Sitting of 12 August 1947

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BUSINESS PREMISES TENURE, SCOTLAND (INQUIRY)
  Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the tenure of business premises in Scotland will be issued.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) on 22nd July.
  Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of small business people are looking to him for protection from insecurity of tenure, which they have endured so long?
  Mr. Westwood: I am aware that there are a fair number of people who are anxious to have the report of the Committee. This Committee has now completed its task of taking evidence and considering the evidence, and has promised to report as early as possible.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any action before the House reassembles, as this matter has been hanging fire for a long time?
  Mr. Westwood: The answer is that no Minister can take any action until he has seen the report and considered it.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Retired Pay (Cost of Living)
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War if the cut in pensions made in 1930–31 in the case of retired officers will now be restored, in view of the higher cost of living and increased taxation.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to a question by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on 14th May.
    Sir J. Lucas: Could we know what was the answer to that question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these officers are in sore straits, and that wound and other pensions have been increased?
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer was highly unsatisfactory, and does he recognise that failure to restore these pensions is a very great breach of honour?
    Mr. Bellenger: On the previous occasion this Question was addressed to the Minister of Defence, who was answering for all three Services, and he said it was not possible to grant further increases on consolidated rates of retired pay beyond those obtained by applying the terms of the Pensions Increase Act, 1947.
    Sir T. Moore: Why should these retired officers who have served their country equally with others be singled out for a special act of injustice?
    Mr. Bellenger: This matter has been debated very fully in the House on more than one occasion, and I have nothing further to add to what has been said.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman go into this matter again? Why should the Civil Service, for instance, have very much more improved prospects for pensions than these retired officers, who surely might have at least the same?
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these retired officers, through ill health and no fault of their own, are now incapable of getting any employment? Will he ask his right hon. Friends, particularly the Minister of Labour, to look into the matter?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the last Pensions Act, of 1947? Is he aware that so far, that does not apply to officers of the Indian Army; and will he ask the Secretary of State for India to have that matter looked into, and register in his mind the profound dissatisfaction of many of these retired officers?
    Major Tufton Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate undertake to look at the matter again?
    Mr. Bellenger: The matter is not entirely one for me. No doubt the Minister of Defence, who considers all these questions in relation to the three Services, will note what has been said in the House.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Minister of Defence to do so?

    Manpower Economy Committee
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made by the Manpower Economy Committee in his Department; what recommendations he has received; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Bellenger: This committee has held several meetings and instituted a number of investigations, which will necessarily take a little time. Action will be considered in the light of the results.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Secretary of State say when the report will be available, and whether the recommendations of the committee will be reported to this House, so that we shall know what kind of inquiry is being made, and whether the committee are working with a real sense of urgency?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think there is any doubt that they are working with a real sense of urgency, but it will be a long-term inquiry rather than a short-term one. We are asking for some sort of interim report as soon as possible.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to announce the result of the work of this committee regularly, say, at three-monthly intervals?
    Mr. Bellenger: As soon as I have anything of substance. I shall be glad to do that.
    Mr. Granville Sharp: How many hours per week is this committee working? Will the Secretary of State stress that it is most important, in view of the fact that he has the job of economising in the use of manpower in the Service, that this committee should make urgent recommendations, and that he should take urgent action to implement those recommendations?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. Short-term economies are a matter for me. For the long-term economies, I want the advice of the committee, and it will take some time before they can report.

    Voluntary Recruitment
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War what rate of voluntary recruitment is required in the next 15 months in order to maintain an army of 425,000 at the end of 1948.
    Mr. Bellenger: The figure of 425,000 to which my hon. Friend has referred, will, of course, be made up of Regulars and National Service men. The Regular content will ultimately be in the region of 220,000 and we should like to get some 4,000 recruits a month to hasten the build-up of our Regular Forces to this figure.

    Home Forces (Strength)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 700,000 men and women in the Armed Forces at home are Army personnel; how many of these men and women are regarded as trained personnel; and what is their rôle.
    Mr. Bellenger: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the course of the Debate on the Adjournment this morning.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that this figure is really nearer 800,000, and can the Minister explain why the Government find it necessary to have double the number of men at home at the moment than the total of the Forces of all three Services before the war?
    Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is that I do not think it is nearer 800,000. In answer to the second part of the question, I think my right hon. Friend dealt with that this morning.

    Regular and Short-Service Engagements
    Brigadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many of those who are at present serving on normal Regular engagements and on short-service engagements, respectively, are serving in the R.A., R.A.C., R.E., Royal Signals or infantry; and how many in other branches of the Services.
    Mr. Bellenger: It would be contrary to present policy to give information about the detailed composition of the Army.
    Brigadier Low: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave that information for the whole of the Army when replying to the Debate on the Army Estimates? Why is it, if his hon. Friend is allowed to give the figure for the whole of the Army, he is not allowed to give it for a part of the Army? Does that not make nonsense?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should not like to reply to that observation without examining what my hon. Friend said.
    Earl Winterton: Is there any precedent, in relation to any previous war, that two years after it has ended, information which has always been available to the House has not been given? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some reason?
    Mr. Bellenger: The noble Lord will know that I have undertaken to see whether more information can be given in the Estimates next year. I am looking into that now, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that although before the war we gave a lot of information which was of value to the House, it was also of value to those outside the House.

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Payment
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for War why prisoners of war billeted with farmers are not allowed to receive payment for bank holidays, although the farmers are charged for the full amount.
    Mr. Bellenger: So far as I am aware, prisoners of war billeted on farmers are paid for all the hours they work, and
    2238
    this arrangement applies to all prisoners of war wherever and whenever they are employed.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is, at any rate among some farmers in my constituency, a sense of injustice that they have to pay in respect of a bank holiday for the men-billeted upon them, and that the men themselves receive nothing?
    Mr. Bellenger: There must be some misunderstanding here, because these prisoners of war are paid on the basis of a 48-hours working week, so that it does not matter when they work, whether it is a bank holiday or not. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind, perhaps he will have a talk with me.

    Coupons and Dockets
    Colonel Clarkeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue extra coupons or dockets to agriculturists employing prisoners of war in process of civilianisation to enable them to acquire furniture, linen-, towels, etc., for the use of these workers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers-to those German prisoners who have agreed to stay beyond their time for repatriation, to work on the farms. These men are already given a small initial issue of coupons, as well as the proportionate share of the basic ration, and I doubt whether they need extra coupons and dockets for the purposes described as well. The matter is, however, under consideration.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Question does not refer so much to personal dockets as to household dockets, because the women have to supply the goods for the use of these workers?
    Mr. Belcher: That is one of the matters under consideration.

    Agricultural Manpower
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Agriculture approximately how many German prisoners of war will be engaged in agricultural work at the end of September, 1947, and at the end of September, 1948; and what steps are being taken to fill the gap in agricultural manpower caused by their repatriation.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): I expect that the number of prisoners of war working in agriculture in Great Britain at the end of September, 1947, will be about 110,000, and that by September, 1948, the great majority will have been repatriated. Plans are being prepared by my Department, in consultation with the other Ministries concerned, for recruiting labour from various sources towards the requirements of the new food production targets for the next few years which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the course of the Debate on 6th August.
    Mr. Driberg: While welcoming whatever is done to speed up the repatriation of prisoners, may I ask my hon. Friend if he is satisfied that the recruitment from all the various sources will, on the present showing, be sufficient to fill this gap?
    Mr. Collick: I assure the hon. Member that this is a matter which is engaging our every attention at the moment. We are preoccupied in placing European volunteer workers, a process which is proceeding with reasonable success.
    Mr. Driberg: But are they going to occupy the camps now occupied by the prisoners? How are they to be fitted in?
    Mr. Collick: At the moment there are camps in the country which the European volunteer workers are taking over, but it is true that one of the chief problems is that of accommodation.
    Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the steps taken so far to replace repatriated German prisoners of war are totally inadequate, and that by his own figures only 4,000 Poles from the Polish Resettlement Corps and only 2,000 ordinary European volunteer workers have been placed in the first six months of this year, and is it not time for a little energy to be shown in this matter?
    Mr. Collick: I am very glad to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a considerable improvement has been made since then, and that the figure now runs in the region of 10,000. Having regard to the short time since the European voluntary workers arrangement was made, that is pretty good going.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that instead of slave labour, what we want to employ is regular British farm labour, and can he say whether an effort will be made to get agricultural cottages built in the country, because 200,000 men are needed on the land?
    Mr. Collick: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view as to the desirability of getting the greatest possible number of British workers employed regularly on our farms. That is a common aim which we all share. My own Ministry is, in contact with the farmers' organisations, considering how best this part of the problem can be met, and we are fully alive to the importance of housing in this matter.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May we know what are the sources from which the Government hope to recruit agricultural labour?
    Mr. Collick: As I have already said, there are various sources of alternative supplementary labour——
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Foreign?
    Mr. Collick: Yes, they include European volunteer labour.
    Mr. Scollan: Have the Government considered the fact that there are already 65,000 Poles who cost us £10 a month each and are doing nothing, and are they not going to use these people for some useful purpose?
    Mr. Collick: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that so far as my Department is concerned, we have certainly done everything we possibly can to encourage the Poles to work in British agriculture, and there are facilities available to them at the moment in this connection.

  SERVICES LAND REQUIREMENTS (WHITE PAPER)
  Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the White Paper on the Services land requirements will be issued; and whether no public inquiries into Services' proposals will be held until after the White Paper has appeared.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): Reconsideration of the White Paper is required in view of decisions taken to meet the economic situation and it is not yet possible to say when it will be issued. As regards the second part of the Question, it may, in a few cases, be desirable to hold the local inquiry in the meantime, but I should not do so except in agreement with the local authorities concerned.
  Mr. Sharp: Does the first part of my hon. Friend's reply mean that the requirements of the Services for land will now be less, owing to the fact that it is likely that there will be fewer service men serving in this country?
  Mr. Marshall: I would not like to commit myself to that.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; Is this the White Paper which, in the Debate early last December, was promised by the beginning of this year?
  Mr. Marshall: I am not quite sure when it was promised. I know that it has been promised.
  Mr. Medland: Is my hon. Friend aware that one inquiry has already been held? Will he give an undertaking that before any decision, arising out of that inquiry, is made known, the recommendations and representations of the persons who had only 24 hours' notice will be considered?
  Mr. Marshall: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Dartmoor inquiry. I admit that the notice for that inquiry was pretty short. It is hoped that longer notice will be given in the case of any further inquiries.

  RELIEF APPLICATION, MAIDENHEAD (COMPLAINT)
  Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if he will investigate the complaint from the Maidenhead Guardians Committee that an applicant for relief had been directed by the employment exchange to canvass for a football pool company; and if he will issue instructions to prevent this occurring again.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): So far as I can ascertain, there is no truth whatever in the implication made in the hon. Member's Question.
  Mr. Osborne: If I send to the Minister a complaint received from a member of the committee, who is also a local magistrate, and who states that the complaint can be substantiated by other members of the committee, will he have the matter thoroughly investigated?
  Mr. Isaacs: I can only deal with the Question on the Order Paper. I have not received any complaint from the Maidenhead guardians, the local Member of Parliament, or any other person. I have not directed any man to such work, because I have no power of direction; neither have I submitted any such man for such a job. Further, I cannot give an undertaking that this will not occur again, because it has not occurred.
  Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister quite clear in his mind that I did not say he had directed this man, but that one of his servants had done so?
  Mr. Isaacs: I have given an absolute denial. None of my staff has made any such direction, no such complaint has been received by us, and no man has been submitted by us for such a job.
  Mr. William Adams: Is the Minister not aware that he has correspondence from me in his office dealing with a similar complaint in Hammersmith?
  Mr. Isaacs: What has happened in Hammersmith has not been brought to my attention. I am dealing with Maidenhead.
  Sir J. Lucas: Is it not a fact that many complaints have been received from Portsmouth that girls who apply at employment exchanges are given jobs as canvassers for football pools?
  Mr. Isaacs: I cannot answer about Portsmouth. I have replied to the Question which has been asked and I cannot answer others without having actual cases before me.
  Sir J. Lucas: It has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in the House.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' RELEASE)
  Brigadier Lowasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of university students now serving

  2243
  in the Forces and in age and service groups above 62 have been nominated by their university for Class B releases before October this year; and on what grounds he refuses to grant their release.
  Mr. Isaacs: The substance of this Question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 31st July, and I have nothing to add.
  Brigadier Low: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary denied that universities were applying for university students in age and service groups over 62? Is not that the whole point?
  Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware that my hon. Friend denied that, but I understand the kind of answer which he gave. The fact is that we are not releasing anybody in groups above Group 62 for this purpose.
  Brigadier Low: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that the reason given was that the unversities were supposed to be full? Does not the fact to which I have referred in this Question show that the universities are not full?
  Mr. Isaacs: I can repeat to the hon. and gallant Member part of the answer which was given to him a little while ago. It was:
  "The reasons which caused this concession to be limited to Groups 1 to 62 are not affected by the fact that the men in Group 62 are now likely to be released rather earlier than was expected. The universities have already far more applicants than places, and any extension of such releases would almost certainly mean that some men released in Class A would fail to obtain places."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 638–9.]

  BURMA (COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES)
  Mr. Gammansask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the delay in making an announcement, regarding the future of members of the Services in Burma is severely handicapping them in the matter of obtaining employment as compared with European officers in the Services in India, all of whom will be able to obtain their release, with compensation, as soon as the India Independence Act comes into operation; and if he will expedite this announcement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am glad to be able to inform the House that I am now in a position to make an announcement about the terms to be granted to the Secretary of State's officers of the Burma Services on the transfer of power. As the statement is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In addition, a White Paper is being laid to-day.
  Mr. Gammans: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the terms offered to the civil servants in Burma are as favourable as those offered to men serving in India?
  The Prime Minister: The statement is rather detailed. I think they are not exactly comparable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper and then put any further question after that.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Does the Prime Minister recognise that there are a considerable number of officers in Burma, who suffered very great losses, and are outside the Secretary of State's services, and will he have those cases looked into?
  The Prime Minister: That is rather another question which primarily is one for the Burma Government, but I will take note of it.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the Prime Minister realise the difficult position? Probably the House will rise tomorrow and we shall not have an opportunity to discuss this for some time. Could he reassure hon. Members by saying whether or not he thinks in his own mind that these are satisfactory?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I think they are very reasonable and satisfactory terms.
  Following is the statement:
  In my statement of 30th April, on compensation for Secretary of State's officers of the Indian Services I said I hoped to be able to make a very early announcement regarding compensation for the Services in Burma.
  2. Many of the officers in the Burma Civil Service Class I, the Burma Police Class I and other civilian services in Burma were, in fact, recruited to the Indian Civil Service, the Indian Police or other Indian Services before Burma was separated from India and an assurance was given to these officers that their Indian Service rights would not be infringed by the Act of separation. Provisions identical in effect to those contained

  2245
  in Part X of the Government of India Act, 1935, were incorporated in the Government of Burma Act of the same year. The pledge given in 1945 at the time of the resumption of recruitment to the Secretary of State's Services in India and Burma was addressed to the Burma Services equally with the Indian Services. It is therefore clear that the intention of Parliament with regard to compensation for careers and prospects prejudiced by constitutional change applies to Burma no less than to India.
  3. Discussion of the compensation question with the Government of Burma has, however, shown the existence of important differences between the position in India and the position in Burma in this matter. In the first place the Government of Burma have stated that it will not be possible to offer to officers of the Secretary of State's Services whether European or Burman, who remain in service under Government in Burma after the transfer of power conditions of service as favourable as those enjoyed at present. Further, the Government of Burma have indicated that they do not, in their opinion, need the retention of the services of European officers of the Secretary of State's Services.
  4. His Majesty's Government have reviewed the situation in the light of all the relevant circumstances and they are satisfied that there is a clear case for granting compensation to European officers of the Secretary of State's Services in Burma on the same scales as those already announced for the Indian Services. His Majesty's Government appreciate the reasons which have led the Government of Burma to a decision that the existing terms of service for the Burma Services cannot be maintained after the transfer of power. They feel that this fact gives rise to a case for the grant of some measure of compensation to Burman officers as well as to European officers.
  5. But there is a radical difference in the effect which the transfer of power will have on the position of European and Burman officers respectively. Opportunities for European officers to continue to serve under the Government of Burma will, as I have indicated, be very few and even in the case of those few who are offered and accept such employment, it must be remembered that they will not be serving under the ultimate control of the Parliament of their own country, and their prospects, even if the existing terms of service were continued, could not be held to be the same as in the past. Burman officers on the other hand will be able to continue to serve their own country and their prospects of reaching the highest posts in the service though on lower scales of remuneration will be improved.
  6. The Government of Burma are most anxious not to lose the services of experienced Burman officers, and they feel that sentiments of patriotism will impel these officers to continue to serve their country. His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the urgent needs of the Government of Burma to retain the services of experienced officers and they, in turn, wish to avoid the adoption of any plan which might deter Burman
  2246
  officers from continuing to serve their own Government. In all the circumstances they consider that in view of the lower rate of pay offered to officers who continue in service, Burman officers, other than those in the three special categories mentioned below, should receive compensation at one quarter of the rates fixed for European officers. With this compensation and the improved prospects of promotion available, every Burman officer (subject to three categories specially excepted) can fairly be regarded as having an equivalent career open to him.
  7. The Government of Burma have agreed that compensation on the same scales as for European officers shall be payable to Burman officers who: (i) are not invited to continue to serve under the Government of Burma after the transfer of power, (ii) can satisfy the Governor that their actions done in good faith in the course of duty during service prior to the transfer of power have damaged their prospects or (iii) can show to the satisfaction of the Governor that through no fault of their own they have legitimate cause for anxiety about their future in Government Service in Burma.
  8. In each case in which compensation is admissible it will fall due on the transfer of power and will be granted in addition to such retiring or proportionate pension as is admissible under the rules. The Government of Burma have agreed that officers who enter on a new engagement with them shall draw the pension they have earned as Secretary of State's officers in addition to the reduced pay admissible in the new post.
  9. It is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that officers will avail themselves freely of the opportunities which will exist for further Government Service for many of those who will become entitled to compensation. The terms of such further employment will be a matter for consideration; but where British officers of the Civil Services accept appointment to another Civil Service under His Majesty's Government on a permanent pensionable basis they will receive no compensation but will be eligible for a resettlement grant of £500 on terms which have already been announced.
  10. The development of the policy of His Majesty's Government for Constitutional advance in Burma may affect regular officers and other ranks serving in the Burma Forces in a similar way to the members of the Civil Services. Most of the individuals affected are members of British or Indian Services for whom provision already exists under the arrangements applicable to their parent service in India. If it should be found that there are such officers, warrant officers or non-commissioned officers not otherwise covered, they will be entitled to the terms admissible to corresponding ranks under the Indian Scheme.
  11. The source from which the monies involved will ultimately come must be a matter to be dealt with hereafter, but so far as the individuals affected are concerned they have the assurance of His Majesty's Government that they will receive the monies to which they will become entitled. His Majesty's

  2247
  Government also undertake that the officers to whom this announcement relates and who do not continue in the service of the Government of Burma will be secured in their rights to the leave due to them on the termination of their service as Secretary of State's officers.
  12. The Government of Burma accept liability for pension and proportionate pension earned by service under the Secretary of State whether by civilians or by members of the Defence Services.
  13. His Majesty's Government have accordingly authorised the Governor to make the announcement which is published in a White Paper laid to-day. The White Paper also contains tables setting out the scales of compensation for the various services affected.

  MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the further hardships which will be imposed on the British people by the Government's austerity measures, he proposes to recommend a reduction in the salaries and emoluments of Ministers of the Crown and of Members of Parliament.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Gammans: Is the Prime Minister aware that what this country needs today is not exhortation but example; and if I am prepared to suffer a 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. cut in my salary, as a gesture, will Members of the Cabinet do the same?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that in my view there should be equality of sacrifice. I think Members of Parliament do valuable work, and I do not think it is right to single them out from everybody else.
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Does the Prime Minister not agree that he has a prior duty to stop the huge profits and swollen dividends that are being declared daily?

  GURKHA REGIMENTS
  Brigadier Lowasked the Prime Minister on what grounds His Majesty's Government have agreed to the transfer of six famous Gurkha Regiments away from British command; and why this House was not informed of this decision immediately it had been taken.
  The Prime Minister: The Gurkha Regiments have hitherto been a part of
  2248
  the Indian Army, and it is therefore incorrect to speak of them being transferred away from British Command The agreement of which details were published on Saturday was the result of negotiations between Nepal, India and ourselves. I much regret that the pressure of events prevented the first announcement being made in this House. It is a matter of great satisfaction to us that the outcome of the negotiations, which were prolonged and by no means easy, is such as to meet our present essential requirements The hon. and gallant Member will have observed that, so far as Gurkha troops themselves are concerned, the change will be on a strictly voluntary basis on such terms as may be approved by the Government of Nepal.
  Brigadier Low: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it was a characteristic of these Gurkha Regiments that they should be officered by British officers and that various Viceroys in succession have given assurances that these particular regiments will always be officered by British officers? Is it right, therefore, to transfer these regiments to the Indian Army where they will be officered by Indian officers?
  The Prime Minister: As I pointed out, this transfer is a voluntary one, and the Ruler of Nepal has agreed in principle that in future, Gurkha units included in the new Army of India should be officered by Indian officers, but the Government of the new Dominion have agreed that officers of Nepalese nationality will equally be eligible for appointment to these units. Until Indian and Nepalese officers are available in adequate numbers, it is hoped that sufficient British officers will continue to serve. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that this is an agreement made with the Ruler of an independent State and, therefore, it is for him to come to terms with ourselves and with the new Dominion in regard to the terms upon which the Gurkhas should serve.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it can possibly have come about that these units, as opposed to individuals, were transferred on a voluntary basis? That cannot possibly be the case. The main object was that the units should be kept as British units or disbanded, although the Gurkhas themselves might join the Indian Forces if

  2249
  necessary. Would the right hon. Gentleman say how these regiments were chosen, in view of the fact that of the six going to India, one was the Royal Regiment and others had three Royal titles? How was it they were chosen to go to India, who have already decided that they are going to get out with the Dominion or the Empire as soon as they can?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot necessarily accept what the hon. and gallant Member has said. All I can say is that this arrangement was made by the Indian authorities on the spot who, presumably, are perfectly well acquainted with the points which the hon. and gallant Member has made.
  Earl Winterton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a responsibility of His Majesty's Government and, therefore, we can raise the matter if necessary? It could not have been done without the sanction of His Majesty's Government and, therefore, they must have responsibility in the matter.
  The Prime Minister: I quite agree, but the noble Lord will realise that the point was that in the change in the Government of India and its breaking up, arrangements had to be made for the Nepalese regiments. This was naturally arranged on a tripartite basis between the Ruler of Nepal, the new Dominion, and His Majesty's Government.

  INFANTILE PARALYSIS (RESEARCH)
  Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that the present epidemic of infantile paralysis is more than double the size of any previous recorded epidemic in this country; and whether he is satisfied that £2,000 per year is a sufficient amount of public money to be spent on research into the causation, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of this disease.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I indicated last week, the sum mentioned is only part of the considerably larger provision for research on virus diseases, any part of which might shed light on the problem of infantile paralysis. Further funds would be available for following up any promising line of inquiry.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Does the Lord President realise that the number of new cases of infantile paralysis last week was no less than six times as great as in any previous week and in any previous epidemic in this country; and does he think that this amount of money is adequate for the research into this disease? Can he tell us what form the research is taking and whether nutritional deficiencies and the effect of the incidence of the disease is one type of research that has been adopted.
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. There is no difficulty about money. If promising lines of research open up, more money can be provided. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I quite agree with him on the seriousness of the matter and we are spending all the money that can usefully and profitably be spent at the moment. If further lines of research are opened up, I can assure him that money will not be a difficulty.
  Mr. Frank Byers: Is it not possible that the spending of a little more money now would be likely to open up these lines of research by having more research workers on the job? Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, which is causing some concern to the parents of small children.
  Mr. Morrison: What am I to do with the money?
  Mr. Byers: Try to get more workers.
  Mr. Morrison: If there is more work requiring to be done, the money is available. It is no good scattering the money around: that is squandermania.

  PURCHASE TAX (HEATING APPLIANCES)
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent the evasion of the Purchase Tax on gas and electric heating appliances by the purchase and assembly of the component parts in the workshop of local authorities or private firms.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): It would not be in the public interest to disclose the steps which are being taken.
  Sir G. Fox: Is the Chancellor aware that at the Carron Works, Falkirk, advice was given to local authorities upon how to avoid this tax by purchasing the component parts and then assembling them in their own workshops? Is he aware that this advice was given, or is reported to have been given, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply—the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard)?
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have particulars and I will, of course, look into it. Nobody must take advantage of a tax of this kind and seek to evade it by improper procedure. I shall be very glad to look into the matter.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (LECTURES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the qualifications of Mr. Robert J. Scrutton for employment as a lecturer on behalf of the Central Office of Information.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Mr. Scrutton has given one series of lectures on the production drive. No arrangement has been made to re-engage him.
  Mr. Driberg: Can we take it, then, that this man has not, as he has stated, been engaged for a further series of lectures?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: What is there against this man apart from the fact that his political views do not agree with those of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)?

  WOMEN IN INDUSTRY CAMPAIGN (PAPER)
  Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total quantity of paper which has been used by his Department in the campaign to recruit women to industrial employment.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: About 11½ tons.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of this paper is sent out without any
  2252
  inquiry as to whether the people to whom it is sent will make use of it? Also, is he aware that very large envelopes are sent out with a great many leaflets and pamphlets, and that there is a great deal of waste? Will he look into the matter because, as far as I know, no use is made of this material?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. and learned Member can quote any cases of misuse, I will take appropriate action.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Glazed-Kid Leather (Imports)
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity of glazed-kid leather imported into this country from the U.S.A. during the last six months or the last period for which figures are available; and the cost in dollars.
    Mr. Belcher: In the first half of this year, 257,000 square feet were imported from the United States, having a c.i.f value of £38,800.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not a fact that this leather used to come from East Africa direct to this country to be tanned, and is it not quite unnecessary to secure it from America? Will the Government arrange to import leather direct to this country and get it tanned here?
    Mr. Belcher: If we could import leather from East Africa to be tanned here, we should be very glad to do so. We have imported leather from America in order to make up our own necessary supplies.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not the case that it has been imported from America because there is a Government arrangement with America whereby they import it from East Africa?
    Mr. Belcher: Not to my knowledge. The amount imported represents a very tiny proportion of the total amount sold on the home market in this country.

    Children's Raincoats
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of gabardine raincoats for schoolchildren; and if he will arrange for

    2253
    greater supplies in the immediate future in answer to the representations made by the Lindsey Education Committee.
    Mr. Belcher: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on Thursday last.
    Mr. Osborne: As I was not present at the time that answer was given, and as I have seen a copy of a letter sent from the education committee, may I know if anything has been done?
    Mr. Belcher: The hon. Member can read in HANSARD the reply given last Thursday. A reply has been sent direct to the Lindsey Education Committee.

    Surplus Army Boots (Sale)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that surplus Army boots are being sold at 65s. a pair, free of coupons; how many pairs have been disposed of by his Department; to whom were they sold; at what price; and if he is satisfied that he received an adequate price for them.
    Mr. Belcher: Seventy-one thousand pairs of officers' surplus boots were sold on behalf of the Board of Trade to King's Industries, Ltd., of Brighton, at 26s. a pair. They were sold on condition that they would be exported and I am satisfied that the firm acted in good faith and resold the goods on the same conditions. A small proportion, however, appeared on the home market, and, with regard to these, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) on 12th June, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government received an adequate price at 26s. a pair when these boots were sold freely in Leicester at 65s. a pair?
    Mr. Belcher: The price of 26s. was fixed as being, in the Government's view, a fair one. What happened subsequently is a matter for regret, and we are taking steps to see that it does not occur again.
    Mr. Scollan: May I ask whether, in view of the original reply, these boots were sold to these people for the purpose of export? Is there not something radically wrong when we allow these people to resell them and make a profit in this country?
    Mr. Belcher: I stated in my first reply that we are taking steps to avoid this sort of thing happening in future. We sold them to a firm to resell to other firms, who guaranteed to export them, and some of them did not honour their guarantee. We will take steps to see that it does not occur again.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how it is that these boots were sold for export when they are wanted in this country?
    Mr. Gammans: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how the price of 26s. was arrived at, and whether the boots were put up for public tender?
    Mr. Belcher: The price of 26s. was arrived at by officials of my Department, who considered that it was a fair price. In view of the shortage at the moment, I have no doubt that it is possible to get more than a fair price, but it is not the Government's policy to get more than a fair price.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister see that this scandal, in which boots sold at 26s. have been resold at 65s., does not occur again with any other firm?

    Herring Industry (Salt Supplies)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that supplies of English salt are now being withheld from the herring fishing industry; and, in view of the fact that imported salt is greatly inferior for the purpose of keeping the herring in good condition, whether he will make a supply of English salt available.
    Mr. Belcher: I regret that the available supply of coal does not permit the production of sufficient coarse salt for the fishing industry. Imported salt is not, however, inferior in keeping qualities.

    Lace Working Party
    Mr. Championasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to issue the report of the Lace Working Party.
    Mr. Belcher: I regret that it has not been possible to get this report into print earlier, but it will be published next Thursday.

    Artificial Jewellery (Imports)
    Sir John Barlowasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any artificial jewellery has been imported into this country since January, 1946; from which countries it has been imported; and what is the amount, expressed in dollars, expended.
    Mr. Belcher: The c.i.f. value of imports of jewellery made of non-precious metals and also of beads made of imitation stones, artificial pearls, etc., from January, 1946, to June, 1947, amounted to £366,000. Imports were mainly from Czechoslovakia (£170,000), France (£64,000) and the United States (£63,000). It is not possible to state the expenditure in terms of dollars.

    Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks
    Mr. Dribergasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been received from the Soviet authorities in regard to the reopening of the Anglo-Soviet trade talks; what reply has been returned thereto; and if he will endeavour to secure the reopening of these talks at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Belcher: The only representation received from the Soviet Government in this sense is an expression of hope that the negotiations can be recommenced. This was in a reply to an initiative taken by His Majesty's Government. Further discussions are at present held up pending the fulfilment by the Soviet Government of their obligations up to the 1st August under the terms of the Civil Supplies Agreement of 1941. These, of course, remain in force pending such provisions as may be agreed between the two Governments as part of a general agreement.
    Mr. Driberg: May we take it that, during the Recess, His Majesty's Government will continue to make every effort to reopen these very important talks?
    Mr. Belcher: The Government are always anxious to do anything they can to establish a trade agreement with the Soviet Government.

  AGRICULTURE

    Machinery
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Agriculture whether one-man-pick-up
    2256
    balers are being manufactured in this country; if so, what is the estimated output for the next 12 months; or whether any steps are being taken to start production.
    Mr. Collick: One-man pick-up balers are being manufactured in this country and the estimated output for the next 12 months is about 300 machines. Other manufacturers have plans for producing balers of this type and my Department will give every assistance, consistent with other agricultural needs, so that production can be increased.
    Mr. York: In view of the fact that this machine is one of the greatest savers of manpower in agriculture at the present time, can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that the allocation of steel to the agricultural engineering industry will not in any way curtail the numbers of these machines able to be produced by the firms making them?
    Mr. Collick: We are most anxious to increase the production of one-man balers to the maximum possible extent, and there would be no difficulty in finding the necessary raw materials.
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the requirements of the agricultural industry during the next 12 months of the following machines: tractors, light, medium and heavy, potato harvesters, combine harvesters, grass-drying plants, pick-up balers, one-man, and other essential machinery; what is the estimated number of each that will be available on the market; and what steps he is taking to close the gap.
    Mr. Collick: It is not possible at the present stage to give more than a general indication of the probable supply and demand position for agricultural machinery over the next 12 months. In the main we must rely on our own efforts to expand our agricultural machinery production and great efforts are being made to this end. While I cannot make any precise forecasts, I am hopeful that, during the next year, our increased home production of agricultural machinery will have enabled us to meet to a fairly full extent the demand for medium and light tractors, and equipment designed to work with them; that we shall have received both from home and overseas sources

    2257
    larger supplies of combined harvester-threshers and one-man pick-up balers than we have obtained this year, though there will still be a substantial outstanding demand for these machines; and that we shall be able to meet most other essential machinery requirements at any rate by the end of the 12 months, though some items, particularly hay machinery, are likely to be more difficult than others owing both to the production difficulties involved and the time factor. We are not likely to be able to meet more than part of the demand for heavy tractors and equipment, of which there is a serious shortage throughout the world and production of which cannot be rapidly expanded. The Government will take all practicable steps to provide the necessary facilities in the way of materials, etc., that can assist manufacturers to meet requirements.
    Mr. York: May I ask, first, whether the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to me on the last Question, regarding the steel allocation, also applies to his answer to this Question, and whether in fact, the answer given to me on 9th June by the Minister of Agriculture is now a dead letter, and whether the steel allocation to the engineering industry has been increased?
    Mr. Collick: The hon. Member can rest assured that we are most anxious to make available to the agricultural engineering industry the utmost possible supplies of raw materials, so that we can increase to the maximum possible extent the supplies of various agricultural machines.
    Mr. Alpass: In view of the delay which often occurs between the dispatch of these implements from the works and their receipt by the farmer, will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange for a very high rate of priority in their transport, and is he aware that I have received representations in this sense from one of my constituents?
    Mr. Collick: I should be very obliged if the hon. Gentleman would draw my attention to any particular case because I appreciate the point he has made.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the Ministry's efforts to increase home-grown food production, will the Government ensure that the home market has priority over the export market with regard to this agricultural machinery?
    Mr. Collick: Certainly. The essential home requirements will come first
    Mr. David Renton: With regard to the allocation of steel, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the allocation by the Ministry of Supply to the whole of the agricultural engineering industry is only two per cent. of this year's output, and is he satisfied that that is sufficient?
    Mr. Collick: I do not think we are entitled to complain too much on this matter. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at the monthly Digest of Statistics where one of the striking things is the very considerable increase in the production of agricultural machinery in this country. As a matter of fact, for the first quarter of 1946 the value was about £5,500,000, and for the fourth quarter it had increased to £7,500,000. which is pretty good going.
    Mr. Mikardo: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to investigate to what extent the production of this vital equipment can be increased by rationalising design, reducing the number of products of very similar design on offer, and manufacturing longer runs of fewer types?
    Mr. Collick: I appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman's observations. He will know that there is an agricultural research body in being which deals solely with machinery, and anything we can do to standardise design is obviously very desirable.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the plan for stepping up production of machinery, and so on, which his Department has in view, they are not losing sight of the absolute necessity of adequate supplies of spare parts for this machinery—not only for that now being made, but for that already in existence, which is badly in need of them?
    Mr. Collick: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no one is more fully aware than I am of this very important question of the supply of spare parts. It is a matter which is before us day by day, and everything we can possibly do is being done. As far as home-produced agricultural machinery is concerned, there are not many difficulties The main difficulties apply to American-produced machinery.
    Mrs. Manning: Can my hon. Friend say whether the figures he gave from the Digest of Statistics refer to machinery for the home market or for both the home and export market?
    Mr. Collick: It was an inclusive figure.
    Sir G. Fox: Could the Minister supplement his answer, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, by giving the individual figures which were asked for in the last part of the Question?
    Mr. Collick: I do not follow the point the hon. and gallant Member is making.
    Sir G. Fox: The Minister was asked if he would give the estimated numbers of each of these various machines, but he did not do so, and I am asking if he could publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Collick: I am afraid not at this stage.

