some measure of regret that the Government have not yet made up their mind to hand this service back to the Postmaster-General. I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) about the Post Office. I think he was right. I think the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) was right. I think the service should be developed under the Postmaster-General. Wireless telephony was developed under the Postmaster-General, and I am quite certain that if Cables and Wireless went back to the Postmaster-General it would still advance. I will not now go into the point about charges. It is a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1940 emphasised that Post Office charges were being increased—not to benefit the Post Office or the Post Office staff, but to supplement wartime income. I do not think that should be held against the Post Office.
  I conclude by saying that I welcome the decision that this service should come under public ownership. I hope the Government will hand it back to the Postmaster-General. I believe that will be in the best interests of the public. I am satisfied that if hon. Members opposite, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Williams) said, do not want public service to be a means of securing surpluses and profits, but want these—and from 1912 to 1940 no less than £200 million was taken from the Post Office—turned back into the development of a better and a cheaper service, then this service should go to the Post Office. Press telegrams enjoy a special rate in this country. Football "Tote "promoters get a special rate in

  259
  this country. The Post Office could use its surplus to give special rates to the ordinary working folk of this country, for example, as I said the other week, to provide telephones for the working mothers who need them.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: We have listened today to a most remarkable speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his attempt to commend this Bill to the House. I confess that I do not find his speech very convincing on the economic side, any more than I feel that his devotion to the cause of Empire came from the depth of his heart. I can well understand that the Chancellor takes this opportunity to shelter behind and support his case on the grounds of Empire, because this, if the Government's activities are any criterion, may be the last opportunity he may have so to do. He may be justified, therefore, today in trying to commend this Bill to us on the grounds that the Empire supports his policy. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Empire countries specifically asked for this form of public ownership, whether they initiated the idea from which this Bill springs. We have had no clear statement. Several interruptions were made, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet told us whether, in fact, the Empire countries sought this Bill in this form. I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies, he will give us a clear indication whether that is or is not the truth.
  We have listened today to a good deal of talk about efficiency. I am sorry to say that most of the critics of the alleged inefficiency of the Cable and Wireless Company have been people who have been connected with the Post Office. It is a very remarkable thing that most of the people who today have criticised Cable and Wireless are individuals who in the past, have been connected with the Post Office.
  Mr. H. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman name one of the individuals connected with the Post Office who has criticised Cable and Wireless?
  Mr. Shepherd: Several hon. Members have indicated their connection with the Post Office in the speeches which they
  260
  have made. So far as the real test is concerned, surely the user aspect is of some importance. I have used commercially Cable and Wireless and the British Post Office. Surely, the views of users are of some consequence, even under a regime such as this. I suggest to the House that the conduct of Cable and Wireless has been animated by a desire to serve the user to a far greater extent than has that of the Post Office. It is a fact which few will deny.
  When the Chancellor introduced the Bill, he said that he did not know how this business was to be conducted. We have had no conception whether it is to be one of the public utility boards, whether it is to go to the Postmaster-General, or whether we shall see some new variations of these public utility corporations which have grown very much in the affections of hon. Members opposite. Whatever is the form of control, we shall probably see the Government trotting out a few more of their performing Peers at handsome salaries, to conduct this organisation in the alleged interests of the community. The Chancellor did not point out the loss of revenue in which he is involving this country, or the loss of foreign revenue as a result of the Bermuda Agreement. It is estimated that we shall lose £2,250,000 as the result of this rapid reduction in the rates. Who are to be the chief gainers as a result of this loss? Those who will gain are the American public. In other words, the British Socialist Government are inflicting a financial loss upon the British public, in order that they may bring financial gain to American capitalists and business men. It does not sound to me to be very good business, and a little more strength on the part of the Government might have succeeded in achieving a much better rate than that. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will draw the veil a little as to the form it is proposed for this organisation.
  I suggest that no form of State monopoly, however it is disguised by fancy names, and however respectable it is apparently made by the allocation of a suitable quota of Peers, is the best way of conducting a business of this kind. Whatever devices we seek to impose and to whatever extent we may go in imitating the structure of a business run under commercial or semi-commercial management, we shall never succeed. Once one gives an organisation all the trimmings of a

  261
  Government Department, it soon develops the outlook and complex of a Government-run organisation. It is impossible, after a short time, to get away from that form of organisation. If it has been an organisation of private enterprise origin, it may run in a commercial way for a few years and have regard to service, but gradually the bureaucratic process will assert itself, and then the organisation will have little regard for the user or consumer. The Government proposal is wholly unsound. Cable and Wireless, limited, has been an organisation which has served the public well. This new idea will result in a considerable loss of revenue, and, what is more important, it will result in a Toss of overseas revenue. It will establish a bureaucratic organisation in which the interest of the consumer or user will be lost, and it will not give us the service which was given by Cable and Wireless, Limited. Therefore, I regret that it is impossible for me to support the Bill as introduced today.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Cobb: We who are interested in telecommunications are, perhaps, an esoteric body. Those of us on this side of the House welcome this Bill with the same enthusiasm as that larger body of Members connected with the coalmining industry welcomed the Coal Bill which was passed last night. Those of us who can survey in our minds the progress of telecommunications in this country realise that this step was inevitable. My mind goes back to those radio telecommunication visionaries, who found themselves, many years ago, faced with technical advances in America, with the Alexanderson alternator on the one hand, and the Poulsen Arc on the other hand. Our engineers developed a most ingenious and extraordinary alternative known as the timed spark system. This was to form a chain of stations which were conceived as being necessary to girdle the British Empire with a rapid means of radio communication. Almost as soon as the first station was erected at Caernarvon, it was already obsolete because of the advent of the three electrode valve. This instrument which has created such vast machinery for the benefit of the human race, was also the original development of a British scientist. It would be appropriate in this Debate to pay tribute, not only to Professor Fleming who was the inventor of this piece of apparatus, but
  262
  also to the engineers of the organisations who made beam radio possible. I have in mind Franklin of Marconi's who, with Tom Eckersley of the same company, made beam radio possible, and put it in the hands of people who erected a chain of stations, and for the first time made rapid and cheap methods of Imperial radio communication possible.
  That leads me to the point which was made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), that no criticism can be levelled against the efficiency of Cable and Wireless. I should like to say one word in connection with research. Research is the mainspring of progress and efficiency. I do not know where this great company had its research organisation, but I do know that this country is vitally in need of more telecommunication research, and that the research station of the Post Office is an oasis in what is almost a desert as regards research in telecommunication. Even when we come to Dollis Hill, we have only 150 qualified research people, as against 3,000 in the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. It was only a short while ago that I asked the Postmaster-General whether he could not see his way to increasing this small band of research people at least to 1,000. I know of no other organisation in this country that is doing adequate research on telecommunication.
  The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said he would like to see telecommunication used for more rapid and better communications between the peoples of the British Empire and of America. I agree with much of what he said, but one thing, which I think we have to face up to on this question of research, is that much of the research in this country—and the hon. Member for Chippenham touched upon this—in telecommunication has ceased during recent years, and we have tended, more and more, to buy our research in America, Anglocise it and then sell it to the British Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot knows more about this than I do. He has quite close connections with America, and he probably knows what I mean. If you are going to continue to allow companies in this country to be taken over by foreign companies, and many of the companies in telecommunication in this country are foreign owned, and take their orders, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

  263
  Aldershot, from America, then we have to face what this means. If a company is taken over by a foreign concern, it tends to stop doing research in this country. When that has gone on for a few years, we have to consider the national consequences of the process.
  It may be, if the hon. Member for Chippenham is right, that we can so tie ourselves to America that it will not matter if research stops in this country and is centred in America. On the other hand, are we sure that we can be content, from a national point of view, to see telecommunication, to a considerable extent on the manufacturing and research sides, coming under foreign domination; and are we satisfied to see, as a result, research stopping in this country and being carried out in America? Are we satisfied that British companies, with British capital, can face the competition of those who can buy their research in America at less than 20s. in the £ I feel that the Government ought to investigate this situation in telecommunication research to see what are the logical consequences, and whether we ought not to do something about this; or are we content to carry on in getting our research in this great industry done for us in America? I am not at all sure that we ought not to take some action in this matter.
  The second point to which I would like the Chancellor to give consideration is that of ownership. I know that he has said that he is going to do so. I searched through the White Paper to see if there was any indication of what we were going to do with this company when we have taken it over. It led us up to where we could view the panorama of possibility but left us guessing about the valley beneath. I was very glad that the Chancellor was able to tell us today that the decision as to how this enterprise is to be run in the future has not yet been taken. I would like to add my support to those who have spoken in favour of the Post Office. It seems important from the point of view of efficient organisation, there should be no other decision. Any one who runs cables has to have a fleet of cable ships. Are we going to have two fleets of cable ships, one on the Cable and Wireless side and one on the Post Office side? Obviously, it would be far more efficient if we had one fleet. I was going to say, "Are we to have two research organisations?" but
  264
  Cable and Wireless have not got one. Are we to start a new research organisation? If so, where are we to get the space and the people? Would it not be much better to let Dollis Hill do the whole of telecommunication research? It seems that this is a very good reason, if there is no other for putting all telecommunications under the Post Office. Let us remember —I am sure the Chancellor knows this only too well but I would like to remind the House—that the Post Office already handles all the internal telephone and telegraph traffic in this country, and all the external telephone traffic.
  When I pick up a telephone today to speak to the "Queen Mary,"I speak entirely over a Post Office circuit. If I pick up a telephone to speak by radio telephone to New York, I speak over a Post Office circuit until I get to the reception end in America. When I want to speak to any one by radio-telephone out of this country, I speak over a Post Office circuit. Cable and Wireless, with their associated Dominion and Indian companies, handle all the external telegraph traffic, whether by cable or wireless. Do not let us fall into the mistake of thinking that telegram and telephone are separate things. They are both telecommunications. We want to be in the position, in the future, of using a circuit alternatively or simultaneously, possibly, for telegraph or telephone traffic. When we come to cables, already we see the possibility of having transAtlantic telephone cables. Recent developments in the art of radio have shown that it is possible to make valves with a life of 25 years, and this opens up the possibility of having a transAtlantic cable circuit for telephones. It seems that this would be far better handled if it were put in the hands of the Post Office, which has such a vast fund of experience and skill in this type of enterprise. I hope that the Chancellor, and the Government, when they take this decision, are going to put themselves in the hands of the Post Office and not leave it to these hybrid organisations.
  7.7 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: I want to ask what are the arrangements to be in regard to research. I agree with almost every word spoken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb), and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind that during the war we trained a very large number

  265
  of men in the Navy, Army and Air Force for this work, and it is exceedingly hard to find positions for them to fill. Some of these men have done, under Sir Charles Ellis and other scientists, the most wonderful research, and I feel that this service should come under the Post Office. I think that it will lead to confusion, especially on the scientific research side, if it does not; and I can see no reason why it should not come under the Post Office. Whether it is a fact that Cable and Wireless have no research section, I am not in a position to say, but I should be surprised if they have not anything of the sort. But it is of the utmost importance that we should encourage our young people in research, and not but, brains that are in America. There is no reason for us to do that, because in the whole history of telecommunications and radio, the British have nothing of which to be ashamed; they have led the world in all these matters. If I may be forgiven for making a personal statement, I looked up the Debate that took place, in another place, about 60 years ago, when my grandfather happened to be Postmaster-General, and a great many of the things that have been said today were said then, and he had a great struggle to take over certain things which were then in the hands of individuals. There was considerable doubt whether they would ever be brought to fruition.
  I have in my possession a section of the first cable laid across the Atlantic. When that was done a great deal of scepticism was displayed as to whether the pressure of the Atlantic would not be too much for anything made by man. There were many doubtful promises, but I am certain that it succeeded because of encouragement given to young men with go-ahead ideas. That is something which we shall lose in nationalisation unless encouragement is given to young people. I want to emphasise what I have said before in this House and which has been constantly proved in two wars. The greatest inventions that go towards the destruction or the benefit of mankind have been made by people under 23. That is an astonishing fact but true, the reason being that the instinct and genius of the human brain come out more easily before that brain is clouded by old gentlemen. repressing it. The danger attached to nationalisation is that, in an organisation of the State, there shall not be a safety
  266
  valve for young men and young women and their ideas.
  I believe that the story is not generally known of the telecommunication experiments of the 1914–18 war, when we had our first direction sets. I happened to be connected with that, and it was Lord Kitchener who decided that it should be tried. We set up two stations, and there was a distinguished Cornishman, whom hon. Members connected with the Post Office will remember, who took part in the experiment. In 1915 we set up the first direction wireless station and I was detailed with other officers to go with him. I always remember going across to France and the excitement we were in. The first night we tried it on the triangulation basis, and the Germans were good enough to give their location and their call sign. There we had the complete order of battle for the German army, which nobody imagined was possible. I was satisfied and went down to St. Omer to see the head of the intelligence section at two o'clock in the morning. I got him out of bed, but I was told it was impossible and was kicked out Next day we were discouraged but not dismayed, and as a result of our effort it was possible to confirm the location of these units. Afterwards, the system was adopted by the Admiralty for use against German submarines in the North Sea. All this was due entirely to a young Cornishman who afterwards lost his life and who, having worked with Marconi at Poldhu, had been encouraged and not discouraged.
  I do not know whether, in the White Paper or in the Bill, any consideration is given to the subject of the protection of the interests of young engineers who are working in Cable and Wireless, Limited. There is no mention of that in the Bill, but it is of the utmost importance that their future should be safeguarded. It is important, too, that we should not assume that it is only in the United Kingdom that people are interested in this. If it is to be a real Imperial communication, we should encourage those in the Dominions and the Colonies and see to it that in many of the out stations, where the personnel have a lonely time, the engineers should be encouraged to put their brains to work and should be given every opportunity to develop their ideas in spite of their isolated position.

  267
  I am afraid I cannot agree with some of the criticism expressed by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd). I am afraid hon. Members will have to take a totally different view. We are at the parting of the ways and, for better or worse, we are entering on a new experiment. I do not think it is right to cast any reflection or abuse on those coming forward to make these schemes successful whether they are Members of another place or have no connection with Parliament or the peerage, because the first duty of an Englishman at this time is to come forward and use whatever power and capacity he has for the benefit of this country and of the Empire. If we do not do that, we do not deserve to get through this difficult period.
  Finally, there is one word I should like to say with regard to the enormous amount of material purchased by the taxpayers and now in storage. A great deal of this material is delicate material, and some of it is secret. There are various reasons, no doubt, why some of it should not be disclosed at the present moment, but I would ask that in setting up this new organisation there should be distinct contact between the Army, Navy and Air Force and the management of this concern, which, as I say, I hope will be under the Post Office. I am convinced that it is essential to take stock of the various things that are in store, and also to encourage outside firms who may be capable of doing work for the new Board, because there is no doubt we cannot afford to be without the brains of anyone. There are many firms in this country, well known to Members of the House, which have spent large sums on research work and experiment, and they have made a great contribution in this class of work for the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Whatever may be our relations with the United States—and I for one believe it is not worth considering in the future much that matters unless we are interested in the United States—there must be a complete understanding, frankness and interchange, but it has to be interchange as between equals. We have to do all in our power to encourage research in this country, and encourage young boys at school and at the university to come forward with their ideas so that we can help them. It is one of the signs of modern
  268
  education that we have to bestir the mini of youth, which has to be in tune with new ideas, because there is the whole of the ether to be explored.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Maningham-Buller: Part of the Debate today has been taken up by discussion as to whether these services which are now run by Cable and Wireless, Limited, should, in future, be operated by the Post Office or by a board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the Government had not made up their mind upon that issue. I think that that was an astonishing admission for him to make—an admission that he was taking over this concern without having the least idea of and without having taken any decision on how to run it in the future. I do not propose to take up any time this evening in arguing the pros and cons of that matter. I daresay that the Chancellor has got some assistance from hearing the views expressed by those from the benches behind him, and it was no doubt as interesting for him to hear those views as it was to hear those of the Liberal Party, which this afternoon have been so liberal in their expressions. I myself do not propose to express any view on the matter, but it does seem to me that if the Government are going to run the cable services and some of the external wireless services in this country under one concern there is an argument for bringing the radio telephone circuits under the same concern even though the Government may have to place letters and parcels under separate management.
  Those who have listened to this Debate today cannot fail to appreciate the far-reaching consequences of this small Bill, the main purpose of which is the acquisition of the share capital, and the bringing into public ownership, of Cable and Wireless, Limited. I am glad that so many tributes have come from all sides of the House to the manner in which those engaged in the company have carried on throughout the war. I think it is unfortunate that the Chancellor, in his opening observations, should have omitted to pay any such tribute. Indeed, in part of his remarks he appeared to cast something approaching an innuendo upon some of those concerned with the company. The only criticism of the company, so far as I can recollect, was with regard to research. I understand that the company,

  269
  although I am not here to defend it, has for a long time been a pioneer in the field of automatic regeneration.
  I want to say a few words with regard to the terms of acquisition under the Bill. I he amount may be agreed but the Chancellor said that the company were not shoWing any keenness to come to an agreement. I suppose that that means that he is not being very generous in his offer because, usually, if a reasonable offer is made to people who know that they must sell, there is no reluctance. But if the offer is a miserable or poor one, I can quite understand that there would be no keenness to accept it, and, therefore, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any legitimate ground for complaint under that head.
  Mr. Dalton: I was not complaining.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Then I do not understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman's observation. The tribunal has to determine agreement on the basis of sale by a willing vendor to a willing purchaser, and the money is to be paid by the issue of stock, such stock as is, in the opinion of the Treasury, of value equal to the amount of compensation. The Second Schedule to the Bill states that the stock will bear such rate of interest, and be subject to such terms of redemption, as the Treasury may determine. Obviously, a considerable interval may elapse before the assessment of compensation, and the issue of stock. I do not object to the Treasury having discretion in that matter, provided that what is meant—and I think it is—is that at the date of issue, the stock, so far as it can he determined, is of a real value, not of a nominal value, equal to the amount assessed by way of compensation. I hope the Financial Secretary will make that absolutely clear. I think that is what is intended, but it is not absolutely patent from the Bill.
  There is one further matter I would like to refer to before I go on to some general observations, and that is with regard to the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) has just made an earnest plea on behalf of the skilled young technicians in the company's service. I confess that if I were in their position I should not feel particularly relieved from anxiety by the Chancellor's statement with regard to their future. I
  270
  understand that terms and conditions of service are higher in Cable and Wireless, Limited, than in the Post Office in many respects, sometimes for doing similar work. What is to happen? Can an undertaking be given that these people will continue to be employed at their present rates of remuneration? Will they continue to be offered the same advantages of pension or will they, after a short time, and after full consultation with the interests involved, be told that they must come down to Post Office rates or go out of Government employ?
  Important though the question of pay and compensation is, there are far more important consequences of this Bill, and to judge from the White Paper and from what the Chancellor has said, one would think that some of them have had very cursory examination and consideration. I know that the word "nationalisation" brings a great deal of joy to Socialist hearts, and such a measure of delirium to Members opposite as sometimes to make them deaf to all reason. This is the first time, and I hope it will be the last, on which this Government are seeking to nationalise an industry whose chief business lies outside the shores of these islands. Not only for financial, but for strategic considerations, do the Government's proposals merit the most serious consideration.
  Usually, one or two alternative arguments are put forward for nationalisation. The first is that the industry is ripe for it. That argument has not been put forward today, and does not appear in the White Paper. The second is that the industry concerned is in such a state of chaos, oWing to there being a mass of small operators, as in the case of the road transport industry, that the only way to bring it to that order which planners delight in, to others discomfort, is to nationalise it. That argument again does not apply in this case. If neither argument applies, the Chancellor usually holds up the pamphlet like the one I have in my hand and says, "We have a mandate."I have looked through this document and on this occasion, even if the right hon. Gentleman wished, he could not use that argument. The Government have no mandate from the electorate for this Measure, although I appreciate that that should not deter them, with their vast and docile majority. That does not prevent them from gambling with the

