Sitting of 8 October 1946

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 2nd August, 1946, for the Summer Recess—met at Half past Two O'Clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a new Writ for the Burgh of Glasgow (Bridgeton Division), in the room of James Maxton, esquire, deceased.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ARDROSSAN GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Westasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of disabled persons registered in the Pontypool Exchange under the Disabled Persons Employment Act; and whether he proposes to establish a disabled persons sheltered employment factory in the area.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 19th August, 1946, there were 984 persons registered as disabled at the Pontypool Exchange; of this number 116 were unemployed, including 38 who are considered to require employment under sheltered conditions. The current building programme of the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation does not provide for the opening of a factory at Pontypool, but facilities for sheltered employment will be provided there as soon as the prior claims of areas with greater need have been met.
    Mr. West: Can the Minister say the minimum number of disabled persons necessary to provide a British factory?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is impossible to give a figure like that because it depends upon the nature and the extent of their disability. However, I can say that Pontypool is in the list for consideration in the near future.

    Statistics
    Mr. David Grenfellasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in employment, giving separate numbers of men and women, and the numbers of men and women registered as unemployed in August, 1939, and August, 1946, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    It is estimated that the total numbers of persons of insurable age in employment in Great Britain, excluding members of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services and persons in indoor private domestic service, were 13,163,000 males aged 14–64 and 4,837,000 females aged 14–59 at mid-1939 and 11,800,000 males and 5,358,000 females at the end of July, 1946. The numbers of insured persons registered as unemployed were 899,000 males and 236,000 females in August, 1939, and 271,000 males and 93,000 females in August, 1946.

    Building Workers
    Mr. Grenfellasked the Minister of Labour the number of occupied houses in Wales for August, 1939, and August, 1946, respectively; and the number of building workers in employment in the corresponding periods.
    Mr. Isaacs: The first part of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The number of insured men, aged 14 to 64, employed in the building industry in Wales in August, 1939, was approximately 35,000, and it is provisionally estimated that the corresponding figure in July, 1946, was about 28,000.

    National Enterprises (Ex-Servicemen)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been given to the Coal Board, B.O.A.C.and B.E.A., urging them to give any form of preference to ex-Servicemen in employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: None, Sir.
    Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that squares with his often expressed sympathy for ex-Service men in employment in industry in general?
    Mr. Isaacs; It squares entirely with the policy originally established by the Coalition Government, and supported by this Government, that there should not be special preference in employment for ex-Service men, but that they should take advantage of the resettlement facilities offered to them under the Acts of Parliament.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to press his colleagues in charge of the various nationalised enterprises to give a fair proportion of employment to ex-Service men? Is he just going to leave them either to sink or to swim?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is not the interpretation which should be placed upon my statement.

    Vocational Training
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Labour in how many trades are employers being used in connection with ex-Service men's vocational training.
    Mr. Isaacs: There are 97 trades in which employers are giving training to ex-Service men under the Government's vocational training scheme. In many of these the numbers are very small. The overall number receiving such training is nearly 6,000 including those who have had a preliminary course in a Government training centre.

    Resettlement Committees (Interviews)
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Minister of Labour to what extent his Department has issued directives to local and regional resettlement committees not to give personal interviews to ex-Service-men seeking grants and help towards resettlement in civilian life.
    Mr. Isaacs: No instructions have been issued to the Resettlement Grants Boards to refuse a personal interview to any ex-Service applicant asking for one.

    Builders (Emigration)
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of builders from the United Kingdom are being encouraged to emigrate to Australia; what numbers are involved; and whether due consideration has been given to the building requirements of this country.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Over the next six months free passage to Australia is to be given to 600 ex-Servicemen with experience in building or civil engineering. The advantages of this arrangement in assisting migration within the British Commonwealth, considerably outweigh the comparatively small loss to the building industry of this country.
    Mr. Byers: In view of that decision, will the Minister take up with his colleagues in the Cabinet the question of relaxing our own barbarous immigration restrictions, to allow foreign building operatives to come here to help us?
    Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member will put down a Question on that point, I will look at it.

    Machine Toolmakers
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharpasked the Minister of Labour what action is being taken to increase the supply of machine toolmakers, particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    Mr. Isaacs: The remedy in the long run is improved apprenticeship arrangements, and this is under discussion with the engineering industry. An immediate, but temporary, alleviation is to use the services of men who have had appropriate experience in the Forces, and an agreement to do so has been reached.

    Ex-Service Officers and Other Ranks
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed ex-Service officers registered at the offices of the Appointments Board.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 16th September, 1946, there were 9,910 ex-officers, men and women, from the three Services and the Merchant Navy registered as unemployed at the offices of the Appointments Department.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the urgency of this matter, and because the figures are not decreasing, will the Minister appoint a commission to look into this, and alleviate the circumstances in which these men now find themselves?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think it is right that the opposite figures should be looked at. During the six months ended 16th September, 3,850 ex-officers were found
    6
    employment through this Department. Undoubtedly it is due to the success of finding men jobs that we are having such a large number of men registering for employment.
    Mr. Murray: Is there no one else who can do these jobs besides officers?
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is so successful, in view of the figures he read out, when one in three have found a job and three in one have not?
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer is that nearly 4,000 have been found jobs.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many other ranks ex-Servicemen were registered at the Appointments Board as unemployed, at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 16th September, 1946, there were 2,978 other ranks ex-Service-men and women registered as unemployed at the offices of the Appointments Department.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Again, will the Minister appoint a commission to go into this matter?
    Mr. Isaacs: Again, I would point out that 1,776 have been found jobs. While the work is not succeeding to the extent we should all wish, it is proving a great boon to these men, not able to find work otherwise.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister appoint a commission?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

    Polish Armed Forces
    Mr. Goochasked the Minister of Labour the quotas of Polish soldiers, now being settled in this country, which the various industries are prepared to take.
    Mr. Isaacs: No quotas of the kind indicated by the hon. Member have been determined or are proposed.

    Housing (Airfields Labour Force)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Labour if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Air, with a view to tapping for the Government's housing drive, the labour force engaged in the maintenance of both permanent and redundant airfields; and what number of men

    7
    at present so employed he estimates that he will be able to turn to housing purposes.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): I have been asked to reply. The labour force engaged on the maintenance of airfields is kept continually under review by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Air and myself. Approximately 10,000 men have already been released from this work since August, 1945, and if any further reductions become possible they will be made without delay, having regard to the necessity for the efficient maintenance of the permanent airfields.

  MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE, NEWCASTLE
  Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Labour in what circumstances, and on what grounds, he declined to open a Press conference in Newcastle on 30th July, until Press reporters had first produced trade union membership cards.
  Mr. Isaacs: It is not true that I declined to open the conference in question until Press reporters had produced trade union membership cards.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Was it with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman that his Public Relations Officer wrote to the Press to explain that the Minister was trying to be funny?
  Mr. Isaacs: As there is a Question upon that point addressed to the Prime Minister, I would suggest that the matter be deferred until then.

  NATIONAL SERVICE HOSTELS, COVENTRY
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into allegations made by residents in Coventry National Service hostels that, owing to inefficient management, overhead administrative charges at these hostels are unduly high, and that if such maladministration were corrected it would be unnecessary to raise hostel charges.
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. This allegation was made in general terms, and without any supporting evidence. I have every confidence in the measures taken by the
  8
  National Service Hostels Corporation to secure the efficiency and economy of their service.
  Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when complaints of this kind are made, they are dealt with by his Ministry, and not referred to the National Service Hostels Corporation, who thus become judges in their own case?
  Mr. Isaacs: The National Service Hostels Corporation were asked to provide information for my Ministry, upon which a decision was taken, and on which the Ministry was the judge.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Progress
    Mr. Orbachasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement on the rate of demobilisation for men from Groups 40–60.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is not yet possible to add to the provisional programme announced on 7th August, covering releases from the Forces during the last three months of this year.

    Deferred Releases
    Mrs. Manningasked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons which make it impossible to demobilise all men with two or more years of service before the end of this year.
    Mr. Isaacs: The release of all men with two or more years' service by the end of this year would reduce the strength of the Armed Forces far below the essential minimum required to meet current commitments.
    Mrs. Manning: Does the Minister realise the resentment felt by men with long periods of service, much of it overseas, at the new conscripts only being conscripted for two years?
    Mr. Isaacs: There may be some feeling of dissatisfaction among some of the men, but to attempt to bring this proposal into operation would create far more discontent and resentment.

    Directed Mineworkers
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Labour if he is now prepared to allow all service in the mines to count as military

    9
    service for the calculation of release group numbers, as is done in the case of conscripts selected for mining service by ballot.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The reasons for confining to ballotees the concession that a period spent in the mines might count towards release from the Forces were explained in my statement to the House on 29th November, 1945. Those reasons are still valid.

  I.L.O. CONFERENCE, U.S.A. (MINISTER'S PARTY)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour the names of the party which accompanied him to the U.S. during the Recess; which members of this party travelled at public expense; the date of arrival of this party in the U.S.; and the nature of the duties performed by the members of this party between that date and the opening of the I.L.O. Conference.
  Mr. Isaacs: I was accompanied on my visit to the United States at public expense by Sir Godfrey Ince, Permanent Secretary of my Department, Mr. D. C. Barnes, Principal Private Secretary, and the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), Parliamentary Private Secretary. Some members of the official delegation to the International Labour Conference, who were on the way to Montreal at the same time, gave us some assistance in the United States before going on to Canada. The party arrived in New York on 3rd September. Between then and the opening of the International Labour Conference, I, and other members of the party, had meetings and discussions with members and officials of the United States Government, American and Canadian industrialists and trade unionists, representatives of American newspapers, and other persons in Washington and elsewhere. Mrs. Isaacs, and Lady Ince, travelled to America with us in a private capacity.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two ladies, whose names he mentioned, travelled at the public expense, or at their own?
  Mr. Isaacs: I could perhaps ask that question about people going to Blackpool, but if the hon. Member had paid attention to the answer I gave, he would have heard these words:
  10
  "I was accompanied on my visit to the United States at public expense …"
  —by certain people. I did not attempt to mislead the House in any way.
  Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the aspersion about Blackpool?
  Major Cecil Poole: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather remarkable that similar questions were not received from the same source when the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government was accompanied round the world by members of his family?

  SCOTLAND

    Retired Teachers (Superannuation Payments)
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the desire of retired teachers to have their superannuation payments made monthly instead of quarterly as at present; and whether he will make the desired arrangement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am aware that such a change has been suggested from time to time by a few individuals, but it would involve a considerable increase in staff and in costs of administration, and I do not propose to make any alteration in the present arrangement.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the importance of putting retired teachers in this regard on the same basis as Members of Parliament who are paid quarterly but may have their emoluments paid monthly?
    Mr. Westwood: I am willing to take that into consideration, but the Question, would mean a complete change in the arrangements. As I have pointed out, it would involve a great increase in staff and I am not prepared to do it at present.
    Major Poole: Can my right hon. Friend say what increase in staff would be justified to make out three cheques instead of one?
    Mr. Westwood: I could not answer that question without notice.

    Barlinnie Prison (Staff Club)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, why the request of the staff of Barlinnie Prison for a licence for their club has been rejected by him.
    Mr. Westwood: The request by the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association for approval of a licence for beer and spirits was refused because I regarded it as undesirable for a club licence to be held in respect of a club catering solely for members of the prison service.
    Mr. Brown: Is not the Secretary of State aware that pretty well every prison in Britain has an officers' club, which in turn has a licence, and why this injustice to Scotland?
    Mr. Westwood: The fact is that the traditions in Scotland are slightly different from the traditions in England. If I understand the position aright, most of these clubs, if not all of them, have only a beer licence. What was asked for in this particular case was a beer and spirits licence.
    Mr. Brown: Can we reach a compromise on the basis of beer?
    Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State assure us that none of the private prejudices in the Scottish Office in favour of prohibition are prevailing?
    Mr. Westwood: I can assure the hon. Member that they are not. I do not allow my personal convictions to interfere with my administrative work.

    Boundary Commission (Proposals)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, when, and in what form, the proposals of the Boundary Commission regarding the re-division of certain Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland will be laid before Parliament; and from what date the approved changes will be effective.
    Mr. Westwood: I understand that the initial Report of the Boundary Commission showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided and the number of Members which they recommend should be returned by each of them is likely to be submitted towards the end of this year. The Secretary of State is required to lay the Report before Parliament as soon as
    12
    may be after its submission to him. It will be for Parliament to determine by legislation from what date such changes as may be approved shall be effective; and for practical reasons that date must presumably be the date of a General Election.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When these proposals are laid before Parliament, will they be laid in a form in which they can be debated in detail?
    Mr. Westwood: I should require notice of that question, and if I am given notice of it, I will endeavour to give the hon. Member an answer.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My supplementary question specifically asked in what form the proposals would be laid. If the Secretary of State can give me an answer on that, I think I would know the answer to my Question.
    Mr. Westwood: There will have to be a Bill about the new constituencies in due course.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is not the Secretary of State able to say now whether the schemes of the Commission will be presented in toto, to be objected to or accepted in toto by the House?
    Mr. Westwood: The proposals will be embodied in a Bill. Beyond that I cannot go at the moment.
    Mr. Bowles: Cannot the Secretary of State, the Lord President and the Home Secretary now give us an undertaking that the proposals will be put into the Schedule to the Bill, and can, therefore, be amended?
    Mr. Westwood: Surely, if they are in the Schedule to a Bill, that will be in due Parliamentary form. That is what we propose to do as far as these proposals are concerned.

    Factory Sirens
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the siren is still being used in works and factories for assembly and dismissal purposes; and if, in view of its disturbing effect on public morale, he will take immediate steps to prohibit its further use.
    Mr. Westwood: I am aware of this practice but I have no power to prohibit it. If my hon. Friend will let me know of any

    13
    particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider whether anything can be done about it.

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Middle East
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War (1), how many of the German prisoners of war still detained in North Africa belonged to No. 999 German Division; and how many of that number had spent three years or more in German concentration camps before being forced into the German army;
    (2) how many German prisoners of war are still detained in North Africa and when it is expected to repatriate them to their own country.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether the arrangements for repatriation of German prisoners of war apply to prisoners at present in the Middle East; and, if so, on what terms and conditions.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): As explained on 4th June, in a reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), separate statistics relating to 999 Division are not available and could not be obtained without a considerable amount of labour. In dealing with repatriation, however, full regard is paid to the individual records of prisoners of war. There are at present about 98,000 German and 5,000 Austrian prisoners of war detained in the Middle East Command, of whom 2,000 anti-Nazi Germans and all the Austrians are to be repatriated as shipping becomes available. It has not yet been found possible to bring the Middle East within the scope of the scheme decided upon for the United Kingdom but an accelerated programme on the lines of that authorised for the United Kingdom will be introduced as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these camp officials have very little to do? Surely, it is possible for them to ascertain all about every prisoner under their control. Will he give the House an assurance that those people who are well-known anti-Nazis, as all these fellows are, will be given as speedy release as possible?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think I can give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks, that they will be given as speedy a release as possible, but the matter is not so easy to deal with as is the case of prisoners in this country.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the repatriations, when they are completed in June, will cover all members of the 999 Division?
    Mr. Bellenger: They will take their turn. As I have said, we hope to expedite the arrangements for these men almost concurrently with the arrangements we are making for prisoners, a much larger number, who have to go from this country back to Germany.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the release of these men in the Middle East is not beng delayed in order to complete the course in crypto Communism to which they are being subjected by the P.I.D.?
    Mr. Bellenger: I was not aware of that fact, if such it be.
    Mr. Edelman: Is it not a fact that these men of the 999 Division were among the first opponents of Nazism in Germany and, therefore, is it not just that whatever the labour involved in order to avoid an injustice, even to a single man, the necessary research should be made?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, many of them were, and we will do our best to get them home as speedily as possible.
    Mr. James Hudson: In view of the fact that all the Austrian prisoners were found to be satisfactory, would my right hon. Friend give some preferential treatment to the Austrians, who have been labouring under a special grievance in this matter?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, they will get some preferential treatment.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the expressions this afternoon, if he will give instructions that these people should be sorted out, as there are plenty of staff and plenty of time to do it?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know if there is plenty of staff to do it—I do not think so—but I will see that these prisoners are sorted out, as my hon. Friend suggests.

    Repatriation
    Mrs. Manningasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to give a date by which time all German prisoners of war who wish to return to their own country will have left these islands.
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now announce his intentions with regard to the 400,000 German prisoners of war now in this country; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to discriminate in any way between those known to have been victimised for active anti-Nazi opinions and those who have held definite Nazi responsibilities.
    Mr. Bellenger: The plans for the repatriation of German prisoners of war from the United Kingdom were announced by His Majesty's Government on 12th September. I am not able, at present, to add anything to the statement then made.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Officers (Pay and Allowances)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now examined the many complaints made by officers who considered themselves financially worse off under the new Code of Pay and Allowances announced in Command Paper 6750; and what substance he has found in these complaints.
    Mr. Bellenger: Certain complaints have been received but examination has confirmed that there is no substance in the suggestion that officers who were serving before 1st July, 1946, became financially worse off from that date by reason of the operation of the new code. As indicated in the White Paper, special arrangements were in fact made to safeguard the position of such officers. From the long term aspect I am satisfied that the new code offers a career which can well stand comparison with the attractions of professional careers in civil life requiring corresponding qualifications.
    Major Beamish: Was it the intention of the new code of pay that considerable numbers of senior officers of field rank and higher should be worse off than they were under the old code?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not satisfied that that is the case.

    Conditions (Norway)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the troops still serving in Norway enjoy, apart from limited N.A.A.F.I. supplies, no amenities such as were available abroad during the war and are unable to afford the inflated Norwegian prices for such things as haircutting, extra food and drink, railway and tramway fares and cinema tickets; that their duties bring them into close relation with their Norwegian comrades whose hospitality they are unable, but ought to be able, to return; and whether he will alleviate these hardships either by a Norwegian allowance or by arranging for pay to be drawn at a sufficiently high exchange rate.
    Mr. Bellenger: A special allowance has recently been granted to these troops.
    Mr. Keeling: How much?
    Mr. Bellenger: The allowance is 1s. 6d. a day for officers and 9d. a day for other ranks.
    Mr. Keeling: As that seems inadequate to meet the grievances specified in the Question, will the Secretary of State say whether the commanding officer is satisfied that they have been redressed?
    Mr. Bellenger: There are only a few of these troops in Norway—
    Mr. Keeling: That does not make any difference.
    Mr. Bellenger: I will certainly look into the question again to see if any representation has been made by the officer commanding.

    Mine Clearance Parties (Casualties)
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War how many casualties have occurred among mine clearance parties in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Martin Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War how many casualties have occurred among mine clearance parties in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bellenger: One hundred and eighty-five casualties, of which 139 were fatal, have been sustained since 1943 by the British Army bomb disposal units engaged on mine clearance in the United Kingdom. Similar casualties incurred by other Army personnel are not separately classified, but the numbers are believed to be relatively small.
    Mr. Lindsay: May we have an assurance that German prisoners will be used as much as possible to do this work, in order to relieve British Servicemen?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. They are being used as much as possible.

    Correspondence (Delay)
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for War why he took more than five weeks to reply to a letter concerning the availability of evidence to a prisoner asking leave to appeal.
    Mr. Bellenger: This is not an Army case and before a reply could be sent it was necessary to ascertain the exact nature of the prisoner's request and to obtain legal advice on the procedure to be followed.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Secretary of State for War assure us that there are standing orders in his Department for treating different classes of correspondence with a differential urgency, and that a very high priority is given to letters affecting legal process?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would not like to give a specific answer to that question without examining it in greater detail in the Department. I shall endeavour to give great urgency and priority to all hon. Members' letters.

    British Foreign Legion
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now his intention to open recruiting for a British foreign legion.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the success of his recruiting campaign?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War for how long 5292930 Private H. Johnson, of the Oxon and Bucks Light Infantry, has been under close arrest; what is the reason for keeping him under arrest for so long and for the delay in his trial; and what difficulties have prevented the War Office from giving a detailed reply to the request for information concerning his case sent to them by the hon. Member for Oxford City.
    Mr. Bellenger: A full report on this case has been called for from India. As soon as it has been received and examined, I will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this soldier has been under close arrest awaiting trial in India since the early months of this year—March or April, I think—and that I wrote as long ago as July, but still no report from India has come? Is not this quite intolerable, and a case which should be examined further?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I admit there has been some considerable delay in replying. That is the reason why I am sending a special cablegram demanding a reply with expedition.
    Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what degree of expedition he can expect from a special cable to this Command?
    Mr. Bellenger: I know that the writ of the Secretary of State for War does not run to the full extent in India as it does in other Commands, but I hope, at least, that my representations will have some effect when they are received there.
    Major Poole: Could the Minister, without notice, tell us what is the maximum period in accordance with regulations during which a man may be kept under close arrest without trial?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Eden: Will the Minister look into the practice of the War Office in this matter? Surely, it should not be possible for a matter to lie in this state so long without some action being taken by the War Office, quite apart from representations by hon. Members.
    Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) wrote on 23rd July, and a report was called for by letter from G.H.Q. on 2nd August. A "hastener" was sent by cable on 18th September, and I regret to say that a reply has not yet been received.

    Fallen Personnel (Re-interment)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to prevent the exhumation and re-interment in Germany of the bodies of those Welshmen who fought in the battle for the Siegfried Line.
    Sir Charles Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered protests from British Legions and others in Wales and Monmouthshire against the decision to re-inter members of the Welsh Division, who lost their lives in the fighting on the Siegfried Line, in German soil; whether the decision is irrevocable; and, if not, if he will take the sense of the House on the matter.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is clearly most desirable that all the British war graves overseas should be placed within permanent cemeteries, where they can be properly maintained. Re-interment in many cases is, therefore, unavoidable. The general policy regarding re-burial was carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who decided that the graves should be concentrated within military cemeteries in the countries and zones in which the men fell. Many died and are buried in enemy countries, and the particular case to which attention has been drawn is in no sense exceptional. Repatriation to the United Kingdom would be impracticable as a general rule and the British and Dominion Governments decided about a year ago not to allow any exceptions to that rule.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the British Legion in South Wales have expressed considerable feeling on this matter, and has a reply been sent on this issue to the people who have expressed their opposition to this move?
    Mr. Bellenger: This is a very difficult matter. We can all understand and sympathise with the relatives of those who have fallen overseas; but, speaking with some experience of two world wars, I think we had better let them rest in the countries where they fell in conditions which I have seen myself and which, as far as cemeteries are concerned, are admirable.

    Emergency Officers (Short Service Commissions)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the provision of facilities to enable emergency officers between the ages of 45 and 55 to serve on under a regular engagement until they can qualify for a pension.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is not intended to provide for the grant of permanent Regular
    20
    commissions to emergency commissioned officers aged 45 years or over. Such officers may apply for short service Regular Army commissions and, if accepted, will qualify for gratuity on completion of their contract.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that officers who made application nearly five months ago for short service regular commissions under A.C.I. 511/46 are still without news of the result of their applications; and if he will take steps to inquire into the reason for this delay, and to effect an immediate improvement.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that there has been some initial delay. The number of short service commissions is limited and in order to obtain the most suitable officers it was necessary to widen the original field of selection by including later applicants. Nearly half the applications so far received have now been dealt with, however, and extra staff was recently allotted to the work in order to accelerate the consideration of cases.

  WAR GRAVES, EUROPE (RELATIVES' VISITS)
  Mr. Shurmerasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the desire of wives and parents to visit the graves of their husbands and sons buried in countries in Europe; when organised visits will be possible and if financial assistance will be given where needed.
  Mr. Bellenger: I fully understand the desire of wives and parents to visit the graves of the fallen, but I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the reply given on 4th June last to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Dr. Segal), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Keelingasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the period of the Session between the Whitsun and the Summer Recesses Oral Questions to the Minister of Town and Country Planning were only reached once, to the Minister of Works twice, to the Minister of Supply, Attorney-General and Dominions Office three times, and that altogether during this period 1,452 Questions put

  21
  down for oral answer were not reached and less than a third of the Questions to the War Office, Board of Trade and Ministry of Food were reached; and whether, in view of the value of Questions and the limited opportunities now available to Private Members he will propose an increase in Question time.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am obliged to the hon. Member for sending me the figures upon which his Question is based. The proposal to increase Question time has been raised before, but the Government consider that its adoption might well result in more Oral Questions and even more supplementary questions. This was found to be the case in 1916 when Question time was extended for a short period of the Session. I venture to suggest, Sir, as you have done on several occasions, that we might be able to get through more Oral Questions if, in the general interest, hon. Members would cooperate in reducing, so far as possible, the number of supplementary questions. I would add, if I may, that it would also help if Oral Questions were reserved for matters which are not suitable for Written Questions or cannot be dealt with by correspondence with the Minister concerned.
  Mr. Keeling: Is the Leader of the House aware that the chief value of an Oral Question is that one can put a supplementary; is he also aware that there is a widespread desire in all parties for more oral answers?
  Mr. Morrison: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. That is, of course, the main attraction of Oral Questions, but, whilst I concede that hon. Members whose Questions are not reached would like more time in which they might be reached, I think, in the light of experience, it would lead to more Questions, and then we should have the complaint that we were cutting into the time allowed for the Debates which follow and which concern the main business before the House.
  Mr. Stokes: Is not the chief difficulty that at last we have got a "live" Parliament, and will the Leader of the House bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has said, that the whole point of Members asking Questions is for them to pursue
  22
  them with supplementaries, if necessary, to the inconvenience of my right hon. Friend and his associates on the Front Bench?
  Mr. Morrison: Personally, I like supplementary questions very much. It is only a question of having some degree of restraint in the interests of other Members who have main Questions to follow. As to the "live" Parliament, I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy a "live" Parliament.
  Mr. De la Bère: It wants livening up more.
  Mr. Eden: In view of the formidable figures which this Question reveals, and while as a former Leader of the House I admit some of the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, might I ask whether he will consider asking the Select Committee on Procedure to look at this problem again in the light of the position revealed by this Question?
  Mr. Morrison: It is perfectly competent for the Select Committee on Procedure to include this in the matters which they consider, but, honestly, I do not think the case is strong enough for the Government to ask them to do so. I ask hon. Members to look up the history of 1916 when the time for Questions was extended. They will find that it resulted in a large number of additional Questions, so that it did not solve the problem.
  Mr. McGovern: Is it not very odd for the suggestion to come from the Front Bench—
  Mr. Morrison: Which Front Bench?
  Mr. McGovern: The Government Front Bench—that supplementary questions should be curtailed—seeing that all the hon. and right hon. Members of the Front Bench take precedence over back bench hon. Members and use it fully? Is it not in the power of Mr. Speaker to curtail supplementary questions?
  Mr. Morrison: The last thing I would do would be to impinge on the powers of Mr. Speaker. All I did was to repeat some observations Mr. Speaker made some time ago.
  Captain John Crowder: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has asked hon. Members to put down more Questions for written answer, could he

  23
  not ask the Departments to give the answers in a reasonable time, because one can only get an answer quickly by putting down an Oral Question?
  Mr. Morrison: That is an old story, and I agree that in the past there have been complaints about it, but the Government did take steps to see that the Departments were hurried up. If hon. Members find that answers are taking a long time and they will let me know, I will take it up with the Departments concerned.
  Major Beamish: Would it not save time it the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) would cut down his supplementary questions by 50 per cent.?

  WARTIME BLACK-OUT
  Mr. Keelingasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey expresses doubt on the protective value of a black-out and recommends a critical appraisal of its usefulness; and whether the Government have reconsidered the advantages and disadvantages of a black-out in war.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the Report to which the hon. Member refers. His Majesty's Government is surveying Home Defence problems, including the advantages and disadvantages of a black-out in wartime. Full account will be taken in the survey of the lessons learnt during the last war.
  Mr. Keeling: Is the Prime Minister aware that this American Report is of great interest to people in this country, not only about the black-out but about many other matters, and will he endeavour to get it published?
  Mr. Attlee: So far, public demand has not been sufficient to warrant asking the United States Government for permission for the Report to be published, but there are copies available in the Stationery Office, and if hon. Members wish to get one they will be able to do so. I will wait and see what demand there is, but so far it has not been very great.

  PRESS (INQUIRY)
  Mr. Marplesasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to appoint a
  24
  Royal Commission to inquire into the Press.
  The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's intentions on this subject.
  Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of removing uncertainty and the undesirability of restricting the freedom of the Press?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

  UNOFFICIAL STRIKES
  Mr. Marplesasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the unofficial strikes, with a view to discovering the causes of the strikes and with powers to make recommendations to eliminate such causes.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Marples: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, to the long-suffering public, a strike is a strike, whether official or not, and will he take some other steps to get the negotiating machinery established before the strike starts?
  The Prime Minister: I am quite aware of the nature of a strike, and I am sure the hon. Member realises that it is just the by-passing of the machinery which exists that causes people to strike. As a matter of fact, the number of unofficial strikes, having regard to the number of strikes altogether, has been extraordinarily small, and less than one-tenth of the number of working days has been lost in the last year compared with the number lost in the year immediately succeeding the first world war. While we all deplore unofficial strikes, I do not see that this is a matter on which we should become greatly excited.
  Mr. Marples: Would the Prime Minister consider establishing some sort of machinery to eliminate these strikes when they do exist?
  The Prime Minister: I shall welcome any suggestions from the hon. Member provided they do not infringe the freedom of the subject.

  PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS (DUTIES)
  Mr. Marplesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the letter from the Public Relations Officer to the Ministry of Labour on a personal matter unconnected with the Department's work but affecting the Minister, which appeared in the "Spectator" of 16th August last, he will consider clarifying further the scope of these officers' public duties.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour jocularly referred to trade union membership cards at a recent Press conference at Newcastle. Very misleading reports of this were published in some sections of the Press, and the Public Relations Officer of the Ministry of Labour wrote a letter to correct misunderstandings of the position taken up by my right hon. Friend on this occasion. It should be, I think, a general rule that, where the personal conduct of Ministers is concerned, the matter should be dealt with by the Minister himself.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not putting too much on the Public Relations Officers of the various Government Departments to have to explain the jocularity of Ministers to the Press?
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether jocularity breeds contempt?

  MINISTER'S VISIT TO EIRE
  Major Beamishasked the Lord President of the Council by what authority and for what reason he took a 1946 Humber 27 h.p. Metropolitan Police motorcar and chauffeur for use during his holiday in Eire; what was the total cost of maintaining and servicing the motorcar and of transporting, accommodating and paying the chauffeur; by whom these costs were met; what road mileage this motorcar did from the date it left London until its return; and by whom the petrol was provided and how much.
  Mr. Hoggasked the Lord President of the Council why an official motorcar was exported to Eire to meet him when on holiday; and the approximate cost to the Treasury incurred in connection with his visit to Eire.
  Mr. H. Morrison: In order that official papers could be sent to me while I was
  26
  on holiday, it was necessary to arrange for a courier service between my hotel and Dublin and Rineanna. For this purpose, and in order to enable me to return to London immediately in the event of this becoming urgently necessary, I was advised that the only satisfactory arrangement would be for a car and driver to go to Eire. During its absence from London, the car did a total mileage of about 2,500 miles. Most of this mileage was accounted for by courier services, but, in addition, it of course included the journeys to and from the ports in Britain and in Eire and Northern Ireland. Five hundred and seven miles were on non-official journeys in respect of which I paid the usual mileage rate. The petrol consumption was approximately 180 gallons. The total net cost to public funds, which is estimated to be about £66, will be met from the Privy Council Office Vote. Apart from petrol obtained from United: Kingdom sources, the Government of Eire kindly authorised the supply of additional petrol for the car.
  Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the extreme undesirability of Ministers making this misuse of public vehicles? Is it not possible for them to obtain taxis in the ordinary way in the countries to which they feel it necessary to go for their own amusement, and cannot they pay for them themselves out of their salary of £100 a week?
  Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, that supplementary question is a little bit cheap. In the first place, I quite agree that it would be wrong for there to be misuse of Ministerial cars. There was no misuse on this occasion, and if the only degree of responsibility of the hon. Gentleman is that he can make a suggestion that secret State documents can be carried by taxi cabs, he should think again.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether or not there is an espionage service on Members of the Front Bench at home and abroad, by whom is it maintained and what is its approximate cost?
  Mr. Morrison: Unfortunately, there is nobody in this House to answer for the Conservative Central Office.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Could not a despatch rider, such as, during the war, carried

  27
  documents just as important as these, have been used just as effectively and much more cheaply?
  Mr. Morrison: If I were an hon. Gentleman, sitting on that side of the House, I would not start inquiries about the transportation arrangements during the war.
  Mr. Hogg: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  GERMANY

    Nuellberghof Estate, Lemgo
    Mr. Orbachasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the German local authority at Lemgo decided to requisition the Nuellberghof Estate which is owned by Hugenberg, with a view to turning it into a home for elderly refugees; that this proposal was sanctioned by the Military Government and that when the Military Government were approached by Hugenberg they vetoed the Lemgo local authority's action; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The requisitioning of the Nüllberghof Estate was at no stage vetoed by the Military Government, but was authorised over two months ago, after appeals had been considered and necessary arrangements completed for the continued cultivation of the agricultural land. A number of elderly refugees are already installed.
    Mr. Orbach: Will the Minister agree that it was authorised after this Question had been placed on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Hynd: I do not know on what date the Question was placed on the Order Paper, but the Lemgo local authority confirmed the requisitioning on 12th July, 1946, and authority was given by the Military Government at the end of July for the cultivation of 200 acres of agricultural land attached to the estate, for certain repairs to be carried out and for the disinfection of certain premises. When these matters had been carried out, requisitioning took place.

    Oats (Harvest)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what total acreage of oats will be harvested this year in the British-occupied zone in Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: About 1,337,000 acres.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister say whether the majortiy of this acreage has been sown with British seed oats?
    Mr. Hynd: In order to give an accurate answer to that question, I should have to have notice of it.

    British Families (Accommodation)
    Mr. M. Lindsayasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware of a statement published by the Control Commission for Germany in their official "Gazette" on or about 17th August, to the effect that, owing to a shortage of accommodation, it will not be possible to accept all the British families who may wish to go to Germany; and whether he will give an assurance that the difficulty of finding accommodation will not be allowed to prevent families going to Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: This statement related particularly to Lubbecke and Minden, where accommodation is very limited, and where a heavy concentration of British staff is located. In these and some other localities suitable accommodation cannot be made available at once for all the British families who wish to go there, without unreasonable dispossession of German occupants, but, in so far as conditions allow, every effort is being made to expedite the reception of families in all parts of our zone.
    Mr. Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that, if better arrangements cannot be made, he will not get the best men in the Control Commission?

    Ruhr Coal Exports
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what countries imported coal from the Ruhr during the three months ended 31st August; what quantity each received; and what contribution each made towards the British Government's expenditure in cash and kind in the Ruhr coalfield.
    Mr. J. Hynd: As the list is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission,

    29
    circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT. The transactions were on a straightforward sale basis except in the case of Switzerland, where arrangements are being negotiated for electric power to be supplied in return for coal. Several of the other countries concerned are supplying essential imports to the British zone, but their import and export contracts are not linked.
    Following is the information:
    Solid Fuel Exported from the British Zone in the three months ended 31st August, 1946

    Receiving Country

    Metric tons

    France

    472,446

    France (N. Africa)

    36,155

    Belgium

    303,568

    Holland

    428,618

    Denmark

    425,455

    Norway

    225,019

    Luxembourg

    368,367

    Austria

    507,458

    Italy

    252,547

    Switzerland

    9,214

    Finland

    24,532

    Sweden

    58,914

    Portugal

    32,879

    Greece

    23,079

    Yugoslavia

    18,065

    Total

    3,186,316

    Taxation (Rates)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the rates of Income Tax and Surtax imposed upon inhabitants of the British zone in Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The rates of personal Income Tax vary between total exemption for the lowest incomes and 95 per cent. for the highest range of income; but, owing to the existence of different taxes for wages, personal income, corporation income, and excess profits, and to a complicated system of allowances and deductions, I am afraid that it is impossible to give a comprehensive answer to the Question. The following examples will, however, give a broad indication of the incidence of these taxes:
    A married couple, with two children, with wages of 2,000 marks a year pay no tax. With wages of between 5,000 and 20,000 marks a year, they will pay from 24 per cent to 64 per cent. in tax. A personal income of 600 marks a year is free of tax. On incomes between 2,000 marks and 100,000 marks a year, tax-ranges from 20 per cent. to 88 per cent. The aggregate sum of all these taxes, however, including corporation and
    30
    Excess Profits Tax, may not exceed 90 per cent. of the total net income.
    Mr. Drayson: As 2,000 marks are apparently worth only 40 cigarettes, is it not very ungenerous that inhabitants of the British zone should pay Income Tax-on so small an income?

    Hansard (Prisoner-of-War Camps)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he will arrange for HANSARD to be circulated in all prisoner-of-war camps under British control.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Under arrangements already existing, the Control Office distributes to camps in the United Kingdom copies of HANSARD, which report matters of interest to German prisoners of war, such as Debates and Questions about Germany and foreign affairs generally or about the prisoners of war themselves. In addition, copies reporting other Debates are sent by my Department to meet individual requests from camps. Similar arrangements are being made for the Middle East. In the United Kingdom alone, prisoners are housed in over a thousand different camps and units, and a general distribution of all copies of HANSARD would not be practicable, nor would it be a justifiable public expense.
    Mr. Stokes: With reference to the last part of the answer, may I ask why not? Surely, what all these fellows are pining for is some, shall I say, harmless reading. It is surely the best way of letting them learn for themselves how our Parliamentary system works, so why not let them all have it?
    Mr. Hynd: When there is a request from the prisoners or the camp commandant, HANSARD is regularly supplied as required. We also make arrangements for printing very full reports of all Parliamentary Debates in the prisoner-of-war journal and by this and other means ensure that the prisoners get as much information as it is economic and convenient for them to have.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it not invidious that there should be any official selection? If prisoners are to be allowed to have copies of HANSARD, it would seem to be better to let them have them all rather than that there should be any selection.
    Mr. Hynd: As I have pointed out, the selection is that of items affecting Germany, foreign affairs generally and the prisoners of war themselves. I think that that is a very fair basis on which to issue HANSARD which may be of direct interest to all prisoners, and, as I have stated, in addition, they can have any HANSARD they require where there is a demand from any particular camp.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Could the Minister arrange to have the verbatim comments of these prisoners collected and circulated to hon. Members of this House?
    Mr. Paget: Will the Minister say what authority it is that censors and denies the entry of HANSARD into the British zone of Germany?
    Mr. Hynd: There is no such denial or censorship of HANSARD in the British zone of Germany.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cables and Wireless (Dominion Governments)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the letter of acceptance from each of the five Dominions in which a desire was expressed that cables and wireless should be nationalised.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir, it would be contrary to established practice to publish correspondence of this nature.
    Mr. Bossom: Are not these matters of such vital importance to our Empire that the public should know exactly what was said?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the public knows, or would if it read HANSARD. There was a Debate on this matter when Cable and Wireless were taken over and a very full statement was made to the House as to what the Dominions thought.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Channonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, on a new type of one-seater motorcar costing £198, specially made for disabled people, a Purchase Tax of £55 is required; and whether he will consider waiving or reducing the tax on this type of motorcar in view of the excessive total cost and consequent hardship involved.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: All private cars are chargeable with Purchase Tax whether or not adapted for the use of the disabled, and I could not make an exception for one particular car. Invalid carriages are exempt from tax.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman consider exempting all carriages used by disabled ex-Servicemen or civilians?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The difficulty is to know to what use a particular car is to be put when it is sold, and it is at that stage that this tax is levied.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury will, by Order under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, direct that Purchase Tax on British stoneware hot-water bottles shall cease to be chargeable, or be reduced to 16⅔ per cent., the rate chargeable on similar articles made from imported aluminium.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, not at present.
    Sir J. Mellor: Why not?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This matter was dealt with in connection with cognate matters when the Finance Bill was before the House; good reasons have been given on more than one occasion why this particular action cannot be taken, and I cannot add to what has been said.
    Sir J. Mellor: What is the point of the Treasury being given power to do these things by Order?

    National Savings Movement (Press Advertisement)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the poster issued by the National Savings Movement and entitled, "A Bit of Land of Your Own," was withdrawn.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was not a poster, but a Press advertisement; it was not prematurely withdrawn, but ran its scheduled course.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning admitted that they requested the withdrawal of this advertisement?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My advice is that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning did no such thing, but that the matter was wrongly reported in the Press.

    Postwar Credits (Refunds)
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abandon the practice of refunding Postwar Credits to old people in the form of non-negotiable cheques.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case which he has in mind in which inconvenience has been caused by this method of payment, I shall be pleased to look into it.
    Mr. Allighan: Whilst I will do that, will not the Financial Secretary admit the desirability of issuing these Postwar Credits in a negotiable form, such as money orders?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The trouble is that when they are made negotiable in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend it opens the door to fraud. We desire to make these payments, so far as the Revenue is concerned, as secure as possible. This is a practice which has been in existence for many years and about which there have been few complaints.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my hon. Friend realise that a great many of the people concerned with these particular repayments are very poor people indeed who have no banking facilities, and that, therefore, it follows, that in every such case there must be hardship?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: A note is sent with every cheque indicating to each recipient just how he or she can get it cashed and, as I have said, we have had very few complaints.

    Pensions (Increase) Bill
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates being able to introduce the proposed new Pensions (Increase) Bill in respect of retired State servants.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend in his answer to the hon. Member's Question on 20th June last.
    Mr. Brown: Does not the Financial Secretary recollect that what was then said on
    34
    behalf of the Government was that it was hoped to introduce the Bill some time during the Session? I am now asking about what time in the Session—before Christmas, after Christmas, or when?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon Friend's exact words were:
    "I hope early next Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 388.]
    The next Session has not yet come.

    Entertainments Duty (Football Matches)
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that since his reduction of the tax on football matches, only a small proportion of the accommodation for the public at the Chariton football ground is available at the reduced price of 1s. 3d., and that a spiked iron fence has been erected to separate this from that section which conforms to the old 1s. 6d. price to which specially convenient transfer facilities have been provided; whether he is satisfied that this is not defeating the object of the tax reduction; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that football clubs pass on to the public the full benefit of the reduction.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend has called for reports covering the country generally, including the ground mentioned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about Business on Friday this week?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. On Friday we propose to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Roosevelt Memorial Bill as the first Order, and afterwards to make further progress with the Atomic Energy Bill.