    Ministry's Staff (Salaries)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Agriculture how many officers of the Animal Health division of his Department have now received increases in salary equivalent to 30 per cent. to 45 per cent. of their prewar scales; and whether, in arriving at these figures, the bonus additions to basic rates have been included or excluded.
    Mr. Collick: All the professional officers of superintending inspector rank and below who were employed in the Department at the outbreak of war are paid on scales which have been increased from 30–45 per cent. over their prewar scales. The question of bonus additions no longer arises since the staff are paid consolidated salaries.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the misunderstanding which exists with regard to recent salary increases for the veterinary staff of his Department, he will arrange for an explanatory statement in this connection to be made available for publication in the Veterinary Record, so that the full facts may be available to all members of the veterinary profession in this country.
    Mr. Collick: Within the next few days I will send to the hon. and gallant Member an explanatory statement which can
    2260
    be made available for publication in the Veterinary Record or elsewhere.
    Sir T. Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the statement so that members of the veterinary profession will know where they stand, and in order that the discrepancies which obviously occur may be explained?
    Mr. Collick: As I have indicated, we shall send it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if the parties concerned publish it, that is their responsibility, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree.

  IDENTITY CARDS
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Minister of Health whether he will now replace the invasion identity cards, with photographs, issued to key men in October, 1940, by the standard kind issued to all other citizens.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): Fresh cards of this type are no longer issued, and existing cards are replaced by cards of the standard type whenever they require renewal or on application by the holder.
  Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister aware that owing to their extended use these cards are generally more dilapidated than those issued to ordinary citizens, and that it is not clear to the holders of such cards that they can be renewed?
  Mr. Edwards: There is no doubt that they can be renewed on application.

  TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS (REGULATIONS)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that four greyhounds recently arrived in this country by steamer; that they were subsequently conveyed by rail on a 7½-hour journey on a very hot day; that one died on reaching its destination and another had severely lacerated its jaw in a vain attempt to remove its heavy leather muzzle; whether they received water or attention on the journey and what steps are taken to see that regulations providing for the proper treatment of animals in transit under such conditions are carried out efficiently.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I regret that I am unable to give any answer without further details as to the date and port of arrival. If my hon. Friend will send me these particulars, I will make inquiries and let him know the result.
  Mr. Freeman: In view of the number of cases of injury to animals in transit, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the regulations now in force, and where necessary, will he see that they are more efficiently carried out?
  Mr. Strauss: As far as we know, the regulations are properly carried out, but I should be grateful to know of any incident such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I will go into it immediately.

  ALDERNEY (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scope of the proposed changes in the administration of Alderney.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): If the hon. Member is referring to the scope of inquiry of the Privy Council Committee in regard to Alderney, I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) on 10th July last.
  Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Lieutenant-Governor made a statement the other day concerning the proposed changes, and included in his speech remarks which were widely considered to be veiled threats? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no changes in administration will take place in Alderney as a result of any threats?
  Mr. Oliver: All I can say is that the Committee consisting of the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and Lord Ammon, has been appointed to consider the constitutional question. That Committee was only appointed on 3rd July, and we cannot expect any report from them yet.
  Major Haughton: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider a
  2262
  letter which I received an hour ago from the Channel Islands, referring to a document which is to be put before the Royal Court there in September?
  Mr. Oliver.

  ALDENHAM HOUSE (REQUISITION)
  Sir J. Lucasasked the Minister of Works if he will now supply the agents of Aldenham House, requisitioned for the B.B.C., with the details of the difference in offer of compensation or claim under 21B, which have been asked for, without result, over a long period.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): The matter has been referred by the claimants as a dispute to the General Claims Tribunal for decision as to the amount of compensation properly payable under Section 2 (i) (b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. The Ministry have filed the answer to the claim, and if the sum offered in the answer is not accepted, then the case will proceed to a hearing before the General Claims Tribunal.
  Sir J. Lucas: Without expressing any opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the claim, in view of the fact that the offer is only about 25 per cent. of the claim, and that the claim and the details were made by a famous and reputable firm, surely details of the differences should be supplied?
  Mr. Durbin: The information will be made available by the Treasury Solicitors to the claimants' solicitors.

  MONCKTON REPORT (GOVERNMENT ACTION)
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Attorney-General what action the Government are contemplating taking in the near future in connection with the recommendations of the Monckton Report, published in 1946.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): A Bill to deal with the recommendations of the Monckton Committee is in course of preparation, and it is hoped to introduce it early next Session, in time to be passed before the National Insurance Acts are brought into operation.

  UNITED STATES FILMS (TAX)
  Earl Winterton(By Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the allegation made by certain film producers in the U.S. that the new tax on U.S. films entering this country is a violation of the Loan Agreement, he has any statement to make on the subject.
  This is the Question of which I gave Private Notice yesterday, and which through no fault either of the Department concerned or myself, could not be answered yesterday—namely, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make upon the effects of the retaliation by the United States film industry against the new tax on United States films entering this country as being a violation of the Loan Agreement.
  Mr. Dalton: None, Sir, beyond saying that I do not accept this allegation.
  Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that reasonable opinion on both sides of the Atlantic agrees that it is necessary, so to speak, to dam the flow of dollars for this purpose, and that, as the fight hon. Gentleman is aware, there was discussion on a high level, both through the Government and the trade interests, on both sides of the Atlantic, to find a compromise, can the right hon. Gentleman now give an undertaking that between now and the introduction of the quota Bill, efforts will be made to rediscuss this matter, in view of the fact that whatever may be the view of the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters, we do not want to upset our relations with America?
  Mr. Dalton: No doubt this will be one of many matters on which the United States Government may wish to express their views to us, and there are many on which we wish to express our views to them, but I am sure the noble Lord is right in saying that it is the opinion of all of us that we really must restrict severely and drastically the flow of dollars for this particular purpose.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: What is the position of the tax at the moment, in view of the fact that it requires an affirmative Resolution, and no affirmative Resolution will be passed by this House before we adjourn? Is the tax in operation or not?
  Mr. Dalton: An order was made on 7th August under the procedure with which the House is familiar, imposing this duty. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in the course of the Debate, the Government undertake that this shall be subject to affirmative Resolution, again according to our ordinary procedure. The rule is—and I have verified this—that within 28 sitting days from the moving of the Order, the affirmative Resolution must be passed, failing which the tax lapses. Meanwhile the tax is legally in operation. But, in fact, owing to the decision of the American film producers not to send further films at present to this country, though it is legally in operation, it is not operating upon any inflow of films at the present time.
  Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if anybody else had even seemed to suggest that the course of British legislation should be deflected by threats from Hollywood, the noble Lord would have been the very first to be vociferously shocked?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not quite understand the point of that question. Questions should be asked for obtaining information.
  Mr. Levy: The point of the question, surely, centres upon the word "retaliation" which is the threat that prompted the noble Lord to raise this matter.
  Earl Winterton: I must ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal explanation. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), in the guise of a question, brought a wounding charge against me, and I must ask the protection of the Chair against this charge, which is totally unfounded.
  Mr. Speaker: I thought I had pointed out that the question was quite unnecessary. I will be quite frank with the House. I very much deprecate questions from any side of the House which are asked in order to annoy any hon. Member. After all, questions should be asked to obtain information and not to create spite.
  Mr. Levy: May I make it perfectly plain that the intention of my question was certainly not to annoy the noble Lord? I ask to be believed on that. As a matter of fact, I thought I had put it in a fairly

  2265
  complimentary way when I said that the noble Lord would be the very first to be shocked by such a thing, which I believe to be true. I raised the matter because it seemed to me to be one of serious public importance, and that it should be made clear that threats from Hollywood, such as have been broadcast in the papers, should be completely ignored by this House.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope honour is satisfied on both sides of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the Business tomorrow?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. As I have already informed the House, it is proposed to meet tomorrow at 11 a.m., and after Questions we shall take the Motion to fix the dates of the Summer Recess. We shall ask the House to consider, during the course of tomorrow's Sitting, any Amendments to Bills, including the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill, which may be received from another place. This may mean an interruption, at any time, of the Business then under discussion.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place on Monday, 20th October, and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 21st October. As the House is aware, power already exists for Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course
2266
should be considered necessary in the public interest.
Lord William Scott: Is the Leader of the House in a position to make any statement on the renewal, or against the renewal, of Summer Time when it expires on 2nd November?
Mr. Morrison: I understand that a statement on that was made by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister some time ago. That statement still stands.

PLACE OF SITTING (MESSAGE FROM THE KING)
Message from His Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members of the House being uncovered), as follows:
It is His Majesty's pleasure that on Monday the 20th of October next, or such other day as may be notified to both Houses of Parliament as convenient for closing this session, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal shall meet in the Chamber now assigned to the Commons as their place of sitting, and that the House of Commons shall then meet in St. Stephen's Hall.

PLACE OF SITTING (MESSAGE FROM THE KING)
  GEORGE, R.I.
  Message to be considered tomorrow.—(The Prime Minister.)
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (SPECIAL REPORT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Special Report [23rd July] from the Committee of Privileges be now considered."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
3.32 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I realise that within the narrow ambit of this Motion the Debate must be limited, but, nevertheless, there are one or two questions which are in Order which I desire to put to the Leader of the House; and, no doubt, he will answer them. Those of us who were on the Committee of Privileges agreed, as it was our duty to do, to Mr. Schofield's being reported to this House for his refusal to answer a question; but we believed at the time that his case and that of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) were to be taken simultaneously, or as nearly as possible simultaneously. It would, obviously, be completely out of Order to attempt to discuss, even in a roundabout way, the cases of the hon. Member for Gravesend and of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), because they are not in the Motion, and, therefore, we cannot discuss them; but I think one is entitled to submit that these two cases and that of Mr. Schofield are completely intermingled, and I cannot see how it is possible properly to discuss any one of them separately.
Therefore, my first question which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer is, why, when we are being asked to discuss this Motion, we are not being asked to discuss the cases of the hon. Member for Gravesend and of the hon. Member for Doncaster, and why those cases have not been tabled for discussion? I hope that in so doing, it will be in Order to ask, Mr. Speaker, and in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to answer, this question: What is the position of those two cases? Is the hon. Member for Gravesend still ill? He has given interviews to the Press, and an hon. Member opposite announced—I do not know if it is true—that he was in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think we ought to know before we agree to this Motion, when these cases are to be taken. It would, of course—and I would not dream of making the suggestion—be wounding and injurious to suggest that anyone is sheltering those
2268
two hon. Members, but we ought to have the reason why we are not now to discuss those cases. The right hon. Gentleman the other day brought a charge of impetuousness against me on this question. I suggest that it is slightly impetuous, to put it mildly, and very illogical to take the lesser case of Mr. Schofield and to leave the major case of the hon. Members who have been convicted of a breach of Privilege by, at any rate, a majority of the Committee of Privileges.
I would only in conclusion say that, surely, the right hon. Gentleman and the House do not want to give the impression that they are willing to strike at a Tory journalist but afraid to wound their own supporters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] There is no reason for supposing that that would be their attitude; I am sure it is not. But on the face of it, it would give that impression. At any rate, we ought to have an explanation. Those are the questions to which I want an answer. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen will have plenty of time to interrupt in the course of the Debate if they want to start interrupting. They will have plently of opportunity in the Debate. Those are the questions. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say—no doubt having sat up all night—I propose to put those questions, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that they are perfectly fair and reasonable questions to ask.
3.36 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I want to dissent from the view expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that there is any connection whatever between the matters raised in the major Reports, and the matter raised in the Special Report. It seems to me, with respect, that the point raised in the Special Report has. no connection of any kind with the other matters, except for the circumstance that it happened to arise in the course of the examination of those witnesses, rather than in any other case. The point might have arisen in any case. It might have arisen in the case of any Member or any other inquiry, or, indeed, in a case of an inquiry by any Select Committee, and not merely by the Committee of Privileges. It seems to me that the point that the House has to decide—and I do not want to discuss it now: it is not my business to do so—is the question

2269
of the view the House may ultimately take about the refusal of witnesses, duly summoned, to answer questions before the Committee in anybody's case, and that question is of vital importance.
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I have some hesitation in speaking in connection with questions of Privilege, which I have always felt are better dealt with by more experienced Members of the House than myself, but I want to say one or two words on the subject before the Leader of the House replies. I rise to make no party point about this. This is something which affects the whole House of Commons. I think that before we proceed to the discussion of the Special Report we want just to pause for one moment to consider whether we are wise in doing so. This Special Report deals with a minor issue, only one incident; and that is, perhaps, a rather small and narrow incident in a very much bigger picture. Mr. Schofield, the gentleman referred to in the Special Report is only one character, a small, minor character compared with the other characters who are dealt with in the other Reports, with which we shall deal later.
The point which we are, I understand, going to discuss is the propriety or otherwise of Mr. Schofield's refusing to answer a question. We are all going to be parties to that decision. Whatever that decision may be, it will be given by the House, and we shall all be parties to that decision, however inexperienced and however junior we may be in this House. I want to say this. Before I came to a decision on the propriety or otherwise of Mr. Schofield's refusal to answer a question, I should like to look at the whole picture and see the whole case. I do feel that very strongly. I do not know what action the House may decide to take with regard to Mr. Schofield, but I think that, before we come to any conclusion, that decision should not be taken until we have seen what the general background is; and that we ought to decide what relative blame attaches to Mr. Schofield and what relative blame attaches to the other gentlemen.
I am not trying to be controversial about this. I think this point was put up. May I give one illustration of the kind of thing I have in mind? I do not know what explanation Mr. Schofield might give for refusing to answer the question.
2270
Suppose the answer was that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) had asked him not to answer the question. That might be an explanation put forward; indeed, I think it may be the explanation. Surely, we cannot decide whether one alleged criminal has done something wrong unless the other alleged criminal—and I do not use the word "criminal" derogatively—the other man against whom an accusation is made, is there to be tried, too. We have to put ourselves in the position of judges in this matter. The hon. Member for Doncaster, the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan), Mr. Schofield and Mr. Dobson were all somehow concerned in a general picture. If I were a judge I should hesitate a long time before agreeing to decide to try one of them before the others had been brought forward too. If I attempted to do so I should be in some danger of seeing a miscarriage of justice take place. I simply rise now to make those points, and to ask the House to consider very seriously whether we are wise to go on and consider this narrow issue before the major issue has been determined.
3.41 p.m.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I should like to reinforce that plea for the following reason. It is very difficult to determine the truth of the allegation on the narrow issue, that the witnesses refused to answer a question, without going into the larger issue of whether the House will agree with the Committee of Privileges in the other case. If the House disagrees with the Committee of Privileges in the other case, then no offence has been committed. I am not arguing that for the moment, and I am not making a party point. Suppose for the moment the House does disagree and an offence has not been committed—I do not know, of course, what the House will do—then, while the refusal of Mr. Schofield to answer the question may constitute a technical offence, the question of what punishment, if any, follows assumes totally different proportions and character from what it would have if an offence had been committed. It is impossible to determine what punishment, if any, is to be meted out without knowing the full circumstances of both cases.
3.42 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Reid: This seems to me to be a rather simple matter.

2271
As far as we know the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) is somewhere in South Africa. It is obviously right that his case and the case of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walk-den) should be considered together, and that, therefore, those two cases should be postponed until we know the exact whereabouts of the hon. Member for Gravesend. The Committee of Privileges have reported to the House that Mr. Schofield refused to answer a question put by the Committee. That matter is hanging over his head. Is it right, fair, or just to keep that matter hanging over his head for perhaps two months? Again, whether Mr. Schofield, rightly or wrongly, refused to answer the question has nothing whatever to do with the cases against the hon. Members for Doncaster and Gravesend. Therefore, on common sense grounds and on grounds of equity, the House should proceed to consider the case of Mr. Schofield.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to point out, first of all, that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was probably out of Order, because the merits of the case are to be discussed on a later Motion. We are now discussing whether the House should consider the Special Report, and the merits of the case do not enter into it.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and with greater ease because I have said what I wish to say upon it. The argument I was advancing was directed towards the Motion,
"That the Special Report [23rd July] from the Committee of Privileges be now considered."
I was urging the House to take the view that, on balance, it would be better if it were not considered. That was all I was arguing.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member also argued that under certain conditions the people concerned might or might not be guilty, which falls within the scope of the later Motion.
3.44 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I only wish to say, quite simply, that I agree with the line the Leader of the House has taken. I think it would be a great pity if we did not take this Special Report
2272
into consideration at once. My reason for saying that is, that in this Special Report, we are not considering what penalty attaches to the substantive offences, whether committed by either of the two hon. Members or by either of the two journalists. What we are considering is, to my mind, purely the bare question of principle, whether or not we will support our Committee in asking questions and demanding answers.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am sure the House will forgive me if I remind all my colleagues, in all parts of the House, that we are now sitting as the High Court of Parliament, and it is profoundly important that in any discussion which takes place the House should maintain a high judicial tone, and be fair and scrupulous in the matter with which we are dealing. The fact is, there is before the House a Special Report, and the reason it was a Special Report was because it raised a special and somewhat isolated issue—which has been stated quite fairly by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), with whom I entirely agree—namely, what has to be done about two witnesses who did not answer questions put to them by the Committee of Privileges. That is the simple issue and it is important for the House to have answers to those points before dealing with the substantial issues against the two hon. Members concerned, otherwise the House will not be in possession of the fullest available information from the witnesses. The only other thing I would say is, that I was sorry the noble Lord—because he and I are good friends; in our quieter moments, anyway—even mentioned the possibility that I might have in my mind the politics of the newspaper concerned. My attitude would be exactly the same if it were a Socialist, a Liberal or any other sort of newspaper. I am sure the House will accept that, and I hope that I may do my very best to approach the matter in a truly judicial spirit.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to delay the House, but I think that on this matter we each have a personal responsibility, and it is important to try to get the thing clear. I am not

2273
sure whether I am unnecessarily muddled over this or not, and I think possibly one question might be answered which might clear the thing a little. That is to say, I would wish to agree wholly with the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), but the difficulty I feel is this. Suppose one just plainly and simply accepts their view, is one thereby at all precluded from doubting whether a breach of confidence about a party meeting is or is not a privileged matter?
Mr. Neil Maclean: On a question of Order. Are we discussing the question of Privilege or whether or not two individuals should be brought to the Bar of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I did give a word of warning earlier that we were merely discussing whether this Report should be now considered, and that is all. I should have thought these rather intricate points were more appropriate on the later Motion. The House will know, of course, that according to precedent, it will be my duty to ask certain questions of these two witnesses when they appear, and on their answers we can form our own judgment. It does seem to me somewhat a pity if we cannot first get those answers and then discuss the matter more fully.
Mr. Maclean: Is not the issue before the House a simple one, namely, whether or not the Committee of Privileges have power to request individuals to answer questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am speaking, and I will put the point in my own way. What we, as Members of this House, have to determine today, in regard to the refusal to answer these questions, is what powers the Committee of Privileges have to punish these individuals.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is wrong. The only point we are considering is whether this Report should now be taken. Whether the Committee of Privileges have acted rightly or wrongly is a matter which will come under a later Motion. We are not deciding that now in any way.
Mr. Pickthorn: I think that I was in Order and I think it is the universal opinion now that one of the views I was
2274
putting was the right view, that is to say, that the question whether or not the Committee of Privileges had a right to put questions on this matter is not in any way affected by the decision upon this Motion. I thought it not wholly a waste of time to make sure that that was the plain view.
Question put, and agreed to.
Special Report considered accordingly.
Motion, made, and Question proposed:
"That Mr. Guy Schofield and Mr. Stanley Dobson do attend this House forthwith."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. There are one or two questions I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] This is the British House of Commons, and any Member, even if he is expressing a singular view, has a right to ask questions. I do not know whether they should be put to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the Leader of the House—I am certainly endeavouring to be uncontroversial. I think the House should be advised in advance of what procedure is going to be followed. Are questions to be addressed by you, Mr. Speaker, to the two gentlemen, both of whom are persons of high repute, apart from whatever offence they may have committed here, and are they to be addressed—? [Interruption.] I am asking for information. Are questions to be addressed by the Leader of the House, and if so, will it be open to every Member who may hold a contrary view from the Leader of the House as to the gravity or otherwise of the offence committed to address questions? Since the House have listened to me quietly, may I also say that there has been a very unfortunate history in the past, which has affected more than one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and more than one Leader of the House, when this House has acted incautiously in bringing members of the public to the Bar. If there is anything to be learned from the past history, it is that this House should be clear on what exactly is to happen when these gentlemen come to the Bar.
Mr. Speaker: It would be simpler if I answered the question, seeing that I have to ask the questions. We have followed precedent, and we have examined the precedents most carefully in this matter.

2275
If the House chooses to order these members of the public to come to the Bar, it is my duty to ask them certain questions. These questions will not, I hope, be leading questions in any way, but will merely bring out the case and very much help the House in coming to a decision. When they come to the Bar, I tell them that I have to ask these questions. I put the questions, and ask them for their answers. I then ask them to withdraw, and we discuss the matter having heard their answers. I do not think it can hurt the witnesses or the House in any way. I can assure the House that I have looked at this question fairly to see that fair play is done on all sides.
Mr. Cecil Poole: May I put this point in order that the dignity of the House may be maintained? I think it would be undesirable, in view of what the noble Lord suggested might happen, if Members of this House constituted themselves either counsel for the prosecution, or counsel for the defence, by asking supplementary questions. I am merely expressing the pious hope that that will not happen,
Mr. Speaker: As far as any questions of the witnesses are concerned, I only am concerned.
Mr. Procter: I make no apology for wishing to have this matter made clear as far as I, personally, am concerned. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the intention of the House to ask these two gentlemen, when they appear at the Bar, the questions they refused to answer before, because in my humble submission, before any questions are put, this House should decide whether or not the witnesses were right to refuse to answer the questions.
Mr. Speaker: That, I think, comes on the next Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
The Serjeant at Arms informed the House that Mr. Guy Schofield and Mr. Stanley Dobson were in attendance.
Mr. Speaker: The Serjeant at Arms will now bring the witnesses to the Bar.
The Serjeant at Arms then brought the two witnesses to the Bar.
Mr. Speaker: I have to ask you, Guy Schofield, and you, Stanley Dobson, the following questions, to which you will each reply separately. First, did you refuse to answer the Committee of Privileges when they asked you to disclose the name of a Member of this House from whom you obtained information?
Mr. Schofield: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Dobson: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: The second question is this. Did you then understand that your refusal to answer any questions put to you by the Committee of Privileges constituted an undoubted contempt of this House?
Mr. Schofield: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. Since you now tell me that it is so, I should like to offer to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House my humble apologies.
Mr. Dobson: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not realise it at the time. For any offence I have committed, I wish to offer unreservedly to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House my humble apologies.
Mr. Speaker: Are you now prepared to answer the question which you previously refused to answer?
Mr. Schofield: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dobson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Was Evelyn Walkden the name of the Member which you previously refused to disclose?
Mr. Schofield: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dobson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I direct you now to withdraw.
Mr. Schofield and Mr. Dobson then withdrew accordingly.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move:
"That the refusal of a witness before a Select Committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of this House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest."
I move this Motion in a declaratory form in order to establish a principle that

2277
shall be known by all. I want to be scrupulously fair to the two gentlemen we have just seen. I think it is fair to say that there is some room for doubt whether Mr. Schofield and Mr. Dobson were made fully aware by the Committee of Privileges that in declining to give the Committee the information for which they were asked, they were guilty of a contempt of the House. Though the existence of this rule should have been generally known, and might have been clear from some of the questions which were put to the witnesses, there were other questions and remarks in the proceedings which might have led them to think that the matter was one for the House as a whole to decide. The point is not one on which any doubt can be allowed to continue. It should be cleared up, and the Motion is to make the position entirely clear for the future as regards any Committee of the House, and not simply the Committee of Privileges.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: Were either of these gentlemen, or both, warned, before specific questions were put to them, that it would be a breach of Privilege if they did not answer?
Mr. H. Morrison: I think that Members who have read the proceedings of the Committee will agree that I have given a fair summary of what took place. The whole record of the proceedings, except the private deliberations of the Committee, in respect of witnesses, are on record in the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I think that what I have said is a fair summary of what took place.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. Eden: I have no desire to raise any complaint at all as to the manner in which the Lord President of the Council has just moved this Motion. On the contrary, I think he did it with studious fairness but, at the same time, I must say that I think we can easily exaggerate the knowledge which the world in general has of a rule such as this. So far as I am aware, the last time this procedure was enacted "was, I think, in 1897 which, after all, is a long time ago. It would not have been very much use to me to have had that instruction at that date, nor to a great many other Members of this House. Therefore,
2278
when the Lord President told us that everybody knew about all these things I wondered how many Members of this House were aware of that rule, let alone those who were not Members of this House. That is not all. I have read the evidence carefully and I am bound to say—although I do not say it in criticism—that had I been one of the witnesses I would not have thought that by refusing to answer the question I was in any way treating the House with contempt. The Attorney-General put the point with fairness in Question No. 1092 of the Select Committee's Report, which I will read because it is relevant to the situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, to Mr. Schofield:
"I am sure all the Members of the Committee would feel that this is a matter for your own conscience on which they would not wish to press you, because they have no power to do so. Their only power is to refer it to the House, which might feel compelled to press you. I am sure we all realise how extremely difficult these conflicting loyalties are."
All I have to say about that is that if that had been put to me in that form I certainly would not have understood that by refusing to answer I should be treating the House with contempt. I think it is only fair to say that. This is in no sense a party matter. We are, in this matter, a court of justice, and I certainly would not wish to associate myself with censure of an individual for not answering a question when he failed to understand that contempt was involved.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am not controverting for one moment the main proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House, but in this case we adopted a somewhat unusual arrangement, whereby one of our number on the Committee—sometimes it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), sometimes the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), sometimes the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and sometimes myself—put questions on behalf of the whole Committee. That was by arrangement. We asked questions on behalf of the whole Committee in a form which the whole Committee agreed was proper. Therefore, the questions were not

2279
so much my own as those of the Committee. I mention that in order to call attention to another question which I asked of Mr. Schofield, Question No. 1648.
Mr. Eden: I was not at all saying that this was the Attorney-General's personal contribution. What he has said strengthens my view that the Select Committee having put questions in a particular form, as a Committee, these individuals cannot be censured for not answering them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred to Question No. 1648, to which I wanted to refer. As further evidence that the witnesses did not realise the gravity of the questions they were being asked, I would point out that Mr. Schofield said, according to this Question:
"Would it be possible for me to see the M.P. concerned (I do not know to what extent he is even aware of what has happened here)"—
and, rightly, the Committee told Mr. Schofield that he should consult nobody—
"and put it to him that if he chooses he can volunteer information to this Committee?"
That was for the purpose of trying to get the information which the Committee wanted. That was accepted by the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio, and there is a note on the bottom of page 96 stating:
"Mr. Schofield subsequently informed the clerk that he had spoken to the Member concerned, who was not prepared to allow his name to be disclosed."
I did not intervene earlier on this as I thought that we were then deciding whether to consider the Report. But I say now that, in my opinion, the witnesses, in not answering the question, were not aware of the contempt of the House of which it is now suggested they should be aware. I cannot associate myself with any censure of their conduct in that respect, but so far as this Motion is concerned with the future I should be prepared to support it.
4.9 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I shall move, shortly, a Motion which, I am sure, will meet the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should have said so before, but I thought that as I was moving one Motion I should not talk about
2280
another. If the House adopts the Motion which I have moved as a declaration, so that we shall know where we are, I will move another Motion which, I think, will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
Mr. Eden: Would it not be helpful to know what the second Motion is now?
Mr. H. Morrison: The Motion I propose to move, if the Motion now before the House is carried, is:
"That in the circumstances it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter."
Mr. Scollan: Like the Leader of the Opposition, I am one who does not know what are the rights of the Committee of Privileges concerning the ordinary citizen. When the ordinary citizen is summoned before the Committee of Privileges is he under an obligation by law, and, if so, what law, to answer any questions that are put to him; and what are the penalties if he refuses?
Mr. Morrison: One of the purposes of this Motion is to make clear what is the Parliamentary law, and the custom of Parliament; and any punishment Parliament wishes to inflict, it can inflict. Let there be no mistake about the full authority of the House in these matters.
4.11 p.m.
Mr. Wilson Harris: I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments because this Debate is one that goes to the very root of the profession of which I am a member. Confidence is the very basis of the best kind of journalism—confidence between editor and contributor, confidence between the ordinary journalist and anyone giving him information. Mr. Schofield has had an opportunity of stating to the Committee of Privileges the reasons why he was reluctant to supply answers to the questions put to him, but he has had no such opportunity today. I ought to add that I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Schofield or Mr. Dobson, and I do not think that I have ever seen either of them until today.
This question of professional confidence is of the utmost importance, particularly in the case of that able, responsible and trustworthy body of men, the Lobby Correspondents. It happens again and again that a Member or Minister makes

2281
some communication to a Lobby correspondent and adds, "Of course, keep my name out of it," and of course, the correspondent does keep his name out of it, as any honourable man is bound to do. Here there is an obvious conflict of loyalties, the loyalty of professional confidence and loyalty to Parliament as expressed through the Committee of Privileges. I submit that there may be cases in which a journalist, even though he may also be a Member of this House, would be justified in declining to answer a question put to him by the Committee of Privileges.
Let me put the case at its highest. Suppose an editor has accepted an article from a contributor on the express undertaking that the authorship of that article should not be disclosed. That often happens for reasons not in the least discreditable. It may be that the writer does not wish to give pain to friends by something he may feel it necessary to cover; it may be that he would not be allowed to return to a foreign country if he were known to have been criticising it; or it may be that he does not want to identify his business or other associates with his views. All this is a perfectly proper procedure. Supposing that a journalist or editor, having given that undertaking, is called on by the Committee of Privileges to violate his pledged word, he is faced with an agonising choice, and it is not for me to decide which way the answer should go. It is a question of conscience and this House has been very generous in recognising the conscience of all members of the community. It has recognised conscience in the case of the conscientious objector, and in the more trivial case of anti-vaccination, and I think that it would be going very far for any Select Committee of this House to call on any hon. Member, having given his pledged word, to violate it.
It may be said that this is a question not of express but of implied confidence. It may be said that an honourable tradition should not be invoked to cover a rather dishonourable arrangement. Let that be so. But my mind has gone back to some of the great journalists of previous generations, whom I or other journalists in this House would be glad to take as their guides and mentors, such as C. P. Scott of the "Manchester Guardian," or J. A. Spender, or of my own predecessors,
2282
the father of the present Minister of Food. What would have been their attitude if they were in the position in which Mr. Schofield found himself? I ask myself that particularly in regard to C. P. Scott because, in addition to being a journalist of the highest integrity and distinction he was also for many years a Member of this House. Neither I nor anyone, of course, can affirm today what Mr. Scott would have said or done, but my firm belief is that he would have said that, with the utmost respect for the Committee and for the House, and as a Member of the House, he felt himself compelled to refuse to disclose information which he had received in confidence.
That may be right or wrong, and I do not ask hon. Members to accept that point of view, but I ask them to realise how deep is the conflict of loyalty. After all the whole thing today is rather unreal. Mr. Schofield was asked at the Bar of the House what was the name of the hon. Member, and gave it, when we all knew that already since the hon. Member upon mature consideration—very mature consideration—had finally disclosed it himself——
Mr. John Paton: Is it in Order Mr. Speaker, for the noble Lord to describe the proceedings of this afternoon as "the whole thing is a farce"?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of whether it is in Order or not. It is the noble Lord's opinion and that is all.
Earl Winterton: I always state my opinion in this House whether it is popular or not, if it is in Order.
Mr. McAllister: The noble Lord has admitted that he did say "the whole thing is a farce." Is not that the greatest reflection, Mr. Speaker, on your conduct in the Chair this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the noble Lord meant no reflection on the Chair.
Mr. Wilson Harris: For the reasons I have given, I, like the Leader of the Opposition, am prepared to accept the Resolution which the Leader of the House has moved, on the understanding which I hope was implicit in his words that there is contained in it no flavour of retrospective censure. This statement of principle is one which I can accept

2283
even though it might, in certain circumstances, bring me into contempt by taking the same line as Mr. Schofield and declining to give an answer which would involve a breach of confidence. On that understanding, I can readily support it, and I hope that it will pass without a Division.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. S. Silverman: So far from thinking that what the House did this afternoon is a farce, may I be permitted to express my view, humbly, that the House discharged its function with conspicuous moderation, and conspicuous dignity, and did a great service to its prestige. I share entirely the view that anyone reading the report of the Committee and listening to the answers this afternoon would feel that neither Mr. Dobson nor his colleague had committed a very grave offence, or that the House would wish to offer any censure of any kind. I share the view that the questions as they were put were not such as to lead anyone to doubt in the least the truthfulness of the answers given this afternoon when both gentlemen said that they did not appreciate when they refused their answer, that such a refusal would be a contempt of this House. Accepting that view, and thinking that it is fully supported by the evidence in the Report, I think that this House would be quite mistaken to do anything at all in the way of censure in this matter. But having said that—and I say it with the utmost sincerity—all the same, it is a great pity that any doubt should now be cast on the correctness of the declaratory Resolution that has been moved.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) would have been well advised—I hope I can say this without giving any offence—not to make the speech which he made. It does seem as if there were some dissent. Maybe it was only half-hearted dissent, maybe it was not very clear dissent but there appears to be some shadow of dissent on what never ought to have been in doubt at all.
Mr. Wilson Harris: I made it perfectly clear that I am in favour of the Motion and will vote for it in the sense in which it was put by the Leader of the House, but as a journalist I submit that a case
2284
might conceivably arise where a journalist would be compelled to decline to disclose information he had received in confidence.
Mr. Silverman: I think all of us realise that there are occasions when a man of honour feels bound to commit an offence. That is his affair. If a man feels in his conscience that he ought to do something which everybody knows he ought not to do, that is for him to decide, but it has nothing whatever to do with the question we are discussing this afternoon. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Cambridge University that he was not seeking in the least to cast any doubt on the absolute duty of any citizen of this country summoned before the Committee of Privileges or any Select Committee of this House, empowered by this House to send for persons, to answer any proper question put to him.
Before sitting down may I say that I think all the lawyers in the House will realise that privilege based on the circumstances in which journalists obtain their information, could not be claimed in any other court. It could not be claimed in the High Court, in a libel action, or in the police court; it could not be claimed in any other court in the land and why in the world should anyone have supposed at any time that it could be claimed before the High Court of Parliament?
Mr. Wilson Harris: I claim no privilege whatsoever. If my point is not sufficiently clear I should like to make it so. It is that, while fully recognising the right of the Committee to ask such questions, a citizen might say that he could not, in honour, give an answer and he would be prepared to take the consequences.
Mr. Silverman: The question involved there is whether the House would feel it right to impose any penalty, and. if any penalty, what penalty. That has not anything to do with the question of what is the duty of the witness or whether any offence has been committed. That is, I hope, now absolutely clear as a result of their proceedings. The Attorney-General referred to what has become a practice at the Committee of Privileges.
The Attorney-General: In this case.
Mr. Silverman: I am not a member of the Committee of Privileges and never have been, so that I speak with diffidence,