  271
  nation's food supply, from evacuating Egypt or, apparently, interfering with the arteries of the Empire. With no mandate it is even more incumbent on the Government to put forward cogent and compelling reasons for their actions. The shape and construction of Cable and Wireless was conceived by the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference of 1928. In 1938 it was reorganised. The White Paper says:
  "The Commonwealth Governments in general reaffirmed- their policy of according their support and cooperation."
  Thus, one can say that almost to the outbreak of war this semipublic utility company had the blessing of all the members of the Commonwealth. The Chancellor said that some of the Commonwealth members will not now go on with the present set-up, that they may have personal, as well as institutional, reasons. I am sorry he introduced the question of personal reasons, but the argument, if it is put on that ground, is surely a bad one, because it would mean that the Prime Minister would have to change the whole constitution of the country if he wanted to get rid of one member of the Government. What has happened since 1938 which has made this fundamental change in the present organisation essential? I know that it was said by the Commonwealth Communications Council in 1944; and by the Coalition Government, that there was a case for it. The Council, in 1945, unanimously agreed that it was essential.
  I appreciate that great weight must be paid to that, but what the White Paper does not tell us is what is the case for the change. The right bon. Gentleman has been silent on that issue today. All the White Paper says is that it is necessary for the desired strengthening and better ordering of the Commonwealth telecommunications system and that the main object is to secure the development of the system as a whole and avoid the artificial routing of traffic to which the divergence of cable and wireless interests naturally tends. It is singularly silent—and so was the right hon. Gentleman—as to the reasons why the adoption of the recommendation of the 1945 conference will lead to those desired results. A divergence of cable and wireless interests may tend to artificial routing. Everyone can see that, but under the Cable and
  272
  Wireless, Limited, at the present time are they not to a large extent united and was not that the whole basis and reason for the organisation that began in 1928? Frankly, on reading these documents, and after hearing all the Chancellor has said, it seems tome that the possibilities of a divergence are far greater under the recommendations adopted by the Government, part of which this Bill is intended to fulfil.
  The first recommendation is that the private shareholders' interests in the overseas telecommunications services should be eliminated. Is it really suggested that that private shareholder interest has prevented proper development of the service during wartime? After all, there was not a great deal of opportunity for doing much after the reorganisation of 1938, before war broke out. What, then has been the cause for this fundamental change? My right hon. Friend has pointed out the interesting contrast between the fact that this company introduced its Empire rate in 1938, and maintained it throughout the war, whereas in the case of the Post Office there were rising charges. The Chancellor said in his speech that he was glad to keep a foreign rate of 1s. 6d, a word, which is only a ceiling, against the Empire rate of 1s. 3d. a word, and he sought to contend that that was some form of Imperial preference. I must admit that I do not follow his argument at all. People in the U.S.A. who want to communicate with Palestine, for instance, are not going to be tempted to send their message to Canada first in order to get the advantage of this 1s. 3d. inter-Empire rate, and I fail to see how the argument used by the Chancellor has any bearing on this matter at all. What the Chancellor did not tell us, and what I understand to be the case, is that the company itself put forward to his Government a scheme for reducing the world rate to the level of the Empire rate by a gradual process which would modify the shock, and that the Government rejected that scheme.
  The second recommendation is that the respective Governments should acquire the interests of the company in Dominion and Indian companies. The White Paper says that Cable and Wireless regard these holdings as investments, and do not use them to try to alter the policy of those companies, so that I am at a loss to appreciate what really is the reason for the

  273
  recommendation unless it be just that the Dominions, or certain of them, want to hold and to have more control over the finances of those companies in the Dominions. Does the ownership of these investments by Cable and Wireless lead to divergence of cable and wireless traffic and artificial routing? The Government are pledged now to part with those assets —on what terms we are not told—but one thing is certain and that is that parting with them must mean a loss of revenue to the company which will, of course, become a Government owned company and may become, and I think will become, a burden upon the taxpayer.
  It has been pointed out already that this White Paper, and indeed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, were both silent with regard to the foreign concessions. Before this Bill becomes law we should be told what effect it will have upon the foreign concessions now owned by the Cable and Wireless which have been built up over more than 70 years. In many foreign lands they have the right to open offices for the acceptance and delivery of telegrams. Is it suggested that if these services are put under the Post Office in this country, the British Government will be able to run a British post office in some foreign country, or it may be several of them, for the acceptance and delivery of telegrams on this service? In addition there are the concessions for landing and working cables, and sometimes wireless stations. Has any inquiry or investigation been made into the position with regard to those concessions? Are they just as secure if they are in the hands of the Government as they would be if they were retained by a company which would be subject to the laws of the foreign country so far as its stations there are concerned? What is going to happen, for instance, with regard to a cable route that does not lie between two parts of the Empire, like that from the United States down to South America? Is that still going to be secure, and is it going to be run by the Britian Government? Surely these questions must have been given some consideration?
  As I say, there is not a word in the White Paper about them. I ask whether the Government have received assurances that they can go on working. It is one thing for a company to hold a concession and run it; that has no politi-
  274
  cal implications. But the holding of a concession by a foreign government may have. We have been reminded that important cable routes go through foreign countries. Those who have been to the Middle East recently must be aware of the upward surge of nationalism Nationalisation is a catching disease, and other countries may become infected. They may say that all telecommunications within their boundaries should be nationalised, and if that takes place, it seems to me that these proposals, instead of bringing about unity between cables and wireless and the unity of operation of our Imperial communications, would lead to their disruption and disunity.
  I really think we ought to be told a good deal more about this, and that we should be shown how the
  " desired strengthening and better ordering of the Commonwealth telecommunications system "
  —I quote from the White Paper—will or will not be achieved in respect of these foreign concessions. Again, if we lose those concessions, it means a tremendous loss of income and of assets to the company. One hon. Member pointed out that the revenue from foreign countries and the assets in foreign countries are greater than those in the case of the Dominions. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been concerned with obtaining a certain amount of foreign currency. Loss of those Dominion assets must mean, as I see it, a great loss of revenue for the company and may well place a heavy burden on the new shareholders, the British taxpaying public. Not one word has been said today about this aspect—about what sort of burden may fall on the taxpayers' shoulders. Not one word has been said about how this communications system will affect our communications with our Colonies. How will nationalisation affect that?
  The right hon. Gentleman and some other speakers have said a little about the Bermuda Agreement. It has been pointed out by an hon. Member behind me that those direct circuits were only to last for the duration of the war and six months thereafter. They have been continued, we are told, because some of the Dominions want it, but will not their continued operation lead to some divergence of cable and wireless interests? What we have really to make up our minds about

  275
  is to what extent it is necessary to maintain a cable service throughout the world in the future. That was one of the chief grounds for the original formation of the company and its reorganisation, and I should have thought that after all that has taken place during the war it would have been most unwise of us or for the Dominions to do anything at all to prejudice the security of those communications.
  To go back to the Bermuda Agreement, the Government, it is true—it is admitted by Clause 5 of the Bill—have agreed to a considerable reduction of rates. The result will be that, in addition to the loss of revenue the company is going to face, it is going to face also increased competition from the direct routes which are now open. The loss on the present traffic has been estimated at £2,500,000, more than double the standard net revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not possible on the present figures to say much about the future, but on the prewar figures I am told the advantage of those reductions would go to the extent of £1,500,000 to the U.S.A. and foreign territories, £260,000 to the people of the British Empire, and £9,000 to the benefit of the Press. I do suggest that that really does not sound as if it is a very attractive bargain or a very attractive agreement, or in the interests really of the British Empire. I am all in favour of Anglo-American cooperation but it does seem to me that sometimes one can in an agreement of that sort give away too much.
  What is meant by the third recommendation in the White Paper that the new type of organisation should, if possible, be uniform between all Commonwealth countries? Does that mean that we are to have throughout the Empire, the same type of company running similar services, with all the shares government-owned; or does that mean a company running some services and the Post Office of that country running the others? I listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the Dominions being unanimous in their agreement at the 1945 Conference Of course, one can agree. The arguments may be strong, and persuasion may or may not be great, but once one has reached agreement, there it is. But an agreement may lead to active or non-
  276
  active cooperation, and I would now like to make clear the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman when he was detailing what was happening in Australia and elsewhere, with regard to Canada. I would like to ask him if he can say whether Canada and South Africa have agreed to set up in those Dominions a government-owned company to run services of this character and whether any steps have been taken to that end?
  If although they have agreed to this document they are not going to set up any such company, the prospect of uniformity of organisation throughout the Empire recedes into the background, and then we shall not get what has been held out to us by the Chancellor. Surely the important thing is, not the constitution of the company, not whether its shares shall be owned by governments, but that a common and united policy should be followed. We have no guarantee that uniformity of constitution will lead to uniformity of action. I suppose that the new board is intended to achieve this. I do not propose to discuss that now because I doubt whether I should be in Order if I did, but I doubt very much whether that board can—if I may use the expression—deliver the goods.
  I want to touch on a few more matters. It is of some concern to the British people to know what the income of this company is going to be in the future. We are told that the net revenue from the Dominion companies will go to the Board, and that from the net revenue—which is the Socialist synonym for the word "profits" —of the Dominion companies, after payment of the Board's expenses, in certain circumstances a contribution will be made to the maintenance of the cable system which we shall continue to own and shall have to continue to keep up. We do not know what those circumstances are. We are not told on what basis the net revenue will be calculated. With a loss of income from the Dominions and India, with, in my view, a very likely loss of the foreign concessions and assets, with the cost of maintaining the cables and with the new rate reduction following upon the Bermuda Agreement, with some Empire Governments increasing their tolls I think the British people will find this nationalisation project as disastrous as the others.
  I confess that on strategic as well as financial grounds, I was sorely tempted

  277
  to vote against the Bill. But I am, as.I think every one on this side of the House must be, tremendously impressed by the fact that there has been up to now, the agreement of all the Dominions at the 1945 Conference. I for one, would not like to take any action which might lead to a disagreement within the Empire, and for that reason I do not, and those on this side of the House, or the majority of those on this side, do not intend to record our votes on the Second Reading of this Measure. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman later, and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply this evening, will deal with the points I have made. I hope that the questions that have been raised from this side of the House will be most carefully considered, not only by this Government but also by the Governments of the Dominions. It may be that, on further consideration and further reflection, the same course may not be followed, in the light of observations that the Dominions may make, when we come to the later stages of the Bill.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Viant: I have noticed during the Debate a considerable amount of unanimity in regard to the purpose that this Bill sets forth. The Bermuda Conference has been mentioned repeatedly, and I feel that a number of the speakers referred to the Conference as though the representatives there had taken a rather parochial view of this subject. I do not think that can be said. I think those who were at the Conference appreciated the fact that by sheer necessity we, as a Commonwealth, are compelled to draw closer together. And in the circumstances with which the world is confronted today, there is nothing that renders that coming together more possible than communications. The term "nationalisation" has been used during the Debate. I feel that we ought to speak today from the point of view of internationalisation, as far as communications are concerned. Communications are more likely than anything else to bring the nations closer together, and if this Bill enables the Commonwealth to be knitted more closely together, it will be a step in the direction of bringing in other nations with us, especially in view of the fact that America is prepared to cooperate with us in this scheme. No one can say at present whether cables and the beam
  278
  wireless are the last word in communications, and I feel that we have arrived at a stage where we should have no duplication in regard to these services There may he room for research but, in regard to the communications themselves, they ought, in every sense of the word, to be unified.
  That brings me to the main point I want to make. I rather regretted hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government had not made up their minds as to whether the communications were to be run by a board or would become again a department of the Post Office. I was in this House when wireless and cables were handed over to a private company—a step I deplored at the time. I am very pleased that they are coming back again, and will be taken over by the Government, but I hope that the Government will allow them to become a department of the Post Office. We ought not to allow a service of this kind to pass to a board. This House ought to be able to criticise or discuss the services, and there should be a Minister in this House responsible to the House for all transactions connected with the wireless and cable service. There is no room for duplication, and I hope that the Government will make up their minds, here and now, that this should become, as it was before, a department of the Post Office.
  That brings me to my next point. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in a very friendly speech raised the point whether young men would be given an opportunity of alloWing their initiative to express itself in the department running these services. I admit that the Post Office has been lacking in that respect, but not quite as badly as some hon. Members have endeavoured to make out. There is ample room for improvement, but the Post Office has one of the finest research establishments in the country, and I believe has some of the finest young men as scientists and engineers in that department. I am convinced, as a result of my experience, that there is ample scope in the research establishment of the Post Office for the younger men in the scientific and engineering world to give of their best in that department. With a sympathetic head, and with a sympathetic board, they could be given every facility and every opportunity for giving of their best to the State. Secondly, we must pay due regard to the part the Post

  279
  Office played when the wireless beam was first introduced into this country. Great experiments were carried out under the aegis of the Post Office in 1923 and 1924, which ultimately brought us to the stage where it became a commercial proposition. Do not let us decry the good work done by the Post Office, but let us praise them for what they have done, and, in so doing, we shall encourage them to do better in the future. I repeat my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to make up their minds to allow this service again to become a part of the Post Office, and, furthermore, to give all the encouragement they can to the best men of science and engineering in the department at this moment.
  7.59 P.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think it will be generally agreed in every part of the House that this has been a rather peculiar Debate. The speeches, particularly those from the other side, have been of a kind difficult to answer. Members would begin by agreeing that this Measure is essential, and then go on to indicate that they did not know why it was being introduced. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said that we ought to be told a good deal more about it than the Chancellor and the Bill and the White Paper tell us. I can only suggest that he should see the leaders of his own party who, indeed, know all about it, and if there had not been a change of Government one of them would most likely have been introducing a similar, or practically a similar Measure from this Box at some time during this Session.
  We have to look at the Bill now before the House in the light of the facts which have preceded it. The object of this Bill is to transfer the ownership of the remaining 27,400,000 shares in Cable and Wireless from the present private stockholders to the Treasury. That is being done, as the White Paper indicates, because over a period of 18 years, conference has followed conference, until at the last of these, in 1945, the Dominions, and ourselves, came to certain conclusions. It is true that Lord Reith visited the Dominions and India at the instigation of the Coalition Government, and that the
  280
  discussions he had then led to the calling of that Conference and possibly affected its conclusions. This Bill implements the decisions unanimously reached at that Conference. That, quite frankly—and the Chancellor himself has indicated more than once this afternoon—is the reply to the query put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry on whether all the Governments have accepted the proposals put forward in the White Paper. The short answer is, as stated in the White Paper, that all of them have unanimously accepted the conclusions of the Conference of 1945.
  Mr. Manningham-BullerI am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me correctly. because I myself used the expression that they had unanimously agreed at the 1945 Conference. The question I put to him was this, and it is this question that I should like him to answer: Have Canada and South Africa undertaken to create companies with all the stock Government-owned, to run the same services as are to be run by Cable and Wireless in this country?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The White Paper makes it perfectly clear. It says—and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself read out the passage as to what the agreement was—that they did unanimously agree to the terms laid down. Implicit in those terms is that each of the Dominions should pass legislation implementing the decisions reached. So far as this House is concerned, what we are here doing today in this Bill is to take the first essential step towards implementing, for our part, the findings of that Conference by taking over the shares of the operating company.
  A great deal of play has been made, particularly by speakers on the other side of the House today, with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech indicated that he was not, at this stage, able to say what form the new organisation would take, and that the discussion this afternoon would undoubtedly help both himself and the Government to make up their minds. I see nothing wrong in that It may well be that it would have been better to wait and not take over the shares, until the Government were ready to put through the larger Measure setting up the organisation which is to take the place of the present Cable and Wireless opera-

  281
  ting company, but the House knows that the reason why this Bill has to be put through now, is because it is essential, in the light of the decisions come to at Bermuda, that the Government should take immediate control of the shares They are taking over the shares at this juncture in order that they may implement the rates that were agreed at that Conference. There is nothing sinister or secretive or underhand about it. It is as plain as the nose on one's face and I should have thought that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have realised it, since some of them, at any rate—like the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton)—were probably in on the negotiations and discussions which took place last year which have led up inevitably to what we are doing now. This is not a piece of Socialism; it is not included in "Let us Face the Future."It is true that in intent it is Socialistic, and we make no apology for that, but any Government, whatever its complexion, would in the same circumstances have had to introduce the Bill which we are dealing with tonight.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot put one or two questions to me and, although I do not want to speak at length, I would like to answer the main queries put by him, in which there is substance. He implied that although the Coalition Government had sent Lord Reith on his mission to the Dominions, India and Southern Rhodesia, they did not like the result. That, quite frankly, is rather strange, because if the Coalition Government, when Lord Reith returned and made his report, had felt that they could not accept the recommendations he had to make, why did that same Govern rent refer the report which Lord Reith did present, as a basis for discussion at the July Conference? If the Government of that period felt that what Lord Reith had to report to it and the recommendations he had to make were so out at elbows, as it were, with their own views on this matter, why did they refer what he had to say as the basis for the discussions which took place between the representatives of all the Dominions at the Conference held in July? I think we are entitled to assume that the Government felt that there was something in the views which Lord Reith expressed, particularly as his recommendations marched with those of previous Conferences. His
  282
  recommendations were the inevitable consequence of what had gone before. The Government accepted them as such in all good faith, and passed them on for discussion at the July Conference.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked for further information about the proposed Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. It is true that the chairman is obliged to refer to the Government any matter of policy upon which there may not be unanimity, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, and the House certainly will when we come to consider the matter further, that it is a great step forward that the board will cover the operating bodies in the Dominions and in India as well as in the United Kingdom. That means, that you can get what perhaps you did not always get before, uniformity of policy, in these matters. This, for the future will, in our view, be a great advance.
  The right hon. Gentleman put certain questions about the staff. The staff are not mentioned in the Bill or in the White Paper, but it is true that my right hon Friend referred to them in his speech. He did so because stories have been put about —one can perhaps trace some of them to their source—that the staff will find themselves in jeopardy when the operating company comes under the control and ownership of the Government. It was therefore, only right for my right hon. Friend to give them an assurance that their contracts and terms of service would continue under the Government just as they would have continued had they remained in the service of the old operating company. As to the war bonus, it is true that, during the war, the Cable and Wireless operating company did give its employees a war bonus. It is also true that it was undoubtedly worth having because during the war, revenues went up. Because of that there may be a fear, now that the war is over and a change of ownership is taking place, that those employees will suffer in consequence. The question I would put to the right hon. Gentleman is: Would the staff have continued to enjoy a high war bonus whatever had happened after the war, supposing that they had remained employees of the old Cable arid Wireless? Surely the bonus depended upon the earnings and the profits of the company. If those were the terms under which the bonus was given, obviously those terms will continue. It is

  283
  impossible in a Debate of this kind for my right hon. Friend to give any assurances beyond this, that the House can assume it is the desire of the Government that the terms of service of those employed by Cable and Wireless should not be worsened because of the change of ownership. I would like to feel that, as the years go on, their terms of service will if anything be improved, as a result of change of ownership.
  I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry and the right hon. Member for Aldershot to say something about foreign concessions. Both of them remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said nothing about foreign concessions. I must say I am sorry neither of them took the hint and likewise kept silent. When this matter was discussed before the General Election, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Party opposite agreed that nationalisation of Cable and Wireless was essential, and inevitable in the light of the views expressed by certain of the Dominions. It is a view now unanimously held by the Dominions.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is very courteous, as always, but I must say that he has gone too far in saying that the Coalition Government—the "Caretaker Government "If you like—accepted the principle of national ownership. They certainly were not committed to any such thing. I am sure that the Financial Secretary would not wish to give a wrong impression on the matter, which was referred to a Conference as a basis for discussion. We were in no way committed.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I am entitled to say that the Government did believe that something had to be done in the way of taking greater control than had been exercised up to then in this matter. Some Government control had existed since 1928. We are not here dealing with a private company in the strict sense of the term. The organisation was under some Government control and had been so since 1928. I think I am right in saying that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member, whilst not perhaps coming down completely in favour of nationalisation in this matter, were definitely biased in that direction, feeling that, in the circumstances—the Dominions were interested in
  284
  it as well as ourselves—it was possibly the only way out and that it should be taken as a basis for the discussions which took place at the Conference last July.
  If that was so, we are entitled to assume that any difficulties—if there are any—associated with foreign concessions must have been present in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when the discussion took place. I say no more, except that, prior to 1928, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry may remember, the Post Office did operate Imperial Cables and that for this purpose they depended upon a certain number of foreign concessions. Those were arranged without difficulties. Nor did difficulties arise at any stage during the time that those concessions were held. It was never suggested that this would entitle the Government to open post offices abroad, nor did any of the fears which the right hon. Gentleman voiced during his speech materialise.
  Mr. "Lyttelton: I am sorry to interrupt the Financial Secretary again. I must put it on record that the Coalition Government were not committed to the nationalisation of Cable and Wireless The Financial Secretary, having withdrawn his first categorical statement to that effect, then proceeded by a series of agreeably expressed circumlocutions to say the same thing again. I really do not want him to get away with it. I want to make the matter quite clear. I cannot prevent the Financial Secretary from making any assumptions he likes, but when he says in this matter, "I am entitled to assume,"I must say that he is not entitled so to assume.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: We must leave it there. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that one of the troubles in our Debate today is that although this is a Measure to nationalise Cable and Wireless there has been no fight in the Opposition at all. Frankly, that fact has made the Debate rather boring. I would have loved to see hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite getting really excited about it. But the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is impossible for them to get excited about this matter, because, as I said earlier, the chances are that had there not been a change of Government, a Member of his party would have stood