MUTINY CHARGES, MALAYA (SENTENCES)
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, at the beginning of Questions, I forgot that there were two Petitions to be presented in relation to a statement which is to be made by the Secretary of State for War, and, therefore, it is only fair to allow them to be presented before the statement is made.
Mr. Garry Allighan: Mr. Speaker, I have here two Petitions, one signed by nearly 10,000 residents in Gravesend in respect of two men of Gravesend, and one signed by 1,614 people, being the total population of the village of Cuxton, in respect of one Cuxton man in the paratroop corps, protesting against the sentences and humbly petitioning a revision and reduction in the sentences. I beg to present the Petitions.
Petitions to lie upon the Table.
Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg the House to receive a Petition signed by 35,000 people. The Petition asks for sympathetic reconsideration of the sentences passed on 243 British paratroops now held in Malaya.
Petition to lie upon the Table.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I have a Petition here which I beg leave to submit in respect of Private—
Mr. Speaker: I have no notice of that. I have not seen anything on the Petition Blue Paper about it, and it is, therefore, not in Order.
Mr. Thomas: Unfortunately, I only picked up the Petition in the post this morning.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member's Petition is out of Order. I think the fact that he has received a Petition is made perfectly clear, but it cannot be presented here unless it has been properly put to the Table.
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Captain Bullock—To ask the Secretary of State for War (1) if he has received a report on the conditions prevailing in the camps where the 243 paratroopers are serving their sentences for mutiny in Singapore; and if he is satisfied with the conditions there;
(2) if he will make a statement on the sentences passed on the 243 paratroopers who were found guilty of mutiny by a court martial at Singapore.
Mr. Austin—To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has considered the findings of the court in the matter of the trial of men of the 13th Parachute
36
Battalion; and whether he will review the sentences passed with a view to their remission.
Mr. Shurmer—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that public opinion has been shaken by the severity of the sentences passed on the 243 paratroopers at Singapore: and, in view of this, if he will consider an immediate review of the sentences.
Mr. Gibson—To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the bad conditions at the rest camp at Maur, he will give favourable consideration to revoking the sentences which the court martial has imposed on the paratroop regiment involved in the protest against these conditions.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood—To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take the earliest opportunity of reviewing the sentences recently passed on 243 men of the 13th Parachute Battalion.
Mr. Asterley Jones—To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a full statement on the circumstances leading to the recent court martial of men of the 13th Parachute Battalion, S.E.A.C.; and what action is now being taken with regard to the sentences imposed.
Mr. Gammans—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on his intentions with regard to the sentences imposed by the courts martial at Kluang in Malaya.
Mr. Wyatt—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement giving all the circumstances under which personnel of the 13th Parachute Battalion, S.E.A.C, were arraigned for court martial; and whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances he will consider giving instructions forthwith to have all or most of the sentences suspended.
Mr. T. J. Brooks—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will have an inquiry made into the sentences passed on the 243 paratroopers by a recent court martial in Malaya for alleged mutiny; and if he will suspend all the sentences until a full and special inquiry has been made into the alleged offences against military regulations.
Mr. David Jones—To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the conditions under which the men of the 13th Parachute Battalion lived from June to July, 1946, and, having regard to the evidence of the treatment meted out to these men by the officers concerned, if he is prepared to review the sentences passed by the general court-martial.
Mr. Warbey—To ask the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken to order a review of the sentences passed at a recent court-martial on 253 men of the 13th Battalion, Parachute Regiment, and to institute an inquiry into the alleged unsatisfactory condition of the camps at which these men were stationed.
Mr. Longden—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the sentences that have been passed on the 243 paratroopers from Kluang Camp, Malaya; and if he will take steps to have these men brought home and given the right to restate their case and to serve their punishment here.
Mr. Yates—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in the case of the 243 Paratroopers in Malaya recently court-martialled, some have complained that whilst walking in four inches of mud working conditions have become unbearable, while one soldier has complained, particulars of which have been sent to him, that he was only able to have one bath in 11 months; and if he will review the sentences in the light of these complaints and report to this House upon the steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such working conditions being imposed upon any section of His Majesty's Forces.
Mr. Piratin—To ask the Secretary of State for War (1) if any, and if so what, inquiry has been made into the conditions prevailing at Kuala Lumpur at the time when an alleged mutiny took place; and what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against any officer or other rank responsible for such conditions;
(2) if he has considered the protest made by 55 ex-Servicemen from all commands against the harsh punishment inflicted an the men of the 13th Lancashire Parachute Regiment, which was
38
forwarded to him by the right hon. Member for Mile End; and what action he proposes to take thereon.
Mr. Bellenger: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to reply to these Questions by making the following statement on the mutiny which occurred in the 13th Parachute Battalion on 14th May at Muar Camp, Malaya, at this, the first opportunity, after the re-assembly of the House.
The battalion arrived at Muar Camp from Java on the night of 5th May, and was shortly afterwards joined by a draft of 120 men, 50 straight from this country and 70 who had been away from the battalion for the previous six months due to illness. Muar is a tented camp and conditions were undoubtedly bad, and although it had been previously occupied by another unit from whom this battalion took over, much required to be done to bring it up to a reasonable standard of habitation. It lacked proper facilities for washing, feeding, cooking and recreation and there was not electric light in all tents. There were several reasons for the bad conditions of the camp, the most important of which were that the changeover from the war to the peacetime system of administration was in the transitional stage and a certain failure on the part of the battalion, and advance party in particular, to help themselves. The commanding officer, however, took immediate steps to have these conditions improved after the battalion's arrival, but there was a heavy fall of rain which was quite unexpected and which caused living conditions in the camp to deteriorate considerably.
On the evening of 13th May there was a certain amount of discontent in the canteen and the word "strike" was mentioned. Later the lights were put out and someone asked those present if they were prepared to stick to what had been arranged. At about 7 a.m. on 14th May, about 260 men congregated on the sea wall in a sullen mood, and when ordered to disperse by the orderly officer made no move. They later moved to the canteen and here they were addressed by the commanding officer who told them that they should air their grievances in the proper way, that he could not entertain collective grievances, and that if they refused to return to duty they would be guilty of mutiny. He gave them a direct order to

39
return to their companies. As the men did not respond to this order the commanding officer reported the matter to his superior commander. During the afternoon the divisional commander arrived and addressed the men, who had again assembled on the sea wall. The commanding officer then put out company markers and ordered the men to fall in. They did not do so, and the divisional commander ordered another battalion to take them into custody. None of the officers or N.C.Os. took part in the mutiny, nor had they any previous knowledge that it was going to occur.
Two Courts of Inquiry were assembled on 17th and 22nd May; one to inquire into the causes of the mutiny and the other to inquire into the conditions in Muar Camp. As a result it was decided that all the 258 men concerned must be brought to trial for mutiny. The trial commenced on 12th August and was completed on 19th September. Of the 258 men charged three were acquitted and all the remainder were convicted. Of these, eight were sentenced to 5 years' penal servitude and to be discharged with ignominy. The General to 3 years' penal servitude and to be dis-carged with ignominy. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief as Confirming Officer did not confirm the proceedings in the case of 12 accused who were accordingly released, and in the remaining 243 cases commuted all the sentences to 2 years' imprisonment with hard labour and to be discharged with ignominy.
There can be no shadow of doubt that these men were rightly charged with mutiny. The law regards mutiny as a most serious military offence and provides death as the maximum penalty. Mutiny may be described as the act of two or more soldiers who join together, whether actively or passively, in resistance to, or disobedience of, lawful authority. The obedience of lawful orders is vital in any fighting Service, and it is obvious that in the Armed Forces any form of resistance to lawful authority, whether active or passive, cannot and will not be tolerated. I am waiting the advice of the Judge Advocate-General on the legality of the proceedings and I will make a further statement when I have received it. The proceedings of the trial arrived in this country only a week ago and it has not yet been possible, owing to their great length, to complete a full review.
Mr. Shurmer: Could the Minister say what is going to happen to the wives and children of these men while they are waiting; and will any provision be made for them while they are awaiting a decision?
Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I can best answer that question by saying that I hope to make a very early statement indeed. The matter is now in the hands of the Judge Advocate-General and I am awaiting advice as to the legality of the proceedings. As soon as I receive that— which I think will not now be too long— I shall make an immediate statement to the House.
Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend institute inquiries to discover who was responsible for this camp being in this disgraceful condition, and then see that severe disciplinary action is taken against them as well as against these unfortunate paratroopers?
Mr. Bellenger: I have already taken action in that direction.
Mr. Eden: In view of the widespread distress which inevitably this matter has caused everyone, can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more definite in telling us when he hopes to make a further statement? For my part I have no objection, and I think it quite right that he should take time to make the further statement, but I think both the House and the country would like to know when that further statement may be expected. Clearly, every effort should be made to make it as soon as possible.
Mr. Bellenger: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope to be in a position to make the further statement this week.
Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that conditions at the camp were so intolerable that the men, however much they may have wanted to conform to military discipline in regard to dress and bearing, found it impossible to do so, and will he bear that in mind?
Mr. Bellenger: I have already admitted in my statement that conditions in the camp were far from ideal, but under no conditions can mutiny be excused.
Captain Bullock: Can the Minister make any statement as to the conditions in the

41
prison in which these men are serving their sentences? Are they better than those in the previous camp in which they were?
Mr. Bellenger: They are not serving their sentences in prison. At the present time they are in a tented camp, but under fairly reasonable conditions.
Captain Bullock: I thought I said prison camp.
Mr. S. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend explain an apparent inconsistency in his original statement? He said he was awaiting a report from the Judge Advocate General as to the legality of the proceedings; yet, before saying that, he said there could be no doubt whatever that these men were rightly convicted. Is there not inconsistency there?
Mr. Bellenger: I think my hon. Friend did not hear my sentence aright. I said I had no doubt that these men were rightly charged with this offence.
Mr. Stephen: Would not the right hon. Gentleman have acted in the same way as these men in these intolerable conditions?
Mr. Bellenger: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has put that question to me. I served in the first world war, at times probably under worse conditions than these, and I say, with full cognisance of those facts and the fact that I was a soldier in the ranks, that mutiny cannot be excused.
Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman say two things? How many men, other than the 258, were there in this battalion; and of the 243 how many belonged to the group of 120 which had only just arrived in that theatre?
Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I cannot give that information without a Question being
42
put down. Not all the men refused to obey the order. These are the men who did.
Mr. Yates: My right hon. Friend has referred to the fact that in regard to war conditions his experience has been very much worse. Is he not aware that we are now in times of peace?
Hon. Members: Are we?
Mr. Yates: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the course of his statement, he will assure the House of the steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of these disgraceful conditions in times of peace?
Mr. Bellenger: It is true that we are in times of peace, although I regret to say that overseas, and particularly in these parts, the conditions relating to peace bear no relation to the much better conditions at home and in certain commands nearer home. I am doing what I can to improve those conditions.
Major Poole: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that in no circumstances will these men be taken to India to serve their sentences, but that, if any sentences remain to be served, the men will be brought to this country to serve them?
Mr. Bellenger: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press a question like that, because the matter is more or less sub judice. I am awaiting legal advice from the Judge Advocate General.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that a further statement has to be made, and further questions may prejudice the matter which is under consideration. I suggest we had better now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ATOMIC ENERGY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I am quite sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise the unique military, economic and international importance of this subject, and that those very unique conditions require very exceptional legislation. We have really no exact precedents to guide us in this matter. The military significance of the discovery and the application of atomic energy was demonstrated at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki. It was followed by world-wide concern as to the harmful possibilities of this development, and also by the realisation that there were possibilities of great good to the human race in the discovery of this new source of power if it could be ensured that it would be used for peaceful purposes only. The House will remember that in November, 1945, accompanied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) I went across to discuss with President Truman and with Mr. Mackenzie King this problem of the atom bomb and other new methods of destructive warfare. It was as a consequence of that visit that the United Nations organisation has now set up the Atomic Energy Commission to endeavour to work out some form of international control to free the world from the possibility of atomic war, while encouraging the industrial and commercial application of this invention.
  The full economic significance of atomic energy is not yet known. I think there has been in some quarters a good deal of over-optimism, both as to what could be accomplished and as to the time within which we could see vast changes in our daily life. I do not think anyone has any doubt that there is here a possibility of revolutionary changes. Therefore, I think hon. Members of all parties will agree that development in this country is a prime responsibility of the Government; that the Government must have the powers to foster development, to guide it along the most fruitful lines, and to ensure that the
  44
  results are used in the best way for the peace and prosperity of this country and of the world. Today, we are not concerned primarily with the question of international control. That is a matter which is being worked out in the Commission set up by the United Nations organisation, and we all hope that that Commission will find an effective solution to remove the fears for the safety of mankind which have been aroused. I do not think there is sufficient awareness, perhaps, of the dangers in this country. I am quite sure that that awareness is not quite so acute as it is on the other side of the Atlantic. But we have been watching with anxious care the deliberations of the Commission, and it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to do their utmost to get an agreed scheme, and to cooperate fully in that scheme when it has been agreed; and this Bill before the House, in one of its aspects, is an earnest of the Government's determination that the United Kingdom shall be ready to play its part, its full part, in any international scheme.
  The military applications are, of course, largely affected by international considerations; but, whether the United Nations organisation succeeds or not in getting a solution, we believe that the military applications must be the subject of the closest Government control. We hope that we may secure its prohibition for military use. If that were not so, or even if it were so, we should still need to have powers in this country; and it is important, in this regard, to remember that one cannot separate off exactly the plants that may produce power for civil use and the plants that may be used for military use. Power that produces for peaceful use may also produce an explosive element in the atomic bomb. The knowledge of the possibilities of this invention, and of how far it can be applied to economic and industrial exploitation, is not sufficient yet to produce a detailed scheme or a permanent scheme.
  This Bill has no background of political bearing. It is forced upon us by the very nature of this new invention. We are not introducing a sudden Bill for nationalisation. We are taking the steps which any Government must take in dealing with an invention of such immense potential destruction; and whether there are private activities or public activities they must be subject to close governmental supervision.

  45
  In fact, the task of development could not really be undertaken except by Government. There is, first of all, the very large expenditure in money and materials. It is really a major productive effort. There is uncertainty as to the results; and there is, of course, a thing we must watch ail the time—the danger of disastrous accident if there were uncontrolled experiment.
  As the House knows, the Government have already set up a large research establishment, and we are arranging for the production of fissile material for that establishment, and for other purposes; and the responsibility has been placed with the Minister of Supply; and this Bill will give him the necessary powers to discharge that responsibility. I cannot tell the House exactly what will be the future cost. The programme of work already approved will cost something like £30 million, but the programme is being kept constantly under review, and it may well be that expenditure on a far greater scale may be necessary if we are to play our proper part. The Bill has been very carefully considered by our experts and by the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities, who has such a great knowledge of this subject. But, of course, the Government take full responsibility for it. Therefore, I claim that this Bill is necessary, both to fulfil our international obligations, and for the protection of our people at home.
  I should now like to turn to the Clauses. Clause I is a general Clause which designates the Minister of Supply as the appropriate Minister responsible for controlling the development and use of atomic energy and for exercising control. In Clauses 2 and 3 the Minister is invested with statutory powers to produce and use atomic energy, to carry out research, and give financial assistance to other persons engaged in this work. It is very important that the work here should be coordinated with work being done at the universities, and we are giving assistance to the universities. In Clauses 4 and 5 there is power to call for information and to inspect premises, and there is, particularly, the power of entry and inspection under Clause 5, which, I think, if we were dealing with some other subject, might appear very drastic. It is unusual: we are dealing
  46
  with an unusual subject. I think it essential the Government must be able to inform themselves fully of unauthorised activities, not, as I said before, only in the interests of this country, but in view of the fact that we are working to try to get international control in which we must play our full part.
  Clause 6 empowers the Minister to search for the sources of minerals and to compensate for damage done; and Clause 7 contains provision for the compulsory acquisition of rights to work those minerals. We put those Clauses in for better security. I am bound to say that, as far as my information goes, it seems unlikely we shall find in these islands any great stores of minerals, either of uranium or anything of the kind, in order to produce fissile material; but, obviously, the Bill would be incomplete if it did not contain provision of this sort. The power may, as I say, never be used, but we do not know what developments may come. Therefore, we have only proposed the general powers for compensation to be exercised in individual cases under Statutory Orders. In Clauses 8 and 9 we have powers of compulsory acquisition of all sources of materials, minerals containing them, plants and contracts, with, again, provision for compensation. Clause 10 provides licensing arrangements to control the activities by private concerns, and I call attention particularly to Subsection (2), which places on the Minister the duty of securing, as far as practicable, by licence, that the necessary minerals, substances and plants are available for scientific and ordinary commercial purposes. We are anxious that research should be encouraged—not merely not impeded, but encouraged—and research is being undertaken by universities and by commercial firms under contracts placed and financed by the Government.
  I draw special attention to Clause 11, which places restrictions on the disclosure of information. The production of atomic energy involves very complicated processes. It is really a major industrial effort, and until we can get international control, what is sometimes called the industrial "know-how" must be kept under control. When I was in America the declaration made by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada and myself laid down this policy: until we can get the introduction of effective and forcible safeguards, and we all

  47
  hope that international arrangements will make strict secrecy unnecessary, while we can meanwhile encourage the dissemination of basic scientific information, there must be power to prevent the dissemination of information as to what is called the "know-how."
  We are presented with a rather difficult drafting problem as to where exactly to draw the line, where to get the security we need without impeding scientific research, and the conclusion we reached was that we should define in the Bill the information which should not be communicated concerning the energy plants, what they do and how they work, with provision for excluding information about plant in use for purposes other than atomic energy provided that the connection with atomic energy is not disclosed. Our Amendment is on the Paper, and will be moved by the Minister in Committee, directing the Minister not to withhold consent to disclosure where he is satisfied that the information proposed to be communicated is not of importance for purposes of defence. That will enable us to delete Subsection (4). Our desire has been to make the thing watertight by giving the Minister full powers, including power to authorise a relaxation in particular cases. Also we desire to take away the onus which, as the Bill is drafted, rested on persons requiring them to give information without knowing quite whether the information was right. As the Clause will be amended in Committee, that onus will be on the Minister. We also provide that where information has once been made available to the general public, if it is not in contravention of the Bill, it is freed from further control. We expect that in course of time there will gradually emerge classes of information which may be published, and then exemption orders can be made under Subsection (2). As a matter of fact today the great bulk of the technical information is necessarily in Government hands. It has been the result of work in Government establishments or under Government control, and there is there, therefore, the additional safeguard of the Official Secrets Act. If hon. Members will examine this Clause I think they will find that it hits the mean between not giving away information that will endanger our security and, at the same time, not being unduly restrictive of scientific research.
  Mr. Blackburn: Would the Prime Minister deal with the point that, instead of accepting the distinction which he pointed out earlier between fundamental research on the one hand and industrial "know-how" on the other, the Clause is now so drafted as to cover the whole field, both fundamental research and industrial "know-how" as well?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think so, but perhaps the hon. Member will take it up later.
  Clause 12 deals with inventions and patents, and gives power to control and restrict the publication of information about atomic energy patent applications, pending notification of the Minister of Supply, who can inspect documents and decide whether the subject matter is of military importance. If it is, the prohibition on publication will stand; if not, the inventor will be free to exploit his invention and the inventor, if there is a ban, can still offer his invention to the Government. Subsection (4) deals with the application outside the United Kingdom, and Subsection (7) enables the Government to use for the purposes of the Crown any atomic energy invention or patent on terms to be agreed or arbitrated. That is in line with existing legislation on other inventions. Since the Bill was introduced and printed, consideration has been given to the question of whether some compensation should be paid to inventors who develop inventions which the Crown finds it necessary to suppress, but does not itself use, and an Amendment will be moved in Committee empowering the Minister to pay such measure of compensation as will ensure that the inventor is not out of pocket.
  I think the remaining Clauses are of a general and formal nature. Since the Bill was published we have had the benefit of a good deal of informed criticism. It has been very carefully considered, and this is reflected in Amendments which are mostly of a very minor character, apart from those to which I have referred, and the Government will propose those at the proper stage. I do not think there is need for me to say more on this Bill except to commend it to the House. The House is in the presence of an invention, a discovery, of most far-reaching possibilities, and in those circumstances it is quite clear

  49
  that its development must be guided in the national interest. The Government must have adequate powers of control, they must not hinder the freedom of scientists, indeed they must facilitate it. It is on those broad lines, of ensuring safety for this country and at the same time not unduly hampering research, that this Bill has been drafted.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Law: The Prime Minister, in the very brief speech with which he has favoured us, said that this Bill was not dictated by any doctrinal considerations. I do not know if those were his exact words, but that was, I take it, his meaning. Of course we are perfectly willing to accept that assurance, but at the same time it is very remarkable how closely this Bill, in its general form, does resemble the general mass of legislation which has been put before this Parliament in recent months by His Majesty's Government, and I think the House is entitled to some explanation as to why, on this occasion, we on this side of the House propose to support the Bill instead of opposing it.
  This Atomic Energy Bill resembles with extraordinary fidelity the general run of Socialist legislation. Whether it is legislation for taking over the mines, for housing, for health, or whatever it may be, the fidelity to the pattern is really quite remarkable. In this Bill, as in all other Bills, the Government establish a monopoly. In this Bill, as in those other Bills, the Government endow a supposedly all-wise Minister with absolute and final authority. Here, as in other Bills, vistas are opened up of forms to be filled in, declarations to be made, inspectors to be placated, and so on, and compensation, not very clearly defined, is to be paid for those whose rights or property is wrested from them by the State. It is very much on the old model. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House propose to give our support to this Bill, even though it does resemble so very closely some other horses which have come out of the same stable and have not been conspicuously successful at recent race meetings.
  I think there are two main reasons why the House should give a Second Reading to this Bill. No layman can say with absolute finality and dogmatism that there will never be any physical, mechanical answer to the atomic bomb. It is con-
  50
  ceivable, I suppose, that the same ingenuity which produced the bomb may, in time, produce its antidote. No one can say that there will never be an antidote. What we can say, and must say now, is that it seems unlikely in the physical field that there will ever be, as far as we can see, a complete antidote to this weapon. We are therefore left to look for a solution for defence—because we must have a defence—not in the physical field but in the political field. The only final defence I can see in the political field is some valid international agreement for the establishment of an international authority for the control of this new weapon. That is really the only ultimate defence. It is clear that it is going to be impossible to establish international control unless first we have established national control. This Bill is therefore the essential prerequisite of the final solution, if ever in fact we do reach a final solution. That is one reason why I suggest that the House, irrespective of party, must support the Bill this afternoon.
  The second reason is this. We are at present in a kind of interim position. We have not yet achieved a valid international agreement, no international authority has been set up, and with the limited information at my disposal I cannot see that there is any immediate prospect of such an authority being set up. And so we are left in this position. From every point of view, from the point of view of the economic, medical or scientific development of this invention, as much as from the point of view of defence, we must ensure as far as we humanly can that we in this country, our scientists and our industry, are abreast of anything that is being done in any other country. That for the moment is the only solution which is left open to us during this interim period pending the establishment of an international authority. There is no other solution which I can see.
  It is true that to be left to one's own resources in this way, to try to develop as best we can our own resources, is an unsatisfactory solution of this terribly grave problem. It is a solution which is fraught with immense possibilities of danger in the future, but nevertheless it is the only solution that is to our hand at the present time. Therefore we must devote ourselves with as much energy as we can command to putting ourselves and keeping ourselves right in the forefront

  51
  in this field of development of atomic energy. If we are to do that, if we are to avail ourselves even of this temporary solution, it is clear that the Government of the day must assume final and absolute responsibility for the defence of the citizens of this country against the atomic bomb. There is no getting away from that. At the same time it is clear that the whole resources of the Government must be behind the research and industrial development of this new invention.
  It is very easy to say that what I have been saying is, in a sense, an incitement to a new armaments race. I ask the House to believe that the idea of an armaments race, especially in this field, is absolutely abhorrent to me, and I am sure that it must be abhorrent to the whole House, but if there is one prospect more alarming than the prospect of an armaments race, it is the prospect of an armaments race in which we come in last. We have had some experience of that in recent years. It was extremely disagreeable and inconvenient in 1940, and I think it would be even more disagreeable and even more inconvenient in 1950, or 1960, if we found ourselves in the same position. For that reason I say that we must strain every nerve to see that we are abreast and more than abreast of everything that is being done in this field anywhere else in the world.
  I think we are agreed that a Bill of this kind is justified and necessary. I think the Prime Minister has made out his case, but to what extent does this Bill give the Government the powers which they must have if they are to fulfil their elementary duty to the people of this country? I must confess, on looking through it for the first time, that it seemed to me to be a Bill peculiarly negative and restrictive in its general intentions. There are endless injunctions and prohibitions, endless lists of what cannot be done, and comparatively little said of what can be done and of what must be done. Taking Clauses 10 and 11, which I suppose in a sense are the crux of the whole Bill, we find a reference in Clause 10 to research which seems to be somewhat perfunctory—there are other references to research in Clauses 2 and 3, and so on. In Clause 10 we find what the Minister can do in the way of prohibition, and in Clause 11 we find a list of all those things which cannot be com-
  52
  municated without the consent of the Minister. At a first glance it seems to be not unduly restrictive but to have an entirely negative atmosphere about it.
  I think that in a case of this kind first impressions are apt to be misleading, and I can see that it is easier to define some things by exclusion rather than by inclusion. It is easier to make a list of the things the Minister must prohibit than to make a list of the things he must encourage. It is easier to make a list of the things about which information must not be disclosed than to make a catalogue of the things about which it would be wise and prudent to disclose information. I am prepared to believe that the Bill, as it stands, is nothing like as negative and restrictive as it appeared to me to be when I picked it up for the first time.
  On this question of the control of information, we have to recognise that the Washington Declaration of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States which, as I understand, still governs the basis of Government policy in this matter, has introduced a certain conflict. The idea that you shall disclose basic scientific information and, at the same time, withhold the disclosure of information relating to technical and industrial application of atomic energy involves us in a certain conflict and the question is: How has this conflict been resolved in the Bill? Most of as would agree that if we are to make progress in this field in this country, it is essential that we should have as free an exchange of basic scientific information as possible. The scientist is not a man who works and lives in a vacuum. He makes headway by consulting with his fellow scientists, picking their brains and letting them pick his. One has only to look at the list of the distinguished scientists in this country, the United States, Germany, Italy, Russia, Denmark and in almost every other country to see how necessary this exchange of information is for development in this field. If any of us believes that we can safeguard our own position by putting an absolute damper on all exchange of information he will find himself sadly mistaken. There is no doubt that one most important element in scientific development is this kind of free interchange of ideas, a kind of chain reaction in the intellectual sphere, as distinct from the physical sphere. I do not think that anyone would deny that. At the same

  53
  time, it is absolutely essential, until the general international atmosphere is far clearer than it is today, that we should maintain any advantage that we may have in the sphere of technical application, and that there should be no disclosure of that side of the picture at all. But there is this conflict between those two ideas, and I must say that on reading the Bill again it seems to me that the conflict has been resolved as well as it can be resolved by the Measure which is now before us.
  There is one other point which seems of enormous importance when we are discussing scientists and the way they behave. I am quite certain that scientists cannot be treated as civil servants, and if this Bill is operated and administered in such a way as to attempt to dragoon our scientists into the atmosphere of a Government Department I am quite sure that the result will be absolutely disastrous. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that there is no such intention, and that scientists will be able to have as much freedom for research as if this Bill did not exist. With regard to research, as I said there is comparatively little reference to it in the Bill although, after all, one cannot expect much positive enthusiasm from a Parliamentary draftsman. He has too much of it to do. There are sufficient powers for the Minister to encourage research if he is prepared to do so. Our powers in this House are limited. We can give the Minister powers, but we cannot compel him to use them. We have no means of doing that. We can take the horse to the water but we have no means of compelling him to drink. And whether the Bill is effective for its purposes depends far less on what is in it, than on the judgment, energy, and good sense with which it is administered by the Minister and his Department, and the Government as a whole.
  This Bill, by itself, will not provide us with protection against the atom bomb. It will not ensure that we are in the forefront of scientific and industrial development. That depends entirely upon the Government. Of course, that applies to the whole range of matters with which this Administration is concerning itself. When the Government assume powers of legislation over the whole range of national life, the important thing is not so much what is in the Bill as to how
  54
  the Government will administer it. That applies to houses, coal, or health, or whatever it may be; but there is this difference here, and it is a vital difference If the Minister of Fuel and Power, for instance, through his ineptitude or irresponsibility, brings ruin to the coalmining industry, that will cause great distress in countless homes in this country; it will lower the standard of life of our people; it will lessen the influence of this country in the world. But the disaster will not be absolutely irretrievable. In time, the spirit of our people will reassert itself, and things will be better. We shall climb the hill again. But if the Government are negligent in their duty in this field, then the disaster, if it comes, will be final, absolute and irretrievable. Therefore, I say that everything depends on the energy which is shown by the Government in that matter.
  I think we should be wise, then, to ask ourselves what the evidence is that the Government are pursuing this matter with the necessary determination and drive. There must be a lot of things happening —at least I hope so—which cannot be disclosed, but on the evidence we have today, have we reason to suppose that the Government are really aware of the urgency of this problem, that they understand that this problem of controlling atomic energy is far more important than anything else with which they are dealing, that everything, including housing and social security, depends on a solution being found? Are the Government pushing this thing with all the determination in their power? I wish I could, for my own part, give a completely reassuring answer to these questions. I must say that I am not satisfied that, in the general field, the Government are using the energy and the decision which are necessary.
  What is our position today, so far as we know it—our interim position? Our interim position is that we, the United States and Canada have a certain advantage. We do not know how big that advantage is. In terms of years, it can be measured only by a few years—a very few years. One of these years has already passed—it is 15 months or so, since the bomb dropped, and it has taken 15 months for the Government to produce this Bill. I agree, of course, that this Bill is not a final solution. It is only a start; but it is, I think, some months since the MacMahon

  55
  Act passed through the Congress of the United States. It is months since a Bill of this kind came before Parliament in Canada. I find it very difficult to understand why it has taken so long to produce this Bill and to bring it to the House of Commons for Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "On 1st May."] The Bill was produced on 1st May, but I find it difficult to understand why it has taken so long to bring it here for Second Reading.
  I would like to say something about the form of the Bill itself. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous or in any way offensive to him, but it seems to be a little bit odd that this field, which is so tremendously important, should be entrusted to a Minister of comparatively junior rank, a Minister who, I understand, is not a member of the Cabinet. I find it very difficult to understand, if the Government really accept the overwhelming importance of this subject, why it has not been entrusted to some Minister, whose powers may not be greater, but whose position and authority are greater than the position and authority of a Minister of Supply, who is not in the Cabinet, in a peacetime Government. One has only to contrast the position with that which existed under the last Government. Then, this matter was put in the charge of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was, first, Lord President, and then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That seemed to give it the kind of priority which is required, but I think—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me offensive because I am not being offensive to him personally —that it is a strange thing that this whole field should be handed over—
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite understands. I have always kept the general supervision of the broad matter in my own hands as Prime Minister. It is the development side that naturally goes to the Minister of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman must not think that this has been handed over to a junior Minister. It is a major consideration of the Government, but some Minister has to be entrusted with the actual physical working which is going on, and that, naturally, comes under the Department of the Minister of Supply.
  Mr. Law: I thank the Prime Minister for his intervention, which does something to ease my mind on this matter. I am very glad indeed to hear that this is regarded as a subject which is so important that it must be within the more or less constant purview, as I understand it, of the Prime Minister himself.
  The Financial Memorandum of the Bill says—and the Prime Minister repeated it —that while the expenditure cannot be foreseen, the present figure, so far as it can be foreseen, is in the neighbourhood of £30 million. I do not know whether that figure is adequate or not, but what I have been given to understand is that in the United States, something like £200 million has already been spent. It would be unfair and unreasonable to make a contrast between those two figures, because a great deal of the £200 million must have been spent in the actual production of the bomb for war purposes.
  Mr. Blackburn: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has read the documents which show that 2,000 million dollars were spent, all upon the production of bombs. Is he referring to what has occurred since the war in mentioning this figure of £200 million?
  Mr. Law: I was explaining that it would be unfair to contrast the two figures without qualification, because, as I said, and as the hon. Member has just stressed, the great bulk of that expenditure must have been in connection with the war. I would very much doubt whether, looking at the magnitude of the problem and the urgency of it, the figure of £30 million to be spent in the foreseeable future is adequate.
  The Prime Minister: I said that that was the amount proposed to be spent at present. There is more coming on. The proposals are put at that expenditure by our advisers, and up to the present it is £30 million; but as I said at the time, I am afraid that we shall have to spend a great deal more than that.
  Mr. Law: I am very glad indeed to hear what the Prime Minister has just stated. I would like to make this point: The proposals are put up for expenditure in the normal course under Government machinery, with effective Treasury control, and it sometimes takes a long time for such expenditure to be sanctioned. I

  57
  hone that in this case, if there is to be any expenditure which looks like being useful and profitable in this field, there will be the minimum of red tape and Treasury restriction upon that expenditure. By and large, I cannot see, looking over the past 15 months, that the Government have given this subject the priority which it deserves. It seems to me that, for reasons which I have tried to give to the House, this field of atomic energy and the exploitation of atomic energy just has to take its turn through the mill with other things—with housing, coal, bread-rationing, the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, or whatever it may be. If so, I say that that is not good enough, because this thing, as I said a moment or two ago, is far more important than anything else in the Government's programme. Unless we can find a means of protecting ourselves from this force, of controlling this enormous, this incalculable force which we have released, there will be no security either social or otherwise and there will not be any houses, even those we have got, let alone the dream houses that exist in the election literature of hon. Members opposite. I ask the Government to remember that. This matter ought to have a priority far above anything else. I cannot see much evidence—although of course I have very little information—that it has been given that priority today.
  The Prime Minister, a few moments ago, said that he thought that there was not as much realisation in this country of the dangers of this weapon or of its possibilities as there was in the United States. I think that is true. It seems to me that, looking back over the past 15 months, a very decided change has come over the public mood in relation to the whole problem of atomic energy. When the atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima, there was a sudden shock, a sudden feeling of enlightenment. I think we all realised that we were faced with a revolution of a kind which is absolutely unsurpassed in recorded human history. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power rather fancies himself, I imagine, as a kind of amateur revolutionary, but by the side of men like Rutherford, Chadwick, Dempster, Millikan and Frisch, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power does not even get through the qualifying round. This is a revolution, and we all recognised it as a revolution 15
  58
  months ago. In that mood every kind of solution was propounded, many of them, even most of them, wildly impracticable. The people of this country understood that we were at the cross roads, that we had a choice to make. We were perhaps unduly afraid of the bomb. But that mood has passed. The tragedy is that nothing seems to have taken its place. We seem in a sense to have dropped the bomb into that abyss of nihlism which is one of the most bitter consequences of the war, which is perhaps the inevitable consequence of a civilisation like our own, which is devoted to grossly material ends and very little else. We seem to have accepted the position with a kind of weary fatalism. I think that is extremely dangerous.
  We cannot accept this position fatalistically. We have got to deal with it. The only mistake we made 15 months ago was in giving way to panic, because fear has never solved any problem. Fear has never been a constructive force in human affairs. We try to forget about the bomb, but we cannot forget about it. We try to push it to the back of our minds, but it is always there, and it always will be there until we find some solution. This Bill is the first step towards that solution. It is only a diminutive step. It is hardly a step at all. It is only like the tape being released for the runners to start. But it is the first step. We have taken that first step. Whether it leads to anything or not will depend, in my judgment, entirely upon whether the Government implement this Bill with their full energy, whether they give to this problem an absolute and first priority. If they do not do that, then neither this Bill nor anything else will avail us very much.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, said that he did not think there was sufficient awareness in this country of the destructive possibility of atomic power. I was glad to hear him say that, and I hope this Bill is the beginning of a change in that respect. The Bill raises big issues, for the future of humanity is at stake. I welcome this opportunity of making a few observations. In my view, the Government should have taken this step. I desire to place on record our appreciation of the work of that small number of Englishmen who worked so hard and so long at Trafford Park, Manchester, and

  59
  at Rugby. I refer, in particular, to Professors Rutherford, Chadwick, Cockcroft and Blackett, Drs. Allibone, Craggs, Milne and Wilkinson, and Messrs. Elce, Smethurst, Haine and Starling. I am sorry I do not know their Christian names, for we who belong to the ordinary people, when we respect people and desire to place on record our appreciation of their service in life, always refer to them by their Christian names, in contrast to what takes place in the House and other places. I thought that, in view of the claims now being made in periodicals in the United States of America, in particular, I—and I hope others will associate themselves in this—ought to place on record what we owe to those men.
  The utilisation of nuclear energy and the perfecting of the atomic bomb were the result of collective research and collective engineering. I agree wholly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) in his remarks about the importance of scientists having an opportunity of meeting one another and collaborating with one another. Where the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake was in limiting that need to scientists, for we have now reached a period in man's development where it is essential that men should cooperate throughout the world. Only collective action will now save the world from an atomic arms race. Relatively, the people in our time have made the greatest sacrifices in history in order to defeat Fascism, and now they find themselves in a world situation in which, because of atomic energy, they feel they are in the grip of forces that, for the time being, they are unable to control. They are in a mood of frustration and anxious urgency, and the British Labour Government, with its huge majority, was not elected to acquiesce in this situation. In view of what is at stake, the Government should have complete control of research, development, and production. I ask the Minister to be good enough to reply to this question: Is it a fact that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have made, and are still making, large grants? If so, what do those grants amount to, and where does the expenditure of public money end and private start? Seeing that there is a large amount of development being carried on by private enterprise, are those grants being used for the
  60
  purpose of increasing the profits of those who are carrying out research, development and production? I have before me a letter from the Association of Scientific Workers. They make several proposals. I do not wish to delay the House by mentioning those proposals, but I hope the Minister and the House will give consideration to those proposals before we reach the Committee stage on Friday.
  I read in the "Manchester Guardian" on 9th September that there is widespread interest in America in the news that atomic energy for industrial use is now available at a cost only 25 per cent. higher than anything produced by coal, and the technicians say that this cost is certain to be materially lowered soon. In view of our serious fuel position, are we as advanced as the Americans in regard to the probability of using atomic energy for other purposes than those for which it has been used up to now? In my view, we should have been told more to-day about the vast potentialities there are for man's benefit as a result of the perfecting of nuclear energy.
  Unfortunately up to now this country in particular and the world in general have paid too much attention to the destructive possibilities and too little to the enormous possibilities for man's benefit. Already—and this needs to be stressed in our Debate today—enormous progress has been made in our country in the harnessing of atomic power for human welfare. The finest X-ray equipment was used at St. Bartholomew's hospital; the rays of this equipment were obtained from a million volt X-ray tube. Progress has been made in Manchester with a new betatron which steps up the voltage to 20 million, and at the present time a 200 million volt betatron is being built in Trafford Park.
  Thanks to nuclear physics the scientists, the engineers, and the medical men are collaborating and cooperating—unlike some politicians who are strutting about and thinking they know it all. Man has arrived at a period when he must make progress by cooperation, and the men who are responsible day by day, for making centuries of headway, as we have done during the recent war, no longer take up that attitude. They are humble and far seeing men, who realise that we are living in the days of great scientific development. Thanks to these men we are now

  61
  in sight of this development being used to deal with diseases and the saving of life. I have some photographs in my pocket which show how this development has taken place, and I hope the Minister will embark upon an educational campaign in order to let the world see that this country was in the forefront of this development before the war and that we made an enormous contribution during the war. We should not be leaving it to the United States to claim all the credit for this development.
  I want to ask the Minister—and I hope he will reply—whether ample resources are at the disposal of our scientists, medical men, and engineers to enable them to keep in the forefront. That is the great danger I see now. Millions and millions are being expended on research by several of the greatest Powers of the world. Are we placing the same resources at the disposal of our great men —and they need to be described as great men—serving in a humble way, as they are doing day by day, in engineering, in the universities, and in other research centres? Are we proceeding as fast as we should to enable this energy to be used to save life? Within the past two years I have had certain personal experiences which make me realise what we owe to the medical men and the scientists and I want those resources to be placed at the disposal of our medical men, so that they can save thousands of humble lives in this country, rather than that such means should be lost as they have been for far too long.
  I do not accept altogether what I am now going to quote but there is a great deal in it. H. G. Wells said:
  "The fate of the world depends upon a race between education and catastrophe. In view of the atomic bomb catastrophe is winning, since science and technology are developing more rapidly than man's ability to control them."
  At the last General Election the people of our country elected a Government that should carry out a policy of complete national control and it is time we were seeing more results in this respect. I read in the "New York Herald Tribune" of 16th August that constant research is being carried out in atomic energy in the United States. The United States Army are testing German V-2 rockets, and their Air Force are testing rocket powered projectiles 10 feet long. Atomic energy as
  62
  a means of propulsion will be a reality in five years, they say. Their naval experts envisage new types of ships—long, thin, pencil-like vessels, with knife-edged bows and sterns—propelled by atomic energy at great speed.
  I am still only relatively young but I have been involved in two world wars. The first war, we were told, was a war to end war. During the last war we were promised a new world. Now the ordinary people are asking, "Where are we going now?" I supported our war effort one hundred per cent. and I am confident that that was the right policy, but I now stand here a little disillusioned after reading the American publication, "Dinner at the White House." The "Manchester Guardian" of 9th September said that General Eisenhower was to have conferences with the Imperial General Staff when he visited England. It was understood that close Anglo-American cooperation in the development of guided missiles was being sought. We heard a great deal last week about General Eisenhower's visit, but nothing about the report to which I have referred. I would ask the Minister whether that report was correct.
  I recently read an American publication entitled "The Scientific Monthly" which stated that progress in science in Russia during the war was greater than we expected, and that, in some fields, the Russians are leading the world. In the past I would have said, "Reactionaries beware," but in the atomic age we shall all be involved, for with atomic and other forms of warfare the devastation will result in the annihilation of millions. On 16th November last year President Truman and the Prime Minister said that the only complete protection for the civilised world from the destructive use of scientific knowledge lies in the prevention of war. That was a relatively long time ago now, and I think that more should have been said by spokesmen of the Government in this respect during the ensuing ten months. The indictment upon which the Nazis were sentenced has created a new international code, and I want to ask the Government whether they accept this new code: "Sentenced for crimes against humanity." All politicians who are supporting policies that may lead to war might consider their position in relation to this new international code.

  63
  Do the Big Four accept it? Then why all this expenditure on armaments?
  The people are hoping that the international Atomic Commission will reach agreement upon atomic control. If they do, then the Big Four should meet to consider what they can do about this enormous expenditure of the people's wealth and energy that is taking place on armaments, and I am hoping that, after the speech made by the Prime Minister today, he is going to speak out more upon this question. How much longer are we to leave the initiative in international affairs to other countries? How much longer are we to leave the field of international politics to General Smuts and to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)? How much longer are we to be dragged at the heels of the United States of America in international politics? During the recent war, the British people made an enormous contribution to the saving of mankind. It entitles us to speak out in international affairs. I welcomed the speech made today by the Prime Minister. I welcomed in particular the phrase he used to the effect that there was not sufficient awareness in this country of the destructive possibilities of this enormous energy. I hope that this is the beginning of the Government's initiative in international affairs, in order that the people of this country, and mankind in general, may use this new nuclear energy for the purpose of saving life. I hope we shall not drift into an arms race in atomic energy, in which more of the energy of the people themselves will be used than has ever been the case before. I, therefore, welcome the introduction of the Bill, and hope that it will be the beginning of a great step in this country in the progress of man.
  5.2 p.m.
  Commander Noble: Having just had the privilege of representing this House as one of the Government observers at the Bikini atomic bomb tests, I am glad of the opportunity of saying a few words in this Debate. On our mission to the Pacific it was necessary for the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and I to share a cabin in an American warship for some two months. When we were asked by our United Nations colleagues how we managed to do this without any apparent disagreement we used
  64
  to reply, rather aptly we thought, that we considered that atomic energy and the atomic bomb were above party. I hope that any criticism that may creep into my remarks may be accepted in that spirit. I realise the vital importance of this subject to this country in particular.
  As is only natural upon returning from such a mission I find that practically everybody I meet asks me, "What did you think of the atomic bomb?" What is really surprising is the fact that few of those people—and here I emphasise what the Prime Minister has said—have already arranged in their minds, and are already certain of, what I am going to say. Some people are prepared to hear me belittle the bomb. Others are prepared for what I am really going to say, which is, what devastating weapons atomic bombs are. I fully, realise the need for this Bill. We are trying to take our place at Lake Success on the Atomic Commission of the United Nations, and it is only right that we should put our own house in order first.
  However, I would emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), that it seems a great pity that the Bill should have been so much delayed. It was read a First time on 1st May, when an announcement was made that it would be read a Second time on 6th May. Here we are, some five months later, reading it a Second time, and with all the stages of the Bill having to be hurried through the House in a few days. I hope that this remark will not be looked upon as unfair, but it prompts me to say that I only hope that this does not indicate the degree of importance that the Government will attach to this subject. It was very reassuring to hear the wise counsel given by the Prime Minister when introducing the Bill. I was also very glad to hear what the Prime Minister said about research. When I read the Bill I was encouraged to read in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the objects of the Bill were:
  "to empower the Minister of Supply to promote the development of atomic energy and to confer upon him powers of control,"
  et cetera, but when one turned to the text of the Bill, to find some encouragement to private research and some planned Government research, one found only a repetition of the words which I have just quoted.