2285
but it does seem to me not to be a very good practice for the Committee of Privileges to delegate its right, or for each Member to abdicate his function to ask questions and get answers to four members of the Committee who happen to be leading lawyers. I hope that I am not putting it too strongly.
Mr. Stephen: Is it in order for the hon. Member to start a general discussion on procedure in the Committee of Privileges?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member was going to start a general discussion, but he was making a comment on what the Attorney-General said.
Mr. Silverman: That was my intention, and I would not have said it at all except for the intervention by the Attorney-General. He having been allowed to say it, I thought I might be allowed to say that as back-benchers we feel a little uneasiness and a little anxiety in case the Committee of Privileges, being a judicial body, should, nevertheless, become a little too much like a court of law to which people are summoned and are unrepresented, and in a strange atmosphere they may feel a hostile sense in not being represented in any way. I think it would be very much better if the Members of the Committee in those circumstances asked their own questions, and did not rely upon skilled assistance even though that skilled assistance may come from members of the Committee.
4.27 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I wish to rebut the point put by the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) in regard to the question of Privilege. I speak now upon that privilege claimed and upheld in the courts of law. It is true that the position of a medical man refusing to disclose evidence which has come to him in his professional capacity, although not technically a valid plea, has frequently been recognised as a point which may legitimately be put forward, although, as in this case, the court asserts its right as against anyone who might commit contempt of it by refusing information. There are certain traditions to which professional men feel a loyalty which involve them occasionally in conflict with the accepted law, and at that point it is a matter for the
2286
conscience of the individual. If he commits that contempt he does it in the knowledge that it will involve him in a clash and it may be in a penalty. It may be his duty to do so; it has often been recognised as such.
All I would say in regard to this special case is that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised the question as to why it should be brought up specially in this High Court of Parliament in respect of a particular offence. The answer is simply because in this High Court of Parliament the relations between those who are entitled to obtain information in the House for the public as a whole and those in whose special charge the information, which may be more or less confidential, is reposed, are of a special kind which will need special consideration on every occasion on which they come up. While I fully subscribe to the Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House and the declaration of the state of the law of Parliament which is enshrined therein, I would still say that each individual case would need to be judged upon its merits and the relevance of the question asked and the position of the witness in refusing. All these matters could rightly be taken into account by the High Court of Parliament when reviewing the action of one of its Committees, because a Committee is merely a Committee of this House, and the final decision has to be taken by this House. In such a case I would claim that professional confidence of one kind or another is a thing which rightly should be taken into account by the House when finally making up its mind as to whether it should or should not proceed against one who has trespassed against one of the rules of its Committees.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I am only a back-bencher in this House, and I rise to say with diffidence one or two general things. It seems to me that there can be no alternative to the unqualified declaration which we are asked to make, and equally it is undoubtedly true that in the courts of the law we recognise no privilege except that of the public interest in some cases and that of our own legal profession and the relationships that spring out of it in others. Here I agree with both the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel

2287
Elliot) and the hon. Member the Junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). There is no privilege in connection with a journalist; there is no privilege as regards the' relationship between doctor and patient, and the even more intimate relationship that there may be in some religious instances. No such privilege is recognised by the law, and I do not see how this House, as the High Court of Parliament, can fall short of the law in demanding, when it thinks fit to demand, that information which is required in the public interest.
Earl Winterton: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree as a lawyer that, while it may be no defence, in fact, most judges, especially high court judges, do not press the point particularly where a certain religion is concerned.
Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for anticipating exactly what I was going to say. Though there is no formal privilege, the question of pressing for disclosure does, in fact, rest in the court on the judge. I think it is right to say that discretion is exercised in a sense most favourable to what is recognised to be honourable and confidential relationship. If courts can be trusted in this matter, then, surely, the Committee of Privileges can be trusted in the same way, and our security must lie not in qualifying the absolute duty of a person to disclose when called upon to do so, but in relying on our own Committee of Privileges to exercise in the matter that high discretion which we expect and get from judges, and not only from judges in the highest court. If it can be found in those cases, then we can rely on it in this case.
I want to refer to one other matter in a passage which has not been quoted from the Report of the Committee of Privileges. It is on page 69, and in question 1155. The question was put quite clearly and quite competently to one of these witnesses as the conflict of loyalities which the hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University rightly described. This matter must always, I think, be a conflict of loyalties. In a Protestant and puritan country such as this, we are surely entitled to say that there are times when every individual has the right to refuse to do that which it appears to be his legal duty to do, and that
2288
since the world has progressed, we differ now from that absolute obedience to the law which, in ancient Greece, Socrates held to be necessary.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will my hon. and learned Friend answer one question? I thought I heard him say that it was for the court to decide whether the question of privilege arises, but is it not the case that if counsel asks a question and insists on an answer, and there is no actual privilege, then the judge would have no authority to do other than to insist that the witness should answer?
Mr. Mitchison: I should hesitate to discuss questions of law in this House. In practice, I think, whatever the strict law may be, the judge, in all the circumstances of the case does, in fact, decide. I am sure it can only be in the most exceptional circumstances, and in the most grave cases that counsel would feel justified in pressing for disclosure, when the judge asked him not to.
4.35 p.m.
Sir Stanley Reed: As one who has spent his whole life in journalism and whose experience goes back for nearly 60 years, I would like to say one or two words before this matter leaves the House. I would like to express my entire agreement with the Motion moved by the Lord President, and, at the same time, I would like the House to realise the extraordinarily difficult position in which these two gentlemen were placed by the manner in which the questions were put to them by the Committee of Privileges. The editor of a paper is entirely responsible for everything which may appear in his paper, and he is under a binding contract with his contributors not to disclose their names except with their consent. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) put the matter in the most apposite form. He asked whether these two gentlemen were specifically asked if they realised that a refusal to disclose the name of their contributor meant a gross breach of Privilege of this House. If the question had been put in that form, the answer might have been different. Other editors have been placed in a similar position to these two gentlemen, neither of whom I know.
I say with great respect to the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges that if the

2289
question had been put in the form I have indicated, then the point of honour, namely, their binding engagement with their contributor, would have appeared in a different light. In justice to the two members of my profession who have been brought to the Bar of this House, and perhaps as a suggestion which may be of some use to the Committee of Privileges on other and similar occasions, I have ventured to put forward this point of view.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. T. Reid: I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) examines the records of the Committee of Privileges he will find that, after learned counsel had examined the witnesses, other persons not so learned also asked questions and had full liberty to do so. As regards the two gentlemen brought before the Bar of the House, I must say that I sympathise with them in the dilemma in which they were placed in view of the allegiance which they seemed to think they owed. They did not act contumaciously in any way, and I am certain that they did not think they were committing contempt in not answering the question. In fact, as the evidence shows, they were told that all the Committee would do would be to refer the matter to this House. Therefore, I heartily support the Motion which has been moved to take no further action in the matter. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to hear, because there is such a noise going on. I thought it was to be moved that no further action should be taken, but that was because, sitting down here, it was impossible to hear what was going on. The Motion, where it says:
"The refusal of a witness…to answer any question,"
sounds very sweeping, when one considers the procedure before the Committee of Privileges is put into action. Mr. Speaker has to decide that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, and no matter goes to the Committee unless there is a prima facie case. Therefore, the only questions to be asked are those which relate to the matter referred to the Committee by the House. I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: We are engaged in trying to make a declaration about the law of Parliament. I think the Attorney-General would agree with me that declaratory laws are rather notorious for needing
2290
definition and that the law of Parliament, almost more than any other soft of law, needs clarification from time to time. It is most necessary when we are engaged in that task that we should be meticulous about it. I hope that I shall not be considered to be excessively meticulous in the two things which I wish to say. The first thing I would say, and I say it by no means by way of criticising the Leader of the House—Heaven knows, even when one has looked the whole thing up and knows exactly the point one is on only a very rash man would believe that he ran no risk of error—is that the Lord President of the Council did slip into error on one point. If I am right, I hope that the error may be corrected before the Debate is concluded. When he was asked what sanctions could be imposed by Parliament, he answered to this effect: "Any punishment that Parliament cares or wants to inflict." I am not sure which way he put it, but that I think was a mistake. Further, to be accurate, I think he should have said, "The House of Commons" and not "Parliament." I should think that this House has given up any right it ever claimed to inflict any punishment for fixed periods or to inflict fines.
The second point is one which I would put to the Attorney-General, if in fact he is going to answer questions. It is about the actual words of this Motion. I ask no better than to be able to agree wholeheartedly with it, but I am not sure of the words, "which may be put." I should like to know whether the word "may" includes a permissive element, as when one says that something may be done and something else may not; or whether that word "may" here is purely in relation to the future, and means any question which may in future anyhow happen to be put. If the second meaning is intended, it may be right, but we ought to be clear what we are doing if only for the guidance of future Committees of Privileges who will the more need to be scrupulous.
I think it would be in Order to discuss whether Privilege has the same relation to a Labour Party meeting for instance, or to a Conservative Party meeting for that matter, as it has to the meeting of a Select Committee. I think that would be in Order now, but I do not wish to discuss it. What I wish to indicate is the possibility of a situation where questions might

2291
in some judgments improperly be put to a witness the witness might not answer, on the basis of some such distinction as that. Are we fairly sure that it is inconceivable that the courts might hold him to be right? Obviously, what matters most in questions of Privilege is that we should not get into conflict with the courts? Everyone will agree that wherever that has happened, it has been contrary to the interests of Parliament and of the courts. My question is whether it is now declared, and if so it should be made quite clear, that any question that the Committee might put or choose to put must be answered, or whether hesitation about this or that question or subject coming within the ambit of this Motion remains at all possible?
4.45 p.m.
The Attorney-General: I would certainly hesitate to say that it is inconceivable that the courts might take any particular view about any particular matter. Law is hardly so exact a science that any lawyer would be prepared to commit himself quite as far as that. I say, with a good deal of confidence, that in my view no court would have any jurisdiction whatever to consider the finding of this High Court of Parliament as to whether or not a particular witness, by refusing to answer questions, had been guilty of contempt. That is my view, and I think it is amply supported by the authorities. I would not like to put it any higher than that.
So far as concerns the question whether or not a witness in refusing to answer a question is guilty of contempt irrespective of what the question may be, my view—and again I make it subject to the same qualification—is that it would not be open to the witness to say, "That is an irrelevant question," if in fact the question was put to him by the Committee in the course of the inquiry. Other views taken in other places by other persons as to the relevance of questions or their irrelevance, are immaterial. It is for the Committee to judge that matter, and the witness would have to answer the question. As for the existence of this rule of Privilege, although we are now putting the matter beyond all possibility of doubt by this Motion, I think it was put beyond doubt in the publications which exist on this matter, and notably in the volume of Erskine May on which we all rely.
2292
I think I have covered the point put to me by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in regard to the so-called privilege, not a strictly legal privilege, which is claimed on behalf sometimes of doctors, sometimes of journalists and sometimes of those who profess a particular religion. As I understand the position, no kind of legal privilege is recognised by any court in regard to these matters. If counsel, in examining a doctor or a journalist or one who professes a particular religion, sought to insist upon a relevant question being answered by that witness, the judge would have no authority, or right, or discretion whatever, to prevent that question being put and answered. If counsel insisted upon the question being put and the witness did not answer it, that would constitute an undoubted contempt of court. How it would be dealt with would depend entirely upon the circumstances of the case. In one case there might be an honourable reason for refusing and in another case there might not. There is an undoubted right to insist upon witnesses in any of those categories answering questions, and judges have no discretion in the matter, although I think in practice a judge may say in a particular case, "Mr. So-and-So, do you think it necessary to insist upon an answer to that question? and it would then be for counsel to decide whether he wished to press the question.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that a witness in a court of law need not answer a question if it incriminates himself? The Motion says that the witness has to answer
"any question."
Are we to understand that that applies, whether the question incriminates the witness or not? If so, it seems to be a very wide and sweeping law.
Mr. Paget: We have dealt with extra-legal privilege. What about legal privilege? Supposing someone before the Committee had consulted his solicitor. Is that solicitor to be required to disclose his instructions? He could not be required to do so by the High Court. Can he be so required by the Committee of Privileges? Again, what about the position of State documents? The High Court cannot call for them. Can the Committee of Privileges?
The Attorney-General: It would be an impertinence on my part to attempt to

2293
pose as an authority on these questions of privilege. I am not. I am a very junior Member of this House and I do not pretend to have the experience that other Members have in regard to it. I was merely seeking to assist the House in giving my own view about the matter, and I gave it subject to that qualification. I would say, so far as my view about these points are concerned, that none of them is the subject of any precedent. None has hitherto come before the Committee of Privileges, or, if it has, it is not the subject of any recorded decision. My own inclination is to think that these privileges which are recognised in the courts of law might not be recognised by the Committee of this House. This House is the supreme court—the High Court of Parliament—and I am inclined to the view that it might not consider itself to be bound by these privileges. That is my personal view. I cannot put it higher or attempt to lay down the law in regard to it.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I would like to answer the question which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) put to me. He was quite right. My answer was too much of a generalisation, and I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Pickthorn: I wanted to get it in HANSARD.
Mr. Morrison: I am told that the penalties the House can inflict are to commit, to expel, to censure, to reprimand and to admonish. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Pickthorn: To commit not for a period? We cannot give somebody 30 days?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think I had better be too sure, having slipped once. I do not wish the House to think me guilty of any impudence, but we have had a fair discussion and if the House could resolve this nemine contradicente, it would be a good thing.
Mr. Maude: For the sake of clarification, in my submission it is not correct to refer to this House as the High Court of Parliament, as the Lord President of the Council and the Attorney-General have done. This is not the High
2294
Court of Parliament. This is the Commons of England assembled. It is confusing to read the record and to see the expression which has been used. This is quite a different body.
Mr. Morrison: This is a pity, but I am advised that the two Houses together are the High Court of Parliament. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude), and I will be more careful next time.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Logan: I am anxious to understand the true position. The language used here does not appear to me to be quite definite. The words "any question" are used. If I had to come before a Committee and was asked any question, I would consider it to be a matter for my conscience whether or not I answered. I would therefore have to pay the penalties. We have now heard what the penalties are. We never had the penalties laid down. This seems to be a passage from the past. It used to be a case of, "Take him away to the Tower and execute him." What is the power here? As I understand it, this House of Commons, with the House of Lords, is the supreme authority in regard to questions of law and that a decision arrived at in the House is determinable by the House and that no other authority in the land can exercise any authority over it. What is the limitation? Is it a head off, an arm off or a reprimand, or is it just a question of calling people to the Bar, having a chat with them and letting them go away?
4.56 p.m.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am a little perturbed as this seems a very sweeping Motion. The House is taking powers which are greater than those exercised by the courts at the present time. On more than one occasion I have had the experience of appearing before a judge, and certainly on one occasion I can recall being excused from answering questions arising out of a confidential relationship between myself and one of my patients; whereas I can visualise that under this declaratory Motion, in the event of a medical man being called before a Select Committee of this House and refusing to answer any question, he would be guilty or could be made guilty

2295
of contempt of this House. I want to reinforce the suggestion that was made that the Committee of Privileges should exercise the greatest discretion before making use of this Motion. I sympathise with the remarks and point of view of the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) in regard to the Press. I can see that in certain cases the sense of honour and sense of confidential relationship might be so great that members of the Press would be in the greatest difficulty in divulging what had happened. I suggest that it is even more serious in the case of the medical profession. The event might never arise, and I hope that it will not, but this Motion is on the Order Paper and I can see the greatest danger in its wording to a physician or surgeon who might be called before a Committee.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Paget: If we are making declaratory law, we should make it clear. The question whether legal privilege, the privilege not to incriminate oneself, the privilege which applies to State documents, the privilege of communication between solicitor and client, apply or not ought to be settled. This Motion says, "any question." That would include any of those things. As I understand it, the authority of the Committee of Privileges is on a parallel with that of the High Court of Justice and its powers to raise any question which is not subject to legal privilege. That is one point which I hope will be considered. The other point is that we have heard a great deal of sympathy expressed for the embarrassing position and the conflict of honours in which these two gentlemen have been placed. It has not yet been observed that they found themselves in that awkward predicament because they had entered into a thoroughly corrupt arrangement with an hon. Member and one which they must have known to be corrupt.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be going beyond the special Report which is the only matter before the House. He appears to be going into matters which it is not permissible to raise on this Motion.
Mr. Paget: The other aspect has been put on a number of occasions, and the Leader of the House told us of a further
2296
Motion which was to be put and which had been discussed with this Motion. I do not think you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when that was done. I wish to say no more than that while I would concur with the other Motion in so far as it deals with refusal to answer, it must not be understood that we pass off corrupt practices as being in any way a light matter.
5.1 p.m.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: I feel very strongly about this matter of the witnesses before a Select Committee having to answer any question whatever. I asked the Attorney-General whether it is not a fact that in a court of law a witness was not compelled to answer a question which incriminated himself, and I think it is a very necessary thing to have. In this case, that will not be so, and a witness will have to answer any question whatever, whether he incriminates himself or not. I disagree with that, I think it is going too far. I am not a lawyer, but in a rather long Service career I have had to adjudicate on thousands of cases, and I can say that in the Services one is not allowed to ask a leading question of that nature which would incriminate a witness.
Mr. Hogg: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely wrong. I have attended numerous military courts of inquiry, and the whole point of them is that they have to answer questions of that kind.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: They cannot be compelled to answer a question which incriminates themselves. I hope this matter will be considered. I am sure the whole House agrees with the case as put by the Leader of the House and accepts without any reservation whatever the veracity of the answers given to the questions put by Mr. Speaker to the two gentlemen concerned. No hon. Member can assign any blame to those two gentlemen whatever. They apparently were not made aware of the fact that they had to answer questions put to them by the members of the Committee of Privileges, and that if they did not answer those questions, they were committing a breach of privilege. I hope there will be no question in the future when witnesses go before a Select Committee of not being warned that they are bound to answer all questions, but that if the answer to a question would incriminate themselves, they need not answer. If

2297
this precaution is taken it would prevent a case of this sort coming before the House again.
5.4 p.m.
Mr. McGovern: I wish to ask the Attorney-General a question. I am all for the Committee of Privileges having every opportunity of questioning and demanding answers to questions, but supposing Mr. Dobson or Mr. Schofield had gone to see the Attorney-General, if he were in private practice, and told him they were guilty, and asked for his advice, and the Committee got to know that they had consulted a legal man and the Committee sent for the lawyer to come before the Committee of Privileges. Would the lawyer be compelled to divulge their names? Would the legal profession have looked upon that if the name had been divulged, with any feeling of agreement. If we are laving down a law that a journalist, doctor, or clergyman who thinks he has something in confidence has to divulge it, I would like to know whether we are laying down a law which covers every individual in every profession. If it is not covering the legal fraternity, I am entirely in disagreement with laying down the law in such a way.
5.5 p.m.
The Attorney-General: I can only answer by leave of the House. I feel I am getting into a somewhat embarrassing position. As a mere hired lawyer, I do my best to advise the House about the ordinary law of the land. The law of Parliament is something quite different, and, as I have tried to indicate before, I do not profess to be an authority on the law of Parliament. Parliament itself is the sole judge of the law which is applicable to its proceedings. All I can do is to express an opinion, which is no better than that of any one else. All I can say is that the special privileges we have been discussing, the privilege of refusing to answer incriminating questions, are laid down by Statutes which apply only to particular courts, not all courts, and certainly not to the High Court of Parliament. I am not going to enter into the question of whether this House standing alone is the High Court of Parliament—that is discussed at some length in May—but those statutory exemptions certainly do not by Statute apply to this court. Nor does the privilege which in the ordinary courts
2298
the lawyer has—the only legally recognised privilege—to refuse to answer questions arising out of questions submitted to him professionally by his client, apply to or bind this House, as far as any decision at present goes. In those matters, as I understand it, it is entirely a matter for this House to decide what privileges if any should protect a witness from his otherwise undoubted obligation to answer any questions put to him by the House or the Committee.
Mr. McGovern: As a lawyer, would the Attorney-General feel an obligation to answer a question, or would he feel he ought not to divulge the answer? Would his profession expect him to divulge any information gained in his professional capacity if he were summoned to the Committee?
The Attorney-General: That is one of those questions of conflicting loyalties. A lawyer would have to consider whether his duty to his client was greater than his duty to the House in the particular circumstances in which he was required to answer a question. One lawyer may come to one conclusion, and another lawyer to another conclusion.
5.8 p.m.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: I want to put a pertinent question as regards anyone appearing before the Committee of Privileges. When those two gentlemen stood at the Bar of the House and replied to the second question put by Mr. Speaker, whether they understood that by refusing to answer any question put by the Committee they were committing a breach of Privilege, both unhesitatingly answered "No." From their demeanour I would say that they were undoubtedly telling the truth. It struck me that those two gentlemen had been in no way warned of the seriousness of their action in refusing to answer questions. I noticed in reading the Report that it was put in a roundabout way by members of the Committee. But it is pretty well known to lawyers in this House that there is a specific way of putting a warning to anyone liable to be charged with an offence. I should think it would be advisable for this House in future when anyone is called before the Committee, particularly a stranger, that he should be specifically warned of the dangers he runs by refusing to answer any question.

2299
On that point I am rather disinclined to agree with the Attorney General as to whether a man would be compelled in any court to answer any question which incriminated him. It has been pointed out, as regards courts-martial, of which I have had experience in the last two wars, that a man is not bound to answer any question in a court-martial——
Mr. Hogg: My hon. and gallant Friend is making a mistake. I was not referring to courts-martial but to courts of inquiry. On that point, both he and his hon. and gallant Friend are entirely wrong.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: A court of inquiry is really a record of evidence. I apologise to my hon. Friend for misunderstanding him. I thought we were talking about courts. Someone referred to this House as the High Court of the land, which it is not. I took it that we were discussing actual courts of law. There is no other court, court-martial or otherwise, in which a man is bound to answer a question which tends to incriminate him. On that ground I would like to see where it is laid down that the Committee of Privileges is entitled, and has been entitled in the past, to ask any question which would tend to incriminate the witness.
5.11 p.m.
Sir Robert Young: I wish only to draw the attention of the House to a point which I think has been overlooked in this discussion. We have been talking about the answers of a witness, and some Members have seemed to indicate that he should be entitled, under certain conditions, not to answer a question. If a witness is to be allowed not to answer a question he would be justified in not producing papers which any Select Committee may demand. In those papers there might be many instances of incriminating evidence which he might not wish to produce. The Committee is entitled under the Rules of the House to call for persons, papers and records. I have always understood—I may be wrong—that that meant that a witness had to give full information to the Committee when he was asked a question, either through its Chairman or by any one Member of the Committee. In the past, I have never thought that there was any escape from that, without such refusal being contempt of this House.
2300
Therefore, some Members of this House might themselves show that they know something about the Rules of the House, and realise that we are only at the moment discussing a declaratory Motion which is before the House, and not considering whether these two gentlemen had extenuating circumstances. I should imagine that the point as to whether they had extenuating circumstances is a matter which will come up in the next Motion which the Leader of the House will propose. I thought it my duty, having been a Member of an important Committee, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that if a witness is excused from answering a question, he is equally entitled to be excused for declining to produce papers or any other document which the Committee may think necessary. I trust that the House will declare that a person is under the necessity of answering a question or taking the consequences which this House might impose upon him.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. John Foster: I differ from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in that I think the Motion is quite clear. It lays down unequivacally that "any question" must be answered. I think the House has to face the fact that the law is that if a person is summoned before the Committee of Privileges, even if he is a Roman Catholic priest, and is asked about something he has heard in the confessional, it is his duty to answer in the sense that it is a breach of Privilege if he does not. Also, if a husband is asked to incriminate his wife, he is similarly bound to do it, and a wife is bound to incriminate her husband; a lawyer must disclose the most sacred confidence which he has received in a legal capacity. The safeguards are the wisdom and good sense of the Committee of Privileges.
It is important that it should be stated that these wide powers are possessed, and obviously they are, in theory, capable of abuse. The Attorney-General probably remembers the great excitement and furore that was caused before the war among English and other Western European lawyers by the fact that the Nazis were compelling lawyers to disclose the secrets of their clients. The reason for the opposition to violation of this sacred principle was the abuse to which it was subjected by the Nazis. It is a very sacred principle. On the other hand, there is the

2301
status of this House, which demands that in certain circumstances, at a time of crisis, or where high considerations of State are involved, it should perhaps be the duty of a lawyer to disclose such matters. There is another tribunal which has that power under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. A tribunal to inquire into a Budget leakage has the power to ask questions which witnesses, as far as one can see, have no right to refuse to answer. It is not certain but it looks as if that power is there. If I am right, I think we should recognise that this Motion lays it down unequivocally, and that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is far from being right in suggesting that it does not do so.
I differ from the Attorney-General. Though there may be no decision upon the matter, this Motion states quite clearly that such a person would have to answer, that there may be found justification for breaking this sacred rule. It must depend on the good sense and sense of duty of the Select Committee. These extreme cases are unlikely to happen, but I submit that it would be well, if I am right, that there should be some statement from the Government Front Bench that that is, in fact, the law. We are considering a Motion which purports to declare the law. If it is the law it should be stated quite clearly——
Mr. Paget: Cannot the matter be put in this way? Privilege of Parliament is part of the common law of England, a legal privilege. The Attorney-General said that it is now in statutes, but the statutes merely codify the common law, and where the common law provides certain privileges such as that attached to incriminatory statements, and common law at the same time is building up into the Privilege of Parliament, is it not at least commonsense and reasonable, when one is faced with the problem to take these two things together?
Mr. J. Foster: I speak with much more diffidence than did the Attorney-General about the law of Privilege. I am expressing a humble and personal opinion. I should have thought that when this Motion lays down that any question has to be answered, this House is laying down a Rule about the Committee of Privileges,
2302
and that this Motion is the law. If that is so, I think it is, perhaps, necessary to lay down that it is a wide and unqualified Motion. It ought to be added, not in the Motion, but in some statement, that there are these qualifications to what is a very wide power indeed, and one which is not law in any other circumstance except perhaps in the case of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. I would ask the Lord President of the Council or the Attorney-General if they think I am right in what I have stated, and, if so, whether they should not indicate that there are these safeguards, or that there must be these safeguards, which lie in the sense of conscientiousness and rectitude of Parliament?
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: This is a matter of great importance. As the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has pointed out, we are declaring the law, at any rate the law of Parliament or of this House of Commons, and it is being stated in an extreme form. The real safeguard and check is the good sense of the House and also of the Committee of Privileges——
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: And of any Select Committee.
Mr. Fletcher: I agree. I want to ask the Attorney-General to clarify one point which I think he left rather obscure when he spoke just now. I imagine one limitation which is implicit in this Motion is that, the question, a refusal to answer which constitutes a contempt, must be relevant to the matter referred by the House to the Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what I want to get quite clear. Who is the judge of relevance? I would like to know the opinion of the Attorney-General on that question. If a similar matter is raised in the law court it is for the court not for counsel to decide the relevance of the question. Are we to take it that every individual Member of a Select Committee putting a question is the judge of its relevance to the inquiry before the Select Committee, or is it not the fact that it will be for the Committee as a whole to determine the relevance of the question?
The Attorney-General: I have indicated my view quite clearly. I think it is

2303
entirely a matter for the Committee to decide whether a certain question is or is not relevant. The Committee decides. The person to whom the question is put cannot decide whether or not the question is relevant.
Mr. Fletcher: The Attorney-General will agree that it is not for the individual Member of the Committee to say whether or not a question is relevant but that it is for the Committee to determine by a majority?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is it not within the competence of the Chairman to determine whether a question is relevant and in Order?
The Attorney-General: If a question was put by one Member of the Committee and another Member wanted to challenge its relevance, it would be for the Chairman to rule whether or not it was a relevant question. A witness could not question the decision of the Committee upon that point.
Mr. Nicholson: Theoretically, the questions are asked through the Chairman.
The Attorney-General: I find myself in an embarrassing position here not merely because I am not getting a fee for any advice I give, but because I do not profess to know what the procedure of all these Committees may be. In the case of the Committee of Privileges, the questions are put by different Members.
Earl Winterton: Probably I have had experience of more Select Committees than any other hon. Member. The procedure is exactly the same as in this House. If a question is out of Order it is the duty of the Chairman, though he may not always exercise it, to rule that the question cannot be put to the witness. The Chairman has complete power. Whether or not the Chairmen of particular Committees have used that power is a different matter.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I think there is only one point that I need answer. That was the point put by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) about whether "any question" could be put. Individually, none of us can lay down Parliamentary law. Only the House can do that and the House is doing that by passing this
2304
Motion if it will be good enough to do so. The Motion refers to, "any question." I should have thought that it means any question but, of course, there is the point about what the Chairman might allow. There is the point whether the Committee would press a question in given circumstances and there is also the question whether the House will uphold the Committee. All these are qualifications. Undoubtedly, the Motion, in itself, means any question. I should think that, having said that, it is not for me as Leader of the House, or in any other capacity, any more than for any other hon. Member, to lay down and to interpret Parliamentary law. That is for the House to do. Having said that, might I now make another respectful appeal to the House that we should bring our discussion to a conclusion?
Question put, and agreed to, nemine contradicente.
Resolved:
"That the refusal of a witness before a Select Committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of this House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest."
5.26 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move;
"That, in the circumstances, it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter of the Special Report from the Committee of Privileges."
This refers to the two gentlemen who were brought to the Bar. I think that this meets the wishes of the House.
Mr. Clement Davies: While agreeing straight away with what the Leader of the House has said, I think that in fairness to the two gentlemen, Mr. Schofield and Mr. Dobson, who appeared before the House today, it is only right that I, as a Member of the Committee of Privileges, should add a few remarks, and I believe that I am speaking on behalf of every Member of the Committee. Until they came to the very difficult question of the conflict of loyalties, I am sure that we were all impressed with the fact that they were both witnesses of truth, conscientiously doing their best to assist the Committee in every way they could. It was only when it came to this serious conflict that difficulty arose. It was a position with which the Committee sym-

2305
pathised. In fairness to the two gentlemen I think that tribute should be paid to them. They have passed through a very grim ordeal in standing at the Bar today.
Dr. Haden Guest: Is it quite clear that this is only in respect of this particular inquiry and that it does not affect what may follow?
Mr. Morrison: This refers solely to the matter dealt with in the Special Report, and it is entirely without prejudice to any matters which may arise on the other two Reports.
Earl Winterton: I rise to associate myself with the most felicitous statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), my colleague on the Committee. I think that these facts should be known in fairness to the two gentleman concerned I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee appears to associate himself with this. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has made his statement.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That, in the circumstances, it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter of the Special Report from the Committee of Privileges."