  285
  where I am standing now, and have introduced this self-same Measure. Although the right hon. Gentleman might not believe that Cable and Wireless ought to be nationalised, I can assure him that what I have stated, even by way of circumlocution, is much nearer the truth than the view which he is trying to put over to the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman would find that there were Members of his own party in the Government at that time who were in favour of the course that we are now taking.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is saying the same thing again. All right. Go ahead.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Now perhaps I might devote a few moments to the Bermuda Agreement. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with it, and so did speakers on both sides of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry also had something to say on that theme. I do not want again to assume something which they did not say, but I think I am correct when I say that what they did indicate was that the United States had got all they wanted, and that this country had made a very bad bargain at Bermuda. I do not think I am misinterpreting what was said.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The United States. Not us.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I can leave the United States to look after itself.
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order. Cannot the occupants of the Front Benches make their gags a little louder, so that we can add our voices to the mutual applause?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Whether speakers or writers in the United States said it or not, it is clear that hon. Members opposite have said it this afternoon, either by implication or in direct language. It is our view, which I think is borne out by the White Paper, that whether the Americans said it or not, they did not get all that they wanted. The discussions were between the Dominions, the United States and ourselves, and each had its own point of view. Quite naturally, the decision that was arrived at was, on the whole, a compromise. Although the United States had a distinct and definite point of view, which they pressed, and
  286
  although certain of the Dominions also had a definite point of view, which they too pressed very hard, the United Kingdom did carry a great deal of its own point of view in the agreement that was finally arrived at. We secured acceptance by all those present of the principle that cables and wireless should run side by side and that certain direct wireless routes should be closed down. In other directions also we found that our point of view was accepted by the others. I do not want now to deal at length with the Bermuda Agreement, and perhaps I should be out of Order if I did so, but those who read it will find that a great deal of the point of view put forward by the United Kingdom delegation was accepted by the Dominions and by the United States.
  The hon. and learned Member for Daventry raised the question of the compensation payments which appear in the Bill. The compensation laid down, which I gather is acceptable generally to the House, because little or nothing has been said about it this afternoon, follows the scheme laid down in the Coal Bill, except that the stock is not inalienable. Compensation is to he paid in Government stock, which will be saleable immediately the individual to whom it is due gets it. There is that difference from the method employed under the Coal Bill, for the very simple reason that under the Coal Bill we are paying money over to the companies and in this case we are to hand the stock directly to the stockholders to whom it should go. The hon. and learned Gentleman may take it as definite that, although there will be some delay between the appointed day, when the assets are taken over, and the day when the compensation in actual stock is paid to the shareholder, the value of the stock when it is actually paid to the recipient will be such as will reflect the capital value of his compensation in Government stock on the day when he receives the payment; in other words, although compensation will be fixed and the amount will be fixed, when the recipient receives it the amount he will get will depend upon the value of Government stocks on that day and the rates of interest applicable at that time. The formula in the Bill is in the same words as that in Clause 21 (3) of the Coal Bill before it was amended and accepted by the House.

  287
  I think I have covered most of the points that were made in the course of the Debate. I would like to say how much I appreciated the speeches made by some of my hon. Friends on the Benches behind me, some of whom have had many years in the Post Office or telegraph service. They speak with authority on these matters. I am sure that today is a red letter day for them. They will not forget the handing over of the beam wireless system to Cable and Wireless in 1938. To many of them it was a black day in this country's history when that occurred. Therefore, they must see in the change which is taking place and the possible return—I say no more than that —to the Post Office of the beam system an act of justice, somewhat delayed, but yet sure and certain.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Are we to take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that this is to be transferred to the Post Office? I thought that was a question about which the Chancellor had not yet made up his mind.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not say that it was to be returned to the Post Office, but simply that it might possibly go to the Post Office. Before I conclude, I would like to say how very much my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agreed with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). It will, of course, be the Government's intention, when this service is taken over, to see that youth gets its chance, and that young engineers and scientific and research workers of every kind are given their opportunity. The Post Office have a very fine research station and have done extremely valuable work in that direction. I see no reason to fear that, because the Government are taking over Cable and Wireless, that this research work should not continue. I commend the Bill to the House. In Committee there will be ample opportunity to deal with the Clauses one by one, and it may be that certain Amendments may be necessary, but it is our view that, at this juncture, it is essential that the nation should take over these shares, both because until we have control of them, we cannot implement the Bermuda Agreement, and because it is the desire of the Dominions an of India to have a closer arrange
  288
  ment than at present on telecommunications. This Bill is the first step by the United Kingdom towards implementing that desire.
  Mr. Robens: May I point out to my hon. Friend a matter of great importance to members of my union who are employed by Cable and Wireless? He indicated that the staff would be safeguarded. The chairman of the company sent out a cable to all classes of the staff indicating that there was no Clause in the Bill dealing with this matter, but that the Minister would give an assurance, and he said that he did not think that would be reassuring. Will the Financial Secretary say that that remark by the chairman is absolutely unfounded?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Chancellor gave that assurance, and I think that the House generally accepted it. It my hon. Friend desires me to repeat it, I most certainly do. The last thing this Government desire is to see those employed in any industry or service taken over by the State suffering in consequence. Any statement made to the contrary outside this House by any individual, whatever position he may occupy, can certainly be discounted in the light of the known desire of the Government to see that those who work in any particular industry or service shall have their position safeguarded.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of six Members, four to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection; All Petitions against the Bill presented at any time not later than five clear days after the making of this Order, to be referred to the Committee, Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills; Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agents, to be heard against the Bill, and counsel or agents heard in support of the Bill; Committee to have power to report from clay to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Dalton.]

  CABLE AND WIRELESS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to bring the share capital of Cable and Wireless Limited (in this Resolution referred to as ' the operating company ') into public ownership, to provide for the cost of making certain payments to the operating company in connection with reductions in its charges and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the charging on the Consolidated Fund, in connection with the provision of compensation to the companies specified in the said Act as the holders of the shares thereby transferred—?

  (i) of the principal of and interest on Government stock to be issued to them under the said Act, any expenses incurred in connection with its issue or repayment arid any remuneration payable in respect of its management; and

  (ii) of sums payable to them under the said Act by way of interest, at such rate or rates as the Treasury may determine, on such compensation for the period beginning with the date of transfer of the shares and ending immediately before the date of issue of the said stock;

  the total value (as determined by the Treasury) of the said stock at the date of issue, and the amount on which such interest is payable, to be (in default of agreement) equal to the total value of the shares transferred at the date of transfer, and the value of the shares to be assessed as a proportion of the price which the operating company's undertaking would realise on sale on the basis of its net maintainable revenue and the number of years' purchase to be applied thereto, but without regard to the effect on that revenue of the said Act or of the Bermuda agreement therein mentioned;

  (b) the raising by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorized to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, of money for the purpose of providing any sums required by them in order to redeem the said stock;

  (c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (i) of the remuneration and expenses of any tribunal set up under the said Act to assess (as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this Resolution) the total value of the shares transferred by the said Act; and

  (ii) any sums required for the purpose of any undertaking given by the Treasury, in consideration of the operating company's reducing its charges, as to the making of payments to the operating company in respect of net loss of revenue consequent on the reductions;

  (d) the payment into the Exchequer of any dividends on the shares transferred by the
  290
  said Act paid by the operating company after their transfer, the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so paid into the Exchequer and the application of sums so issued in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Dalton.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow

  BRITISH ARMY (MENTAL NURSING ORDERLIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn "—(Captain Michael Stewart.)
  8.31 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I am glad to raise a matter tonight which is of great importance to the young men called up to the Services, and also to their relatives. I refer to the employment of young soldiers without any previous experience as orderlies in lunatic asylums looking after military psychiatric cases, which are of a distressing nature. I was first acquainted with War Office policy on this matter by one of my constituents, whose name I will not mention in order to save further misery to his parents. Early this year I received a letter from this boy's mother saying that her son, then 19 years of age, had been called up, and after a short course of infantry training had been posted as an orderly at the Banstead Mental Hospital, which I know—I have visited it—is an appalling institution. It is old and antiquated and contains something like 1,500 civilian mental patients and 400 or 500 military patients. I regret to say it is a fact that these two classes of patients are not adequately kept apart. This boy, whose working life had been spent in a factory in the North-West of England, had never previously seen a lunatic or a corpse. The effect of his duties on his mind can well be imagined They had the inevitable result that after a comparatively short time he felt, to use his own words, that he was "going crackers, too," and he went absent without leave.
  We know that if a man goes absent without leave he very shortly runs out of money. This young boy found himself in that state, with the result that he committed one or two fairly minor crimes, and was, in due course, charged at the Manchester City Sessions before the learned Recorder, Sir Noel Goldie, a

  291
  former member of this House. In spite of this boy's offences, the learned Recorder was so impressed by the story he told the court that he sentenced him only to a nominal term of imprisonment—two days —which meant that he was handed over to an escort to be tried by court-martial for being absent without leave. This boy, still only 20 years old, was subsequently tried by district court-martial at Chelsea Barracks. I attended the trial, which was a fair one. For being absent without leave, in spite of the fact that he had been absent from his duties for several months, he only received a sentence of 28 days' detention, the whole of which was remitted by the General Officer Commanding London District, which in itself is an interesting commentary on the view some authorities took of this case.
  After the trial, this boy was posted overseas to B.A.O.R., since when he has been very happy and is a most efficient soldier, I understand, which again proves that this previous trouble of being absent without leave was entirely due to the work he had been engaged upon. I want to be fair to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with whom I have taken up this case. I have had much correspondence with him. He has taken up this matter and treated it in the most courteous way, for which I thank him. I understand that the attitude of the War Office is that, while in the particular case to which I have referred an unsatisfactory posting was made, in general it all works out very well, and nothing untoward happens. I am afraid that most hon. Members will not subscribe to that view. To call up a young man who has spent his whole working life in a factory, and suddenly to put him in charge of lunatics, without ensuring that he has any aptitude whatever for that work, seems to me a very odd way of doing things. I understand that the War Office also take the view that this boy did not leave his unit, did not leave this institution and go absent without leave until he had been taken off his duties a., a mental orderly. I accept that view, but when he was taken off his duties as a mental orderly he was put on what the hospital are pleased to call general duties, which are, if possible, even more unpleasant because they involve looking after the sanitation of the civilian lunatics as well.
  292
  I realise that there is today a difficulty in staffing these mental hospitals to which military patients are sent. I suggest to the War Office that this difficulty might be overcome to some extent by arranging that the Ministry of Health or the local authorities should be made completely responsible for looking after this extremely distressing type of case. I have seen many young men suffering from mental disease solely because they have had a mental breakdown. I have visited this institution and I have seen this boy many times. I have seen others employed in a similar way. It is nothing less than a scandal that boys called up to serve their King and country should be posted to this work without adequate safeguards as to their aptitude or their suitability for it. While appreciating the helpful attitude which the War Office have taken in this case, I would like to say two more things. First, I want to emphasise that once this boy got away from this work, he behaved himself and became a perfectly efficient soldier, and secondly, I hope the Financial Secretary, when replying, will be able to give the House an assurance that, if this type of posting is to continue, the very greatest care will be taken in the selection of those who are sent to these jobs. Alternatively, I hope he will be able to find a means of maintaining these extremely unfortunate mental cases in hospitals which are quite away from military discipline or War Office control.
  8.43 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the reasonable and almost factual way in which he has presented this case, although there are one or two small points which I think do not quite accord with the true position. I am advised that in this particular hospital there is no contact between the military side and the civil side as far as the mental patients are concerned. It is true that we have some of our soldiers who are mentally sick in these hospitals. Every endeavour, of course, is made to keep them entirely separate from the civilian patients and I had hoped that that was so. As regards this case, it is only fair to say that this soldier, the constituent of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, did volunteer for these particular duties. Indeed, it is our plan and purpose only to accept volunteers for this unpleasant duty,

  293
  as we believe that only the volunteers will make willing and suitable workers in these jobs—
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: The hon. Gentleman says that this boy volunteered. I would like to ask whether the nature of the duties was explained to him, or whether he was just asked if he would like to volunteer to go to a hospital.
  Mr. Bellenger: The drill, when these young soldiers are called up, is that they go before a personnel selection officer, who decides what he thinks they would best be fitted for. Obviously we have to staff the Royal Army Medical Corps with the intake now being called up, and the personnel selection officer thought that this young man would make a suitable nursing orderly. I do not suppose that, at that actual period, he was told that he would be selected for mental nursing duties, but he was informed later on of the nature of those duties, and, indeed, was given a course of training. I must say that, as a result of that training, he was found to be not a happy selection for this particular job, because he failed in the course that he took, and, although he was given a longer period to pass the test, he failed in that, too, and eventually, as a result of that, he was reverted to general nursing duties. It is true that he remained at the hospital itself, and did ordinary duties not connected with actual mental nursing, and it was only after he had been doing this general duty for a month that he went absent. Whether it is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that the surroundings were enough to get him down or not, I do not know, but I should have thought that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman represented, if it was a momentary aberration, he would not have stayed away for three months. However that may be, he had to be brought before a court-martial, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, he was given a fair trial and received a sentence of only 28 days' detention, which was remitted.
  When the case was brought to my notice,.I called for a report of the proceedings of the court-martial, because I wanted to look closely at the evidence, although, of course, I could not interfere, and did not want to interfere, with the court-martial proceedings. It would not have been fair for me to do so. As a result of looking at those proceedings, and in view of the representations made by
  294
  the hon. and gallant Member, I suggested to the appropriate authority at the War Office that it might be better if this man were taken away from that milieu and sent somewhere else, where he could redeem this temporary misdemeanour, and so it has happened. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the man has been sent to B.A.O.R., and is quite happy in the duties he performs.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I only wish to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving him the credit.
  Mr. Bellenger: I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman did pay me tribute when he referred to my courtesy in these proceedings. I do not want to take particular credit for it. All I want to endeavour to show to the House is that the War Office is not a soulless machine, at any rate, under its present auspices, and that we do pay attention to the letters written to us by individual hon. Members. I merely mention that to show to the hon. and gallant Member, who, I think, thoroughly understands, and to the House, that this particular case was reviewed sympathetically, and that, as a result of that consideration, the man was given a job more in keeping with his general make-up.
  As to the general position, I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we should be very careful in the selection of these nursing orderlies. We have to staff the medical side of the Army, and it is an unfortunate fact, and a very regrettable fact, that there are some of our soldiers who are mentally sick and who have to be looked after. We would prefer that this duty should be undertaken by the local authorities, or some civil authority; certainly not by the military side. We think it is our duty to look after these unfortunate soldiers, and the only way we can do it, at the present time, is by providing military staff to look after them. We take considerable trouble, as indeed we must and ought to do, before we select young men to undertake these duties. It is not a job that most people want. We have tried to recruit civilians to do this work, but we have been unsuccessful. Unfortunately, that situation does not only arise in the Army; it arises in civil institutions, too. We have endeavoured to train some of our young men for this work and we have

  295
  aimed at a target of about 40 recruits a month. We have not been successful in that, although we have been able to get 15 to 20 men. It is a matter of trial and error.
  For two years I was co-opted on to the Mental Hospital Committee of the London County Council some years ago, and I must say that it is most depressing work even for those people who, like myself, had to look after, or take part in looking after, some of these institutions. Somebody has to do the job and we have to find the people from somewhere. I submit that for the moment only in the Army can we find the people to look after those of our soldiers who have become mentally sick and for whom we are morally responsible. I can assure the House that we take every care in selecting the personnel for these somewhat unpleasant duties. We give training which will enable them to carry out their job properly and suitably. As I have said, we try to find volunteers because only they can really do this work.
  Negotiations are now going on between the War Office, the Board of Control and the local authorities to arrange for the treatment of military patients in military Wings of civil mental hospitals. I hope —although how long it will be before my hope comes to fruition I do not know—that, eventually, these military Wings of civil hospitals will be staffed entirely by civilian nursing personnel. When these arrangements can be made, it will, of course, considerably ease our situation in the Army. The House may be interested to know that since March, 1945, 508 mental nursing orderlies have been released from the Army out of a total of
  296
  1,161—nearly 50 per cent. That has meant that the establishments in the Army have been left 40 per cent. below their proper figures. In these circumstances, I am afraid that, although we agree that the minimum age should be somwhere nearer 20, as, I believe, is the case in the civilian service, there are occasions when we get men a little younger than that who are prepared to undertake this almost thankless task and who turn out to be not only very efficient and useful soldiers, but very humane and comradely in looking after their less fortunate comrades.
  I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on either the particular case or the general issue. The hon. and gallant Member said that, so far as the particular case is concerned, he is satisfied that the man received adequate treatment I hope the House will agree with me that, so far as the general issue is concerned, the War Office are doing all they can to safeguard the interest, not only of the mental orderlies themselves, but of the patients whom they look after.
  Mr. Jennings: It a young man below 20 years of age was asked to undertake this job, would special care be taken to see that he was suitable for it, because below that age is a little young for this type of work?
  Mr. Bellenger: I think I can give that assurance. We know only too well—and this case illustrates the point—that it is no good directing men into this job, because, if they are not suitable or if they do not like it, nothing can hold them to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Nine o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Billeting, Nelson and Colne
  Billeting, Nelson and Colne
  Bovisand Pier, Plymouth(Landing Licences)
  Bovisand Pier, Plymouth(Landing Licences)
  Island of Cos (Greek Advocate)
  Island of Cos (Greek Advocate)
  Troopship "Orion" (Personnel, Vaccination)
  Troopship "Orion" (Personnel, Vaccination)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Corporal's Death, Athens
  Corporal's Death, Athens
  Ammunition Store, Baggrave Hall, Leicester
  Ammunition Store, Baggrave Hall, Leicester
  Ammunition Huts, Oxfordshire
  Ammunition Huts, Oxfordshire
  Education Scheme
  Education Scheme
  SPANISH REPUBLICAN PRISONERS
  SPANISH REPUBLICAN PRISONERS
NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES
  Japanese Evacuation
  Japanese Evacuation
  British and Indian Troops (Withdrawal)
  British and Indian Troops (Withdrawal)
  PURCHASE TAX (LAMP GLASSES)
  PURCHASE TAX (LAMP GLASSES)
  GERMANY (RE-EDUCATION)
  GERMANY (RE-EDUCATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Small Savings (Deposits and Withdrawals)
  Small Savings (Deposits and Withdrawals)
  Surtax (Small Companies)
  Surtax (Small Companies)
  Postwar Credits
  Postwar Credits
  Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944
  Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944
  Wages and Prices
  Wages and Prices
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Decentralised Populations
  Decentralised Populations
  Proposed Generating Station, Llanover
  Proposed Generating Station, Llanover
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Derequisitioned Hotels (Repairs)
  Derequisitioned Hotels (Repairs)
  Regent's Park Terraces
  Regent's Park Terraces
  Kensington Gardens Camp (Removal)
  Kensington Gardens Camp (Removal)
  Spanish Centre, Eaton Square, W.I
  Spanish Centre, Eaton Square, W.I
  Emergency Works Organisation
  Emergency Works Organisation
  Repairs (Stock Replacement)
  Repairs (Stock Replacement)
  Welsh Slate Industry Committee
  Welsh Slate Industry Committee
  Standish House Sanatorium
  Standish House Sanatorium
  Electrical Components, Scotland
  Electrical Components, Scotland
HOUSING
  Temporary Houses (Prices)
  Temporary Houses (Prices)
  Scotland (Temporary Houses)
  Scotland (Temporary Houses)
  Sidcup
  Sidcup
  Plaster Board, Ruislip-Northwood
  Plaster Board, Ruislip-Northwood
  Portsmouth (Inquiry)
  Portsmouth (Inquiry)
  Prefabricated Permanent Houses
  Prefabricated Permanent Houses
FUEL AND POWER
  Lighter Fuel
  Lighter Fuel
  Domestic Coal
  Domestic Coal
  Petrol Consumption
  Petrol Consumption
  Coal Supplies, Hull
  Coal Supplies, Hull
  Petrol Rationing
  Petrol Rationing
  Taxis and Private Hire Cars
  Taxis and Private Hire Cars
  Overseas Visitors (Petrol)
  Overseas Visitors (Petrol)
  Wood
  Wood
  Electricity Pylons (Colour)
  Electricity Pylons (Colour)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Miners (X-ray Examination)
  Miners (X-ray Examination)
  Ex-Miners' Pensions
  Ex-Miners' Pensions
  Production
  Production
  DEMOBILISATION (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
  DEMOBILISATION (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Training Centres, Scotland(Double Shifting)
  Training Centres, Scotland(Double Shifting)
  Transferred Workers, Stroud(Hostels)
  Transferred Workers, Stroud(Hostels)
  Victory Celebrations(Wages)
  Victory Celebrations(Wages)
  Trainees, Wallasey
  Trainees, Wallasey
  Vocational Training(Personal Case)
  Vocational Training(Personal Case)
MILITARY SERVICE
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
  Science Students(Deferments)
  Science Students(Deferments)
  COST OF LIVING INDEX
  COST OF LIVING INDEX
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Agricultural Colleges
  Agricultural Colleges
  Agricultural Executive Committees(Appeals)
  Agricultural Executive Committees(Appeals)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
EDUCATION
  Direct Grant Schools (Status)
  Direct Grant Schools (Status)
  Demobilised Teachers
  Demobilised Teachers
  RINGWAY AIRPORT
  RINGWAY AIRPORT
SHIPPING
  S.S. " Milwaukee " (Fire)
  S.S. " Milwaukee " (Fire)
  Passenger Tonnage (Far East)
  Passenger Tonnage (Far East)
  WEST END ROAD, RUISLIP
  WEST END ROAD, RUISLIP
  EGYPT (BRITISH FORCES, WITHDRAWAL)
  EGYPT (BRITISH FORCES, WITHDRAWAL)
  INDIA (PONDICHERRY AND GOA)
  INDIA (PONDICHERRY AND GOA)
  VICTOR/ MARCH (POLISH ARMED FORCES)
  VICTOR/ MARCH (POLISH ARMED FORCES)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Service Vehicles
  Service Vehicles
  Atomic Research, Didcot
  Atomic Research, Didcot
  Building Requirements (Ordnance Factories)
  Building Requirements (Ordnance Factories)
  Metal Strip and Fillets
  Metal Strip and Fillets
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Ministry of Supply (Staff)
  Ministry of Supply (Staff)
  Board of Trade (Staff)
  Board of Trade (Staff)
  Veterinary Officers (Salaries)
  Veterinary Officers (Salaries)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New Industries, Scotland
  New Industries, Scotland
  Scotland (Unemployment)
  Scotland (Unemployment)
  Cotton Working Party (Report)
  Cotton Working Party (Report)
  Auction Saks (Regulations)
  Auction Saks (Regulations)
  Priority Dockets (Personal Case)
  Priority Dockets (Personal Case)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Government Lymph Establishment
  Government Lymph Establishment
  Smallpox, "Britannic"
  Smallpox, "Britannic"
  KENYA (AFRICAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS)
  KENYA (AFRICAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS)
  GIBRALTAR (HOUSING)
  GIBRALTAR (HOUSING)
  ALIEN DOCTOR (PERMIT)
  ALIEN DOCTOR (PERMIT)
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL
  ROYAL NAVY (COMPASSIONATE LEAVE)
  ROYAL NAVY (COMPASSIONATE LEAVE)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Home-produced Bacon
  Home-produced Bacon
  Meat Pastes
  Meat Pastes
  CANARY SEED CARGO, LIVERPOOL
  CANARY SEED CARGO, LIVERPOOL