  65
  It is a very great pity that more was not put in 10 the Bill on the lines already indicated from the Government Front Bench in this Debate. There is no mention of private research, although perhaps it is implied in Clause 3 (1), which gives the Minister power to grant certain loans, and perhaps also in Clause 10 (2). As has been stated by my right hon. Friend, the rest of the Bill is purely negative, and consists of powers of inspection, compulsory acquisition, control of production, restrictions upon disclosure of information, and penalties. Controls and regulations of that sort are necessary, but there appears to be no balance on the other side in the form of encouragement. I feel that much encouragement could have been given to research. The Minister might have mentioned that he had a plan for private research and a plan for Government-conducted research.
  I make these points for two reasons. First of all, let us remember that it was not luck that enabled German scientists to make a discovery in 1938 which led the world to know very soon that atomic bombs were possible; that it was not luck that enabled Allied scientists, supported by foresight and vision at the top, to use the first atomic bomb in New Mexico on 15th July, 1945. It was not luck, but years of research and hard work. We have played our part in that work and we must go on playing our part in order that we may keep pace with, and I hope overtake, the research of other countries. We must go on also for what I think is a very important point, in order that we may take an adequate place upon the United Nations Atomic Convention when, as we all hope it will be, it is finally set up. We must not be a sleeping partner in any such Convention. We can maintain our position in that Convention only by having the requisite scientific background.
  These remarks lead up to a request that, in the new set-up, Government and private research will not be hampered by red tape. I do not speak for any particular scientist or group of scientists, but I feel that scientists do not want to be civil servants. They do not want to have to clock-in and they do not want to clock-out. They want to work in an academic atmosphere and, as far as possible, to run their own show. I was lucky enough recently to visit the University of California. I was much impressed by the
  66
  atmosphere there. It is a magnificent university and, in that academic atmosphere and those delightful surroundings, great work is being done, with Government backing, with a 184-inch cyclotron.
  It must be remembered that some scientists are good administrators and that some are not. There are scientists who specialise in theory, there are others who specialise in the more material side. It is Marconi's name that is always associated with radio, but I think I am right in saying that it was Maxwell who was the first expounder of the theory that Marconi put into practice. There are scientists whose work is inspired, and dedicated to science, and there are also those who quite naturally expect some adequate financial reward. There are also those, I am glad to say, who combine both these qualities. To take an analogy of State research which gives some idea of the delicacy of the problem, suppose the Government instructed all the leading musicians in the country to compose, produce and play a symphony, and told them that on no account were they ever to exhibit it privately for their own advantage and that all results, financial and otherwise, belonged to His Majesty's Government. We can but conjecture on the result, but I am very doubtful whether it would be harmony, and I do not think that scientists are any less temperamental than musicians.
  To sum up these points, let us hope that our new institution at Harwell and other institutions that grow up will have the atmosphere of encouragement in which scientists want to work. With regard again to private research, I hope there will be every encouragement, the pooling of as much information as possible, as few regulations as possible, financial help, and what is very important these days, help in obtaining the necessary equipment. I did not quite hear what the Prime Minister said about the committee of experts to advise the Minister and perhaps the Minister will explain that a little more clearly when he sums up. We all know that the committee which has been going for some time under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) is still in existence, but I am not quite sure how that committee now stands Is it the committee to which the Prime Minister referred, or is the Minister of

  67
  Supply to have some other committee of scientists to advise him? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington said, we all have great respect for the great knowledge of the Minister of Supply in the many roles he has to play, even perhaps in the iron and steel industry, but in a great subject like this there should be a named advisory committee. Also, is there to be any standing military advisory committee, using the word "military" to embrace all three Services? Atomic weapons, and the atomic bomb in particular, will have a great effect on decisions made in the future by the three Services, and I hope there will be a fully organised co-operation and agreement between the Ministry and the Services. No doubt the new Minister of Defence will play a large part in this new set-up.
  May I say a word or two about the international side? I was very glad that the hon Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was able to raise this subject on the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess but I was surprised to read a statement made in that Debate by the then Minister of State. When referring to the American and Russian plans for the control of atomic energy, he said:
  "His Majesty's Government for their part accept both these plans. They believe that they need to be fused."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 1391.]
  That statement caused considerable surprise on the other side of the Atlantic. H.M. Government may well see both sides of the picture and hope that they may be brought together, but it is a little difficult to "accept" two plans that have a fundamental difference in timing. I hope that representatives of H.M. Government at Lake Success are making every effort to fuse these two plans and will take some practical steps, especially as since then the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Commission have unanimously agreed that they do not find any basis in the available scientific facts for supposing that effective control is not technologically feasible.
  Atomic energy in peace can bring great benefits, but there is no doubt in my mind that if ever there is another war it will be a war with atomic weapons; and having at Bikini seen the destruction wrought by two bombs in the very infancy of the atomic age. I have some
  68
  idea of what that would mean. This may sound a platitude, but it is most important for this country to realise the implications. This has been emphasised by several speakers in this Debate, including the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and we should do all we can in the international field to try to make war impossible, and also to control atomic power, and at home to make quite certain that we take the lead in research in all the fields of atomic power. It may take some time. We have to build— buildings, equipment and indeed personnel—but I am quite certain that we shall succeed. Mr. Baruch said the other day in rather a different context that when a man learns to say "A" he can if he wishes learn the rest of the alphabet. On this occasion we might say that "A" stands for "Atom" and "B" stands for "Bomb." What the rest of the alphabet contains we do not know, but let us make quite certain that we make every effort to find out.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ranger: I have served an apprenticeship of a full 12 months in this House before attempting to address it for the first time but I find the need for the indulgence usually extended by the House to an hon. Member undergoing that ordeal—at least, some measure of the usual indulgence, not the full measure, because some of my remarks are on the verge of being controversial. I welcome this Bill as an essential step towards the acceptance of international control of released atomic energy. It is only in full control of this new and revolutionary power that we can find any satisfaction. I will not take the time of the House in outlining the arguments in favour of a national control of released atomic energy as outlined in the Bill. We have heard that it is generally accepted, and I will not repeat arguments for a point which already has general acceptance in this House. I therefore propose to use the full time at my disposal for points of the Bill against which I wish to make a humble protest.
  There are points in the Bill which seem to me to be entirely at variance with the declared objective of the Bill. The Prime Minister said that the Bill was to cover the period between now and the setting up of an international authority, and to

  69
  enable us to take our part and to accept the authority of the international control board. It seems to me that in Clauses 11 and 13 we are going back to the old national rivalry in armaments, upon a destructive weapon still in its infancy, but still of such known destructive power as to frighten the whole world. The power of released atomic energy has been expressed in an official publication in the United States as a revolutionary weapon of war, especially when used as a weapon of strategic bombardment aimed at the destruction of enemy cities and the eradication of their populations. That seems to me to be not so much a description of a weapon of war as a statement of mass murder, and I believe that we, as a nation, have already declared our acceptance of the idea that this weapon of mass destruction of human life and property should be outlawed.
  The Bill, in Clauses 11 and 13, proposes to retain secrets—not, I take it, of the peaceful development of this new power, but to make official secrets of the development and production that we are to operate in this country in relation to the use of the atomic bomb, as a weapon of destruction. This is a denial of the Prime Minister's own declaration—in accord with that made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada—that the information concerning the use of released atomic energy should be spread among the nations of the world. It is in defiance of the fact that it is now generally agreed among the nations that this new destructive weapon shall be outlawed. Therefore, the use of an atomic bomb is an illegal act under the law of nations, the law of civilisation, the law of international peace, and if the bomb, as a finished product, is to be illegal, then surely steps for the manufacture of that illegal weapon of war are also illegal, and if our secrecy Clauses are intended to cover the operation of illegal manufacture of illegal weapons, it is better that those Clauses should never appear, and that the Government should never have that power.
  Furthermore, in the sphere of international conferences, in the struggle to achieve peace agreements between the nations, we are suffering from an overdose of international suspicion. It is dogging every conference, hindering every agreement that is attempted, and
  70
  here we are being asked to legislate Clauses in an important and essential Bill, which will add to that suspicion and which are themselves, founded upon suspicion of the intentions of other nations and the possibility of espionage by other nations. There is no need for secrecy in the development of atomic energy as a peaceful weapon; there is every need for it—and that is why the power is taken —if we are to use this new development as a weapon of warfare, if there is a possibility of using it as a weapon for the destruction of enemy cities and the eradication of their populations. If we take control of the use of atomic energy and if, at the same time, we declare, by publicly announcing it in this House and by withdrawing the secrecy Clauses from this Bill, that we have no intention in this country of adopting the release of atomic energy as a weapon of war and, therefore, will have no secrets to hide from other nations, we shall adopt the full possibilities of this new development for peaceful means. We can then be confident that there will be in international assemblies and international conferences a reinstatement of that commonsense which will make the statesmen of the world convinced that there must be no more war, that there must be no possibility of a war in which the weapons will be atomic bombs or further and bigger developments of these drastic methods of mass destruction.
  Then the secrecy Clauses are to be condemned not only because they would have the natural effect of obstructing the full development of the utilisation of released atomic energy, but because there will be an atmosphere of doubt, an atmosphere of timidity, in all discussions between scientists. The atomic bomb itself is not the outcome of work and study by a single scientist; it is not the work of a small team of associated scientists; it is the work of a team of scientists, and the foundation of their work has been not national, not between two or three nations, but founded on the work of international science, of the scientists of many generations in many countries of the world. Therefore, our scientists owe to the scientists of other nations a tremendous part of the knowledge they possess, and of what they have managed to develop upon the basis of that knowledge. They have an international inheritance of tremendous value. Because they have an

  71
  international inheritance, they have international responsibilities, they have international duties, they have international loyalty which is, at least, as great, and probably greater, than their loyalty to the nation in which they reside.
  We have seen in the development of the scientific work of the world, the work of internationalism in its finest phase. We have seen the benefits of this citizenship of the world in the sphere of science. It should be an example to the rest of us in every other department of man's activity. If, now, we are to clamp the narrow confines of an Official Secrets Act upon the work of many scientists in this country—for many branches of science are involved in this new development and its range; if the scope is to be narrowed, and if there are to be muzzles upon the scientists of this country—muzzles which the best scientists can never willingly accept—it will obstruct their efficiency, and the attainment of the greatest possible benefit in this country of the use of atomic energy. We need to apply the best scientific knowledge this country possesses to this new discovery, which is as revolutionary for health and welfare as it is revolutionary for the destruction of life and property. If we allow these secrecy Clauses to remain in the Bill, there is grave danger that peaceful possibilities will be stunted and smothered. While the activity which is being operated may now be safe from the point of view of the Official Secrets Act—as this thing is in its infancy—it may be that later on that safe activity will be discovered by some new process to be essentially an official secret. There will be at all times the possibility of over-caution, the possibility of throwing the blanket too widely over the scope of study and experiment which will bring these people under a grave disadvantage, in face of a discovery which might help us to produce, by its cheap and widespread power, a condition of health and prosperity such as this country has never known.
  I appeal to the Front Bench to withdraw these secrecy Clauses, or at least substantially to amend them, so that they are not nearly as wide in their scope as at present. This withdrawal would be a bold decision, a dramatic decision, which might be noticed all the more by the
  72
  world because it would be a withdrawal of the Clauses made after their introduction as part of the Bill. By withdrawal we would be declaring to the world at large Britain's determination that international control of atomic energy must succeed, that international authority shall be established and that we are staking all on the fact that control is the only way in which the people of this land can have security from the fear of war—fear of a war more deadly than ever war has been in the past. There is no security in an international arms race in atomic bombs. Security must be world-wide, or there is no security at all. Security has to be obtained by international cooperation, or it cannot be obtained at all. This small island of cities with mass populations, is a glorious target from the point of view of the aimer of an atomic bomb. The fact that we had developed, under an Official Secrets Act, weapons of retaliation of tremendous power, would be little consolation for the effect of a surprise attack by atomic bombs which might disrupt the whole of our development of means of retaliation. Even if it were not so, it would be of no consolation to the hundreds of thousands of dead. Our salvation lies not in building up a national control of this new power, but in putting everything we have, all our time and energies and enthusiasm, into the idea of international control and the outlawing of atomic warfare. I ask for the withdrawal of these Clauses as an indication of that intention, as an indication of that determination, and as having a psychological effect which will help the Foreign Secretary in international conferences and in his work of trying to disperse suspicion, now hampering and obstructing work that is essential to our welfare and very existence.
  5.35 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure the House will envy me my pleasant task of congratulating the hon. Member for South Ilford (Mr. Ranger) on a very interesting and original speech. It is rare nowadays for any hon. Member on any side of the House to be able to say that he has shown such self-restraint that he has not addressed the House for a period of 12 months. I think hon. Members will feel that they have missed a great deal in that he has not seen fit to take part in our Debates earlier. At the same time, as

  73
  a very old Member, I congratulate him on carrying out what used to be a tradition of this House that new Members should be seen more than heard. But the speed of legislation now is such that we all have to take part. I believe the hon. Member has shown by his speech today that he has been thinking of this matter, and I only wish I could go the whole way with him. I certainly agree entirely with what he said at the end of his speech.
  As I interpreted the speech of the Prime Minister earlier today, there is nothing in this Bill—quite the contrary—which conflicts with the idea of international control. It is perfectly obvious that international control of a force of this kind is the only control which can be effective. Another matter which I think ought to be mentioned is that the internal combustion engine, invented half a century or more ago, was looked upon as rather interesting but the fact that it revolutionised war and the conduct of war was not appreciated at the time when it was invented. As scientists go forward, so will their inventions become more complicated, more formidable and more devastating, if wrongly applied. I agree with the hon. Member for South Ilford that we cannot restrict scientific thought and intercourse. It must be world wide. It is only by the contact of scientists with each other that scientific advance is possible throughout the world.
  The hon. Member for South Ilford put forward views which I have very often heard expressed by eminent scientists, to the effect that they will not be bound by this, that or the other; that they feel their first duty to be to the world of science, not to the laws of their country. I cannot agree with that, because a man, be he scientist or not, must make a contribution and recognise his duty and obligations as a citizen of his country. When the time comes, through the United Nations Security Council, or in some other way, if there is to be a greater interchange of view and widening of scope and, to use the hon. Member's expression, an extension of the blanket a little further, let there be more discussion, on a wider range. Let us hope, before very long the emphasis will be not on destruction, but on evolution of power. But we cannot divide one from the other.
  There are one or two matters about which I hope the Minister of Supply will
  74
  be able to give us some further information. I should have thought it very important to know whether the general form of this Bill is, more or less, the form of similar Bills that either have been, or will be, introduced into the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth. It seems to me one of those matters where it is all important that there should be some general common form, because in that case it would be possible for consultations to take place between the scientists of different parts of the British Empire, and to do so properly and in due form, and thereby get the benefit of their researches.
  All through this Debate we have been talking about the scientists. I want to emphasise that in the development of anything like atomic energy, the engineer has to play a large part, and I hope that the apprentices in the engineering industry will be encouraged to play their part in this terrific development. It is rather appalling to realise that atomic energy is something which will completely change everything we have been able to calculate upon both in the forces of destruction and in the power of reconstruction and development. It is of such immense importance that we should do everything we can, whilst retaining certain restrictions for the time being, to conduct its development in such a way that we shall not only be equal to the lead of other countries, but that, in accordance with our previous practice, we shall go ahead of other countries, by what we believe to be the genius of our race and our tradition.
  There is also the matter mentioned by my right hon. Friend earlier about the Government not considering this a matter of priority. I think I can refute that because Harwell happens to be in my constituency, and so great has been the Government priority that I have had to try to get two bricklayers taken away from Harwell to build houses for my constituents. I have not been very successful, and I do not regret it because I think that a drive must be made to get the research station ready, and that we cannot afford to waste a single day or week. The more people realise the relative importance of that work compared even with other important things, the easier it will be for them to understand the position. Certain things are causing everyone difficulty—the provision of the necessary equipment and machinery. It

  75
  is almost impossible to get equipment ready in the way in which it is wanted, unless the manufacturing industries in this country which are concerned in this task, are able to impart to the workers the real urgency of this matter. I do not pretend to know any more than any other hon. Member of this House, but we have to provide complicated equipment, and there are bottlenecks, as there always are in establishing machinery of this kind. I am convinced that we shall have to make a special drive and see that in every workshop in this country and in every factory which is in any way connected with this great task, everyone down to the last joined apprentice is made to realise the part he is playing in getting these research stations established.
  In addition to that—I think I mentioned this in a previous Debate—great inventors are usually young. When one gets to my age, one does not invent anything It is when one is young that one invents things; one's brain is young and keen. I think it is true to say that no one over 25 has really invented anything yet; he may have followed someone else's idea, but the great inventions of history have been the work of very young men.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Forty.
  Sir R. Glyn: I think it is younger than that. My impression is that one cannot start too young. When a new idea of this sort comes along we should do something in the schools and universities to offer a career to young scientists and engineers, and we are not, as far as I know, doing that. It is difficult to know why. It is partly due to this business of secrecy and of being afraid to say too much. I am sure that there is something about this development which will attract young men and women. There is a great shortage just now of people going into the walks of life concerned with this matter. We know that there is a great shortage of draughtsmen and draughtswomen, a great shortage of people going into apprentice jobs, a shortage in the glass industry and elsewhere. It is from the types of people, who handle things in their daily task, that the ideas come. We shall, I hope, be able to provide from industry, for this set-up, those people who can make a great contribution.
  76
  The Prime Minister told us today that the Minister of Supply is to carry out the administrative work and the details, but that the subject will remain in his hands as Prime Minister and will be watched very closely by the Cabinet as a whole. That is essential but although the present Minister of Supply is most competent I dread the amount of weight that is being put on his shoulders. He seems to me to be engaged in the disposal of certain stores, varying from large things to tiny things; he has already got the whole of the research work of the three Services on his back, and now he has this vast job as well. While I do not at the moment see any signs of cracking as a result of the straws that are being put on his back, I trust that the Prime Minister will consider having a special Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry who will devote the whole of his time to assisting in this matter. That goes also for the Lord President of the Council. By tradition, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has always been under the charge of the Lord President, and it is the Lord President's office to supervise scientific and educational matters of that kind. All the research establishments, in the old days, were under the care of the Lord President. There is now established, under the most able direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), a special committee. I am not quite sure how that committee fits in with the work of the Minister of Supply and the Lord President of the Council. It is quite clear that there are ties in both directions, but we are now reaching a stage of scientific research and development when it seems to me that there is scope for some focal point as between the Lord President's work and that of the Minister of Supply in connection with both research for the Services and with the terrific responsibility which rests on the right hon. Gentleman to see that atomic energy is handled in the correct way.
  Finally, I believe that those professors and scientists who have been concerned with the original development of atomic energy at Cambridge and elsewhere, and more recently in the United States, and who are now engaged in the United States, in cooperation with American and Canadian scientists, have made a most tremendous contribution. The British name stands very high. After all, the work done

  77
  at Cambridge was the basis of all this, and it is only man's folly which is making this development a possible means of the destruction of the human race. No material consideration will cure that; there is nothing that can be done by putting secrecy Clauses in a Bill, and and I do not care whether they are in or not. The only way to save civilisation is by something totally different—by a realisation of certain moral forces and certain rights and wrongs which are, I think, in the character and in the spirit of nations. I am very sad, because if one travels about in Europe now one inevitably hears of and sees the divisions that are taking place; one knows that the mentality of the Germans is dedicated to destruction, and that after every war in every country, every scientist is being asked by his Government to devote all his energies to means of the destruction of human life so long as it is not their own. After every war we have this terrific concentration of scientific thought devoted to destruction. When we come to change from war to peace, we have this hangover from war. The tragedy is that somehow or other we are not able to rise above the appalling condition of seeing human beings playing with fire and being unable to stop them blowing themselves to pieces. Literally, that is true. It is like watching a lot of children playing in a dangerous explosive store. Until some force, which I believe can only come from above, converts people to something else, we shall never get that position put right.
  We know today that the Germans came very near to producing something which happily the course of the war prevented them from putting into force. If I were more satisfied that there was not collusion at the present time between German scientists bent on destruction and other scientists of other countries, I should feel much happier. I do not know whether the Prime Minister could say the same thing. I do not think it would be wise for any person in an official position to say that, though there is no harm in my saying it. The great danger is caused when we build up two blocks of scientists and engineers in conflict with each other. I am convinced this is not the time when we can take any risks or chances. After all, these things need not be dropped from the skies. It is a great mistake for people, if they are talking of destruction, to think only in the form of bombs. If develop-
  78
  ments take place, a small packet in the bow of every steamer going up every waterway in this island and into all the harbours, a few suitcases left in luggage waiting rooms—all could go up together without any warning with devastating results. With these nightmares passing through one's brain, I feel that the Government and the House can take no risks. Indeed, it is a terrific responsibility. I hope the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to this Bill and that we shall all work to switch atomic energy into peaceful moulds so that we can say all that we have, all that we fought for, amounts to something better than utter destruction.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Blackburn: I am sure there is much in the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) which commanded support from these benches, particularly his concluding paragraph. I would like, if I might with humility, to express my appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister has introduced this Bill himself today in order to mark his appreciation of the importance of this subject. In my speech I desire to deal specifically with the Clauses of the Bill, but in view of the general discussion which has proceeded, perhaps I may be allowed five or six sentences on the matters to which reference has been made. We all welcome very much the statement of the Prime Minister of what I am convinced to be a fact, that there is not perhaps as much awareness of the danger arising from atomic energy in this country as there is in the United States of America.
  Two or three months ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), whose absence is very much regretted, said in a most important conference of atomic scientists at Oxford, that the atomic bomb is not the only weapon of mass destruction now available and that there are other weapons of mass destruction being developed which will be available in the near future. I was a little sceptical about that when I first heard it, but it is a statement made by the chairman of the committee which advises the Government upon this and similar matters. Such investigations as I have been able to make with leading scientists in America have changed my mind and convinced

  79
  me, so far as one is able to be convinced from such information as is available, that there is a great basis of truth in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I beg the Prime Minister to consider whether he will not be able at some stage to make a statement as to the weapons of mass destruction which may become available, or which are now becoming available, in order that the people of Britain and the world should be told the truth. I do not suggest that it is desirable to frighten them. That is far from my thoughts. I suggest, in view of the admitted danger hanging over the heads of men, that they should at least know what the danger is, because if may greatly change their whole attitude to foreign affairs. It may change their whole attitude to medium Powers because, as Field Marshal Smuts pointed out, the most important factor of all is the time factor. I do not believe myself that the Soviet Union can produce atomic bombs for five years; but can they produce radio active dust next year, which may be almost as terrible a weapon? Can they produce biological and bacteriological warfare? I mention the Soviet Union only as an illustration. I suggest we should also consider the Argentine and other countries.
  I come now to the two real points which have been raised in a letter to "The Times" today sent by the Atomic Scientists Association. That letter seemed to me to convey the beliefs of almost all scientists in this sphere. It is backed up by the Association of Scientific Workers. I know, because I was invited to the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, that it represents also the view of American scientists. I will deal with my second point first, because the Prime Minister raised it in his speech. I do not think there was anything the Prime Minister said which would not have commanded complete assent from such scientists I have been able to talk with, with the one exception of the interpretation of Clause 11, upon which I imagine that he and the Minister are open to argument. As Clause 11 and Clause 18 (1) are construed by scientists; they prevent the disclosure of any information in the nature of fundamental research in the whole field of nuclear research. Once this was upon the Statute
  80
  Book it would in effect mean that Professor Oliphant would be unable to talk to Professor Peierls, the theoretical physicist, advising him upon any of the matters on which the Government have allocated him £141,000. He would first have to submit to the Minister a request for permission to do so. The exact words are:
  "Any person who … knowingly communicates any document, drawing, photograph, plan, model or other information whatsoever which describes, represents or illustrates any existing or proposed plants used or proposed to be used for the purpose of producing or using atomic energy …"
  Atomic energy is defined—this is a really important point—in Clause 18 (1) to include the energy released in any process which involves the transformation of or the actions between atomic nuclei. I think the point has been admitted already by officials that that would cover a cyclotron, a betatron, a Cockcroft-Walton apparatus and other instruments for fundamental research. The Prime Minister made it quite clear in his speech that the intention of the Government is to see that information with respect to bombs or to the industrial "know-how" for the provision of material from which bombs are made, must be kept secret. With that, everybody is agreed.
  The Prime Minister also said he was in favour of fostering basic fundamental research. He pointed out that fundamental research can exist only in an atmosphere of freedom and full cooperation between scientists in the country and outside. The point will be met if the Minister is prepared to indicate that he will accept an Amendment which will so define atomic energy that it does not include the infinitesimal amount of energy released in the course of fundamental research in the use of cyclotrons, betatrons and similar instruments. This is an absolutely vital matter, for this reason. We are at least five years behind the United States in atomic energy, and we are bound to remain five years behind. The first pile working in the United States was towards the end of 1942. There has been no secrecy, nor has there been any announcement about any pile working in the British Isles, and I think it is obvious that no pile is working at present, though one may assume that one will be very soon. That means that we start off, as I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite implied by his reference to the amount of

  81
  money to be spent, at a great disadvantage. We arc, in fact, five years behind the Americans, simply because we have not got the plant, the materials, the engineering work done, and it is really not a question of secrets so much as one of sheer hard facts.
  I am not in any way blaming the Government, because it is almost entirely beyond their control, but this is the point. If we are to maintain our position in the world, the only method by which we can regain the lead we once possessed is by encouraging fundamental research and by allowing scientists—the really important ones we have at the moment are Prof. Oliphant and Prof. Chadwick—to discover the nature of atomic energy, which scientists do not yet know. Scientists are not at all sure what goes on inside the nuclei, and until the new apparatus is available which enables the nuclei of many atoms to be bombarded most effectively it will not be possible for scientists to discover it. I hope hon. Members opposite will forgive me for dealing with this point, but I think the views of scientists should be put before the House and that hon. Members should be told of the main hope of British recovery in this field. If that is the fact, and I do not think the Minister will challenge it— that our main hope lies in allowing our scientists to proceed with fundamental research—it is essential that Clause 11 of the Bill should not be allowed to go forward in its present terms. I hope the Minister will indicate when he winds up the Debate that he is prepared to amend the Clause so as not to cramp fundamental research, but to allow work to proceed on cyclotrons, betatrons, etc.
  May I now turn to my second point, which was partly made by the hon. Member who has just spoken—that scientists desire a general advisory committee? In the United States, there are a five-man Commission, an Advisory Committee, a Military Liaison Committee and a Special Investigation Committee of Congress. Against these four checks, we here have but one. We have found the Minister most accommodating but the point has already been made sufficiently that he is in charge of many other matters, and I am sure that he would derive benefit from an advisory committee. The committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities is not a com-
  82
  mittee of scientists concerned with this project. There is only one scientist on that committee with experience of the American project—Sir James Chadwick—and he spends a lot of time in America engaged in very important international matters. I suggest that the Minister would do a great deal to reassure scientists if he were prepared to accept an Amendment in favour of a committee of scientists, technicians and engineers as a general advisory committee to advise him. That is entirely in accordance with the principle for which the Labour Party stands. The Labour Party does not stand for absolute, one-man, unadvised control in any subject whatsoever. Why does it stand for it in atomic energy, when it is not prepared to accept it in its coal nationalisation proposals and accords the fullest measures for consulting the workers, the managers and others concerned?
  Scientists are only endeavouring to secure that the Minister will have scientific advice. I am sure that the Minister is unable to spend his time seeing these scientists, nor, probably, would it be very helpful if he did. I did not mean to make that remark in any offensive spirit. We cannot expect a civilian Minister to be a scientific expert, and I think scientists are entitled to know if there will be a proper channel through which they can state their views and ensure that those views are understood in the proper quarters. How can any scientist have any confidence in a set-up which produces a Minister who does not know anything about atomic energy and which does not indicate who are the scientists who are to advise him? The scientists ask that they should, at least, know who the advisers are.
  May I come to another point which the Minister may have had in mind? The Minister may say that, while the principle of an advisory committee is a good one, it would derogate from the Parliamentary control of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister nods his head, and I take it that he is in agreement. Surely, these things are entirely compatible. On the one hand, he will have his advisory council, to which engineers and scientists can go, but, entirely unaffected by that is the control by Parliament of the Minister. I cannot see how it can be argued, to put it in an extreme form, that an unadvised dictator

  83
  is better than an advised dictator. I beg the Minister's pardon for using the word dictator, and I do not suggest that he has any of the attributes of a dictator, but, surely, this is the fundamental point? How can one properly acquire information upon which one can criticise the Minister? A moment or two ago, I tried to give some technical details, when hon. Members opposite started to titter. This is not an institution before which a Member of Parliament can easily start to argue a scientific matter, but I am sorry that there are among hon. Members opposite some who are not even prepared to be curious about the basis upon which the whole industrial future of Britain may depend.
  In any event, the scientists would be precluded, under Clause 11, from giving information to a Member upon which he could come to this House and ask the Minister to give an account of his actions. Parliamentary control, in this matter of atomic energy, is almost entirely unreal. I think the Minister knows that, if I put to him facts which I could not have acquired without having been told them by a scientist, he will want to know who the scientist is and may well take action against him. I hope he will reconsider the matter. The scientists do not ask that they should appoint the advisers of the Minister. They have agreed that the Minister should appoint his advisers, and that the Minister would still be free to disregard the advice of his advisory committee if he so desired, but they do ask the Minister to let them know who is to speak for them in advising him. I think that is a simple and reasonable proposal which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept.
  My final comment is this. The Bill is undoubtedly a very necessary Bill in so far as it indicates our intentions to put atomic energy under national control, but, in actual fact, I would defend the Government against the right hon. Gentleman opposite who accused them of having been dilatory in bringing this matter forward. In actual fact, the Government are now controlling atomic energy in Britain. They control all the uranium and the thorium and have the Official Secrets Act which, as the Prime Minister admits, operates in relation to the whole of the industrial "know-how." In view of that fact, I would beg the Government
  84
  not to rush this Bill through—assuming they do not agree with the views of almost every scientist consulted on this matter— unless they are able to give way on these points. This is not a Bill to be rushed through at a particular moment. As I have said, the Government already control atomic energy and I am sure the Prime Minister and the Minister will remember the words that
  "magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom."
  6.11 p.m.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: We have all been impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). I confess that I have spent a very melancholy day in this House. Although this Bill has been presented by the Prime Minister in his usual able fashion by confining himself to the strict purpose of the Bill, this could not conceal its true historical significance, and that is that it affects the future of this country and that of mankind. Although we could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be drawn into a long argument about foreign affairs, international repercussions and so forth, I should have liked the Prime Minister to emphasise more than he did that it is for this country to do everything in its power to outlaw the very instrument which it is the purpose of this Bill to develop. I, like the hon. Member for King's Norton, would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to disclose to this country what they know with regard to other fiendish discoveries, both potential and actual, in the realm of atomic energy. We are a very tolerant race and very easy-going. We are not easily moved by emotion or mass sentimental scenes or emotions which are not considered "British good form." But it is the duty of the Government to explain to the people, not only the potentialities of the particular instrument dealt with in this Bill, but of other cognate destructive weapons, in order that the conscience of the people may be aroused. When their conscience is aroused the people of this country can lead the world in moral progress as they have led it in other directions in the past. Not only that, but it is our supreme self-interest to do so, for we are now the most vulnerable country in the whole globe.
  The other day, I read that Professor Oliphant had said at a public gathering

  85
  that if 50 atomic bombs were strategically dropped on this island, they would so destroy it that those who were unfortunate enough to survive would be completely incapable of repairing the destruction. Surely, we can accept Professor Oliphant as a great authority on this matter. That was a very serious statement to make. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Abing-don (Sir R. Glyn) said, it is very much easier to destroy us by an atomic bomb than to drop a lot of ordinary high explosives because there are many insidious ways of doing so. I should have liked to hear the Prime Minister say more in regard to the British Commonwealth concerning this matter and whether this Bill is on similar lines to those being introduced at the present time in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth. Not only must we act in concert as far as we can, but it is important from a strategic point of view, as well as from other points of view, that there should be action in common in this matter. We know that in the Commonwealth there are great sources of atomic energy, and it is vital that we should act together.
  Something has been said with regard to research. For many years before I came to this House I belonged to a profession which, if it has not led the world, has at any rate taken a very prominent part in research and brought many benefits to mankind throughout the world, irrespective of language or strategic frontiers. There is the danger in this Bill that private research will be discouraged. I hope that the Prime Minister will give every encouragement for developments in this new discovery—particularly in its pacific aspects—to be brought before him, in order that no private individual may be left behind, or feel that he is not making his contribution so far as the specific and progressive development of this discovery is concerned.
  I would like to endorse the words used in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Ilford (Mr. Ranger) on the question of secrecy. This is a very difficult matter and I know that the Government have the lesson of Canada in front of them. The Canadians are a patriotic people, but some of them were poisoned by a doctrine of a foreign character which completely divorced their minds from all idea of patriotism and allowed them to sell their country to a foreign Power. I
  86
  know that the Government have to protect this country against that sort of thing, but, at the same time, I hope that they will not go too far in the direction of eliminating and discouraging world wide publicity of scientific inventions. It is a line which the Government will find great difficulty in achieving, but I am sure they will do their best. This is a non-controversial Bill and is nationalisation of a kind which we can all endorse. All the same, it is a melancholy occasion and I trust that, when the Bill passes through this House, the Government will take measures to make it clear to the whole world that we in this island are absolutely determined to spare no effort in order to secure for all time that this atomic power, so potential of good, shall be eliminated from any use in war. This can and must be done.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) apparently accepted the fact that this Bill was not motivated by any doctrinal idea, but then he went on to complain that there was a certain similarity between this Bill and the other Bills that have been brought in for the nationalisation of certain industries. I think it is worth pointing out that it is not a coincidence that there is this similarity. It was Karl Marx who pointed out that the political structure of a society will depend upon the tools and the power with which that society has to work. It is because the tools and the power with which we have been building up our industrial system have reached such a level of productivity that it has been essential that we should take them over and run them on a national basis. When we deal with this power of atomic energy, it seems to me that if we accept Karl Marx's thesis we have to go one step further and say that we have come to the day when it is absolutely necessary that we should use the tools at our disposal on an international basis, if we are going to use them at all.
  I am sure it is a matter of great regret to Members on this side of the House that we are considering a Bill dealing with the use of power from atomic energy for national control and not international control. Some little time ago I was in the United States of America, and I was impressed by the way in which the people

  87
  there had accepted a proposal which, it seemed to me, had indicated the readiness of the United States of America to make what is possibly the greatest offer of abnegation of national sovereignty which has ever been made by a responsible Government not unduly oppressed by the strain of war. I was unable to persuade myself that the people of the United States had suddenly been seized with the idealism of internationalism. I came to the conclusion that the reason why the people of the United States were prepared to accept this large measure of international control, which was inherent in the Baruch proposal, was because they were moved by great apprehension, if not fear, of the power which lay in the atomic weapon.
  I confess that I am very disappointed to return to this country and to find the comparative lack of interest which exists in the whole business of atomic energy. I think that when we are discussing this matter we are discussing something which, quite literally, may change the shape of this globe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said in Zurich a short time ago that, maybe, within a measurable distance of time, this energy might mean the disintegration of our globe, and although we know that the right hon. Gentleman does tend on occasion to look on the darker side of things, especially when reviewing the record of our Labour Government, I do think on this occasion there was reason for the prognostication which he made. I know that the scientists of the world are rather modest about the possible next steps to be taken. But when we look back over the comparatively short period of 50 years, when the scientists of the world were convinced that the atom itself was the ultimate particle with which the elements of our world were made, when we realise the strides that have been made in the last seven years, and when we realise, too, and have the opportunity as I had in America to see the tremendous amount of research that is going on in the universities there, one must take account of the possibility that even the neutron and proton which we now believe to be the ultimate particle may not themselves be entities which may be broken up, and it may be that in a short time—in 10 or 20
  88
  years, or perhaps 50 years—we shall have within our control the power to disintegrate the globe as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford suggested.
  The point I wish to make is this. This tremendous potentiality is being put under the control of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. When I look around, I must say with all humility that there are not many other people, either on the Bench immediately in front of me or on the opposite Front Bench, whom I would rather have in control of atomic energy. But I do feel that it would be reassuring if my right hon. Friend had a body immediately below him who could advise him on the various matters with which he may have to deal, and I think there are some good precedents for this. It has been suggested that we should move step by step with other members of our Commonwealth of nations. In the Bill which is before the House in Australia provision is made for an advisory body of five members. In the Bill, to which reference has already been made, which has gone through the Senate, and I believe has also gone through Congress in the United States, provision is made for an advisory body of nine members. In view of the fact that, as has already been stated, the whole project in the United States is run not by one man but by a board of five, and they themselves are making provision for an advisory body of nine scientists, then I feel that there must be a case on which we should reconsider our own position.
  There is another reason why I make this suggestion. In all industries how there is a desire on the part of men who are engaged in them to feel that they can have some share and some say in the general direction and organisation of the industry or service in which they are engaged. That is a feeling which we on this side of the House would wish to encourage and support. It seems to me that once we get among the personnel engaged in any industry a feeling of frustration, that things are not going right, and that they have no power to suggest the direction in which they should go, that industry is bound to be inefficient.
  Today we admit that the motive power of money is not sufficient. Most of us admit that there must be an additional incentive, and that incentive can be found, I suggest, in the feeling that a

  89
  worker has some real part to play in a particular industry. That applies to the coal mines, it applies to civil aviation, and it applies to the other industries and services which we shall consider and discuss in the near future. However, in my view it applies much more to this particular industry in which so many of the personnel are so, shall I say, intelligent, and so much more socially conscious. They have had the opportunity of developing their minds a stage further than those in certain other industries. I beg of my right hon. Friend seriously to reconsider the suggestion that has been put to him for some kind of advisory board.
  Another point to which I would like to draw attention is in Clause 11. We all know of, and much has been said about, the impossibility of allowing personnel to give information freely. It may well be that some kind of restrictions such as the Minister envisages will be necessary. At the present time there is undoubtedly a feeling that the wording or the intention of Clause 11 is unduly restrictive. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he reads, for example, the wording in the Americans' Bill which does at least suggest that if a scientist or a worker in a particular industry is to be liable to a penalty,
  "… he shall be a person who has intent to injure the United States, or has the intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation"
  I feel that if some similar wording could be put into our Bill it would at least give some guarantee to the scientists engaged on research that if by any, shall I say, mischance or lack of judgment they did communicate or consult with a colleague, probably in the same laboratory, they would not be liable to proceedings under Clause II.
  There is one other point I would like to make with reference to Clause 11. Something has been said already about the necessity of ultimately getting the whole development of atomic energy under some kind of international body. The Prime Minister has said this Government would insist that we eventually get some kind of international development authority. At Nuremberg recently we have seen a big step forward in an attempt to place individual responsibility for the breaking of international law. Mr. Lippmann in the United States has written and said a good
  90
  deal about how easily this new system of international law could be applied within the particular field of atomic development. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to consider some such Clause as Clause II being embodied in an international Bill, or in international law. With suitable adaptation it would render it impossible for any scientist to engage upon the development of atomic energy for destructive purposes. In my view— and there have been other people who have given the matter careful thought— it would be feasible to place guilt fairly upon individual shoulders. If there was a, nation reluctant to allow one of its-nationals to go before an international court, there would then be immediately some evidence that that particular nation had motives contrary to its declared intention of not producing atomic weapons of destruction.
  I did say in an article which I wrote recently that I disliked the phrase, "This is our last chance." I was quoting that phrase from something which was said by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in this House some time ago. I was very sorry, therefore, to see that the editor of the newspaper cut out my reference to the fact that I disliked the phrase, "This is our last chance" and applied it as the title of my article. I do not think it is the last chance of this civilisation, because I have sufficient faith in the ability of the human race to go on to a destiny beyond that which we have now reached. But I do think it likely that the focus of human development may in the future be in India or China, because it is so feasible now, with the atomic weapons we now have, to eliminate social life on our own small island. With that thought in view, I think our Government might well put an additional effort into, not only developing atomic energy in this country for peaceful purposes but into their negotiations in New York with the Atomic Energy Commission, to see if some kind of effective international agreement cannot yet be achieved.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am very gratified at the knowledge that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) should remember my speeches better than I do. I have no recollection of having condemned talk about The Last Chance, but I am very glad to know that

  91
  I did. I think it is the most appalling nonsense. But whether or not this or some other technical advance does put the power to destroy the whole of this terrestrial globe into man's hands, I think that the great questions, and also the little questions, which this House has to discuss will be the same as they were before any such technological advance was made.
  I regret to say that I desire to lower the tone of this discussion. The discussion has been largely upon a very high intellectual and moral level, and I would rather like to get it down to perhaps smaller considerations. I do not propose to argue, upon the basis of Karl Marx, whether men make tools or tools make men. Nor indeed do I think it desirable to detain the House very long to discuss whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply is, compared with the neighbouring supermen, the one most fitted to control this immense power. I believe I am not less conscious how immense the power is than anybody else. I do not really think that the immensity of the power alters the considerations which this House ought to bring to the subject. Nor do I think, with respect— and I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber now—that it is really very helpful for hon. Gentlemen to tell us what The Scientists think—that The Scientists think this and The Scientists think that. There are probably as many scientists in my constituency as there are in King's Norton; and I think, though I do not know how much more science the hon. Gentleman knows than I do—and he could not know less—I think that probably I know scientists as well as most Members of this House; and I do not think it is really possible to quote The Scientists in that sort of sense. Nor can any majority of scientists or any organisation of scientists in any kind of union or organisation speak for scientists as, for workers in many fields, it can be said that the organisation speaks for the great majority of the people in it. In scientific matters it is the quality of the head that speaks which matters very much more than the quantity of voices which utter in unison, even if we could be sure about that.
  I should like to make one other general remark, if I may. I still feel fairly convinced from what discussion I have had
  92
  with those who are entitled to have opinions—I do not myself feel directly entitled to an opinion—I still do feel convinced that the control of the raw material is the practical point in this problem, and that, really, everything else is comparatively an adjective matter, and that that is the substantive matter. If you can get international agreement which you really believe yourself to be an agreement—not just an agreement, because all conferences have to end with success—but agreement which is an agreement, ex animo, about raw materials, then you will have got a very long way, and then there may be some control by some supranational authority, otherwise there will be nothing effective except to go on as best we can with the old methods of negotiation and, if necessary, the old but modernised methods of conflict; what will matter most is that in that event we shall not be more frightened by this weapon, with the estimates of whose enormity I agree, than by those to which we are sadly accustomed; because if we were frightened I am sure war would come all the sooner, and we should be all the more likely to be the principal sufferers.
  I come now, if I may, to smaller matters, which may seem, some of them, to be almost Committee matters; but I think that this is the proper occasion on which to mention them, because I do think they add up to something appropriate to a Second Reading of the Bill. One thing applies to what I said just now about raw materials. The Minister may search for raw materials, and it is clearly right that he should. But what are the arrangements—I can see it may not be necessary to put them in the Bill —but what are the arrangements about materials overseas? In the Dominions, no doubt, it is a matter for their Governments. In other territories under the Crown, whose is the Ministerial responsibility—presumably, it is that of the Colonial Secretary—for search in His Majesty's non-Dominion territories overseas? And what are to be the relations between that Minister and the Minister who is now in charge of this Bill?
  Then there is the matter of secrecy, about which we have had several speeches, with particular reference to Clause II (1), I think it is, I think I have got it right. What I should like the Minister to tell us is this. Has he the power to say how what this Bill purports

  93
  to do compares with what has been done or is being done in other countries? I did myself at one time make some study of the American Bill and of the American Debates. I do not propose to detain the House with my remarks about them: I do not think they are very important. But I do think it is important to know the official—the Government's—reaction to all those Debates or at least that Bill. Are they sure that our Bill is the same, or the same with what exceptions, as the American Act, allowing for differences of draughtsman's habits, and so on? Do they think they are doing the same thing in all substantial respects? Or do they think we differ? Similarly, is it possible to make some comparison with what the Russian Government is doing? We were assured by several hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—there may have been some on this side, too—that if fundamental research is to be as strictly tied as proposed by Clause 11, Subsection (I)—we were assured by three or four hon. Gentlemen that we were bound to get, by any such tying, a long way behind foreign countries. Therefore, they must have assumed that the principal foreign Governments are restricting publicity of fundamental research much less tightly than we in this country; and if they know that, then I think that we should have confirmation of it from the Front Government Bench. If, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen who used that argument were incorrect in their fundamental assumption, then I think that fundamental assumption should be blown out of the water once for all. That cannot be done by an Opposition back bencher. It must be done by His Majesty's Government.
  There is only one other matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and that is the question—I apologise here for not having got up the matter as well as I should have, but I make bold to say almost everyone in the House, except one I see on our Front Bench, and, perhaps, one or two opposite, have not mastered this point—that is to say, what is the difference between the effect of the Statutory (Special Procedure) Act upon Clause 7 of this Bill and the normal negative procedure by Prayer which controls the other Ministerial Orders in the Bill? I fully admit that if I had taken enough trouble and sought enough advice outside the Chamber I might have been
  94
  quite clear in my mind about that. But I do not apologise for bringing the point to the attention of the House because I do not think it proper that the Bill should have a Second Reading until the House is quite clear in its mind what are the differences between the two sorts of control of Ministerial Orders we are going to have under this Bill—one sort by Prayer, which we all know fairly well and understand, and the other sort under the Act of 1945, which, I think, probably, most of us have rather forgotten. I daresay it is quite proper to have that distinction, and that that distinction has been made exactly as it should have been made; but I do not think we should give the Bill a Second Reading until the House has been informed on that point.
  6.48 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Shackleton: I should like to return to the main subject of the Bill, but before doing so I should like to question the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) as to the suitability of consulting scientists. He may have many scientists in his constituency, but it is obvious that the men who were responsible for creating the atomic bomb should have a large hand in devising the administration and the organisation of the whole project, in view of the fact that they are scientists. I do consider that they are entitled to have their opinions considered.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me? I am sure he did not mean to misrepresent me. Nobody has a greater respect or affection for scientists in general, and, particularly, for some of those most concerned in this matter. I did not suggest they should not be consulted. I did say I think it is dangerous in Debates in this House for some of us to say, "The scientists want this or the scientists want that." They are not usefully to be treated as a bloc like that in our Debates.
  Wing-Commander Shackleton: Quite frankly, I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Cambridge University meant by that remark—by his original remark—but I will accept his explanation. But I do think that we have not given enough consideration to the opinions of people who have been studying the whole

  95
  problem of the production of atomic energy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) at the beginning said—or he inferred— that the Government had not been getting on with the job of producing atomic energy in this country. The point about this Bill is this: In a very short time the right hon. Gentleman will not be in any position to find out, because it will not be possible for him to go to his scientific friends and find out in detail what is going on.
  Now we are proposing to set up a new nationalised industry, but, unlike the other nationalised industries, it will not, as has been explained by other Members, particularly the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), be subject to the consideration and full investigation of Parliament. The Prime Minister did suggest that under Clause 11 we had achieved a satisfactory compromise. Very reluctantly, I must say that it is no compromise at all. Clause 11 is completely restrictive as it stands. I confess that I, like everybody else who has tried to think out this problem, can see no solution to the problem of retaining security and, at the same time, achieving satisfactory dissemination of scientific information, nor to the parallel problem of permitting Parliament to keep a check on the work of the new atomic energy projects in this country. I feel that this Clause is not a means, and it does not permit the scientists to work satisfactorily. That opinion is undoubtedly held by a large number of scientists who are actively concerned.
  I suggest that there is a great need for considerably more thought on Clause 11. We are now setting up something which has the most tremendous implications, not only in regard to the welfare of this country and the future development of power, and therefore the improvement of the standard of living, but also from the point of view of our own democracy. I do not know how we shall keep a check on the Minister. We have all been paying the Minister compliments today, but we know perfectly well that it will not be possible for him personally to study, and keep a proper understanding of, this industry which will be his responsibility. He must depend on his advisers and we, either here in Parliament or the scientists working in the projects, shall not be in
  96
  a position to ensure that those advisers are really giving him the best advice. In the case of other industries we can raise the matter in Parliament, but we shall not be able to do that in regard to this one. How he is going to solve this problem I am afraid I do not know, but I think it is right that we should throw it back to him. It is not enough to say "I, as the Minister, shall be responsible." I consider that it is necessary to have some proper statutory provision to take care of these problems. Whether the provision should be a scientific committee, or whether it should be a special reformed Scientific Committee, the committee over which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) presides, with more atomic scientists on it, or whether there should be a committee on which Members of both Houses should be represented, as the Americans have, I cannot say. I urge, however, that the matter should be considered and, when we come to the Committee stage, I hope we shall be able to thrash it out and improve this Bill in that direction.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll: There are a number of important aspects of this Bill which still remain to be covered, and indeed the subject is so very wide that few of us will quarrel with the necessity for governmental control over research and development in this new field of energy production. However, I anticipate that there may well come a period later on, particularly when we come to deal with the industrial applications of atomic energy, when there will be a very real temptation to extend that governmental control over the industrial use of atomic energy right down into the individual factory or plant. We are a long way yet from that stage, of course, but I do not think we want to consider solely the warlike uses of atomic energy, and in that connection particularly I am sorry to see so much stress laid solely upon the scientists, because I think we have now reached the stage when we should bring the design engineer rather more into the picture. I hope that the Minister, when he sets up his establishments, will not leave out the importance of training right from the beginning the necessary nucleus of design engineers, who are so important when translating a scientific project into the world of practical mechanics.