PALESTINE
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
5.29 p.m.
Brigadier Mackeson: I do no; think that it would be right that the House should adjourn without a Debate on the present situation in Palestine and without referring to the insecure position in which many British men now find themselves in that country. There have been constant attacks on British personnel recently which, judging from my postbag. undoubtedly have created very wide and deep resentment. These culminated in-the case of the two sergeants who were found recently hanged by the neck from trees in the most barbaric way. I believe that this feeling of resentment has spread, not only throughout this House and this country and the Christian world, but also throughout a great body of Jewish opinion in this country and elsewhere. But these feelings of resentment, grave as our anxieties for our men in Palestine now are, do not, in any way or in any circumstances, justify those who in this country have been responsible for anti-Semitic demonstrations. I believe them to be most deplorable and un-British, and I am sure that other hon. Members in other parts of the House will join with me in dissociating themselves from any anti-Semitic activities at all.
The time has come when expressions of regret by moderate Jewish opinion and by the Haganah in Palestine should be translated into positive action. I cannot but feel that someone, outside the immediate criminals in the case of the two British sergeants, must have known something about where these men were in hiding, yet no word reached the Palestine authorities, so far as I am aware, and nothing was written. I believe that is due to the fact that moderate Jewish opinion and the moderate leaders of the Haganah are frightened to give information, even if willing to do so and, in support of that theory, I would quote the case of 12th May this year, when two British men of the C.I.D. were lying dying after being shot in the streets of Jerusalem, while members of the Jewish community passed by on the other side.
I do not believe that the Jews are a craven race, but I believe this attitude was only adopted because they felt that,

2307
if they had crossed the street, they would have been shot or their loved ones would have suffered from their helping these dying Britons. I feel very strongly that this fear must be conquered, or the future of the Jews in Palestine will consist in being run by a small Gestapo. A great deal has been said by 60 or 70 hon. Members of this House on benches opposite who hold pro-Jewish or Zionist views, and the case has been put in another place, though, perhaps, not quite so strongly. I do not feel that His Majesty's Government have really paid sufficient attention to the present situation, to the British personnel involved, both police and troops, in Palestine. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is as anxious as anybody else, but their position has now become intolerable and the Government must bear a very heavy share of that burden.
What is the position at the moment? So far as I can make out, we now have, in round figures, between 80,000 and 100,000 troops in Palestine. I will not attempt, for security reasons, to give the exact number, but that figure has been widely bandied about in the Press. Since the present Government took office, 79 military personnel have been killed and 180 wounded, 40 policemen have been killed and 69 wounded, while the civilian casualties have numbered 16 killed and 10 wounded. That comes to about 400 British casualties. Now, we have reached the final climax, in which Sergeants Paice and Martin, with their hands tied behind their backs, have been hung, struggling and gasping, in a noose and have died the most horrible death. The anxiety in more than one hundred thousand homes in this country is now very great, and I believe that the odium for these events must fall heavily on the terrorists in Palestine, though I cannot exonerate the Government or the Party opposite of a large share of responsibility.
I say that for three reasons, which I will explain. First, there are the election pledges made to the Jewish community in the world by responsible Ministers who were Members of the Coalition Government, who must have had the facts at their disposal, and who must have known the effect on the Middle East when their pledges were made. They must have known the effect that would have been
2308
caused in the Middle East had their pledges been immediately implemented. When it was clear that the pledges were not going to be honoured, world Jewry began to feel resentment and disillusionment, and that turned to abuse, and abuse has now turned into open attack. These attacks, however, do not consist of what we would understand by attack; they consist of cloak and dagger attacks and everything appertaining to such matters.
Secondly, I believe that the Government delayed too long in reaching a settlement, difficult though that was. Two years have passed and the Foreign Secretary has completely failed to reach a solution of this question or to implement his pledge to find a solution. I myself find it rather difficult to understand who is responsible for this, and whether it is the Colonial Secretary or his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but one thing which I am absolutely clear about is that the Cabinet and the Government as a whole hold this responsibility and are answerable to this House for the lives of our men in Palestine.
Thirdly, I believe that there has been some vacillation and weakness in handling the internal affairs of the Palestine situation. I make no reflections on the men who are serving or on those who lead our troops in Palestine. They have stood a strain which no other army in the world would stand. Any other army would have broken out in the most frightful outrages. Though there may have been some minor cases here and there, I think we can say that, if any other army than ours had been put under that strain, it would have been doubtful whether they would have acquitted themselves so well.
To return to the first of the three reasons I gave—the broken election pledges—in 1944, the present Prime Minister, who was then the Deputy Prime Minister, with full access to all Government secrets, supported, as the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the report of the National Executive of the Labour Party, which said:
"There is neither sense nor meaning in a 'Jewish National Home' unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in."
I believe that the present Prime Minister, for whom I have great respect, made a bad error of judgment when he made that

2309
prophecy, and I can only think that he must have done it for vote-catching reasons.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that it is important that it should go on the record that the first part of that quotation goes far beyond what the Prime Minister said?
Brigadier Mackeson: I am simply giving what the Prime Minister supported.
Mr. Silverman: But the sentence about the Arabs moving out as the Jews move in?
Brigadier Mackeson: That is the attitude taken up by the hon. Member's party, and it surprises me, having some slight knowledge of the Middle East, that anybody having knowledge of the Middle East should have used the word "encourage." Surely, the candid thing to do would be to use the word "eviction"?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer followed that up at the Labour Party Conference in May, 1945. He said:
"Last December the conference accepted and welcomed, without even the challenge of a card vote, the document entitled 'The Post-War International Settlement.' That stands as the policy of this Movement and of this Party, and in that document there is a clear and definite statement regarding Palestine and the Jewish people. This Party has laid it down and repeated it, so recently as last April…that this time, having regard to the unspeakable horrors that have been perpetrated upon the Jews in Germany and other occupied countries in Europe, it is morally wrong and politically indefensible to impose obstacles to the entry into Palestine now of Jews who desire to go there."
I will not weary the House with other extracts from Labour Party speakers, but will confine myself to this statement that
"the Jews, if they so wish, must enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority."
That is contained in the Labour Party's Notes for Speakers issued during or before the General Election in 1945. The Lord President of the Council, as a member of the Coalition Government and as the Party organiser must have known the effect of that statement. That has done a great deal of harm; it is an aggravating cause, and it is time that the Government and the party opposite told the country, World Jewry and the Arab world where
2310
they stand. I do not know where they stand, and I do not believe that they know themselves.
It was said in one of these statements that there might be some question of expanding Palestine, the Transjordan or Egypt. There was never any chance of the Egyptians, the Syrians or the new State of Transjordan accepting such an expansion. I think that a further statement should be made, and that it should be made clear to the world as a whole that there are tens of thousands of unfortunate Jewish people who are in fact hostages in the large Arab cities in the Middle East. Their future worries me just as much as does the future of our own troops. I would say to the three right hon. Gentlemen, that, unless they change their attitude and tell us where they stand, I can only say of each:
"His vows are lightly spoken,
His faith is hard to bind,
His trust is easy broken,
He fears his fellow-kind."
Turning to the second charge, that of procrastination, I do not know how much that has cost this country—perhaps £100 million during the past two years. But when we were elected to this House in November, 1945, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary announced the appointment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. On 20th April, 1946, the Committee reported. In June and July the report was examined by representatives of this country and the United States who made recommendations, which they were prepared to accept, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council put before the House on 31st July, but which differed from the Anglo-American Report. In the autumn of 1946, a conference took place which was boycotted by the Jews and at which the Arabs attended. Finally, on 25th February, 1947, after the conference had broken down, the Government announced their decision to refer the matter to U.N.O.
I want to know how we stand in connection with this reference to U.N.O. On 25th February the right hon. Gentleman was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) whether we were pledged to accept the decision of U.N.O., whatever it might be. I think we ought to have an answer to that question before we rise for the Summer

2311
Recess. The last time that this subject was raised, it was rather talked out. In another place, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said he could not imagine His Majesty's Government carrying out a policy which it did not approve. I do not know what is going to happen if U.N.O. produce a policy which we do not like. Surely, we must know whether we are going to stand alone, and whether we are going to use the veto or not.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. Will he say that no decision on this question of Palestine will be taken without a full Debate in this House of Commons? If things go wrong, it will not only be a question of the unfortunate emigrants in Europe and of British troops suffering; but the whole of the Middle East may be set ablaze. This House has a responsibility, and I think we should be assured that an opportunity will be given for a full Debate before any irrevocable decisions are taken. To revert to the late Colonial Secretary, all that could be extracted from him in another place was his advice to their Lordships to "wait and see."
The immediate problem is that of our troops in Palestine. I will not go back before 31st January this year when we had our last Debate on Palestine, and when my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House asked for firmer action in connection with the outrages which had taken place. It was a very Short time before extremely serious events took place. The Goldsmith's Officers' Club was attacked during the past six months, and that was about the most serious episode; 18 were killed and 85 were injured. There was also, of course, the attack on Acre gaol. I was in Malta shortly before one of these episodes and I can tell the House that after it had taken place—a British officer had been whipped—an article appeared in one of the local papers in which it said:
"We will get our own way, even if it means beating British officers."
Since that time there has been a certain stiffening in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. After the explosion at the Officers' Club, certain areas were made controlled areas. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in two cases, controlled areas were declared and then called off. I believe that, in the
2312
case of the Officers' Club, the reason was that evidence was given by certain Jews which enabled arrests to be made That appears to be a reasonable action, but when we come to the question of those poor men, Sergeants Paice and Martin, a very different state of affairs seems to exist. These men were kidnapped on 13th July, as hostages for young Jews under sentence of death for murder.
Mr. S. Silverman: No, not for murder.
Brigadier Mackeson: They were kidnapped as hostages.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Jews were under sentence of death for murder, whereas, in fact, they were under sentence of death for having made an attack on the Acre prison in which no lives, except their own, were lost.
Brigadier Mackeson: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I withdraw that statement entirely. But, anyhow, these two British sergeants were kidnapped, and Nathanya was declared a controlled area on 13th July. That control was taken off on 26th July, and, on or about that date, several other incidents occurred which included two soldiers being killed by a mine, an officer being injured by another mine, a railway bridge near Benyamina being blown up, and an unsuccessful attempt being made on the Cairo-Haifa passenger train in the Nathanya area. On 31st July these two soldiers were found hanged near Nathanya. Why put on these controls and then take them off before those two soldiers were found hanged? I hope there is an explanation. Why put controls on and off, or declare martial law and cancel it before it has achieved its object?
Why have the Jewish mayors been arrested? Has additional information come to light which has made it obvious that these people were co-operating with the Irgun, or the Stern gang, or other terrorists? Why have they been suddenly "pulled in" and treated as the supporters of terrorists in Palestine?. The country has been gravely shocked. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to employ the same policy in regard to the use of British troops in Palestine as he has employed up to now. It seems

2313
to me that they are spread all over the country in penny packets, and if, as has been said, some young Jews, or, possibly, young Arabs, are arrested on any charge, any of these illegal organisations can, if. they wish, pick up an English soldier. They can do that very easily if the soldiers are searching lorries in ones and twos. Far be it from me as a very humble soldier to express an opinion, but I believe that the principle of concentration is a much better one than the principle of dispersion. I believe that the troops should be withdrawn from immediate contact with the population, that they should be used to cordon the big Jewish cities, and that transport should be confined to convoys going in and out at prearranged hours on permit. Would it not make it more difficult for the extremists if the use of taxis and private cars was forbidden for a period after such attacks?
I am convinced that the mines used in these outrages have been laid by people driving down the roads and not by people walking across the country carrying the mines with them. I am convinced that the terrorists have been able to use cars and taxis and that this should be stopped. They are some of the things which are causing most casualties. I can understand the reluctance of any British Government to impose collective fines or collective punishment of any sort. Through the long turbulent history of the North-West Frontier of India, it has always been a moot point, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that before the war, during the Arab rebellion, when I was there, collective fines were imposed and houses were blown down, in a somewhat ruthless manner. Why is it that the first Jewish house has only now been blown down? Why take this decision now, so late? If it is a right decision, as presumably the Palestine Government think it is, why was not it taken as a salutory step earlier? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question; I am not quite certain if I have got it right or not. I understand from the Press that a 3d. tax has been put on petrol as a result of these attacks on the Haifa oil installations. Surely, that is a collective fine, which, as it happens, will fall on both communities, although in this case there seems to be no doubt that only one community is guilty.
2314
I believe a bold decision has to betaken in regard to Palestine, because I do not think we can afford to have between: 80,000 and 100,000 soldiers deployed in. penny packets. We must concentrate our troops, so that we do not wake up one morning and find two more of them hanging from a tree, and thinking, as we shall do, of the misery it will cause in the: homes concerned. I believe it is necessary now for economic pressure to be brought on the Jewish community as a whole—there need be nothing brutal about it—to make them realise that unless they can pull themselves together and control these extremists, the future of Palestine will be very unpleasant for anybody who does not subscribe to the views held by these gangsters—for that is the only word we can apply to them. I must repeat my question about U.N.O. before I conclude. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman what I thought when I looked at the "Daily Express." I thought of the words of the British Legion:
"If ye break faith with us who die.
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields."
Next spring, poppies will be growing in Palestine, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to prevent any more of our boys being murdered before those-poppies flower.
5.53 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): It may be convenient to the House if what I have to say is said now. I do not complain, of course, that at the end of this Parliamentary Session the question of Palestine has been raised. It is a problem which is always before us in our work at the Colonial Office, and it is, unfortunately, a tragedy which is always before the eyes of the British public. I do not propose this afternoon to discuss the administration of the Labour Government over the past two years. The Foreign Secretary made a speech to this House, in which he related the processes which had engaged the attention of the Government, and the reasons why, with the breakdown of the negotiations with the Arabs and the Jews, the matter was sent to the United Nations. I think the reference to the United Nations was done with the general approval of the House, but we were all conscious, I think, that a very difficult period lay ahead of us before

2315
we could expect a decision or a recommendation from the United Nations. I think we were all conscious that during the spring and summer there would be a period of very considerable strain and difficulty, and that there would be very grave danger of civil administration degenerating possibly to a degree when it might not be possible to carry on.
The appeal that was made in this interim period, that the parties concerned should show some restraint, unfortunately brought no response from the Jewish terrorists. It was unfortunate, too, that what was called illegal immigration was condoned and actively assisted by Jewry not only in Palestine but in other parts of the world. In this period since reference to the United Nations, terrorism has piled tragedy on tragedy, and outrage has succeeded outrage, with grievous loss of life not only to British soldiers but also to Arabs and Jews alike. If I may say so, it has brought about infinite harm and loss of good will to the Jewish cause, and we are all experiencing how strong is the reaction of British opinion in our own country to these outrages. All of us have received the most passionate and indignant letters urging that strong steps should be taken to repress this evil in Palestine. Among the British public there is fierce questioning as to the burden and cost to Britain, and the tragedy involved by Britain continuing to shoulder this international liability.
I believe that Britain has honestly and disinterestedly tried to work an instrument that has proved to be, both to Jew and to Arab, unworkable. Unfortunately, there is on the part of Jewry little disposition to delay until the decision of the United Nations is made, lest it be not made in accordance with their own views of the situation. I want to say very strongly that in this period of difficult and dangerous conditions in Palestine, integrity and a high standard of administration have been maintained unimpaired, and I think we owe a great debt to the Administration for the difficulties they have faced, the dangers through which they have passed, and the magnificent way in which the difficult problems of maintaining civil life have been tackled.
In this period 1,500 Jews a month have been admitted into Palestine, nearly 400 a week; 30,000 over and beyond the
2316
75,000 laid down in the notorious White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why notorious?"] It is notorious for the reason that it is a bone of fierce contention. Repeatedly in these discussions we are brought back to the terms of the White Paper, and it has assumed a notoriety in all our discussions with Jews and Arabs alike. But I do want to make it clear that the terms of the White Paper in respect of political institutions and immigration have not been invoked. Meanwhile, the Cyprus camp has been established. It is contributing its quota to the immigration into Palestine. More recently, 985 orphans from Cyprus have been admitted, or are being admitted, into Palestine.
So far as the Arabs are concerned, I think this House should note that, in the trying conditions of Palestine, they have shown restraint. I hope that, even if at the present moment they are a little afraid, we shall not witness grave demonstrations because of their displeasure with the somewhat aggressive attitude which a minority of the Jews are assuming at the present moment.
Brigadier Peto: "Somewhat aggressive"—murdering and killing.
Mr. Creech Jones: I will come to that point in a moment if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me. I most emphatically declare that I regret that the Administration of Palestine has not received the full co-operation of the Jewish Agency in this period. It was a situation in which Palestine and the Jews had everything to gain by co-operation. The Administration, divorced from the people through no fault of its own, had to deal with a lawlessness condoned by Jewry. So far as terrorism is concerned, the Agency in February was invited to assist the police in stamping it out. Then and since they have publicly declined to co-operate.
Nevertheless—and I think this must be put on the record—Haganah have in their own way done, and I hope will continue to do, a great deal of helpful preventive work. But I say emphatically that denunciation and condemnation of terrorism are of no value at all unless the Jewish community reflect their determination by relentless action to rid themselves of this manifest evil. The situation in Palestine today is grave and extremely difficult, but

2317
I want to say, emphatically again, that the British authorities have not flinched from action which, in their judgment, the conditions demanded; and they will not flinch from any measures calculated to destroy the evil, and to restore order and law, and to bring to justice the people responsible for the hideous crimes committed.
The High Commissioner has, under the Palestine Emergency Regulations, full powers to take any action that may be necessary for the security of life and property in Palestine, with or without consultation with London. In practice, he has acted expeditiously, and with the full approval of His Majesty's, Government. He has acted in full collaboration and harmony with the General Officer Commanding, and, in recent events, no action proposed by the military authorities has been denied. The powers concerning the controlled areas enable him to suspend, if he thinks fit, civil liberties and Government services to any extent he may deem necessary. I say that there can be no weakening of the powers of the High Commissioner in the stern discharge of his difficult duties. Neither he nor the military authorities seek new powers which they have not had in order to cope with terrorism or the emergency situations which arise in Palestine from time to time.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: On that point, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether they have sufficient troops in Palestine, in view of the present situation?
Mr. Creech Jones: All I can say is that the authorities have all the powers which they have asked for in dealing with the troubles about them. They have been denied no power which has been asked for, and so far as I am aware, the military have made no representations to us for further troops in order to deal with these difficulties. As I was saying, there can be even the complete abrogation of civil government—a condition that is undesirable, though one which cannot be lost sight of altogether in a country where government is heavily weighted with political and psychological problems. That is, I suggest, a step which cannot be too readily contemplated, but there are the fullest and completest powers to prevent, and to respond to, any situation which may exist. The Palestine authorities have the completest confidence and
2318
the fullest support of His Majesty's Government in London.
We have heard today from the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) something about military arrangements in Palestine. I am not competent to pass judgment as to the manner in which the military resources in Palestine are used. I can only say that the arrangements have been discussed with the highest military authorities of this country; they have been brought into constant review in the light of the changing situation; and nothing has been done by the civil authority to prevent any action which the military authorities thought, in their wisdom, desirable to take. I shall, obviously, forward the Debate and the views of the hon. and gallant Member to the authorities in Palestine; and also, of course, to the authorities here, the military authorities in London. But I want to say that I cannot imagine that all possibilities in handling this difficult situation have not been fully explored by the authorities on the spot, and in consultation with London itself.
Brigadier Mackeson: I would certainly not venture to give military advice to, or to insist that my military opinion should be considered by the General Officer Commanding in Palestine at the moment. What I said was that if the authorities are made to disengage the troops and, if necessary, the administration is allowed to become concentrated, then, in my humble opinion, personnel may be saved. That is what I am worried about.
Mr. Creech Jones: The safety of the troops is a matter which has been under the constant and very lively consideration of the military and civil authorities. The disposition of troops has been worked out in the light of all the experience and difficulties they have to surmount. The continuation of terrorist activities, notwithstanding the efforts of the security forces in Palestine, is due largely to the fact that the terrorists—a relatively small but highly organised and well trained body of misguided criminals—operate under the cover of the Jewish community in general. I think all who have been actively employed on this work in Palestine—military and civil authorities, the police, and all sections who have observed the situation—are agreed that the problem can be solved less by military operations, important as they are, than

2319
by police measures and action by the Jewish community itself. Therefore, I hope that at this moment the Haganah will supplement the Government's activities and continue its own measures in the most determined mood.
Mr. Crossman: If the Haganah say they are willing to do that, could the Secretary of State tell us whether or not they would be armed. That is a question to which we have never had a clear answer from the right hon. Gentleman. If the Haganah help, will they be allowed to carry arms?
Mr. Creech Jones: There have been discussions between the High Commissioner and the Jewish Agency in regard to cooperation with the Administration, but the Jewish Agency have not replied definitely. The operations of the Haganah cannot be divorced completely from the Jewish Agency. I believe that a fair amount of preventive work has been done by the Haganah. Our own Forces in Palestine have themselves prevented a very considerable number of outrages, and have prevented the outbreak of a great deal of serious crime. When one looks at the outrages, let us not forget the great risks and dangers which our Services undertake, and the great amount of outrage and crime which they are able to prevent. Just as a moment ago I paid tribute to the Administration for its work, so I should like to pay tribute to the security forces for their magnificent endurance in danger and hardship.
Since the brutal murders occurred, a number of further steps have been taken in Palestine to strengthen the general security. Of course, the searches and preventive measures have continued, and have been carried on in suspected areas. Certain areas have been brought under control; some buildings have been demolished, and the property of unlawful organisations has been seized. The Revisionist Youth Organisation has been suppressed because it was believed to be a breeding ground for young terrorists; and its journal has been suppressed also. A number of mayors, and some 40 others, have been detained—chiefly Revisionist members of Jewry—because of their known association, sometimes their contact, and sometimes their activities
2320
with terrorist groups, or because they have been thought to have given assistance to them. Further, the search for the murderers has continued intensively by both military and civil authorities.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Presumably, the search was instituted immediately these two unfortunate sergeants had been kidnapped. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what measures were actually taken?—because it was 18 days before the men were murdered.
Mr. Creech Jones: I want the House to appreciate that security measures are in continuous operation in Palestine. Searches are a continuous process; sometimes areas are cordoned off, when information comes to the knowledge of the authorities. What happened in the case of these lads was that the searches were intensified in certain areas where it was suspected they had been taken, but unfortunately no real knowledge as to where they were taken was in the possession of the authorities.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Did the Jewish Agency take any part in assisting to find these two sergeants?
Mr. Creech Jones: That is a question I cannot answer directly, except to say that Jewry generally did show enormous concern about the kidnapping of these men and, in certain areas, did themselves try to discover the whereabouts of these men.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is not it the case that in certain areas joint search operations took place in co-operation between the military and the Haganah?
Mr. Creech Jones: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. That did happen. Certain expedients against the Jews generally have been suggested. If some have not been adopted it is because, on examination in Palestine or here, it is felt that they do not achieve their ends, or they blindly hit the innocent and allow the evildoer to escape, or cause the situation to degenerate into one which is even worse. But there is no irresolution in dealing with the evils as severely as our resources permit. It is difficult for me to add very much about the steps which have been taken by the authorities in maintaining their security arrangements. I want the House to believe that we are not irreso-

2321
lute; we are fiercely determined to play our part, as effectively as we can, with all our resources, in suppressing this evil.
I should like now to express my regret at, and to condemn, recent violent expressions of anti-Jewish feeling in this country. Provocation elsewhere may have been great, but no good purpose is served by irrational attacks upon people innocently pursuing their daily avocations in our midst. I feel deeply, as do His Majesty's Government, the horror and misery perpetuated by the folly of criminal groups of Jews in Palestine and their abettors elsewhere. But I say to the public here that the Palestine authorities have our complete confidence, and that His Majesty's Government will not slacken in the stern duties which lawlessness in Palestine demands. Our task has not been made easier by the spate of malicious abuse and vilification against Britain which has appeared in some of the American and French Press, and the bitter, unrestrained campaign pursued by some irresponsible American nationals to find the means for making intolerable the duties of the United Kingdom under the Mandate. The Jewish Agency in Palestine have a responsibility too, because in their passionate criticisms of British policy, they have lent themselves at times to the grossest misrepresentations.
There can be no solution of the Palestine difficulties until the immigration problem is solved, and the future status of Palestine determined. I hope that we are nearing that point. We made every effort to speed the United Nations Organisation in tackling this problem when it was referred to them. A Special Assembly of the United Nations was called, and a fact-finding Committee was appointed. We, in turn with the Palestine Government, proffered our evidence to that body, and the matter will be discussed at the next meeting of the Assembly five or six weeks hence. Pending the report of the Committee, it would be unwise and injudicious for His Majesty's Government to make any pronouncement without having studied the report and its recommendations. There is obviously a limit to the commitments with which Britain can burden herself overseas. Our sincerity as a nation was manifested by our reference of the problem of Palestine to the United Nations. We are a good member
2322
of the United Nations Organisation, and our record stands high. I have every hope that the United Nations will recommend a line of action which will prove acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, and will be a guarantee, by international obligation, of the peace, good order, security and development of Palestine.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Stanley: When the acting Leader of the Opposition first asked for this Debate, the Lord President of the Council replied that his instinctive reactions were that a Debate would not do any good. I am very glad that the Lord President of the Council has had second thoughts, because it is unthinkable to me that this House should have gone away for two months' Recess without discussing a matter about which, during the last few days, this country has been deeply stirred. No doubt my experience is that of all other hon. Members, namely, that for the first time, as a result of the recent outrage, I have been having communications from ordinary people in my constituency; from people who, before this, had taken little interest in the Palestine problem on one side or the other. It is essential that these people should realise that the Government and this House were just as shocked by this occurrence and just as stirred by this development, and are just as interested in the future of this Palestine problem.
It is quite true that the recent outrage, because it was deliberately surrounded by every circumstance of horror—nothing was left undone by the criminals to pile on the agony implicit in it—has stirred this country more than anything else; but we must not forget, in our deep sympathy for the relatives of these two young victims, that there have been no fewer than 108 members of the Armed Forces and the police killed in the two years of the life of this Parliament. The whole House will support the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of gratitude to and admiration for those in the various British Services who have been carrying this burden in Palestine. Few of us can think of a more thankless and more dangerous task than that which they have been carrying out, the danger which stalks you by night and day, from which you can never feel relief; thankless because there appears at the moment to them to be no end and no object, but merely the dreary

2323
continuance of the sordid murders to which they are getting accustomed.
I realise the difficulty which this House is in and is bound to be in when it comes to discussing a quasi-military situation such as this. We in this country obviously cannot set ourselves up as military experts in contradistinction to those who are in charge of operations, nor can we suggest with confidence measures which occur to us and appear to have been overlooked by them. Certainly, none of us would attempt on this occasion to try and teach to those responsible for law and order and for the military operations in Palestine the business of which they are past masters. But the action of the Services on the spot does depend not only upon the powers that are given to them by the Government at the centre, but also on the general appreciation of the situation and of the objects which the Government alone can supply.
Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the authorities on the spot were getting all the powers and all the support they require. To that question the right hon. Gentleman has given an unequivocal affirmative, and we must and do accept his word on that point. So much for the powers, but what of the appreciation? I cannot help feeling myself that the Government do not feel, as I do, that within the last few months there has been a complete and irrevocable change in the whole situation in Palestine. When the right hon. Gentleman says today, as he has done before, that he believes most in police measures and that the tasks in Palestine are really tasks for the police, then it appears to me that he does not appreciate this immense change. I feel myself that the vacillations of the last two years, coupled with the submission to the United Nations in the spring of this year with no policy of our own, really means the abdication of the old position to which in no circumstances can there ever be a return.
The object of the police is to keep order under some form of settled policy. That, I believe, has gone. They are now occupying a country which, in the main, is hostile until a decision is taken elsewhere. That is no longer an operation of police; it is a military operation, and should be treated as such. It is for that
2324
reason—the stoppage of all ordinary transport, the formation of convoys, the dropping of penny packets of troops, which is all right for a police operation, but which is becoming intensely dangerous if looked upon as a military operation—that this should now be treated as a military operation, in which the object is not to maintain comforts, conveniences, or the ordinary civil occupations of the people of Palestine, but to prevent any outbreak of disorders between Arab and Jew until a final decision can be taken, and whatever new measures are then decided upon can be put into effect. I beg the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to see that until that decision is taken, our troops and services in Palestine are put on a war footing, taking no more than the risks of war, and that we do not add to that an attempt to live a life of peace in the middle of what has become a hostile country.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, referred to the question of the Jewish Agency and the Haganah. He said that the Haganah had done helpful preventive work. Well, neither the prevention nor the help have been very obvious to the ordinary observer in this country——
Mr. S. Silverman: How could it?
Mr. Stanley: I will tell the hon. Gentleman how preventive work could have been helpful. It could have been helpful at any time within the last two years. Whether it can still I am not so sure. At any time until recently, if the Haganah and the Jewish Agency, by real cooperation with us, by dropping conditions, the desire to negotiate as equal partners, the feeling that they must maintain their position as a State within a State, had given to the people in charge of Palestine the information which was in their possession, the whole of the extremist movements, the Irgun and Stern gangs, could have been wound up once and for all. It would not only have saved British lives and made our problem easier, but would have made easier, in the future, the problems of the Jewish Agency and the Haganah themselves.
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but does he realise that at the time when Haganah was ready to do this, we undertook, in

2325
June of last year, the complete destruction of Haganah? We raided their arms dumps, but we did not attack Irgun. We put them all in prison, and the St. David's Hotel went up. Surely, it was a bit late to ask after that that they should come to us and say, "Here are the arms dumps, arrest us again."
Mr. Stanley: There were many opportunities before this time last year when Irgun could have been destroyed finally with the help of the Jewish Agency. There were opportunities which occurred at that time, when, I sincerely believe, the Jewish Agency and Haganah disapproved of the activities of the Irgun. The hon. Gentleman has selected a moment when Haganah appeared to take sides with Irgun, and joined with-them——
Mr. S. Silverman: Cite one case.
Mr. Stanley: I ask the hon. Member to ask his own Government, which published a White Paper which gave them convincing proof that Haganah had been responsible for outrages. We have been assured on several occasions since then, by the. Minister, that the Agency or Haganah were co-operating. At any of those periods, by real co-operation and a frank disclosure of all information, I believe that the terrorists could have been brought to an end.
May I come back to the point I was making when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) interrupted. I believe that the chief sufferers from this; in the long run, will be the Agency themselves. They have allowed to grow up a monster which will end by destroying them, as it has already destroyed a great deal of the support which they were receiving before from the outer world. It may now be too late. It may be that this movement has gathered strength now, and achieved a position where it is no longer easy or possible for Haganah to help in their destruction. For the sake of the Jewish cause, I hope that for the first time real, open, complete, co-operation will now be given to the Government which will make no conditions, strain at no difficulties, and which will accept the necessity of putting an end to the people who are dragging its name in the mud.
I would like now to come to the question of illegal immigration. I know the strength of the feeling there is in Jewish
2326
circles upon this subject. Here, again, quite apart from the illegality of the action, of the immigrants, I cannot help thinking that it was foolish on their part, and on the part of Zionist organisations all over the world, so completely to ignore the appeal made, not by us, but by the United Nations, to stop this immigration during the hearing of the case. They have chosen not to do so. They have chosen to go on for these few months with what is not so much a humanitarian object, as it has been in the past, over so many years, but action with the intent of forcing incidents and strengthening, in some way, the case they are putting before the United Nations. I believe that they would have strengthened their case much more if they' had been content, during these few months, to respond to the request of the United Nations themselves.
But I confess that I am not very happy, about the treatment by the Government of this question of illegal immigration. It seems to me to have been characterised, in the last few months, by a good deal of vacillation and a considerable lack of foresight. When it was decided to send to Cyprus the illegal immigrants, and from Cyprus to give them a proper place in the admitted quota for Palestine, the Government, to that extent, were-condoning illegal immigration, or making it plain that such immigration carried no great penalties. Suddenly, without making any announcement that henceforth this plan was to be abandoned, and that there was to be no back door through Cyprus into Palestine, one ship was stopped. The announcement was then made that these people would be taken back to their port of departure. I do not quarrel with that policy, although, I think, it should have been announced beforehand, and everyone should have known exactly what was to happen. What does surprise me is to learn that, after that action had been taken, there have been, I think, two ships arrested and sent back to Cyprus. The only reason I can gather for that is that they did not know from what port these ships had come. If that is the reason, I think that they had only to inquire of any newspaper in this country to have been told exactly the ports from which these ships had left, both of them, I understand, in North Africa.
With regard to the people who were returned to France, everyone must have

2327
foreseen that the probable action would be that they would refuse to leave the ships, and one would have thought that there would have been some plan to take care of a situation of that kind, instead of which we have had the rather lamentable sight of these people sitting in these ships outside Port Bouc for three weeks.
Mr. Michael Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say precisely what he would do with the people on the ships?
Mr. Stanley: I am prepared to say what I myself would do. I feel, however, that it is more important that the Government should have had a plan as to what they were going to do. Quite frankly, I should have taken them not to Cyprus but to some other port within our control, and have made it plain, when landing them there, that far from acquiring a right to take part in the quota to Palestine they had sacrificed any immediate chance of getting a proper permit. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not the Government. I am anxious that he should put a similar question to the people who have the responsibility——
Mr. Foot: I will, if I get a chance.
Mr. Stanley:—and who should by now be in a position to tell us exactly what was going to happen. No one can wholly dissociate, or even partly dissociate, the question of outrages and security which we have been discussing from the question of policy which, at the present moment, we are not able to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reference to the United Nations had been supported by all Members in the House. That was only partially true. It was only supported by me, and I think by most of my hon. Friends on certain conditions which were not fulfilled. First, there should be some speed-up in the machinery of the United Nations, because anyone could foresee that the intervening months were bound to lead to the kind of situation that we have seen. Here we are in August——
Mr. Creech Jones: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that every effort was made to speed up the machinery; indeed, a special meeting of the Assembly was called?
Mr. Stanley: My only answer to that can be that these "every efforts" have
2328
not resulted in very much. It is now August, and they have not to report until September, and it may be two or three months before this matter can be considered. That was not the only condition to which I referred. There was another, and, to me, a much more important one. I felt, and still feel, that with no guidance from us and no expression of views on our part, it is almost inevitable that, when we have waited the full nine months, there will, in fact, be no agreement, no new policy, and we-shall be where we were.
We have all of us followed the proceedings of the Commission in the last few months. They must have been extremely familiar to an hon. Member opposite. The same evidence was given by the same people; the same places visited with the same photographs—just the same as with every other Commission that has gone to Palestine in the last 15 years, and I think that we must be optimistic indeed if we think that, when the time comes in October or November, there will emerge from the United Nations some new agreed solution which can be immediately put into effect. What I suggest we should have said at the start is: "This is our plan and this is what we believe to be best in Palestine. Consider it, discuss it, amend it if you like. We are only too anxious to discuss it with you, but if you do not feel that we are right, and if you yourselves want to do something quite different, we surrender to you the Mandate." Had that statement been made in the spring it might have had some effect. It was not made. We shall face, in October, I am sure, the actual situation that so many of us foresaw, and we will have to make our decision and announcement then.
I have been for a long time a firm believer in one particular solution in Palestine. I realise, as every one of us realises, what tremendous changes have come in the last two years, and how a solution which might have been possible two years ago, is becoming less and less practicable today. I do not mean to pretend for one moment that I still have the certainty that I had two years ago, or that my doubts and fears are not much greater today than they were even one year ago. So far as I am concerned, I see only one alternative to partition. If partition is not found to be practicable, there is only one alternative to partition, and that is evacuation.