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

BRECONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
2.32 p.m.

PEERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON) had given Notice to move to resolve, That in view of the practical difficulties in which members of this House are involved in present circumstances in regular attendance to their Parliamentary duties owing to the high cost of travelling, they should be entitled to recover the cost of railway fares incurred in respect of such duties. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name is one which, I am advised, should be put in this form in order, if your Lordships approve, that the matter should be put into regular train. Your Lordships may remember that it is two years ago this month that I myself, at the request of members from different parts of the House, put down a Motion more or less in these words. It was accepted by the House, but since then various occasions for delay, to which I need not refer in detail, have presented themselves. Some time ago the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, Viscount Cranborne, and the noble Earl, the Earl of Rosebery, put down Motions on the Paper to draw renewed attention to the subject, and at my particular request they very kindly agreed to have those Motions
334
put in the category of "No Day Named." I am now in a position to announce, however, that, if your Lordships are willing to accept my present Motion, His Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to give effect to it. It will, of course, be necessary, in an appropriate form, to obtain the authority of the House of Commons (this is a Motion affecting money) but I can assure your Lordships that I do not anticipate that there will be any undue delay if the Motion is approved in this House this afternoon.
I have only one or two points to make in respect of the Motion. In the first place it will be recalled, and I am sure will be agreed, that when the matter was discussed before—in fact I think it was implicit in the terms of the noble Viscount's Motion and also that of the noble Earl—it was anticipated that if a step of this kind were taken it should be administered in a form that ensured it applied bona fide to members of the House attending the business of the House. Nobody wishes that it should be used to provide free trips to London for people who are not doing their duty as members of your Lordships' House. I am sure that in saying that I am speaking for everybody. That is why the word "regular" is in the form of the Motion. But of course this will be administered, I am sure, with good sense by the officers of the House. In these times of financial stringency, many of your Lordships, I have no doubt, well-to-do as you are reputed to be, appreciate the fact that these railway charges are considerable items, particularly to those living a long way from London. I think it is only fair and right that a charge of this kind which now falls on members of the House and of the Legislature when they are doing their duty should be borne by the State. That is the basis of the Motion. It will be interpreted and applied, I know, for the purposes for which it is provided. I think it is fair in itself and that it is right and proper that it should be dealt with. I, therefore, commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved to resolve, That in view of the practical difficulties in which members of this House are involved in present circumstances in regular attendance to their Parliamentary duties owing to the high cost of travelling, they should be entitled to

335
recover the cost of railway fares incurred in respect of such duties.—)Viscount Addison.)
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure that the Motion and the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will be warmly welcomed in all quarters of the House. This is one of the matters on which we can certainly all agree. These charges are a very heavy burden on many members of this House, especially those who are most regular in their attendance. In the particular case of those who come from furthest afield (my noble friend, the Earl of Rosebery will have a word to say about the Scottish Representative Peers in a moment), they find that it is a really tremendous burden to-day. We are not all rich men. Riches are something to which the doctrine of relativity certainly applies to-day. It is certainly very hard that this expense should weigh most heavily on those who are most regular in their attendance in this House.
It is not merely as if people were going home. A great many of the members of this House who are most assiduous and regular in their attendance, also discharge many public duties in their own localities. Indeed, many of us have to do quite as much in that way as we did in our constituencies when we were members of the House of Commons. That, I think, is an added reason why we should accept this proposal.
On behalf of those who sit on this side of the House, I endorse fully what the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has said. This is only doing what is right by those who are regular in their attendance here to discharge their duties. I am glad that the words "regular attendance to their Parliamentary duties" have been put in the Motion. That again has always been common ground between us. Therefore, I most warmly welcome this proposal, and I reiterate that I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said in putting it before the House. We all know the trouble that he has taken about this matter, and that adds to the debt of gratitude which we owe to him. Particularly are we pleased by his assurance that there will be no delay once the decision of your Lordships' House has been given.
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this matter has been under discussion for quite a long time, and I am very glad that the Government are able to take action now. There is, of course, no question of the House desiring that any salaries should be paid to its members. Any proposal to that effect would be unwelcome generally throughout the House, at all events so long as it remains constituted as at present. But while noble Lords are very ready to serve the community without remuneration, on the other hand it is something of a grievance that they should be required, in many cases, to be out of pocket on account of that service. We know that many companies make it a practice to pay fees to their directors for their attendance at board meetings, but I do not know of any company which requires that the directors should pay a fine for the privilege of their attendance. But that inverted principle is one which, in fact, applies to your Lordships' attendance in this House. In the changed times in which we live, the sums involved, especially for those coming from great distances, are not insignificant. Even your Lordships' gross incomes are not so very gross, while the net income of all of us varies from the moderate to the exiguous. At the same time, the cost of travel, particularly for noble Lords from Scotland and other distant places, is somewhat high, and, in all the circumstances of the case, the time is ripe, and more than ripe, for this change to be effected. We are grateful to the Government for now taking effective action.
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, having put down a Motion asking for the payment of expenses for the elected Representative Peers of Scotland, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for bringing forward this Motion. I know he himself has taken the greatest possible trouble over this matter, and that it has caused him a great deal of labour to get this Motion put forward. The noble Viscount mentioned the words in the Motion that Peers should be "in regular attendance" to their Parliamentary duties. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, does not mean that their attendance should be regular arithmetically, because there are a certain number of Peers, especially in

337
Scotland, who are fully occupied with local authority matters, and other concerns of their own district. They may want to come here for a particular Bill.
It would be harmful to the working of the local authorities if these Peers had to come down here two or three days a week, just to make their quota in order to get their expenses paid. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, would agree that any Peer, who happens to be particularly interested in certain Bills, can make representations to the Government through the usual channels—I suppose the Government Whip or the Opposition Whip—to enable him to receive some latitude as regards his attendance. That would be particularly important for the people in Scotland. Originally, my Motion was to apply to the elected Representative Peers of Scotland. As I am not an elected representative I am especially pleased that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has been able to include all Peers.
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, In reply to the question put by the noble Earl we have these considerations fully in mind, and I am quite sure they will be fairly dealt with, through the usual channels that he mentions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the railway fare be stretched to include a sleeping berth? I am not quite sure whether it does or not, but I think it would not be unreasonable.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is intended that railway fares should include sleeping berths.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
2.45 p.m.

BURMA LEGISLATURE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have one regret this afternoon in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I am sorry that my noble friend the Secretary of
338
State for India and Burma is not able to introduce this Bill himself, as I know that the progress of Burma on the road to self-government lies just as near to his heart as the similar advance on the part of India. As your Lordships very generously acknowledged last week, the conduct of negotiations on which the future of India depends makes my noble friend's absence from this House inevitable. As I am sure all of your Lordships will agree, he must clearly stay where he is most needed while these negotiations continue.
This Bill marks a further step in the growth of self-government in Burma. I would like to remind your Lordships that according to a policy laid down by the war-time Coalition Government, and therefore accepted by all major political Parties, Burma was to pass through three stages between the end of the main campaign against the Japanese and the achievement of complete self-rule. The first stage of military administration, under Lord Louis Mountbatten, finished for most of Burma on October 16, 1945, and the responsibility of South-East Asia Command finally ceased on January 1 of this year, when the southern districts of Burma were transferred to the civilian authorities. The Governor was then able to announce the restoration of civil government to the whole of Burma.
The return of the Governor to Rangoon, and the re-establishment of the civil government, marked the second stage in the political recovery of Burma after the long setback it has suffered during the war. But at the present stage preparations must be made, with the utmost speed, for the third and last lap of the journey to self-government. These preparations will enable the present period of direct rule by the Governor to be terminated, as soon as possible, in favour of a responsible Government chosen by a popularly elected Legislature. When a Ministerial Government has been restored in Burma a constitution-making body, as described in the White Paper, will be summoned, so that the Burmese people can devise for themselves a constitution that will make them just as free in the management of their own affairs as any of the great self-governing Dominions.
This Bill is one of the indispensable preliminaries to the transition from the present phase of direct rule by the Governor to the establishment of a Ministerial

339
Government responsible for all its actions and decisions to the Legislature. Parliamentary Government cannot be restored in Burma, however, before a General Election. There can be no General Election until the names of all the voters have been inscribed on the electoral rolls; and these electoral rolls cannot be compiled by the administration until the qualifications which confer the right to vote have been laid down by Statute. The main purpose of the present Bill is to establish a new franchise for Burma, so that the preparation of the electoral rolls can go forward without any unnecessary delay. His Majesty's Government are anxious that a General Election should be held in Burma at the earliest practicable moment, and if our programme, which includes the early passage of this Bill into law, is realized in accordance with the time-table we have in mind, a Legislature will have been elected in Burma, and a Ministry formed, before June of next year.
Now, my Lords, let me say a word or two about the terms of the proposed new franchise for the general constituencies in Burma, and about how they compare with the type of suffrage under the Act which governed the last General Election held before the war. The really striking change in the present proposals is the degree to which they widen the franchise, extending it in a truly democratic fashion to almost every adult member of the population. The Act of 1935 prescribed a modest property qualification for men. In the case of women, there was an additional qualification based on literacy. Clause 2 of this Bill sweeps away these limitations to fullblown democracy, without any distinctions of wealth, by proposing to give universal adult franchise at the age of 21. The numerical effect of this alteration will be almost to treble the total electorate by increasing its size from about 2,500,000 to about 6,750,000. The voting age has been raised by three years, as compared with the 1935 Act, but both the Governor and his Legislative Council have taken the view that a sense of responsibility is not usually reached much earlier—a view which I think most of us would share—and that in practice, owing to the property qualification demanded before the war, few Burmans have in the past cast a vote
340
before attaining their twenty-first birthday. Another illustration of the attitude found in Burma is that the devout Burman who wishes to join the Buddhist order is not allowed to complete his novitiate and be ordained as a monk before he is twenty. This suggests that tradition, as well as the bulk of public opinion, would regard twenty-one as a reasonable age for the full exercise of citizenship.
Another interesting innovation in this measure is the exact equality it would bring about between the two sexes. Your Lordships will remember that Burma is among those advanced countries where women are free to do as men do and are not debarred by social custom from any business or other activity which men put, sue for a living. It is surely right that the equal status of Burmese women in economic and social matters should now be extended to politics, and that there should no longer be an old-fashioned and quite unwarranted discrimination in favour of the male.
There is one important class of persons deliberately excluded from the new franchise, namely Buddhist monks and nuns. I think a word of explanation is due about this, if only to prevent anyone from supposing that we are discriminating against the national religion of Burma. As your Lordships are aware, Buddhism is a religion of renunciation and abnegation of self, which teaches men to change the objects of their desire rather than the political institutions or social conditions under which they live. Buddhist monks are therefore expressly prohibited by the rules of their Order from taking any part in secular disputes. The Sangha Council, which directs the affairs of the Order, has itself declared against the inclusion of monks and nuns in the new suffrage. They are not being deprived by this Bill of any right they have exercised in the past, for their lack of personal property, which is part of their discipline, has excluded them in practice from exercising the old franchise that was in force before the war.
The only other point to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention (I want to be as brief as possible in view of the exceedingly interesting and important debate to which we are all looking forward) is the changed qualifications pro posed for members of the Senate in Clause 1. The effect of this clause would

341
be to halve the property qualification which is at present the principal qualification required by candidates for any of the seats in the Senate. The poverty of Burma, since the years of Japanese occupation and the subsequent military operations on Burmese soil, has become so general that few individuals would now be eligible as Senators unless the old rules were revised. I should like, in conclusion, to put on record a word or two of thanks to the Governor of Burma, to his Legislative Council and to his officials for the speed—because the time factor is of prime importance—and efficiency with which they have done the preparatory work leading to these recommendations for a new and far more democratic type of franchise in Burma. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, it would not be the wish of the House I am sure that there should be a prolonged debate on this Bill, and it is the less necessary because of the very clear and interesting explanation which has just been given to us by the noble Earl opposite. Anyone who has had an opportunity of going to Burma, even for a short time, must always retain a particular interest in the progress of the Burmese people. The circumstance which the noble Earl mentioned just now—the status of the women in Burma—is one fact which strikes one very much when One passes from the Continent of India to Burma itself. I have always understood, from such information as was afforded, that the women of Burma do in practice exercise a responsibility and width of authority which is not to be found everywhere in the East and which is indeed comparatively modern in such a country as our own.
Apparently, the women of Burma are to be given the franchise on the same terms as men, but the priests and nuns of Burma are to be given no franchise at all. The noble Earl has explained the reason. Incidentally he has afforded us an opportunity, on page 2 of the Bill, lines 3 and 4, to learn two Burmese words which he did not pronounce, and I can only be grateful that they are not presented to us in Burmese characters. Another matter which is of importance,
342
is, as I follow, that the Bill itself is really designed to give the foundation on which the new legislatures would be built up. The existing provision of a property, and I think tax-paying qualification, I can well believe is not suitable, and here you have a new basis in place of the old franchise, without which you really cannot proceed to carry through the scheme of advanced reform which is contemplated for the Burmese people.
The only other observation I would venture to make is that here again we have, in Clause 5, an example (it is not by any means new) of the efforts that are made by the draftsmen in these days to provide us, as far as may be, with intelligible and easily-understood legislation. There is a duty cast on the Clerk of Parliaments here. Upon him will fall the duty of taking the amendments, or some of them, of this Act and re-writing and certifying the effect of them on the main body of the constitutional statutory law of Burma. And there is a direction that His Majesty's printer shall print the Burma Legislature Act in accordance with the copy so certified and that all copies of the principal Act which are printed after the said copy, as these are prepared, shall be in this new form. I think that is a very useful provision. It was employed I recollect in connexion with the Government of India Act, or something very close to it, and I am very glad to see it is being used. It only remains to join the noble Earl in expressing our appreciation of the work that has been done by His Excellency the Governor, his advisers and his officials, in rapidly putting forward this measure.
2.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of this Bill. I believe I am the only remaining Member of your Lordships' House who was a member of the Burmese Round Table Conference a good many years ago, and I am inclined to believe (although I am not so sure of this, especially when the noble Viscount has been to so many places) that I am one of the very few members of your Lordships' House who have travelled from one end of Burma to the other in the days when a good deal of it had to be done on a horse. My recollection of the Burmeseߞof whom we saw a good deal here, and a certain amount over there—was that they were really constitutionally-minded

343
people, who were extremely anxious to manage their own affairs. They have also the great advantage that they have one idiom, one dialect, which covers a very great part of the country. I believe that the Bill as it has been drafted will do this country and all the Empire and indeed the world at large, a great deal of good and give an honest impression of what we intend. I wish it Godspeed.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

POLICE SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order) with the Amendments; Privilege Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
3.0 p.m.