  97
  The most favourable feature, surely, of this Bill, and indeed of the whole subject of atomic energy, is in the clearly awakened social conscience which has been shown by all connected with research into this subject. I wish that those, for example, who originally explored the realms of flying or the internal combustion engine, could have displayed a similar social conscience regarding the consequences of their inventions. I think it is a very hopeful sign that all concerned, all who have touched this tremendously potent activity, are already acutely aware of its immense social consequences and implications. I fully appreciate the need for secrecy in the whole subject, but that does not prevent me from deploring it, because I feel that we may tend, particularly as the danger of war recedes, to become more sluggish in our research into the subject. We need some measure of public interest, and possibly public control of the detailed work of these establishments, and I should like to support the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) in his plea for some form of advisory or scrutinising board, even though that board may happen to operate in conditions of secrecy during the period of its sittings.
  It has been stressed that the Bill is only a national Bill, and that it would have been better if it could have been an international Bill, or if it could have been related to a truly international scheme. With that, of course, I fully agree, but I should like to hear—perhaps we may, later in the evening—to what extent our Dominions have been consulted in the preparation of this Bill, because obviously we could go a long way towards making it an international Bill if we knew that Canada was in full agreement with its principles, and India, too, particularly as we understand that important supplies of atomic minerals—if I may use the words in that sense—lie in that sub-continent.
  Finally, I would like to refer to the problem of fundamental research into the nature of matter. The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred particularly to the possibility of disintegrating protons and neutrons, and getting even further than we have gone in disintegrating the atom. Whether that is scientifically possible or not I would not like to discuss at the moment, but at least we must envisage the possibility, and I fear that there is a
  98
  real danger that this Bill, giving so much power to impose secrecy, may in fact become a sort of iron curtain between our scientists and the true fundamental nature of matter itself. This is obviously something which must be examined by scientists and cannot be determined by a layman, but I hope some consideration can be given to this aspect of the matter, and that the necessary modifications may be made if possible.
  It was particularly interesting to hear the Prime Minister, in his opening speech, say that as a result of the Bill having been public for some time a number of useful discussions had taken place with scientists and certain Amendments tabled. That only goes to show the value of discussing a Bill before it is rushed into the Second Reading, and I hope it is a precedent which will be followed in the future. Undoubtedly, through its having been available for some time, we are able to achieve a measure of agreement in this House today.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: I was glad that the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Enroll) referred to the work of engineering in connection with atomic energy. I feel that the work done by the engineers in this connection has been to some extent overlooked.
  It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding stood postponed.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  7.0 p.m.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
  "That the several Amendments to the Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made."

  SCHEDULE.
  Standing Order 211, page 209, line 23, at the end insert "and nothing in those Orders shall apply to Orders within the meaning of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act. 1945, being Orders in relation to which that Act applies, or to Bills to confirm such Orders."
  Standing Order 225, page 219, line 4, leave out "In the following Orders," and insert "In the Orders contained in this Chapter."
  Standing Order 229, page 220, line 12, after "Act," insert "whether as originally enacted or as applied by Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."
  Standing Order 230, page 220, line 20, after "Act," insert "whether as originally enacted or as applied by Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."
  After Standing Order 236, insert new Standing Orders 236A to 236L.

  CHAPTER VIIA
  Orders in relation to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, applies
  Interpretation of Chapter VIIA. 236A. In the Orders contained in this Chapter the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them: —
  "Special Procedure Act" means the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945;
  "Special Procedure Order" means an order, scheme, certificate or bye-laws in relation to which the Special Procedure Act applies;
  "Special Procedure Petition" means a Petition under Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act against a Special Procedure Order;
  "the Chairman" means, subject to the next following Order, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;
  "the Chairmen" means, subject as afore said and except in the expression "chairmen's panel," the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;
  "the Minister," in relation to any Special Procedure Order, means the Minister of the Crown responsible for laying the Order before Parliament;
  "applicant," in relation to any Special Procedure Order, means any person stated on the face of the Order to be a person on whose application the Order is made or confirmed;
  "copy," in relation to any document, means a printed or typewritten copy;
  Deputy Chairmen. 236B.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 80 (Deputy Speaker and chairmen) relative to Public Business, the Chairman may from time to time appoint any Member of the chairmen's panel as his deputy who shall be entitled to perform his functions under the Special Procedure Act, or under the Orders contained in this Chapter.
  (2) Any reference in the said Orders to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords shall be construed as including a reference to any Deputy Chairman of Committees appointed by the House of Lords.
  Laying of Orders. 236c.—(1) On the day on which a Special Procedure Order is laid before this House under section 2 of the Special Procedure Act, the Minister shall cause a copy of the Order, and of the certificate or statement required by that section to be laid together
  100
  with the Order, to be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and shall also cause copies of the Order and certificate or statement—

  (a) to be deposited at the Vote Office for the use of Members; and

  (b) to be made available to any person on application to the Minister and on payment:

  Provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) of this Order need not be complied with as respects copies of the Special Procedure Order if it is a Statutory Instrument of which copies are required by section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, to be printed and sold.
  (2) If on the face of any Order so laid there is stated the name and address of the person on whose application the Order is made or confirmed, that statement shall be included in all copies of the Order deposited or made available in accordance with the foregoing paragraph.
  Presentation of Petitions. 236D.—(I) Every Special Procedure Petition presented to this House shall be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the rules and orders of this House applicable to Petitions against Private Bills, and shall be presented by being deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
  (2) There shall be indorsed on every Special Procedure Petition so presented—

  (a) the title (as entered in the Votes) of the Special Procedure Order against which it is presented;

  (b) a statement that it is presented as a Petition for amendment or a Petition of general objection, as the case may be; and

  (c) the name and address of the Member, Party or Agent depositing it.

  (3) The Petitioner shall cause—

  (a) a copy of the Petition to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and another copy at the office of the Minister not later than the day following that on which the Petition was presented; and

  (b) a copy of the Petition to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the applicant (if any) or to each applicant (if more than one) at his address as specified on the face of the Order not later than the day aforesaid; and

  (c) copies of the Petition to be made available not later than three days from the day on which the Petition was presented, to any person on application to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Petition, and on payment.

  Memorials objecting to Petitions. 236E.—(1) Within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which a Special Procedure Petition is presented to this House, the Minister or any applicant may present to this House a Memorial objecting to the Petition being certified as proper to be received or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, objecting that it is a Petition of general objection, and stating specifically in either case the grounds of the objection.
  (2) Every such Memorial shall be presented to this House by depositing it in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
  (3) On the day on which a Memorial is so presented, the Memorialist shall cause—

  (a) a copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments; and

  (b) another copy thereof to be delivered or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition.

  Consideration of Petitions by Chairmen. 236F.—(1) If a Memorial is duly presented to this House objecting to a Special Procedure Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the time and place at which the Chairmen will consider the Petition and Memorial.
  (2) If no such Memorial is presented, but the Chairmen are not satisfied that a Special Procedure Petition should be certified as proper to be received, or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, are not satisfied that it is such a Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the time and place at which the Chairmen will further consider the Petition.
  (3) The Chairmen shall have power to determine questions of locus standi in connection with their examination of Special Procedure Petitions, and to decide as to the rights of the Petitioners to be heard upon such Petitions.
  Reference of Petition to Joint Committee. 236G.—(1) Where under Section 4 of the Special Procedure Act any Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, to a Joint Committee—

  (a) the Committee of this House shall consist of three members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection;

  (b) the Petitioner shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence in support of the Petition;

  (c) the Minister shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Petition;

  (d) the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee shall be reported to the House:

  Provided that the Minister may give notice in accordance with the following paragraph that he desires that the rights conferred on him by sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph shall be exercised by any applicant specified in the notice, and thereupon the said sub-paragraph shall have effect as if that applicant were substituted for the Minister.
  (2) Any such notice shall be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition and to the applicant specified in the notice at his address as specified on the face of the Special Procedure Order, within three days after the report of the Chairmen is laid before this House under Subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act, and copies thereof shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments within the said three days.
  Counter Petitions. 236H.—(1) Where under Subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Special Pro-
  102
  cedure Act the Chairmen have reported that any Special Procedure Petition has been presented to this House and has been certified as a Petition for amendment and as proper to be received, a Petition (hereinafter referred to as a "Counter-Petition") may, within the period of fourteen days, beginning with the date on which the report is laid before this House, be presented to this House complaining that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition will affect the interest of the person presenting the Counter-Petition (hereinafter referred to as the "Counter-Petitioner"), and such Counter-Petition shall stand referred to the Joint Committee to whom the Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House.
  (2) Any Counter-Petition presented to this House shall be presented by being deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
  (3) There shall be indorsed on every Counter-Petition so presented—

  (a) the title (as entered in the Votes) of the Special Procedure Order to which it relates; and

  (b) the name and address of the Member, Party or Agent depositing it; and

  (c) the name of the Member, Party or Agent who presented the Special Procedure Petition to which it relates (hereinafter referred to as the "original Petitioner").

  (4) Not later than the day following that on which the Counter-Petition was presented, the Counter-Petitioner shall cause—

  (a) a copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and another copy thereof to be deposited at the office of the Minister; and

  (b) another copy thereof to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the original Petitioner at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition; and

  (c) if the Minister has given notice under the last foregoing Order that he desires that his rights shall be exercised by an applicant specified in the notice, another copy thereof to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to that applicant at his address as specified on the face of the Special Procedure Order.

  (5) If, on consideration of a Counter-Petition, the Joint Committee to whom the relevant Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, are satisfied that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition may affect the interest of the Counter-Petitioner, the Committee may allow the Counter-Petitioner to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Special Procedure Petition
  Withdrawal of Petitions and Memorials. 2361. With regard to the withdrawal of Petitions and Memorials presented to this House under the Orders contained in this Chapter, Standing Order 173 shall apply.
  Orders of Local Government Boundary Commission. 236J. In relation to any Special Procedure Order made by the Local Government Boundary Commission under the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945, the foregoing Orders contained in this

  103
  Chapter shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (3) of Order 236D the reference to the office of the Minister shall include a reference to the office of the Commission;

  (b) in paragraph (1) of Order 236E a reference to the Commission shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister;

  (c) in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) of Order 236G a reference to the Commission shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister, and the proviso to that paragraph and paragraph (2) of that Order shall not apply;

  (d) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (4) of Order 236H the reference to the office of the Minister shall include a reference to the office of the Commission.

  Extension of time. 236K.—(1) If any period within which anything is required to be done under the Orders contained in this Chapter expires when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or when this House is adjourned for more than four days, it shall be extended so as to expire with the first day thereafter on which this House sits.
  (2) In the case of a Special Procedure Petition presented to this House, paragraph (1) of this Order shall apply to the period of fourteen days allowed for the presentation thereof under Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act in like manner as it applies to a period mentioned in that paragraph.
  Notice of date of operation or withdrawal of Order. 236L.—(1) Any notice given by the Minister under Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Special Procedure Act either determining the date on which an Order is to come into operation or withdrawing an Order shall be given by publishing the notice—

  (a) in a case where the Order relates to England or Wales or any part thereof, but not to Scotland or any part thereof, in the "London Gazette";

  (b) in a case where the Order relates to Scotland, or any part thereof, but not to England or Wales or any part thereof, in the "Edinburgh Gazette";

  (c) in any other case, both in the "London Gazette" and in the "Edinburgh Gazette";

  and, in the case of an Order relating to a particular area, in at least one newspaper circulating in that area.
  (2) A copy of any such notice withdrawing an Order shall be laid before this House within four days after it is published in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.
  Standing Order 237, page 223, line 7, after "Bills," insert "or Orders."
  Appendix (C) (Table of Fees), page 231, line 34, at the end, insert—
  "FEES to be paid in proceedings relating to a SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER within the meaning of Chapter VIIA

  £

  s.

  d.

  On the deposit of a Memorial by an applicant (other than a Government Department)

  1

  0

  0

  104

  For every day on which an applicant (other than a Government Department) appears before—

  £

  s.

  d.

  (1) the Chairmen

  3

  0

  0

  (2) a Joint Committee

  10

  0

  0

  On the deposit of every Petition and of every Counter-Petition

  2

  0

  0

  For every day on which the Petitioners appear before the Chairmen or Joint Committee

  2

  0

  0

  For every day on which the Counter-Petitioners appear before a Joint Committee

  2

  0

  0."

  The Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper asks the House to adopt certain Amendments to the Standing Orders affecting Private Business. These Amendments are rendered necessary by the passing of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. That Act, the House will remember, provided for certain changes which it is hoped will simplify and expedite the passing of the Orders to which the Act relates. This new procedure was devised, and, I think, was substantially agreed to in the time of the Coalition Government. The changes which the Act makes necessitate the passing of the alterations on the Order Paper to the Standing Orders. These alterations have been drawn up in consultation with all concerned and in particular with officials of another place, and I venture to commend them to the House.
  7.4 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: We on these benches have examined carefully the Amendments to the Standing Orders of the House which are here suggested, and we agree with those who have suggested these Amendments. They evolve a code and procedure which, as far as the subject matter permits, is clear from complications and obscurity. They simply make the Standing Orders which relate to our old Provisional Order procedure now cover what is necessary in order to work the new procedure under this Act. It will be remembered that we on these benches were most anxious to secure that this Act and the procedure which it brings into force should not be used in such a way as to prevent or hinder at all the right of access to this House of any individual whose interest is affected by the procedure under the Bill. It is from that aspect of seeing that this right is maintained in all its strength that we have examined the Amendments.
  There are just one or two points on which we should like the assurance of the

  105
  learned Solicitor-General, or from someone who has addressed his mind to the matter. As I see it, for the first time under this procedure the Minister comes into the position of a litigant before the Committees of this House. I have been in this House long enough to become a little rusty on the carrying through as counsel of a Private Bill, but my memory goes back fairly clearly, and up to now the position of the Minister has been that he has either sent an opinion by writing or by representative to the Committee considering the Bill. Under the Amendment now before the House—I refer to the Amendment, Standing Order 236G—
  "the Minister shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel, or agent, and to tender evidence against the Petition;
  We are most anxious that the position of the Minister should be that of a litigant. It was the spirit and purpose of this Act that if the House decided that the matter should stand referred to a Joint Committee, the proceedings before the Joint Committee should be judicial, and the parties before them should present their case forensically to the Committee involved. It does not need much imagination on any part or on the part of hon. Members or right hon. Members to see that any other position of the Minister might well become liable to abuse. The learned Solicitor-General will probably also be able to help us on the position of the Boundary Commission which, under the subsequent Amendment, have also to appear in the same position. He will be able to inform the House whether it is seriously contemplated that the Boundary Commission will appear in person, or whether again they will be in the position of litigants who except in exceptional circumstances would be represented.
  There is one further point on the same general lines on which I venture to detain the House, and that is the Amendment to Standing Order 236H. If the House will follow me they will see that it is possible that under Subsection (5),—
  "If, on consideration of a Counter-Petition, the Joint Committee to whom the relevant Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House are satisfied that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition may affect the interest of the Counter-Petitioner, the Committee may allow the Counter-Petitioner to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Special Procedure Petition."
  106
  That sounds complicated, but the underlying procedure is quite clear. When the Order is laid there may be a Petition to it, and then someone who is not affected by the Order may be affected by the Petition, and so he in turn is entitled to put in a counter Petition. What does rather frighten me in the absence of any further explanation is that it is a postulate that the counter petitioner's rights are affected. The Amendment says that the Standing Committee may hear the counter petitioner. I quite see that there is a possibility of some very small point being raised which would not require the hearing of the counter petitioner. There is also the procedural possibility that the Joint Committee thinking there is nothing in the Petition and that they are going to throw it out do not want to hear the counter petitioner. In the absence of these two happenings I think it ought to be made clear that the intention is that any counter petitioner who finds his rights affected will be heard on a point which substantially affects his rights and on which he should be able to present his case.
  On the whole, as I have said, the Opposition are prepared to accept and indeed congratulate those who have constructed and evolved a code which deals with matters which are not simple in a way which makes them clear to those who are concerned and practise in such matters. If, as I hope, the learned Solicitor-General will be able to give us an assurance on the matters which I have raised and on other points of detail which may be raised from behind me, we shall allow these Amendments to go through.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: When the Bill was before the House some of us raised a number of points, both on the Committee and Report stages, in order to safeguard, as far as we could, the right of the subject to have access to this House in a case where, under an Order, the rights of a subject were affected. I am bound to say that the Government did both move and accept Amendments which went a long way towards removing the objections which some of us had raised to the Bill. I think it can be said, also, that a number of the other points we raised in the Debate have been adequately and fully met by these Amendments to the Standing Orders.

  107
  One point which I raised has been met by the provision whereby the Chairman of Ways and Means may appoint a deputy to discharge these functions for him. He is an officer of this House who has very heavy duties thrown upon him, and perhaps there is no duty which will be more difficult to discharge than these new judicial functions that are being put upon him under this new legislation. While he is entirely the right person, with his colleague in another place, to act in that position, and to be responsible for holding the balance between the need to expedite the machinery of this House and safeguard the rights of the individual, it is extremely important that he should have the power to appoint a deputy. I think it may well prove convenient for him to choose a special deputy to discharge this special work, which is likely to become increasingly specialised and technical as more and more legislation is passed in this House.
  So far as 236C is concerned, I note that deposit in the Committee and the Private Bill Office will mean publication on the next day in that part of the Vote which is usually occupied by the Committee and Private Bill Office notices. I think that will be a very substantial safeguard and the House will be kept informed of what is happening. As for the proviso which exempts statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act, I take it—and perhaps the Solicitor-General will confirm this—that the purpose of that Section is that under the other Act, an Act with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar, they have to be published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. I take it that the Minister is not made responsible for providing any affected person with a copy of the Order, because it is considered that the person affected should go to His Majesty's Stationery Office. It appeared to me that under 236D (3, a) by which the Parliamentary Agents must deposit a copy of the Petition the following day in the office of the Minister, there might be some difficulty, but I understand the agents' opinion is that as all the Ministers' offices are in Whitehall that will not present any difficulty. Under 236F (2), I note that in cases where no Memorial against a Petition has been filed the Chairmen are entitled to take exception to any Petition even though no Memorial
  108
  against it has been laid before them. This is analogous to the procedure of the Unopposed Bills Committee, and that even where the matter is not being disputed before them, the court, so to speak, are entitled to take any objections they wish to take.
  Perhaps the Solicitor-General would explain how it comes about that under 236F (3) there is no definition of locus standi. A close analogy to this is Private Bill Procedure and there the whole question of locus standi is dealt with in immense detail in Standing Orders 91–102. Quite obviously it is a very important power which is being left to the Chairmen to decide which of His Majesty's subjects have locus standi to present Petitions. Under this new code there is none of that careful definition which exists in the case of Private Bills. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it is obviously a considerable departure from precedent, and I should be obliged if the Solicitor-General would be good enough to explain why that has been done.
  I now come to the point which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), namely, that under 236H (5) the Chairmen may, but are not obliged to, hear counter Petitions. I imagine that my right hon. and learned Friend has given the right explanation of the drafting of that Amendment. It is obviously a matter of considerable importance, and I hope the Solicitor-General will deal with it. I rather think that this is almost the first occasion that one has had, in Amendments to Standing Orders of this kind, a whole paragraph dealing with the case where some statutory body like the Local Government Boundary Commission are put more or less into the position of a Minister. It is certainly a curious and anomalous position, but it is, as I remember, exactly what Parliament intended in passing that legislation. It was our intention that the alteration of local government boundaries should be taken outside the purview of Parliament, and that we should not be subjected to pressure in dealing with comparatively small boundary matters.
  But I do not fully understand exactly where the Minister—who, I take it, is the Minister of Health—comes in. Is he, in fact, really only a messenger? It is the Minister of Health who is responsible, not

  109
  for making the Order, as I understand it, but for laying the Order before the House. Under Section 6 (2), of the Act, in cases where the Joint Committee amends an Order to such an extent that it is not acceptable, it is then the Minister of Health who becomes responsible for introducing the Bill in order to give effect by full-blooded legislation to that which has not been passed under special procedure by the Joint Committee. I think we ought to be told by the Solicitor-General what exactly is the position of the Minister of Health in this matter.
  He begins by having responsibility for laying the Order and then he retires into the background. What is going to be the position of the Minister of Health in the case of these Orders, some of which, I understand, are already ready and likely to come before the House in the near future? That reminds me of a feature of the proviso to 236G, a peculiar one, that in cases where the Minister makes an Order at the request of some statutory undertaker or local authority, he may retire into the background and depute to the authority asking for the Order the responsibility to instruct counsel, tender evidence, and so on, in order to defend the Special Order. These are points of some importance, although none of them are very wide, which, in order that we may be quite clear how they are going to work, I should be grateful if the Learned Solicitor-General would explain to us.
  There is one more important matter, and that is this: Under this Act it is possible for the Government to use its majority in order to prevent a matter from being fully discussed in this House. That was admitted by the Lord Privy Seal, and, of course, there can be nothing in Standing Orders to prevent that from taking place. The Lord Privy Seal said:
  "I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered. I think that it would be wrong to use the Bill in that way, and so long as this Government continues I can assure hon. Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Nov., 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180–1.]
  I do not think that that pledge can be repeated too often, because it is a matter of vital importance to the subjects of this country that, under this expedited pro-
  110
  cedure in the House of Commons, they shall not be deprived of their rights of access to this House.
  7.25 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskiee): The Statutory Instruments (Special Procedure) Bill was a Bill actually introduced, in the first place, by the Coalition Government. It is a Bill which, I think, is recognised on all sides of the House as one necessary for the purpose of supplying a need for the postwar reconstruction period. The Lord President of the Council on Second Reading pointed out that it was felt to be necessary to supply a gap which was left by the old Provisional Order procedure, and what the Lord President referred to as Special Procedure, namely procedure by affirmative or negative resolution. So, from both sides of the House one starts on common ground that this Bill, now an Act, supplies what is a real necessity for the purpose of the legislation necessary in the post-war reconstruction period. It has been the experience of all of us, I think, that in examining the construction of the Act through its passage through Committee, we have all worked towards a common end, and in that sense the Act has been wholly non-controversial. It is desired by both sides of the House. I would say this about it, and this really is a point which applies to all the questions which have been raised by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening from the other side of the House: It must of necessity be an experimental procedure. This is a completely new procedure; it has not been tried in this form at all before. On both sides of the House, I am quite sure that we sincerely hope that it will work well. If it does work well it will be an extremely useful instrument in our modern legislation. Of course it may not work well. On this side of the House, we think, and I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite are generally of the same opinion, that there is a reasonable chance that it will work extremely well and meet the need for which it is designed. But as I say it must be experimental.
  With that preface may I address myself to points raised by the two last speakers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) asked about Ministers put in the position of litigants

  111
  and how would the Boundary Commission fare before the Joint Committee provided for by the Act. I would prefer in answer to those questions not to tie down the Government to any definite code of procedure with regard to the proceedings be fore the Committee. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) asked for a repetition of the assurance given by the Lord Privy Seal. That assurance I give willingly. The Government certainly do not regard this Bill as a means of bludgeoning down opposition. They will do what they can to see that in the procedure before the Joint Committee there is, so far as it lies with them, a complete opportunity afforded for all interests to be adequately represented and for all points of view to be adequately ventilated. I feel that an answer in these general terms is more satisfactory than a priori to answer in detail the questions put with regard to the role to be played by the Minister. The Government are anxious that this Act shall work, and it cannot work unless it provides means for a real representation of private interests in relation to the matters under which the Orders provided for by the Act are directed. I would say that the Minister when he appears and in whatever capacity he appears—whether he appears directly or delegates his right to appear under the terms of Standing Order 236 (g)—will cooperate in the desire that all interests shall be adequately and fully protected. The same observation must apply to the question asked on the terms of Standing Order 236 (h5).
  Both the hon. Gentlemen who spoke were concerned about the position of counter-petitioners, and with the circumstances that there was apparently not an absolute right for them to be heard, and that it remained in the discretion of the Chairman. That, of course, is the position which attains in a great many similar contingencies. One must, of course, rely on the chairman exercising a wise, fair and impartial discretion to decide in a particular case whether or not the counter-petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to state his case. Without again a priori binding the Government or anyone to any particular formula, I should have thought that it might well appear to a Chairman that if a counter-petitioner was affected, he should be given an opportunity to state his interests and to be repre-
  112
  sented and call evidence if necessary. That, of course, in each particular case must be entirely a matter for the discretion of the chairman, and beyond that, I feel that I cannot be fairly expected to go. It is not, in any case, for me to say. It is a matter in each case for the Chairman to decide according to his discretion in the particular circumstances of the case which he has before him.
  To deal with the questions specifically put by the hon. Member for The High Peak, he defined correctly, as I understand it, the reason for the exception in relation to Orders within the Statutory Instruments Act, 1945. That Act already provides for a process of publication, and I presume it was thought unnecessary that that should be duplicated. That was the answer that the hon. Gentleman conceived to be correct, and I think that obviously is the right answer. The hon. Member was concerned with the question of locus standi. I can merely advise the House. The House knows that these Orders were drafted after careful consultation between gentlemen who are experts upon these particular things. The power that is given with regard to saying who in any particular case shall be deemed to have a locus standi is, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, a comparatively new one. Again, the answer is that the procedure is experimental. It would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Chairman to say whether any person in a particular case should be deemed to be a person who has or who has not a locus standi. Apparently it was thought wise, and I think it is wise, when one is devising a new procedure to leave it in that way rather than to try to think out a precise formula which has been found to work in other cases, but which might in practice need considerable alteration if it were applied to this particular type of procedure.
  The question of the relationship of the Minister to the Boundary Commissioners in the event of its being necessary to bring in a Bill for the purpose of bringing into operation an Order is one which does not arise so much upon the terms of these Orders as it does upon the terms of the Act itself. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the definition Section, the Minister is defined in the Act, and the Minister is the person who is given power to bring in the Order. That, however, is a

  113
  question which does not arise on these Orders; it arises on the Act, and is a matter of construction of the Act. Finally the hon. Gentleman asked me to repeat the assurance given by the Lord Privy Seal. I have already done so, and I gladly do it again. We want the Act to work fairly, as I have already said and as the Lord Privy Seal said, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.
  In conclusion, I would like to thank hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Member for The High Peak, for the cooperation which they have afforded to us in the guidance of the Act through the-House. We sure now discussing the Orders and not the Act, but I would not like to allow this opportunity to go by without saying how much we appreciate the help and the counsel afforded by many hon. Members opposite when the matter was in its earlier stages I am sure that hon. Members opposite also hope that the Act will prove to be a great success, and, of course, these Orders are simply for the purpose of implementing various provisions of the Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ATOMIC ENERGY BILL
  Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: As I was about to say when I was interrupted about half an hour ago, I welcome the Atomic Energy Bill because I see in it at least the shape of a better and bolder Bill. Whether a better Bill can be forced out of the shell of the present Bill remains to be seen. Much will depend upon the readiness with which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is prepared to consider Amendments which I imagine will be on the Order Paper on the Committee stage on Friday. I have listened to nearly every word of the Debate on the Bill this afternoon. In no part of the House has the principle or the Tightness of State control been challenged. Therefore, it seems to me that the question that remains is whether in this Bill we are defining State control in the most flexible and sensible fashion. Are we making the most of the do's or
  114
  the don'ts. Does the Bill in its present form encourage or frustrate? In my view, the principal weakness of the Bill is that it leans too decidedly towards the don'ts. It is precautionary legislation.
  We are told that the object of the Bill is to promote and control the development of atomic energy, and the Minister is given amazingly wide powers towards that end, but, in fact, most space in the Bill is given to detailing the Minister's powers of control and prohibition and very little indeed is said about his duty of development. I do not think there is a great deal of danger under my right hon. Friend, but under some other Minister I think there is a danger that the powers of the Bill might be used to restrict scientific progress by unnecessary and tedious interference—if I may be allowed to borrow a current Blackpool phrase, to strangle progress with bands of red tape. For instance, a strict interpretation of Clause 10 might mean that all experimental apparatus in connection with nuclear physics might require a licence before it could be set up and quite clearly that would mean a great restriction on the freedom of research. But the greatest danger—and in this I am emphasising what has been said already in the Debate —to scientific progress in this Bill is contained in Clause 11. That Clause may in the future become the notorious Clause 11. It is the so-called secrecy Clause. That Clause creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, and I am sure that in future it will create uncertainty, in the mind of every scientific worker. I do not make any claim to speak on behalf of any particular body of scientific workers or scientific men, but I am convinced that in the future every scientific worker in this country who is engaged in research, or even engaged in teaching, will be extremely cautious if this Bill becomes the law of the land. He will be fearful of prosecution if he discusses with a collaborator a new idea having a bearing upon atomic energy development.
  Much has been said already—and I agree with it—about the importance of team work in atomic energy research, and of course, Socialists, in particular, like to lean towards the idea of team work in scientific research. Nevertheless, it is true that, in spite of all the team work, important as it may be, very often the vital thought that counts for so much occurs in the brain of one individual. I

  115
  can imagine a situation of this sort arising. Suppose a scientific man is at work in one of our universities. He may be very learned in the question of nuclear physics. He may be a great expert. There may be some problem which, until that time, has awaited a solution. One day a particularly bright idea strikes him, and he thinks that it might be worth trying out, but if he is to try it out he must get advice from someone who has, for instance, a greater knowledge of hydraulics. He puts the idea on paper, and takes steps to communicate it to some other university or engineering works in some other part of the country. I suggest that under Clause 11, if he takes that quite routine action, he is liable to prosecution. I do not think that that is in any sense an exaggerated example. The legal position with regard to Clause 11 is, as I understand it, that it does not replace but simply supplements the Official Secrets Act. It is something additional to that Act and is intended apparently to bring into the net unofficial secrets as it were —dangerous atomic thoughts of various kinds.
  It is the opinion of many leading scientific men in this country that the Government have already sufficient powers to ensure the security of the State under the Official Secrets Act. Since these drastic new powers will stop the naturally free interchange of scientific knowledge, I believe that Clause 11 is in fact unnecessary. I do not think that so extreme a view has been put forward in the Debate up to now, but I cannot see how Clause 11 can be improved to remove the danger that I see in it, and therefore I consider that the Bill would be tremendously improved and greatly strengthened if Clause 11 were taken out altogether and if we entrusted the security of the State instead to the very great and considerable powers that are available under the Official Secrets Act. I do not think that it would have been necessary perhaps to take this rather extreme view about Clause 11 had the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply, who is responsible and who will be responsible in the future for the Bill if it becomes law, been prepared to take the advice already given to him and to agree to set up a statutory expert advisory committee. In fact, not only is the right hon. Gentleman against setting up such a committee
  116
  but he is going further than that, and by the Amendments already on the Order Paper he is prepared and ready actually to tighten up the working of Clause 11.
  Among the duties of such an advisory committee might have been the giving of advice to the Minister as to the class of information that could be disclosed without Clause 11 being brought into operation. I believe that such a statutory advisory committee, whose advice the Minister should have been obliged to seek but not to take, would have greatly improved the legislation now before the House. If I may anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's answer I imagine that it will be on these lines. First of all, that he takes the best expert advice as a matter of routine. Of course, every Minister takes the best advice as a matter of routine; he would hardly dare confess that he takes the worst advice. But the truth is that his departmental experts are his creatures. I do not say that in any spirit of scorn, but they are bound to be his creatures in practice. I now suggest that there should be experts to advise the Minister who are abreast of the times and who are in a statutory position really to stand up to him.
  I believe that the Minister has already indicated the second part of his answer by a nod of the head in reply to a question asked by an hon. Member earlier. I think it will be that nothing must stand between him and his responsibility to this House. That is an extraordinarily weak answer. I do not believe that in fact Parliament can exercise effective criticism over atomic energy development. Parliament has neither the time—which is increasingly true now that we are bringing so many industries under State control and national ownership—nor the necessary information. In the nature of things, because of the secrecy, it is not possible for the ordinary Member of this House to obtain the information which would make him a really useful critic. Here again I am emphasising something which has already been said, but it cannot be emphasised too much. Why, in this Bill, are we leaning so strongly towards the old-fashioned Post Office conception of public control? Expert bodies are in fashion; they are in fashion in connection with nearly every industry we bring under national ownership, and in that case surely in this matter too an expert body is wholly justified? I trust that

  117
  the right hon. Gentleman will really think again about this and that he will be prepared to relent, but from all I hear I am not too hopeful.
  The immediate problem that we are facing in this matter of atomic energy is just this; How best can we protect the public interest and lead the way to international agreement without retarding the development of this new source of energy in the service of man? By this Bill the Government have undoubtedly tried to satisfy the test, but in my view far from successfully. Atomic energy is not a petty departmental matter; it is not a new line in utility saucepans, and it must receive treatment at the very highest level of State policy. In that connection may I say that I think it is a tremendous pity that there could not have been a Preamble to this Bill providing that anything done under its powers should be deemed illegal if it conflicted with any international agreement or surrender of national sovereignty in atomic energy to which this country is a party? I believe there are constitutional difficulties about this here. It was done in America and it is unfortunate that it cannot be done in connection with this Bill. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if, when he replies, he could give the House an assurance on that point—that anything we are doing in the domestic sense will be linked up as a matter of course with any international agreement to which this country is a party.
  Finally, I feel that in passing this Bill we must make it plain to the world that we, the British people, are prepared to owe a first loyalty to world authority in this matter and hope that others are prepared to do the same, but that if they are not prepared to do the same we might act on our own to set a good example. Unless we act with good sense and imagination in this business it is the fiery furnace for all of us and our children.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened throughout the afternoon and evening to this Debate. Perhaps it is the mood of the House or the aftermath of the Recess which accounts for the thin attendance, but I feel that here is something which we must watch very carefully indeed. If Clemenceau was right when he wrote that famous, historic message asking Wilson for oil, saying "A
  118
  drop of oil is worth a drop of blood," we have now reached a stage in society when a small particle of fissionable material is practically worth a kingdom. I want to emphasise Clause 11 for a moment. When the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) raised the issue on the Adjournment I did bring up this point about secrecy in the faculty of engineering physics at universities. I asked what effect it would have upon the furthering of knowledge in this sphere in the future. I have been thinking back to the days of 1799 and the Combination Acts, and remembering that it was this very House which, through a twisting of justice, sent people abroad and accused them of setting up secret societies when they formed trade union movements. Each step that modern society makes towards secrecy is a step towards misunderstanding.
  Because of that I welcomed the eloquent and brilliant maiden speech here today by the hon. Member who said, "Here is an opportunity for Britain to give a lead." Although we are not dealing here with the relationship of atomic energy to the United Nations organisation —I do think, after reading the Bill, that we are really concerned with that aspect of it—yet it would have some effect upon international councils if this nation said it was prepared to put its cards face up upon the table and to say, "At least in this matter we do not propose to limit science or to make secrecy of it; we want to keep it open and above-board because we know that, in the last analysis, it is only by the United Nations and by international cooperation that we can abolish the fear of war."
  I believe there is an aspect of this matter that we have missed. There is not only the fear of the tyranny of war but, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the fact that unless mankind is made fully aware of the potentialities of this energy we may, in the near future, suffer once again the acute miseries of another industrial revolution, conducted upon lines of complete laissez faire in atomic energy. Some people on both sides of the House seem to think that the Bill gives to the Minister power of nationalisation. I am not so sure about that. All we know is that atomic energy is not to be left in private hands but is to be under the control of a central authority.