2329
I do not believe that this country can continue to carry alone a burden in blood, in treasure, in work and labour in Palestine, on anything like the same lines as for the last 20 years. After all, the chief interest in Palestine today, with all the alterations that there have been in world strategy, is the interest in the peace of the area. The people chiefly interested in peace in the Middle East are the United Nations. If they have an interest, let them do something to carry the burden as well. I believe that is the choice with which the people of this country are bound to be faced within the next few months, and our task is to try to maintain the security of life and of property in Palestine until that decision has been taken.
No one, I think, can complain of the attitude of the Opposition on this question. I was not here myself, but I am told that the Attorney-General, speaking this morning, twitted the Opposition with always making party capital out of every point. I will not attempt to correct the Attorney-General. To try to do anything to relieve his massive ignorance would be like Mrs. Partington trying to sweep back the Atlantic with a broom. It was a question on which a great deal of party capital could have been made and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not been entirely guiltless in this matter. It could have led to continual debate and it certainly would have in the old days with another Opposition. We deliberately refrained, because we believed that the national interest, and, above all, the security of lives in Palestine, stood above any advantage that could have been gained. We do not want the fact that we have refrained to be taken any longer as meaning that we are not interested in the matter or that we do not feel that a time for a definite solution has come. That time has come, and when the House returns and when the meeting of the United Nations is over, the Opposition will expect from the Government a definite, decisive and final answer as to what their policy will be, and until they get it they will take every Parliamentary opportunity of bringing the matter before the House and the country.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Edelman: The right hon Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), like his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe
2330
(Brigadier Mackeson), dealt justly and fairly with the problem of Palestine, and I should like to say that I share his concern in the matter though perhaps with more personal feeling. It is only three months ago since I myself was in Palestine talking to men from Coventry who were serving in the Forces there, discussing with them familiar things at home of which they knew. Now one of them is dead, killed by the Irgun. I felt when I was there that terrorism was something that destroyed not only its victims but also the cause which it purported to defend. At that time the Administration in Palestine was preparing an anti-terrorist campaign, and I asked the Chief Information Officer on my behalf to denounce terrorism and to repeat the words which I have just used.
Later on when I heard that one of my constituents had been kidnapped in Palestine and was being held as a hostage, I together with my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) asked the Palestine Government to put out a broadcast calling on every Jew to help in finding the kidnapped men and in returning them to their comrades. We added in our broadcast that the crime which they were committing was a crime which would outrage the conscience of every decent person whether Gentile or Jew. In addition to that we said that if that crime were brought to fruition the crime would stain for ever the history of Palestine. Unhappily our forecast proved to be true, but this Debate, which has its origin in the death of two gallant men who were performing their duty, will only achieve its purpose if from it comes the possibility that something will be done to-save the lives of the comrades of these men who have died.
I particularly welcome, therefore, today the constructive and balanced suggestions which have been put forward for dealing with the situation in Palestine in future. The murder of these two sergeants cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a vicious circle of blood and terror, a sequence of reprisal and counter reprisal. I am thinking this evening not of the sporadic outbursts of anti-Jewish rioting that has taken place in this country. I believe that they are the work of hooligans and looters, and when the Lord Mayor of Liverpool described them as un-British he said all that needed to be said about it. I am thinking rather

2331
more of the greater reprisals which took place in Palestine when five Jews on the night of the hanging of the sergeants were murdered in a cafe in Tel-Aviv and the murders that have taken place since. Those murders are part of an endless sequence of terror and counter terror.
Brigadier Peto: Would the hon. Member make it clear that it was not the troops who carried out the reprisals but that it was Arabs who murdered the Jews in the Tel-Aviv cafe?
Mr. Edelman: There were two separate instances. The first instance was when five Jews were killed in the cafe and the murders were committed by men officially described as being dressed in uniform. Later on there was another crime in a cafe near the River Yarkon when five more Jews were murdered.
Brigadier Peto: By Arabs.
Mr. Edelman: By Arabs, exactly. When mentioning this case I should point out that these murders were not representative of the life and mood of Palestine as a whole. The fact is that in Palestine as a whole there is a day to day life going on which has little reference to those crimes. Moreover, the troops in Palestine and the police as a whole are discharging their difficult job magnificently. I pay this tribute, because I have actually seen them in action in carrying out searches and doing their day to day jobs. I want to speak particularly of the Welsh Guards to whom every Jew I met in Palestine was willing to pay tribute. All of these men are carrying out their job under difficulties. The administration itself is kept in behind barbed wire and has very little contact with the rest of the country. The troops are hemmed in and by the nature of things are separated from the civil population with whom they have practically no contact except in discharging their official duties. The result is that the tension in Palestine has steadily become greater during the whole of the period that these unnatural conditions have existed.
I should like to say something about the High Commissioner in Palestine, who is discharging his most difficult task with moderation and fairness. The Jews as a whole in Palestine would be agreed in recognising that, despite all the difficulties of the civil administration and despite all the
2332
provocations of the terrorists, the High Commissioner has steadily gone ahead with his task of trying to administer the country. He, too, has had a major difficulty, and that major difficulty has been that he has not had a policy from London. His administration has to be pragmatic and has to deal with each day's circumstances as they arise. He has never been able to plan for himself any definite course of administration with the knowledge that next week or next month he would have a predictable set of circumstances with which he would have to cope.
The thing which causes the greatest emotion in Palestine is the question of immigration into Palestine, and whenever a refugee ship approaches Haifa a shudder of feeling passes through the whole country. One has to be there in order to appreciate exactly what that means. There is an immediate stand-to and an immediate condition both of exasperation and tension; every Jew in Palestine, recognising that the boat which is approaching is bearing some relative of his—however distant that relative may be—is in a state of agitation. I felt some months ago that the situation in Palestine was rather like that of a boiler with very high pressure which was continually being piled up The pressure was being piled on by the fact that the immigrants were being forced into Palestine in the face of resistance by the authorities. One had the feeling all the time that something was about to explode.
When I returned from Palestine I suggested to my right hon. Friend that until U.N.O. had delivered its report it would be a far better thing, in the meantime, to have a limited but controlled immigration which could be deducted from the total which U.N.O. might ultimately decide rather than have this sporadic, unorganised and desperate movement of men, women and children into Palestine. I felt that if there were this kind of controlled immigration it would serve as some kind of safety valve to that boiler with the excessive pressure. I regret very much that that was not done. I very much regret that instead of that the situation continued in which the Agency continued to send ships to Palestine while the whole question was being considered by U.N.O., and I regret it particularly because it has exacerbated a state of affairs already inflamed.

2333
I have said that the High Commissioner lacked a policy and that consequently it has been difficult for him to administer the country, and I feel that I ought to say what I regard as being the policy which should be applied in Palestine. I am not a Zionist in the political sense; I believe that a Jewish State in Palestine might, in fact, defeat its very purpose. At the same time, as long as all the entrances to the countries of the world are blocked to immigrants, and as long as there are Jews who still lie rotting in the refugee camps of the continent, it seems to me that Palestine must be called on to take a certain proportion of Jews. I have always believed that Palestine could become a unitary State in which Jews and Arabs could live comfortably together, and I believe that had it, not been for political influences that form of a unitary Palestine might have been achieved. I have seen Jews and Arabs working together in the Haifa Municipal Council. I have seen them working together with British administrators—I have in mind, particularly the British municipal engineer; and I have seen Arabs and Jews when doing a job which affects them together doing it well, successfully and happily.
Therefore, I certainly do not despair of Jews and Arabs being able to live together, but I think that in the present circumstances the form of living together may probably have to be some kind of federal Palestine in which there will be a Jewish area and an Arab area. I hope that if that federal Palestine is established its treaty relationships will enable Great Britain to retain control or influence at the Port of Haifa and will give an area of cantonment for British troops in Palestine. In that way it should be possible for Britain to preserve her essential interests, while Jews and Arabs find a modus vivendi.
There have, however, been things which have exacerbated feeling in Palestine and the occurrence of which I regret. One of those things seems to me to be the arbitrary manner in which the refugee ships containing the 4,500 immigrants were turned round and sent back to Port de Bouc. Whatever else one says about that action—whether one believes it was humane or not—the fact remains that from an administrative point of view it was inefficient. Surely the Colonial Office
2334
should have assured itself before the immigrants were returned to Port de Bouc that the French Government would confirm in the most categorical terms that they were prepared to assist in their disembarkation? Quite clearly that has not been done, and tonight I want to ask the Colonial Secretary where are these people going? Are they to be sent to Mombasa, as has been predicted, or to some other of our East African possessions? Or, will the Colonial Secretary take a step—which I believe will be one which will indicate strength—and, as an act of mercy, allow these immigrants to enter Cyprus?
There are times when an act of mercy may be interpreted as weakness, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that action and allow these men, women and children to go to Cyprus and to await their turn to enter Palestine. I believe that if he does so he will win not only their gratitude but also the gratitude of all people who recognise that whatever is the motive of those who organise the movement of the illegal immigrant ships, the people who are actually conveyed in them are merely unfortunate victims. When people talk about the racket in hell ships I would ask them to remember that for a refugee leaving a D.P. camp in Europe a so-called hell-ship may seem like a luxury liner if he goes to what he considers to be home. Conversely if an immigrant is turned away from Palestine and sent back under the most comfortable circumstances, the luxury liner might have for him the appearance and the feeling of a hell-ship if he is going into an unknown exile. I hope, therefore, that the Colonial Secretary will recognise that these people who have gone as immigrants to Palestine are people who are merely seeking sanctuary. For that reason I ask him, as an act of humanity, that he will allow them to go to Cyprus and there wait their turn.
Before I conclude, I want to make one practical suggestion in connection with future relations between the Jews and Arabs and our own country in Palestine. The question has been referred to U.N.O. and I hope that U.N.O. will give a firm decision which we shall be able to accept. I cannot help feeling that in dealing with Palestine successive Governments have been rather like a man suffering from a disease—a Palestine ulcer—

2335
who has gone from one doctor to another seeking not a diagnosis but the assurance that he is perfectly well and that all he needs is a rest and to leave matters exactly as they are. I hope that this time, in referring the matter to U.N.O. the Government will accept U.N.O.'s decision, but here is an opportunity for U.N.O. to play a constructive part in the development of Palestine.
I hope that U.N.O. will examine the idea of a Jordan Valley Authority in which the Jews, the Arabs, our own country and possibly the Americans, if they are interested, will be represented, in order to develop a portion of that region so that Jew, Arab, and all who are concerned, can co-operate together. I believe that is a practical understanding which the Economic Council of U.N.O. can tackle. I hope that that suggestion will commend itself to the United Nations and that my-right hon. Friend will take the opportunity of bringing it to the attention of U.N.O. I do not believe that the problem of Palestine will be solved by bullets or by troops. The major question will be solved by statesmanship, but I believe that if that statesmanship has not an inspiration from the Jews, from the Arabs, and also, from the Christian nations of that brotherly love which was first preached in Palestine, it will never succeed. On the other hand, if statesmanship has that inspiration the Palestine problem can be settled, and Jew, Arab and Briton can live in amity.
7.12 p.m.
Brigadier Peto: The last point made by the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) that a solution of the Palestine problem can be found in brotherly love may be all very nice in theory, but we have not so far seen much sign of brotherly love from the terrorists who confront our unfortunate British soldiers and the Palestine Police. Another point which I desire to clear up is that the murders to which the hon. Gentleman referred are a repercussion or a reprisal following the hanging of our two sergeants. When I asked the hon. Member about the second of the two cases, the murder of five Jews in a café outside Tel-Aviv, he admitted that that had been done by Arabs. The previous case where murders
2336
were carried out was by men reported to be in uniform. The situation in Palestine today is something like the situation during the Irish troubles from 1918 to 1920. Some of the worst crimes of murder at that time were carried out by Sinn Feiners dressed as British soldiers. There have been many cases already, as the hon. Member will know, in which Jews have been arrested in British uniform Therefore, I do not think that it is good to put about the idea that our troops, who have been magnificent throughout every trial, carried out a reprisal of that sort.
Mr. Edelman: I was making no reflection whatsoever on British troops in Palestine. On the contrary, I said myself that the behaviour of British troops in Palestine has been exemplary. I believe that to be the case. So far as the Jews in the café in Tel-Aviv are concerned, the matter is sub judice and I cannot say anything about it, except that the Jews were killed and that the murders were part of a vicious circle of reprisal and counter-reprisal which has been going on in Palestine for a long time.
Brigadier Peto: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I was going to read from a headquarters report which categorically denied that any British troops were in the town at that time.
Having cleared up those points, I would like to deal with one or two others that occurred to me while I was sitting about during the long hours last night. We have heard it admitted by the Colonial Secretary today that he was not surprised, in fact, that he foresaw, like many other people, after the breakdown of the Conference and the long hiatus between that breakdown and any decision by U.N.O. of what our ultimate policy shall be in Palestine, that there would be a great increase in terrorist activities. I well remember on 18th February, when the Foreign Secretary was making his statement, that the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) said in so many words that unless more definite action was taken in the interim period than had been taken in the past, she could foresee only an increase in terrorist activities.
On 31st January, during the Debate on Palestine, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said that if this matter were referred to

2337
U.N.O. with no policy, nothing but an increase in terrorist activity could be expected. He went even further and said that in his opinion any policy was better than no policy. Like other hon. Members, in the discussion during the Debate on 25th February I repeated that statement. Therefore, it is no surprise that we have seen this succession, day by day almost, and certainly week by week, of the worst sort of atrocity going on in the last six months, and culminating in this last dastardly murder by the hanging or throttling of two British sergeants. I blame the Government, for they were warned and they foresaw it, and they took no action and gave no lead to the Government of Palestine during that difficult period.
The situation today in Palestine is one that no one in any quarter of the House can look at with equanimity. It is definitely worse, and I heartily agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol that from now on, it is essential that we should treat this matter as a military operation. The time has gone, as the hon. Member for West Coventry has just told us, in which people could live at peace one with the other and at the same time see murders going on. There was a time, as' I said when I spoke last on this question, when Arab, Jew and British soldier could still live side by side in a friendly spirit. In present circumstances it is much wiser to treat this whole effort as a military operation and as the occupation of an enemy country. That is as far as I am going to deal with the failures of the past, particularly in regard to the Government in the past two years. It is more useful to look at the future and to see in what way, by any suggestion of ours, we can arrive at some helpful solution to the immediate problem.
I ask the indulgence of the House while I look back again upon the Irish question, to which I have already referred. Following three years in the first great war, I was immediately posted to Ireland, and I know a little bit about it. The more I sec of this Palestine problem, the more certain I am that the two situations are extremely similar. There are points where one might almost believe that the Irgun organisation had deliberately copied the organisation, methods and tactics of the Sinn Feiners of those days. The two
2338
countries are not dissimilar in size, there is a similarity between the number of troops occupying the two countries, and the tactics are very similar. The problems of ambush, murder, beating up, taking hostages, wearing our uniforms, and, perhaps the most important, never knowing one's enemy, are identical. Never knowing one's enemy is probably the most difficult of these problems for the soldier. People have asked me why it is that we could beat the Germans and yet have all this frightful trouble in Palestine. The answer is that one never knows one's enemy and can, therefore, never strike until one is struck by him. The enemy is not in uniform and one does not know if he is carrying arms. It is an impossible task for soldiers to carry out unless it is treated as a military operation, as it was in the end in Ireland. It was about December, 1920, that Mr. Lloyd George declared martial law.
There, again, people have often said—I have heard the suggestion in this House—that it would be advisable to declare martial law in Palestine, but the Government of Palestine already have all the powers they need without martial law. Similarly, many people have really no idea what martial law is. There is a very easy definition of it at the beginning of the Army Act with which I will not burden the House now, but it amounts in a sentence to the transposing of civil law by military courts and the dealing with and punishing of any form of crime by military courts and not by civil courts. The normal consequence of the proclamation of martial law is the passing by this House of an Act of Indemnity. I should like to know whether such an Act would be helpful in this instance. An Act of Indemnity is really to protect all, whatever rank, who are carrying out their duty from the legal side should they have to use force or be guilty of a crime carrying a civil sentence. We have not passed an Act of Indemnity for those occupying Palestine. In addition, an Act of Indemnity serves to confirm all sentences passed by military courts.
Until I heard the Colonial Secretary, I wondered whether the Government and the troops in Palestine really felt that they have the full support of this Government behind them, and that in whatever step they take, they will be supported. That was not always so in Ireland, and it has

2339
not always been so in Palestine. I have lived there a little and I know it. If the troops have that assurance it gives them an enormous sense of well-being and of confidence to go forward in their duty. History has a most curious way of repeating itself. I remember that in April, 1920, in Dublin, a police inspector was murdered by being shot down. I believe he was deserted by his colleagues while he was being shot. Curiously enough his name was Dalton. In April, 1947, an almost identical crime was committed outside Tel-Aviv when a police sergeant was shot, with two others, and killed. I will not carry the analogy any nearer or any further, but these things do happen, and I would hate to think that, for instance, any other member of the family of Dalton was likely to be destroyed in such a barbarous manner.
I want to ask the Colonial Secretary whether our troops are taking the situation seriously enough. From reports that I have and from what I have read, if the troops are really taking the matter seriously I cannot see how they can be kidnapped while bathing. That sort of point should be looked into. No good unit would allow its men to be kidnapped while bathing. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) referred to the question of concentration. I firmly believe—though I would hate to give advice to the military on this—that if we got out of the three big centres, Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and Jaffa, leaving the Jews inside them, and patrolled outside, had road-blocks, check points and a curfew, and allowed vehicles to move only at certain times and incertain densities, we should be more successful in controlling what was going on, including the movement of arms in and out of the cities. I hate the thought of spreading out one's men and having them murdered individually. The last question I shall ask is one I asked 12 months ago. Are the amenities of our troops in camp improved? They were in an extraordinarily poor way, and I have heard nothing to suggest that the amenities have been improved in the last few months. I have not time to go further with these questions.
I would emphasise, in conclusion, the importance of taking the very strongest measures promptly, and never relaxing
2340
when one has taken them. This cannot be over-emphasised because, as everyone knows, we will have to re-establish authority in that country, and prove to the Jews and Arabs that as long as we are there we are masters. It is well to remember, as was said in the last Debate, that we are not a bloodthirsty nation nor a bloodthirsty people by habit, but when a totally unexpected act of violence, and probably a cowardly act is used against a British subject, it can only be met with an act of violence. As Mr. Lloyd George said in December, 1920, it is our duty, and the duty of the Palestine Government and of our troops—
"to intensify their campaign against that small but highly organised and desperate minority who are using murder and outrage in order to obtain the impossible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1920; Vol. 135, c. 2602.]
I thoroughly endorse that, and as Field-Marshal Montgomery used to say, "I wish them" Good hunting '."
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Lever: I confess to some disappointment in this Debate, not because of the pious platitudes—they were expected—but because of the lack of policy shown by the Government. I confess also to a measure of surprise that the House is allowing the Government on this issue to get away so lightly with two years of planless, gutless and witless behaviour which has not only cost us treasure in terms of money but uncountable treasure in manpower and loss of life, all in order to prove that we are master of a situation of which we obviously axe not master, and all for some obscure reason made plain not to our troops, not to the people of Palestine, and certainly not to us.
I want to know when we are going to hear from the Government what their policy is in regard to Palestine. The House must not allow the Government to come here again and insult the House by a collection of sayings such as we were treated to at the Despatch Box today, two years after our Government have taken office, and at a time when the country faces the gravest economic crisis I think the House is failing in its duty unless it gives the Government, and the Colonial Secretary in particular, a public castigation for the happenings in Palestine. Two years ago I spoke in a Palestine Debate, and I said it seemed to me

2341
obvious that this was a matter which ought to go to the United Nations organisation. Nothing was done about it. Then a commission of realists and sensible people, and, as far as one knows, completely impartial people, were appointed by the American and British Governments. It reported what we all knew, that the first thing to be obtained in Palestine was some pacification. Although I have never espoused any claims of an exaggerated kind made by Jewish Nationalists or Zionists, it seemed that a substantial immigration of Jews was needed for this purpose. The commission recommended that 100,000 men should enter the country, and the British Government refused to allow those recommendations to be carried into effect. Since the passage of two years 100,000 men have gone into Palestine, and the 100,000 men are armed British troops.
We are told that we must not allow Jews into Palestine from displaced persons camps because that would infringe the national sovereignty of the Arabs in Palestine. I think there is a good deal of persuasive force behind that argument, but if anyone inside or outside the House thinks that the Arabs of Palestine welcome 100,000 armed British soldiers any more than they would welcome 100,000 Jews, or regard it as a less infringement of their sovereignty, they are very mistaken. No one who understands anything about the Arab Nationalist movement, or events in the Middle East, can have any doubts about that. We introduced 100,000 armed soldiers, not to pacify the land, but to put up a senseless military dictatorship which has now existed for some months with increasing terror. I have never hesitated to show my contempt for terrorism and murder because it is repugnant to me, and I hold some old fashioned Socialist views about the sacredness of human life. But I think all human life is sacred, Jewish, British, and Arab lives, and this Government bear a ghastly responsibility by their policy in Palestine for Jewish lives, Arab safety and future, and above all they have a responsibility, which they have not discharged, for the safety of British, troops in Palestine, who are apparently there for no purpose which has been disclosed to us.
I will not venture into the fields of strategy. I have it on the authority of the Leader of the Opposition that we have no strategic purpose in Palestine. Then
2342
what in Heaven's name are 100,000 troops doing in Palestine at a great cost to this country's labour power, anxiety to parents, and costing dollars for their maintenance? I want to ask the Colonial Secretary what moral or legal grounds we have for remaining in Palestine at the present time? What is our purpose there? Why do we not go out? He may reply that it is because of the Mandate, and Balfour Declaration, and the like; I am not going into that now. But is he going to tell me of this military dictatorship in Palestine, this police State, this State of the flogging block and the gallows—that we are there with these gentle instruments in the interest of the Mandate, and that when he supports collective terror in Palestine and the blowing up of property, that it is because we are very altruistically holding the ring?
If the Colonial Secretary goes on much longer in this attitude to Palestine he will cover his hands with more purposelessly shed blood than any other Minister of the Crown in this generation. There is no purpose in risking the lives of troops in Palestine nor in coming here with platitudes about "We shall not flinch." Apparently, the Colonial Secretary is prepared to flinch from nothing save forming a policy, and that he has been prepared to flinch from since he took office, and he shares an unenviable record with his predecessor in that regard.
The Government have told us that there has been a reaction of British opinion. Of course there has been a reaction of British opinion, and it has been an unhappy reaction of British opinion, and one which shows signs of polluting English public life with anti-Semitism, precisely because the public have not been told the facts about the situation in Palestine. The troops in Palestine have probably behaved better than any other occupying troops would have behaved in similar circumstances. My experience of British soldiers is that they are about the most decent people in the world, and the most decent and kindly soldiers, but if anyone asks me to subscribe to the repeated hypocrisies we hear about the kindly attitude of the soldiers to the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine, I can only be amazed at their insincerity.
When there is a situation in which there is one armed soldier to each male adult Jew in Palestine, obviously they are not

2343
going to get a situation which will lend itself to peaceful development—terrorism breaks out and helpless, hopeless and cheated people who have been defrauded over the years and seen their relatives suffer, lose their balance—the Lord President of the Council said they picked it up from the Nazis—and I must confess that it is not a circumstance best. calculated to promote stability of judgment and temperance of behaviour when one sees half one's family murdered in cold blood in Europe, and the other half denied any form of reasonable hope in life.
Worse than that, when people speculatively and insincerely promise things which they do not fulfil, and continue to use the carrot and the whip without any clear-cut policy to relieve the land of this miserable military occupation and the sufferings which it has brought the people of Palestine and this country, only the unthinking optimist can expect a happy outcome. Apparently both sides of the House are gradually realising that mere "blimpery" is not enough. I observe that one hon. Member opposite wanted to know if we had enough troops in Palestine. I suppose that he will not rest until we have as many troops there as the entire number of people in the area. I wonder if he is serious or whether he is living in a bygone age. Indeed, I often wonder whether those who conduct our policy in this matter are not living in a bygone age.
An hon. and gallant Member opposite who has had some experience in these matters, says that there is a great resemblance to the Irish situation. I do not want to follow him in detail, but there are points of resemblance and some of difference. If there is a resemblance to the Irish situation it is that we did not add to the British reputation in the world by Black-and-Tannery, by a stupid military attempt to hold on until it became impossible, after we were detested by the entire population of Southern Ireland. It did not help our future relations with that part of the world. We went too late and after brutality. We stayed on in Ireland until we were virtually driven out.
Brigadier Peto: We were not driven out. We decided, quite wisely at that time, that the right form of solution of the problem was partition, which is
2344
exactly the same solution which has been put forward by my right hon. Friend, and has been put forward over the last few years by many of us—in the case of Palestine, a temporary partition, with the hope that ultimately the two parts will come together as one unit.
Mr. Lever: As far as Southern Ireland was concerned, we got out when we were forced out, because of the impossibility of remaining on any terms agreeable to British opinion, when it became impossible to hold the population down any longer. Because we did not go out when we ought to have done, because the House was treated to the bellicose nonsense of Mr. Lloyd George, just as it is now treated to the unflinching determination of the Colonial Secretary and of those who have no policy at all except unflinching determination, has this country benefited; have we improved our relations with the people of Southern Ireland or the Irish people of America because of that senseless cruelty? There are many humanitarians who hold my old-fashioned views about the sanctity of human life, and who ask whether we gained by inflicting so much misery on so many people in Southern Ireland.
Are we gaining anything by doing the same in Palestine at the present time? I want to refer to the worst murder of all that has received some publicity recently, that of the two sergeants which has some relation to the public reaction. There are some aspects of this murder which were referred to by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), certain aspects which were peculiarly loathsome and provocative. I would add too that in the eyes of the desperate section of the Jewish population of Palestine, the hanging of armed Jews, who should be punished, but not by hanging, was no less provocative, than this has been to the British people—one has to put oneself in the position of the more demented and unstable element in Palestine.
At this point I want to deal again with the question of British reaction. We have to face some of the paradoxes of the situation. A Socialist Colonial Secretary has boys of 17 flogged in Palestine for the carrying of leaflets, inciting Jews to violence against the British. It may be a good thing, but again I ask, who profits by this sort of behaviour? In England,

2345
it is perfectly all right for Gentile Fascists to issue as many provocative leaflets as they like telling Gentiles to attack Jews in Britain. Apparently no one is flogged or punished for that. That is one of the paradoxes which some people find a little difficult to understand. Jews in Palestine are flogged for behaviour which is certainly wrong, but which does not warrant the brutal method used to put it down, especially in the case of youths. Here we have certain sections of the Press seeking to pollute this land by the reactionary use of anti-Semitism against people who have no possible connection with, or control over, the terrorists in Palestine. Apparently here the Fascists may, with impunity, issue as much agitation to violence as they please without fear of any punishment of any kind.
I think some mention should be made by someone about a picture which appeared in the "Daily Express" quite rightly headed, "A picture which will shock the world"—perhaps not in the sense of the hack who affixed that title. I wonder why the "Daily Express," in spite of its shortage of newsprint, printed that picture? Was it that the sentimental Mr. Christiansen, the Editor, was anxious to bring some consolation and comfort to the suffering families of these unfortunate men by displaying their freshly-hung bodies to public view in an immense photograph on the front page, or was it speculative incitement to violence? Was it an intention to speculate on the anti-Semitic feeling which the ignorant were already manifesting because of the brutal murder of these sergeants in Palestine.
Major Legge-Bourke: I am afraid I cannot remember the date or exactly how long ago it was—and I have no connection with the "Daily Express"—but I do clearly remember that at least at a time when there was an outburst of anti-Semitism in Great Britain, the "Daily Express" made an outstanding stand against it.
Mr. Lever: I wish to be perfectly fair. After publishing this piece of provocation, about three days later, when the obviously guiltless shopkeepers of Liverpool and Cheetham Hill had been the victims of violence—one of my constituents who lost his son in the war had the pleasure of seeing hooligans breaking his window—in fairness it should be
2346
said that the "Daily Express" expressed reproof two or three days after the damage was done. I am not saying that the "Daily Express" did this to speculate on anti-Jewish feeling. It may have been the work of some conscienceless and cruel hack who cared nothing for the feeling of the relatives or the consequences of his action provided that it was good news and something which was going to create some excitement. I think this is the greatest descent from decent journalism and good taste that has appeared in any British newspaper in my life. I think it is to be reprehended. I think that even our unflinching administration in Palestine should know that the Jews at Cheetham Hill, Liverpool and Leeds have no possible connection with events in Palestine and that they should express themselves more forcibly on what has happened, especially when it is followed up by minnow-like Fascists like the gentleman who edits the "Morecambe Visitor," who goes so far as to incite the population of the area to violence against the Jews.
I have said what I have said with a deliberate lack of restraint, because we have been too restrained about what has been going on in Palestine, which is getting us nowhere at all, except bringing death and danger for our lads out there, and ruin for our economy, because tens of thousands of our young men are there in these circumstances. Nobody in the two years we have sat in this Parliament has told us why they are there, what purpose they are serving and what possible benefit it is going to be to the people of this country to send their lads out to risk danger and death in this way. Nobody has told us that. Nobody has told us of one single effort by the Government to use any imagination or plan in connection with Palestine. I agree with everything which has been said from all parts of the House indicating that our time is up in Palestine. We must go, and the sooner we go the better it will be for the people of Palestine and the people of this country.
I urge upon the Colonial Secretary to go to United Nations now, before we get dragged any deeper into the morass of vengeance and counter-vengeance, and deeper into the rivers of blood as a result of the planless hopeless approach to the situation. The Colonial Secretary is a

2347
Socialist who has spent a lifetime of devoted work on behalf of the subject peoples of the Empire. I am not going to reproach him with whether he is or is not a Zionist. I only know that he has given a lifetime of great public service as a Socialist. Is he now going to end his days as the Minister responsible for this hopeless ruin which is being brought upon the land of Palestine? Is he going to allow the situation to go on from one equivocation to another, from one gramophone record of a prepared brief from the Colonial Office to another? Is he going to wait until more people are hanged or murdered in some other way? Is he going to take responsibility for being in Palestine for no purpose which he can honestly declare? Are the gibbet, the flogging block and the demolition squad to be our sole contribution to civilisation in the Middle East? Is he going to crown his lifetime of service to Socialism by doing that? I ask him to go to the Cabinet and to insist that, when this matter goes to United Nations, Britain should take the only honest course left and should ask United Nations to relieve her of responsibility so as to allow her to call out her troops as early as possible.
There is nothing left for this country in Palestine except grief and suffering. There is no reward but only prospects of further bloodshed for a bad cause. There is no moral basis for our presence and no wish on the part of anyone in Palestine that we should remain. We are detested already by both the Arab and the Jew in the Middle East. They want no part of us. They do not want us there. What right have we to remain? What right have we to demand of the people of Britain that we should make the sacrifice of their lads who go out there to maintain this senseless rule? What right have we to ask the people of Britain to sacrifice 100,000 men from their economy to perpetuate a police State in Palestine which denies to the people of Palestine every democratic right which we claim for ourselves? This is probably the last chance this Government will have of leaving Palestine with some decency and with some semblance of dignity before she is irretrievably committed to a hopeless policy. I beg the Colonial Secretary, as a Socialist not to echo the Foreign Office hacks, to get out of Palestine, to go to United Nations and
2348
ask them to let us withdraw our troops at the earliest possible opportunity so that United Nations can take over responsibility.
7.54 p.m.
Major Tufton Beamish: I listened with much respect to the moderate speech made by the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) a little earlier in the Debate. I was in agreement, though not in complete agreement, with much of what he said. What a contrast his speech was to the unbalanced and illogical speech made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Lever).
Mr. Gallacher: It was a very good speech.
Major Beamish: When listening to his criticisms of our military policy in Palestine, I thought how interesting it would be if we knew exactly what military knowledge he had during the war and exactly what personal knowledge he has of actual conditions in Palestine. With one thing which he said——
Mr. Lever: I cannot understand very accurately the purport of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks. Is he making some sort of offensive suggestion that I in any way failed in my duty in the last war? If so, will he make it in terms?
Major Beamish: I made no offensive suggestion whatever. I simply said that it would be interesting to know——
Mr. Lever: I have as good military and Service experience as the hon. and gallant Member. I may have coupled it with a little more good taste and better manners than the hon. and gallant Member.
Major Beamish: I made my remarks simply because I feel that those who have not as much military knowledge as those who are handling affairs in Palestine should be most careful when they set out to criticise. I feel, too, that hon. Members who have scanty knowledge of actual conditions in Palestine also should be most careful how they set out to criticise.
Mr. Lever: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me?
Major Beamish: No, I must go on.
Mr. S. Silverman: Give way.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt, and may I say that I do not think there was any personal reflection on the hon. Gentleman in any way?
Major Beamish Major Beamish rose——
Mr. Lever: May I ask one question. In regard to the criticism which the hon. and gallant Member says I have made of the military administration in Palestine, will he tell me what it was?
Major Beamish: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read his speech which, as regards nine-tenths of it, was purely destructive of the efforts which are being made. I do not propose to deal with all the points in what I thought was a particularly useless speech. I wish to protest that in this Debate there is no representative of the War Office on the Treasury Bench. It has been made clear—and I think it is agreed by both sides of the House—that the suppression of terrorism is essentially a military problem. I fail to understand why we should be treated in this somewhat disrespectful manner by not having present either the Secretary of State for War or his representative, or in their absence, perhaps even the Minister of Defence. The last Palestine Debate which we had was very largely inconclusive. I very much fear that this Debate may also be somewhat inconclusive.
I want to deal with two general subjects. The first is the question of illegal immigration which has already been touched upon. The second is one which I treat with some diffidence. It relates to the military measures being taken at present to suppress terrorism in Palestine. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester seemed to overlook completely the fact that His Majesty's Government have a duty to the United Nations to govern in Palestine and to maintain law and order in that country and, thus, to enable economic life to proceed as normally as possible. In regard to illegal immigration, inevitably I must ask a certain number of questions. The reason I propose to do that is because I feel that this House has been kept in the dark regarding the situation in Palestine. I understand that the cost of maintaining the Jews in Cyprus is about £45,000 per month. We should be
2350
told who is paying this very large sum. Is the cost falling entirely on the Jewish community or is the Arab community in Palestine being asked to bear a part of the cost through some form of taxation?
Mr. S. Silverman: Why not?
Major Beamish: I am simply asking for information. I propose, with the hon. Gentleman's courtesy, to make my speech in my own way; it may be that he will be fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Irgun claim, I believe, that 33 illegal immigrant ships have set out for Palestine since early in 1946, but the Colonial Secretary said recently that 25 ships—a difference of eight—had set out between November, 1945, and 19th March, 1947. Will the Government tell us whether, to their knowledge, any ships carrying illegal immigrants actually got to Palestine and discharged their passengers? So far as I know, that has not yet been made quite clear. I would also ask the Government, and this is not a fantastic idea, whether, as far as they know, illegal immigrants have gained entry into Palestine by means of aircraft. It is easy to imagine that two aircraft each night could put immigrants into Palestine at the rate of 1,500 per month, and I hope we may be told whether there is any information in regard to that.
Immigration from Europe is highly organised, and, when I was in Austria and Germany earlier this year, I visited a considerable number of Jewish camps, and it was well-known in those countries that staging camps of one sort or another existed for this illegal movement towards Palestine. I visited Jews who were in camps in large numbers, and I found that many of them were unwilling to do a job of work. I also found, although I raise no objection to it, that they were better fed and better clothed than any other displaced persons in Austria or Germany, but that fact is due to the kindness of world Jewry. As I understand it, when they arrive in Austria or Germany, Jews are specially treated, in direct contrast to other displaced persons. For example, if a Pole from Poland, who is politically persecuted by the Communist regime there, arrives in Germany, I do not believe that he is able to get any international help, but, if that person happens to be a Jew, he is entitled to international

2351
help. That seems to me to be the situation, according to my information, and, if that is so, it is wrong. If it is not so——
Mr. Crossman: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know how many there are in Belsen who are not recognised as Jews?
Major Beamish: I have not got that information, but, certainly, as regards the American zone in Germany, what I say is true, and that is a point which, quite clearly, needs examination. Seventy-five per cent. of the Jews arriving in Austria and Germany, and hoping to make their way to Palestine, come from Poland. That figure may not be exactly accurate, but I believe it to be approximately correct, and I want to ask the Government whether they have made any investigation from the Polish Government as to the reasons for the present exodus from Poland. I am aware of the small pogrom that took place a few months ago, but I am also aware that three of the biggest and most powerful Ministers in Poland are, in fact, Jews.
Mr. Crossman: They are anti-Zionists.
Major Beamish: I believe that they are Communists, but they are, in fact, Jews. The Polish Government, I believe, has set apart a large area in Silesia, which I believe is well equipped, to which the Jews in Poland are encouraged to go, and where I believe they have every facility, so that it does seem to me that the Government should go into this problem and make some definite inquiries. I hope the Minister will let the House know what is being done in this connection.
Next, have the Government taken any legal action against the masters, owners or crews of ships taking illegal immigrants to Palestine, and have they power to do so? Further, what talks have they had with the Italian, Panama, Greek, Turkish or Egyptian Governments in this connection? I hope the Colonial Secretary is noting these points, because they are extremely important. Fake visas are being issued, and every newspaper in the country has told us so. What protest has the Government made in that direction? Has the Government any policy for the future to send all ships carrying illegal immigrants back to the port of origin.
2352
and have they, as I was assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, received the complete co-operation of other countries? I was assured that that was so, but recent events hardly seem to bear that out.
Part of this tragedy, as has been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe, is that encouragement has been given to illegal immigration by irresponsible Socialist promises issued as the time of the General Election and which were clearly designed to capture Jewish votes. Illegal immigration is organised by a section of Haganah. I am afraid I am not clear as to the activities of the Jewish Agency at the moment, but we all know that these events are not unconnected with elements in the Jewish Agency, and we can expect an intensification of these attempts at illegal immigration. What plans have the Government made to meet this intention? We might find faster and smaller boats, and more of them, and I hope we can be assured that adequate plans are ready to meet any possible situation. Will the Government refuse to grant entry visas for those who attempt to enter Palestine illegally? That is a practical question, and I hope the Minister will give us a direct answer.
Regarding the number of Jews in Palestine, which is of practical relation to the quota, Irgun claims something in the nature of 750,000, although I believe that the official figure is nearer 670,000. I am not quite sure when the census takes place, but I would like to ask if the Government have borne in mind the number of illegal entries that may have been made, and whether they have checked up, because I drew their attention to this matter not long ago, that according to the number of ration cards issued, the Jewish population in Palestine is very considerably in excess of 670,000. I hope that, at any rate, if the Government cannot give an answer this evening, they will look very carefully into this matter. In the last resort, will the Government consider—and this may not necessarily be a good plan—consider stopping entry permits until the illegal attempts to enter Palestine cease? I cannot see that that would be unreasonable, in view of the fact that it is generally admitted that the Jewish Agency and Haganah could practically stop illegal entry, just as they could practically stop terrorism, if they wished.