AFFAIRS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
LORD ALTRINCHAM LORD ALTRINCHAM rose to call attention to affairs in the Middle East, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name this afternoon has been for some time a movable object on the Order Paper. It has been deferred from date to date mainly because we were anxious to meet the convenience of the Government, and I am glad that it is with complete agreement from noble Lords opposite that the debate is being taken this afternoon. The Middle East is a very complex question, and I should detain your Lordships a very long time, which I have no intention of doing, if I were to attempt to deal with the questions of policy which arise in the Middle East as a whole. One of them in particular—the most difficult, perhaps—the question of Palestine, is, I am sure, not appropriate for discussion at the present moment. Negotiations are going on, we have been given to understand, between our Government and the Government of the United States and other Governments, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is better for us to refrain from comment on the Palestine question and the report of the Anglo-American Committee
344
until further light is thrown upon what that report is to produce.
The question of Egypt on the other hand, I think, demands immediate debate. Egypt has proved vital to the security of this country in three great crises of its history, from the days of the Battle of the Nile, 150 years ago, until the termination of the life and death struggle from which we have emerged. Naturally we are deeply concerned in what are to be our future relations with Egypt. The announcement made the week before last by the Prime Minister in another place has been provisionally debated in that place, and I believe there is to be another debate later this week. I am sure, therefore, that no one will suppose that, practically alone of all centres of discussion in this country, this subject of Egypt should go undebated in your Lordships' House.
There is one thing to which I attach great importance and would like to emphasize from the start. We have been told from very high quarters—indeed, I quote language used by Sidky Pasha himself, the Prime Minister of Egypt, for whom I have the greatest respect—that those who criticize the recent procedures of His Majesty's Government in Egypt, are imbued with the prejudices of fifty years ago, prejudices based on outworn conceptions of armed domination. That such a thing should be said in such a quarter shows the measure of misunder-standing which has been produced in Egypt, as I believe, by the procedures of His Majesty's Government, and it is of great importance to say that statements of that kind have no basis whatever in truth. They are the very contrary of the truth. It is because we are so deeply concerned with the sovereign independence of Egypt that we are concerned in every question that affects her security in the future as in the past. I wish to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that it is a libel, not only on His Majesty's Opposition but on the whole aim and spirit of British statesmanship, of which we do not yet concede a monopoly to noble Lords opposite; it is a libel also on the aims and ideals of the Empire and on the character of its Governments, to suggest that our desire for alliance and friendship with Egypt is anything but a desire for an alliance and friendship on those equal terms which befit the relations of sovereign States.
It is after all, no reflection on the dignity of Egypt to suggest that the Empire and Egypt have vital interests in common which can best be safeguarded in partnership. Suggestions of that kind may be made to many States, and we are bound to make them in the future without in any way derogating from their dignity as sovereign States. We ourselves have not found it beneath our dignity to lease bases on British territory for one hundred years to the United States. We are, I believe, even discussing—I do not know whether this is true, but I believe it is true—the surrender of sovereignty over certain islands which might prove of value to the defence of the United States. During the war Britain and her capital became a most extensive base for American troops. They were given great areas for training. They were given very wide use of public buildings and other buildings. They were given control of the communications they needed. They were given the practical observance of their own law within their own Service community, and we never thought for a moment that our dignity or our sovereignty was being compromised by accepting the obligations of an alliance in the life and death struggle in which we both then stood.
Are the terms of our alliance with Egypt any different? I repeat that sovereign independence for Egypt is an over-riding consideration, and that: there is nothing in what we have clone, nor, I hope, in what we mean to do or hope to achieve in our future relations with Egypt, which could be incompatible with the dignity, self-respect and liberty of the Egyptian people. The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 may really be taken as a model in that respect. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, I would like to read to you Article 7, because it is the kernel of that Treaty on which a great deal may depend in the future as it has in the course of the last six years. The Article reads thus:
"Should, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6 above,"—
which are the provisions for reference to the League of Nations of any international quarrel that might arise—
"either of the High Contracting Parties become engaged in war, the other High Contracting Party will, subject always to the provisions of Article so below, immediately come to his aid in the capacity of an ally.
346
"The aid of His Majesty the King of Egypt, in the event of war, imminent menace of war, or apprehended international emergency will consist in furnishing to His Majesty The King and Emperor on Egyptian territory, in accordance with the Egyptian system of administration and legislation, all the facilities and assistance in his power, including the use of his ports, aerodromes and means of communication. It will accordingly be for the Egyptian Government to take all the administrative and legislative measures, including the establishment of martial law and an effective censorship, necessary to render these facilities and assistance effective."
I would draw your Lordships' attention to one other point. That Article is one of the Articles particularly safeguarded in the last clause but one of the Treaty, which includes this agreement:
"It is agreed that any revision of this Treaty will provide for the continuation of the alliance between the High Contracting Parties in accordance with the principles contained in, Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7."
I ask: In what way do those facilities, which were unstintingly, generously and cordially given to us by the Egyptian Government during the course of the war, differ from the facilities which we offered in this country to the United States of America? They are exactly the same in all respects, and how they can be regarded as derogatory to the dignity of a country I do not understand.
The Treaty was freely negotiated and it was certainly acceptable at that time to all forms of Egyptian opinion. To indicate that, I think I need only ask you to remember the chief signatories. On behalf of Egypt the Treaty was signed by Nahas Pasha (who was then Prime Minister), by Sidky Pasha (the present Prime Minister), by Ahmed Maher (the Prime Minister who was assassinated early last year, to the great regret of his many friends), by Mohamed Mahmoud Pasha (yet another Prime Minister), by Abdel Fattah Yéhia Pasha (yet another Prime Minister), and by Makram Ebeid Pasha, who is the leader of one of the chief political groups in the Egyptian Parliament in opposition to the present Egyptian Government, and also by Nokrashi Pasha, lately Prime Minister. That was a pretty representative delegation. On our side the Treaty was signed by Mr. Eden, by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, my noble friend Viscount Simon, and, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax. Viscount Halifax has left his place now, but despite that I am sure your Lordships will all wish me to say

347
how gladly we welcome him back to the service of this House after his long tour of distinguished service in the United States.
That is the Treaty. In what way have we failed to honour it? I am going to admit that we have failed to honour it in one respect, and I will come to that later. It is a minor respect but it has had a very unfortunate consequence. As regards our major obligations under the Treaty, there is no doubt that its provisions have been triumphantly vindicated in the last six years. It is owing to the Treaty that, while Europe has been devastated from end to end, from north to south and from east to west, Egypt is unscathed, rich and free. Egypt, on her side, as I have said, has done her part; everything that she was called upon to do under the Treaty she has done, and that should be acknowledged fully on our side. I think I should also say that we appreciate very deeply the generous gifts which, only a few months ago, were made by the Egyptian people to this country for the permanent care of the disabled in the last war. An establishment exists in this country, which we owe to Egyptian generosity, recording the services which we rendered at the Battle of Alamein. Egypt has done her part, but I repeat that every provision in that Treaty has been justified by the emergency which occurred and by the way in which both countries overcame it. But for the Treaty Egypt would have been overrun very early in the war by the Italian forces and very soon afterwards she would have been under the heel of Germany. Certainly there would not have been in recent weeks an Egyptian taking the chair at a meeting of the Security Council of the free United Nations.
The fact remains that at the present moment Egyptian nationalism is, without question, violently inflamed against us. Only a very short time ago, less than a year ago, we were still the acknowledged heroes of the war in Egypt, but now we are the villains of the peace. How has that come about? It requires investigation. Japan capitulated on the 14th August of last year. When that capitulation took place, the war in the East came to an end, as the war in the West had done already, and we had no further treaty rights in any inhabited part of
348
Egypt. I say "inhabited part" because we still held our Treaty rights upon the Canal Zone. The evacuation of inhabited Egypt, and in particular of the capital, Cairo, and of the other great city, Alexandria, should have been announced immediately after the capitulation of Japan and should have been carried out as expeditiously as conditions allowed. I place the responsibility for the failure to do that fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government. They were warned of the danger of not doing it, but they took no action until much too late.
For the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not been in Cairo recently, let me describe the kind of situation which confronted the Egyptian Nationalists there. The statue of their national hero, Saad Zaglul, stands at the western end of the Kasr-el-Nil bridge. Saad Zaglul was a great man; he was first brought into prominence by Lord Cromer, afterwards recognized and treated with great confidence by Lord Milner,, and finally was acknowledged to be the leader of the great Nationalist movement in Egypt which resulted in this Treaty. His statue at the western end of that very central bridge is beset on one side by a military camp (it is still, I believe, there at the present moment) occupying one of the loveliest parks in Cairo. It is beset on the other side—I am talking of the western bank of the Nile—by the Alamein grounds, which are not only places of recreation but which have been usually chosen as the scene of formidable parades. Across the bridge on the left hand side are the old Kasr-el-Nil Barracks, and across the bridge on the right is the Semiramis Hotel, entirely occupied, three years after Alamein, as a Service Headquarters. Saad Zaglul, looking towards the Citadel in Cairo, a very short time ago could see the British flag still flying from it. That was a situation which ought to have been ended the day the war ceased. Why was it not done? I hope the noble Lord will explain why no action of that kind was taken at once.
Think of a similar position in London. Foreign troops in Wellington Barracks; foreign troops in St. James' Park; foreign troops on all sides of Westminster Bridge. That is about a parallel to what Egyptian Nationalists had to watch month after month after the war had completely ceased. In fact Egyptian Nationalists—I know this from what they said to me

349
very shortly before I left—always disliked this investment of a national monument and it became symbolic to Egyptians of the suspicions of our aims which are always apt to grow unless the situation is very carefully watched. It should have been dealt with, as I say, immediately Japan capitulated. Yet no announcement was made and no action was taken of any sort. I will not go through the details, but Nokrashi Pasha's Government first tentatively suggested negotiation of a new treaty, and I do not think that was immediately taken up. In any case, the announcement of the evacuation was delayed.
Then of course the claim mounted and mounted and it was not until Cairo and Alexandria were in violent eruption until xenophobia was rampant everywhere, until the solid advantages of our victory had been forgotten, until the natural dislike of foreign occupation had been fanned by doubt of our intentions to a burning flame, and not moreover until Arab opinion over the whole Middle East had been inflamed by a sense of crisis in Palestine which was bound to become acute at the imminence and ultimate publication of the report of the Anglo-American Committee—it was not until all that had happened and the situation had deteriorated in that terrible way, to that deplorable extent, that His Majesty's Government sent out a Minister to negotiate. I have every sympathy; he has had a most difficult task. I am bound to record an opinion on this. Only strong language, even in your Lordships' House, can meet the case, and I say that the handling of this issue by His Majesty's Government has been fumbling, dilatory, purblind and inept.
What of the future? What can we retrieve from the situation which has been brought about? Informed comment seems to me to be impossible until His Majesty's Government give us some further enlightenment. We do not know anything of the character or course of the discussions in Cairo; we do not know what substitute, if any, for the 1936 Treaty is on the stocks. We can only hope that the essential provisions which are safeguarded in that Treaty by the penultimate article will be found to be saved in any future Treaty.
In passing, I would like, if I may, to make a personal observation. I say personal because I have not consulted any
350
of my colleagues about it, but I think it is a pertinent observation at the present time. His Majesty's Government seem to be setting a new and unfortunate precedent in their method of handling international questions of vital consequence. It was; generally uncle' stood by most of us, when the Coalition broke up, when this Government succeeded Mr. Churchill's Government, that a real endeavour would be made on all great international and imperial questions to preserve a united national front. I believe that to be generally accepted and desired What has happened? His Majesty's Government have apparently become entirely indifferent to that. Look at the Paris Conference. The Russian Delegation, of course, contained representatives of all Russian parties—there is no great difficulty about that. The French Delegation represented all the three great parties in France, and Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State, was careful to take a distinguished and most influential Republican Senator with him.
But our Foreign Secretary preferred to ride alone upon that very difficult course. Well, he must choose. I doubt if this new precedent is going to prove of national or imperial interest. We had no courtesy at all in regard to the announcement about Egypt. Apparently the situation in Egypt had deteriorated so rapidly that statements had to be put out without warning or consultation of any sort. I am glad to acknowledge that we received much more courtesy on the question of India. That was communicated well before it was made in either House. But it is not only a question of courtesy. I maintain, and I am sure your Lordships will maintain, that genuine consultation in advance is as essential as courtesy when the Government are dealing with far-reaching questions of international policy and imperial defence.
As to the future, I will make only two observations because I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer. I am not going to enter into such questions, for they are very long questions, as the strategic importance of the Suez Canal zone or the Suez Canal Itself. There may be differences of opinion about the Canal as a waterway but I doubt if there will ever be any difference of opinion about the strategic importance of the area through which the Canal passes whether the canal

351
is closed for a time or not. As to that I will only say that the problem of security of the Canal raises two questions which are not only of importance to the Commonwealth as a whole, but which are important also to the Arab world as a whole, and that should be taken into account. The security of the Canal is an impossible obligation for any single State. It is impossible on geographical grounds in this air age, because the range of defence required for the Canal obviously greatly exceeds the boundaries of any single State, and it is also impossible for any single Government or country because of its cost.
The cost of what is now going to be determined and arranged between Egypt and ourselves is a matter of great importance to Egypt as well as to us, and I hope that it will not be overlooked. We have made vast expenditure in the Canal zone, and if that is to be thrown away, we shall have to incur vast expenditure somewhere else. This is a heavy burden for an Ally, after a great victory, to place upon a friend. But I go further. If Egypt were to attempt the maintenance of what I believe to be necessary in the Canal zone, she would burden her finances to an extent which would be fatal to other even more essential public services. Every State must remember, in these days, that aggression is not always open, that aggression may strike at the welfare of a country, at the stability of its institutions, undermining and sapping underground, and that every State that incurs unnecessary military expenditure is, in that respect, taking a terrible risk.
But, whatever the expenditure, on geographical grounds also in this air age security cannot be given to Egypt by her own efforts alone. I know of no case which is so evidently a case for such a system of regional security as is contemplated in the Charter of the United Nations. The United States has already built up such a system, to which she attaches great importance, in her own hemisphere. Russia has certainly not neglected to build up such a system, and neither the Commonwealth nor the Arab States can afford to be without a genuine co-operative system of regional security in the Middle East. That system must depend on considerations with which I am not adequately familiar after
352
the passing of some months. It must depend on such things as the relations of the Arab States between themselves regarding other questions in the Middle East, as well as on the relations of the Arab States with us. It must also depend on the character of the peace settlement, which seems, unhappily, to recede further and further into the distance with every new international conference.
I deeply regret that these negotiations as to security in Egypt, as to the future of the Canal zone, as to putting something more up-to-date in the place of the 1936 Treaty, have been undertaken in a purely bilateral form between Egypt and Britain. It is a very much wider question than that. I deeply regret also that the Government should have allowed so much of what was useful in the Political Branch as well as in the Economic Branch of the Middle Eastern Office, which proved its utility in the war, to lapse. I make no complaint about the abolition of the post of Minister. There was a strong case for that in peacetime, but the Middle Eastern Office should have been preserved. Its range and status should not have been diminished, and it should have been entrusted, as an advisory body, to the highest possible authority upon the spot. What has happened? The Middle Eastern Office has been decimated, and its political branch does not now exist. We have had a re-centralization in Whitehall. We have had, in consequence, fragmentation of many questions affecting Empire security in the Middle East. In this context, also, I regard the conduct of affairs by His Majesty's Government in the Middle East as ill-judged and deplorable—the result, apparently, of being wedded to ancient and obsolete tradition, of being incapable, it would seem, of fresh constructive thought.
To conclude, my Lords, it is only too evident that the great position which we hold, or held only a few months ago, in the Middle East, is very gravely prejudiced. I can only trust that, before it is too late, British statesmanship in that region will once more be lifted to the higher level which is necessary to the freedom and security of the region itself, to the cohesion of the Commonwealth, and to the still wider cause of world peace. I beg to move for Papers.
3.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, few people can be better qualified to bring the question of the Middle East before your Lordships than my noble friend Lord Altrincham, who rendered such signal service when he was Minister Resident in the Middle East under the Coalition Government. He has spoken with much authority and with great sincerity and eloquence. Although the Motion deals with the Middle East generally, I intend to follow his example and confine myself exclusively to the question of Egypt. For the reasons which he has given, I think it would be a great mistake if we endeavoured to-day to discuss the question of Palestine, and the question of Persia is still on the agenda of the Security Council of the United Nations. If we were to endeavour to debate it, we certainly should be led to review far wider problems of foreign policy than, I think, properly fall within the scope of this Motion. The question of Egypt as it comes before your Lordships to-day seems to me to have three different aspects, first, the declaration of policy made by the Prime Minister in another place on May 7, secondly the timing of that declaration, and thirdly the consultations which preceded it. I propose to deal shortly with each of those questions in turn, taking them in the order I have mentioned them. I want to make it clear that we on these Benches have no doubt whatever as to the wisdom of the policy announced by the Prime Minister.
Let us look at two or three facts. Egypt is a sovereign nation. She is a member of the United Nations Organization, and the foundation of that Organization is based on the sovereign equality of all the members. It is quite clear that in such conditions we cannot maintain troops on Egyptian soil unless at the specific request of the Egyptian Government and with the consent of the Egyptian people. I will come to the Canal zone in a minute or two. We certainly have not received any such specific request for the retention of our troops. I believe—in fact I think it is quite certain—that the desire both of the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian people is for as speedy a departure as possible of our troops and of our ships. Therefore it seems to me that the announcement made by the Prime Minister, and the quick action which followed it, ought to be strongly commended.
354
This question of the evacuation of Egypt is no new question. It is a very old one. A few hours after the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir Sir Edward Malet was informed that Her Majesty's Government contemplated shortly commencing the withdrawal of British troops from Egypt. This was followed by a circular to the Powers from Lord Granville on January 3, 1883, in which he stated that
"although for the present a British force remains in Egypt for the preservation of public tranquillity, Her Majesty's Government are desirous of withdrawing it as soon as the state of the country an-1 the organization of proper means for the maintenance of the Khedive's authority will admit of it."
Yet troops are or were recently there in very large numbers. I do not of course fail to recognize the enormous service which those troops have rendered both to Egypt and to the British Empire in times of grave international emergency, but their presence to-day does teem to me to have become an anachronism now that the danger from Hitler and Mussolini has passed away.
What must be the feeling of an Egyptian? I have explained that the suggested evacuation the promise of evacuation, dates from 1882. It is true, certainly, that the provisions of the Treaty of Alliance of 1936 made the position more palatable, but with troops in Cairo, with Alexandria being used as a naval base, and knowing previous history, must not hope deferred have made the Egyptian heart sick? Not only that, but it must have created a spirit of deep resentment and bitterness of spirit. I feel that that spirit can only he allayed by a policy such as has been announced. We want friendship and co-operation instead of enmity and rancour. Let us not forget that the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian people have rendered us very great service in two wars. We cannot lightly set aside the considerations put forward by Sidky Pasta in his letter to The Times of May 13, to which the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, referred. But I do not read that letter in the same light as he does. I do not consider that it contains any insult to the British Government, to the British people or even to His Majesty's Opposition.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I should very much deplore any idea that I referred to what was said by Sidky Pasha as an insult to the British people. I only said that

355
the facts which he gave about a part of the British people were not in accordance with the truth.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am glad to have elicited that. Friendship with the Egyptian people on a footing of complete equality is our best hope and our best protection for the future. Now as to the Suez Canal and the Canal zone. It is perfectly true that the 1936 Treaty granted us authority to station forces in Egyptian territory in the vicinity of the Canal. But I gather that the negotiations which are taking place at the present are under Article 16 of that Treaty, and they are undertaken on the initiative of the Egyptian Government with the consent, happily given, of His Majesty's Government. If those negotiations succeed, and I hope they may, the alliance will go on in accordance with the principles contained in Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7. I would just ask your Lordships to note, incidentally, that no mention is made of Article 8. Article 7 has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and I shall not refer to it in detail, but it is of the very greatest importance. Quite clearly the present negotiations will largely turn on how the principles of Article 7 can best be effected once British troops are no longer on Egyptian soil.
From the practical point of view—I am not an expert—can the Canal really he defended by forces stationed in the Canal zone? With the development of high-flying aeroplanes, precision bombing and other devices—I am not going to dwell on the atomic bomb—is it not certain that the Canal itself would be made unusable? I should have thought the real danger to be guarded against lies in the possibility of sabotage in time of tension. If that is so, surely a friendly Egypt is one of the best precautions we can have against sabotage. Egyptian forces, working as Allies, should prove adequate to prevent it, and I hope, to protect the material and dumps and so on which it may be found desirable to keep stored in the vicinity of the Canal for emergency purposes. It is for all those reasons that I believe that the policy announced by His Majesty's Government is right and wise. It is very difficult to conceive any alternative except imposing by force the retention of a
356
large number of troops among an un friendly and hostile population. Such an eventuality, I am sure, would not be contemplated seriously by your Lordships.
Then I want to say just one word about the suggestion that the protection of the Canal should be entrusted to the United Nations. I do not think that is really a practicable proposition at this stage of development of the United Nations. It is true that by the Charter an international force is to be created, but your Lordships will realize that such an international force cannot be used unless all six great Powers consent. That is a result of the veto. It is for that reason that I think we must rule out at present the United Nations and must continue to rely on the British-Egyptian Alliance for the defence of the Canal. So much for the first point.
Now, for the second point—the timing of the Declaration. I agree that this is more open to doubt but here again I hold that His Majesty's Government were right. I notice that in another place it was stated that the advice to proceed on such lines was given not only by the British Mission itself but also by the diplomatic and military people on the spot, and that unless the announcement had been made of the acceptance of the principle of withdrawal, effective or favourable progress in negotiations could not be obtained. That being so I am perfectly content to trust the judgment of the people on the spot. Of course there is a risk, but it is a risk which I feel it is wise to take. I believe that in negotiations of this kind local advice cannot and should not be ignored. I presume that we all want to reach an agreement with the Egyptian Government in order to make as far as is humanly possible effective provision for the defence of the Canal, and if His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the immediate announcement of the principle of withdrawal was the best way to secure such agreement, I do not feel that there is any ground for criticism.
On the question of consultation, which preceded the Declaration, I admit I am not nearly so happy. I have carefully read all that was said in another place on this subject, and I find that the position is still obscure. We all agree that the safety of the Canal is of the greatest importance, not only to this country but to the Dominions, and in particular South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and India. I gather that the