  119
  Secondly, I gather from my reading of the Bill that it is to empower the Minister
  "to promote the development of atomic energy and to confer on him powers of control over unauthorised production … and the publication of certain information."
  These powers are not compulsory or obligatory. They are merely permissive. The Minister is not obliged by the Bill to control or to do anything. He can do it if he feels like it. What is this House asking? Are we asking for a compulsory control of this material, or do we say that the Minister of Supply may be empowered to take control if he feels like it?
  That point leads me to my second point. The positive value of atomic energy sources and their need for rapid development are by no means being realised. We seem to have missed the positive possibilities of industrial development. Although there are Amendments coming in the future, the Bill seems to aim only at restrictive control. Undoubtedly, by Clause 11, the Bill widens the area of scientific knowledge in which secrecy is to be maintained. I contend that it is impossible to draw the limits. It is ridiculous to talk of one type of scientist. The theorist in nuclear physics is linked with the fitter and the mechanic, with the most humble form of engineering and with the most humble scientific worker. I see Governments having great difficulty in the future if they try to implement Clause II.
  I have listened with care to what all the scientific workers have said. I have read with interest the circular of the Association of Scientific Workers. Professor Blackett is the President of that Association. They did not publish that circular without using their powers of suspended judgment, and they ask, I think rightly, that the industrial development of atomic energy and of its by-products should be nationalised. There has been a hint in this Chamber this afternoon. An hon. Member was asking what would happen to byproducts and to private products. Both sides of the House seem to agree about nationalisation of atomic energy; are we prepared to nationalise all plant and all the by-products of all fissionable material in the future? We should have the courage to delete Clause 11 completely.
  There is a third point which I would put to the Minister of Supply. If I have read the Bill correctly, the Minister has
  120
  no power to force a private laboratory or a private organisation to give him information of any new discoveries or advances that they make in nuclear physics. Lastly, and this is a very important point, I believe that a body should be appointed by the Bill, not entirely of scientific observers, but consisting of laymen, to give advice to the Minister. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in many respects. I do not agree that we should fall for the apotheosis of the scientist, any more than for the rhetorical arpeggios that rocked Blackpool from end to end last week. I therefore request that there should be not only a body of scientific advisers or a committee of scientists to help the Minister, and independent of the Government, but that, together with that committee, there should be a group of laymen whose opinion the Government would respect. Before I sit down I would refer to the issue of the relationship of power to social development. Many of us, on both sides of the House, have tried to understand the evolution of mankind. Whatever political theory we may support we are bound to admit that, as man has conquered Nature with new sources of power, he has changed his own social development.
  At this moment Britain can contribute to the building up of confidence in the United Nations organisation in a big way and to the building up of international understanding merely by wisely discussing this Bill and agreeing that we are prepared to take the risk—because risk it is—to abandon secrecy in Britain so far as the science of nuclear physics and the development of atomic energy are concerned while demanding the complete nationalisation of the fissionable material, the by-products and the commodities themselves that are the results of this science of nuclear physics.
  8.1 p.m.
  Major Vernon: It seems to me that we have come to a point when the views that have been expressed need crystallising into a practical proposition, and I propose to do that. As to the Prime Minister's statement that he intended that security should be safeguarded and that development should not be hindered, one wonders how that can be done. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton)

  121
  pointed out that he did not see how security in the sense of the Bill and development could take place at the same time, and I am quite sure that is correct. The advancement made in this particularly difficult scientific field has been the contribution of exceptional human beings, people with wide knowledge and intense capacity for concentration and an intensity of imagination which is exceptional. If we follow through the development that has led up to the present position, starting from Clarke Maxwell, an Englishman, we find many nations represented. These entirely exceptional people have cropped up at different times in different parts of the world. Until 1939 there was no secrecy at all. The work of each one of these people was available to the rest. There was first an Englishman, then a German, then a Frenchman (Bequerel), then Einstein a German, Bofir a Dane, Rutherford a New Zealander, several Englishmen, another Frenchman, an Italian, a Canadian and so on. This handful of exceptional people made this progress possible because there was complete inter-communication between them.
  What will happen under this Bill if national security comes in? First the military scientists will be divided from the non-military scientists. Then the non-military scientists will be divided into compartments and all sorts of obstacles will be put in the way of inter-communication. A gradual paralysis will spread over the whole field of scientific work. The young man at the university will say that if he goes in for atomic research, he will be up against the Ministry at all points, and that if he makes a slip he may be in trouble and perhaps land in prison quite inadvertently. That kind of thing will be discouraging for people. We are finding it difficult to get people to go into the Army because conditions are not sufficiently attractive. This secrecy will have the same sort of effect on scientific aspirants, who will be disinclined to take up this field of activity which is vitally important.
  What does this mean? The world is faced with a famine in fuel. There has been a ruthless destruction of forests followed by soil erosion. The best seams of our coal have gone and we can see the difficulty ahead. It may be a long way. There is a limited supply of oil in the world. It has been recklessly exploited.
  122
  The Americans are saying that their supplies are running short and that they need oil from the Middle East and so on. There is a prospect ultimately of a world famine. We should go back by stages to the Stone Age. There comes the possibility of a new sort of energy which will gradually replace the dwindling supplies that there are at present, and we are letting our military madness clamp down on this vital possibility for the future of mankind. I say military madness. I have always thought war was nonsense. Some hon. Members may think I am talking nonsense now but to me that seems plain common-sense. To settle disputes by ordinary warfare is not reasonable. We ought to be reasonable enough in these days to avoid mass destruction in order to settle our disputes. We are getting pretty near, but the excuse is made that somebody else must start. It is said that we must get international agreement and that once we have that we shall be happy to sacrifice our weapons and means for mass destruction.
  But who is going to begin? It seems to me that Providence has directed Britain to take a lead for this reason. It was pointed out that 50 atomic bombs would put the organisation of Britain completely out of action. That is not a difficult calculation—one bomb, one city or centre of production. It was also suggested that 2,000 bombs would be sufficient to put out Russia or the United States. How many bombs have we had a chance of making? It cost the Americans £500,000,000 to make a number which has not been published but there are indications that it is something in the area of half a dozen or a dozen. We are proposing to spend £30,000,000 which will make us a few bombs, but what chance have we from the military point of view of ever competing with these people with much ampler resources? So there is a practical reason for saying that we could never succeed and never be secure by manufacturing more of these bombs than other people. What we need to be more secure is to give it up altogether.
  In the Debate on 2nd August speakers on all sides of the House agreed that now was the time for Britain to take a lead. The Americans have put forward their proposals and the Russians have put forward theirs, and there is a vital conflict between them—something not very far

  123
  from a deadlock. The Minister of State said Britain agrees with both sides. He meant Britain agreed with the noble sentiments of both sides. Noble sentiments have been the stock-in-trade of eminent speakers all over the world the whole time, but the general public are a bit cynical of noble sentiments and want something really practical proposed. Here is a chance for us to prove our sincerity. It is not entirely devoid of self-interest. The two things happen by luck to come together. By declaring that we will deny ourselves the making of atomic bombs in the future we shall be giving a lead in the international sphere which will be a step in the right direction. That seems the direction in which we ought to move and a practical step that we ought to make—to declare that we shall not make atomic bombs ourselves. Once that is agreed, all this question of Clause 11 and the secrecy here and there disappears. There is no need for any secrecy at all.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: We have had a long, and on the whole a rather depressing, Debate this afternoon on this important subject of atomic energy. My reason for intervening is that I still feel there are certain implications in this Bill which have not even yet been fully brought before the House. We are concerned this evening with the consideration of the greatest discovery that the human race has ever made— atomic energy—comparable only, as a turning-point in history, with the discovery of fire in the distant days of primitive man. We are concerned with a discovery which, it is no exaggeration to say, is in its potentialities producing a revolution in human conditions. It will provide the supreme test of man's ability in the moral sphere to cope with his immense scientific achievements.
  I doubt whether in this country we are as atomic energy-conscious as they are in the United States of America. I doubt whether the people of this country have really yet awakened to the new era in which we are living as a result of this tremendous scientific discovery. Less than 15 months ago, when the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the whole world was momentarily stunned and horror-struck, notwithstanding all the horrors to which we had became accus-
  124
  tomed during the war. But that phase has passed and there has been, in this country, a lack of public appreciation of the real significance of this important subject. I believe relatively few people realise the two alternatives with which mankind is now faced. On the one hand, if national dissensions continue as they have in the past, we are faced in the next war with an atomic conflict which will threaten the continuation of civilisation, and perhaps even the human race will be utterly destroyed. We are faced with a new weapon of warfare which at the least will involve, certainly to this country and, I have no doubt, to the other belligerents who take part in it, an almost total paralysis of their existing civilisation. The other alternative is that mankind may wake up to the realisation of the potentialities for good that are involved in this new scientific discovery, and may determine by resolution and international action and by international good will, to ensure that the human race is saved from atomic disaster and enabled to enjoy the long vista of progress and the beneficent improvements which this source of energy opens up.
  It is in this background that we have to consider the proposals of His Majesty's Government in this Bill. This is a Bill for giving the Government control of the development and production of atomic energy. The reason why this Bill is before the House is that our national security requires it—that is the justification for the Bill, and nobody opposes the Second Reading. Indeed I thought the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) was instructive. He realised that, for purposes of national security, it is now essential to vest these vast powers in the Government, as otherwise the safety of the State would be jeopardised. It follows, as the use of atomic energy is extended, that for precisely the same reasons, it will be necessary by measures of nationalisation of one industry and another to give the State equal control over an increasingly wide field of industrial activity in order to ensure that the State has within its control all the industrial capacity of the State required to protect the community in time of danger. In the atomic age envisaged by this Bill one must be prepared at all times to meet a possible attack.

  125
  My second comment is, that just as the justification for this Bill is the safety of the realm, so it is the duty of the Government to see whether in that respect the Bill goes far enough. It cannot be assumed that the atomic bomb or any contrivances using the release of atomic energy represent the only direction, or even the most effective one, in which science can be perverted to the uses of total war, threatening on a large scale the destruction of the human race. Other weapons of destruction, scientific and bacteriological have been mentioned. It seems to me that in those fields also the Government should take all essential steps of a similar nature that are required for the protection of the State.
  Having said that, one must realise, as previous speakers have realised, that this Bill in its present form, which is going to receive unanimous support on Second Reading, contains certain defects, certain dangers. I regard one of the chief defects of the Bill the emphasis it places on the negative action of the State. I regard it as unfortunate if, as a result of this Bill, any idea is encouraged that atomic energy is to be regarded as primarily an instrument of warfare, in the form of atomic bombs, to be used mainly for destructive purposes. It is regrettable that during the last year there has been such a veil of mystery and secrecy surrounding the whole of this subject. It is unfortunate that emphasis has been placed on the atomic bomb, and the destruction it can cause, while less attention, in the public mind, has been given to the immense potential benefits that can be obtained by research into atomic energy. When the Minister of Supply replies, I hope he will be able to give the House an assurance that, notwithstanding the somewhat vague provisions in the Bill, energetic steps will be taken to encourage the research and development of atomic energy for peaceful, beneficent purposes.
  The other criticism of the Bill is of course its encroachment on our traditional and cherished freedom of intellectual and scientific research. That way points to disaster unless carefully watched, as the example of Germany has shown us. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that those powers with which, in the interests of national safety, he is being entrusted will be exercised at all times with the greatest circumspection and toler-
  126
  ance, and that the views of scientists throughout the country will not be lightly disregarded. In view of the detailed discussions that have already taken place with regard to the phraseology of Clause II and the definition Clause in the Bill, I do not propose to enlarge on the improvements which, in my view, can be made in order to remove the natural alarm of scientific workers throughout the country.
  Finally, I would suggest that the State should assume the positive task of seeing that the House and the public are periodically informed of the progress that is being made in regard to nuclear fission, and all aspects of scientific inquiry covered by this Bill. It is difficult to exaggerate the necessity of ensuring that, as a corollary of the powers now being entrusted to the Government, the Minister should see that the public are educated, and kept informed, by the publication of the fullest possible information at all times, compatible with the security of the State, of the progress being made, and the opportunities that are opened up so that we may have an enlightened public opinion about the munificent illimitable potentialities of atomic energy.
  8.22 p.m.
  Dr. Barnet Stress: May I first say that I support very strongly indeed my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) in deploring the fact that so much is said about the negative or destructive aspects of atomic physics, and little is said about the many remarkable things it can do which will save life? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has already touched upon this matter. To put it shortly, this discovery can be used either for war, or constructively, for purposes of industry by begetting a new and cheap type of power. Certainly—and this is the point I would like to bring to the attention of the House—it might be used to save life medically. I am not one who fears that war is at all likely in the near future. I do not despair of human beings. I do not think they would be so foolish as to destroy themselves so soon after the last war. At least a generation of people will be needed who will have forgotten what we in this generation have gone through before they are tempted again into such folly.

  127
  It is from this point of view that secrecy becomes a danger in the way which so many speakers have already stressed. We hope that the public will be kept aware of the dangers of the misuse of this type of power. Quite recently I noted that evidence was given before a committee in the United States by some of their military experts. One of them pointed out that it was possible to fight a defensive war and prevent the invasion of North America, but possibly at the cost of 40 million lives lost and the obliteration of most of their cities, if other countries had possession of the atomic bomb.
  This perhaps might be construed to be a good thing to be understood by so great a Power, for it would help them, I feel sure, if they are wise, to refuse to allow the misuse of atomic energy; but others of us are afraid that there are some sections of military opinion in the United States which feel that, if this really be true, a defensive war might well be fought in the near future so as to make it impossible for anyone in the world ever to gain atomic energy which could be used against them. There indeed would lie madness. I firmly believe that sane councils will prevail and in my view there is no chance of anything horrible like this happening in our lifetime.
  I support this Bill wholeheartedly and, in passing, I would like to say that it is incredible for any of us to believe that any of this type of work can fall into private hands without the greatest danger. Though I support the Bill, I am afraid of one thing. It is that secrecy might militate against discovery or application to medical use of atomic energy and nuclear physics which would enable us to cure certain diseases which have baffled us in the past. It is well known today that it is possible to make many substances radioactive which were not radioactive originally, or which are not normally radioactive, and that the radioactivity of these substances can be controlled because their activity disappears either in a few hours, days or weeks. Many hon. Members will remember the dreadful fate which befell girls who used to paint the dials of watches with radioactive material in the old days. When painting these luminous dials they had a habit of putting the tip of the brush to their lips and licking it to keep a point
  128
  on it. It was not recognised that there was sufficient radioactivity in the luminous paint to produce death. We know today that it was cumulative in its effect, and many girls died rather horribly as a result.
  The new substances we can check completely. For example, we know that radioactive phosphorus loses its radioactivity within 48 hours. We can have either tablets or pills and can take them by mouth and we are able to estimate the dose and know exactly where it will be deposited, namely in the bone of the human body. If a patient has any disease which may be susceptible to radioactivity, it can be treated, therefore, with some confidence. Though I would not have anyone believe that our experiments have gone as far as we would like, it is a fact that conditions of myelogenous leucaemia, a condition in the bone marrow which is always fatal, is now thought to be amenable to treatment with radioactive phosphorus. It is well within the bounds of possibility that if we can have full research on this subject with the assistance of the Minister and his Department, without too much secrecy and with a guarantee to the whole world that our discoveries will be given to them immediately if they provide a means for saving life, we shall be able to get a whole range of radioactive substances with the correct and accurate doses, knowing that these substances will be deposited in selected parts of the human body, and the diseases of cancer of the bone and cancer of the internal organs may, for the first time, be amenable to treatment.
  Lastly, most of us suspect that human morality lags behind scientific achievement. That is really what we are worried about and why we are all so frightened today. International affairs have been likened recently to a game of cards in which some hold most of the trumps and those who hold most of the trumps seem to want to look at the cards of their opponents before they will disclose what they have got themselves. I think from this House we can appeal to the whole of the world to take a more realistic and sane view of international affairs, and say that where everything is to be lost by not taking a commonsense humane and human point of view, surely everything is to be gained by honesty and by open diplomacy.
  8.30 p.m.
  Dr. Santo Jeger: We have heard a great deal in the past, and in the very recent past, from hon. Members of the Opposition about the Government policy of nationalisation, but we have not heard any attack upon this Bill, which is a Bill for the national control of atomic energy. It is a Bill which enforces nationalisation and it is consistent with the policy of the Government. If we are very optimistic about the future, we regard these proposals for national control as part of a plan for creating technical facilities and for the extension of technical knowledge in anticipation of world cooperation on this matter in the very near future, so that British work can contribute fully to the material and moral advance of civilisation. This international cooporation must be at Government level; hence all these facilities must be in Government hands, but if the worst were to happen and if bomb-making were to become the chief interest rather than power production, still less must these facilities be left in private hands. Without international cooperation, we cannot separate the peaceful from the warlike side of this work.
  The Minister depends upon a number of advisers, not only scientists but technicians, not only those in the Government service but also the large number of experts from industry and from the university laboratories. I am very glad to see that there is provision in this Bill to encourage the training of scientific personnel and to safeguard the facilities of teaching establishments. It has been suggested that the Minister should provide himself with an advisory council, a council of experts and scientists who shall meet and give him advice which he is free to take or not to take, just as he wishes. Now, that advice cannot be made public, and, if it is not accepted, what is gained? All the members of this proposed advisory committee would not be equally informed upon all the facts in connection with their work, because the work is one of a very high degree of specialisation and a very important part of it would be engineering work. Since the Minister is able now to call upon the advice and help of all scientists, whether they are in Government service or not, it seems to me that he has all the possibilities at his disposal for getting the very best advice and
  130
  taking advantage of it. I therefore see nothing whatever to be gained by his accepting the proposal for creating an advisory council.
  There is one other aspect of this matter that has not been touched upon very much in this Debate. The Smythe Report, issued by the United States Government for the development of atomic energy for military purposes, talks a great deal about safeguarding the workers in the atomic energy industry, and I want to carry that further and talk, not only about safeguards for the workers in the industry, but about safeguards for the country surrounding the sites of factories where atomic energy is created, and safeguards for humanity generally. The Smythe Report compares in many places the effects of radio-activity on the human body with the effects of X-rays. We know a great deal about the effects of X-rays on men's bodies. We know that large doses of X-rays, and even, in some cases, small doses, may cause sterilisation of the individual. We may get burns, cancer and destruction of blood corpuscles. We know that X-ray workers provide themselves with lead screens, lead aprons, and lead gloves in order to protect themselves from these X-ray emanations.
  The Smythe Report says that there were no sure means for determining the adequacy of their precautions. We know that the Americans have been using very dense, very thick barriers made of concrete and that they have had difficulties in preventing radioactive air particles from coming outside the area where the atomic energy is being manufactured. But we do not know, and we have no evidence what the long term effects of these emanations may be. We know the short term effects— the effects of the bomb. We get radio activity in the atmosphere round the pile, in the stocks and residue, in the water used for cooling. If I may quote the Smythe Report again:
  "A combination of the alpha ray activity of plutonium and its chemical properties makes it one of the most dangerous substances known if it gets into the human body."
  We have not had very much information about the danger, or about the steps we are going to take. With industrial diseases hitherto it has been usual to call in doctors after the event. Never before have we had an opportunity of calling them in advance of it. Therefore, I am

  131
  proposing the setting up of another kind of advisory council. I want a competent committee of biologists and doctors to engage in research on this very important question. I want to see individuals, their wellbeing, and the whole future of the human race safeguarded now that we are entering upon this new atomic age.
  8.37 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: There are, perhaps, a few moments left in which I may make an observation on this subject which has not already been made in the Debate. The subject we are discussing is a tragic one. I think that the Minister is being set up as a pill to cure an earthquake which involves the whole of this planet of ours and that we are faced, not with an occasion for the glorification of the disciples of nationalisation and collectivism, but with something really opposite. We are faced with the bankruptcy of those human institutions of ours, whether nations or collections of nations. We are being forced back, not with the banners of the National Socialist system flying, but with what we individualists have always said must be the solution of the destiny of man—the improvement of the individual and not the improvement of the machinery of the State.
  I am not among those who are enamoured of handing over this important method of research to the State. We are in a pitiable position for making a world appeal. We have no power in the matter. There are only 50 million inhabitants in this small island on the North-West coast of Europe. Our place in the scheme of things is obliterated if space is the criterion. It lies with the great land masses of the Continent and those which run through France to China and from Alaska down to Cape Horn. Islands such as ours can only appeal to what little common sense there is in the universe today. Therefore, it seems to me that the State is not the best instrument for making that appeal. If we are to make the appeal on the highest level it should be made to men of science everywhere, irrespective of nationalistic considerations. Such an appeal may well fail; it may be addressed to deaf ears and the men of science may be no more altruistic and no less nationalistic than would a Government in this matter. But the attempt has not been made. We
  132
  need a scientific council in this country above politics and party.
  Is it not possible to make an international appeal that this danger of atomic energy, which may destroy the whole planet on which we live, should be raised above the nationalistic level? This Bill does not seek to do that for one moment. It embraces the problem with all the advantages and disadvantages, and in my judgment the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It embraces all the disadvantages of the nationalist system. We are saying, "This is the British atomic energy research," "This is the United States atomic energy research," "This is the atomic research of the U.S.S.R." and so on. We are building up in the most dangerous manner possible a system not of competing scientists or individuals but competing State machines. That may be an impossible position, but it seems to me that this Bill moves into that field rather than the field of making the widest possible appeal to the scientists as individuals and human beings to join with other scientists on the highest human level. This is the bankruptcy of statesmanship. This is the hopelessness of nationalisation, and, carried into the international sphere backed by narrow nationalism, it seems to be confusion worse confounded and despair piled upon despair.
  The next observation I wish to make is more limited and local. I do not often find in this House special references made to that part of the country from which I come. I may be filled with a sinister lack of appreciation, but there is a very lengthy reference to Scotland in this Bill. What does it mean? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies. Why this somewhat lengthy Clause 19 with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)? I know there is a difference between Scottish and English law, especially as regards land, but are we being offered the suggestion that possibly some of the experiments begun at Didcot are to be transferred to Scotland, and, if so, is that of hope for Scotland or is it a matter for regret? Perhaps the Minister will tell us why on this occasion Scotland has such a prominent consideration in this Bill for the development of atomic energy and the control of such development. It is not often that Scotland acquires the interest which it has on this occasion. I

  133
  hope there is nothing sinister about it, and with that observation I will resume my seat.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: During the speech in which the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he used one or two phrases of which I made a note. One phrase was this: "If we can be assured that it will be used for peaceful purposes only," and later on he said: "The United Nations organisation exists to free the world from the possibility of atomic war." I maintain that in the course of his speech the Prime Minister made the assumption, as every one of us must make, that ultimately an international organisation will be created which can control internationally the production and development of atomic energy. Throughout the speeches of practically every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate that assumption has also been made, sometimes explicitly and sometimes by implication. I would like to develop that theme a little, because I do not believe that any Member in this House could pass this Bill, unless we all automatically assumed that it was leading towards an effective international control. If that is not so, then this Bill is the beginning of the arms race. It is either the beginning of the arms race, or else we believe—and we cannot vote for it otherwise—that it is possible to create an effective international organisation in time.
  Since that seems to me to be the core of the problem, I would like to spend a few minutes pointing out some of the in-consistences in the existing international system that is now at our disposal. What we all want today—all mankind everywhere, as I see it—is to create an international organisation which can make regulations to control our behaviour in various ways, particularly with regard to the development of atomic explosives. It seems to me also to be true that the effectiveness of law tends to diminish as the size of the unit to which we endeavour to apply it progressively increases. If law is not effective and cannot be enforced it is no good.
  I would try to illustrate that in the following way. During the war, and in certain instances even today, there is in operation an Order on the Statute Book,
  134
  namely, the Essential Work Order. Under that Order an employer, a company, is not allowed to fire its employee and the employee is not allowed to give notice to his employer, the company. Anyone like myself, who has had practical experience of the working of that Order, and who is prepared to be honest about it, will I think admit that he has seldom known of an employee who has successfully evaded the working of that law, while it is equally true to say that practically every company can, when it wishes, evade that law. That is not because the employer is any more wicked or sinister or subtle than his employee. It is merely an illustration of the fact that that single law is applied in that instance to two different sizes of unit, the small unit being the individual and the large unit being the company. As the unit to which the law is applied increases in size the effectiveness or the enforcibility of that law diminishes.
  Another illustration is that of litigation with regard to patent law. Towards the end of the war, sponsored by the Board of Trade, I went over to the United States to try to work some British patents some of which I owned myself. Immediately I landed in the United States, I learned that the value of a British patent had no relation at all to the intrinsic worth of the patent itself, or how well it was covered by the specification. It depended entirely upon the amount of cash one was prepared to put behind the patent in the event of litigation. That is because nowadays patents are not generally owned by individuals, nor are they infringed by individuals. They are largely owned or infringed by vast industrial corporations, and for that reason, patent law is practically unenforcible and almost entirely unpredictable. Litigation goes on for years and years; the only people who understand it or who make anything out of it are the learned counsel; and the decision, when it is ultimately made, is generally reversed in a higher court of law. In this instance the law, because it is applied to a gigantic unit, a big corporation, is almost totally a farce.
  If we go one stage further, we observe that in the world today the United Nations organisation is endeavouring to make laws or regulations for the biggest unit known to man, namely, the national sovereign state; and it is impossible so to do. We cannot make effective, enforceable law and apply it to that size of unit. It

  135
  cannot be done. The frustration which is evident in international affairs today is not in any way due to the unwillingness of statesmen to work that machinery. It is frankly due to the fact that it is humanly impossible for them to do so. The whole of the United Nations charter is founded upon the fact that its members are states and that the function of the organisation is to make laws and regulations for the behaviour of states. The analogy which I have given shows it cannot be done. Moreover, there is an interesting extract, which I have here, from the Nuremberg trial. During the trial one of the counsel for the defence argued that the crime could not justifiably be laid at the door of his client but was really the crime of the Third Reich; to which argument the American prosecutor, Justice Jackson, replied in these words:
  "The idea that a State any more than a corporation can commit crimes is a fiction. Crimes always are committed by persons. That fictional being, the State, cannot be produced for trial, cannot plead, cannot testify, and cannot be sentenced."
  Nevetheless, if you will read the Charter of the United Nations you will find we are trying to do precisely that—the impossible. What, obviously, we must try to do now is to set up an international organisation that can make, and has the power to endeavour to make, laws which can be applied. Learning the lesson of our experience, we find that effective law is law which is applied to the smallest unit—the individual, the person. If we can give our international authority the power to make laws which can be enforced, we may then, I believe, get effective international control. If or when we succeed in doing that, we shall have changed the United Nations organisation into a world government; nothing short of that can save us from catastrophe.
  I go back to the point from which I started. In so far as this Bill means anything except the beginning of an arms race, it means that we know that the task ahead of us is to create world government; because, unless we do that there can be no peace. I believe it can be done, and that it can be done in time. But I do not believe—and this is where I take exception to one or two other speakers—I do not believe it can now be done on the level of governments or by statesmen. It can only be done by the people of the
  136
  world themselves; and it can be done by them. I should like to conclude then, by quoting the words of the President of the Board of Trade, who made a speech on this very subject early this year. I think he hit the nail firmly and correctly on the head. He said:
  "I do not doubt the willingness of statesmen, but the task is so great and so urgent that we cannot hope to get it carried through unless we have the driving power of world public opinion behind it."
  I believe that that driving power of world public opinion can be got behind it, and that it can do the job in time. I wish I could tell the House how that could be done, but I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would probably rule me out of Order. This is certainly not the moment for that discussion. The last word then that I want to say to anyone listening, or who will read my speech is this: I believe it can be done. I am quite convinced it must be done.
  8.54 p.m.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): We have had a long, interesting and thoughtful Debate on this matter, and a number of points have been raised of considerable importance. I should like to reply to them. May I at the outset assure the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that there is no sinister intention directed to Scotland? Scottish law differs from our own, and it is necessary, since this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will apply to the whole of Britain, that there should be provisions for applying it to Scotland, in view of the different legal system; there is nothing more sinister than a proper respect for Scottish legal tradition.
  May I also say to the hon. Member for the Acock's Green Division of Birmingham (Mr. Usborne) that it is one of the primary purposes of this Bill to put the British Government in a position to carry out, within its territory, the obligations which we hope will be the substance of international agreement very soon; and it is, as the hon. Member says, quite impossible that an international authority should be able to make a law which will be binding on all the subjects of all the States, unless the States which are parties to the agreement are prepared to pass laws of their own giving effect to it. Obviously, no international agreement to limit the use of atomic energy to peaceful purposes would be of use unless the

  137
  signatory governments were able themselves to control their own nationals in the use that they were making of this new source of power.
  The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench with charm, moderation and reasonableness accepted the necessity for this Bill. He rightly drew attention to the negative and restrictive appearance which its Clauses have, and he admitted that this was necessary owing to the nature of the subject, but I Would point out that the Bill begins with a positive and constructive purpose. It begins by laying upon the Minister the duty of producing atomic energy, of carrying out research and development, and doing all that is necessary to carry this new science forward. That is the positive part of it; it is not in very great detail—
  Mr. Pickthorn: It has no sanctions.
  Mr. Wilmot: It has the usual general Parliamentary sanctions, that the Minister must exercise his functions adequately and properly to the satisfaction of Parliament. This is an entirely new thing, a new human activity, and the Bill lays upon the Government, through the Minister of Supply, the duty of doing what is necessary to be done. It is not in great detail because this is a new science, there is far more to learn than the little which is already known, and therefore it is brief in compass if very wide in scope. But, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger), it is a fact that in the present state of our knowledge experiments with, and steps towards the production of, materials used for the production of atomic energy are fraught with great peril, not only to those engaged in them but to people in the vicinity, if they are not conducted in a proper way with adequate safeguards. It is not only the defence aspect of this matter that makes it necessary to have these restrictions upon the manner in which the work is carried out, but the danger of calamity in the course of the work.
  That, I think, is the main reason why, on the face of it, the Bill appears to be mainly of a restrictive and negative character, but in fact of course it is the opening of a great new positive work. The right hon. Gentleman—rightly, I think—raised the point that this science
  138
  will march forward only if the scientists are able to work at it in their own way, and one of the things which the Minister, his adviser- and assistants must guard against in building their organisation is that the scientists shall be confined and treated as civil servants or, as the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) put it, required to clock on and off. Scientists do not do good work in those conditions, it is pointed out. Well, Sir, there will be scientific people working in Government establishments, there will be many more, in time, working outside Government establishments, in universities and later on in industry. I do not believe that there is any risk or danger that the scientific men who will be doing this work will be subject to any more irksome or tiresome restrictions which would hamper them in their work than scientists working in other departments in Government establishments or for industry. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right to call attention to the danger of not realising that scientific people need a free atmosphere in which they can do their best work.
  Something was said about the delay in introducing the Bill. The Bill was introduced as far back as 1st May. There has been deliberately left this rather long period between First Reading and publication of the Bill and this Second Reading Debate because this is so novel a subject, and because it is so important that it should be understood and the Government's proposals widely appreciated, and so that the Government should be able to benefit from the advice and informed criticisms which we hoped would come in from many sources as a result of its publication. What we hoped for has happened, and a very considerable volume of advice, criticism and help has come to us, upon which we have pondered and in many cases acted. Hon. Members will notice upon the Order Paper a number of Amendments of substance which I have put down as a result of discussions and correspondence with people in scientific occupations and men engaged in these pursuits, with industrialists and others, who have seen that the Bill could be improved. We are most happy to meet the suggestions, and I would commend a study of these Amendments and their effects upon the Bill to hon. Members between now and the Committee stage. One of these Amendments will be of con-

  139
  siderable interest to the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) and others, because I have deliberately put it down to require the Minister to give his permission for the communication of information, unless he is satisfied that to do so would be dangerous on defence grounds. It is a very wide and far-reaching Amendment which goes a long way to meet the very natural criticism which has been made about that part of the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) with others says, very rightly, that everything depends upon the spirit in which the Government will act and use the powers which will be granted under this Bill. What sort of drive and energy is to be put up behind it? What indications have already been given that the Government are tackling this thing with the full purpose which its importance deserves? It is not easy at the moment at this early stage to give a wealth of concrete evidence, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government regard this matter as the most important subject of all, and, if I may say so, I think the appointment of so distinguished and eminent a person as Lord Portal of Hungerford as the Controller of Production of Atomic Energy in the Ministry of Supply is an indication of our intention to find the best possible people to carry on this most important of all work. Already we are hard at work, as the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said, with the research establishment in his constituency. It is robbing us of labour and materials which are badly needed for housing and industry, but, as he so generously said, he recognised the necessity of devoting all that was necessary to make the utmost speed with these preparations. I can say very little more than that. The limiting factor is not any lack of energy on the part of the Administration; it is the sheer limit of labour and materials which we can get for the job. Our productive capacity, as the House knows, is strained in every direction but we are doing our utmost, by every possible means, to press this matter forward. The hon. Member who said it was incumbent on the Government from time to time to make, as it were, progress reports to the House, and to take the House into their confidence as to how
  140
  this matter was progressing, made a timely suggestion, and one which we shall be pleased to act upon.
  I turn to some of the more detailed points which have been raised during the Debate. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked about the Special Order procedure. It is rather a Parliamentary legal point, and probably there are Members here tonight who are more qualified to deal with it than I, but, as I understand it, the special procedure which it is proposed to use for the Orders to be made under Section 7 dealing with the acquisition of minerals, has been selected in order to give the utmost safeguard to the affected subject. The Minister may go in and work the minerals, and it is proposed to use this procedure as a means of giving the utmost protection. Any Special Procedure Order, before being laid before Parliament, must be advertised and served on the persons affected. They can make objections and cause local inquiries to be held, and take other steps, with which Members are familiar, to safeguard their interests and to see that Parliament is well aware of all that is going on. This was felt to be particularly appropriate, in view of the wide powers over property with which the Minister is endowed in these Orders.
  I would like to refer for a moment or two to the very interesting and attractive maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ilford (Mr. Ranger). I listened to it with the greatest interest, but I cannot say that I agree with it. I really do not feel that we should be furthering the cause of international peace if we in this country, alone and by ourselves, simply refused to go on with the science and production of atomic energy. That does not seem to be the solution of this problem. Surely, we have to play our part in getting an international agreement which wall be carried out, and in seeing that this great sphere of human knowledge is used for man's welfare, and not for his destruction. The easy way of washing our hands of the whole business seems to help us not at all. I would, however, like to compliment my hon. Friend on the attractive way in which he presented his argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) asked me whether I would give an undertaking that nothing would be done under this Bill which was

  141
  inconsistent with any international obligations, either existing now, or, when entered into, existing then. I freely and willingly give that undertaking. I said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to put the Government in a position to carry out their international obligations.
  I was asked if I could say how these provisions compared with similar provisions abroad. In foreign countries the background is very different, and the provisions are different. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the question which the hon. Member asked. Regard has to be had to previous legislation in those countries as, indeed, the references in this Bill show that we have had to have it here. I would like to say that immediately this Bill was drafted, copies were sent to all of the Dominions. I understand that Bills either have been or are in the course of being prepared and passed in each of the Dominions to carry out similar if not exactly identical provisions.
  I would like to deal with what I think was the main contention of a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for King's Norton, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) and others, and that was that they would feel much happier if there were included in the Bill the provision of an advisory committee of scientists to advise the Minister. I have given that suggestion, which, on the face of it, is a very natural one in dealing with so expert and difficult a subject as this, and with a Minister who is admittedly no scientist, very careful consideration. I think that I am right in saying that there is not in fact very much between us on the matter. There is at present the practice of taking advice of all the leading scientists who can contribute anything to this matter. I do not think that it would be wise, for several reasons, to have a statutory fixed body of scientists who inevitably would become a screen between the Minister and his direct Parliamentary responsibility.
  Mr. Blackburn: The scientists, as I understand it, would, most of them, be prepared to accept it outside the Bill, assuming that the Minister was prepared to indicate that he would appoint a committee of scientists and engineers engaged
  142
  in the problem to advise him. Do I understand that that is accepted by him?
  Mr. Wilmot: No. I do not think that it would be any more acceptable than if it were mentioned in the Bill. It is not only unacceptable but it is unnecessary. Obviously, it would be impossible for any Minister to carry out this work unless he had the advice of scientific, engineering and other expert people, and unless the Minister is utterly incompetent and incapable and unworthy of the confidence of this House he will seek the very best advice he can possibly obtain.
  Mr. Blackburn: Would the Minister give the objections to publishing the names of the people on whose advice he is going to rely?
  Mr. Wilmot: Obviously, ever since this work began there has been daily consultation with the scientists. It would be wrong to have a picture of a group of scientists sitting round a table and constituting themselves an advisory committee. This subject flows out into every branch of knowledge. It is necessary to consult people here, there and everywhere on a whole range of topics. The whole fabric of human life is affected by these vast, revolutionary discoveries. If we were to get together in one place permanently all the people whose advice we seek from time to time as the work develops, we should have a mass meeting. We should be quite incapable of conducting business on those lines. Various officers and scientific people on the staff of the establishments are continually in touch with other scientific men in the universities, in industry, and with the main streams of scientific thought; and I suggest that is the only way in which the people who have the actual administration of this work can keep themselves in phase with the development of science as they go. We cannot isolate a body of people and call them an advisory committee.
  Mr. Blackburn: America and Australia do.
  Mr. Wilmot: That would not necessarily make it the right thing to do.
  Mr. Blackburn: It can be done.
  Mr. Wilmot: I am not saying that it cannot be done, but that it would not be a good thing. It would not improve the organisation and the objects which we

  143
  have in view. There is no point in setting up an advisory committee for the sake of it. Naturally, this work is carried on with the continual advice of all the people who have anything to contribute, and it will continue to be so. Therefore, I have to say it is not necessary.
  Commander Noble: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he say how the Committee which has been presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) now stands?
  Mr. Wilmot: Yes. I ought to have mentioned that. There is, of course, a most important advisory body, the Anderson Committee as it is called, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities, which advises the Prime Minister and the Government generally upon the whole problem and upon which there sit a number of distinguished scientists; but that is a broader approach to the matter— the general policy of the thing rather than the day-to-day carrying on of the business. That is done by officers of the Ministry of Supply, under the direction of Lord Portal of Hungerford, and that distinguished atomic scientist Professor Cockcroft, who is in charge of the experimental establishment at Harwell. It is those day-to-day workers who are in touch all the time with the scientific people all over the country.
  The second main criticism of the Bill— and I think the most substantial—was with regard to the vital Clause 11, which deals with the giving of information about plant used for the production of atomic energy. I admit right away that the drafting of this Clause inevitably presents the greatest fundamental difficulty. How is it possible to reconcile these two apparently opposite objectives? We have to secure the non-disclosure of things which may be dangerous, or things which it is undesirable to disclose for reasons of defence. At the same time we have to secure, as many hon. Members very rightly pointed out, that there is a free interchange and flow of scientific opinion, because only in such an atmosphere can science live at all. These two difficult and contradictory objectives have somehow got to be faced. Clause 11 is admit-
  144
  tedly the best compromise we have been able to make up to now between those two objectives.
  The Clause allows complete freedom over the whole field unassociated with atomic energy plant. It is the plant which is made the objective of the restriction, and there is no restriction at all upon the exchange of basic scientific information. It is the information concerned with the plant and what the plant does which is the subject of these restrictions. But I do appreciate that Clause 11 read with Clause 18 is restrictive in operation inevitably.
  I have done my very best to find ways in which we can limit its effects in that direction. As I have said I have put down an Amendment which will require the Minister not to withhold his consent unless he is satisfied that by giving it he would be doing something dangerous to the safety of the State. That goes a very long way. Secondly, I am prepared—and I think the hon. Member for King's Norton will be interested in this—in relation to Clauses 10 and 11, to free the ordinary laboratory tools of the nuclear physicist which have no defence significance by exeluding them from the terms of any Order which I may make under Clause 10; and as soon as the Bill becomes law to confer with the physicists and scientists who will be affected with a view to making an Order under Clause 11 to exclude those tools from the categories of plant about which communication is forbidden. I think that will go a very long way to meet the very natural views which have been expressed in many quarters of the House, and I would add that I am prepared to confer with the scientists in the drafting of this Order which will let out the normal tools of their profession.
  I think that covers the main points which have been raised and I should like to express my very deep appreciation of the very helpful Debate which we have had. The importance of this new source of power for peaceful purposes yet remains to be measured. This science, new as it is, has its beginnings some time back in the work of Madame Curie and Lord Rutherford and others in this country. A great step forward was made on the eve of the war and it so happens that on the scientific road to the production of power from nuclear energy we passed the

  145
  point at which we can produce this terrifying explosive instrument. In those circumstances our minds have been focused rather on this sideline of the development of atomic energy which had such devastating results and possibilities. But the main stream of the advance is, of course, towards the production of power from this source, and here, in spite of what has been said in some quarters, I am advised that it is a little too early to make definite and accurate predictions as to how near or otherwise this new source of power is to our grasp for application. I think therefore that we have to make our forecasts with some caution. The fact that the nuclear fission reaction leads to the release of a million times more energy from a given weight of matter than would be released by any chemical process such as burning or the detonation of T.N.T., is a sufficient indication of the potential importance of this subject and justifies the steps which have been taken in this Bill.
  I am advised by the experts that it may prove later on not to be necessary to use the nuclear fission method at all, and that we may find means to liberate atomic energy by different methods altogether. It is certain already that atomic energy can be used to produce new radioactive materials in considerable quantities and that with their aid new fields of research and application are opened in biology and medicine and in many branches of industry where these radioactive atoms can be used to follow chemical reactions and other processes.
  The use of atomic energy as a source of power will depend upon the successful solution of a number of hitherto unsolved technical problems. The chief of these is that associated with the generation of heat in the process, at a temperature sufficiently high to use directly for the generation of electricity instead of using some other form of fuel. The recent report to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission by Mr. Baruch shows that a body of American experts consider that electricity can be generated in the near future at atomic energy stations at a cost comparable with that of using coal or oil fuel. I would hasten to point out that the report stresses the need for finding the solution of a number of still unsolved technical problems of some magnitude. In some quarters the report is thought to be somewhat over-optimistic. It is there-
  146
  fore probably wise, in the present state of our knowledge, to keep an open mind on such questions until the outlook has been cleared by further research and development work. Of one thing we can be sure, that the new discoveries have in store very great things for mankind.
  Commander Noble: Before the Minister concludes, can he say anything about the military liaison committee to which I referred?
  Mr. Wilmot: I am afraid that that matter is outside the realm of the Minister of Supply. I think the question should be addressed, if I may suggest it, to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to delay the Bill, but the Minister was asked which Minister, whether himself or another, has responsibility for the survey of raw materials in the dominions of the Crown outside this country and not self-governing. Can he give the answer to that question?
  Mr. Wilmot: I think the answer is, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Friday.—[Captain Michael Stewart.]

  ATOMIC ENERGY [Money]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  'That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the development of atomic energy and the control of such development, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums paid by way of grant or loan to any person engaged in the production or use of atomic energy or research into matters connected therewith;

  (b) any sums required to defray expenses incurred by the Minister of Supply in the exercise of functions under the said Act; and

  (c) any sums required by or under any provision of the said Act to be paid to any person by way of compensation or interest thereon."—[King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Wilmot.]

  Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

  ANTI-NAZI PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Captain Michael Stewart.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I rise to ask for certain information affecting anti-Fascist prisoners of war, and I do so fully appreciating that the Cabinet statement last month has eased the situation very considerably. The House is very satisfied that there should be a general speeding up of repatriation and particularly satisfied that in that general speeding up priority will be given to those prisoners of war who have an anti-Fascist proved reputation. I am happy to be the first to have the privilege of questioning my hon. Friend who is on the Bench for the first time this evening in his capacity of Financial Secretary to the War Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad the House shares my feeling. I am particularly pleased because he himself claims a very big share of the credit for such improvements as have been made recently in the treatment and priorities given to anti-Fascist prisoners.
  But for all that there are still a number of very sore points that, for the honour of this country and for our reputation as an anti-Facist House of Parliament, simply must be still further cleared up. To begin with, I have letters in my possession from young prisoners of war who say that in a two-minute interview they have their category defined—Class A, Class B or Class C. In most instances I am quite satisfied that the classification is correct, but since priorities of repatriation are now accompanying this classification I ask my hon. Friend if he will see that the prisoners know in which group they are. They ought not to be left to an atmosphere of rumour in the camps in which they get their information sometimes indirectly and sometimes not at all. It seems a reasonable proposition that the prisoners should know precisely whether they are being classified as A, B or C.
  Further, as some of these segregation teams are unequal in quality, as the War Office like every other Department is sometimes short of labour and short of qualified labour, it seems to me reasonable that provision should now be made for persons classified as B or C to appeal.
  148
  I suggest that if testimonials are sent in on behalf of prisoners now classified B or C from anti-Fascist organisations in their country of origin that should mean speedy reassessment of their claims. I also suggest that there are many hon. Members who have long associations and ties both with organisations and with the case histories of prisoners, and it would be a good job of cooperation if more immediate regard could be paid to some of our correspondence, not that we ask that everything we say should be taken unchecked. What we really want is that when we have reason to believe that a man has a sound anti-Fascist record, his case should be checked with the minimum of delay.
  Amongst the prisoners of war there is one group in particularly difficult circumstances, the Sudeten German anti-Fascists. I am informed by some of their representatives, old friends in the underground movement I knew before the war, that there are at least 300 known anti-Fascists among the Sudeten German prisoners of war. I cannot possibly ask that representatives from their home country should be called in to give testimony because of the situation well known to hon. Members, but I do ask that the Department should take note of those of us who are in a position to give information or to suggest individuals and organisations that can check up on those men in order that every non-Fascist should be given his priority. May I also ask that the compassionate clause should operate where those men find that their wives and children have been sent somewhere in Germany? They are still in British prisoner of war camps, they have the unhappiness of this broken family situation, and both on the anti-Fascist and on compassionate grounds, no unnecessary delay should occur before those men are returned to their home conditions.
  There is another thing which is puzzling me in regard to prisoners of war in this country, and about which I would be glad to know more. How many new prisoners of war have been brought into this country, and who are they? From my correspondence I know that some of them are what might be called voluntary prisoners of war, that is, men who were quite willing to come back to this country and to accept the conditions. I have also reason to believe that some of them

  149
  are S.S. men. I have not the slightest objection to S.S. men coming into this country and taking the place of proved anti-Fascists who have been given priority of release, but I suggest that even in the case of those men they should know definitely how they stand, because it is not a good thing to have an atmosphere of unrest and rumour and cynicism in any camp. I can assure my hon. Friend who will reply that there is a good deal of doubt, and that it would be quite a simple matter to clear it up.
  Another point at home here is that we have young Germans of the same age group among the prisoners classified B and C, who back in Germany, as this House knows, are now privileged by general amnesty for, even where they are members of the Fascist Party, it is understood that they were too young to be doing other than merely conforming to the status quo. If an amnesty is being given to those young Germans in Germany, then it would be a very good democratic and educational thing if they could be given certain privileges in this country whilst awaiting repatriation. By privilege I mean something of the same category as was given to the Italian cooperators, so that they can meet British people to a certain extent and see some of the British institutions. I am very well aware that most of the commandants running prisoner of war camps are doing their jobs very well and with great humanity, but there are instances where a commandant behaves in a way that I regard as unreasonable. For instance, one of the London trades council organisations thought it would be a good idea if some of the German anti-Fascist prisoners of war and some of those young fellows saw the British institutions, but there was objection by the camp commandant. Do not let us leave those prisoners of war at the mercy of caprice, even though most men in charge would behave very well. Surely, we can explain to those people what is happening in this country?
  Now I come to what is to me a much sorer matter. I hope that before this House adjourns tonight something will be said to clear up a possible source of misunderstanding arising from an answer given by the Secretary of State for War this afternoon in reply to a Question as to how many of the German prisoners of war still retained in North Africa belonged to the German 999 Division and should be
  150
  returned. I speak subject to correction but, checking as best I can, the words of the Minister in reply were that separate statistics relating to the 999 battalion were not available and could not be obtained without a considerable amount of labour. I want this House to reflect for a minute on the possible source of cynicism, heartbreak, and misunderstanding behind that phrase. I want it cleared up. Some of these men for 10, 11 and 12 years have had no social community life and have been prisoners in Hitler's camp. Hitler did our original job for us, by screening them, and putting them through tests. He put them into gaol and concentration camps, but that was not because they were good Nazis. On all the priorities those men have a very special claim on this House. We cannot have the idea going into the camps where men have been victims for a decade that it would be too much trouble to find out about them, and that we cannot obtain information about the 999 Battalion. It is information many hon. Members in this House could give, almost the exact numbers of those men. There is something queer happening in that Department if they cannot find out.
  I am concerned that the whole of the prisoners in the Middle East should be brought into repatriation schemes, but I am particularly stressing the position of the anti-Fascist prisoners of war. I hope we will make it quite clear tonight that the highest priority is going to those men, and that no trouble will be spared to locate them. In fact they are locating themselves. Incidentally, when I raised this issue once before, someone presumed to censor a letter sent to me by one of those men before it reached me. I got the un-censored version as well as the censored version. I do not want to have censored letters reaching me and have to resort to methods of communication which some of us in this House who were anti-Fascists when other Members supported Fascism had to resort to, in order to know what a prisoner of war in a British camp wants to say to me. I hope that will not happen again, but that we will say to these men that we understand all they have been through. I particularly hope that if reports come saying that they have had to be separated as some are Communists and some anti-British, we will remember that some of these men have their own description of some British personnel. I know there are some unjust adjectives used on

  151
  both sides, but let us not forget that some of these men have been sorely tried and that if we want them to be anti-British the best way to do it is to say that there is any trouble in locating them and giving them top priority and adequate facilities to get home.
  That is the main thing I want to stress. There are a number of minor matters, and I am sorely tempted to go into case history, but it would be better to leave that to other hon. Members who wish to go into the cases. Will my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who was such a valiant anti-Fascist and defender of these men when sitting on the back benches join in saying something which will go out to those camps and let the men know that when the British House of Commons says priorities are going to be given to anti-Fascists it means anti-Fascists in the Middle East as well as in other camps, all anti-Fascists? I know there were criminals among the men in the penal battalion, but I am talking of the political members of the penal battalion. Let them know that we in this House of Commons are an anti-Fascist assembly and are concerned to give them top priority, and have a greater respect for them than for the criminals we tried at Nuremberg.
  945 p.m.
  Mr. Edelman: The whole House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) for having raised this vitally important matter this evening. Everyone on this side of the House certainly will be equally grateful that the new Financial Secretary is to reply this evening, because we all know how he, as an individual, as a back bencher, has fought for justice for anti-Fascist prisoners of war. This evening I wish to confine myself merely to the question of those members of the 999 Battalion who are still detained in captivity. I venture to do so because I raised this matter in this House some months ago. Then I was told that it was impossible to find out who these prisoners were and to separate them from the mass of prisoners, because of the administrative difficulties of sorting them out.
  These prisoners have sorted themselves out, and I have had a letter from one of them. I am grateful to the military authorities for having authorised the transmission of that letter, from which I would
  152
  like to read. It is from Irvin Schultz, Camp 2228, c/o B.A.O.R., Hanover. He writes:
  "Why are not the anti-Nazis in British camps freed? I am here with 40 former political prisoners who spent 115 years as political prisoners in all under the Third Reich. They have already spent eight or nine years behind barbed wires. Is not it a moral duty to free these men who have gone through the hell of the Gestapo?"
  Then he goes on to say:
  "The uncertainty as to when they will be released after spending a further three years as prisoners of war is crushing. Is Nazism, beaten on the field of battle, to achieve its goal after all of destroying so many fighters for freedom?"
  He adds:
  "Humanity demands their immediate release."
  These men are still in prison camps, both in the Middle East and in Germany. These are the men who were the first re-sisters to Hitler. These are the men, the few in Germany who fought Fascism as Germans, and these are the men on whom our British administration in Germany should be relying today in order to build up a democratic Germany. It seems to me that if we do not take the trouble to sort them out from prison camps and use them, these old Social Democrats who really are the hope of a future democratic Germany, we will have been failing in our duty.
  It is not enough for the War Office to answer, when we ask for their release, that it is too much trouble or too difficult to find them, because surely it has always been a proud claim and a tradition of this House to consider that an injustice to one is as important as an injustice to a thousand or ten thousand. I believe, too, that the fact that we consider an injustice to a few to be as important as an injustice to many is what distinguishes our country from a totalitarian country. As this matter seems merely to be one of taking the necessary administrative steps in order to go through the lists to identify these men, it seems to me that there is no excuse whatever for failing to do so. I think it is generally agreed that these men have a right to their liberty. Many of their names are known, most of their units are known. It merely means the necessary effort to sort them out. I hope that the Financial Secretary will say that that work, however great, will be done, because I believe that our good name in the world

  153
  and good reputation among the anti-Nazis in Germany depends on the way in which we solve this problem.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I shall stand for only a very few moments between hon. Members and the debut of the Financial Secretary to the War Office at the Despatch Box. I feel sure his appointment has been welcomed in all parts of the House. I rise now mainly because I did not feel entirely satisfied with the answers given at Question time today to the Questions put down by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and myself in regard to the repatriation of German prisoners of war from the Middle East. During the Recess I visited a special German prisoners of war establishment in this country where there were certain German prisoners of war brought back from the Middle East. I found, in talking to them, a pronounced anxiety in regard to the position of German prisoners of war in prison camps in the Middle East in respect of repatriation arrangements. There was no doubt at all that in their minds these people had been overlooked. So marked was this feeling that some of the young prisoners of war, who had come over for this particular course from the camps of the Middle East, preferred to return there rather than take advantage of the rights that would accrue to them from being in this country, because they felt that it was a duty they owed to their comrades they had left behind in the Middle East. Taking account of that very strong feeling, it did not seem to me that the answers of the Secretary of State were entirely satisfactory this afternoon. I urge the Financial Secretary to see that further attention is given to this matter of prisoners of war in the Middle East and to see if they cannot be fitted more fairly into the repatriation arrangements existing for German prisoners of war in this country. I am sure that this House would not like it to be thought that a mere accident of geography should discriminate against people in a matter such as this.
  With regard to the particular case of the 999 Division which has been raised, I would say only this. The fact that the Nazi Government saw fit to mix in this unit political offenders, as they then were, with ordinary criminals, no doubt makes more difficult the administrative task of
  154
  the War Office. I entirely appreciate that, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) who initiated this discussion. The fact that this is so to my mind places a still greater responsibility upon the War Office that in spite of that additional difficulty they should get matters sorted out as soon as may be. I welcome particularly the reference of the hon. Member for Cannock to the young German prisoners of war and to their categorisation. I think it is beyond question true that there are a large number of very young German prisoners of war who are categorised as Nazi because of an association with the Hitler Jugend, or some such organisation, but who are not in any political sense of the word Nazis. I believe it is to these younger elements more particularly that we shall have to look as one of the mainsprings of a satisfactory working democracy in Germany. I wish to reinforce the hon. Lady's plea for sympathetic consideration of the cases of these young German prisoners of war. I think that the Financial Secretary will make his debut all the more welcome to the House if he is able to give some measure of reassurance to the anxiety that is widely felt on these matters, and give some indication of action which his Department can take in the case of prisoners in the Middle East.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: I regret that I am rising to raise a discordant voice on this question. I believe we are altogether wrong in giving political priority for the release of these prisoners, and I myself hope that this system of grading prisoners according to their political opinions will be abolished. I do not say that primarily because it is so very difficult to grade them correctly, but because, in fact, the men who make the highest grade are probably those with the most pliant and most subservient views rather than those with more genuine feelings. Apart from that consideration, there is a very grave objection in principle, or rather two very grave objections. A good many of us feel rather uncomfortable about the retention of these men in captivity and servitude at all, but the one thing which we as democrats cannot stand for is the incarceration of people because of their political opinions. If we give priorities of release to those whose political opinions we approve, the necessary consequence is that

  155
  we are keeping other people in prison longer because we do not approve of their political opinions, and I believe that that, as far as we are concerned, is an intolerable thing to do.
  I would further say that one has to look at it from the other aspect of what is going to happen in the Germany of the future. How are the other prisoners, who will, I suppose, eventually return to Germany, going to feel about those who were given favouritism by the conquerors because they were pliant to the conquerors' political ideas? I believe that, by picking out people as political favourites, to whom we are going to give the favour of liberty, we are, in effect, damning them and damning their influence in their own country. Imagine the resentment which we should feel if numbers of our comrades who had served with us, who were in prison with us, were picked out because the Nazis liked their political opinions and who were given favours and sent back home before us. When we came back and caught up with these fellows, when we had eventually recovered our liberty, how should we treat them? What would be their influence in our community?
  I believe very strongly that all should be treated alike, but that there should be compassionate release for those whose families have been expelled from their homes. We should consider the terrible cases of the families who have been expelled from their ancestral homes in the Sudetenland. Those are the people to whom we should give the first priority for release. As to the others, they should be treated without any political priority whatever.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Michael Stewart.]
  Mr. Paget: One exception might, perhaps, be made in regard to the 999 Division. It might be said that these men were never really soldiers at all, that they ought never to have been prisoners and that, with regard to that particular division, the men are not being specially picked out for favourable treatment because of their political opinions. That could be done, but, with regard to the
  156
  ordinary political grades, I would urge that our policy ought to be reconsidered.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I will detain the House for only a few minutes before the new Parliamentary Secretary, whom we are all glad to see here, replies. I simply cannot understand some of the things which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. Some of the anti-Fascist Germans about whom the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) was speaking and whom some of us have known very well for a long time have been through long years of torture in concentration camps. It is not because of their opinions that we suggest different treatment; it is because those prisoners have been virtually on our side all the time. Many of them have always been Social Democrats and have stood for the things for which we fought this war. Surely, the first people who should be released are those who have stood for the things which we all believe in.
  I do not propose to go into detail about that because this argument seems to me too complicated to answer. What I really wanted to ask for was consideration for a type of prisoner who has not been mentioned. I have come across a few German prisoners of war who are quite alone and are not living in camps. For instance, I met one this summer who was working in Somerset when I was on holiday. He was a young German whose father was a farmer and who had been brought up in that way. He was taken prisoner and has done very good agricultural work in a little village in Somerset. As far as I can find out, he is not within 50 miles of another German and is completely isolated and alone. The farmer speaks well of him and I found him to be completely anti-Nazi. During the war his father was in a concentration camp. It seems to me that young prisoners like that, who have been doing good work in isolated circumstances and who are necessarily very lonely because they have not been allowed to mix with British people who would be friendly with them, should be among the first priority and should not be kept where they are merely because they are doing a good job in their extreme loneliness. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to such prisoners. There must be comparatively few prisoners of war

  157
  in this country who are all alone and away from any friends.
  10.5 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): The House will, I am sure, understand the certain degree of diffidence with which I stand at this Despatch Box for the first time. A baptism of fire is always something of an occasion, and I will only say that if one has to have a baptism of fire I cannot imagine a more charming agency through which to receive it than the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). Her fire has all the best qualities of fires; it is both purifying and stimulating.
  Some interesting questions have been asked and some interesting views expressed this evening, and in trying to reply to this Debate I think it would be as well if I first recapitulated the background against which this argument has taken place; that is to say, the announcement made by His Majesty's Government a few weeks ago about the repatriation scheme for prisoners of war. There were two phases concerning our dealing with prisoners of war. For the first period we kept them; we did not try to repatriate them. We have now got to the second stage where it is accepted that prisoners of war should be repatriated according to the most orderly scheme and in the most orderly manner which we can devise. The scheme which started at the end of last month is roughly this: Every month 15,000 prisoners of war will go from this country back to their native land. They will be selected according to four categories: in the first place, the prisoners who are known in the official jargon as the "white" prisoners; that is to say, the proved anti-Nazis; secondly, prisoners who are selected on economic grounds because they are urgently needed according to types for the rehabilitation of Germany; thirdly, compassionate cases where investigation by the authorities in Germany shows an urgent compassionate ground on much the same lines as we work it out in our own Army. Those prisoners will, up to a certain quota, be repatriated with a high priority. Fourthly, prisoners will take their turn in a sort of release scheme which is comparable with our own demobilisation scheme according to the length of time they have been prisoners. That scheme started at the end of last month. It is too early yet to be able to report to the
  158
  House whether it is working satisfactorily or not, but the intention is that 15,000 men every month shall go under the scheme.
  With that background, I would like to turn to the questions which have been put to me. In the first place the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock asked about the methods of screening and classification of prisoners, and whether or not prisoners are adequately informed of the category in which they are placed. I am perfectly certain—and she will understand this—that none of these things is done perfectly. The military authorities and the Control Office are working under great difficulties, and we are doing the best we can to classify these people as intelligently and as reliably as we can. It is, after all, in the interests of the control authorities just as much as of the prisoners that these people should be repatriated in an orderly fashion and in accordance with the correct priorities. As regards informing them of the position, once again, there have been cases where adequate information has not been given. I am satisfied that, as far as possible, steps have now been taken to see that prisoners are fully informed of all these regulations and how they stand. If the hon. Lady finds that this is not working, as I hope and believe it is, and will let us know, we will do the best we can to put it right.
  She next raised the question of the anti-Nazi Sudeten Germans to the number of 300 who are alleged to be in this country. My answer on that point is a perfectly simple one, namely, that we have no official knowledge of them; we cannot at the moment trace these people. No one has a greater knowledge of the Socialist movement in Europe than the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, and I say to her completely sincerely, that if she will give us the information which she apparently has I will undertake that all these cases will be looked at individually, and if when they are screened they do prove to be the reliable anti-Nazis which she believes they will be treated in the highest priority of "white" Germans.
  The hon. Lady asked for information as to whether or not new prisoners of war were going to be brought to this country. On that I can give a piece of information which is, I think, of value to the House.

  159
  It has been alleged that there is a constant stream of new prisoners being brought here from overseas. That is not so. No more prisoners of war will be coming to this country from overseas, with the exception of one fairly large contingent which has actually started moving from Canada and will arrive here in the near future. Apart from that, of course, there may be occasions when prisoners being moved from distant places in the world will pass through this country in transit. However, as a matter of policy the bringing of prisoners of war to this country from other countries is now over.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend a question on that? Have these prisoners been informed that they are coming here or that they are going home? All the prisoners from America were told they were going home, but they were brought here.
  Mr. Freeman: I appreciate that question of my hon. Friend. To the best of my belief they have been correctly informed that they are coming here. I have actually asked that question myself. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, as did the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), raised the question about the very young prisoners of war, and whether any special treatment can be devised for them. The suggestion which she made, that they should be given a privileged position comparable with that of Italian cooperators, involves a wide matter of policy. I am sure she will realise that I could not make a statement on that at this moment. However, I would draw her attention to the fact that we are increasing the opportunities for rehabilitating and re-educating the younger prisoners of war on similar lines to the scheme which is already well known at Wilton Park. Further developments of that method are being created, though I do not think any of them are yet on the same scale as at Wilton Park. We are alive to the difficulties of re-educating the younger Germans to a sense of social duty and democratic politics.
  The hon. Lady then made her important point, in which she was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) and the hon. Member for Hertford, about the 999 German division. I think there have been some
  160
  misconceptions about the whole position here, particularly about the reply which my right hon. Friend gave the House at Question time this afternoon. The 999 Division was a division consisting of men who were considered by the Nazi Government to be criminals. Some of them were criminals convicted of ordinary criminal offences. A very large number were political criminals who came from the concentration camps. It has been objected that my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that it was not possible, or that the trouble was disproportionate, to find out how many of these men were held.
  The position is simply this. These men have now become mixed in camps with other prisoners. It is perfectly true that they have a special claim, as the hon. Lady said, but it is not necessarily true that they have any more a special claim than other politically reliable, proved anti-Nazis. The War Office records in fact show, in so far as screening has so far been carried out, where the anti-Nazis are; and wherever they are, whether members of the 999 Division or not, they will receive priority in repatriation. War Office records do not at the moment show exactly which of the proved anti-Nazis were, in fact, members of the 999 Division, and it is held that it would be administratively difficult to work that out at this stage. I recognise that there has been some feeling in the House on that point, and I am quite prepared, in concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), to look at that again to see whether or not it can be done. But I do put this to the House, that what really matters is whether or not those people are proved anti-Nazis, and not whether or not they were members of a particular Division. If they are anti-Nazis they will have the priority. Does it really matter very much whether they belong to one Division or another? Because that is all it boils down to. The hon. Lady finally referred to the censorship of her letter. I do not think this is the proper place in which to deal with a perfectly specific complaint of that nature. If she has any such complaint to make, if she will let me have the details, I will do what I can to deal with it.
  The hon. Member for Hertford, in addition to speaking of the 999 Division, raised the question of the general status of prisoners of war in the Middle East, and

  161
  he said he thought it undesirable that an accident of geography—I think those were his words—should lead to any different treatment for them. Now there is, of course, no question of an accident of geography. There are many factors and very many difficulties which have to be taken into account in repatriating those prisoners of war, and in handling what are, after all, very considerable movements of troops and men in doing so, and there have been particular difficulties in regard to the Middle East. I regret to have to tell him, that it does not at the moment look likely that there may be, in the immediate future, any general repatriation from the Middle East. But what I wish him to get quite clear, and what, I think, will ease his mind, at any rate, on one point is this: that among the Middle East prisoners there are a certain number of Austrians and a certain number of proved anti-Nazis classified as "Whites"; that these people will be repatriated with only the minimum delay; that their repatriation is starting very soon, and that we shall get them back to their countries as quickly as that can be done.
  The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) took, in his usual original manner, exactly the opposite line from everybody else—I think I may say, from the great majority of the people present. I must say, quite frankly, and speaking on behalf of the Department which I am representing tonight, that we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's view. He advanced his argument, as he so often does, with great ingenuity, and, I thought, with very great logic, until he weakened his case—in my submission, in fact, he destroyed it completely—where he came to the point at which he had to admit that in the case of the 999 Division we might make an exception. His logic was accepted by the whole House, until, I think, the very moment when he made that admission; because, if his argument is true, there is not the slightest reason for making any exception for the 999 Division or for anyone else. If we are to fulfil our responsibilities in this very important, human matter we must look at it against this background. It is really stretching a point—and I am sure the House as a whole will agree with us—to say that to repatriate those people, who, of necessity, have to be repatriated in driblets, by allowing the true anti-Nazis to go first
  162
  is to imprison people for their political views. That, really, in my view, is an affront to the science of logic, which I have always regarded as an admirable science.
  Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me? He has attacked me. What I said, if I might remind him, was that they were really labourers and not soldiers at all, and therefore it might be possible to take the position that they ought never really to have been prisoners of war at all but should have been treated as camp followers and liberated on another basis. That would not cut into the general framework of picking particular people out because you favour their political opinions and giving them priority.
  Miss Lee: Might I ask my hon. Friend, in replying, to suggest to our colleague that some of us fought an anti-Fascist war, and some of us are anti-Fascists whatever he may be?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Northampton eases his conscience considerably if he can persuade himself of the validity of the argument he has just used, but when it is looked at fairly and squarely by the House it will be realised that in fact he took up a position which was logically tenable but humanly impossible. Finally, finding himself pricked by his conscience when his logical mind saw where he was being led, he did a complete volte face in order to salve his conscience. Be that as it may, we have to reject that approach to it. We believe that to give priority of repatriation first to proved anti-Nazis is the right way of doing it.
  I have covered I hope the important points which have been raised, and perhaps I should just say this in conclusion. In my short experience in this House it has always seemed that the House is at its best when discussing a matter which involves human issues and our consciences in the way that this subject does, and perhaps the Ministers who are seeking to reply to Debates of this kind are at their greatest disadvantage in having sometimes to pour a douche of cold water on the warm-hearted sentiments of Members. The position of the Government is perfectly clear. We cannot— and the House and the country would not

  163
  wish us to—treat the German prisoners of war with such consideration, or with such softness, as to deprive the people of this country of what they need, or hamper the reconstruction of this country. But we do believe that they should be treated with humanity, and with the dignity and decency which they deserve as human beings, and which we Socialists on this side of the House at any rate have always striven for and held in the greatest respect. With all the difficulties involved, we shall try to do that. I hope that when hon. Members have had a chance of seeing how this new scheme is working
  164
  they will be able to feel, in about a month's time, that the situation is very much more satisfactory than it has been in the past.
  Mr. William Wells: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether I correctly understood him to say that priority of release was being given to Austrians?
  Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Building Workers
  Building Workers
  Gibraltarian Evacuees
  Gibraltarian Evacuees
  Handicraft Teachers
  Handicraft Teachers
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Registered Occupation
  Registered Occupation
  EX-ENEMY NATIONALS (FRATERNISATION)
  EX-ENEMY NATIONALS (FRATERNISATION)
  DEMOBILISATION (FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING)
  DEMOBILISATION (FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING)
BRITISH ARMY
  Palestine (General Barker's Letter)
  Palestine (General Barker's Letter)
  Welfare, C.M.F.
  Welfare, C.M.F.
  Recruiting Posters
  Recruiting Posters
  Release Deferment
  Release Deferment
  Surplus Building Material
  Surplus Building Material
  Jewish Brigade, Germany (Activities)
  Jewish Brigade, Germany (Activities)
  Queen's Army Schoolmistresses
  Queen's Army Schoolmistresses
  Workshop, Buntingford
  Workshop, Buntingford
  Water Crossing Training
  Water Crossing Training
  Rank Reduction
  Rank Reduction
  Pay Deduction, Palestine
  Pay Deduction, Palestine
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  British Troops, Greece
  British Troops, Greece
  Surplus Huts, Shugborough Park
  Surplus Huts, Shugborough Park
  Officer War Strength
  Officer War Strength
  Record Office, Edinburgh
  Record Office, Edinburgh
  Foreign Service
  Foreign Service
  General Service Intakes (Allocation)
  General Service Intakes (Allocation)
  WAR GRAVES, EUROPE
  WAR GRAVES, EUROPE
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS
  POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities Grants Committee
  Universities Grants Committee
  Government Information Divisions
  Government Information Divisions
  Savings Advertising
  Savings Advertising
  Duty-free Tobacco
  Duty-free Tobacco
  Tax Table Forms (Cost)
  Tax Table Forms (Cost)
  Argentine Meat Negotiations
  Argentine Meat Negotiations
  Inland Revenue (Ex-Servicemen)
  Inland Revenue (Ex-Servicemen)
  Members' Oversea Visits (Allowance)
  Members' Oversea Visits (Allowance)
  Minister's Visit to Eire
  Minister's Visit to Eire
  Post-War Credits (Widows)
  Post-War Credits (Widows)
  MEMBERS' LETTERS (REPLIES)
  MEMBERS' LETTERS (REPLIES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (TOTAL)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (TOTAL)
  DESTROYED HOUSES, ROGERSTONE (COMPENSATION)
  DESTROYED HOUSES, ROGERSTONE (COMPENSATION)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Hollow Blocks
  Hollow Blocks
  Building Work Licences
  Building Work Licences
  Surplus Huts
  Surplus Huts
  Temporary Houses (Tenders)
  Temporary Houses (Tenders)
  Shelter Demolition (Salvage)
  Shelter Demolition (Salvage)
  Insulating Materials
  Insulating Materials
  Building Workers, South Wales
  Building Workers, South Wales
  Cement Industry Inquiry
  Cement Industry Inquiry
  Building Materials Distribution (Inquiry)
  Building Materials Distribution (Inquiry)
FUEL AND POWER
  Rural Electrification
  Rural Electrification
  Electricity Supply (Poles)
  Electricity Supply (Poles)
  Oil Firing (Conversion)
  Oil Firing (Conversion)
  Petrol Supplies
  Petrol Supplies
  Manufactured Fuels (Isle of Wight)
  Manufactured Fuels (Isle of Wight)
  Shop-Window Lighting (Restrictions)
  Shop-Window Lighting (Restrictions)
  Domestic Coal Supplies, Hull
  Domestic Coal Supplies, Hull
COAL INDUSTRY
  Fauldhouse Colliery (Closure)
  Fauldhouse Colliery (Closure)
  National Coal Board (Managerial Staff)
  National Coal Board (Managerial Staff)
  Colliery Companies' Assets
  Colliery Companies' Assets
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Ordnance Factory, Glascoed
  Ordnance Factory, Glascoed
  Lead (Toy Trade)
  Lead (Toy Trade)
  Refrigerators
  Refrigerators
POST OFFICE
  Overseas Gift Parcels
  Overseas Gift Parcels
  Telegraph Services to Germany
  Telegraph Services to Germany
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Unemployment Payments
  Unemployment Payments
  Pneumoconiosis (Compensation Applications)
  Pneumoconiosis (Compensation Applications)
  CYPRUS (JEWISH INTERNEES)
  CYPRUS (JEWISH INTERNEES)
  STATE PENSIONS (FAMILY ALLOWANCES)
  STATE PENSIONS (FAMILY ALLOWANCES)
  DENMARK (GERMAN REFUGEES)
  DENMARK (GERMAN REFUGEES)
  SOVIET AMBASSADOR, LONDON
  SOVIET AMBASSADOR, LONDON
  EMBASSIES' STAFFS (DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGE)
  EMBASSIES' STAFFS (DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGE)
  JAPAN (PUBLIC OFFICE, PERSONNEL)
  JAPAN (PUBLIC OFFICE, PERSONNEL)
  TRANSPORT SERVICES (ARAN, BUTE, CUMBRAE)
  TRANSPORT SERVICES (ARAN, BUTE, CUMBRAE)
RAILWAYS
  Oil-burning Locomotives
  Oil-burning Locomotives
  Sleepers (Charger)
  Sleepers (Charger)
  CROWN SERVANTS (ACTION FOR DAMAGES)
  CROWN SERVANTS (ACTION FOR DAMAGES)
  SOLICITORS' ARTICLED CLERKS (NATIONAL SERVICE)
  SOLICITORS' ARTICLED CLERKS (NATIONAL SERVICE)
SCOTLAND
  Oat Production
  Oat Production
  Highlands and Islands (Tourist Accommodation)
  Highlands and Islands (Tourist Accommodation)
  ESPIONAGE, CANADA (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  ESPIONAGE, CANADA (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
ROYAL NAVY
  Entertaining Allowance (Medical Officers)
  Entertaining Allowance (Medical Officers)
  R.N.V.R. (Humber Division)
  R.N.V.R. (Humber Division)
  GERMANY (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
  GERMANY (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)
EDUCATION
  Canteen, St. Stephen
  Canteen, St. Stephen
  Advisory Pamphlets
  Advisory Pamphlets
  Graduate Teachers
  Graduate Teachers
  Further Education Scheme
  Further Education Scheme
  Central Advisory Councils
  Central Advisory Councils
FOOD SUPPLIES
  National Flour
  National Flour
  Canadian Wheat
  Canadian Wheat
  Bread
  Bread
  Lettuce (Imports)
  Lettuce (Imports)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Packing Materials
  Packing Materials
  Merchandise, Basra
  Merchandise, Basra
  Linoleum
  Linoleum
  EMIGRATION
  EMIGRATION
  HERRING SALES, ISLE OF MAN
  HERRING SALES, ISLE OF MAN
  COLORADO BEETLES
  COLORADO BEETLES
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PERSONAL CASE)
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PERSONAL CASE)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Dental Practitioners' Remuneration (Committee)
  Dental Practitioners' Remuneration (Committee)
  SUICIDE CASES
  SUICIDE CASES
  AIR MINISTRY (PERSONAL CASE)
  AIR MINISTRY (PERSONAL CASE)
  HOUSING (HEAT SERVICE UNIT)
  HOUSING (HEAT SERVICE UNIT)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Repatriation (Shipping Accommodation)
  Repatriation (Shipping Accommodation)
  Radar Officers, India Command
  Radar Officers, India Command
Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I feel quite certain that there is no subject on which it is more worth while to spend our time, our energy, and our resources than on the health of our people. There is no investment we can make which is more likely to repay a thousandfold, and there is no task which will more readily attract men of good will, in whatever quarter of the House they may sit. The idea of a comprehensive health service is not new. It is not a product of mere post-war reconstruction, and it is certainly not the preserve of any one Party. Indeed, I may fairly claim that the principle underlining the Bill, foreshadowed as it was in the 1944 White Paper of the Coalition Government, is non-controversial. So far as method is concerned I do not conceal from your Lordships that the present proposals are, in many respects, radically different from those then put forward, and, therefore, I do not claim that the particular method indicated by this Bill is non-controversial.
2
I should like to start this discussion, in which we are all going to criticize the faults here and there, by paying a tribute. I think we can all of us be immensely proud of the medical service which we have in this country. I think we can be proud, immensely proud, of the services the doctors have rendered to the health of the people. I am sure we should all wish to offer our thanks for the services which the nurses have rendered, and there are countless others in all walks of life, not medically trained, who have rendered voluntary service of the very greatest value. We have not, therefore, to meet the criticism that we are destroying for the mere sake of destruction. I am not an iconoclast. I do not think I look like one. On the other hand, I do not doubt that we shall have to alter, to modify, and to expand our existing institutions to make them fit in with the new ideal of a completely integrated medical service. Destruction for the sake of destruction is, as I hold, always foolish. It must be doubly foolish in a case like this, where you have not got to root out something that is bad, but have to improve something which is good, and improve it without losing or destroying the great merits it has to-day. On the other hand, I must remind your Lordships that this is a Bill to introduce an altered, an extended, and, in some respects, a new service. It is not a Bill to preserve ancient monuments.
This Bill falls into six Parts. The first Part deals with central administration, the next Part with hospitals and specialist services, and the third Part with the local authorities' services. The fourth Part deals with the general medical services, and

3
when I say "medical" I may be understood as including dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services. Part V relates to mental health services. I feel that—I am quite candid—to be rather a blot on the Bill because the rest of the Bill is very well drafted, but this Part of the Bill is obscure. What we have tried to do is to fit into the framework of this Bill the mental services, but I do not conceal from your Lordships that this is a mere temporary job, and it is quite obvious we must undertake, when time permits, a complete review of the legislation dealing with mental health. I do not propose to say anything about this topic to-day. Finally we come to the general provisions.
It is idle to pretend that the main framework of the Bill is not well known to your Lordships; it has been canvassed in another place with very great care. If it would be convenient to your Lordships, I propose to discuss now the general structure of the Bill. My noble friend the Earl of Listowel will open the discussion to-morrow and will deal, so far as he can, with the observations which your Lordships make in the course of to-day's debate. With the permission of the House I will conclude the discussion to-morrow and I too in my turn will try to deal quite briefly with the points which have been made. I would like to start by saying something about the Central Administration, Part I. Clause 1 of the Bill reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health … to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with the following provisions of this Act."
The language is simple; it is as curt as the Commandments. This is, however, the greatest task which has ever been placed upon the shoulders of any one man. I ask your Lordships to put to yourselves this fundamental question: Do you agree that those duties should be placed upon the Minister of Health? If you do agree with that, then you cannot deny him the very wide powers for which he is bound to ask in order to put himself in a position to carry out those duties. To help him in his task he has a Central Council which consists of no fewer than forty-one
4
members. You may not be surprised therefore to realize that it has Standing Committees, and it has the right to appoint ad hoc committees which will advise the Minister on matters on which he wants advice. It will also have the right to advise him on matters in regard to which he has not asked for advice, and its Annual Report, which will of course embrace the reports of the committees, will be made available to Parliament, subject to the proviso that there may be circumstances—which I should imagine in this connexion would be very exceptional—where the public interest would otherwise require it.
I concede at once that the Minister of Health under this Bill does have very great powers. He is in the position of a Commander-in-Chief planning a campaign against a very dangerous enemy, the forces of disease and ill health. It is inevitable that he should have to plan, to supervise plans and generally throughout to see that the administration is as he desires it. According to this Bill, he exercises those powers by a regulation-making power. That, I think, is good, because it prevents him from being what I may term a pocket Hitler. Every single one of the regulations which he makes has to come before Parliament and either must receive affirmative approval or can be quashed by a Resolution of either House. I think that is the right course to adopt. I saw in the paper the other day that His Majesty's Ministers were all accused of possessing the vice of "pompous infallibility." It does us good to see ourselves as others see us. I think that "pompous infallibility" is a very unpleasant attribute, but it is good for me to know that I possess it. However, this is an exception to that rule. Quite frankly we realize that we must have regulation-making power, because we shall learn by experience. We shall inevitably make mistakes and we shall, I hope, profit by our mistakes. We do not want to be fitted into the strait waistcoat of a tight legislative scheme which gives us no room for expansion, alteration or experiment. I may say that I am quite satisfied that any Government would have taken the same course, and this was certainly so in the days of the Coalition Government, as is indicated in the White Paper. We contemplate a great central responsibility on the Minister, and we contemplate that he

5
should be controlled and checked by Parliament in all his doings. So much for Part I.
I turn now to Part II which deals with the hospital services. Let me say something about our hospital services by way of criticism. Our hospital services have been developed in a haphazard way. The distribution of these services is quite irrational; they overlap in many respects. Twenty-five years ago the Cave Committee said this:
"Sometimes two hospitals of similar character are within a stone's throw of each other; sometimes a special hospital exists side by side with a special department of a general hospital doing similar work."
I think it is true to say that these hospitals have planned without regard to what their neighbours are doing. They have been isolated; they have been self-contained. Sometimes they have attempted work for which they were neither staffed nor equipped. Our hospital system fails just because it is not a system at all. Many are too small to justify independence. The Minister of Health quoted figures in another place. There are something like 1,000 voluntary hospitals, and of that 1,000 70 per cent. have fewer than 100 beds, and 30 per cent, have fewer than 30 beds. What kind of general hospital service, with the attendance of specialists and the like, can you have in those circumstances? I am told that modern developments in medicine and surgery demand more specialized organizations. It would be desirable to see some hospitals concentrating on this and some hospitals concentrating on that, seeing that in each area there is a complete range of all the necessary hospitals. In short, admission to a hospital is not enough; it must be admission to the right hospital. That has been the report of the Cave Committee, of the Sankey Committee, and of the Hospital Surveyors more recently appointed by the Minister, and of the Nuffield Trust.
With regard to local government hospitals, some of them are merely outworn relics of the Poor Law and others are first-class modern hospitals. What they are depends in large measure on the enterprise and the resources of the particular local authority. There are 150 hospital authorities, or, if you include the minor authorities with their hospitals, 1,500. One often finds that where the need is greatest the resources are least. At any rate, all your Lordships will agree that local gov-
6
ernment boundaries, expand and treat them as you like, are completely irrelevant when you come to consider the provision of a hospital service. So far as voluntary hospitals are concerned, they differ so much; they are very good at the top, not so good in the middle and not good at all at the bottom. A layman like myself is apt to think, when he talks of a voluntary hospital, of some institution like St. Thomas's or St. Bartholomew's, but of course that is to miss the picture altogether. There again you find that the resources differ and vary with the accident of past will and endowments, and that is not a good basis for a general hospital service.
This fact is true and cannot be controverted. In this country at the present time it is not the duty of anyone to see that the range of hospital services is fairly distributed among the people. That being so, no one, I think, doubts the need for rationalizing existing resources, supplementing here, distributing there, and generally overhauling the organization of the basic units of hospitals in each area, either singly or in groups, containing about 1,000 beds and therefore containing specialist services. That is the problem. How can we bring about the integrated service which is necessary? In the first place, I do not believe we can any longer rely on charity to defray the main hospital expenses. Some of us may like it and some of us may not like it, but the days have gone when you could run these services on the principle of "Drop a shilling in my little tambourine." The people who are now going to be compelled to pay something towards this service under the National Insurance Act which your Lordships have passed should not be called upon any longer to provide by charity for the essential expenses.
In the scheme which the Coalition White Paper put forward in 1944 (and for which I take a very small amount of the credit or blame) we said that we were going to have joint boards constituted, consisting of the major local authorities, that is to say, county councils and county borough councils, who would run the local authority hospitals. These joint boards would then enter into contracts with the voluntary hospitals, allocating to the voluntary hospitals in their areas certain duties and responsibilities. In that way, by the combination of a joint board and a contract between the joint

7
board and the voluntary hospitals, it was hoped to build up an integrated, complete and comprehensive service. As a corollary, the voluntary hospitals were, of course, to remain independent and therefore compelled to rely substantially on private contributions. I think it is common knowledge that in the negotiations following upon the White Paper that scheme was rather departed from, but that was the scheme.
Let me say a word about joint boards. I am sure that most of your Lordships in all parts of the House will agree with me that sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. It is necessary to adopt an expedient of that kind sometimes, but it is not a device that I like. I always feel that the constituent members of a joint board are apt to be too conscious of the rock from which they are hewn; they are apt to come to a meeting as mere delegates, and such an organization is very apt to lack the esprit de corps which is so essential to the happy working of any organization. Then I feel that the system of relying on contracts between independent hospitals to provide an integrated service is one which is almost certain sooner or later to break down. There would be many engagements entered into, and there would be many separations on the ground of incompatability of temperament.
I want you to consider it now from a different angle. If I was right in the analogy I used just now when I referred to the Minister of Health as the Commander-in-Chief of our forces, what would you think of a Commander-in-Chief who had to rely on contracts and persuasion in his dealings with the officers serving under him? A Commander-in-Chief must prepare, or at any rate approve, a plan, and if he is a wise man he will only work out his plan after consultation with his Army Commanders. Having got a plan of which he approves, he will, if he is wise, leave a great deal of discretion to his Army Commanders in carrying out that plan, just as the Army Commanders in their turn will leave some discretion to their regimental officers, and their regimental officers to the sergeant-majors. But one cannot imagine a system under which the Commander-in-Chief has not the absolute
8
right to give such instruction as he thinks the situation demands.
That is what we have done here. All hospitals, local authority hospitals and voluntary hospitals, are transferred to the Minister, and the first duty the Minister has is to prepare regions. He does that by order, and that order comes before each House of Parliament. It can be, if the House is so minded, disallowed. He constitutes Regional Boards, and their duty is to plan the hospital facilities within the area. They consist of persons representing the medical profession, representing the local health authorities and representing the voluntary hospitals. The Regional Hospital Boards in turn appoint hospital management committees and the hospital management committees will control either a group of hospitals or a single hospital. Where they are controlling a group of hospitals the regulations will provide that the particular hospital is controlled by a house committee. That scheme involves no bureaucratic management from Whitehall, and this scheme does not involve a single additional civil servant.
I want to see the Regional Boards doing their job, delegating to the hospital management committees their job, just as the owner of a large estate would leave to his agent all sorts of matters. The agent would engage servants, but they would be servants of the owner, and so here the hospital committees act on behalf of the Regional Hospital Board, I hope without undue interference from the Regional Board and, I am quite certain, without undue interference from the Minister. I devoutly hope that we shall be able to secure the services of some of those people who have rendered such splendid service in the past in connexion with our voluntary hospitals.
The necessary expenses of running these hospitals will be provided from public funds, but to supplement that money, to provide those little—dare I call them trimmings? which make so much difference to the comfort and happiness of patients is something which in the future, as in the past, I have no doubt will be done largely by people who are interested locally. At the same time the Regional Board and the hospital management committee must act in accordance with the Minister's instructions, and in that way

9
I claim that you have a completely integrated system and no other system would work as well. May I say a word now about existing endowments? The existing endowments of teaching hospitals will belong to the boards of governors who will be reconstituted as provided by Part III of the Third Schedule. With regard to the non-teaching hospitals, their endowments will be shared amongst the Regional Boards and the management committees as may be provided by the regulations. I would point out to your Lordships that until the appointed day comes the Regional Boards and the hospital management committees will not be in the saddle, and whether they would have any legal existence I rather doubt. When that day comes, then bequests may be made to the hospital management committee or Regional Board, and they will be enabled to devote the money they get either to hospital purposes or research.
So much for Part II. Part III deals with the health services provided by local health authorities, and here we rely upon local government agents and we rely on the larger units of local government. In that we are following the White Paper of the Coalition Government who thought that it was the right thing to do to rely on these larger units. I am quite satisfied that it is right. The local health authorities will establish local health committees and before taking any action they must consider the report of the local health committee. The first duty of the local health authority is to submit proposals, and if those proposals are approved by the Minister then, and not till then, it is their duty to carry out the proposals. They have to provide for health centres, they provide staff for the care of mothers and young children, they become the authority under the Midwives Act responsible for health visiting, home nursing, vaccination, ambulance services and after care and domestic help when necessary. The exact division of functions between the hospital side and the local authority side is obviously a matter which gives room for argument and discussion and difference of opinion. For instance, we have placed the T.B. clinics and the V.D. clinics on the hospital side of the line, though no doubt the hospital boards will make use of the health centres by agreement with the local health authority.
Some differences have been expressed in regard to the ambulance services. On the
10
whole we have thought it better that the provision of ambulances should fall on the local authority side of the line. But may I clear up a misapprehension in regard to one point which I see? It is not necessary for the local authority themselves to provide all these services. Take for instance home nursing or health visiting. The Act expressly provides that the local authority may provide those services by relying on existing voluntary organizations. Such an organization as the District Nursing Association may therefore find itself carrying on in the new set-up, working these services on behalf of the local health authority. They have a right, be it observed, to apply to the Minister to see that their claims are not forgotten in the scheme.
Then I come to the general medical services. This I think is a difficult Part of the Bill and we have had to set up new machinery. We have set up executive councils which will cover the same area as local health authorities, although there is power in the Minister to make an executive council cover the area of two or more local health authorities. They consist of twenty-five members, some appointed by the local health authority, some by the Minister, and some by the local medical or dental people, and we have adopted that device if only for the reason that the doctors, rightly or wrongly, were quite unwilling to be placed under the local authorities. Accordingly, if a doctor enters the scheme he makes his contract, his arrangements, not with the local health authority but with the executive council.
May I say here that it is to be understood that no doctor is to be compelled either by direct or indirect pressure to enter this scheme? He may carry on his private practice exactly where he likes; he may sell his practice as and when he likes and he is in no way to be interfered with, but if he enters into the scheme then there must be two methods of control. In the first place—and this only applies to new entrants and not to persons with established practices—he cannot go to whatever area he likes. In short, he cannot go to an area which is already fully covered and neglect an area which is not covered, if he is going to indulge in public practice. For that purpose we have established a committee which is very largely composed of practicing doctors. Your Lordships will find it

11
set out on page 70 of the Bill. Six out of the eight members constituting the committee are to be doctors, and there is the right of appeal to the Minister if the application of a doctor to practise in a particular area is not granted. Secondly, if he enters into public practice and gets part of his remuneration from public funds we think it would not be right that he should be allowed to sell his practice. For that reason, we are prepared to pay remuneration from public sources as compensation for depriving him of the right to sell, and the sum provided for amounts to no less a figure than £66,000,000.
Finally, on the matter of machinery, we are setting up a tribunal which is to investigate a serious allegation—an allegation, for instance, that the inclusion of a doctor's name on the list is prejudicial to the efficiency of the service. That Tribunal consists of three members. I appoint the legal chairman, one member is appointed by the Minister, as representing the executive councils, and one is appointed as representing the profession. But there is the right of appeal to the Minister. That compares with the present system under which complaints are investigated by the insurance committee with an appeal to the Minister. Removal from the list is a matter for the Minister alone. That scheme has worked so well that I have never heard any single suggestion that it should be amended or altered. This is complicated machinery—the Executive Councils, the Medical Practices Committee and the Tribunal, the last two of which are central bodies, not one for each area. We believe that with that machinery, we can achieve our object. We want to give full freedom and full scope and opportunity for professional skill, we want no unskilled interference with free professional craftsmanship or training. The doctor or dentist or nurse must be completely free from political factors or lay direction. The function of public organizations is to provide the apparatus; it is for the doctors to work it.
How shall we remunerate our doctors? This is a difficult problem. We do not want to rely solely on capitation fees. If you rely solely on capitation fees you put a premium on having a very large panel, and you tend rather, perhaps, to produce undue competition for patients. On the
12
other hand, we do not want to rely entirely on salary, because if we did, it would almost be inevitable that people would lose the right to choose their own doctor. So, while we want some element of salary we do not think that that should be the sole, or indeed, the main element in the remuneration of the doctor. We believe that, under this scheme, the patient, who will have at his back not only the general practitioner but specialist services, will be better off. We must see that the doctor is no worse off. We must take care to lee that we continue in the future, as in the past, to recruit the right type of man who will uphold the traditions of a very great profession. We should be very foolish if we were to try to construct this scheme on the basis of a disgruntled and dissatisfied profession. For that reason, we appointed the Spens Committee, consisting half of doctors and half of others, to deal with the range of remuneration for the general practitioner. We must try to arrange with the members of the profession themselves not only the range but also the method of remuneration.
With regard to specialists, I have discussed this matter with the Minister, and I have to tell your Lordships that he is quite willing to appoint—indeed, he is desirous of so doing—a similar Committee to the Spens Committee to deal with the remuneration of the specialists. That, I am sure, your Lordships will think is the right course for us to take. With regard to dentists, when the people of this country become more educated and realize the immensely important part which dental health plays in the general health of the population, then they will face up to the fact that we have a completely inadequate number of dentists to look after the community. We must, therefore, do the very best we can to attract more people into this great profession. It, of course, requires long training. As matters are to-day, the numbers in it are hopelessly inadequate and all we can do is to see that we give some general priority to those people who particularly should have dental treatment—for instance, children and expectant and nursing mothers.
That is the scheme. I forbear to go into it at greater length, but your Lordships will notice how at every single step all these various organizations are interlocked with one another. The Regional Hospital Boards have representation on the local