2353
I want to deal now with the military aspect of the situation in Palestine, and I do this with great diffidence, but I do not see why we should ignore it completely. I would like to pay my tribute to our troops and police for the way in which they have behaved. They have suffered, as we always have suffered in the Army, from Treasury restrictions. I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury sitting on the Front Bench. Of course, it is not his fault, and it is, I suppose, inevitable, but they do suffer great discomforts through living in uncomfortable camps under bad conditions, and especially throughout the winter, and with a serious lack of entertainments. Our men out there have been overworked, and any hon. Member listening to this Debate, or anyone reading it outside, who has had to go on sentry duty night after night, two hours on duty and four hours off, will realise what a great strain it can be. I think all would agree that our congratulations are due both to our troops and the police.
Is the number of our troops in Palestine to be cut down, and, if so, are the Government entirely satisfied that there will be sufficient British troops in Palestine adequately to maintain law and order until our responsibilities end? It is quite clear, in view of the crisis through which we are now going, that our troops will have to be cut down. But we have not been told anything definite about that. Regarding the Palestine General Service Medal, why have not the Government made a definite decision that this medal will be issued to all those British troops who have undergone these great discomforts and stresses and strains since the end of the war? It would do them a great deal of good to know that their efforts are appreciated and recognised, and I hope that the Government will consider making an early announcement on the subject.
We must not overlook the fact—I do not think it has been overlooked in this Debate—that the Irgun and the Stern Gang have actually declared war against our Forces in Palestine. We are faced with a very big problem—there are something like 12,000 trained men in Irgun, and rather more than 1,000 in the Stern Gang—although there are as many as 100,000 British troops in Palestine. The Haganah and the Jewish Agency have expressed their horror at the methods of
2354
the terrorists. The Jewish Agency has recently spoken of the elimination of terrorism as "an inexorable necessity." But both the Jewish Agency and Haganah are known to be, and have frequently said they are, in sympathy, at any rate, with the objects, though not with the methods, of the terrorists, and it is because of that fact that our great difficulties have arisen.
I wish, very briefly indeed, to contrast the military activities of our Forces in Palestine in 1938 and 1939 with our military activities today. In 1938, 282 Arabs were sentenced by military courts, of whom 54 were sentenced to death, and the death sentences were confirmed by the G.O.C. In 1939, 454 Arabs were sentenced by military courts; 55 were sentenced to death, and the death sentences were confirmed by the G.O.C, making a total of 109 who paid the extreme penalty in less than two years. In 1938, 2,463 Arabs were in detention, and in 1939, 5,700 were in detention. The total Arab casualties in 1938 and 1939 rose to as high as 4,000. But yet the terrorist activities of the Arabs in those years were never on such a large scale as are the Jewish activities today. These figures provide an extraordinary contrast with the total of only seven Jews who have paid the extreme penalty for their terrorist activities during the last 18 months. I feel that we are entitled to know the reasons for this contrast, and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will do his best to explain how it is that this apparent differentiation comes about. I hope that, in what I have said, it will not be thought that I have presumed to try to teach the soldier his job, because, when I was a Regular in Palestine, there was nothing which annoyed me more than the knowledge that a lot of amateur soldiers thought they knew the soldier's job better than he did himself. Therefore, if I have offended in that way, I trust that I shall be excused.
I had also intended to draw a contrast between the methods employed by the Army in 1938–39 to deal with these terrorist activities and those employed today. In 1938–39, it was well known by the Arabs, and particularly by the muktars of the villages, that, if they harboured or sheltered terrorists, they were liable to get into serious trouble on many counts. I am not sure that the

2355
same stringent steps are being taken today. I may, perhaps, quote one small example out of many which I have here. In Palestine during the 1938 and 1939 troubles, we took what appeared to be the ruthless but very effective step of sending a trolley ahead of every train carrying British troops which moved through Palestine, and those trolleys were loaded with Arabs. It was well known that this policy was taking place. The effect of the policy was that no more trains were mined. Is that being done today? If not, what is the reason for the contrast between the two periods? The High Commissioner has similar powers today as he had in those days.
I wish to raise one other point, which is also a military point. I am not certain of my facts here, but I am as certain as it is possible to be. Where are the terrorists being trained? It is obvious to all of us that highly skilled terrorists could not be trained in the small country of Palestine with so many British troops in the country. They must undergo an intensive course of training; I think that will be conceded by everybody. These men are not amateurs. I have a publication, though I do not propose to give its name, for the reason that the people who obtained the sort of information which I am going to pass on—which I believe to be accurate—have to run very considerable risks. I do not think it would be fair to the publication in question to give its name, although I am perfectly prepared to give its name to the Colonial Secretary or to the Under-Secretary of State who, I understand, is to reply. I expect he has already seen the document. Actually, it only came to my attention today.
I understand from this document that in a place called Kislovodsk, which is in Northern Caucasia, 87 miles south-east of Stravropol, and near a place called Piatygorsk, there are several hundred—I believe as many as 600 or 700—Kurds and Jews undergoing an intensive course in terrorist activities. It includes political training. The chief instructor on this course is a senior Soviet officer, according to my information, and the course is housed in some sanatoria which are the property of the Central Council of Soviet Trades Unions. These men undergo
2356
political training, and training in diversionary activities, according to my information, in this place which I have mentioned; and in a place not far away—a few hundred kilometres away—they undergo six week's weapon training and field training, I have no means of checking whether or not this information is accurate. [Laughter.] I do not see that it is particularly funny. It seems to me that if this information is accurate, it is extremely serious, and I would point out, too, that it is a perfectly logical outcome of the present foreign policy of the Soviet Union, which is designed to embarrass us at every turn.
Mr. Benn Levy: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that it is equally serious, if his information is inaccurate, to lay it before the House?
Major Beamish: No, I do not think so, because I have no doubt at all that the Minister who is to reply, advised by the Colonial Office, will be able this evening to confirm or deny the accuracy of what I have stated. Are we to suppose that no terrorists have been captured during the past 18 months, and that no investigations have been made to ascertain where these men are receiving their specialised training? If what I have said proves to be inaccurate—and I hope it does—no harm will be done. I hope the Minister will be in a position to reply on that point.
Mr. Crossman: Surely, we all know where most of these men received their training. It was in the British Army during the war, where they were trained in sabotage work, either in Palestine or in the Balkans. The great majority of those men received an excellent training from British officers.
Major Beamish: That is perfectly true, but it does not alter the facts in the information I am imparting to the House. This information is nothing new. It has been circulated in thousands of copies, and I am not producing something quite fantastic and new. If I were, I think I should be acting improperly. The fact is that this document has been circulated to many Members of this House, to my certain knowledge. The fact that it has been circulated seems ample justification for seeking an answer to it.

2357
I apologise for the length of my speech, but I was interrupted rather a lot at the beginning. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State winds up he will give us a reply which, unlike that during the last Debate, will contain some detailed information on what steps the Government are to take to halt illegal immigration; and I hope we shall be given an explanation of the apparently half-hearted military effort—half-hearted in comparison with that of 1938 and 1939. The indecision of which the Government have been guilty is a sign of weakness which has given added encouragement to elements in the Jewish Agency and Haganah. World Jewry should remember that under our auspices, under our control, the Jewish population of Palestine has increased from approximately 45,000 in 1917, who were mostly naturalised Jews, to something in the nature of 700,000. I submit that that is something more than world Jewry or the Zionists had any right to expect.
No country has shown a greater sympathy to the Jews than ours, or a greater understanding of their sufferings. The recent deplorable—and, fortunately, small—anti-Semitic demonstrations in this country have shown that even our deep sympathy may have some bounds. Every sensible Jew should realise that the activities of the illegal immigrants, coupled with the activities of the terrorists, are straining British tolerance to breaking point. I hope that in what I have said—and I apologise again for the length of my speech—I have been constructive. I do particularly hope that the Under-Secretary of State will do his very best to provide me with answers to those questions to which answers are readily forthcoming, and that, perhaps, I may be allowed to contact him to obtain answers to those questions which cannot be answered tonight.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) began his speech by an attack on my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Lever) on the ground that he had made an unbalanced and an ill-advised speech. I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester was a most remarkable speech, a most
2358
courageous speech; and, if there were exaggerations in that speech, I believe still it is the most realistic speech which we have heard in this Debate. I believe that if the Government continue that policy which they have not announced, then it is much more likely that the prophecies of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester will come true, rather than the prophecies which have been uttered in some other quarters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes also criticised my hon. Friend on the ground that he attacked those responsible for the military organisation in Palestine, for carrying out military affairs in Palestine. I think that that was a most illegitimate criticism. I do not think that anyone can believe that my hon. Friend failed to make it quite clear that he was attacking the Government and those responsible for the policy of the Government. I thought that his was a most realistic demand for the type of policy that is obviously lacking.
I think it is a good thing that this Debate was organised and demanded. We have been told, as a result of this Debate, some information. We have had an opportunity of putting several questions to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to the Government. We have had no answers from the Government on the major issues of policy. Candidly, I did not expect to get answers on the major issues of policy tonight. I believe, however, this Debate may have served a better purpose than most Debates we have had on Palestine if the Secretary of State for the Colonies can tell the Foreign Secretary and the Government that there has been an almost unanimous opinion in all the speeches, from whichever side of the House they have come and whatever view they have taken, that there ought to be a clear and emphatic statement of British policy before the United Nations' meeting.
It is hopeless to continue the situation in which we have been drifting along ever since mention was made of referring the question to the United Nations; a situation in which we have no policy, and in which nobody thinks that the Secretary of State for the Colonies' conception can turn out right, namely, that the United Nations will reach some decision on a matter which has baffled all inquiry for the last 10 years. The idea that they will reach such a decision is

2359
fantastic, and it is essential that we should have a statement before that United Nations' meeting.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester in his attack on the outrageous behaviour of the "Daily Express." That was a criticism which might be applied more generally to the Press, because on the day after the diabolical crime against the two sergeants had been committed in Palestine, a message was received by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—a very remarkable message, in my view—from the Jews who were housed in the area near Belsen, in the Belsen concentration camp. It was a message, presumably, for publication in this country. My hon. Friend immediately took steps to circulate that message to the British Press. I should like to read it to the House, because that message has not received a proper reception by or a proper publicity in the British Press. This is a message from a number of Jews in Belsen concentration camp, who had been waiting for two years to get to Palestine:
"We liberated Jews in camps and communities of the British zone of Germany learned with horror of the murder of two British sergeants in Palestine We are thankful to Yishuv (the settlement) in Palestine for its efforts to help liberate us from our hopeless situation. However, we know such irresponsible action cannot help us, and we declare with conviction that we dissociate ourselves from them.
"In German concentration camps our hearts were filled with deep contempt against any form of terrorism. Also, today we oppose all terroristic actions whose pretext is to help us towards our land of promise. We appeal to all groups whose influence will affect our fate to facilitate our entry into Palestine. Never will we permit ourselves to be identified with un-Jewish actions which draw the contempt of Yishuv in Palestine and all humanity."
I do not know what hon. Members think of that message. I regard it as a remarkable and moving message. It was circulated, through the Press Association, to all the British newspapers by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. On the following day an abbreviated version was printed in three newspapers, the "Daily Worker," the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily Herald." "The Times" printed it on 6th August, after a letter from my hon. Friend had called their attention to the fact. However, "The Times" refused to print a letter from my hon. Friend calling atten-
2360
tion to the way in which this message had been treated by the British Press. I think it is disgraceful that at that time, when there was this danger of an outbreak of anti-Semitic feeling in this country, that almost the whole of the British Press should refuse to publish a remarkable message of that kind. I believe it is all the more to be condemned in the case of the "Daily Express" which, if it wanted to make amends for the monstrous publication of that photograph, had a fine opportunity of printing this message in full on its front page. That would have made some amends. But not a word of that message appeared in the "Daily Express." I can well understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester on that subject.
This is a melancholy and tragic Debate, not only because of the diabolical crimes which have to be discussed in this Debate, but even more because no glimpse has been given to us of the end of the miserable situation in Palestine. The only prospect we can see, if we continue this course, is one of mounting passions on either side, and a kind of bloody and futile vendetta. All agree that our passions and the passions of the British people are aroused by the terrible crimes committed by the terrorists, but I must confess some astonishment that the Secretary of State made no mention of some of the causes for the kind of passions which are being aroused among the Jews in Palestine. The Secretary of State did not refer to that incident which has caused a wave of horror and emotion throughout the world, and that is the turning away of those ships from Palestine. That has caused a wave of emotion throughout the whole of the Jewish world, which is natural.
The Secretary of State, although he did not do it intentionally, gave the false impression that those who disagree with our Palestine policy in other countries are only Mr. Ben Hecht in America and some obscure papers in France. The truth is the exact opposite, and that we are morally isolated in the world in regard to our present policy in Palestine. The Secretary of State made one or two references to the attitude of people in other countries, and I should like to quote a statement made by a man who is respected—certainly by the Secretary of State—by many Members in the House as a great statesman, a great Frenchman

2361
and a great fighter for liberty, and one who knows all about the inside of a Nazi prison camp. I am referring to Léon Blum. This is what he says:
"Let the British at least realise how and why their law is not our law. The British began by interning on Cyprus boatloads of clandestine immigrants intercepted in Palestinian waters. Later they decided to turn such immigrants back to their port of embarkation, and this is how the "Exodus" came to a French port. The passengers have been told that if they landed voluntarily, they would find on French soil a hospitable and friendly refuge. All of them said 'No.' The exceptions were very few. The sick, of whom there are many on board, to whom the Red Cross offered assistance and hospital treatment, gave the same answer. All declared with one voice: 'We are grateful to France, but it is in Palestine that we want to live. We shall all die rather than leave the planks of the ship which was to have taken us there.'
The next logical step in the British operation would have been to compel disembarkation on French soil by the use of naked force. But this could not be done without the consent and the co-operation of the French Government. The French Government, faithful interpreter of public opinion—as proved by the unanimous comment of the Press—faithful interpreter of world conscience, withheld its consent and co-operation. Our British friends must admit it: it could not do otherwise, and it did well Let them be grateful to our Government for having spared them so terrible an extremity."
That is a remarkable message from a remarkable man, a man who is one of the firmest friends of this country. I believe it voices the opinion of the great majority of decent people all over the world outside this country on this Palestine question. That brings me to the question of how the right hon. Gentleman will get these people off these ships. That is a problem which faces the Government. They have to decide what to do. It is all very well to say "Take them to some other part of the British Empire," but you still have to get them off the boats. They will have to be removed from the boat by force. I understand that today, or yesterday, six British sailors who were on these ships walked off saying, "We were hired as sailors, we are not going to run a prison ship." What are the Government going to do about it? They will have to go back on what they have done if they are to get out of the present situation with any humanity at all. Who but the British Government was responsible for saying that this was just a return to the prewar practice? Some of us on this side of the House do not appreciate very much the idea of a
2362
return to prewar practice. We remember the stories of Abyssinia, Czechoslovakia and Spain, and how the people there were betrayed—yes, and even in Palestine before the war, in 1939.
We have been, asked why we have referred to the notorious White Paper. Those who have asked that should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) why he called it the notorious White Paper." One of our charges against the Government's administration is that they have been carrying out the White Paper policy of 1939. So long as they try to do that, they will meet with most favourable results. What do we gain by all this? Nothing. We have this fantastic situation of 95,000 British soldiers, sailors, and airmen trying to pursue 5,000 Irgun terrorists. We have won, by this policy, the hatred of the Jew and Arab; we have won the hatred and discord of many people in many parts of the world; we are jeopardising the friendship of people like Leon Blum and many others, and we have done this despite manifold chances of changing the policy. There was a chance when the Anglo-American Report was issued. We could have changed the policy then. There was a chance when we made a reference to U.N.O. I believe that if, when we made that reference to U.N.O., we bad said we would step up immigration from 1,500 to 4,000, we would have immensely changed the situation in Palestine.
I hope, with the Minister, that there will be much closer co-operation between Haganah, the Jewish Agency and His Majesty's Government than there has ever been in the past. I will not go over the argument as to who was responsible for failures in the past, but if we are to try to get a changed atmosphere we must give something as well—a sign. If we are to wait until U.N.O. report, saying nothing and doing nothing, except sending back ships to spread this emotion throughout the world of Jewry, I do not believe that we shall be successful in stamping out terrorism. I believe that we shall have repetitions of the ghastly events which we read about in the newspapers last week.
I do not believe that we have a right to keep British soldiers in Palestine doing the job they are now doing. I think it is wasteful, but it is also inhumane. I

2363
do not think there is any justification for it, and I urge on His Majesty's Government to make an act of policy for the first time in two years, and declare now that whatever decision is arrived at by U.N.O. we are going out of Palestine, that we shall play our part on an agreed U.N.O. basis so long as others make their contribution, but under no conditions will our troops remain in Palestine six months, or, even better, three months, after U.N.O. has reported. Members may disagree with a lot I have said, but I think most will agree about that. That is the message that we ought to give to the Government. It is a measure to deal with the present crisis. One of the things we have to try to do in the next few weeks is to improve the economic situation of this country.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) made reference to Ireland. The analogy is close, but the deduction is different from that which the hon. Gentleman was trying to draw, because the Irish won in the end. The analogy is even closer, because when we refused to have a policy for dealing with the Irish and they asked Parnell who was going to rule Ireland, he said, "Captain Moonlight rules." Captain Moonlight rules Palestine today, and he will go on ruling Palestine, bringing bloodshed and disintegration to that country, until we make a policy. I say, therefore, that the Government should act speedily in this matter, both in the interests of the British people and the Jewish people. To have a strong alliance between British and Jews is a good thing for this world, because the Jews, after all, whatever the charges made against them, had the honour of being the first people attacked by Hitler. I think, therefore, that in the interests of the British people, the Jewish people and the Arab people it is right that we should make this declaration of policy as quickly as possible. That is the message which we want the Secretary of State for the Colonies to take back to the Government. If they do not do that, the epitaph on this Government's policy will be:
"And the Imperial Ministers pursued with proscriptive laws and ineffectual arms the rebels they had made."
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think that we shall find much in which to agree
2364
with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). What I do not think he entirely realises is that the difficulties in which the Government found themselves were largely due to the various promises which they are failing to carry out. There is much in which to agree with the hon. Member, but if during the weeks ahead he thinks back on the causes of these difficulties in which we now find ourselves, he may find even more on which to ponder.
I wish to put one or two constructive points. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who, I understand, is to reply, will deal with the points made by my hon. and right hon. Friends in asking for certain information about what action the Government are taking in Palestine. The Colonial Secretary, for reasons which we all understand, gave to the House a very carefully prepared statement. He did not answer any of the questions put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson). I think that one point of interest is that of collective fines. Anyone who has had anything to do with collective fines and demolitions realises that there are considerable difficulties in the way. We reach a stage in any administration attempting to curb disorder at which it is essential that these things should be considered. Why is it that at this moment greater use is not being made of collective fines and demolitions? I press the Under-Secretary to give us some answer on that point.
My next question is how the Foreign Office stands in relation to this whole question of Palestine at the moment? About a year ago we heard the Foreign Secretary make a plea in which he staked his reputation on finding the answer to this Palestine problem. Since then he has not taken a particularly leading part in the day-to-day handling of Palestine problems. Why does he not take more action in this House? I should have thought that on this occasion, someone from the Foreign Office, and also someone from the War Office, might have been present in order to answer some of the questions put from this side of the House.
My hon. and gallant Friends the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) and the Member for Hythe put certain questions about this widespread net throughout

2365
Europe which picks up Jews all over Europe and brings them to Palestine, or attempts to do so. What is happening in that respect in Europe? The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) obviously has detailed knowledge of what goes on in that way, where the various camps are and from where the people are coming. I do not know to what extent he is aware that they are going through Italy or France. Surely, there should be someone from the Foreign Office to tell us what is being done to check the stream of Jews sent by the Zionist organisations throughout Europe to Palestine.
Where does the Foreign Secretary stand in all this? He said that he staked his political reputation on this issue. For a year he has not addressed the House on this particular subject. This is the last occasion we shall have for about two months to Debate this issue. It will be a year almost before anyone from the Foreign Office will be able to stand up in this House to answer questions about this wide-scale organisation. I am even more amazed at the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) making the remarks he made against a friendly Power like the United States, when one knows what American money has done to facilitate in Palestine——
Mr. S. Silverman: I really do not know why the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) should drag me into this discussion, or why he should think, or expect me to think, that because a nation does something that is right in one respect, that imposes upon me some obligation not to criticise its policy in some other respects which I think are wrong. It would be a very dangerous situation once we began to chop and change our policy according to considerations of that kind. While I am on my feet, let me say I made no attack of any kind upon anybody. I gave a plain statement of what everybody knows to be the facts, and if anybody wants to regard that as an attack, he is at liberty to do so. I did not intend it as an attack but merely as a plain statement of what everybody knows to be the facts.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: If the hon. Member reads his speech again——
Mr. Silverman: I do not need to read it; I made it.
Mr. Dodds-Parker:—he will see it was a monstrous attack. The third point I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is to ask him to give us an undertaking that we will have an opportunity in this House of debating whatever findings the United Nations Commission come to on Palestine. I hope he will give us a definite undertaking that the Government will not take action upon that report before the House of Commons have an opportunity of debating this subject again.
8.49 p.m.
Colonel Clarke: I want to intervene for only a very few minutes to ask two questions which arise from the communications about Palestine which I have received from my constituents. The first one has been asked already by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), which is whether the Parliamentary Secretary has anything to tell us from the Foreign Office side. We know that Jewish economy and civilisation in Palestine have roots that extend all over the world and it may be possible that by influencing those roots in other countries the situation in Palestine itself may be improved. The second point arises from the burden of most of the letters I have which are not concerned with Jews or Arabs in Palestine, but with my correspondents' sons or nephews who are serving out there. Certain anxieties still exist about conditions of service, and for that reason I am sorry that there is nobody here from the War Office, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will pass on the gist of the few remarks I am about to make, because I believe that it is in the interests of his office that the soldiers should be given every amenity and every possible comfort in the strenuous duty they are performing.
I know Palestine myself from a soldier's point of view. Actually, I am one of those who, in a way, bears the primary responsibility for helping to land us with the burden of Palestine in 1917 since I was one of those who went out to help to conquer it. Sometimes I think it might have been better had we left it to the Turks. I feel that our men there are performing a hard and ungrateful task. Aiding the civil power is a horrid form of service, and, as has already been said, one does not know who is friend or foe. Are

2367
we doing all we can to alleviate that condition of service? I know that some six months ago there were a number of camps which had not then been modernised. I believe they have been improved, but there are still deployment camps that are very primitive, and where they are alongside the ordinary camps this causes a good deal of feeling between different bodies of troops in one or the other.
My second point concerns rations. I have heard that a great many men are complaining about their rations, and although I know that soldiers on active service always say that they have not enough, I would suggest that they should have the best scale of rations possible. In this country we give the miners preferential rations, and out there I think that the soldiers and police should be given the best rations possible. Living in the open always makes one hungrier, and they are doing a great deal of night duty. As Members of Parliament know that also makes one hungry, and one has only to go to the cafeteria to see what effect late sittings have on the appetite. The long boring periods of waiting and watching also make these men hungry, and there is no chance of them going away for the week-end and the messing officer thus saving part of their rations. I know that this is a bad time to ask for improvement, but I feel that they should have the best and I hope that this appeal will be passed on to the War Office.
Finally, I feel with the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that everybody in Palestine ought to be on active service. I support that contention because I believe many of our personnel there are suffering from the fact that they are on an active service basis for some things and on a peace-time basis for others. Whatever they ask for they cannot have, because they are on active service or, alternatively, if something is required to be done by way of a return it must be done because it is on a peacetime basis. I rose merely to make these points, and I hope they will be brought to the notice of the appropriate Department.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Benn Levy: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), who I am sorry to see has just gone out, opened his speech in a
2368
surprising manner. He jeered at my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who had just delivered himself of I speech which I should have thought anybody in the House was capable of admiring. I do not wish to be provocative, but we have just had two days' Debate largely on the subject of liberty, in which the hon. Member or his Friends have put themselves forward as champions of liberty. I can only say that when they have really acquired a love of liberty, when they have really got the root of this matter into their bellies, then they will be able to make a speech such as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport made.
Once more the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) gave us, if I may say so, a very temperate, statesmanlike speech which was marred in my opinion by only one passage, in which he saw fit to rake up some past history, twelve months old, of the Jewish Agency, when he denounced them for their policy then of non-co-operation. The Jewish Agency, like other political organisations, has more than one wing, and it may have been—I do not say that it was not—regrettable that they did not decide as the right hon Gentleman suggested, to throw all their weight on to the side of co-operation, to abandon—which would have been a bold policy—their poor little bargaining points in their struggle with what they regarded as an antagonistic administration, and to throw themselves on the mercy of a Foreign Secretary who, in this field, had not shown himself particularly merciful. Whether they were right or wrong, I do not think it is really quite fair to relate those conditions, which the right hon. Gentleman admitted to be very different and very much less grave than now, with the conditions which exist today. I believe there is little profit in raking up past history just now.
Indeed it is perhaps one of the failings of the protagonists of Zionism that they are accustomed, quite understandably, to parade the long tale of their very real grievances and tragedies. All I want to do tonight is very briefly to speak of the most immediate and nightmarish problem of terrorism. I think the House will probably recognise that for British Jews these hideous criminalities have a double horror, because British youngsters are being killed and Jewish youngsters are doing the killing.
Mr. S. Silverman: And also being killed.
Mr. Levy: Yes, but I am talking about the terrorists and not about the reprisals. As I see it, there are only three ways to tackle the question. One is by a redoubled military force, which has been suggested. Another is a radical change of policy. The third is by some kind of internal re-orientation among the Jewish community themselves. We heard something about the possibilities of the first alternative from the right hon. Member for West Bristol. Many others have pleaded for more vigorous military action. But when one asks exactly what more can be done, what more drastic action taken, there appears to be no answer at all. In all fairness to the Government, that point should be made. One hon. and gallant Member who knows about these things explained to the House the limitations of martial law. But what has been done already? We have what is virtually a police state in Palestine, we have martial law in certain areas, and when terrorists are caught they are hanged. What more could be done or could be expected from force except the Hitlerian method of reprisals executed upon the innocent in order to deter the guilty? I do not believe anything of that kind would be tolerated by the British people for a moment, and I do not think that anybody who calls for greater force has that expedient in mind.
The second way of tackling the matter, which I believe to be the only real and effective one, is by policy. I will not say by changing the policy, but by providing a policy. One of the heartening things about this Debate and one of the reasons why the Lord President has I think, been proved to be mistaken when he said that his first instinct was that this Debate would be of no value, is the real unanimity on all sides of the House on at least two points, one of which is that even now, at this late stage, a declaration should be made that we will bind ourselves to a certain course of action whatever the result of the United Nations Commission may be and the other is that sooner or later we have to get out of the unilateral responsibility for Palestine. On these two points, thank Heaven, there seems to be the widest measure of agreement. I hope that the Colonial Secretary, who has not got—and it is not fair to suppose that he has got—sole responsi-
2370
bility in this matter, will carry that message from this House to the Foreign Secretary.
There is a third thing which I have mentioned. It cannot do the trick but possibly it can contribute. That is, measures taken by the Jewish community themselves in Palestine. The best that that can do is not to solve the problem, but at least to mitigate it and even then only for a very limited period of time, but so far as it is possible I appeal to them to do everything they can. There is a good deal of misunderstanding and of ill-intentioned propaganda about this. They are sometimes accused almost of having condoned the situation in Palestine. People ask why they have not at least in very clear tones denounced terrorism. They have done so most repeatedly. I do not want to burden the House with lengthy quotations, but the latest of those denunciations has just come into my hands and it might be well for the record to read it. This one comes from the United Labour Parties in Palestine. It says:
"The undersigned parties have responded to the call of the authorities, the Zionist Organisation and the Agudath Israel, to eradicate the plague of terrorism from our midst. We regard the very existence of terrorist groups in Palestine as a disgrace, a disaster and a danger. We regard it as our duty to isolate members of those groups, to drive them from our camp and to make it impossible for them to indulge in acts of robbery and terror and to put a stop once and for all to their attempts to gain mastery over the Yishuv in any possible way."
That could not be said in less ambiguous terms, and similar pronouncements have been made by the Jewish Agency, by Haganah, by the Chief Rabbi, and by other responsible people. Sometimes we are told that there are no such denunciations; then, when they are quoted, we tend to be told that denunciation is not enough and that action is wanted, military action by Haganah. As already pointed out in this Debate, it is superficially a little paradoxical to demand military action from an illegal organisation; and no very clear answer has been given by the Colonial Secretary to the question put to him earlier, whether this demand for active policing—which I hope sincerely the Haganah will provide—whether the request apparently made for it by the Colonial Office has been accompanied by the undertaking that any activities in the furtherance of this re-

2371
quest, which must necessarily involve the bearing of arms, will not lay them open to a charge of illegality. It should be made clear that that is not the case.
Even apart from this new appeal, the Colonial Secretary has made it quite clear today—he admitted rather than announced it—that already Haganah has been co-operating to a very considerable extent in rounding up and in opposition to the terrorists. I am very glad of that. Some of its members have already lost their lives. They have lost their lives in protecting British lives. There has been a little publicity about this, but not very much; and about those many more cases where acts of protection have been undertaken by Haganah without loss of life there has, of course, been practically no publicity whatever. I think it would be in accord with the Colonial Secretary's character if he takes what steps are open to him to give that the maximum publicity possible.
When the aid given by the Haganah is recalled, we are often told it is a pity they have not done more, and that they should have done more. I am not expert in military matters, and I do not know whether it is possible for them to do more. But, if they can do more, I most earnestly, as one individual with no particular influence, appeal to them now at this eleventh hour to do more, and to do all that is possible. I make this appeal not because I believe that their good behaviour, or even their heroic behaviour would win them the goodwill of the Foreign Secretary. It would be completely disingenuous and hypocritical of us to pretend that it would do that, because the Foreign Secretary's policy is not based on sentiment. If sentiment had anything to do with it, he would have fulfilled the party pledges long ago, and abrogated the White Paper and relieved the broken residue of Hitler's victims from their tragic camps long since.
I appeal to the Jewish community in Palestine firstly for the sake of their own pride and self-esteem and, secondly, in order that they may preserve the friendship of the ordinary men and women in this country which is still of first-rate importance. I know there has been much provocation, much tragedy to bear, and disappointments to swallow. I know that constant appeals have been made here to
2372
the Foreign Secretary and that they have fallen on deaf ears. Nevertheless, I appeal to the Jews in Palestine in the belief that peace and prosperity can only come to them if they forget their past wrongs and outstrip the Foreign Secretary in magnanimity and in statesmanship.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a Debate which has been serious and sombre, in my view rightly so,. considering the situation in Palestine at this time. The Debate was opened by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Macke-son) in an able and moderate speech in which he put a number of questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to which, as yet, we have not really had an adequate reply. Then we had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman which I must say I for myself regarded as both disheartening and depressing. It was disheartening because he held out no hope that there would be any improvement for many months to come in the conditions in which so many of our people are now living in Palestine. The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), in a speech to which I listened with great interest and with which I was largely in agreement, said that this Debate really raised the questions of terrorism and of the saving of British lives in Palestine. He described in graphic terms the tension which rises immediately there is any report of a ship approaching carrying illegal immigrants. I am quite certain, from my knowledge of that country from the time I was there, that his description of that is entirely accurate.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Mr. Stanley) in the view that, from the Jewish point of view, this organised illegal immigration may not in long terms prove to be to the advantage of the Jews. I have no doubt myself that this immigration question is one of the major causes, if not the major cause, of Jewish hostility towards the British in Palestine. The record of the Government in handling this problem in the last two years really cannot be praised. The Government have vacillated, and their lack of foresight has gone far to accentuate the tension which results from attempts at illegal immigration. The Anglo-American Committee, in its report, recommended among other things, the immigration of 100,000 Jews into Palestine