357
Governments of the Dominions, including Canada, were fully informed of the position, but I would like to ask: Were their views specifically requested? There is a very great difference between the supply of information pure and simple and a specific request for information and views. I know, of course, that the Government may say, "Well, the final responsibility rests with His Majesty's Government." That is perfectly true, but still surely His Majesty's Government ought to ascertain what are the opinions of those Dominions which are vitally interested in such an important question as this. Personal discussions with Ministers in London are, of course, admirable, but they are not quite on the same footing as the considered views of the Dominion Governments. I hope on this still rather obscure question the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to throw some additional light. It is a question which troubles some of us considerably.
I personally have pressed on various occasions for closer consultation to be established with the Dominions on questions relating to foreign policy, and I have received much support from many of your Lordships. We maintained that either through the Committee of Imperial Defence or through some similar organ, arrangements ought to be made for the presence of the Dominion High Commissioners or specifically-chosen Ministers from the Dominions to attend discussions and hear arguments for and against. Then they could report to their Governments in the Dominions with full knowledge. In the debate on the machinery of Government which took place on January 23 this year the Lord Chancellor quoted Mr. Mackenzie King in answer to my plea for a better method of consultation. I have the highest admiration and respect for Mr. Mackenzie King; he is not only a great Dominions statesman but also a great Liberal. He will recognise that time does march on, and I hope that an opportunity will be taken of his presence in this country and of the presence of the other Dominion representatives to see whether some better and closer method cannot be found for consultation on matters which interest the Empire and specific Dominions as a whole.
My last point, which has already been referred to by a previous speaker, is that
358
of consultation with the leaders of the Opposition. Of course such consultation must necessarily lie within the discretion of His Majesty's Government. The Party to which noble Lords opposite belong had no mandate for the revision of the 1936 Treaty. In spite of their huge majority, they did not command the support of the majority of the electorate taken globally. It seems to me that they ought to have consulted the leaders of the Opposition on a question of this kind. That appears to me to be a sound democratic doctrine. There was an opportunity—there always has been—through the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I do not know why it was not taken. The Lord Chancellor, in the debate to which I have referred, was good enough to say there was a wholesome tradition that in practice responsible leaders of the Opposition were taken by the Minsters of the Government concerned into their confidence. I wonder why in this particular case that wholesome tradition was not followed.
I do not want to end on a note of criticism. Whatever may have been the omissions of the. Government in the matter of consultation, I would like to assure them that we on these Benches wish them Godspeed in the negotiations which they are now pursuing with the Egyptian Government on a footing of full equality—negotiations, the success, of which are of the highest importance to this country, to the Dominions, to Egypt and to the Middle East.
3.55 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure my noble friends of the Government below me are grateful to the noble Earl for the first part of his speech in which he gave us I am sure very valuable support for the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing. I am personally grateful to him for reminding me, by his reference to 1882 and our promises at that time, of a very interesting carton that appeared in Punch which I commend him to look up. It portrays the quarter-deck of one of His Majesty's ships at Alexandria. By the command of the Government, the Admiral attended by his Staff in full dress, is engaged in reading out a proclamation on the imminent departure of our troops from Egypt to a detachment of Marines—and those gallant and always well-disciplined sea soldiers are convulsed with laughter.

359
With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's speech about consultation with the Dominions, I am sure that he knows that my noble friend Viscount Addison is Dominions Minister, that that is his particular duty, and that it is most meticulously carried out on all matters affecting any of the interests of the Dominions. Of course the Dominions were fully informed of what was afoot, and as we know a number of the Dominions Prime Ministers were in London at the time. They could not, of course, commit their Governments. No Prime Minister can commit his Cabinet in their physical absence, but that they were fully informed is self-evident.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I tried to point out that there was a difference between being fully informed by the supply of information, and views being requested. If you tell a person that such and such is the case, that is one thing. If you say, "Please give me your views" that is a very different thing.
LORD STRABOLGI: Surely it is well understood that every one of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions have the fullest right to make representations on any matters which in any way concern it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: And they are exercising it.
LORD STRABOLGI: As my noble friend says, they are exercising it. I have the honour to have the personal acquaintance of a number of the High Commissioners for the Dominions in London. I have always found them very forceful and indeed most outspoken gentlemen. I cannot for a moment imagine them neglecting to see that His Majesty's Government were fully informed of their views. But may I, after thanking the noble Earl again for the concluding sentence of his speech, which could not have been better said, if he will allow me to make that remark, refer to the remarkable speech—remarkable for the eloquence of its language—delivered to your Lordships by the mover of this Motion. He began by a rejoinder to Sidky Pasha for saying apparently that His Majesty's Opposition in this country were fifty years out of date. I find myself agreeing with Sidky Pasha except in one respect: I would have said a hundred years out of date. I have
360
read every word of the debate in another place and have listened with the greatest care to the noble Lord to-day. I noticed he was very careful to avoid going too deeply into the strategic implications involved in the new Treaty now to be negotiated. He skated very lightly over that. But his colleagues in another place talked in the language of our great grandfathers. I think Sidky Pasha was entirely justified in his remark.
Then the noble Lord talked about the analogy between British troops in that country and American and other Allied troops who were here during the war, and said that we made no objections; therefore why should the Egyptians object? Later on in his speech, however, he complained loudly and bitterly that we did not immediately after the ending of the fighting in the Mediterranean campaign at once begin to move our troops from Cairo and Alexandria. If the Egyptians were not to object to the presence of our troops any more than we did about the presence of American troops on British soil what was the point of the argument that immediately after the ending of the fighting in the Mediterranean area we should have withdrawn our troops?
LORD ALTRINCHAM: The American troops, I think, were very rapidly withdrawn from this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: There are a great many here still. The noble Lord cannot move very much about the streets of London, or he would see plenty of them. There are plenty of them in this country. There are more taxi cabs—that is the only difference.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: They are not in St. James's Park or Wellington Barracks.
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course there are plenty of them, and we are very glad to have them, too. The point of the whole argument, which is completely false, is that the Americans were here temporarily and that we knew they were here only for the campaign; but how were the Egyptians to know there would not be another excuse made for retaining our garrisons in Cairo and Alexandria? As to whether immediately after the conclusion of the hostilities with Japan we should have begun to evacuate the British

361
troops from Egypt, the noble Lord is perfectly well aware—he had a great responsibility for the policy himself during his service in the Middle East—that Egypt was serving not only as a base for the Armies operating on the African continent; it was also the great depot of arms, the storing place and arsenal, for our troops who moved on to Italy and Austria. A great deal of the supplies for the armies in Europe came from Egypt. We had most valuable accumulations of materials there. How could we at once move the troops out? I do not think any Egyptian expected or demanded it.
Whether there was a flaunting of British uniforms or the British flag all over Egypt as the noble Lord suggests, I do not know, but, after all, they have been there since 1882; and my impression from a recent visit to Egypt and conversations with people of some importance there is that, although there have been riots and disorders and regrettable losses of life and property, generally speaking the relations between Egyptian people and British people, and the regard of the Egyptian people for His Majesty's subjects, are quite good, quite warm and quite friendly.
It is always possible anywhere in the Middle East, as the noble Lord knows only too well, for anyone with a sufficient lack of scruples and enough money, to raise a riot in an Eastern city. There are professional riot raisers whom you can suborn and pay for the purpose, and it is a well-known political manoeuvre in the East to foment artificially a riot for political purposes. No one knows that better than the noble Lord himself. But fundamentally the relations between the Egyptian people as a whole and the British people out there and at home I believe to be good, and capable of great improvement as a result of the policy His Majesty's Government is now pursuing.
The complaint by His Majesty's Opposition in another place, I understand, was quite different from that of the noble Lord. He complains that we did not immediately abandon Egypt and remove every British serving man in uniform from Egypt, whereas I understand his colleagues complained that we were leaving too soon. I do not know how they can reconcile that, or whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who I believe is speaking later in the debate, can reconcile the apparent differences between the two Opposition
362
Front Benches, one in another place and the other here.
This question of the defence of the Canal I think was very admirably summed up by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I would put it like this. The problem of the defence of the Canal zone, which is what is in dispute now, resolves itself into two separate sections. There is the question of local defence against the blocking of the actual shipway by local action—what the noble Earl calls sabotage, but I think that is an understatement; I believe a much greater attempt than an ordinary sabotage effort would be required. Obviously, however, you want strong police forces to stop interference with the actual Canal itself. Then, if we should be engaged in another great world war, there is the question of the general defence of the Canal zone, and this is where I join issue with the Opposition critics. It is not necessary, I submit, for this general defence under modern conditions, to have British troops on Egyptian soil at all—not even in the Canal zone.
After all, the Canal itself is for the use of shipping, and our desire and the desire of our Allies would be to have the free passage of the Canal. Unless you command the seas which give access to the Canal zone, you cannot use it. During certain periods of the recent war, we could not use the Canal at all by way of the Mediterranean. We temporarily lost command of the seas in the middle section of the Mediterranean, and also, to a certain extent, command of the air over the sea, which is part of the same command. Unless in any future war, we and our Allies (or the United Nations forces, as I hope) have command of the sea, both in the Mediterranean and the Southern approaches, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, the Canal will be useless to us for strategic purposes. Surely that is the problem to be solved. The command of the sea and the command of the air which goes with it, demand bases which need not be within one bundled or two hundred miles of Egypt at all. So long as we or our Allies have the requisite sea bases and bases for land-based aeroplanes within striking distance of the approaches to the Canal, then we can safeguard its use for our Allies or for the United Nations' forces. For that purpose it does not

363
matter whether you have one British soldier or ten divisions of British soldiers on Egyptian soil.
The policing, the local defence to which the noble Earl referred, can be perfectly well and trustworthily carried out by Egyptian forces if we have the goodwill of the Egyptian Government and people. Those seem to be the real strategic problems, and the attacks made in the newspapers under the pens of Lord Altrincham and others, and the extravagant language used in your Lordships' House to-day and in another place, do not alter that problem which I have endeavoured to explain, and I believe I must carry with me the agreement of all your Lordships who have really studied this question. To talk again of having to keep garrisons on Egyptian soil in order to preserve the freedom of the Suez Canal in peace and war is to talk in the language of one hundred years ago. Sidky Pasha is perfectly right, however much he may have annoyed Lord Altrincham.
I noted that both the mover of this Motion and the noble Earl who preceded me said that they had no intention of embarking on a discussion relating to any country in the Middle East other than Egypt and that in particular they were not going to discuss Palestine. How you can discuss the Middle East—which is the terms of the Motion—without discussing Palestine, I do not know. The Motion should have been so drawn as to confine discussion to Egypt. I do not want to enlarge the discussion at all, and I do not propose to discuss Palestine, as the whole debate apparently is centring on Egypt, but I must say that the important announcement made in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and in another place by the Prime Minister, about the total evacuation of our forces from Egyptian soil does present the whole Palestine problem in quite a different perspective.
It is known—there is no secret about it—that large barracks and other buildings are being erected at Ghaza in Southern Palestine (the home town, as the Americans would say, of Samson), where the troops who are being taken away from the Egyptian cantonments are to be stationed. It is obviously just as desirable to have them surrounded by a friendly population as if they had remained in
364
Egypt. I would also say—and I will leave Palestine on this note, as far as I am at present concerned—that whereas we apparently consider it necessary to have large forces of ground troops in some part of the Middle East for the defence of our interests, the interests of our Allies and eventually, I suppose, the interests of the United Nations, we can have a friendly garrison in Palestine free, gratis and for nothing for the asking.
In these discussions here and in another place very little has been said (except in a derogatory sense—perhaps not derogatory but in an agnostic sense—by the noble Earl, Lord Perth) with retard to the United Nations Organization. I submit to your Lordships that that is an omission. Surely our whole policy (and here there is no conflict between the Parties in this country, and there is no need on this occasion to consult the Leaders of the Opposition because they have fully committed themselves in the past) and that of all our Allies and associates is to develop, strengthen and use the United Nations Organization. It is true that we are in a transitional stage now, and that that transitional stage will probably last a few years, but our whole aim, our goal, is that the responsibility for the defence of certain vital areas, including the great international waterways like the Suez Canal, shall devolve upon the international armed forces of the United Nations Organization. If that is not our policy, where are we going? A third world war is the only alternative and we all know it. In that case, why take up such an agnostic attitude—I do not intend to be offensive to the noble Earl—and not seek ways of strengthening and increasing confidence in the United Nations Organization? I speak of the Suez Canal, but the same arguments apply to such waterways as the Panama Canal, the Dardanelles—
THE EARL OF PERTH: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that in no way do I wish to say anything derogatory about the United Nations Organization. I would, however, remind the noble Lord that at this present stage there is the veto. If he—and we will do all we can to help—will remove the veto, nobody would be more delighted than we should be.
LORD STRABOLGI: We are in a transitional stage and we are trying to get a

365
better arrangement. I will not attempt to enter now into the question of the veto. I was referring to some of the international waterways which it should be our aim and our desire to have placed under the international guardianship of the United Nations Organization. The Suez Canal is not the most important; I believe the Panama Canal in the future will be of even greater importance. The Straits of Gibraltar is another international waterway for the defence of which I do not see any reason why this country should be for all time responsible. The Straits of Malacca, as the recent war shows, and as we always knew, are of immense strategical importance and a very fit and proper object for defence by the United Nations Organization with a suitable international force.
There is one matter to which I should like to refer very briefly in connexion with the negotiations themselves. I do not expect an answer to this from the Lord Chancellor but I would be very grateful if he would be kind enough to take note of it and, if he thinks fit, to pass it on to the right quarter. In the first place I would refer to what I believe is the fundamental friendship between the Egyptian and the British people. Egypt was spoken of by Lord Altrincham as a rich country, but he knows better than any of us that the economic situation of Egypt can be precarious. There were 250,000 Egyptians employed by that same army which he wanted to be disbanded and taken out of the country directly the fighting finished in the Pacific—250,000 Egyptians employed by the G.H.Q. which he thinks we should have moved over-night, and those men will soon be without employment.
The Egyptian Government are well aware of this and have two main lines of policy to meet the situation. One is the development of secondary industries, which will take some time. Egypt needs more secondary industries. In the programme we can give great technical assistance and I think we should be prepared to do so. The main cotton crop is precarious in the world's markets and it is recognised that these secondary industries will need our help in their development. I believe we can be of immense service there. I was very glad to see the report of the good-will commercial Mission, which seems to have done excellent work on its recent visit to Egypt. The second
366
line of policy is this, There are very great schemes for irrigation and public works of all kinds in the course of preparation. There again we can be 'of immense technical Lssistance. I do hope that as soon as the Treaty is out of the way—and I pray it will be soon—we will have made complete preparations to offer our help and services in solving Egypt's grave economic difficulties. I believe it would repay us a hundred times over if we were prepared to show a generous and helpful attitude, which I am sure His Majesty's Government wish to do.
There is another and a rather more delicate matter. The provisions of the Montreaux Convention come to an end, I think, in 1948 or 1949, in two or three years' time at any rate. 'They followed on the negotiations of the 1936 Treaty. There are in the main Egyptian cities very large religious and racial minorities who have in their hands a good deal of the commerce and industry of the country. In the past it has always been the desire of this country and of other great European Powers to see that these minorities have fair treatment. This sort of thing cannot be written in black and white in a treaty. I do not for a moment doubt that the leaders of the present Egyptian Government and the leaders of the Wafd are perfectly well disposed towards those minorities and do not intend to encourage xenophobia or extreme Moslem nationalism in Egypt.
But they or men like them may not always be in power, and for the future some kind of undertaking I think should be arranged to prevent unfair discrimination against these minorities particularly the racial and religious minorities who have served Egypt well in the past and who have contributed greatly to the wealth and culture of the country. This is a matter which cannot be written into the Treaty. It affects the sovereignty of Egypt which is the last thing upon which we would wish to impinge. What form of undertaking for the future which would give confidence to these law-abiding citizens who stood by us so well when we were in extreme and direst danger during the North African campaign I do not venture to describe. I do not make these remarks in any sort of criticism at all because I cannot imagine that His Majesty's Government have not got these matters very fully in mind and

367
I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would regard them as helpful suggestions.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we have just listened to a most interesting and, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, a wide and discursive speech which ranged I think from the imperialization of the Panama Canal to the industrial development of Egypt.
LORD STRABOLGI: The international defence of the Panama Canal.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The international defence of the Panama Canal to the industrial development of Egypt. I must say I tried to follow the point the noble Lord was making at the beginning of his speech when he was criticizing the remarks of my noble friend Lord Altrincham. I take the blame for not following him, and I will read it in Hansard tomorrow. It seemed to me that the noble Lord's speech, if drawn to its logical conclusion, as I understood it, meant that the announcement of our evacuation of Egypt was really unnecessary because we were so universally popular. As far as I can see that is the goal to which the noble Lord was taking us and one which I fear I cannot share with him. Many of us on this side of the House, and many I believe onside this House, feel a two-fold regret at the way the Egyptian situation has been handled by His Majesty's Government.
Our first regret is that we have handled this affair as being one primarily of our own, when I believe the strategic issues are so great that it is one which should have been shared fully—far beyond consultation—in joint responsibility with our partners, the Dominions. The second regret is that it appeared to us that His Majesty's Government have handled this matter primarily from the political angle when it is a case where examination will show that imperial strategic considerations are so great that they should transcend all political issues. I believe that if we had not made this announcement of our willingness for total withdrawal, but had endeavoured first to negotiate military arrangements for the future, in a way that I hope to show your Lordships in a few moments, we might to-day be enjoying more easy consciences as regards our Empire security in the future than many
368
of us to-day can do. As the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said, Egypt has proved in two wars to be of vital strategic importance, more so in the last war than in the 1914–1918 war.
The defence of the Canal zone is vital not because of the strip of waterway, but because it is the important site, the only important site at the present time, which can provide the bases from which our air-forces can operate instantly to implement any agreements which we may come to in the future with Egypt as regards the protection of our mutual interests. The other possible sites if you look at them are not too good at the moment. We know that the Russians are asking for a position in Cyrenaica. Who would say we are going to be able to have permanent bases in Palestine with security there? It depends largely upon the future of the Arab world as to whether we are going to have security in Transjordan. When we remember that Egypt not only provided our operational bases but at the end of the war was supplying the storage space—I remember the figures because I was in Egypt about a year ago—for approximately 2,000,000 troops fighting in or occupying eleven different theatres of operation, we can see what a nervecentre for the imperial effort Egypt was during the war years. I believe that the defence of the Canal zone is vital because if it is lost to the enemies of freedom not only would that area go, not only would Egypt be gone, but also it would only be a matter of time before the lifeline of the Empire, the Cape route, was actually menaced.
The Cape route is a route to Australia and to New Zealand which provides entrance to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. Many of your Lordships who were concerned with these matters may remember that in the darkest days of 1940, when invasion threatened this country, when we were short of all our supplies and trying to re-equip our armies and air-force, General Smuts made an appeal to the Prime Minister for diversion, even at that hour, of some of our meagre supplies to the Middle East. His Majesty's Government, to their eternal credit, even hard-pressed as we were, menaced by the Germans, responded and diverted supplies in those months. The reason for that was the conviction that General Smuts brought to us in the picture he painted. I well remember that