13
health authorities and on voluntary associations, and so on, all the way through. We claim that by this scheme we are giving, as indeed is plain, complete opportunity for these various organizations to work together and to get to know each other. But mere opportunities are not enough. The success of this scheme, like the success of every other scheme, will depend on the day-to-day co-operation which all these people show in serving a great ideal. For my part, I do not doubt that after we have threshed out this Bill and come to a satisfactory conclusion—as I am sure we shall—all sections and all classes of the community will sink their differences in trying to press forward a great ideal for the betterment of the health of the people. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I feel that the whole House must have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in commending this Bill for a Second Reading. I also think that your Lordships will be prepared to spend a considerable time on a measure which, as the Lord Chancellor rightly says, deals with the health of the British people as a whole. It is true to say that every Party in the State is now committed to a comprehensive health service. We, on these Benches, have fully accepted the principle of such a service. It was outlined in the original White Paper published by the Coalition Government in 1944. The object which we too had in view, not only for the promotion of good health but also for the prevention and treatment of ill health, was to bring every branch of the medical service into full and active operation. The proposals were designed to secure the building of a new health service on the foundation of the existing service, and at the same time to remove any deficiencies which might exist in the current arrangement. In point of fact, the lack of availability of any full medical service was finally to disappear, but in our scheme we never intended to disregard all past history. Our scheme was, therefore, planned to bring about the closer co-operation of every branch of the health and medical profession, and so to build the new setup into a wider and far more embracing
14
service than exists to-day. It will not, I hope, have been forgotten that this full and comprehensive service is to be free for all classes of the community, but only so far as fees and charges are concerned. That, too, was agreed in the old days of the Coalition.
I for one—in common I feel with many noble Lords in this House—had hoped that when the Bill came along to give effect to this scheme—a scheme which, incidentally, formed part of a legacy left by the Coalition Government—we should have been able to proceed to this discussion freed from acute political controversy and in agreement as far as possible with every branch of the medical and health service. Any measure such as that would have caused little or no wrangling if it had been carried into the present Parliament within the limits agreed by all members of the late Government, including some of the principal Ministers in the present Socialist administration. Unfortunately, that was not to be. The agreements which were reached in other days have now been laid aside, and certain provisions which we believe to be wholly detrimental to the future of the service have been inserted in the Bill.
If those of your Lordships who are interested in this question will examine the White Paper of 1944, a Paper which, incidentally, was issued only after very prolonged and careful consultation with all branches of those whom it affected, you will observe the very wide differences and divergencies which exist between that Paper and the proposals contained in this Bill. It was then admitted that both the central and local authority should find a place in the new organization. The central responsibility would naturally lie with the Minister, and local responsibility for local hospitals would naturally lie with the major local authorities. The two authorities, in their respective spheres, would then both become answerable to the people, in the normal democratic manner. But, my Lords, it was never the intention to supersede local government, and at no time, as far as I am aware, was there ever to be remote, as against local, control.
I cannot help feeling that it would not be impertinent for me to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is merely for political and doctrinaire reasons that the whole of the medical profession are to be saddled with a system which they dislike, that

15
institutions which the British people have so generously supported for centuries are to be removed from their control and that fields in which local authorities have made much progress are to be taken over. However desirable it may have been, or was, to amalgamate local authorities and to set up a regional organization to cover medical, surgical and fever hospitals, both local and voluntary, it was never suggested during the old discussions on this measure that all the hospitals throughout the land should be nationalized and transferred to the control of a single Minister and a monster Government Department. The magnitude of this vast changeover can best be shown by the fact that the London County Council are to-day the largest hospital authority in the world.
That brings me to two very important questions, both of which were touched on by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in the course of his introduction. The first is the effect of the transfer on local government, and the second is the administration of the hospital services after the appointed day. I do feel that the removal of hospital authority from the London County Council and other local authorities, and the encroachment by His Majesty's Government on and into local affairs, must tend to produce further apathy amongst the electorate, who obviously cannot be expected to take much interest in their local government affairs when the councils for whom they cast their votes are denied a great deal of responsibility and power. But however much the scheme may affect political interests within municipal affairs, it will also radically amend the whole system of local government interested in the general problem of health. Health includes not only housing, education and drainage but it also covers nursing the sick and the prevention of disease. None of these services can be isolated from the others, since they are all, as indeed they must be, intimately interconnected. It may well be said that Parliament has always been very free—perhaps too free—in granting additional powers and in imposing further liabilities upon local authorities. For generation, the first attempt of any kind of government in any country has invariably taken the form of decentralized health services, which include the duties I have just mentioned.
16
After the passing of this Bill there will be dual control. The health centres and other duties which are to be the responsibility of a local authority, and which are enumerated in Part III of the Bill—about which I shall say something later—will be managed by the major local authorities. But all their hospitals through the whole country will be monopolized by the Minister of Health in conjunction with the Treasury—or perhaps I should say in subjection to the Treasury—with this promise, that every citizen in the country will receive the same standard of service. In point of fact, my Lords, a levelling process will be undertaken and we know from other experiences that that levelling process must be downwards. I give your Lordships one indication to explain what I mean. Every noble Lord will remember the convoy system in the war, when ships met at one point to proceed overseas. The speed of those ships was the speed of the slowest one amongst them. There was a levelling down. Whilst the Government appear, then, to despair of the capabilities of major local authorities to run their own hospitals, they nevertheless cast upon them the obligation to become the main responsible authority for the provision of health services. Thus you have this very curious anomaly that an out-patient comes within the orbit of local authorities, but an in-patient comes within the autocratic control of the Minister of Health. There can be no satisfaction to any local authority to be represented on the hospital management committees, for that merely gives them power with no responsibility to the electorate, although, at the same time, they remain the principal authority in the district for the maintenance of a good health service.
Let me come to Part III of the Bill which indicates the various services which, in the past, have been administered by the minor local authorities, but which are now to be taken away and run in future by the local health authorities. They embrace the services which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, enumerated, including maternity and child welfare. In the London area those services have always been administered by the Metropolitan borough councils. I am certainly of the opinion that some health services can be better managed by the borough councils and

17
better organized by those minor authorities who, through their system of direction in each of the boroughs, can come nearer, as it were, to the hearts of the people and deal with their requirements far better than a major local authority. I find it difficult to understand the reasons which have prompted the Government to remove borough responsibility in London and elsewhere, unless it be a method of pacifying and satisfying the local authorities who lose their hospital services. The whole of this tendency, which I have only very briefly outlined, is a matter which I think your Lordships should not lightly disregard. I have no doubt that other noble Lords will elaborate the story in the course of our discussion, but I venture to think that such a system will always create bad feeling between all the parties in the new health system.
I now turn to deal with my other principal point—namely, the administration of hospital services after the appointed day. Noble Lords will recall that under the terms of the Bill the country is to be divided into regions, each region being associated with a university medical school and ultimately every Regional Hospital Board will submit a scheme to the Minister, who can approve it or not, with or without modification. Although this is the basis of the whole of the administrative set-up, we have yet to be told the size and the extent of the region. I know that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I ask why it was that he, in his very illuminating speech, was unable to indicate that these facts would be published, and a manual clearly defining the areas in question would be in the hands of your Lordships. I hope that we may hear the answer to this question later on in the debate. It is very important for the discussion of some clauses of the Bill that your Lordships should be in a position to know the size of the region. Noble Lords understand far better than I do that the administration of any large organization from a single centre is the most difficult technique known to administrators. There are many instances which immediately come to mind, but I will not to-day single out any one Government Department to whom that could apply.
From my little experience of Government Departments, I think it is quite wrong to believe that the capacities of a single Department are sufficient to run a
18
highly qualified and very skilled service such as hospitals. I. can only conclude that it must be through a complete lack of knowledge of administration and the manner in which it really works that the Minister of Health has been bold enough to impose these vast responsibilities upon himself.
Some of your Lordships may have read the leading article which appeared in The Times newspaper on 26th September last, in which it stated that a gradual decrease of efficiency in administration was to be expected as a result of the complete overburdening of departments with the weight of the tasks of readjustment, thus causing excessive fatigue of many municipal servants and a diminished resilience in their administrative thinking. Nothing is more certain than that you cannot obtain the maximum degree of efficiency in the administration of primarily local matters if you divorce them from local control. The local representatives of the people in any regional area should be in a far better position to judge the requirements of their locality than a single organizing centre with excessive powers of control and quite out of touch with local opinion, local feeling, and local thought.
The scheme which is designed in this Bill must tend, as the Lord Chancellor explained to your Lordships it was intended to do, to transfer power absolutely to the Minister who—he will forgive my saying so—is naive enough to believe that by regulations and by a multitude of orders he can assume responsibility for the country's health. Local administration may very well require a measure of reform, but to transfer the whole hospital service to a single centre is certainly to ensure, in the words of Milton, that "wisdom at one entrance is quite shut out."
I pass now to deal very briefly with the voluntary hospitals and also to make mention of the matter of confiscation of their endowments. The voluntary hospitals, which are to pass to the rigidity of State control, have for many years stood omnipotent and supreme in the contribution they have made to the health service of this country. Practically all the discoveries in the prevention, the diagnosis and treatment of disease can be traced to them, and, as medicine knows no frontiers, their findings have travelled the world. The management of these institutions is in the hands of committees freely

19
elected by their many supporters, and on their boards can be found men and women in every class and every walk of life. Although these hospitals are a living entity, largely dependent on local initiative, support and pride, and competing freely with one another—which in itself is a desirable constructive element in the progress of medicine—all that is to pass away. There is no voluntary hospital that I know of which is not anxious to assist in the provision of a comprehensive health service, and to that end the formation of the regional hospital system was supported some years ago not only by the British Hospitals Association but also by the King's Fund. They want to see an automatic link-up between all hospitals—medical, surgical and fever—and they believe, as I do, that this rationalization could be better achieved without the revolutionary proposals which are to be found in the Bill before the House.
If the desire to create a new organization such as I have just outlined had been present in the mind of the Government, I have little doubt that a more beneficent service could be built up on the existing set-up without the procedure for the confiscation of endowments. The Regional Boards, which, as I have mentioned, must play the principal part in a new organization, will become the corner-stone of the administration, and the powers which they possess, such as the appointment of the chairmen of the hospital management committees, are quite sufficient to crush and to stifle all local initiative and incentive to help. Let me ask the noble Earl why it is necessary for the Boards to appoint the chairmen of the hospital committees and for the Minister to appoint the chairmen of the boards of governors of teaching hospitals. What really is the reason for this differentiation? Am I correct in assuming that the Minister has made some deal with the local authorities, and that the chairmen of the hospital committees and boards of governors are to be filled by some trusted local colleagues? In Clause 7 of the Bill the endowments of all local hospitals, other than the teaching hospitals, will pass on the appointed day to the Hospital Endowments Fund, and, after various charges have been made, the remainder will be apportioned between the several Regions. In the case of the teaching hospitals, all
20
endowments will rest, free of the trust under which they were given, in the board of governors.
Noble Lords who take an active interest in voluntary hospitals will observe at once that in the case of voluntary hospitals all endowments which have been left for a specific purpose—such as the endowment of a bed or the provision of books or the welfare of the staff—will be confiscated and used for a totally different purpose from that which the donor had originally intended. I feel that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that for a Lord Chancellor to support such a proposal must be unique in the history of trusteeship. Surely the Government, on accepting the highly valuable asset of voluntary hospitals which are to become the property of the State, could also, at the same time, have accepted the burden of the outstanding liabilities and thus saved the endowments for their respective hospitals. But that is not all. After this really immoral deal has been accomplished, the Government, in Clause 59, ask the charitable public to subscribe to any teaching hospital for any purpose and to any hospital management committee for the hospitals in their particular group. Nothing, I may venture to suggest, could be really more ludicrous, and nothing could give less encouragement to the public to subscribe in future to any charitable enterprise if they have the fear that at any moment these might be passed into one pool and distributed for purposes for which they were never intended.
If the Minister is anxious, as I very sincerely believe he is, to maintain the support of the British people for their hospitals after the appointed day, then we shall move an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill to secure that between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, any endowments which are received by any hospital should remain the property of that hospital to be used for that hospital, and not transferred to the Hospital Endowments Fund. This will serve two very important purposes. Firstly, it will ensure the co-operation of the British people for this unique organization, and, secondly, it will lessen the difficulties between now and the appointed day for the hospitals to maintain themselves as they have done previously. The Lord Chancellor in the course of his speech made reference to the Minister of Health becoming the Commander-in-Chief of an Army.

21
Every man in the Army has a paper which is known as his G1098. On that paper is the day on which he was born and, if that paper is found after his death, that date also is inscribed thereon. Everything that he does, every move that he makes, is on that paper. I cannot help thinking that each hospital before long will receive its G1098 from a not-too-generous Treasury.
I pass now to make a very few brief remarks regarding the medical practitioners. I need hardly add that on this question we differ absolutely and fundamentally from the Government. The whole scheme of a comprehensive health service can be utterly destroyed and wrecked if the medical profession decline to work it. I should most deeply regret any such action on their part. I can imagine nothing that would prejudice the workings of the whole scheme more than imposing upon doctors a plan to which they are practically wholly opposed. It has never yet been made clear whether this scheme which is embodied in the Bill is the thin edge of the wedge of State control, and I have no doubt that, as the members of the profession are unaware of the Government's future proposals, they feel that before long they may find themselves driven into the full-time salaried service of the State.
The policy of the Government was clearly defined in their pamphlet "National Service for Health," in which it was stated that on the Labour Party coming into power a full-time and salaried and pensionable service for doctors should be introduced. Some members of the present Government have gone so far as to regret that the scheme has been dropped, but the Minister himself made it abundantly clear that he did not believe in a full-time salaried service as the medical profession was not yet ripe for it. The Parliamentary Secretary travelled even further on this slippery slope, and made somewhat similar remarks. Might I ask the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the course of his reply, to let us know whether the principle of a full-time salaried and pensionable service is still the intention and object of the Government, or has it been superseded by the proposals which are found in this Bill? At the same time, the noble Earl, in concocting his reply, will no doubt recall the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, who said:
22
"Of course this is a developing policy and we shall march on to greater and greater public service by the medical profession. What was published by my Party in 1943 we, of course, stand by. We have never repealed any of our policies and we shall continue to march in the light of that policy."
I feel sure that if the medical profession could know what were the Government's future intentions their feelings towards this Bill might be better than they are at the present time.
What is the position of the doctor who enters the new service, or of a medical student who will shortly be entering into this new service? There are three things. First, except for a few private patients, he is to receive a basic salary and a capitation fee which will diminish in scale as the total number of patients rises. Secondly, he will not be allowed to practice in any other area without the authority of the Medical Practices Committee. Then he will be forbidden to buy or sell a practice; and, finally, he will work at a health centre which is extremely unlikely to be fully equipped and ready for occupation by what the Minister hopes may become the appointed day. That, in itself, interferes with all freedom for the medical profession, and is a bad precedent for the future. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government could have done more to undermine the competence of the medical practitioners, for these proposals offer no freedom of choice, no freedom of movement and very little freedom of judgment; and they point even more directly to the scheme becoming before very long a full-time salaried service. By introducing this salary element the doctor must cease to be the adviser to his patient and he becomes instead the adviser for the patient to somebody else. That alone undermines the close relationship which should exist between the doctor and the patient. The very fact of a lower capitation fee as the number of patients increases penalizes directly the efficient and brilliant young man, for it automatically limits his status and his promotion in the service.
There is one other point which I should like to make before I close on the question of the medical practitioner. There are a very large number of doctors to-day who work in partnership and from time to time, as we all know, a vacancy occurs which has to be filled and which in other days was filled by the remaining partners in an agreement amongst themselves.

23
In a number of cases the doctors in a partnership have earmarked a young doctor who would suit them well for the appointment when the next vacancy occurs. But in the future the partnership may have forced upon it some doctor who in their belief will be totally unfit for the particular area and not the sort of man to do their particular work. I cannot help thinking that it would be possible for the Government, if they saw fit, to agree to the moving of an Amendment to secure that any vacancies for existing partnership should be filled without recourse to the Medical Practices Committee. I make that suggestion to the noble Earl in order that it may be considered between now and later stages of the Bill.
I will not continue to elaborate some of the points I did want to mention, but I would say that by removing ambition, by lessening the attraction of the profession and in damaging its traditions and by causing distrust of the Government's future proposals, I believe you have very gravely affected the future of medicine and you have slowed down the ever-continuous process of attack upon disease and upon all its causes. On the future stages of the Bill we should like to ask many questions. Some of the principal points will be the recruitment and transfer of staffs, the resolution for the setting up of the Regional Boards, and the acquisition by the Minister of the property of any enterprising service, thereby preventing a private venture. There will also be a number of points on Clause 35 of the Bill, relating to the prohibition of sale of medical practices.
I fear I have delayed the House much too long, but let me add this in conclusion. I have endeavoured to give the House some indication of our feelings towards this Bill. I cannot help thinking how much better it would have been if the Minister had not ridden roughshod over all institutions and persons who have got to be brought into active partnership in order to make this scheme flourish and prosper. How much wiser would it have been if he had decided not to relegate local authorities to a position which is intolerable to their status as the main, health authority in the area. How much safer it would have been to leave the voluntary hospitals to continue their work
24
but to bring them into the regional scheme. And, lastly, how much greater could this comprehensive health service have become if all parties had entered into it freely and without the fear of Ministerial dictations, rules and regulations and had worked together in the future as in the past for the good of humanity and for the lessening of disease and ill health.
3.57 p.m.
THE MAROQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if health and the pursuit of happiness be closely associated, as indeed they must be to everybody but the most valetudinarian, then we consider that this Bill moves a very considerable step in the direction of increasing the general happiness of the people of this country. We on these Benches support this Bill in its general terms perhaps on two main grounds. The first one is that of pious recollection, because it is, in a sense, and I think in a very true sense, a great structure raised upon the foundation which was laid by the provisions of the scheme of National Health Insurance introduced by the Asquith Government in the days before the 1914–1918 war. It must be a great satisfaction to those members of that Ministry of All the Intellects who are still happily with us, to look on this present Bill and to see in it the fruition of the then necessarily humbler beginnings which they were privileged to inaugurate. Perhaps to show that we still have something to offer except our honoured name, in spite of what was said by a very eminent personage a few days ago, I would point out that in the year 1942 a Liberal Committee considered this question of a national health service and subsequently produced a pamphlet entitled "Health for the People" which bears at least a colourable resemblance to many of the features of this present Bill. I do not suggest plagiarism; I merely salute coincidence.
I said that we gave our assent to the general terms of this Bill, and I think we must bear in mind that it is really only general terms which are at this moment before us. We have, so to speak, the scenario of the ultimate Bill, which will not have grown into its full splendour of technicolour for exhibition to both adult and other audiences until the year 1948. The gaps which at present exist have to be filled in by a very multitudinous series of regulations, and those regulations will want the closest scrutiny and attention

25
of both Houses of Parliament. I had the diligence, having been provided with an interval of some weeks since, the House last sat, to examine the operative clauses of this Bill which require the making of regulations, and I find that out of seventy-four clauses no fewer than twenty-six prescribe a regulation under that particular clause; and a separate set under each clause will presumably fall to be made. I cannot help thinking that before the year 1948 dawns not only the printing presses of the Stationery Office but the permanent officials of the Ministry of Health will be chronically over-heated. It is upon those regulations that the efficiency and practicability of this scheme will, to a very large extent, ultimately depend. It is upon their good sense, their good foresight and, incidentally, their good English, that much of the relationship, not only between the Ministry of Health and the medical service but also between the medical service and the public, will depend. Therefore I repeat that to exercise careful scrutiny of these regulations will be one of the most important functions of Parliament in the interval.
Speaking in this particular matter purely for myself, I cannot believe, however dynamic and superhuman a person may occupy the office of Minister of Health, that it is within the power of any one individual at this particular period of time properly to discharge the functions which fall to his lot on housing and health, as it will be under this new scheme, at the same time. That seems to me to be a task beyond any one Minister. After all, what are the prime duties of a Minister? They are to initiate policy and to give decisions on matters of policy. Can any one man be expected, without imminent danger of collapse or undue procrastination, to give decisions which are vitally necessary upon both these great subjects? The Party which now constitutes the Government set up in the past, if my recollection be right, some agitation for the formation of a separate Ministry of Housing. This may be the obverse of the medal, and the time may come when they find themselves faced with an agitation for a separate Ministry of Health to do the work which the name of that Ministry really implies, and having within its competence the health, and only the health, services of the country, divorcing itself of those functions which properly
26
come under housing I appreciate how close is the connexion between good health and good housing, but, at the same time, it should be possible for separate Ministers to keep so closely in touch that the policy of two Ministries on these matters can walk hand in hand, rather than that one individual should be over-burdened to the detriment of both sections of his department. I very much hope that the Government will give some consideration to alleviating the insupportable burden which will fall on anybody who is afflicted by being Minister of Health while these two problems are of such vital and imminent importance as they are, and as they are likely to be for some years to come.
Perhaps I may now pass to the Bill itself, though in no great detail. The Lord Chancellor has spoken of the voluntary hospitals and their position at the present time. I cannot but agree that the fact that so essential a service—essential not only to the daily life but to the future betterment of this country—as looking after the health of the people should be left in the hands of voluntary organizations dependent upon charity is, at this stage of evolution, both an anachronism and an anomaly. After all, many of the hospitals owe their foundation to chance and their continuation to charity. That type of indiscriminate arrangement, infinitely valuable as it has been and vast as are the services which the hospitals have rendered in the past, is now out of date and out of time and tune with the modern progress of events. But I confess that I find this somewhat rapacious engulfing of all the funds of the voluntary hospitals a considerable mouthful to swallow, and more especially that part of the not very attractive morsel which deals with those funds which are the subject of trusts—trusts created by benevolent people, either during their life-times or by their wills.
Only recently there came to my notice the existence in one particular district of a memorial to a young airman of this last war, whose name, during his inevitably short career as one of the leading pilots of this country, was greatly honoured by those amongst whom he had lived. When he died, as die he was sure to do in the work he was doing, the inhabitants of that particular district raised, by voluntary public subscription, a memorial to his memory, and that memorial took the form of a beneficence to the hospital in the locality in

27
which he had lived. The local hospital was endowed by the local inhabitants with a memorial to the memory of a local hero. I would like the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government to tell me whether it is the intention that the money subscribed in memory of that young airman by those who knew him and amongst whom he lived, is going to remain for the purpose for which it was contributed, or whether it is going to be swept into the omnivorous till of the Ministry of Health.
I will pass now, if I may, to the question of the services which are to be provided by local authorities. I should perhaps normally have hesitated to speak on this particular matter because there happens still to be in existence a body colloquially known as the Reading Committee, which was charged with the duty of inquiring into local government in the county of London. I might have thought myself, by my chairmanship of that Committee, prohibited from speaking on that point; but in the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, the Minister of Health was so emphatic—and nobody is a more masterly exponent of emphasis—that this particular question had nothing in the world to do with the Reading Committee that I feel myself free to speak on the subject, since he is not in a position to complain and I doubt whether anybody else would desire to do so.
I want to say this in support of what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has just said. It seems to me to be a matter of infinite regret that the infant welfare service in London should be removed from the hands of the metropolitan boroughs and concentrated in the already sufficiently grasping hands of the London County Council. The County of London, after all, has a population of over four millions. Those of us who count ourselves as democrats have always been brought up in the belief that one of the foundations of democracy, and one of the surest methods of preserving a democratic way of life, is to interest persons in local government in the areas in which they live. Is this the way to stimulate and to preserve that interest? After all, those people who were interested in infant welfare—and there were many of them—brought a special knowledge, and perhaps particular qualities, into the field of local government, and that knowledge
28
and those qualities were of value not only within the narrow sphere of child welfare but in their approach to all the many problems of local government work. It seems highly regrettable that this opportunity should be taken in this Bill to sweep away from the control of the local bodies those functions which brought into local government so useful a body of people and to take away from people already serving in local government what has in many cases been the great stimulus and attraction of their work. Moreover, there are many cases in which local government authorities have built, and built with enormous pride, enormous love and great sacrifice, buildings which were worthy of the work which was to be done within them. They are immensely proud of the infant welfare institutions which have been set up in their boroughs, and there is a very healthy competition between the various boroughs. All that should not be scrapped and handed over to the L.C.C, telling them to go on with the work with their remote control and eliminate all the functions which made so great and valuable a contribution to the living force of local government work in London. I very much hope that there is still time for the Government to cons consider that decision before the Bill passes into law, because we cannot regard the present position as in any way the last word.
I want to say one word on the subject of health centres. I think it is right to say that the Minister himself recognizes that health centres are an experiment and during the early stages should be regarded as such. I hope that that attitude will be persisted in, because I think it is doubtful whether, from the psychological point of view, this system is going to appeal to the public of the country, whether they are going to like to have to go to these centres, and whether it is gong to be a worth-while proposition in rural districts to have to go to health centres at all. There is another reason for our hope that in these early stages this aspect of the matter will be proceeded with slowly and with deliberation, and that is that here again, as in the infant welfare services—as anyone who has visited numbers of institutions in his time will, I think, agree—there is the overwhelming advantage of having a building which is functional in character, built for its purpose and equipped for its purpose, as against

29
taking over some old building and merely adapting it with such opportunities as it offers. Therefore I hope that until this system has been tried in a few properly constructed functional centres, it will not be made of general application throughout the country. It may be said that a beginning can be made in a few adapted houses, and that the time for functional building must come later, bat by that time you will have set the minds of the people of the country against the use of the health centres because you have invited them to come to buildings which are not properly equipped for their reception and treatment. Therefore I hope that the Government will consider advancing very slowly with the establishment of health centres, and only build a few until they are proved to be a success, and not, as I say, use any but buildings which are constructed for that specific purpose.
I come now to that part of the Bill which deals with, the medical profession. As a member of one professional trade union, I naturally have no little sympathy with the sufferings, real or imagined, of any other professional trade union, but I cannot believe that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was right in his very sweeping statement that almost the whole of the medical profession was opposed to the principle of that part of this scheme. There will undoubtedly be some who will be opposed. Professional men are on the whole of a conservative trend of mind—I do not mean by that politically Conservative; in fact, from reading the papers recently I rather doubt whether anybody is politically Conservative any more. But at least they are conservative in habit and outlook in the widest sense, and a change of any kind, certainly a very radical change, will be viewed at first with reluctance and with suspicion. I hope, however, that discussions between the Minister and the medical profession will improve matters and that by the time this Bill becomes law there will have been reached an agreement between them which at least will go far towards allaying the not very unjustifiable fears, largely raised by the slightly incautious utterances of some members of the Socialist Party in the not very remote past, as to the extent and character of the Government's intentions.
The medical profession has shown itself at all times, and perhaps especially in times of war, to be so public-spirited and
30
self-sacrificing a body that I feel sure that once its natural fears are allayed it will lend itself, with a good grace, in the very difficult circumstances at the outset, to working a scheme, if satisfied that the general scheme is in the interests of the nation as a whole. I have a feeling that in the end it will be found greatly to the credit of that very splendid profession, that those who come to the final conclusion that it is better to reign in hell than serve with Bevan will be few in number, secure in practice and advanced in years.
So much in general terms for the Bill. It is, I think, a great conception, but at the same time it will require a number of Amendments—not wrecking Amendments, but assisting Amendments in the Committee stage, and I hope the Government will be accommodating in its consideration of those Amendments. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we desire only to make it a better Bill and one more properly adapted to perform its functions of supplying a real health service to the people of the country. Many years ago Izaak Walton, an author who will be familiar to many of your Lordships, wrote these words:
"Look to your health; and if you have it, praise God and value it next to a good conscience; for health is the second blessing that we mortals are capable of, a blessing that money cannot buy."
I think that the Government are entitled to claim for themselves in this matter the first blessing laid down by the author of a good conscience, and I believe that by this Bill they will go at least a considerable way towards conferring on the people of the country the second blessing of good health.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHIBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill with greater warrant than the noble Marquess who has just spoken, but with reservations which may detract somewhat from the value of my support. I support the Bill because I am profoundly impressed with the necessity for a national health service to cope with the very large amount of preventable ill health which still exists. I am not sure if it is always realized how extensive is this ill health. It has been stated authoritatively that, in a year, something like 100,000 people die prematurely from disease which is preventable. It has also been stated, again by a reliable authority, that thirty per cent. of the

31
population, between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five, suffer from some ailment or minor illness once a month. And the statistics of panel patients show that an insured person, on an average, visits a doctor five times per annum. I do not place very much reliance on that last figure, because some people take a special delight in discussing themselves with their doctor when their physical condition hardly justifies the waste of his time.
It is also significant that the largest amount of ill health is found among the poorest members of the community. The numbers relating to ill health in this connexion are indeed very remarkable. While sixty-two out of 1,000 people die from consumption among those who have comfortable stipends, the figure is 126 per 1,000 among those belonging to the poorer classes of the community. There is one other figure with which I would trouble your Lordships. It relates to measles, a complaint which affects both rich and poor impartially. The rate of mortality from measles is seven times greater among the poorer members of the community than it is among those who are in a different position. These figures show that there is need for a health campaign on a very large scale. It is true that a considerable amount of this suffering is due to the environment in which people live. Bad housing and poverty are substantial contributing factors, and when these problems are being attacked an attack is also being made on ill health.
Undoubtedly if our health services were more comprehensive and were within the reach of every member of the community, there would be a considerable improvement in the health statistics. The health services, at present, suffer from four defects. First, there is not a sufficient number of doctors, and they are not always where they are most required. Next, there is not a sufficient number of hospitals. Some areas have very few hospitals. Many of the hospitals are very poor, and some of them are very small. The result is that there are long waiting lists in connexion with most of the hospitals for those desiring admission to them. Then, as the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, there is a lack of co-ordination between the various health services. In addition, a large number of people who ought to go to a doctor much earlier than they do are deterred through
32
the fear that they may be unable to meet the cost of a long illness. These are, I think, admitted defects in the present health services, and I welcome this Bill because it is a comprehensive attempt to bring the very best medical and surgical help within the reach of every member of the community, however poor he may be and wherever he may live.
But I go on now to speak of causes of anxiety which I feel about this Bill, causes of anxiety which I share with those who have already spoken. I am afraid that the Bill, as it now stands, may, to some extent, undermine the independence of the medical profession. I recognize that, in these days, the powers of the State must be very widely extended. We are living in the days of totalitarianism, and the State must own, possess, control, and plan where once it acted only in a negative capacity. The individual has no chance of preserving his freedom against the ever-increasing encroachments of the State unless, within the community, there are a number of unions and associations which help him in his stand against the State. The individual has no more power, by himself, against the State than a working man had power against his employer in the days before trade unions came into effective operation. I, therefore, attach the greatest possible importance to preserving in the nation, a number of associations, societies, churches, universities, trade unions, friendly societies, cultural societies and so on, which have independence or partial independence of their own.
I feel that this Bill may, to some extent, undermine the independence of the great medical profession. As has already been pointed out, their admission to the service or their expulsion from the service is not decided upon by their own profession but by outside bodies. It is true that on those bodies there will be representatives of the medical profession, but, so far as I can see, in every case the final authority will always be the Minister. It will be the Minister who, in the last resort, will decide the point. It is true that between him and the individual there will be his advisers. He will be a Commanderin-Chief—but a Commander-in-Chief with a staff. But the staff will consist largely of those who live and work in Whitehall, and probably the majority of them will be people who have never practised within

33
this profession and fail to understand its spirit. I quite understand the fear and anxiety felt by a large number of members of the medical profession about the position in which they may be if this Bill is carried through without further amendment.
I have no doubt that the scheme suggested makes for efficiency, but sometimes efficiency can be bought at far too great a price, and it is too great a price when it means the loss of freedom. I, myself, think that there would be greater efficiency in the Church of England if the Bishops, and, of course, the Archbishops, had much more power in the matter of moving their clergy wherever they wished. But it would be disastrous, for it would mean, if we did have these powers, that the clergy would lose very largely their initiative and their independence. Undoubtedly, there would be very considerable resistance, and very vigorous resistance, if any attempt were made to put the clergy further under the power of the Archbishops and the Bishops in this way. But that resistance would be nothing compared to the outcry which would arise if there were to be set up a Ministry of Religion at Whitehall, with either Mr. Aneurin Bevan or the Lord Chancellor himself as Minister of Religion, for we should feel that an outside body was interfering in and controlling our own affairs. That, I think, is a fundamental objection which is felt by the medical profession to some of the proposals made in this Bill. I hope that various Amendments will be made which will meet and overcome their difficulties.
In the second place, I must say that I am anxious about the position of the voluntary hospitals. I have had a great deal to do in different ways, in the past, with voluntary hospitals, and I am not sure that the debates in another place showed full appreciation of all that the voluntary hospitals have done both for the health of the people and also for medical research. There has been a great deal of local enthusiasm over these hospitals. It has been said in another place that the money given to these hospitals was given to the patients and not to the buildings, and that therefore the money followed the patients wheresoever they went. That seems one of those abstract arguments, the kind of statement that is sometimes made when it is said that it is much more important for a man to be
34
a citizen of the world than to be a patriotic citizen of his own nation. Human nature does not work in that kind of way. Up in the north there is a large amount of civic pride and local patriotism. I may say that it is far greater in the northern cities than it is in the south. People have built their hospitals, given to their hospitals and worked for their hospitals because they feel that they are their hospitals. I am very anxious that an assurance shall be given that the local committees which have devoted so much time to these hospitals, and have done so much for their wellbeing in the past, shall not become mere vague shadows but shall have real practical powers. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, said. I wish we were told more about the new regions. These regions may be so large that the local committee will lose all its powers under their shadow. I am certain that it is a mistake to do anything to undermine or to take away from local enthusiasm and local interest in the voluntary hospitals.
There is one other observation that I want to make, and it is entirely uncontroversial. I hope that in the course of the debate some assurance will be given by the Government that the spiritual and religious provisions which have been made in the past in the great majority of our hospitals will continue under the new arrangements In our larger hospital there are chapels—in some cases very beautiful chapels—and there are chaplains. Sometimes the chaplain is fulltime; sometimes only part-time. The patients and the staff, I believe, welcome the regular visits of those who act as chaplains. I am not speaking now only of the Church of England. What I say applies equally to any other Church. We believe that ministers of religion—and I think most doctors will agree with us—can by their spiritual ministrations very often do something to help the bodily and mental health of the patient. I am not thinking only of the patient, however. These large staffs very often include nurses and others from the country who have been accustomed to church-going but who, owing to the demands of their work on Sundays, have very little opportunity of churchgoing at the ordinary times. It is important that there should be a chaplain to help them. I feel with great confidence that the Government will be able to give us these three assurances, and that the

35
Minister will make regulations which will deal satisfactorily with the problem in the future to ensure that those who work and live in the hospitals have spiritual ministrations.
I noticed in a speech which we have all read that the first plank of the Conservative programme is to be the defence of the Christian religion. I hope that the day will never come when one Party has to defend the Christian religion against another. I should feel it a disaster to religion and a real danger to the nation if Christians had to look upon one Party as their allies and the other as their foes. It is because I am sure that that is not the case, and that there is no possibility of that being the case, that I ask with the greatest confidence about the continuation of spiritual and religious ministration in the hospitals and for extended opportunities for it as new buildings go up.
I support this Bill. I know that it will not work satisfactorily at first, unless there is agreement with the medical profession. I hope that Amendments may be accepted which will enable the medical profession to co-operate happily in the working of this Bill. I have always been deeply concerned about social reform and I am quite convinced that the National Insurance Act, Which we have already passed, and this Bill, if it is passed, will prove by far the greatest social reforms which have ever been passed by Parliament and that they will bring a health and happiness and security to millions in a way which no previous Acts of Parliament ever have done.
4.36 p.m.
LORD MORAN: My Lords, when I heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack chastening, reforming and reconditioning a sister profession, I tried to imagine the positions reversed. I saw myself submitting to your Lordships' House, with the support of the Government of the day, a Bill for the reformation of the legal profession. The political Parties have had their say, the Law has spoken, the Church has bestowed its blessing; why at this late hour should I, a mere physician, a mere doctor, try to add anything? I will not weary your Lordships by repeating in any detail the arguments which I submitted to the House in April. The first thing that would be helpful is to consider how far the hospital provisions in the Bill have been sympathetically received by the vast majority of those who
36
work in the hospitals and how far they have been the subject of acute controversy. We have all been convinced by the surveys of the hospital service carried out during the war that a drastic reorganization of the hospital service is necessary. How could we disagree, when a third of the 93,000 beds in the 1,059 voluntary hospitals in England and Wales are in restitutions which have fewer than 100 beds—institutions that are hopelessly handicapped by their size when they attempt to act as general hospitals—when, too, more than a third of the 78,000 general beds municipal hospitals are in Public Assistance institutions, many of which might have come straight out of a reforming novel of Charles Dickens?
We are agreed that this reorganization of the hospital service means a very considerable expenditure of money, which can only come from public funds, and that such an expenditure of public money must entail some measure of public control. We are agreed, too, that that control could only be exercised by the Minister or by the local authorities, and faced by a choice between these alternatives the profession is in no doubt that it prefers the control of the Minister. Perhaps I ought to say something in support of that statement. For a whole decade every professional discussion of the hospital service has been dominated by the dread that the hospitals will come under the control of the local authorities. It is the removal of that menace from the profession which has reconciled so many to the passing of the voluntary system and it is the removal of that fear which has done more than anything else to make so many prefer the hospital provisions of the present Minister of Health to those of his predecessor.
And there agreement in the profession ends. Many of my colleagues for whose judgment and integrity of mind I have a high regard cannot bring themselves to agree to the transfer of ownership of hospitals. They argue that the Minister ought to give the Regional Boards a block grant, which the Board would distribute to the hospitals in the Region, withholding the grant from any hospital which did not put its house in order. This arrangement is attractive to them, as it is to me, because it involves no change in ownership of the hospitals. Others do not believe, and I do not believe, that any

37
Regional Board, particularly one recently created, could apply sanctions in this fasmon to a powerful local authority. We believe that sanctions would not be enough to bring about the drastic re-organization which is so essential. It we feel that these hospital provisions are inevitable, it does not mean at all that we are agreed that the particular provisions in this Bill will necessarily work. A good deal has been said about the great importance of making the local management committees attractive enough to secure able men willing to serve on them, and with every word of that I am in profound agreement. But we have heard far too little of the importance of this hospital service being a university service. When I speak of a university service, I mean that that was the original conception underlying the establishment of the regions. The regions were originally suggested to bring in the universities.
What do I mean by a university service? May I take an example from pathology? If a pathologist goes to work in a hospital in a town some considerable distance from the university centre, he may find himself isolated. There is probably no other pathologist working in the town, no one with whom he can discuss his difficulties. After a number of years he may lose heart and interest in his work. But if he is a member of the university service, then once a week he will go up to the central university laboratory, where he will see what is being done and will learn the research that is being conducted. He will discuss his difficulties with the head of the laboratory, and perhaps the head of the laboratory will pay him a return visit, and will go into his difficulties on the spot. In that way the pathologist will not feel isolated and marooned. He will feel that he is a member of a great service and is only seconded for the moment to a hospital on the outskirts.
This is not mere theory. During the war not only pathologists but physicians, surgeons and every kind of specialist, were sent by the teaching hospitals into the great important hospitals in the region. They attended these hospitals regularly, and they raised their standard almost to university standard. When they were called back at the end of the war, I think doctors will agree that there was a sharp fall in the efficiency of hospitals
38
at the periphery. The university service can do something else for us, and it is a very important thing. In the past specialists have tended to congregate in the great centres. There has been a dearth of them elsewhere. By a university service we can bring about a redistribution of these specialists without duress, because men will willingly be seconded, feeling that they are part of one great service.
Now if there is going to be this measure—as I think an essential measure—of centralization in a scientific service, it is perhaps a paradox that there must also be a degree of decentralization. The powers of the Regional Boards are so vaguely defined in the Bill, that we really do not know what they are. For example, suppose there is a complaint about dieting or nursing in a hospital in the region. Will the Ministry send its inspectors to investigate that complaint independent of the Regional Board, or will it ask the Regional Board to investigate it? If the inspectors do it independently of the Regional Board, the Regional Board will lose authority. The Ministry must trust its Regional Boards, or they will not work. This decentralization may have to go even further. The noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, who, as the House knows, is deeply versed in these matters and whose good judgment is held in high regard in my profession, said last April that in the regions nursing officers had been appointed who were to be the nursing authority in those regions. They would have power of appointing and dismissing nurses. Are they—we pertinently ask—going to exercise those powers through the Regional Boards or independently of them? There is no guarantee that the Ministry of Health will not interfere in clinical matters. That is not a fictitious, vague phantasy. It actually happened under the emergency medical service during the war. You must trust your hospitals; you must trust your regions; you must trust your doctors to get on with their job.
I agree with what has been said about the great fear that the doctors have that they will lose their independence. If that happens, the profession will indeed have received a very mortal blow. Whatever happens to the health services, however effective the reformation of it, it will avail us nothing if the general conditions under which doctors work do not

39
bring contentment and happiness to them. What we have got to ask, looking at this Bill, is: Are these conditions such that the good type of man, who has come into medicine in the past, will continue to come into it in the future? I think it is singular, in the innumerable discussions which this Bill has provoked, that the effect of the Bill on entry into the profession has been hardly mentioned at all. I say it is singular because the well-being of our profession depends upon its power to attract a good type of man and, in particular, on its power to attract the exceptional man. It is because the Minister treated the teaching hospitals so sympathetically, because he refused to blunt the growing edge of medicine, that, in the first instance, many doctors examined the provisions of this Bill with sympathy. Before I pass on, I would like to say that those who work in the academic world in medicine are greatly perturbed at the present time about the powers and corn-position of the boards that will govern the teaching hospitals. These men are actuated solely and simply by a desire to advance medical knowledge, and I am sure that the Minister will go into their troubles and allay their fears as far as he can.
I have said that the well-being of our profession depends upon attracting the exceptional man. May I enlarge on that just for one moment? It is absolutely vital. The fame of the voluntary hospitals has gone all over the world for one reason and for one reason only—namely, that the great advances of knowledge, which have been of incalculable benefit to the whole world have come from workers within their walls. I am speaking of quite recent history. I am not talking of a long time ago. When I was a student the surgical ward was a cheerful place full of happy patients looking forward to convalescence, but when one passed from the surgical ward into a medical ward it was exactly like walking out of sunshine into a dark, cold and gloomy building where the patients were suffering from incurable diseases for which they had discovered we could do nothing. All that has completely changed. The physician at last has been armed, and, in consequence, there is an almost embarrassing rush on the part of the man of promise in our profession to become a physician. At the present time the men
40
of promise are entering for the examination for admission to the Royal College of Physicians at the rate of 1,400 candidates a year.
Let me say this. I do not know whether I shall be held to exaggerate if I say that this astonishing victory by a few men over disease will be remembered centuries hence, when the martial victories of this war are completely forgotten. I have quite respectable authority for making such a statement. At the height of the war, in Cairo before the battle of El Alamein, General Smuts said to me, "Men of action live on the surface of things. They do not create." Now we owe this victory to a few men. Medicine in the past has been able to attract these gifted few. The real problem is will it be able to continue to attract them in the future? The answer to the question, if I knew it, would determine whether this Bill is really to the benefit of this country or not. How are we going to protect these gifted few? What do they want? In the first place we must scan the Bill very carefully to see there is nothing in it which encroaches upon the leisure which the man has given in the past to research. Leisure has largely gone out of the learned professions, to their very great detriment. Nowadays the spare time of a specialist is taken up by attendance on committees which are the drowsy syrup of the democratic State. When recently a Professor of Medicine retired from a London school he was found to be on thirty-two committees. But leisure is not enough. What else does the specialist want? It is perfectly true that many men with the greatest minds are indifferent to material rewards, but it would be folly to handicap medicine in its competition with other professions by a false parsimony. I gave notice to the noble Lord who introduced this debate that I should ask the Government to appoint a Committee on the lines of the Spens Committee, with laymen on that Committee, to go into the remuneration of consultants. I am glad to hear the Government find such a proposal worth considering and that they will do it.
Your Lordships may feel I am wandering very far from the clauses of this Bill, but I assure you that any time you may give to the consideration of the effect of this Bill upon the entry will be richly rewarded. Only once in my working life

41
have I seen a determined and deliberate attempt to influence the quality of the entry into medicine. It was in 1913 when a Royal Commission on University Education in London, found that the specialists in this country were so pre-occupied by private practice that they were not making those additions to knowledge which we might reasonably expect from them. They found, too, that the men with first-class wits at the university, who did not wish to practice but wished to devote their lives to research, were not going into medicine. The Commission planned deliberately that there should be an academic career in medicine, and when their suggestions and recommendations were carried into law they fertilized medicine.
It would not be right if I said nothing of how this Bill affects not the very few who have creative minds, but the average man. There are disturbing features at the present time and of late years there has been a great tendency on the part of people who are gravely ill to seek institutional treatment. The general practitioner sees a case whisked out of his hands and transferred to hospital just when his illness becomes professionally interesting. Moreover, when this Bill is put into action there will have to be a consultant service and that will accentuate the difference which exists between the general practioner and the consultant. When I became ill in New York during the war I found by my bedside in the Presbyterian Hospital a book about the size of Who's Who. In that book there was the name of every specialist in the United States. The public had been educated to believe that if a man's name was not in the book he was not a specialist. At the present time anybody can specialize in England without training, without special qualifications, without anything but assurance. The time is coming when we shall have a list of consultants as in America—I hope it will not come yet. When that comes the general practitioner's name will not be in that book, and he will be cut off from the mild amount of specialization he at present undertakes. This is inevitable, for a man who practises as a specialist should be trained as such, but all our plans will come to nothing if the life and opportunities of the general practitioner no longer attract the best type of man.
There is only one remedy. We have to make up our minds to bring the general
42
practitioner into the work of the hospitals. It is full of difficulties, but it must be done. It is not right that the great majority of practitioners should never enter a hospital for work from the time they leave shortly after qualification to the day when they retire. If this is all true, we have to consider whether there are any offsetting tendencies. At the present time the number of people seeking to enter medicine has leapt up. Extraordinary numbers are applying to our schools for admission. This is partly the effect of demobilization but it will continue because in the past those who have entered have come from a narrow section of the community. Many people were unable to afford the cost of putting a man into medicine. All that is going to be altered and you are going to have an immense number of the people waiting to enter the profession or, at any rate, very many more than in the past. You will have to get new machinery such as you have already got in selecting people for the Civil Service because if these men are to be subsidized by the State there must be some machinery to deal with them.
I am less happy about the general practitioner service planned in this Bill than I am about the hospital service. I am myself gravely disturbed by the general fears expressed by practitioners as to the future. They say they are against this abolition of the selling and buying of practices. They are against what they call a measure of direction, and they are against the basic salary, but these "againsts" all come down to one fear—the fear that there will be a whole-time medical service which will interfere with their liberty. Will this whole-time service necessarily be good for the profession or the public? I do not think anyone knows the precise answer, but one thing I am certain of, unless there is an adequate incentive or incentives to keep men on their toes and to keep them keen throughout their working days, then a whole-time service would be an incalculable disaster. The Minister could not spend too much time on this question of incentives. At the present time I am quite certain that the average doctor lives for his work. What we have got to ask is, will it be true in ten years' time? If I knew the answer to that question, I should be able to tell you if the misgivings of the general practitioners are or are not true.