2373
"as rapidly as conditions permit," and went on to suggest that there should be certain priorities in the selection of immigrants, that the aged, the infirm and the very young should come first. But, of course, these recommendations about priorities in the allocation of certificates have been completely annulled and defeated, until recently, by the policy of the Government in dealing with illegal immigrants. Until quite recently—and now it would appear again—what has been the policy? It has been that the illegal immigrant who has been caught has then been put at the head of the queue for securing legal admission into Palestine. I do not know what the policy is to be in future. We know that after the ships were brought back to France, other immigrants were again taken to Cyprus.
It would be of advantage if some policy with regard to that, at least, were made known to the public. I regard it as of great importance now that this illegal immigration should not be encouraged by the feeling that persons engaging in it can jump to the head of the queue. I am inclined to think that as a step towards this discouragement, it might be advisable to announce that those detected engaging in it, should not get certificates for admission. I should like to know to what extent the cost of the immigrants in Cyprus is being met by any Jewish organisation or the Jewish Agency, and whether it is not a fact that the Zionist organisation have a network throughout Europe, and that the Jewish Agency also have representatives in European countries? The hon Member for West Coventry and the hon. Member for Devenport (Mr. Foot) suggested that the tension might be lowered if the number of immigrants were substantially increased. The hon. Member for West Coventry suggested that the increase might be set off against what he assumed the United Nations would ultimately recommend. One can see that that policy might lead to a lowering of the tension in the Jewish community, but it would inevitably lead to a raising of the tension in the Arab community. In the course of this Debate, naturally because of the very nature of a discussion concerning Jewish terrorism, the Arab angle has not been sufficiently borne in mind.
Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the hon. and learned Member, in the report he signed, recommended that there should be 100,000 emigrants by the end of 1946,
2374
and has he departed from the views he held when he signed that report?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member has not correctly quoted that report, the precise terms of which I quoted a few minutes ago—the admission of 100,000 "as rapidly as conditions permit." If the hon. Member will read that report, he will see that it did not say "admission within 12 months," but the granting of a certificate within 12 months and admission "as rapidly as conditions permit." I have not, in anything I have said, departed from the views expressed in that report.
I imagine that no matter what demand there may be from either side of the House for a policy from His Majesty's Government, the Government will say that at this time it is their bounden duty, having regard to the steps they have already taken, to preserve the status quo in Palestine so far as they can, until they have obtained a decision from the United Nations—indeed until the Government have come to a decision when they have considered the views of the United Nations. That being so, I do not propose to take up any time this evening in repeating the views which I expressed on a previous occasion as to the desirability—expressed tonight from the benches opposite, but expressed from this side of the House on the last occasion—that when this reference was made to the United Nations it should have been made with our recommendations as to what should be done, and what we in this country were prepared to carry out.
Whatever may be the final settlement, whether it be partition or something else, everyone in this country must and does pray that that final settlement will come speedily. I was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's optimism in the light of the past history of Palestine, when he said that he had every hope that the United Nations would recommend a line of action acceptable to both Jew and Arab. That is a very good example of wishful thinking; I hope it may, to some extent, come true. One thing at least is clear—that is, that this strain upon Great Britain and upon British men and women in the Forces and police and the ordinary Administration in Palestine, cannot go on indefinitely. The sooner it comes to an end the better, but one duty does lie upon His Majesty's Government at this stage—

2375
a duty they cannot deny—and that is to do everything which lies in their power to reduce that strain at this time and in the, months to come.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, really gave little indication of any new steps that Were to be taken. He told us, with a great deal of emphasis, that he was not irresolute, and I do not know quite what the converse of that might be, whether it is somewhat vacillating, but I appreciate that, having regard to the Government's pre-Election policy and to their lack of a policy since then, it is not surprising that they should find the situation somewhat difficult to deal with. When we are dealing with security in Palestine, it would, of course, be impertinent for me to put forward any criticisms of what the military, in their discretion and their wisdom, have done and have sought to do, but I would like to know, and to have the assurance, that the questions put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) will receive, if they have not already received, serious consideration. Surely, the incidence of these terrorist outrages would be largely reduced if motor transport between the chief cities of Palestine were put under strict control, and if the convoy system under British supervision were applied, for instance, to all motor traffic. When one reads the reports of these outrages and these tragedies, how often does one see that the terrorists have made use of a stolen taxi or some other vehicle? Is there any possibility of putting some check in some way on the use of transport which would be likely to reduce the occurrence of these horrible affairs?
Then, the right hon. Gentleman did not really deal in any detail with the question of the imposition of collective fines. No one likes a collective fine, because, of course, it must mean, in some cases, the punishment of the innocent, and, in some cases as well, of those who are guilty; but, where we find in any one area that there are a great many of these events, would not the announcement that a collective fine was going to be imposed if another such occurrence took place have the greatest deterrent effect? Was it not found to be so when collective fines were imposed during the Arab rising? Is there any good argument why that should not
2376
be tried in an effort to enhance the safety of our soldiers and of British civilians in Palestine? I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will be able to give us a little more information about this.
The right hon. Gentleman said this evening that the Jewish Agency had publicly declined to co-operate, but then he said a few sentences later that he still hoped that Haganah would supplement the Government's activities, and, a little time later, he also told us that Haganah had, in fact, co-operated, I think, in one search, or it may have been in more than one search. I was interested by that, because is it not the case that there is some connection between the Jewish Agency and Haganah, and, if there is some connection, how can one reconcile the two statements that the right hon. Gentleman made? I am a little puzzled about that matter, and I hope that perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear it up.
In conclusion, the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Lever), made a speech which, I must say, I regarded as offensive, and as a speech which was intended to be offensive to the Government and not to hon. Members on this side of the House, although, in one particular, it was unfair to my right hon. Friend, in that he said that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor would have had no policy for Palestine. That, I can assure him, is entirely inaccurate. But be that as it may, the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester commented very strongly on a photograph which appeared in the "Daily Express." I do not propose to make any comment on that photograph, because I do not think it is relevant, but I do make the point that anti-Semitism, which we all deplore in this country, or which the vast majority in this country sincerely deplore, is, I fear, likely to grow so long as terrorist activities continue while we have a large number of British people in Palestine who are able to report to their relations and friends in this country what is happening there.
Therefore, I hope that, even now, in the interests of the Jews in Palestine, in the interests of what has been done in Palestine since the Mandate, and also in the interests of Jews in Europe and displaced persons' centres in other parts of

2377
the world, the terrorists will reconsider their actions, and will bear in mind that this matter has been referred to the United Nations, and that the decision on the great problem of Palestine has now passed, for the time being, from the hands of the British Government, and that no final decision can be, or will be, arrived at by the British Government until after the United Nations have made up their minds. That being so, I hope that, even now, the Irgan and the Stern Gang will consider whether any really useful purpose in the cause of Jewry will be served by the depriving of one British soldier, or more British soldiers, who are doing nothing more than their duty, of their lives, and that even at this stage they may reflect that responding to appeals for a cessation of hostilities is more to their advantage and to the advantage of everyone else.
9.28 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of the State for the Colonies (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) inquired about the respective responsibilities of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office with regard to Palestine. Naturally, the question of Palestine is so important that it engages the collective responsibility of the Government, and it may be presumed that anyone who speaks from this Box on Palestine will have informed himself about the views of the other Departments concerned, and about the latest situation as known to them. The division of work between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office is, roughly, that the Foreign Office deals with Palestine in so far as matters of international relations are concerned, while the Colonial Office deals with questions of internal administration in Palestine.
It was understood that the question to be raised this evening would be primarily the measures that have been taken, or may be taken, arising out of the most deplorable murder recently of the two British sergeants, and that is the reason why my right hon. Friend took part in this Debate earlier, and why I am now speaking. These outrages have brought a dark smear across a very noble ideal. The song that was first raised by the waters of Babylon:
"How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? "
has been raised over the centuries since by the Volga, the Danube, the Vistula
2378
and the Rhine. It has awakened in the imagination of all peoples a keen desire to see the Jews re-established in a National Home. That National Home must naturally be in Palestine, for there is no other place that could compete with it. Since effect has been given to that ideal, many of us have also been stirred by the great achievements of the Yishuv in Palestine. There are some features of it which may not commend themselves so wholeheartedly as others. For example, the creation of a lido on the shore of Galilee has given unnecessary offence to Christian sentiment——
Mr. S. Silverman: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, he is making a common mistake in supposing that that was a Jewish affair. It was not.
Mr. Thomas: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance on that point. If I am in error, I will, of course, withdraw my remark completely. I was in course of paying a warm tribute to the Jewish achievement in Palestine. I was proceeding to say that the noble ideals, which have the sympathy of all nations throughout the world, have received a very sad check recently by this trail of outrages, culminating in the murder of the two British sergeants.
We have, of course, other obligations in Palestine as well. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Lever) why we are in Palestine. The reason is two-fold. We are there because we wish to fulfil this obligation to Jewry which we undertook in the Balfour Declaration, and we are there also because we have sought to fulfil other undertakings to free the Arabs from those who ruled over them at the time. Until the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) spoke, almost the most remarkable feature of this Debate was that no question of the position of the Arabs had been raised. One would have thought from the speeches up to that point that the only persons concerned in this matter were the Jews and ourselves, but of course, in any picture in perspective we must remember the obligations that we have to the Arabs and we must remember the rights of the Arabs.
Mr. Lever: Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend that my question was, what

2379
moral or legal basis have we for the military occupation of Palestine by 100,000 troops which are there at the present time?
Mr. Thomas: The legal basis, of course, is the Mandate of the League of Nations which makes full provision for military as for other matters,
Mr. S. Silverman: Are they there to facilitate immigration?
Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will know that immigration and the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine is a very important part of the Mandate, but it is not the whole Mandate. We have, for example, to carry out all the obligations of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant.
Brigadier Mackeson: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to read the report of my speech in HANSARD he will find that the question of the Arabs was adequately covered.
Mr. Thomas: I make no reproach to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with much of whose speech I was in complete sympathy, but I am trying as best I can to put the matter into a little better perspective. As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, it is perhaps inevitable, owing to the circumstances in which this Debate has arisen, that attention should have been concentrated on the Jews and not on the Arabs.
At the time when we undertook the Mandate it was thought the two obligations could be fulfilled. Not only did we so think; there was one moment—perhaps, only one moment—when the Jews and the Arabs thought so themselves. At any rate, Dr. Weizmann and the Emir Feisal thought so. I suppose it was the coming of Hitler and the persecution of the Jews that shattered that hope. The prospects of co-operation between Jews and Arabs have become much more slender in recent years. The position of Great Britain has also become correspondingly more difficult. Indeed, the situation is now well-nigh intolerable.
There are two matters in particular that make this situation almost unbear-
2380
able. The first is the violence that is taking place in Palestine itself, for the condemnation of which there are no words sufficiently strong. The second is the question of illegal immigration, which has been raised tonight by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and others, especially in connection with the return of the "President Warfield" to France. The right hon. Gentleman, in particular, has asked what is the reason for this policy, and why two ships have subsequently been allowed to land illegal immigrants in Cyprus. It is not, of course, the case that there has been any change of policy. It always has been the contention of His Majesty's Government that the proper course in dealing with illegal immigrants is to return them to the country from which they sailed, very often in defiance of the international rules of safety at sea, and in defiance of bans by the country concerned. It was not, however, always practicable to carry out that policy.
In the case of the "President War-field" we had, however, to face the fact that this was an exceptionally large batch of illegal immigrants, no fewer than 4,500; and action was particularly required. It so happened also that, owing to the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Paris, he was able to get an assurance from the French Government that the immigrants would be received if they were taken back to France. It was that conjunction of circumstances which led to the return of the "President Warfield."
Mr. Stanley: Are we really to understand that the treatment of these illegal immigrants is to depend on the size of the shipments—that if it is a small ship with small numbers they can go to Cyprus, but that if it is a large ship with large numbers they are sent back to the port of departure?
Mr. Thomas: No, Sir, that is not the right deduction from what I was saying. The fact that there were so many passengers in the "President Warfield" was one of the factors that had to be taken into account. Another was that in this particular case we knew the port from which the ship had sailed. The fact that she was such a large ship was one of the factors which enabled us to know that

2381
port. In the case of the two vessels which have subsequently been received in Cyprus it is the case, as the right hon. Gentleman inferred, that we did not know the ports from which those ships sailed. The right hon. Gentleman says we can find out from the newspapers, but I am fairly certain that when he held high office he was not content to rely on any newspaper, however reputable, for his information; and we have no knowledge of whence those ships came. This a highly organised traffic, as has been pointed out tonight. The utmost vigilance is used to defeat the immigration regulations of Palestine, and it is by no means an easy matter to detect this traffic. Just as a matter of interest, I may say that the two ships which have gone to Cyprus, although they arrived in Cyprus after the passengers of the "President Warfield" had been returned to French territorial waters, were to the best of our knowledge, on the high seas before the "President Warfield" set out. Therefore, from that point of view there has certainly not been any change in policy.
Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Under-Secretary tell us what is to be the fate of the people on ships now lying off French ports?
Mr. Thomas: I cannot give an answer to that question because it depends so much on the persons concerned. They have only to walk down the gangway——
Mr. Silverman: But suppose they do not?
Mr. Thomas: It is a hypothetical question such as we do not answer in this House.
Mr. Silverman: No, it is not a hypothetical question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I should like to put this point to my hon. Friend. He ought not to say it is a hypothetical question. It might have been a hypothetical question a fortnight ago, but it is not a hypothetical question now. The people on board have refused to go. It is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact. What now do the Government intend to do about it?
Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Who is feeding them?
Mr. Thomas: I think the French Government are feeding them. They are in French territorial waters. I cannot
2382
answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) because—and I repeat my words—it depends so much on the persons concerned. It is true that, except for about 100 of them, they have so far declined to go into France. But it may be they have been under the impression that there will be some weakening in this policy, and that they still hope to get to Palestine, or at any rate to Cyprus, which they regard as a half-way house to Palestine. I hope it will be made clear to them that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government that they should go to Palestine or to Cyprus. If that is made quite clear to them by those who have influence with them, then they may feel more disposed to walk down the gangway, when they will find comfortable conditions awaiting them in the country whence they set out.
Mr. Silverman: How long will the Government wait to see whether they do?
Mr. Thomas: Naturally, that is not a question which it is possible to answer.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does the initiative rest with the Jews on board the ships?
Mr. Silverman: Well, should it not rest with them?
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Are they going to remain on board as long as they like, or are the Government unable to make up their minds what to do with them?
Mr. Thomas: I have said all that I can usefully say in this subject tonight. It is a very delicate question, and I think it had better be left there for reason to try to play its part with those on board. Before leaving the subject I should like to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who quoted an article by M. Blum. M. Blum is a man whom I, like everyone else on these benches revere; and, despite the difference in our ages, I believe he would permit me to call myself a friend. But I am bound to say that in such a matter as this he is not an entirely disinterested person; he is not likely to give us objective views. As is well known, he is himself a Jew, and he would certainly not wish to conceal the fact. For many years he has been an ardent Zionist——
Mr. Silverman: Oh, no.
Mr. Thomas: What constitutes an ardent Zionist may be a matter of opinion, but I should have thought my description was accurate.
Mr. Silverman: He never has been.
Mr. Thomas: So much for the question of illegal immigration. I have said that this situation is wellnigh intolerable——
Major Beamish: Does not the Under-Secretary intend to say anything on any of the questions I asked, about discussions with the Polish Government, or protests to those countries under whose flags the ships sailed, or the visas issued illegally, or any of those other points which I raised?
Mr. Thomas: A very large number of questions were addressed to me during the Debate, and I hope to answer many of them in the course of my reply. On others I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. I have, of course, implied that we have had the co-operation of the French Government to the extent of their receiving these ships back. I ought also to mention that we have had the close co-operation of the Italian Government in this matter, but as it would take me a very long time to go into details I hope the hon. and gallant Member will let me leave it at that point.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Has there been any consultation with the French Government so that they will prohibit Jews going on board these ships?
Mr. Thomas: Illegal immigration into Palestine causes us difficulties, and it must cause many difficulties to the countries where the immigrants collect. It is not quite so easy as the hon. and gallant Gentleman implies. The "President Warfield" was forbidden to sail from its port by the French authorities.
I wish to turn to the more important question of the remedy for this situation, which, as I have said, is wellnigh intolerable. In the first place, the remedy certainly does not lie in reprisals. I do not wish to add anything to the very strong words of condemnation which have been given tonight, except to endorse them—whether reprisals take place in this country or in Palestine. In answer to a direct question, however, I ought to say that an inquiry is being made by the High Commissioner into the disturbances
2384
at Tel Aviv. In anticipation of the result, I can say definitely that troops were not involved. While I am on this question of reprisals, I think I might conveniently deal here with the question of collective fines, which belongs in a sense to the category of reprisals. I must point out that there is a difference between the present situation and the Arab revolt, when that policy was successfully used. In those days, the persons who led the revolt were known and could be easily detected, but at the present time it is exceedingly difficult, in the large urban Jewish population, to detect who are the terrorists. Therefore, in the days of the Arab revolt it was posible to levy a collective fine which would be just, in the sense that it punished the people responsible, but at the present time collective fines would inevitably fall on the innocent as well as the guilty, and more probably on the innocent than on the guilty.
Brigadier Mackeson: Surely, this petrol tax is, in fact, a collective fine?
Mr. Thomas: That aspect has been very carefully considered, and some of the tax is to be used for social services for the benefit of the Arab community. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol has a different remedy. He says the situation should be treated as a military situation, but it is, in fact, being so treated. The troops in Palestine have sometimes been described as carrying out police duties, but it is only in a very loose sense that they can be so described. Their function in Palestine is to give help to the civil authorities, when it is required, in preserving order. It is recognised that they are living under quasi-wartime conditions and their mode of life is regulated accordingly. This naturally means a great deal of discomfort for the troops.
The question of amenities, which was raised by several hon. Members, is important. Since the question was raised in the House, I have made such inquiries as I could. I can say at once that no complaints have been received about amenities. "No complaints" is a familiar phrase in the Army, but I know that the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding have been very solicitous in this matter. I have every reason to believe that the amenities are as satisfactory as they can be, in the

2385
very strained situation existing in Palestine at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry asked, in particular, that the convoy system should be introduced for motor traffic. My right hon. Friend made it clear that there has been no interference with the military in whatever they considered necessary for the preservation of order in Palestine. But I will see that their suggestion, along with others which have been made in this Debate, is conveyed to the High Commissioner.
For my part, I am convinced that the only remedy for this situation is a political remedy. It is not possible to solve such a problem as this purely by military methods. Military methods have their place, of course, and if necessary we shall be quite firm in applying them to any extent that may be necessary. But these cannot, by themselves, create conditions which will be satisfactory in Palestine. The parallel of Ireland has been cited frequently in this Debate, and it is the case, of course, that what produced a solution in Ireland eventually was the Treaty. It was a political solution, though military methods might have had their place in leading up to that solution. In the same way, in Palestine——
Mr. Logan: Is my hon. Friend saying that the policy in Palestine is on a par with the policy which is used in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Thomas: No, I was saying that the Irish question has been cited tonight, purely for the purpose of illustration, and that in some respects it illustrates the problem, although, in other respects, it is very different. The lesson I wish to draw is that to remedy this situation we must approach the problem by political methods, in addition to any military measures that it is necessary to take. Such a solution must be sought through the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said that in his view there was only one solution, and that if partition could not be obtained—and I inferred that partition was the solution he would have liked to have seen—we ought to evacuate Palestine. I must point out that to obtain partition or to evacuate Palestine we must take the matter to the United Nations. We are in
2386
Palestine in virtue of a Mandate; if that is to be altered, or given up, we must have the consent of the United Nations.
Mr. Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that we cannot give up the Mandate without the consent of the United Nations?
Mr. Thomas: We must give it up to someone, and that someone is now the United Nations, as the successor to the League of Nations, from whom we received it. The right hon. Gentleman is not the sort of person to run away from a task, and he would know that we just cannot walk away from Palestine without consulting the United Nations. We should have been under an obligation to go to the United Nations whatever solution we adopted in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has charged us with delay by this reference to the United Nations. As my right hon. Friend said, the calling of a special Assembly of the United Nations has speeded up this matter by several months. If this reference had been left to the regular meeting of the General Assembly, due in September, the same course would have had to have been followed. A fact-finding Committee would have had to be appointed, and it would have had to conduct its investigations in Palestine and to report later to the next Assembly. The course adopted has, in fact, speeded up this matter by several months.
The right hon. Gentleman also urged that we should have accompanied the reference to the United Nations with a policy which we ourselves favoured. This matter has been fully and exhaustively treated by the Foreign Secretary himself. I must briefly point out the obvious disadvantages of such a course. We have, for a long period, tried to find a satisfactory policy in Palestine. Our latest effort was the scheme known as provincial autonomy. It found favour neither with Jews nor with Arabs, and, to be candid, I do not think that it found a great deal of favour in this country. What could we have done? Ought we to have presented to the United Nations a policy which had been so decisively rejected both by the Jews and the Arabs? Moreover, if we had strongly supported any particular line of policy we should have been accused of trying to influence the United Nations in forming a policy.
Mr. Lever: Why not relieve us of the responsibility altogether?
Mr. Thomas: It is surely much better, while giving all the help to the United Nations which they ask, to leave them free to come to whatever judgment, after very full consideration, they consider proper.
Mr. Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that we are not going to try to influence the United Nations?
Mr. Thomas: I have said that, having tried ourselves for a long period to find a satisfactory solution, and having failed to do so, we have submitted this matter to the United Nations and asked them to find a solution. That course has already done a great deal of good. I think that it has already brought out, for example, that this is primarily a dispute between Jews and Arabs and not a dispute between both and Great Britain. I have followed very closely the deliberations of the Committee and that is certainly the impression left on my mind and, indeed, I think on the Press of the world. I have been asked also whether we will accept the recommendations of the United Nations when they are made. The United Kingdom is a good member of the United Nations and forwarded the problem in good faith for the United Nations to explore the whole question and make a recommendation on the future status of Palestine. We should not be asked unilaterally to make a declaration if the other members of the United Nations have not yet declared themselves. We submitted the problem in good faith and will
2388
loyally meet our obligations in regard to any recommendations made by the United Nations. With regard to the question of carrying out any recommendations made by the United Nations, obviously His Majesty's Government cannot be committed in the absence of any knowledge of what these commitments may be.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will be consulted first?
Mr. Thomas: I cannot give an assurance so categorical, for this touches one of the fundamentals of the constitution and also a practical necessity. Executive action must remain in the hands of His Majesty's Government; and it may be necessary in the United Nations itself to make known our attitude to this question at a time when there is no possibility of learning beforehand the views of the House. Of course, matters of this importance obviously would have to come before the House.
My time is almost up and in the remaining moment I should like to say that there is one other element which must come into the solution. The co-operation of the Yishuv is absolutely essential in bringing about a solution to this problem. It is also in its own interest so to do. I noted with approval the statement of one hon. Member earlier that the Jewish Agency had created a monster which it might find very troublesome later on.
It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed without Question put.

ASSOCIATION OF EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS (RECOGNITION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Snow.]
10.1 p.m.
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has come to a head within the last two months, the question of the withdrawal of recognition by His Majesty's Government and by the Treasury in particular from the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. This association was formed at a time not unlike the times in which we find ourselves today. It came into being in 1920 when, like today, we had a considerable period during which large numbers of men were being demobilised from His Majesty's Forces. It was out of those circumstances that the association was born. It was born to fulfil a need which indicated that the men coming from the Services and entering His Majesty's Service again as civil servants required special attention.
In considering this matter there are two points which I wish to stress. The first is, have any ex-Service men as such the right to representation? The second one is, having assumed that to be true, is this association which we are discussing, the right body to make that representation? To those two points I hope the Financial Secretary will apply his mind when he replies. With regard to the first point, should ex-Service men as such have representation, the conditions under which ex-Service men enter the Civil Service are quite different from those which obtain with regard to any other class of individual. They are the only class in which service outside the Civil Service counts as service inside the Civil Service. The differentiation between ex-Service men and others, including Civil Defence workers, was drawn up by the arbitration tribunal recently when it awarded a special incremental rate in regard to war service.
The Government today are engaged on a recruiting drive, receiving, I think, a mixed reception and meeting with doubtful success. We see around the country pamphlets and posters in which emphasis is laid on the fact that if recruits come into the Services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, they will do their seven or 12 years, and when they come out
2390
they will get a good job and be well looked after. At the same time, His Majesty's Government are saying to their own Department that there is no case for ex-Service men to have representation as ex-Service men, when they return to His Majesty's service in the Civil Service.
If there is to be no difference between service in the Armed Forces and ordinary employment, I completely fail to see why an employer should be required or even expected to grant one of his employees holidays over and above the ordinary holidays for him to attend the Territorial Army camp. There again, a differentiation is clearly drawn by which Armed service is quite different from any other employment. As I have said, this Association has been dealing with the Treasury and with other Government Departments since 1920 but yet now, in June, 1947, His Majesty's Government have decided that they are no longer fit persons to represent the interests of ex-Service men.
One has to pass from that first point as to whether there should be any differentiation between ex-Service men and others to the second point as to whether this Association should represent the interests of ex-Service men. Have they performed those functions satisfactorily both to the ex-Service men within the Civil Service and also to the other partner in the matter, the Treasury? To the best of my information they have negotiated quite satisfactorily since 1920. There are 30,000 ex-Service men in the Civil Service. Of these, 11,000 are in this Association, which means that only 19,000 remain to be divided up between the other unions within the alliance. That assumes that all these 19,000 are in fact members of one or other of these unions, which is by no means certain. Has the Association done much in the cause of ex-Service men? The Financial Secretary has gone into this question, and I ask him to consider the matter as he found it. Has the Association performed its duties in the interests of ex-Service men? As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Association was largely instrumental in the allocation of 10,000 vacancies to ex-Service men. That was the result of negotiation. They were also instrumental in the appointment of the Lytton and Southborough Committees, and of the Tomlin Commission which dealt with the question of Civil Service conditions as a

2391
whole, but with special reference to ex-Service men. I mentioned earlier that the incremental rate in respect of war service was introduced by negotiation with the Association which I am discussing.
My last point is of particular significance because I feel certain that the Financial Secretary will say that the Civil Service Alliance will deal with the interests of ex-Service men. There was a matter in which it became evident that those coming out of the Armed Forces were in fact going back into the Civil Service, and it was the submission of the alliance that a time limit of 91 days should be imposed within which period an ex-Service man should be required to enter the Civil Service. If he did not do so within that time any War Service which he might have did not count. That case was fought by the association against the Alliance, which the Financial Secretary will probably tell us is the body to fight the cause of ex-Service men. I submit that in that case they fought against ex-Service men. It is a specific case where the cause of the ex-Service men conflicts perhaps with others. Are not these men entitled to consideration?
I do not want to treat this as a party matter, and I hope hon. Members opposite will agree with me, but the party which I represent seek to defend the rights not only of the minority unions but of minorities within unions, which is just as important. In every war that we run into, which seems to be every quarter of a century, we promise the men and women who fight our battles that they will come back to a land flowing with milk and honey and that we will do everything in our power to make life happy and easy for them. We give preferential treatment today to miners, but seven years ago we had other heroes in the front line of our battle, the men of Dunkirk and of Malaya. It is these men about whom I am talking to the House tonight.
Mr. Logan: Would the hon. Member pardon me for interrupting and answer a question, purely for my own information? Am I to understand that ex-Service men who are returning to their original jobs are being graded as temporaries?
Mr. Langford-Holt: I am referring only to temporary men. I am sorry that I did not make that fact clear, and I apologise to the hon. Member.
The final thing I want to say is that these men have done service for which the country can never repay them. Let us face that fact. I am very sorry to see that the first breach in this moral contract is being made by His Majesty's Government. I sincerely hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us that he will reconsider this matter. We ask for nothing more than justice, for sincerity from the Financial Secretary and for the freedom of one man to choose with whom he will associate in any bargain that he may make with his employer.
10.13 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is a simple and narrow one. He has raised, and I have no complaint, the withdrawal recently by the Treasury of official recognition of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. This body, as he very rightly said, has been in existence for a large number of years. Normally, unless, as he said, wars are going to occur every quarter of a century, an association of this kind must have a period set to its existence, because ex-Service men, unless wars renew them, are apt to run out of supply! This Association has, as the hon. Member said, done very valuable work, both after the 1914–18 war and during and since the recent war. On the facts, for reasons which I will give in a moment, the Treasury has felt bound to withdraw official recognition from this body.
The hon. Member has assumed from this that the Treasury is against ex-Service men as such and against the notion that they should, if they are so minded, have their own association or trade union. Of course, the Treasury hold no such belief. This is a free country and there is no reason whatever why ex-Service men should not join together in a trade union or an association within the Civil Service if they so desire. For my part, I see no reason why they should not do so and am quite willing and, indeed, would be anxious to encourage the getting together of ex-Service men if they feel they have common interests which are different from those of their fellow trade unionists' within the Civil Service. One of the results

2393
arising out of the war which has recently been concluded is that ex-Service men, unlike ex-Service men at the end of the 1914–18 war, found that they were not the only ones who had engaged in and suffered from the tragedy of the war. This time everyone, civilians and those in uniform alike, felt the impact of the war. Men who served in the National Fire Service or in some other form of national service, equally served their country and, indeed, sometimes at greater risk than many men who went into uniform.
Therefore this time there has not been the comradeship there was among ex-Service men after the 1914–18 war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am simply stating facts. The ending of this war did not see the influx one might have expected into an association of this sort by ex-Service men who came back from the war. Apparently they have preferred in fairly large numbers to go into one of the other trade unions or associations which cater for their grade of the Civil Service. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen shaking their heads. I have the figures here.
Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us these figures because I think we shall disagree on this point?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course I will give the figures. It would be unfair to the House if I did not, because what I have to say is really based on these figures. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they disagree with the figures before I have given them. In response to the challenge of the Civil Service Alliance, and with the co-operation of this particular association, we have checked up on the figures of membership, and at the time those figures were taken—they were taken fairly recently—they were not disputed by anyone.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by the challenge of the Civil Service Alliance?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am coming to that if hon. Gentlemen will allow me. I must make my speech in my own way. I was jumping a little in replying to the interjection by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). Had I been left to develop my argument in my own way, it would presently have been made
2394
clear what I mean by the word "challenge."
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury put two questions. What I shall say in the time left to me will I hope answer and dispose of both. His first question was: Have ex-Service men as such, a right to Civil Service representation? That is are they entitled to form their own association if they wish, and having formed it, are they entitled to recognition? The answer is, yes. His next question was: Is the Association of ex-Service Civil Servants such a body? Most certainly it is such a body and it is recognised as such so far as certain grades within the Civil Service are concerned though not now so far as other grades are concerned. It is recognised within Departments but outside, as a national negotiating body, for reasons which I will give presently, and on figures I will presently quote, it has now been decided that it is too small compared with other trade unions and associations within the Civil Service to count, so far as certain grades are concerned, with the others when national negotiations take place. Since the repeal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act of 1925 any civil servant has been quite free to join any staff association he wished to join if it would accept him. That goes for temporaries as well as for established staff. It is likewise true that any staff association, including the Association of ex-Service Civil Servants, has the undoubted right to make representations to the Government. That did not emerge, and was not made clear by the opening speech of this Debate.
Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Direct?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, direct.
Mr. Langford-Holt: I think the right hon. Gentleman is implying that this association has exactly equal facilities with the other unions. I hope they have, but I do not think they have. It is my submission that they have different rights. If they have different rights what is the point he is making?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I wish the hon. Member would let me make my own speech. I am stating certain facts, and if he will allow me to deploy my argument, he will see that they fit in, and that what

2395
I am saying is not what he assumed, but something rather different. What I am saying is that any staff association can now make representations to the Government direct if it wishes, but formal recognition as a national negotiating body—which is quite a different thing—is not accorded to every association. This is common sense. There is no point in allowing any small group forming an association numbering no more than 10, 100, 500, or even 1,000, full recognition by the Government. It has been decided, and I think it is common sense, that unless they represent a substantial number, or are the only union catering for that particular grade, type, or class, and thus are in a position to speak for them, that they should not be given formal recognition as a negotiating body.
Mr. Langford-Holt: I am sorry to keep interrupting, and I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that official recognition cannot be afforded to a small body. This Association has 11,000 members, representing ex-Service civil servants. The County Court Officers Association consists of 1,200, and represents county court officers——
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Really the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to me. I do not mind how much of my time he takes, but I hope he will not go away and say that I have not done my best to answer——
Mr. Langford-Holt: I apologised.
Mr. Glenvil Hall:—the case put forward. I did not interrupt the hon. Member, and I hope he will realise that I have only a limited time at my disposal. I am as anxious as he is to help the ex-Service man. This decision was not taken lightly by the Treasury. Consideration of this matter took several months, and the decision was only taken in the light of the facts which showed themselves when inquiry was made. As I have said, it has always been the Treasury practice to base formal recognition in the full sense on numerical strength. We must have some body which can speak for the great mass of a particular grade in order that we can negotiate with them, and come to reasonable and proper terms, and it is unbusinesslike to negotiate with a body which cannot be said to represent those whom it
2396
claims to represent. The mere fact that a body represents ex-Service men does not in itself provide any reoson why that body should be accorded recognition equal to that of another which represents many tens of thousands, although on sentimental grounds, I agree, there is reason why one should be as favourably disposed towards it as one can possibly be.
Mr. Raikes: War service does not count? Is that the point?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course it does. If the hon. Member had read Command Paper 6567 he would have seen that we are greatly weighting entry into the Civil Service in favour of ex-Service men.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention any other ex-Service body which represents more?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, the Civil Service Alliance does claim, I understand, to represent as many Civil Service ex-Service men, as does this particular union.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the actual number?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I must be allowed to make my speech in my own way. Temporary clerks, which comprise the grade to which the hon. Member calls attention tonight, and for which this association particularly caters, have been represented jointly by what is known as the Civil Service Alliance, which comprises the Civil Service Clerical Association, the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, the Ministry of Labour Staff Association and the County Court Officers' Association, together with the Association of ex-Service Civil Servants. Up to now these bodies have been jointly recognised by the Treasury as representing temporary clerks.
Last year, the Civil Service Alliance, containing these various other bodies, challenged the representative capacity of the Association of ex-Service Civil Servants. As a result, an inspection was held, which was I believe agreed to quite freely by all the bodies concerned; I had nothing to do with it. As a result the membership was shown to be, in the case of the Alliance, 93,954, practically 94,000, whilst the A.E.C.S. could only show a