369
picture. He drew a picture of Britain invaded, of Britain temporarily subjugated under enemy domination, and yet he said the heart of the Empire entity would still beat and the main arteries would still remain unsevered. He pictured the alternative of this country holding out against invasion but of the Middle East conquered. His description was of hordes coming through Palestine, sweeping down into Egypt, of armies being shipped from Italy across North Africa and congregated in Egypt, then sweeping down southwards through Egypt, through the Sudan, threatening at first and then cutting the life-line of the Empire, the Cape route. As he said that is the route to India, Persia, Australia and New Zealand. When a political announcement is made with absolutely no security as regards our essential defence for the Empire, it is that picture which General Smuts painted in 1940 which remains in my mind.
The Government have offered up this strategic essential, the right to defend the Canal zone, on the altar of political expediency—hoping, I admit freely, to retrieve the position later by political negotiation. I submit that the issue is one of such gravity that we ought not to take the risk of a solution satisfactory to ourselves being reached at subsequent political negotiations. Is the position really one which we have a right to give away? Is it ours to give away? Should we have taken this step on our own—consulting, I grant you, the Dominions? Factually, of course, it can be said we are the High Contracting Parties with Egypt to the 1936 Treaty. We are the main people concerned. Factually, yes. But I would ask whether the moral issue is not so great that we should not have gone forward except as a united Empire with an Empire viewpoint of what is essential for our security. I submit that this was an Empire task, an Empire responsibility, and that informing and consulting is not enough, if you accept the view that the position is of far greater importance than a mere matter of relations with Egypt, but is, in fact, one which actually governs the Cape route.
I believe that we should have planned, that we should have negotiated, and finally decided only imperially. I believe there should have been full discussions between our chiefs of staffs and the staffs of the Dominions, and that these joint staffs should afterwards have put before
370
their respective Governments an agreed plan stating what they consider are the essentials to be retained in negotiations with the Egyptian Government. Instead of that we have gone to negotiate, not knowing what we must retain, but hoping to get something back later. Had that course which I suggested been followed, have we any reason to think that Egypt would not have agreed? Have we any reason to think that Egypt would not have listened and been moved by our appeal and our statement of our requirements? Egypt wants freedom. Egypt wants liberty, and Egypt wants security, as well as do the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Surely she would have listened to an Empire plea for minimum safety measures in both her own interests and our own.
I conclude by asking the Government, is it too late now to get the Empire view as to what is essential in the way of minimum strategic requirements, and to go to the Egyptian Government and say: "This is what the British Commonwealth of Nations considers is essential. It may be hard luck, it may be politically difficult, but Egypt's geographical position is such that she holds the key to the security of the British Empire." If the ideals of the British Empire and of the Egyptians are finally the same, I believe that we should even now be able to negotiate these minimum safety requirements. Instead, we have followed narrow political lines of our own. I believe that the lines that we have followed have not been worthy of partners in the Empire. I do not believe that they have been worthy of our conception of Empire. I do not think they have had proper regard to the gravity of the issues involved. I trust that the Government, in this matter, will make sure that the security of the Empire is not menaced by purely political considerations between another country and ourselves.
4.35 p.m.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I think that the trouble with a debate like this, as with the debate which took place in another place the other day is that it becomes of somewhat academic interest when you know that the chief counter has already been given away, and it does seem to me a little sad that, as head of the delegation to Cairo, should have 'been sent that charming old gentleman, Viscount

371
Stansgate. What his qualifications in the foreign field are I do not know. If he has any, I am certainly unaware of them. I should have thought him about as capable of coping with the wily Orientals in Cairo as a new-born babe. But there it is. The Government have already conceded that our troops, our airmen and our naval forces will be moved out of Egypt. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government imagine that Egypt is going to remain long untenanted. I do not. I think that just as soon as we move out, someone else—I will not mention any names now—will very rapidly take steps to move in. First, there will be the usual infiltration, propaganda and so forth, and then something more sinister will follow.
Those of your Lordships who may have wintered in Cairo, in halcyon days before the war, must surely have been a little startled at the idea that the Egyptians were capable of defending their own country or the Canal area, and have found it perhaps a trifle diverting. I must say that, after two years' residence in Egypt during the recent unpleasantness, I found it indescribably funny. I do not think for one moment that an Army like the Egyptian Army, ten years behind the times in modern equipment, training and technique, hopelessly under strength, would be capable for one week, for one day even, of holding the all-important Canal zone against any foreign invader, and I think it is criminal that the Government should have taken this decision to give away this vital part of the Commonwealth communications without prior consultation with the country. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that the mandate given to them at the General Election entitled them to do anything of this sort. It is enough to make people like the late Lord Lloyd turn in their graves to hear that we are handing over the defence of Egypt and the Canal area to the Egyptians.
I have been reading lately, and there has been quite a bit of talk (I have heard some of it in this House this afternoon) about resentment felt in Cairo, Alexandria and Egypt generally at the presence of our troops. Resentment—I like that! If it were not that I have got friends buried in Egypt, very dear friends (I dare say some of your Lordships have
372
also) I should find it very funny. As it is, I do not find it so funny to say that they resent the presence of our troops. Four years ago this summer they were damned glad, I may say, to have British troops there. Damned glad. They were not in the least annoyed at the sight of the Union Jack or of our tanks or aeroplanes or anything else, and I for one do not propose to be mealy-mouthed about that kind of thing. And I will add this. They were our Allies—and I say this speaking as one who had some inside knowledge of these matters—because we were there and saw that they were. It is only ten days since the present King of Egypt went down to receive the discredited ex-King of Italy—the puppet of Mussolini—with every conceivable honour. So I am afraid I am a little slow to accept this talk about conversations with equals and allies, and Egyptian independence and so forth.
The United Nations Organization has not yet quite become a reality, and much blood and treasure—British blood and treasure—have been expended over a great many years on the defence of this vital area. I am quite prepared to concede that the Canal itself as a waterway is not of the great strategic importance that the Canal zone as a whole is and that as a waterway it could quickly be put out of action. Although I know nothing about these things myself and am no strategist, I am assured on high authority that this area is vital to defence of the East. There you have the whole thing.
If you are going to depend on the principle of long-distance rescue, well, the Poles and the Czechs will tell you something of their experience of so-called long-distance rescue. Sometimes it does not come off—the other man gets there first. We have not got Cyrenaica yet. I am told that we have only one airborne division, and that it may well be that it may not be able to be moved, because it may be necessary to keep it at Tel-a-Viv. It does not require much imagination therefore to visualize what would happen in a short time in Egypt. I think, as I have said before, that this is an Imperial sell-out of the worst possible kind. This Government have now been in office a year, and so far in the foreign field I think it is fair to say that they have done extremely well—the Foreign Secretary in particular. It is therefore all the more extraordinary, all

373
the more shameful, that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, should have gone out on this Delegation, acting presumably under orders, and given away at the very start of these negotiations everything which we ought to be keeping, preserving and defending.
4.41 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, you will probably recollect that in the early days of the war every time we suffered "some sea change" our critics always said "Too little and too late." I think this is a case of too late and too far. We have started too late and gone too far. I am sorry to see this issue become a Party one. To my mind it should not be a Party issue, but there is no escaping that because negotiations have been conducted between one Party in one country and one Party in another. In Egypt, I will agree, Sidky Pasha did his best to unite the other Parties with him at his end of the agreement. But as the other parties in this country were not consulted first they have no choice but to give their opinions afterwards.
As far as the negotiations have gone, they fall into three phases. First there is the declaration of our withdrawal; secondly, and consequential on the first, the mechanics of that withdrawal; and, thirdly, negotiation for some form of future military alliance with Egypt. I saw Sidky Pasha quoted in this morning's papers as saying that the first phase had been settled, and the second was being settled; the third he described as "not being easy." It is indeed not easy. Apart from the unwisdom of a, form of negotiation where you lay your cards face upwards on the table there is the question of timing. Was it really a wise decision to make this announcement at this moment, such a very short time after the Palestine Report had stirred up the Arab League? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, when he said that the present fever heat of feeling in Egypt was to a great extent our fault. The 1936 Treaty made it very clear that our troops were not an army of occupation, but the emergencies of war made it necessary to fill both Cairo and Alexandria with large bodies of troops for a long time. Had the British Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, suggested, made the gesture on or about VJ-Day of offering to withdraw these troops—it would of course
374
have taken a very long time but that could have been completed—then I believe this trouble might never have arisen. But we have to deal with things as they are, and not as they might have been.
There are many noble Lords in this House far more qualified to talk about strategy than myself, but if your Lordships will bear with me I will give you a few conclusions which I have come to, and with which I do not think many people will disagree. In the popular controversy in the Press two catch phrases have grown up. The first is that "the Canal zone no longer matters" and the second is that "it is as easy, if not easier, to defend, the Canal from distant points outside Egypt as it is from the Canal zone itself." What form, of attack could be anticipated on the Canal? There is the attack which is aimed at denying the use of the Canal, and the road and railway which run beside it, to the troops of the British Empire. That attack would come by an air force dropping bombs and mines, dropping paratroopers and by sabotage. But the second, and much more important form of attack, is that in which an aggressor nation endeavours to seize the Canal and the isthmus and to use it: as a base for its own operations—use it, in fact, as a lever with which to destroy the fabric of the whole Empire. Such an attack, to my mind, would be launched by airborne troops in great numbers. But in neither of the two forms of attack that I have mentioned can you dispense with ground troops. In no circumstances can air forces alone guarantee completely to prevent the landing of airborne troops and paratroops.
I think that a lot of confusion arises—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said this—about the Canal itself, as opposed to the Canal zone as a whole. There is no substitute in the Middle East, as a base, for that isthmus, quite apart from the Canal, the road and the railway. At the north there is Port Said; at the south there is Suez. Those ports open on to two seas, which in turn give access to two different oceans. Supposing we could defend it from the outside, where could we firmly set our feet upon the ground and form a base? I see nothing but a collection of very precarious hand holds, any of which might

375
break in one's hand. Take, for instance, Transjordan. That would be subject to many contingencies. In Palestine we are limited, by our mandate, to the minimum of troops necessary to security. Cyprus is small and inadequate, and contingent on a strong Palestine. The fate of Cyrenaica is still in doubt, and I think perhaps even the fate of the Condominium in the Sudan may suffer some damage in the present negotiations. We have offered to take all our troops from Egyptian soil. We are negotiating a military alliance with Egypt by which, as soon as may be when danger threatens, we can go to Egypt's assistance. If we do that we violate the great principle of war laid down on many occasions by the noble and gallant Viscount Montgomery; we react to our enemy. We entirely surrender the initiative.
I need hardly remind noble Lords that in these days nations do not declare war. They strike first, and strike hard. In future wars I think it may be that the first blow to be struck will be the last. When agreement is made between two partners, on the basis that one should bring its armed forces into a piece of territory when danger of war is imminent, which of those two is to decide when war is imminent? They might disagree. And delay would be fatal. You cannot move large bodies of troops backwards and forwards overnight in these days. I do not suppose any of us will forget those heated and fevered days at the end of August, 1939, when Hitler had massed his troops on the Polish border, to the accompaniment of a deafening discord of propaganda about the alleged aggressive intentions of the Poles towards the Reich. The Polish Government, thus pressed, ordered general mobilization. Hitler cried to heaven that this was an act of aggression, and launched an invasion. That same scene might take place on the sands of Suez. The stage may be well set for it.
We are thrown back first on a hope and then on a last straw. The hope is that the Egyptians—for in spite of the rioting, and in spite of the very understandable national sentiment both the Government and the people are at this moment not ill-disposed towards us—may perhaps see that it is not impossible that this Empire, with its long and bitter experience of war, may perhaps be right in the suggestions which it makes. They
376
may perhaps allow a compromise which will work. But with the number of avenues already closed it is very hard to see one compromise that would work. I have given your Lordships two alternatives. One is to prevent our enemies denying us the use of the Canal zone, and the second is to endeavour to prevent them capturing the Canal zone and using it as a lever against the Empire.
There is a third possibility. It is to pre-suppose the unhappy event of our enemies succeeding in seizing the Canal zone and preparing to build up a base. If they once destroyed the great junction joint of the framework of the Commonwealth, then from outside Egypt it would be our task, by the use of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, so to hamper them in the use of that base that they could only turn it to partial advantage to themselves. That, as things still stand, is a plan that we can make now, and is a plan which is not contingent on anyone else's agreement. I think it is extremely important and vital in negotiations such as these that at all costs strategy and emotion should be divorced from each other. Modern warfare is a very hard task-mistress. Her demands are hard and exact. They must be met by plans that are equally clear and equally exact, and emotion must never be allowed to enter into those plans if they are to succeed.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I think I voice the opinion of the great majority in your Lordships' House, when I say that I fervently hope that this is not the first step in a rearguard action to be fought throughout the territories of the British Commonwealth, by which we sacrifice parts of these territories piece by piece through an insufficient understanding of the greatness of the whole. If the Commonwealth ever loses even one war we shall have no chivalrous or lenient victors. It will be the end for ever of the greatest association of free men for the good of the world that history will ever record.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I think that the House will agree with me that we have listened to a most interesting and eloquent speech from the noble Lord who has just sat down, reminiscent of the speeches which we heard from his noble father in the old days. And we have heard very interesting speeches throughout

377
this debate. The noble Lord who opened the debate was most eloquent, most forceful, and, in my judgment, said nearly everything there was to be said about this subject. But I should like just to delay the House for a few more 'minutes, because while the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, in his opening speech read to us Article 7 of the Treaty of 1936, there is, at least, one other clause that I should like to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House. To begin with Clause 1 of this treaty says:
"The military occupation of Egypt by the forces of His Majesty The King and Emperor is terminated."
That was in 1936. In 1937, by Article 7 which has already been quoted by the noble Lord, we were in a position in this country to send troops with the consent of His Majesty the King of Egypt in the event of war, or the imminent menace of war, and together with Egypt secure the defence of Egypt. This was duly done, with the remarkable results that we already know.
Article 8 says:
"In view of the fact that the Suez Canal, whilst being an integral part of Egypt is a universal means of communication as also an essential means of communication between the different parts of the British Empire His Majesty the King of Egypt, until such time as the High Contracting Parties agree that the Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources…"
And I ask your Lordships to mark these words—
"to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal, authorizes His Majesty the King and Emperor to station forces in Egyptian territory in the vicinity of the Canal."
Leaving out a few lines, it then goes on to say:
"It is understood that at the end of the period of twenty years specified in Article 16, the question whether the presence of British Forces is no longer necessary owing to the fact that the Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal may, if the High Contracting Parties do not agree thereon, be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for decision."
Now what actually happened? In 1936 the intention was to withdraw these forces. In 1939 war broke out and these forces were retained until VE-Day, VJ-Day and until the present time. Further on in Article 16 it says:" At any time after the expiration of a period of twenty years from the coming into force of the treaty, the High Contracting Parties will, at the
378
request of either of them, enter into negotiations "with a view to repealing this Agreement or making some other arrangement under the Council of the League.
This is the important passage:
"Nevertheless, with the consent of both High Contracting Parties, negotiations may be entered into at any time after the expiration of a period of ten years after the coming into force of the treaty, with a view to such revision as aforesaid."
That, no doubt, is the passage of the Article under which His Majesty's Government have been acting recently, but what I wish to submit is this. I speak as one who does know Egypt. I passed through the Suez Canal first, I hardly like to say, forty-eight years ago. I have been through Egypt often since. I was in Cairo only last September and October. I am perfectly well aware, and I think everyone in this House who knows Egypt will agree, that the Egyptians have resented tremendously the fact that our troops have occupied the Citadel in Cairo.
I remember in 1929, when the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was High Commissioner, standing one day opposite the Menai Bridge, and seeing our troops coming across that bridge, and the Khedive going to Ramadan, with a small escort of twenty or thirty horsemen, going to his Mosque, and my observing the malignant gleam and look of almost hatred in the eyes of Egyptians standing nearby at the idea hat our troops should be there when their Khedive was going off to his Mosque. I understand it. Only last September flying from South Africa we were on the way from Khartoum to Cairo. There was a young Egyptian aboard the aircraft. I discussed this question with him. I had a very frank discussion. He said to me: "How would you like foreign troops to be settled in your country?" I replied: "I agree: I should not like it at all." But then I said, "What about the Canal zone?" "Oh," he said, "that is a different thing." Of course the Canal zone is a different thing. It is recognized under this Treaty that it is an entirely different thing. This Treaty points out that it is a vital spot of Egypt which has to be protected. It do's not leave you to imagine it; the words I have read out show definitely that when this Treaty was being entered into that was the point which was most considered and most thought about at the time.

379
I want to support what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said in the course of his remarks. He asked why the Government did not, directly VJ-Day had arrived, remove the troops from the Citadel. Those, I think, were, his actual words, but I do not believe he meant they should remove them at that moment. The first thing they ought to have done at that time, with the knowledge they ought to have possessed and the advice they received, was to declare their intention to implement this Treaty when they had the opportunity, and say, "We intend to withdraw all our Forces from the Citadel and ultimately from Egypt, except from the Canal zone, which stands in a special position under this Treaty." What happened? No such intimation was made, and the noble Viscount, the Minister for Air, Lord Stansgate, went to Egypt, heading a Mission to negotiate a new treaty with that country. In the position in which that Mission was placed, you would have thought they would have begun to negotiate and talk about things, to get a basis, a starting-off point. That is what Eastern people like, judging from my experience of them. They hate anything to be finished right off without discussion. They like to go on discussing things for ages. Instead of that, we are suddenly confronted by a statement from the Prime Minister in another place to the effect that not only have we agreed with the Egyptian Government to withdraw our Forces from those places from which, under the Treaty, we had to withdraw them, but also to withdraw them from this vital Canal zone which is so necessary to us for the defence of the Canal and the initial defence of Egypt. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, when he says he places that mistake squarely and roundly on the shoulders of the Government.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I said "fairly and squarely."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Roundly and soundly.
LORD PAKENHAM: A square peg in a round hole.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is what I think the Government is in this case. I believe there has been a great mistake. Now the Prime Minister, in another place, when he made that statement, indicated
380
that the Dominion Premiers had been consulted. He was cross-questioned on that matter. He was almost rude to the Leader of the Opposition when the latter suggested that consultation had not taken place. He turned round and said, "How do you know? You were not there." I heard it; I was listening to the debate. What happened? The next day the Prime Minister—and I give him credit for it, because it is a very difficult thing for a Prime Minister to go back on what he has already said—made a further statement in which he said, to all intents and purposes, that the Prime Ministers of the Dominions had not been consulted; they had been informed. My noble friend the Earl of Perth today, I think very rightly, pointed out to the Government here represented that to be informed is a very different thing from being consulted. I believe in a case of this kind it is most important that the Dominion Premiers should be consulted, and the Indian Government too, because in this very treaty it says, as I read out and I read it again:
"In view of the fact that the Suez Canal, whilst being an integral part of Egypt, is…also an essential means of communication between the different parts of the British Empire, His Majesty the King of Egypt…"
It is admitted there that this affects the whole of the British Empire, and yet the Prime Minister and the Government proceed to enter into arrangements with the Egyptian Government to deprive themselves of their negotiating instrument and, at the same time, if this happens, to lay open the whole of Egypt to possible offence without means of security. They do this without giving any indication whatsoever as to what the alternative plans for defence are going to be. It has been argued in this House this afternoon, and I think well argued, that there is no real alternative defence of the Canal zone. The only defence is on the Canal itself. I am not a strategist, but you may have your naval bases away at Haifa, Cyrenaica, Cyprus, or even as far off as Malta, protecting the Mediterranean. But Aden is miles away, at the end of the Red Sea. They are all much farther off than Alexandria, which is to be dismantled—and I agree that under the Treaty that would have to happen. I feel, however, that the Government have made a most heinous mistake. This Government is like a young man in a hurry. They want to go on and do everything at once, both at