43
There is just one other thing before I leave general practice. That is the unfortunate dispute at the eleventh hour that has arisen between the Ministry of Health and the panel practitioners. I am convinced in my own mind that the claims of the panel practitioners are fair and just, but the dispute is not about terms but about the procedure. The Minister wished to go into the remuneration of panel practitioners at the same time as the remuneration of men in this future service. The panel practitioners felt they had not a mandate for this discussion. I am perfectly certain the Minister will meet their claims. It would be an absolute disaster if we began this service with a considerable section of practitioners disgruntled, men who felt that they had had a raw deal. I hope the Minister will go very sympathetically into this particular claim.
Now let me end as I began by wondering whether this Bill will work. In medicine we always make a prognosis in a case feeling that we may be wrong. When I ask whether the Bill will work I am not sure whether my views are right or wrong, but there are many complaints that the Minister has taken into his own hands very large powers—when I say "into his own hands" I mean into the hands of those who work under him—and that this taking of powers into his own hands will prove a very great strain on the Ministry of Health, and those who are best informed are most alarmed. Men who know the facts tell me that if this service breaks down it will break down because there are not the administrators to run it. The Minister has shown considerable courage in doing what he believes to be right, and I hope that at this late hour he will not shrink from whatever measures are necessary to strengthen his service so that it can meet the duties and responsibilities which are thrown upon it. When the coal industry was taken over they put two of the most capable men on the Coal Board as managing directors, and the area machinery was strengthened in the same way. If this Bill is going to work we have got to do something unusual. It is no good telling me that various senior officers of the R.A.M.C. have been taken into the service. That is not enough. I hope the Minister will put into this service a small number of very experienced men who are the leaders of
44
the profession, who are trusted by the profession and who have been familiar with hospital work all their days. I hope he will persuade these men to give all their time for five years, or some period of that kind, to try to make the regions work. Only in that way, as I see it, can this Bill be really made to work.
It may be said that the Central Health Service Council will supply what I am asking for. Will it? Can it with forty-one members? When it was born a sigh went up from the profession. Why was that? It was because Government Departments in the past have so often tried to shelve responsibility by appointing advisory committees. These committees were born generally in another place they met once or twice a year at most; they were given a carefully prepared menu to keep them out of mischief; and then they were conveniently forgotten. The negotiating committee, fearful of this fate overtaking this new Council, went into this matter very carefully, and they were assured that they could have their own chairman and they would be able to publish an annual report. Your Lordships will know, however, that we can never make any Ministry use an advisory committee unless it really wants to. Why is the Ministry so reluctant to use the best brains from the profession? It follows inevitably, as one noble Lord has already said, that many of those who work under the Ministry have not practised their profession actively for twenty years or more. We want men who are actively engaged in the profession to come into this service and to give us the information which they alone possess. It is only in that way that you can lift the curtain which in recent years has fallen between the Ministry and the profession, leaving so much want of sympathy and understanding.
Much of the criticism which this Bill has provoked has seemed to me to be tethered to the earth; it has never become airborne, and it has been totally lacking in idealism. The politicians have made their debating points, and too many of the doctors have merely expressed their fears and prejudices. It has been left to the Minister to generate the momentum that overcomes obstacles and to enlist the strenuous support of ardent min-is. This is a measure designed for the betterment of the people in health and in happiness. It is not the product of one party but of

45
parties over a number of years, and I believe that when it becomes law, in spite of all the differences there have been, the whole medical profession will unite to try and make it work.
5.5 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, my excuse for addressing you is that for two and a half years I was the Chairman of an Inter-Departmental Committee on the subject of the condition of the teeth of the people or the country and the profession of dentistry. Naturally, after a long period of studying this question with many witnesses of all classes in the profession of dentistry and medicine, one picked up a good deal of knowledge There are certain questions which I wish to put before your Lordships, and particularly before the Minister who is going to reply, which seem to me to be suitable for a Second Reading speech. The one anxiety left upon my mind is this. It would be a disaster if this scheme failed. If the scheme is a success then we are faced with this very vital question: How are we going to carry out the scheme? I will show your Lordships in a few moments why I am doubtful about this, and why there is great anxiety in my mind on this subject.
We know—and indeed the Minister only a few days ago made a speech in which he confirmed it—that the state of the teeth of the people of the country is deplorable. Your Lordships will see that the needs of the public for dental improvement are gigantic, and the means available at the present time are adequate to deal with only a very small percentage of what is wrong. Let us study the present position for a moment. There is not adequate service and inspection in the schools, and there is a mass of dental ill health throughout every class in the country. Consequently there is a lack of treatment for expectant and nursing mothers and young children; and, of course, the condition of teeth is so dependent on the state of the mothers and the young children being properly treated and cared for. At the present moment it is estimated that there are about 15,000 dentists, but of that 15,000 quite a number are due to retire. One must not forget that the life of the dentist is a very strenuous one. His position is almost that of the athlete ready to spring off at the starting point. That means that he has got to be very fit physically, and a man advancing in years finds the work
46
a great strain. Consequently the wastage amongst dentists is quite considerable. Thus we have this problematical 15,000, and it is said that in order to maintain that number up to 1970 we shall have to increase the intake into the profession from what it is at the moment, about 300 per annum, to 900.
My noble friend Lord Moran has touched on one or two points which apply just as much to the dentist as to the doctor. We must somehow or other encourage more to go into the dental profession. We must some how or other make the profession more attractive. We must somehow or other raise the prestige and the status of the dentist. In listening to the evidence over those two and a half years I found there was a mass of information about that question. The dental profession is not popular; it is very rare for the son of a dentist to enter his father's profession. Somehow or other, we have got to do something about that. I do not know really how to tackle it, except by suggesting that at the universities and at the schools the status of the students of dentistry should be raised to that of the doctors, but I see nothing, I am afraid, in the Bill as it is now to lead me to suppose that anything is going to be done to help in that direction.
It seems to me that in the Bill there is one very important omission. It takes away, or may take away, the relationship which now exists between the dentist and his patient. How often have your Lordships heard somebody say "You ought to go to my dentist; he does not hurt." I must say that that was the reason why I went originally to the dentist I have now had for some years; I find that he hurts a little less than some of them. It is important that the patient should have confidence in the dentist and I feel that is something which we should try to encourage. The family doctor is probably a doctor who lives in that area, but that is not always the case with the dentist. Some of us travel many miles to see our dentist. I myself, for instance, spend a good deal of my life travelling, and I have a dental adviser in London, in Newbury, and in Edinburgh.
I am now coming to this question of the area. As I understand it, if the Bill is passed in its present state, I can only go to the dentist in the area in which I am living. Would it not be better—and I put this to the Government—to permit

47
any patient to go to any dentist anywhere provided that dentist is under contract to a local executive council? There are many people who do not live in the same place all the year round. There are many who have a job in London for a while, and who then get another in Edinburgh or in another big centre. It will mean much complication if, when they want to have dental treatment, they have got to go back to the areas in which they are registered and in which they originally came on to the panel, if that is the right word to use. I think this elasticity of treatment is advisable and very necessary.
Now I come to another point which is, I think, worthy of consideration. At the moment, only 7 per cent. of those entitled to dental treatment take it. If this scheme is to be the success which we all hope it will be, it is to be hoped that that 7 per cent. will increase very rapidly. It will be deplorable if it does not. Let us say that 10 per cent. take advantage of their right under the Bill to obtain dental treatment. As the Bill at present stands, before a dentist can give treatment he has to prepare a statement of what he is going to do, an estimate of its cost, and get it passed. It is anticipated that there will be some 80,000 of these estimates every week. Who is going to deal with them? Are they going to be dealt with by clerks who really know nothing about dental treatment at all? You cannot possibly afford to take dentists to go into these estimates; the dentists are needed for professional work all the time.
Next I turn to the point made very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Moran—namely, that these professional men must be trusted. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has made a plea for trusting the doctor. I make the same plea for trusting the dentist and for assuming that he will not abuse the position in which he is going to be placed, that the estimates he puts forward will be for work which is necessary and that the charges which he suggests will be correct. One can easily see that if that is not done, the sending off of these estimates to be passed will mean delay and the interposition of another opinion, which means that the patient will be unable to deal entirely with the dentist of his choice. Let us take the hypothetical case of a village school
48
master living in a remote village in Scotland and having to travel perhaps thirty miles to Perth if he wants to see his dentist. The dentist examines the schoolmaster and finds that he wants one filling done, but he dare not do it until he has had his estimate passed. It may be that it will be necessary to send to Dundee, Edinburgh or Aberdeen to get a rubber stamp put on the estimate before he can carry out the work. That means that the village schoolmaster has to go back to his village and come to Perth again, perhaps some weeks later, when he is notified that permission has been given to carry out the work necessary.
Now I come to the question of the Central Advisory Council. There are forty-one members of that Council, twenty-one of whom are medical members, I feel very strongly that we must try to enhance the prestige and raise the status of the dentist's profession and to that end I suggest that the President of the Dental Board should, ex officio, be on that Council. That is not so at the moment. I believe the answer given in another place was that, if that were done, many other people would require to be on it, but surely that is not so. You cannot compare the operational side of the medical profession and the dental profession with professions such as pharmacy and others which will be represented on the Central Advisory Council. That was one of the recommendations that we made very strongly in the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee.
I have come nearly to the end of what I have to say. There is this very important question. Supposing there is a complaint about a dentist and it comes before the Tribunal—well, there is no question of any complaint there by the dental profession. Now the Tribunal pass a sentence and the dentist's only appeal as set out in the Bill, as far as I read it, is to the Minister. I hope that this matter will be dealt with in your Lordships' House. In another place this question was raised and there was a very exhaustive debate upon it. There was a Division and the Government were defeated. "The Minister" was taken out and "the High Court" put in instead, but subsequently, on the Report stage, the Minister proposed an Amendment by which he was substituted for the High Court. Surely, it must be advisable to have the High Court. After all, the individual

49
cannot do anything with regard to attacking the Crown and surely he should have the right, if he is not satisfied with the Tribunal's decision, to appeal to the High Court. I hope that the Minister, in view of the strong feeling on this subject in another place, will take this matter into consideration again.
There briefly is the situation in regard to dentistry. I hope some of the Amendments which I am putting down on some of the subjects will be accepted. The dental profession wish to make this scheme a success and will do everything they can to do so, but after studying the whole of the dental profession for some lone time I feel that owing to the peculiar position of dentistry unless some of the objections are removed there will be a further decrease in recruitment. That will be detrimental to the public and it will also mean that the dentists will carry on outside the scheme. Therefore I hope that the Government will do everything they can to make the conditions of service under this Bill as attractive as possible, because really the position of dentists is far worse than that of the doctors. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, told us just now, the recruitment for doctors is going up by leaps and bounds, but that is not the case in dentistry. I have no doubt that if some of the young men who are going into medicine thought the position was as favourable towards them in dentistry, they would go into the dental profession. From the evidence I have had I know how tremendously important to the health of the people is this question of the condition of the teeth of the people. We must have more dentists. We must not only make the dental profession more popular, but we must make the service of the dentist more popular for the people to go to. We must brighten up the places to which they must go to receive their treatment, and everything must be done to remove that natural nervousness which everybody has on entering a dentist's room.
That is the picture. If we make this scheme a success, and should the demand rate increase, we shall not be able to carry out the comprehensive service set out in the Bill. I have repeated myself no doubt on several occasions on this very important question, which is: How on earth are we going to make or encourage more young men to go into the dental service?
5.25 p.m.
LORD INMAN: My Lords, this day has a special and rather a personal interest for me, and I am sure your Lordships will not mind my mentioning it. It was on October 8, 1921, just twenty-five years ago to-day, that I began my association with a well known London teaching hospital. Previous to that for some years I was connected with one of our great central funds, and so for approaching thirty years I have devoted a good deal of my time to hospital work, I should like to feel that my knowledge, gained from actual experience, may be of some value in considering the provisions of this important measure. I should have liked to-night to deal with some of the points such as the health centres, the Regional Boards, and the special relationship for teaching hospitals, but there are other speakers after me and the time is passing. I propose, therefore, to defer consideration of these matters until a later stage of the Bill.
I should like just for a few minutes to confine myself to one of the main criticisms of the measure. "Leave the voluntary hospitals to continue their work," said the noble Earl, Lord Munster, earlier to-day. It has been said repeatedly in another place, in certain organs of the Press and in the very many letters which have reached me, that this Bill will kill the voluntary hospitals. I would like to look at this threatened death sentence and examine its implications. It may be pertinent to inquire: What makes a voluntary hospital? There are two answers to that question, but I suggest that the great majority of people would answer that it is the gifts voluntarily given to maintain the work of our voluntary institutions. Now it was perfectly true to say that years ago our hospitals were maintained entirely from voluntary sources. May I quote from the balance sheet of my own hospital, which I am sure is typical of other institutions? In 1905, forty years ago, our income was made up entirely of voluntary gifts, that is, subscriptions, donations and legacies, but last year 45 per cent. of our income came from public authorities, from payments by patients and from central funds for services rendered. The point I want to make, therefore, is that to-day our voluntary hospitals are only partially voluntary.

51
Now let me say, straight away, that all through the years large sums have been given by disinterested people for the sole purpose of helping to maintain the hospitals, and every credit and great praise must be given to them for their great endeavour. But I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the increasing number of methods employed to raise funds for our institutions. Some of your Lordships may have seen, just before the war, a large hoarding outside one of our best known hospitals on which it was stated: "We require 10,000 people to sell soap for us." That institution was so desperately hard up that the committee had purchased a quantity of soap to sell again at a profit. Another well-known hospital engaged a staff of 200 canvassers to go from door to door selling stationery. All sorts of weird appeals were organized to intrigue the public into giving. There were banquets of humour, midnight matinées, flag days, and Bridge tournaments. Indeed, the hospital administrator, like the Athenian of old, spent his time in doing little else but seeking to hear of some new thing.
I, myself, some fifteen years ago, went to America to beg funds. On the first Sunday morning that I was over there I attended a service at the well-known Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, but when the first hymn was announced, remembering the object of my mission, my heart sank. It was:
"Guide me, oh thou great Jehovah,
Pilgrim through this barren land."
It did not prove to be a barren land; but was it right that I should go over to the United States to beg for money to maintain the patients in our own hospitals? I say that it is quite wrong to depend upon stunt appeals to maintain our work. I submit that the care of our sick and suffering is a sacred national duty.
But there is an even more serious aspect of this dependence upon spasmodic and ephemeral charity. A new medical discovery is reported which may have the effect of relieving pain and even saving life. Take radium for example. Radium, as we know, is a costly element, and yet if a hospital wants radium and has not the money in the bank to pay for it, then it is denied to that institution. It is surely not in the national interest that any hospital should be deprived, by reason of lack of funds, of equipment that is essential
52
to enable it to do its work. Only last week, I was talking to a young doctor, the son of a member of your Lordships' House, who has just returned after six years in the Services. He has gone back to his voluntary hospital in the provinces, and he told me that he was appalled when he thought of the condition of the equipment in the Army and compared it with the condition of the equipment in that voluntary hospital.
But if the financial position of our hospitals was so serious in the years before the war, I am convinced that unless something is done it will become impossible in the years that are ahead. Let me give an illustration to show what I mean. The experiences of the past decade have revolutionized our ideas regarding hospital planning. It is now considered that the ideal unit is an institution containing from 800 to 1,200 beds. I may say that we, ourselves, have plans in hand for building a new hospital at Harrow with accommodation of Imo beds. I think it is ideal from every point of view. It is going to be in the open country away from the noise and hubbub of modern traffic. We shall retain in London a mere casualty clearing centre. But this new hospital is going to cost £2,000,000, and I submit that such a cost is entirely outside the scope of voluntary effort. What is true in our case is true in the cases of many other hospitals as well.
If the needs of the public are to be safeguarded, the provisions of this Bill on reorganization and re-grouping must be carried out. This will involve heavy capital expenditure. There are twelve large teaching hospitals within a radius of five miles of Charing Cross. With one exception—King's College—all of them have remained on or near their original foundations, and some of them are working under extreme difficulties. Whilst these hospitals have remained stationary, our population has been moving constantly outwards. In the seven years from 1931 to 1938, the population in the centre fell by no less than 12½ per cent., and yet very little provision was made for those who had removed their homes elsewhere. Now what is true of London applies with equal force to other parts of the country. There are many districts, particularly in the rural areas, where hospital accommodation, as many of us know, is sadly deficient. Problems of the kind which I have mentioned, in my judgment, can

53
only be solved by a co-ordinated national scheme, a scheme that will bring within the reach of everybody, irrespective, of means, the best surgical and medical skill procurable, a scheme that will condemn obsolete and redundant hospitals and erect new temples of health that will fulfil all modern requirements.
Now your Lordships would expect me, after twenty-five years at a voluntary hospital, to pay tribute to the work of such institutions. I yield to nobody in my great admiration of their fine and conspicuous services. They filled the breach with great credit and distinction for many centuries, and now we are told they are to be killed. But are they? I said a moment ago that there are two answers to the question: What constitutes a voluntary hospital? The first is: "The gifts that maintain it." The second is "The voluntary service that mans it." Under this measure the voluntary hospitals are to be relieved of all financial obligations, but I hope and believe that the spirit of self-sacrificing service which has characterized their work will be allowed to continue. I say that it would be a tragedy if the fine voluntary work on the part of so many were to be lost. I submit that voluntary service, under this Bill, does not end. On the contrary, the Minister in another place gave this definite assurance "All the rest of the voluntary attributes of the existing services are preserved and enlarged. There will be more room for voluntary service in the new scheme than exists at the present time." The simple truth is that the times in which we are living, the needs of a modern community, the heavy cost of curative and preventive treatment, the building and equipment of new hospitals make financial demands—quite legitimate demands—which it is not within the power of voluntary effort to satisfy. I believe that this new Bill will continue and expand the work of our existing hospitals, building on their traditions and experiences a firm and worthy edifice of which in the years to come this country will be proud.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack spoke of the universal desire on the part of laymen, doctors and politicians to do something, at long last, to integrate the medical services of this country, and I
54
do not propose to waste your Lordships' time in saying more about our own attitude—speaking for my profession—in that respect, than to emphasize the point that we doctors are not obstructionists in this matter. I would also add that for the last twenty years we have done our utmost to persuade the powers-that-be to get a move on in this matter, if I may use the vernacular. I mention this only because during the last few months it has been reiterated so often in another place, particularly by the Minister of Health, that (to plagiarise the words of Sir Alan Herbert's song):
"I want to see the people happy,
I want to make the people well."
So do we. But we doctors had hoped that it would be through the more natural process of evolution, rather than through the present method of revolution, that the Government would help us to attain our object.
We think that we could have attained it with more certain benefits and with less risk. We believe that we could have rationalized the hospitals without transferring their ownership to the State. We think that we could have covered the health of the dependants of the workers. We could have set up health centres without sacrificing the doctors' liberty. And we could have brought together in a comprehensive whole the industrial medical service and the medical services of the various Government Departments. Of course, we realize that this less dramatic method of advance is not adapted to the present Government's temperament, but we do know from experience that such an advance is eminently suited to the progress of medicine and to its application in terms of the citizen's health and happiness.
More than once I have allowed that this Bill enhances one very desirable thing: that is, the availability of medicine to the citizen. But, as has been said by one of the speakers here this afternoon, we may pay too much for that advantage if it is gained in a way which does not take into account the possible sacrifices that are entailed. And you cannot stereotype medicine without a great deal of sacrifice. We believe that this Bill does risk stereotyping medicine, and whether we look at medicine from the point of view of the hospital services or from the point of view of the work of the individual doctor it

55
must be a great loss to society if by the operation of this Bill medicine is stereotyped.
Mention has been made of the ease with which the doctor's capacity and the hospital's capacity can be levelled down. As we all know it is very easy to level down: it is very difficult to level up. If I were asked to state in brief terms what is the nature of the anxiety facing my profession today I would say—and I am only repeating what has been said by speakers who have preceded me—that it lies in a realization of the tremendous centralization of power which in its present form the Bill invests in the Government. My noble and learned friend was himself impressed with this, and commented on it; but he did not, as I do, think it a danger. It was in your Lordships' House many years ago that the elder Pitt said:
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."
A more familiar quotation is that of Lord Acton who said that:
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I feel that the ideal to be aimed at in framing a medical service policy for the nation is not this terrific centralization of power in one man—because it is in one man—but a maximum of central direction and a minimum of central control. I note that in one of his latest public utterances Mr. Bevan referred to this danger of too much central control. He said:
"I am deeply conscious of the fact that one of the great dangers of the Government service is over-centralization, and the wider decentralization we can bring about, the better for everybody."
I cannot help thinking that closer contact with the medical profession during the framing of the Bill would have safeguarded the Minister and his successors under the Bill from this particular danger. When the Minister was criticized in another place for not discussing his proposals with organizations and bodies representing those who will be responsible for carrying them curt he denied the imputation and spoke of "consultations"—that was his word—which were very wide.
But the Minister uses the word "consultation" in a very different sense from the one which we usually attach to that word. I was myself present at two of these so-called consultations. The form they took was as follows: The Minister
56
told us what he proposed to do; he answered a few of our questions, and the conference concluded with his telling as that what he had said was to be kept secret. To this unilateral pledge all of us loyally adhered, to find ourselves quite soon tactically handicapped. We were hamstrung. The word "consultation" was a euphemism for the most blatant form of ipse dixit-ism. It seemed to me at the time—and it still seems to me—a very unfortunate and a very unhelpful handling of this vital situation. It was as though the designer of an aero plane proceeded to the point of manufacture and then—and only then—asked the pilot if he thought he could take the machine into the air. The Minister has advanced that in place of consultation with recognized groups in the profession, he availed himself of private talks with knowledgeable friends. I am sure that those talks must have been of great help. The Minister is a good mixer. But I can only say that, in the public interest, it is unfortunate that I was not chosen to be favoured with one of those private conversations.
I understand that, as soon as your Lordships have dealt with the Bill, the pilots—that is, the doctors of this country—will be asked if they will try out the machine. In other words, perhaps it is within your Lordships' knowledge that the doctors will be asked by a plebiscite issued by the British Medical Association if they will work this Bill. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, challenged my friend the noble Earl, Lord Munster, when he said that he understood that the majority of the this Bill as it at present stands. The plebiscite will tell us what is their view when the Bill is finally passed. I should like to say that, in my belief, the answer to the plebiscite may even at this late hour be influenced not inconsiderably by what may happen in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of this Bill, because I hope that the Government will sympathetically consider certain Amendments—and give proper time for their discussion—the purport of which, in the main, might be to preserve the autonomy of the voluntary hospital, might be to safeguard the freedom of the doctors, and thus defer, as many of us hope, indefinitely, the nationalization of medicine. Because the present Bill does go far towards nationalizing medicine. That it gives the Minister the power ulti-

57
mately to nationalize it entirely can surely not be in dispute. The noble Earl has quoted the well-known policy of the Government on this matter as stated by the Lord Privy Seal, and the little more that lies between the Bill and complete nationalization can at any time be achieved through those many regulations with which the Bill abounds and which have never been drafted.
Let me take, as an example, a matter which has been touched upon several times to-day. That is the remuneration of doctors. We are told that the remuneration of doctors will in part he by basic salary and in part by capitation fees, and we are told that the capitation fees will scale down as the number of the doctor's patients under the national service increases. Now, by regulation, the percentage of remuneration by capitation fees may be reduced; it may ultimately disappear, at which point the doctor becomes a whole-time salaried civil servant. Has it been realized that for the first time in the history of our so-called democratic country, I suppose, a ceiling is being fixed, whether for an industry or a profession—in this case a profession, and a profession concerning which bouquets have been handed out quite liberally this afternoon—and above this ceiling the individual may not rise by the work of his mind or his hands? Whatever natural talent he has, whatever energy he may possess, however ambitious he may be, he is condemned to a dead level of—shall I not say mediocrity? Not only has his economic position, but his professional status and prestige have been given a ceiling. Unlike his fellow civil servants of the future, there is no chance of promotion.
There is, as I say, a dead level as the final goal. Is this good for medicine? Is this good for the community? I see no escape from this unthinkable state of affairs except through the medium of a black market in doctoring, and my mind boggles at the thought of its probable immensity. And yet could we be other than sympathetic if we believe that it is the only salvation for the patient? The Minister tells us it is not possible to insert the terms of remuneration in the Bill. But it should be possible so to amend an existing clause that the method of payment is stated and this method should be the capitation method unless in the opinion of the executive council
58
in whose area the services are rendered, a different basis is considered necessary.
The prohibition placed upon the buying and selling of a doctor's good will in his practice, the power of negative direction of doctors and the refusal to allow a doctor, charged with some offence under the Bill the right of appeal to the High Court, are surely matters that require amendment. They seem to me, a layman in a sister profession, to be gross infringements of personal liberty. I think they are pathetic verifications of the warning given by Herbert Spencer to his American hosts fifty years ago when he said:
"As one of your early statesmen said, 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.' But it is far less against foreign aggressions upon national liberty that this vigilance is required, than against the insidious growth of domestic interferences with liberty."
Now it cannot be charged against me that I make long speeches in your Lordships' House, but I hope you will bear with me for a few minutes. I have already expressed the hope the Government may still improve this measure that is now before us for Second Reading. In the matter of both central and local administration there are improvements in the Bill which we should welcome. We doctors think that the Standing Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council should be appointed by, and take their references from, the Council, and that they should report through the Council to the Minister. We also consider that the constitution of the local executive council should be safeguarded in respect of its medical, dental, and pharmaceutical representation. At present the Minister has power to vary the proportion of medical and lay representation. We think that this is a power which he might be willing to sacrifice.
Then in order to ensure more autonomy for hospital and, therefore, in order to retain local interest in them, hospital management committees acting for a group of hospitals should appoint a house committee in each hospital of the group subject to the hospital management committee and the Regional Board. Another point: it should be one of the functions of the hospital management committee or of the house committee to set up a medical staff committee, and such committee should have the right to nominate a reasonable number of its members to be members of the hospital

59
management committee or house committee. Lastly, on the side of medical education, the Bill needs amending for at present it makes no provision for the laying upon the boards of governors of teaching hospitals any duties in respect of furthering medical education and research.
Finally I want to go into this glaring anomaly, to which the noble Earl refers, by which any gifts and legacies received by the non-teaching hospitals between the passing of the Bill and the appointed day will go direct to the Hospital Endowments Fund: whereas any gifts and legacies received after the appointed day will, according to the amendment of Clause 59 in another place, be retained by the management committee. That, I think, is an obvious anomaly which can be corrected by a simple Amendment. We have to bear in mind that it is a very vital period from the passing of this Bill and April 1, 1948, and if all gifts and legacies during that period are collected by the Central Fund it will be an extremely serious position for these voluntary hospitals which, up to the passing of this measure, have been paying them into their own banking accounts.
There have been moments of impatience in which the Minister has forgotten that if he does not take the doctors, the hospital administrators, the dentists, the nurses, and the health workers, with him, this Bill cannot succeed in its great purpose. Sometimes he remembers this, as he did in one of his latest utterances only a few days ago in which he said "Now what we hope is to get the co-operation of the great medical profession and of all health workers in the country; because without that co-operation this scheme is bound to fail. The House of Commons only passes Bills; it is the men and women outside who can make them living realities." Not because of the implied compliment, but because these words are true, do I say that there is surely here the beginning of wisdom. The Minister has courage, enthusiasm, a nimble mind and, I believe, a conscientious belief that these proposals are in the best interests of the community. I think that the Minister will go far, but in what direction I am not able to say. I find the prognosis in that respect extremely difficult.
Finally, and seriously, it is quite obvious that we are about to embark
60
upon a great experiment in the nation's medical services, an experiment in which the State takes a much greater part than it has ever done. I have said that I conceive it to be the doctor's duty to do his utmost to make the experiment succeed. It will fall to him in the main to use this instrument in the best interests of the public, but there is, for the doctor, an over-ruling duty—his duty to his patients. If he can fulfil this paramount duty through these means, he will, but if he cannot it will be for the patient to decide how long the sacrifice of efficiency shall continue.
6.8 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the pleasure of addressing your Lordships and I hope I may claim that indulgence which is always afforded to speakers in that position. The first thing I am very pleased to see in this Bill, and I think it will be a great improvement in the service, is the clause dealing with the provision of regional hospital services. In regard to the treatment of cancer, that was one of the matters in which I have been particularly interested. We have been trying to get that going for a very long time. The Cancer Act of 1939 tried to do the same thing. Where members of the medical profession have succeeded in running these centres, great advantage has been derived by the patients as the result of the treatment. I do not think that people should be forced to travel many miles. There are a great many of what we might call simple maladies that can be treated in small hospitals, but for certain diseases a high degree of skill is required. It is an enormous advantage if the patient's journey can be made easy to a centre where there will be trained and experienced persons. For that it will be necessary to have increased services. I think it may also be necessary to arrange for visits by relatives to the patients at the centres. Patients do not like going away to places where they cannot be visited by their friends, and I think from that point of view a very great advantage will have accrued.
The second point I want to make is in regard to the large body of the sick who I think will benefit enormously from the transfer of the municipal hospitals to the central authority. I am now referring to that sad and melancholy collection of patients who are usually classed together

61
under the general term "chronic sick." It is very hard to say what the number of those patients will be, but, so far as I can make out, in 1944 there were about 60,000 for the whole country, of which about 6,000 were in London. I do not think there was anywhere near enough treatment for them, because one has frequently heard tragic tales of people suffering from one of the chronic incurable diseases who could not get treatment at any hospital at all. There has been a tendency to say that these people are old and not much can be done for them before they die. That again is not at all true, because if you take the total figures of the chronic sick you will find that at least 30 per cent. are under 65 and ten per cent. are under 45. So you have a very mixed lot who are at present treated in some of the smaller institutions in conditions which are really deplorable and almost Dickensian. No attempt has been made to classify them. You get young people in the same wards as mental defectives and people suffering from senile dementia, and all kinds of people are jumbled together with no attempt to treat them and they have no examination before they go in.
There is generally one doctor on the staff who comes in occasionally, but the patients are never given the benefit of an examination by anybody of consultant or specialist standing and therefore no attempt can be made to treat them or to remedy their condition properly. It was thought that their condition might improve when the Local Government Act of 1929 was passed, under which it was possible to transfer the Poor Law infirmaries, where the bulk of these people are housed, from the Public Assistance Committee to a committee of the local authorities. But that did not quite work out as expected, because once that transfer took place, as it did in a good number of towns with progressive authorities, the medical attendants who were appointed to the staff of the new hospital tried to turn the place into a general hospital, with the result that the conditions of the chronic invalids was not made very much more comfortable. That is quite understandable, because other cases are much more interesting and one feels that one is doing much more good if one is treating a number of patients for a very short-term disease.
62
The real trouble about these people is that once they went in there they were admitted for life and there was very little or no chance at all of their ever seeing the world again. There is one particular tale that I was told by a friend of mine who was a doctor. About fifteen years ago he went into practice in the country, and one of the places where he visited was the local Poor Law infirmary. He was there for about a year and then moved to somewhere else. About fifteen years passed and he went back to the same part of the country on some other work. He called at the infirmary, where he was pleased to find that the same master and the same matron were there as well as several of the nurses. What really horrified him, however, was to find that a large number of the same patients who had been there when he had seen them fifteen years before were still in the infirmary. They had never left the building. There is another story which I was told. It did not happen to me personally. A new doctor was appointed to one of them Public Assistance infirmaries. He went there and was inquiring what was wrong with the various patients when he came to one woman who looked youngish and seemed quite well. He said: "Why is that person in bed?" and the nurse replied: "I do not really know. I have been here five years and she has been in bed all the time." Those two stories are typical of the general attitude of a large number of people in this country.
For a very long time nobody thought there was very much you could do about it; there was a kind of defeatist attitude that there they were and there they lay. However, fairly recently one or two doctors have been put in charge of the chronic sick wards at these institutions, and because they were interested in seeing what they could do for the people there it has been found that a remarkable change can take place if a proper approach is made. There is one big institution which I know not far from London where they have got an extremely good medical officer in charge of the chronic sick wards. She has been there now for about fifteen years. When I went down to see her the other day she told me that about 60 per cent. of the patients who came into the chronic sick ward were discharged and went into their own homes,

63
or if they could not go to their own homes they went to various hostels for old people, or somewhere like that. I asked her "Can that be done by anybody or is there something special or expensive about it?" She said "No; you have merely got to realize that these patients are sick, and that it you have got a person who is sick the first thing you have to do is to make him better and get him up out of bed and walking about."
I do hope when we get this Bill passed and the hospitals are taken over, that the chronic sick wards will become part of the big acute sick wards. I do not think it will be possible to do it physically, because they are generally separated and in different parts of the town, but that does not seem to me to be of any great importance. It should be possible for the chronic sick to get the same medical attention from the same staff which the acute sick get who go to the voluntary hospitals. I think that no persons should be admitted to a chronic sick ward without first passing through an acute sick ward of a general hospital where they can be seen by a consultant and specialist, a line of treatment can be worked out for them, and they can continue to be seen by these doctors during the rest of their stay. It will probably be the case, then they have been seen, that they will have to be put into two categories, because I think there will be those who can be cured as well as those who are going to be chronic invalids and will probably stay in bed for the rest of their lives.
It is very important that accommodation should be prepared for them where they can stay for six Months, nine months or whatever it is. If you have these rather unattractive old buildings, something can be done to make them more cheerful and more comfortable for the people who have to spend the rest of their days or long periods in them. A tremendous amount can be done with colourful curtains, flowers and counterpanes. If you go into the normal Public Assistance infirmary you will find it is a most depressing place. The walls are usually painted brown and the lights are wrong; as you lay in bed you have lights shining in your eyes all the time. Simple things like those I have suggested will make a tremendous difference to those places, and also to the nurses and the patients. I hope that will be one of the directions in
64
which progress will be made when this Bill comes in.
Arising out of that, there is another thing on which I should like to touch briefly. Although I have said a certain number of these chronically sick people are comparatively young, the bulk of them, naturally, are elderly. You will get into a very difficult position if you try to separate your elderly people into those who are healthy and those who are sick, having the sick under one authority and the healthy under another. Both, I think, should come under the medical authorities. When people grow old, there is a very narrow borderline between sickness and health, and there has got to be a simple, easy flow to and from the hospital, if they want to go in for a few days and come back again to their homes. That is a thing which can be done very simply and easily. It has been done. I have just paid a visit to some of the Public Assistance buildings in France, and there the central authority takes charge of all people who want any kind of institutional treatment, whether they are sick or healthy. A certain number of voluntary bodies in this country founded homes for old people, and they all began with the idea that they were not going to have any sick people in them; they were going to be purely for healthy old people. In two of them which I came across quite recently that just did not work, and I think they have realized that if you are going to have a collection of old people living Together you must have some kind of sick ward. If you try to organize any kind of institution for old people and there is a sick ward there, you are going to get a recurrence of the old Poor Law infirmary, which is a thing we have been trying to get rid of for a long time.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.

THE ARMY LIST.
6.24 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government when it is proposed to resume the publication of the Monthly Army List

65
which was discontinued on the outbreak of the late war, and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I begin my speech I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on his very well deserved promotion. I think we have all admired his work and the capacity he has shown during the last year for dealing with innumerable Bills and Motions on behalf of many Government Departments. May I say that as a fellow Irishman, I am delighted to see him in that place? Although I cannot honestly wish him a long tenure of office, I hope it will be highly successful, both for the sake of his own career and for the sake of the Department which he now serves.
I have put this matter into the form of a Motion because I wish to have the right of reply, if necessary, which I should not have if I had put it down as a question. However, I assure noble Lords that at this late hour I will not detain them for long. My object is to press the Government to resume the publication of the Monthly Army List as soon as possible. During the recent war, as we all know, it was suspended, both for reasons of economy of paper and also—and more important—for reasons of secrecy. I do not know how far the former reason obtains, but I hope I am not going to be told that the latter reason has any force behind it now and that for reasons of security it is necessary to suspend the issue of this publication. I say this because I have an idea—I may be wrong—that the noble Lord's Department is a great deal too fond of trying to make a sort of mystery box of the Army. I heard the other day of the Colonel of a certain regiment who wrote to the War Office and wanted to know the position of the battalions of his regiment. The reply he received was that they could not send him the information in writing, but if he went to a conference of Colonels a little time later he would be given it. As a matter of fact, my friend went to the conference and was given the information he wanted, and there was not much delay. But why this secrecy? Why could they not have sent it to him in writing? I regard this attitude as secrecy run mad.
We are now, slowly but surely, returning to our peace-time Army, and it is interesting, and essential, for officers and their relatives to know how they stand as regards promotion, and that sort of
66
thing, especially as officers are now returning to their units from the Staff and from extra-regimental employment all over the world. I know that in most cases they have not the faintest idea as to how they stand. It is also of interest to all ranks to be able to refer to an Army List and see where the battalions of their regiment are. I think I am right in saying that after the 1914–18 war (when the Army, by the way, was bigger than it was during the last war) the Army List was published again quite early in 1919. I could enlarge on this subject a good deal more than I am going to do, but I promised when I rose that I would not keep the House, and I will not. I hope the Government will lend a willing and receptive ear to my request. I beg to move for Papers.
6.29 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and to the House for the kind way in which they have received my appointment. I possess no qualification whatever for it except that I am deeply imbued—"obsessed" is not too strong a word—with the importance of national defence during the years that lie immediately ahead of us. I should like to begin speaking for the War Office by making some sensational disclosure, but I doubt whether I should survive for very long if I attempted anything in that line. I am afraid that the noble Lord will receive a reply from me this evening in keeping with the traditions of the Office which I have the honour to represent. I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said to me this afternoon that he, with a good deal of experience of business and of contact with various Government Departments, had never found one so well run as the War Office. I am sure all noble Lords will echo that sentiment.
I will say at once that it is realized that there is a fairly widespread demand—I do not know how widespread, but fairly widespread—for the Army List, and it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War to resume publication as soon as this course becomes practicable. It will be appreciated, however, that the Army is in a state of transition from a war to a peace footing, and that all emergency commissioned officers still hold their Commissions, even if they

67
have been released. They will continue to do so until the present emergency is declared to be at an end so far as further service in the Forces is concerned. Until the size of the Army List can be reduced by the elimination of those emergency commissioned officers who are no longer serving, it would not be convenient or economical to resume publication. Moreover, it will first be necessary—and I would stress this point in all seriousness—to recast the Army List into a form suitable for general publication.
I am perfectly ready to give the noble Lord, or any other noble Lords, fuller information in private with regard to that point to which I have just alluded, the recasting of the Army List into a form suitable for general publication. This will be a considerable task which it would be undesirable to attempt until the List becomes more stabilized, and until the situation regarding labour, printing capacity and the supply of paper becomes much easier than it is at present. For these reasons, much as I regret not to be able to give the noble Lord the kind of answer he desires, and perhaps I should say deserves, I am afraid I must inform him that I cannot hold out any hope that publication will be possible in the near future.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord was at all events honest. In his last phrase he did not promise me that this publication would be made at an early date or anything of that kind. But I am afraid I cannot regard his reply as in any degree satisfactory. He talks about recasting the Army List, but I do not quite know what he means by that. You have the same units as you had before, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Artillery, the Infantry and the various departments. You can put them down in the same order. As regards putting in the officers who hold temporary Commissions, I do not see why that should be any bar to the issue of the Army List. It was done in 1919 when there were still a lot of temporary officers, and they were put down, and as they went out, resigning their Commissions or being demobilized, they were dropped out. I could discourse on this a good long time but I am afraid I do not regard the reason as at all satisfactory. I am disappointed, but I thank
68
the noble Lord for his courtesy and his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have not been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table; the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that in pursuance of the power given him by Standing Order No. 95 he had appointed the Lord Quibell as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
NORTHMET POWER BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 19th of last of July last discharged and the Bill committed.
BANBURY CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn. Read and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 15th and 18th July last discharged and the Bill committed.

VISCOUNT DILLON.
Petition of Michael Eric, Viscount Dillon in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon to the House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before seven o'clock.