381
home and abroad. They have made this mistake in Egypt, they have made a vast mistake in Malaya, and they will go on making these mistakes. If they would just pause a little and think!At home everything is rushed at us. The Ministers in this Cabinet have no time to think—none at all. All the members of the Cabinet are not even here. Three—all principal Secretaries of State—have been sent to India, to Egypt, and to America, and so on. Having regard to all there is on the Government's political plate to-day, I do not understand how they can possibly do their work properly—in fact, I do not think they do. Indeed, I know they do not, because they do not give time for discussion of all these big measures that are before the country to-day. I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend, Lord Altrincham, in the attack he has made on the Government and on the Government's policy in this matter, while at the same time hoping, with dread in my heart, that they may be able to find some solution of this terribly difficult and very important question.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I intervene for a very few moments because I want to put one or two specific questions to the Lord Chancellor, who is going to reply. Before I do that., I should like to emphasize as strongly as I can the one matter on which I think there is complete agreement, and that is that in the mind of no one in any quarter of the House is there any question that in these negotiations both Egypt and ourselves are negotiating as sovereign States. There is no possible question about that, and it is only obscuring the truth to suggest that there is. But that does not in the least mean, as was so well said by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, that we may not have—and certainly in this instance do have—a common and identical interest. Nor is there anything in the least derogatory of the position of a sovereign State (indeed it is a wise exercise of the whole attributes and functions of sovereignty) to make agreements which will result in lasting peace and security for both sovereign Powers. There is nothing new—one might say it is almost an Order of the Day at the present time—in this. Instances have been quoted and I could quote many more.
382
The whole of the peace of the Pacific is to be safeguarded by regional pacts freely entered into by sovereign States for the sole purpose of preserving the peace in that area. In the same way, Canada and the United States have, I understand, only recently been negotiating for the common defence of areas upon the Pacific seaboard; they will plan a common defence, they will have exercises in common and the whole of the defence formations and defence arrangements will be laid down and fully agreed beforehand. So there is nothing at all in such arrangements which derogate in any way from the sovereignty of both countries; indeed, it is an essential element of planning.
I think the most serious charge (I speak of course with only that limited knowledge which one can have if one is not in office and a party to the negotiations) is the failure to see ahead in this matter. I do not refer only to the lost opportunity of evacuating the Citadel and the other places as soon as we could, although I think that was a grave error. I refer in particular to the failure to plan what we were going to propose and what we needed for common defence long before the negotiations started. I am terribly exercised over the failure to bring the Dominions into consultation. I can well understand that if you are suddenly faced with a difficult diplomatic situation at 12 o'clock at night or at 9 o'clock in the morning it is very difficult to arrange full consultation. But whose fault was it? I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong in this, or if I am misrepresenting the true situation.
I am not so much critcizing the difficulties that arose and the action that was taken during the few hours after the arrival of telegrams from the delegation in Cairo, when, I suppose, the Cabinet was constantly sitting and Dominion Ministers were called in. As I see it, that was not where the mischief took place the mischief took place several months before when we knew we were going to enter into these negotiations with Egypt. It was during those months that consultation should have taken place between His Majesty's Government here and His Majesty's Governments in all parts of the Empire; we should not have waited until some Ministers came here on the eve of the negotiations. It was quite essential that these plans should

383
have been hammered out with the Dominions while the Dominion Prime Ministers were still with their Cabinets. I appreciate the difficulty that is always encountered at Imperial conferences, where a Dominion Minister—it may be a Prime Minister or a very senior Minister—sitting in conference wants to refer back to his Government.
The more critical a decision is, the more important it is that the Minister should be able to consult with his Cabinet. If the opportunity had been taken during all the months when it was known we were going to enter into these negotiations there could have been the fullest consultations with the Dominions, with each of the Dominion Governments considering these plans and consulting with its own General Staff. It seems to me that that is where we went wrong and where we failed to ensure consultation which was so necessary on a matter of vital interest to all of us—a matter in which vital interests and sentiments were equally involved. This territory has been saved twice in battle by the liberating and defending forces of the Commonwealth. The graves of Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans and Englishmen lie side by side the whole way from Alamein to Tunis. If ever there was a case where common consultation, and lengthy consultation, was needed, it was this case. I ask whether I am in any way misrepresenting the position.
Then I want to know what is happening now with regard to consultation. The negotiations are still going on; the General Staffs and the Governments are hammering out together the way in which the defence of this vital strategic area is to be secured. Any proposals we put up must be Commonwealth proposals and we ought all to be agreed upon them. I ask the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, most specifically whether, having missed the opportunity during the vital months before the negotiations were entered upon, the approach of His Majesty's Government in this country to-day is one of continuous consultation with the Dominions on every step which is being taken now in these negotiations and in the framing of the treaty which is to follow. It would be tragic, where Egypt's interests and our own are not merely closely interlinked but absolutely identical, if we were not able to arrive at a right and satisfactory agreement
384
These matters are not matters of sentiment; you cannot say "Here is a place and this place is sacrosanct." There is only one rule which you can apply, and that is to get the best scientific and military minds of the day to say what is the way to keep this place secure. That must be a common interest for all of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in the brief but most eloquent speech which he made to the House to-day, said that in a war of the future there would be no warning and that the first stroke with modern weapons might be the last. That is terribly true. There certainly would be no warning. When an aggressor strikes he is going to strike with all his might and with every foul aid of science. What he is going to calculate before he strikes is whether it is worth while, whether that initial blow will succeed. The answer to that question depends entirely on what the aggressor thinks he will be up against at the moment he strikes. It is not a question of moving troops forward to retrieve a situation after some Pearl Harbour disaster. The real way to prevent aggression is to ensure that he will be met immediately, in advance of the spot aimed at, by defenders working from bases fully prepared, and forewarned so that the attack can be met really before it has got home—I almost said, before it develops.
The power of scientific defence is enormously great to-day and everybody I think will agree—I am sure the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will agree—that in all great modern inventions like Radar and so on, much depends on having the whole apparatus of defence and counter-attack ready on the spot keyed up to the highest point of efficiency and ready to act at a moment's notice. That is the common defence, the common interest of Egypt as well as of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I would say with all the earnestness at my command that, in these negotiations as they go forward to-day, I pray that Egypt in her own interest may realize that the fate of Egypt and the whole future of the Arab League and the whole prosperity of these Arab countries lies in having that defence ready to act immediately.
5.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, we have had a most

385
interesting discussion and I shall reply as briefly as may be to the various points which have been raised. I would like at the outset if I may to say this. When we have debates of this sort I always wonder with a little anxiety whether anything which is said in the course of the debate will or will not make the task of the negotiators a little more difficult, and, in the main, I think that has been very well borne in mind with a great sense of responsibility by all your Lordships who have spoken. I would like to emphasize what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said in opening and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said in his closing speech—that is, that we regard Egypt as an equal ally with ties which bind her to this country, ties which bind us to her very closely, with a great civilization far older than ours and with no possible conflict of interest between our two countries. Absolutely equal we stand together in full and firm friendship. Our one interest in regard to Egypt is that Egypt should be strong and that her country should be inviolable. That should be said at the outset.
The second point I answer is this. I have heard this discussed by many very able people but I have never heard anybody doubt that the Canal and the Canal zone is an area of immense importance not only to Egypt but to the British Commonwealth. What change of weapons may come about I do not know and I do not prophesy. I have never yet heard anybody say that there has been any change in weapons or methods of warfare which has rendered the Canal or Canal zone unimportant and particularly to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Of course it is right, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi very rightly said, that everything we do must be dovetailed in with the United Nations Organization, but it is a case where there ought to be agreements between the Egyptians and the Arab countries on the one hand—they are all very vitally interested in this—and Great Britain and the Dominion countries on the other hand.
Now I wish to say something about the Dominions. Will your Lordships take it from me that it is absolutely untrue that at any stage in these discussions or negotiations we have failed to consult the Dominions. There has been for many weeks past a constant stream of information which, following the well-understood
386
practice, has gone to the Dominions so that they may, if they desire, make their observations thereon. That is a privilege and a right which the Dominions very often make use of. Further than that, in more recent times we have taken advantage of the fact that we have eminent Dominion statesmen over here to discuss these matters with them. Nothing has been done without the fullest consultation, and with regard to the conduct of these negotiations your Lordships may remain quite satisfied that nothing will be done without the fullest consultation in regard to matters which both for this country and the Empire as well as for Egypt are vital matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, as he said some months ago when we discussed this matter, that he wants some closer and I rather gathered more formal method of consultation, something perhaps which would logically lead to some kind of Federalized Commonwealth. I do not think that the peculiar genius of the British people lies along those lines at all. I believe that this Commonwealth which has grown up is the most wonderful thing that the world has ever seen. I believe that by it we have made a greater contribution to the art of government and civilization than any other country or Empire in its long history has ever made. I believe the various members of the Dominions will be jealous and anxious not to lose any of their own responsibility and rights just as we must keep our responsibility and rights, and that the thing must grow upon the lines of free and complete consultation, understanding each other's point of view and trying to do what we can to meet each other's difficulties, and on those lines, of many more informal consultations, I think we shall progress. I assure your Lordships—an:I I think this will satisfy the question the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me—that: those consultations have been carried on throughout this difficult matter and will be carried on in the future.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The Lord Chancellor indicates that I favour an Empire Federal Government. This is by no means what I suggested and I should be quite content with a speedy development on the lines the Lord Chancellor himself foresees.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to hear that. I suggested that

387
Federal Government was a logical development of the other conception, and I am sure that we shall not progress on those lines. I will deal with one other matter, if I may, and then I will come to the particular matter of Egypt. Let us look at this problem, not in isolation, but as part of a world problem, as a piece in the whole mosaic. If there is one matter upon which I were asked to give an opinion at the present time, the question as to the greatest benefit we could give is one which I could answer with very great readiness. I would say that the greatest benefit we can give is the removal or the withdrawal of foreign troops from the various countries of the world. I am excepting, of course, Japan and Germany, that is obvious. If we could, for instance, withdraw our troops from Austria, from the countries of the Middle East, and, in time, from Greece (I believe all members of this Government look forward to the day when the last British soldier can leave Greece) then we should make a definite contribution to the setting up of real peace, perhaps a more definite contribution than we could make in any other way. Let us remember that when we come to consider the line of action we ought to have pursued with regard to Egypt.
We have had much criticism—some of it round, some of it square, all of it very welcome. But what has especially interested me is how entirely different the speeches have been. I say quite frankly that I had expected that my noble friend Lord Altrincham would have made the spear point of his attack the announcement that we were prepared to agree to the principle of evacuation before we came to discuss the question of defence. But never once in his speech did he mention that. He left that to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and he it was who said that we had sacrificed the strategic lamb on the altar of politics. If I may say so to the noble Lord, I think it would be a little foolish to imagine that politics and strategy can be completely divorced from each other. I think, too, that it is foolish to imagine that it is immaterial whether we do or do not have the goodwill of the Egyptian people. But Lord Altrincham made no such point at all. The burden of his speech was something quite different, namely, that we ought to have come out of Cairo and Alexandria earlier. The noble
388
Viscount, Lord Elibank, said he agreed, but also said that he did not mean that. He meant we ought to have said we were going to come out of Cairo and Alexandria.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I be allowed to interrupt for a moment? What I contended was that the only possible way to do it was to intimate to the Government that we would come out. We could not come out by any particular date, I agree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Viscount upon that. It cannot be done in the twinkling of an eye. We have built up vast forces out there, and vast stores. We have vast properties with which to deal.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I say that the gravamen of my charge is that it was not even intimated that we were coming out. We waited till this moment to say so, and I contend that we ought to have said so at that time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But it had been intimated in the Treaty. We were under obligation to do it. Surely one would think that our Allies, the Egyptians, would trust us to that extent. I am not prepared to job backwards and to say, for one moment, that over a very long period of time, when there were other things to do in the way of foreign affairs, we have always made our pronouncements at precisely the right moment. I say no such thing. Perhaps it would have been better—if Lord Altrincham with his very great knowledge tells me that it would, I shall not dispute it—if we had stated plainly that we were going to come out instead of letting it be assumed from our obligations. If Lord Altrincham says that, perhaps he is right, and I am not prepared to say that he is wrong. But surely if that is so, it does not call for criticisms on the ground of "purblind fumbling" and "incompetence."
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am sure the noble and learned Lord does not intend it, but he is not really dealing with the question. One issue is keeping your troops where they have no right in peacetime, and as to that I said we should have taken action immediately after the end of the war with Japan. The other point is renouncing without negotiation the keeping of troops where you have a perfect right to keep them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will—as I know he will—do me the courtesy of listening to the answer, he will realize that I am dealing with his point as to evacuation from Cairo and Alexandria, an evacuation to which we were committed by the Treaty of 1936. Nothing put an end to our obligation under the 1936 Treaty.
The point is, ought the British Government to have made the express announcement that we were going to implement the Treaty or was it sufficient to let that be assumed? I am giving the noble Lord his point. If he tells me that it would have been better that we had said so plainly instead of leaving it to be assumed, I am not concerned to dispute his point. The Japanese war came to an end, I think, about August 14, and we announced that we would negotiate this Treaty in, I think, January. There was an interval of time—perhaps too long—but as I say, there were other things to consider.
Then there is the other point—the point about the evacuation from the Canal zone to which we were not committed. That is a point which the noble Lord never touched on in his speech, and that is why his speech to me was so remarkable. That point stands out a mile. He did not take it, but the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, did. But before I deal with that point, I want to say just one other thing about Lord Altrincham's speech. I was a little surprised that he referred to our arrangements in the Middle East as though we now had no office to deal with the Middle East and the Arab countries as a whole. Of course, he knows that that is not so. We have got such an office. But listening to his speech I cannot help thinking that many noble Lords would not realize it.
So far as London is concerned, we have arrangements for co-ordination of policies between the Departments and at the Ministerial level relating to the whole of the Middle East, and in Cairo we have established the British Middle East Office, which provides a channel through which our assistance can, if necessary, be made available to all the various Governments in the Middle East. Not that we desire to exercise any sort of control over these various sovereign States. Of course we do not. Nor do we wish to monopolize any branch of economic activity. We do not.
390
But we do want to supply the means of providing information and technical assistance of the very best nature which will be available for all Arab countries, and we sincerely hope that the members of the Arab League will be willing to avail themselves of those service in order that we may do what we particularly want to do, and that is to raise the standard of living, not only of a small group of merchant princes, or something of that sort, but of the common people—the fellaheen, the tillers of the soil. Tint is our ambition.
And now to come to the question were we or were we not right to make this announcement about accepting the principle of evacuation. The treaty of 1935 has been referred to several times. That Treaty also contains Article 16, which provides that the right of occupation of the Canal zone should go on for twenty years, and that thereafter if there was controversy at the end of twenty years the matter should be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations—which I suppose will now he the Security Council. The issue to be submitted was whether or not the Egyptians were able to look after their own area in the Canal zone. We could, of course, have said that we would do nothing for twenty years. We could have said, "We will hold on," and then at the end of ten more-years, having incurred probably the bitter hostility of the Egyptians, have been dragged before the Security Council Then what would our position have been" The ten-year period ends this year. Ten years is the period contemplated in the Treaty when, so long as there is mutual consent, the parties shall consider and revise that Treaty. Were we wrong to accept, as we did, after full consultation, the revision of the Treaty at the: end of ten years?
LORD MORRIS: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who made a somewhat remarkable contribution to our debate, thinks that we were. Nobody else thinks we were wrong.
LORD MORRIS: As I have been referred to by name, might I explain that what I meant by my interjection was simply this. You have in fact incurred!the hostility to which you yourself just referred, and therefore you have gained: nothing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As far as the rest of your Lordships are concerned I do not think I found one discordant or dissident voice. When the Egyptians said "Are you willing to consider this Treaty with a view to its revision now?" I think that the vast majority would say we had the right to say that we would. Let me assume that. We then go on and appoint a delegation. The Secretary of State for Air goes out. The noble Lord referred to him as a political baby or else as a dotard. I am not sure which. He was accompanied by the Ambassador, by Sir Kinahan Cornwallis, who unfortunately became ill. The Secretary of State for Air was also accompanied by the Commanders-in-Chief in the Mediterranean of the Army, Navy and Air Force. They were the men on the spot, and when they arrived and started their negotiations they represented to us that in the prevailing atmosphere the only course we could take, if we wanted a satisfactory arrangement, was to announce in advance that we accepted the principle of evacuation. Those were the men on the spot. Would you have trusted them or not?
I do not pretend to have great knowledge of these matters. When I received the telegrams which we did receive from those people I thought that we had no option but to follow the old adage and "trust the men on the spot." Consider the alternatives. We could of course have insisted on holding on there for ten years. We should have been within our Treaty rights. But we should have sacrificed the goodwill of the Egyptians. I maintain by doing as we have done we have given ourselves the prospect of achieving something which is a condition precedent to a successful defence of the Canal Zone, namely, the goodwill of the people who live there and the plain understanding that their interests and our interests are one and indissoluble. Therefore, my Lords, we accepted the advice given to us.
Having accepted the principle we are now to discuss ways and means. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, put it quite rightly. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, stated that with the vast stores which we have it cannot be done in the twinkling of an eye. Then, having done that, we must discuss the defence of the Canal zone. I am no strategist but I am, very anxious never to be a party to any arrangement such as we had in Poland
392
at the outbreak of the last war, where we were committed to defend a country and had absolutely no base from which we could do it. Therefore it is a matter of first moment to Egypt and to this country—for as I have said, we have no divergent interests—that the Canal zone should be properly defended. Everything that we can do to make certain that the necessary installations and equipment are there, and that the Egyptian Army is trained in the use of that equipment so that at a moment's notice they can play their part, will be done. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, read Article 7 which, as he rightly says, is one of the Articles which will remain. If, again, the danger of war comes, under the Treaty we shall act promptly to render aid to Egypt, who will be prepared by these means to defend her own territory from assault.
I conclude with this consideration. I am one of those who very much hope that foreign policy will not be thrown into the cockpit of Party politics. The issues to-day for this country are so grave, so complicated, so vital to our prestige and to our position, that we want the best men of all Parties to support us. Although that is true, I do not think it is possible to assert that in all cases and at all times you must only pursue a policy if it is agreeable not only to the Government but to the Opposition. That is impossible. There must be full discretion and latitude to the Government in taking the Leaders of the Opposition into their confidence. In some cases that may be done very readily and very fully, but nevertheless in other cases exigencies of time may make it impossible. The broad principle is that in foreign policy, as in other matters, His Majesty's Government must be prepared to govern, although I always hope that in foreign policy we shall all pull together and not let Party divisions disunite us. I have emphasized the position between ourselves and Egypt. I have emphasized the importance of the Canal zone, and have emphasized how closely we are concerned in seeing that the Canal zone remains fortified. I look forward, as a result of the steps we have taken, to long and happy co-operation with the Egyptian people.
5.48 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his considered reply.

393
I am sure that he did his best to meet the points made from this Bench and behind us, although I cannot take his reply as altogether satisfactory, for one or two reasons which I will give quite briefly. I know that he was anxious to deal with the real points, and not merely to make a debating speech. The question of the Dominions is a very delicate matter, and I will not deal with it at any length. I do not want to enter into controversy, but I want to make our position clear. In this case, and in all matters of vital importance to Imperial defence; or to international policy, which affect the security of the Empire, we maintain that the ordinary process of what is called consultation and information is not adequate. If we cannot have what worked extremely well until it was put out of court by the League of Nations—that is an Empire Delegation representing at any rate the Dominions, which are closely interested, we ought, at any rate, to go into such negotiation with a common plan, with the principles of the policy we are going to attempt to carry out agreed in advance. These are points in respect of which I am sure the Lord Chancellor will realise that what he says is not a complete answer.
With regard to the Middle East Office, I will not enter into a controversy except to say that no office in Whitehall (and I know very well what is being set up in Whitehall and I have the greatest respect and admiration for what is being done) can carry out the work of a co-ordinating office in a regional area of this kind. That is a point in respect of which I am in considerable disagreement with the policy of the Government. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thinks that the office in Cairo is anything but a wraith of itself his information is misleading.
He took me to task—I apologize if I seem to take his arguments a little unduly to heart—for ignoring the issue which was raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye—the fact that the Prime Minister had made this Declaration, and that it was absolutely inevitable and inescapable in the circumstances. The whole point of my argument was this. The reason why we were driven to make this Declaration about definite treaty rights was that we had not in time shown that we were not trying to insist on more than our treaty rights. The difference between our rights in the Canal zone and our
394
rights in peacetime anywhere else is very profound, and the reason our right in the Canal zone was called in question was because suspicion of our motives was produced, anger was produced, deep feeling was produced, by the fact that the occupation of Cairo and Alexandria was unduly prolonged. That is the point which I sought to make and I maintain it was fully dealt with, as I think the noble and learned Lord will find, if he looks at my speech in HANSARD to-morrow.
Finally, one word only on this question of a united national front on questions of this sort. Of course, Governments must take absolute responsibility for their actions, and for the conduct of policy day to day, week to week and month to month. But this has to be remembered. With regard to any binding international engagement over a period of years, you are not binding only one Government, you are binding its successor. You are using the honour of the nation as a whole. I have heard noble Lords opposite complain of that being done unfairly in the past, and it is very important, I think, that, when you are going in for binding international agreements, there should be consultation between the Parties in advance, so that really when the honour of the nation is at stake it is the whole nation that is involved. That is the only point I want to make. With that, and with renewed thanks to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the answer he gave, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SHOREHAM AND LANCING BEACHES, ETC.) BELL. [H.L.]
Committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to

395
the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, namely:

E. Wilton,

V. Mersey (Chairman),

L. Audley,

L. Ampthill,

L. Kenilworth.

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

CALEDONIAN INSURANCE COM PANY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

UNION OF SHERIFFDOMS ORDER, 1946.
Order dated May 1, 1946, made by the Secretary of State under Section 31 (2) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.