2397
membership of 8,568. In other words, there were 10 times more in the Alliance than in the smaller union. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are four unions in the Alliance."] The number of temporary clerks is 170,000. If the House will remember that figure, they will see that 50 per cent. were in the Alliance and less than 5 per cent. were in the A.E.C.S. On those figures, the Treasury had no alternative but to withdraw formal recognition, so far as temporary clerks were concerned, from the Asociation of ex-Service Civil Servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because they represented too small a percentage of those involved to be able to speak for them.
It is still possible for ex-Service men to join any association including the A.E.C.S. if they so wish. It is still possible for a civil servant to join that
2398
association, and that association can, on his behalf, as an ex-Service man, make representations to the Treasury and to the Government, and those representations will be listened to. In addition, this association is still officially recognised as the body with which formal negotiations take place in respect of unestablished messengers. And in addition, as I have already said, this association is likewise recognised within Departments, and can make representations within Departments on behalf of its members. I want it to be quite clearly understood that we do not and never have sought to penalise ex-Service men but it must be remembered. …
It being Half-past Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRISONERS OF WAR
  Germans, Belgium (Deaths)
  Germans, Belgium (Deaths)
  Sealed Letters
  Sealed Letters
  Repatriation
  Repatriation
  Camps, Germany
  Camps, Germany
  Employment, Middle East
  Employment, Middle East
  Bus Journeys
  Bus Journeys
BRITISH ARMY
  Stanford Battle Training Area
  Stanford Battle Training Area
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  OLYMPIC GAMES COMPETITORS (ACCOMMODATION)
  OLYMPIC GAMES COMPETITORS (ACCOMMODATION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Ex-Prisoners of War
  Ex-Prisoners of War
  Colliery Clerical Staffs (Negotiating Machinery)
  Colliery Clerical Staffs (Negotiating Machinery)
  Nurses (Part-Time Service)
  Nurses (Part-Time Service)
  Women Textile Workers (Earnings)
  Women Textile Workers (Earnings)
  Unregistered Manpower
  Unregistered Manpower
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL-UP)
  BRITISH OIL INDUSTRY (EXPENDITURE)
  BRITISH OIL INDUSTRY (EXPENDITURE)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (DOCUMENTARY FILMS)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (DOCUMENTARY FILMS)
  AMERICAN TRACTORS AND HARVESTERS (SPARE PARTS)
  AMERICAN TRACTORS AND HARVESTERS (SPARE PARTS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ROBOROUGH AIRFIELD)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ROBOROUGH AIRFIELD)
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (EARNINGS)
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (EARNINGS)
RAILWAYS
  Inland Sorting Depots (Use)
  Inland Sorting Depots (Use)
  Bridge, River Severn
  Bridge, River Severn
  Reserved Compartment (Waterloo Train)
  Reserved Compartment (Waterloo Train)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Boat-Building Woods
  Boat-Building Woods
  Home-grown Timber Branch
  Home-grown Timber Branch
  BUS SHELTERS
  BUS SHELTERS
  NYASALAND (SOIL CONSERVATION, PAMPHLETS)
  NYASALAND (SOIL CONSERVATION, PAMPHLETS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES IN BURMA.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given them private notice: Whether His Majesty's Government are yet in a position to make an announcement about the terms to be granted to the Secretary of State's officers of the Burma Services on the transfer of power.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for putting this question. I am glad to be able to inform the House that I am now in a position to make an announcement about the terms to be granted to the Secretary of State's officers of the Burma Services on the transfer of power. As the announcement is rather long, I will, with the permission of the noble Marquess, circulate it in the Official Report. In addition, a White Paper is being laid today which can be obtained in the Printed Paper Office.
  [The statement was as follows:
  1. In my statement of 30th April on compensation for Secretary of State's officers of the Indian Services I said I hoped to be able to make a very early announcement regarding compensation for the Services in Burma.
  2. Many of the officers in the Burma Civil Service Class I, the Burma Police Class I and other civilian services in Burma were, in fact recruited to the Indian Civil Service, the Indian Police or other Indian Services before Burma was separated from India and an assurance was given to these officers that their Indian Service rights would not be infringed by the Act of separation. Provisions identical in effect to those contained in Part X of the Government of India Act, 1935, were incorporated in the Government of Burma Act of the same year. The pledge given in 1945 at the time of the resumption of recruitment to the Secretary of State's Services in India and Burma was addressed to the Burma Ser-
  1268
  vices equally with the Indian Services. It is therefore clear that the intention of Parliament with regard to compensation for careers and prospects prejudiced by constitutional change applies to Burma no less than to India.
  3. Discussion of the compensation question with the Government of Burma has, however, shown the existence of important differences between the position in India and the position in Burma in this matter. In the first place the Government of Burma have stated that it will not be possible to offer to officers of the Secretary of State's Services whether European or Burman, who remain in service under Government in Burma after the transfer of power conditions of service as favourable as those enjoyed at present. Further the Government of Burma have indicated that they do not in their opinion need the retention of the services of European officers of the Secretary of State's Services.
  4. His Majesty's Government have reviewed the situation in the light of all the relevant circumstances and they are satisfied that there is a clear case for granting compensation to European officers of the Secretary of State's Services in Burma on the same scales as those already announced for the Indian Services. His Majesty's Government appreciate the reasons which have led the Government of Burma to a decision that the existing terms of service for the Burma Services cannot be maintained after the transfer of power. They feel that this fact gives rise to a case for the grant of some measure of compensation to Burman officers as well as to European officers.
  5. But there is a radical difference in the effect which the transfer of power will have on the position of European and Burman officers respectively. Opportunities for European officers to continue to serve under the Government of Burma will, as I have indicated, be very few and even in the case of those few who are offered and accept such employment, it must be remembered that they will not be serving under the ultimate control of the Parliament of their own country, and their prospects, even if the existing terms of service were continued, could not be held to be the same as in the past. Burman officers on the other hand will be able to continue to serve their own country and their prospects of reaching the highest posts in the service though on lower scales of remuneration will be improved.
  6. The Government of Burma are most anxious not to lose the services of experienced Burman officers, and they feel that sentiments of patriotism will impel these officers to continue to serve their country. His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the urgent needs of the Government of Burma to retain the services of experienced officers and they, in turn, wish to avoid the adoption of any plan which might deter Burman officers from continuing to serve their own Government. In all the circumstances they consider that in view of the lower rate of pay offered to officers who continue in service, Burman officers other than those in the three special categories mentioned below should receive compensation at one quarter of the

  1269
  rates fixed for European officers. With this compensation and the improved prospects of promotion available, every Burman officer (subject to three categories specially excepted) can fairly be regarded as having an equivalent career open to him,
  7. The Government of Burma have agreed that compensation on the same scales as for European officers shall be payable to Burman officers who: (i) are not invited to continue to serve under the Government of Burma after the transfer of power, (ii) can satisfy the Governor that their actions done in good faith in the course of duty during service prior to the transfer of power have damaged their prospects or (iii) can show to the satisfaction of the Governor that through no fault of their own they have legitimate cause for anxiety about their future in Government Service in Burma.
  8. In each case in which compensation is admissible it will fall due on the transfer of power and will be granted in addition to such retiring or proportionate pension as is admissible under the rules. The Government of Burma have agreed that officers who enter on a new engagement with them shall draw the pension they have earned as Secretary of State's officers in addition to the reduced pay admissible in the new post.
  9. It is the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that officers will avail themselves freely of the opportunities which will exist for further Government Service for many of those who will become entitled to compensation. The terms of such further employment will be a matter for consideration; but where British officers of the civil services accept appointment to another civil service under His Majesty's Government on a permanent pensionable basis they will receive no compensation but will be eligible for a resettlement grant of £500 on terms which have already been announced.
  10. The development of the policy of His Majesty's Government for Constitutional advance in Burma may affect regular officers and other ranks serving in the Burma Forces in a similar way to the members of the civil services. Most of the individuals affected are members of British or Indian Services for whom provision already exists under the arrangements applicable to their parent service in India. If it should be found that there are such officers, warrant officers, or non-commissioned officers not otherwise covered, they will be entitled to the terms admissible to corresponding ranks under the Indian Scheme.
  11. The source from which the monies involved will ultimately come must be a matter to be dealt with hereafter, but so far as the individuals affected are concerned they have the assurance of His Majesty's Government that they will receive the monies to which they will become entitled. His Majesty's Government also undertake that the officers to whom this announcement relates and who do not continue in the service of the Government of Burma will be secured in their rights to the leave due to them on the termination of their service as Secretary of State's officers.
  12. The Government of Burma accept liability for pension and proportionate pension earned by service under the Secretary of State whether by civilians or by members of the Defence Services.
  13. His Majesty's Government have accordingly authorised the Governor to make the announcement which is published in a White Paper laid to-day. The White Paper also contains tables setting out the scales of compensation for the various Services affected.]

BURMA.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have anything to add to the statement on Burma made on July 24, more particularly as regards the protection of minorities and the position of European members of non-Secretary of State Services.]
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are making the necessary preparations for the negotiation of provisional agreements with the Government of Burma on matters arising out of the transfer of power. In the field of defence, as I am sure the noble Lord will himself have noticed, a Mission left for Burma at the end of last week under the leadership of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for War. A3 regards the protection of minorities, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, on July 9. The safeguarding of the rights and future interests of the European members of the Services in Burma, other than those appointed by the Secretary of State is primarily an obligation for the Government of Burma. The noble Lord may, however, rest assured that their position will be raised in the discussions which will take place with the Government of Burma.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, if a provisional agreement has been referred, may I ask whether it will be made known and be open to debate before the necessary measure confirming it is brought in?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, none of these agreements can be finally ratified until they have been referred to His Majesty's Government, and until His Majesty's Government have had the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: To the agreement? Before a Bill is brought in to confirm it?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot say anything about the timing of the report of these matters to Parliament; that is a matter impossible for me to forecast. I can only assure the noble Lord that the constitutional position I have described will be most jealously safeguarded.

IMPORTS OF RAW WOOL AND COTTON.
LORD BARNBY: I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state what proportion of current raw material consumption in the (a) cotton, (b) wool textile industries of the United Kingdom is believed to be respectively of dollar or sterling origin.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in the cotton textile industry about 22 per cent. of the raw materials used is of United States origin, and about 26 per cent. of Empire origin. In the wool textile industry, about 95 per cent. is of United Kingdom and Empire origin, and none of United States origin.

ELECTRICITY BILL.
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 98.]
Page 17, line 44, at end, insert the following new Clause:
Special provision for electricity holding companies.
(".—(1) This Section applies to any electricity holding company who shall, not later
1272
than three months after the passing of this Act, serve on the Minister notice in writing stating that they wish this Section to apply to them by reason of the fact that they were, at the date of the last audited balance sheet of the Company, before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, either directly or indirectly, the beneficial owners of extraneous assets specified in general terms in such notice and being property situate outside Great Britain, or being property situate within Great Britain which is not reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers or power station company:
Provided that no such notice as aforesaid shall have effect unless accompanied by a certificate signed by the auditor of the company and sating that the company was at such date as aforesaid the beneficial owner of the extraneous assets specified in the notice.
(2) Every company to which this Section applies shall be deemed not to be an electricity holding company for the purposes of the provisions of this Act.
(3) If, not later than three months after any company to which this Section applies shall have served a notice under subsection (5) of this Section, the Central Authority shall, by notice in writing to the company, require that all such, if any, of the property of the company as is reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers or power station company shall vest in the Central Authority, then the beneficial interest of the company in all such property shall, on the vesting date or one month after the date of such notice, whichever shall be the later, vest, by virtue of this Act and without further assurance, in the Central Authority.
(4) There shall be paid by the Central Authority to the company by way of compensation for the property vested in accordance with the last preceding subsection such sum as may be agreed between the Central Authority and the company or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by arbitration under this Act as the fair market value of the beneficial interest of the company in such property.
(5) Not later than two months after any company to which this Section applies shall have served a notice under subsection (5) of this Section, either the Central Authority, or any person employed by the company wholly or mainly in the administration or operation of any one or more authorised undertakers or power station companies, may serve upon the other and upon the company a notice in writing requiring that any agreement for personal services made between the company and such person, and in force at the vesting date, shall apply and have effect as though such person had been employed by an electricity holding company, and thereupon the employment of such person by the company shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be employment by an electricity holding company.
(6) Any question arising under this Section as to whether any property is reasonably required for the efficient and economical admini-

1273
stration or operation of any authorised undertakers or power station company, or as to whether any person was employed wholly or mainly in the administration or operation of any one or more authorised undertakers or power station companies, shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the Minister.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is expedient that the undertakings of electricity holding companies should vest in the Central Authority.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this new clause was inserted by your 'Lordships. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going again through the arguments which were addressed to you on the various stages of the Bill. Sufficient to say that the Commons have not seen fit to agree with this Amendment. I still hope that, although the various holding companies must be taken over if we accept the Commons Reason, yet means will be found to enable those holding companies to dispose of their extraneous assets—of course at a fair price—and for the extraneous assets thus disposed of to be available for those, or at any rate some of those, who were previous shareholders in the holding company. I beg to move that the House cloth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I certainly shall not fight the battle over again, although I share the Lord Chancellor's hope that at least these companies, in one form or another, will be able to retain and develop activities which the Government do not wish to touch and which they wish to retain, and that it will be possible for them to retain all those activities and not be forced to sell extraneous assets which may be overseas. I would only add that I think the Reason given is rather strange, although we shall not press this Amendment. We are asked to accept the disagreement "because it is expedient that the undertakings of electricity holding companies should vest in the Central Authority." That does seem to me to be rather a strange Reason.
All the relevant undertakings which pertain to the production or distribution of electricity in this country, and anything which the Minister wished to take over in addition would, under this
1274
Amendment, vest in the Central Authority or the Board. Therefore, that can hardly be expedient. If by "expedient" it is meant "necessary," obviously it is not expedient in that sense. If by "expedient" is meant "right and just," then it does seem to us extremely unfair that people should be forced to part with assets which the Government do not wish to acquire, and then buy them back—as was demonstrably proved in this House—at what may well be, and probably almost certainly will be, a higher price than the Government have given for those undertakings. The only argument which was really advanced in another place in defence of this was that after all this was not a very big matter—there were not very many of these cases, and the assets were not very much. Of that I have only this to say. If a principle is wrong—and all of your Lordships were quite definite that the principle was wrong in this case—then the application of that principle is wrong, whether it be on a large scale or a small.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 74, line 25, at end insert the following new clause:
("Setting up of Electricity Appeal Tribunal.
.—(1) Forthwith upon the dissolution of tan Electricity Commissioners the Minister shall by order constitute a tribunal (in this Act referred to as the Electricity Appeal Tribunal) which shall consist of a chairman who shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing appointed by the Lord Chancellor and two other members appointed by the Minister, one of whom shall be a person having experience in the generation and supply of electricity and the other of whom shall have had experience in commercial matters.
No member of the Central Authority or of any area board and no person employed by them shall be qualified to be a member o the Tribunal.
(2) It shall be the duty of each area board to submit to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal the tariffs from time to title fixed by them and the Tribunal after such enquiry as they think fit may either refuse to confirm any tariff or may confirm it with such alterations if any as they think fit and no such tariff shall come into force until it has been confirmed by the Tribunal.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Electricity Appeal Tribunal to consider—

(a) any representation from—

(i) any local authority having jurisdiction in the area of any area board;

(ii) such number of consumers not being less than twenty as the Tribunal think

1275
sufficient having regard to the population of the area;

(iii) any consumers who in the opinion of the Tribunal sufficiently represent any particular trade business or interest in the area

with respect to the prices charged for the supply of electricity by the Central Authority or any area board;

(b) any representation in regard to the matters specified in the preceding paragraph which may be made to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal by a consultative council either upon the request of any person or otherwise;

(c) any question which may be referred to it for consideration by the Minister or by the Central Authority.

When the Electricity Appeal Tribunal have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions and shall make such representations to the Minister in connection with those conclusions as they think expedient.
(4) Any order made under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions for the payment of remuneration to members of the Tribunal by the Central Authority with the approval of the Treasury either by way of annual salary or of fees, and for determining the procedure of the Tribunal as the Minister thinks fit.
The procedure of the Tribunal shall be such as to secure that a member of the Tribunal shall not have any special interest such as may tend to interfere with his impartial consideration of the representation or question made or referred to them.
(5) The Tribunal shall be furnished by the Central Authority with such accommodation as appears to them to be requisite for the proper discharge of their functions and with such clerks, officers and staff as appear to them with the approval of the Treasury, as to numbers to be requisite for the purpose and the Central Authority shall pay to the clerks, officers and staff of the Tribunal such remuneration as they may, with the approval of the Treasury determine.
(6) The Minister and every electricity board shall provide the Tribunal with such information and other assistance as the Tribunal think expedient for the purpose of assisting them to discharge their functions.
(7) The Tribunal shall make an annual report to the Minister of their proceedings and the Minister shall lay the report before each House of Parliament together with a statement of any action which has been taken by him in consequence of any recommendation made to him by the Tribunal during the period to which the report relates.
(8) Until such time as an Order is made under this section the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this section upon the Electricity Appeal Tribunal upon its constitution shall by virtue of this provision be exercised and discharged by the Electricity Commissioners.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is unnecessary and inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Your Lordships sought to insert a new clause providing for a tribunal to be set up to investigate matters of complaint. I am moving that your Lordships do not insist on the said Amendment; but I would like to say this: I can give your Lordships an undertaking which I hope will go a long way to satisfy your Lordships' not unnatural fears. Noble Lords will remember that the Bill provides for a consultative council. If an area board, in fixing its tariffs, is in the opinion of the consultative council wrong in this, that or the other respect, the consultative council can consult with the area board; and if they get no satisfaction from the area board the consultative council can go to the Central Authority. The Central Authority have power to give orders to the area board about this and they can therefore consult with the Central Authority. If they get no satisfaction from the Central Authority they can then go and consult the Minister. The Minister is a very busy man and he very often does not have adequate time to give to the consideration of these difficult problems. Your Lordships thought therefore that there ought to be some kind of tribunal there interposed in order to be quite certain that matters were properly considered.
The Minister in another place gave what I think your Lordships will realize was a conciliatory reply. He obviously appreciated the force of this point. I feel a little guilty, because I know the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had to go abroad on business, and before he went away I led him to suppose that we might be able to make some amendment in the Bill itself. It was only after having tried to make this amendment and coming up against technical difficulties that I sought to retreat from that position. The noble Viscount's being away made it more difficult. I am going, however, to give this assurance, in the following terms.
Where there is disagreement on any substantial issue under Clause 7 between a consultative council and the Central

1277
Authority, the Minister will remit the matter for consideration and report by a person or persons appointed by him after consultation with the Lord Chancellor.
To apply that to Scotland is rather difficult, because in Scotland there are these two bodies, the board in the north of Scotland and the Scottish area boards; but I can go as far as this—though the precise way of giving effect to it in Scotland would have to be considered. In the case of Scotland a similar appointment of an independent person or persons will be made by the appropriate Minister. I hope and believe that with that assurance your Lordships will be satisfied that the Minister, in deciding this question, will not do so lightly or inadvisedly or without proper advice as to the appropriate course to take. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the House will have heard with satisfaction the undertaking which the noble and learned Viscount has given, and will be grateful to him for the trouble he has taken in this matter. This is really a matter on which there is no serious issue now between us; and I would like to say that the Minister in another place met this in a very sympathetic spirit. He said:
"I want to say at once that with the principle embodied in this Amendment from another place I am in full sympathy."
It is quite true that attempts were made to get words which could be put in the Bill; and I must say quite frankly that where you have an important issue like this it is much more desirable to have it set out in the Bill and not by way of an undertaking. I am sure the Lord Chancellor and the Minister will agree with that. But the assurance given, which I am sure will be fully carried out, really means, first of all, that there is to be a tribunal. It is common ground to us that if these things can be settled by the consultative councils, so much the better. We do not want to send things to the tribunal if they can be settled amicably and satisfactorily. If they cannot be so settled there will be a tribunal. It will, I understand, be of the kind that we proposed, with a good lawyer as the chairman. I have a great respect for good
1278
lawyers; they make very good chairmen. And there will be practical people silting on the tribunal.
The actual words of the Lord Chancellor were, I think, "any substantial issue" There are two matters which occur to me. I think the Minister in another place acceded to both. There is the question of the maximum charge, which is obviously "a substantial matter." It need not go automatically if there is agreement; if there is disagreement, then it will go automatically. The other thing is any complaint about a charge which may be within the approved maximum charge. I do not want petty matters to go. On the other hand, if the issue is substantial, a matter of real substance, then it would go. As I understand it, I have not a: all enlarged the scope of the undertaking given, as the Lord Chancellor would agree, I think, and, if that is so, then we should all like to see it in the Bill. I should like to have an assurance that I have interpreted the undertaking correctly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has interpreted the undertaking as I understand it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in the absence of Lord Morrison who is unable to be present, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Amnion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
The references are to Bill No. 104.]
Page 78, line 14, at, end insert:
("(5) Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge may appeal to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, selected in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, and the

1279
provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall in so far as they relate to appeals to a Tribunal have effect in relation to appeals under this Act as if for any reference to the War Damage Commission there were substituted a reference to the Central Land Board and as if for any reference to the War Damage Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to this Act and the Lord Chancellor shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of that Schedule, appeals to a tribunal under this Act.
(6) For the purposes of an appeal under the last foregoing subsection the Central Land Board shall at the request of the appellant or of the Tribunal furnish to the appellant and to the Tribunal a statement setting out the particulars of the grounds upon which the development charge was determined by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the functions of the Central Land Board, would slow down the fixing of development charges and would thereby impede development.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, it will be within the memory of the House that this Amendment was passed without a Division in this House and went to another place and has been rejected there. A similar Amendment was made in the English Bill and met with a like fate. The position is that under the Bill the State are acquiring the development rights in land and will sell them through the Central Land Board. At the present time a person wishing to purchase land for development from a private owner has no right of appeal against the price asked by that owner and there seems no reason why in like circumstances an appeal should be given against the price set by the Central Land Board. Another argument against the provision of a right of appeal is that it may hold up developments which should proceed forthwith. Having a right of appeal, an applicant is always tempted to try his luck by taking the case further and, while the appeal is pending, not only is his development held up, but possibly also other cases dependent on or similar to his are delayed. I beg to move that this House does not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Ammon.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord who has just spoken spoke in the absence of Lord Morrison, so I am
1280
speaking in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who, as your Lordships will recollect, took such a prominent part when the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill was going through this House. The noble Lord who has just sat down is quite right. All three of these Amendments were inserted in the Bill by this House without a Division on the understanding that if they remained in the English Bill they should be in the Scottish Bill, but if eventually the decision between the two Houses was that they should not be in the English Bill, then they should not be in the Scottish Bill either. We thought that it was right and proper that all three of these Amendments should be in both Bills, but the English Bill, which has received the Royal Assent, was passed without these Amendments in it and therefore it would obviously be wrong and against the understanding of this House if we were to try to insist on putting them in the Scottish Bill. In those circumstances we shall agree not to insist on the Amendment which we at one time put in the Scottish Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 92, line 6, at end insert:
("(or,
(c) that the land together with any land contiguous or adjacent to such land was on the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven, or would have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 2939, in the course of development as a residential commercial or industrial estate and that the proposed development is or would be immediately practicable but for such circumstances as aforesaid and that there is a demand for such development.)")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment by extending the definition of land ripe for immediate development would affect unduly the provisions of Parts V and VI of the Bill.
Page 93, line 20, at end insert:
("(c) that where—

(i) a mining lease was in force on the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven, having on that day an unexpired term of not less than ten years, or

(ii) minerals were being won and worked immediately before that day by a person having an interest therein otherwise than under a mining lease,

1281
no payment shall be made under the said Part V in respect of any interest in the minerals comprised in the said mining lease, or in any minerals which form part of the same seam or deposit as that in respect of which the operations mentioned in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph were being carried out and in respect of which an interest was held as mentioned in the said 'sub-paragraph, as the case may be, and that no development charge shall be payable under the said Part VI in respect of the winning and working of the said minerals under the mining lease referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph or in respect of the winning and working of any minerals referred to in the said subparagraph (ii) in respect of which no payment has been made under the said Part V as aforesaid.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment by extending the scope of the clause would affect unduly the provisions of Parts V and VI of the Bill.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, perhaps in view of what the noble Lord has just said I might take the other two together; the arguments need not he repeated. I beg to move that this House does not insist on these Amendments.
Moved, That this House does not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived: Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 28), Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (EXTENDED PURPOSES) BILL.
2.57 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to he printed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 28):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It has given rise to considerable political controversy and excitement, and I am bound to say
1282
that, speaking for myself, I welcome one thing about the discussions very heartily: that is, that it is obvious to all of us that the right honourable gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, has once more returned to his duties in absolutely first-rate fighting trim, and for that, at any rate, we are all heartily glad. On he other hand, this Bill has been so bedevilled by politics and, if I may use the expression, it has become such a "Donnybrook Fair," that this little Bill which was intended to resolve some legal doubts is treated as though it were a matter of tremendous political importance, as inch ed it would have been if we had not already had and passed the Act of 1945.
Reading such parts of the debate in another place as we have been able to read, I am very much impressed with the fact that there was a complete and absolute misunderstanding as to what the doubt is and as to how the trouble has arisen. If I can do nothing else, I can at least, I hope, make plain to your Lordships what the trouble is and why we have thought it necessary to introduce this Bill. In considering these Bills—and there is a succession or family of them—I do not suppose that I need pretend that I like them very much, but I must not say toe much about that; I was rebuked for it before! First of all, there was the 1939 Bill, then there was the 194o Bill at the time of Dunkirk, then there was the 1945 Bill, and now we have the 1947 Bill. When considering this class of Bill (or Act as most of them are now) two points must be borne in mind: the powers which they confer and the purposes for which those powers may be used; and unless one keeps that distinction clear in one's mind, I venture to think that the result will be a state of complete: mental chaos.
Purposes and powers. When I discussed with your Lordships the 1945 Bill, in regard to which we had considerable controversy, I referred to the powers as being immense. I think that one adjective is sufficiently accurate. The powers are immense, and these powers now have effect by virtue of the Act of 1945, and there cannot be a shadow of a doubt but that the Act of 1945 is a valid Act of Parliament. It was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received the Royal Assent. It runs for five years. It received the Royal Assent, I think, in December, 1945, and, therefore, its powers run on for five years from that date. As to the

1283
nature and extent of the powers thereby given, they are, indeed, very formidable. Regulation 55 is the one which deals with direction of labour, and under Regulation 55 any person can be told to go to any place and work at any trade, or anything of that sort you like.
"A competent authority, so far as it appears to that authority to be necessary for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, may, by order, provide"
—and there follows a formidable catalogue of things dealing with general control of industry. There is power to give directions as regards any industry. A Controller can be appointed and, if the Controller wants any further powers he can, by Regulation 78, be given the powers to buy out all the shares of the undertaking which he is controlling.
So that if you wanted to be politically thoroughly dishonest—because that is what it would be—and to utilize these powers to nationalize a whole industry, you have the powers. You appoint a Controller, and then, having appointed the Controller, under Regulation 78 you can buy all the shares in the industry. Those powers are there, and, further and more objectionable than that, perhaps, is the power of Regulation 58A. That is the power relating specifically to labour, and it is the one I referred to just now. You can require any individual to perform "such services"—and I am reading the words of Regulation 58A—"in the United Kingdom, as may be specified by or described in the direction." If you want to direct what I think are called "Spivs" to go and perform any particular work, if you want to direct anybody who lives at Land's End to go and work at John O'Groats, you have the power to do so; it is all in Regulation 58A.
Having obtained these powers, which I have described as immense, I claim some little satisfaction from the fact that, although a host of these Regulations were made, any one of which could have been prayed against, there certainly has not been one prayer in your Lordships' House, and, so far as I know, there was no prayer in another place. There has been none because there has been no claim that there has been any improper, or undue, or unfair, or excessive exercise of any of these Regulations. I do claim that as a matter of importance.
1284
So much for the powers. Now what about the purposes? May I use an analogy to show your Lordships what I mean by the distinction between the purposes and powers. Supposing you have a machine which can do all sorts of things when it operates, but before the machine starts to operate you have to turn on the switch. The purpose comes in in this way, that you can only fairly turn on the switch for certain particular purposes, and in this case it is fair to say that the Courts have very little control over the Executive. They have very little control for this reason: All these Regulations are worded "where it appears to His Majesty" which, of course, means to the Minister concerned; not where it is the fact, but where it appears to be the fact. In a case decided in the Court of Appeal in the year 1940, I think—I was Solicitor-General at the time, and I argued the case—the Court of Appeal decided that they could not embark upon the question as to whether the particular Regulation there in issue was or was not required or requisite; all they had to consider was whether it appeared to His Majesty's Government that it was requisite, which is obviously a very different thing. Although, of course, it is the fact that if the Minister exercises his powers in what seems to the Courts to be a wholly unreasonable way, the Courts can control him. In the recent case concerning Stevenage—and may I emphasize the fact that the first syllable of that word is long?—the trial Judge, as it turned out afterwards, was in error. He decided that he could control the Minister, because he thought the Minister had not acted properly. The Appellate Court took a different view, but, subject to that sort of point, what the Minister does is a matter for which he cannot be called in question in the Courts.
It may be said that that is a reason for the Minister taking a somewhat lax view. I take exactly the contrary view. I take the view that the fact that the Minister cannot be called in question in the Courts is all the more reason why he should be scrupulously careful to see that he is not using these vast powers for a purpose which was not authorized by the Act of Parliament. It is over that issue that the doubt has arisen. In the original Act of 1939, the purposes for which this great

1285
engine might be put into motion were set out, as your Lordships all know, in these words:
"… His Majesty may by Order in Council make such regulations … as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community."
Those were the purposes, arid, so long as a Minister could lay his hand on his heart and say, "I am making use of these powers for one of those purposes," then the Courts could not interfere. At the time of Dunkirk, when this country was in mortal peril, the purposes were somewhat enlarged, and the critical words there are in the recital:
"And whereas by reason of the development of hostilities since that date—
that is since 1939—
"it has become necessary to extend the said powers in order to secure that the whole resources of the community may be rendered immediately available when required, for purposes connected with the defence of the realm,"
and so on. Those are the Dunkirk words, which are, to some extent, reproduced in the present Bill.
The worst of these words is that they are regarded as symbolic, and they are symbolic of two different things to the two different sides in Parliament. They are symbolic to the one side of the fact that, faced, as we were then, and as we are now, with very great difficulties, we determined to work our way through them and not to surrender. On the other hand, they are symbolic to the other side of serfdom and of the introduction of totalitarianism. Now I am one of those who intensely dislike totalitarianism. I should not care to live in a country where the individual was regarded merely as a sort of ant in an anthill. On the other hand, I am intensely determined that this country, faced as it is with great difficulties, shall surmount those difficulties with vigour and determination and shall not hesitate in the task.
When in 1945 I introduced this Act to your Lordships' House I realized, indeed we all realized, that we might want the powers. But we also realized that the purposes which gave rise to the exercise of the powers were, of course, no longer appropriate, and we put in in 1945 these
1286
purposes. It is very important that your Lordships should appreciate what these are because the whole doubt and difficulty arises on these words:
"If it appears to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient that any Defence Regulation to which this section applies should have effect for the purpose of so maintaining controlling and regulating supplies and services as—

(a) to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution or their availability at fair prices; or

(b) to facilitate the demobilization and resettlement of persons and to secure the orderly disposal of surplus material; or

(c) to facilitate readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; or

(d) to assist the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries … ."

I think the important words are in (a) and (c)—maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services so as to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community, and sc on, and to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce.
It is only when the Minister can lay his hand on his heart and say that he is acting for one of those purposes that he can fairly put into force this vast engine with its immense powers. At that time I had in mind—indeed we all of us had in mind—primarily and mainly, the internal situation. I do not say that I had not in mind also—indeed my words show it—something of the difficulty of the dollar exchange. I am bound to confess, for I am always frank with your Lordships, that I am not one of those who find that the existing words of the 1945 Act are not wide enough. I believe that they are, that the Act gives us all the particular powers that we want and that this Bill which we are now considering does not add to those powers. Having said that, I am bound to tell your Lordships that there is a different school of thought, and that those whose advice I habitually accept on these matters—they are just as well qualified as I and probably better—do take a different view.
The point is this. Supposing that confronted as we are with this new situation we want to develop some industry, may be a new industry, which is going to bring us dollar exchange, are we entitled to say that that is one of the purposes under the

1287
1945 Act? Let me give an illustration. It is a fanciful one but I think it shows clearly my meaning. Suppose there were a chance of getting hold of certain industries which Germany used to have. The toy industry was one and the manufacture of Zeiss glasses at Jena was another. Suppose we believed—I have no reason for saying that it is possible; this is mere hypothesis—that there was a real chance of getting into the American market with expensive children's toys and Zeiss glasses. The merit of that, if we could do it, would be that we should, of course, get dollar exchange, and those dollars would be very useful to us in a hundred and one different ways. You cannot of course specify how a precise dollar will be used because a dollar is not ear-marked. The doubt expressed is as to whether, under the 1945 Act, we could say to the factory: "Stop making what you are making to-day, and make instead expensive children's toys and race glasses." Personally, I believe that we could do that.
It is not that the powers are lacking. The powers are there undoubtedly in the Regulations I have read. The question is would it be a fair exercise of the purposes? This is the argument—and I am arguing against the view which I myself hold. The argument put forward by others—and they are very responsible people—is that the existing powers under the 1945 Act are to maintain supplies and services so as to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community, and that to start a new industry like that of children's toys could not possibly be said to be maintaining supplies, nor could you say that it was to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community. But the rival school of thought, to which I belong, says that you do maintain supplies essential to the community by making children's toys so that with them you can get dollar exchange with which you may obtain necessary and essential supplies.
As I have said, there are two schools of thought, and it is idle to deny that the views to which I have referred are held by responsible people. It seems to me to be the fact that where the Minister is operating the switch and putting into gear this great engine with its vast powers there should not be any hesitation or doubt as to whether or not he is doing that which the law allows, or, if not that which the
1288
law allows, at any rate that which Parliament pledged. That is the problem—and it really is, if I may say so, stated accurately—to get rid of existing doubt. Here are the powers of the 1945 Act, and genuine doubt has arisen. We think it desirable to give this House and the other place the opportunity to state frankly their doubt and to take steps to resolve it. That is what we have done. And that is what has brought about this terrific excitement.
Let us look at the new Bill. It is not—your Lordships will follow if I make myself plain, and if I do not I am greatly to blame that we are dealing with powers at all. They are there. They are in this formidable bock of so-called Defence Regulations. It is purposes with which we are dealing, and it is because of our desire to clear up ambiguity about purposes, and to make this matter crystal clear that we suggest that there should be three new purposes which enable you to use the existing powers. The first is this; for promoting the productivity of industry, commerce, and agriculture. I do not suppose that anyone will have the slightest objection to that. As a statement of purpose it seems unexceptionable. The second is for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries and for redressing the balance of trade. I do not suppose that anyone would have any objection to that purpose. Now it is the third one—paragraph (c)—in subsection (1) of Clause I which has given rise to all the controversy. The argument has arisen as to whether this is a legitimate purpose:
"generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
If we did not have that it seems to me the danger would be this. Suppose you contented yourselves for the sake of argument with (a.) "for promoting the productivity of industry," I can conceive there may come a time when you may want to say to some manufacturer, say of private motor cars, "Stop the manufacture of motor cars and make tractors instead." This is not entirely fanciful; it is possible. I do not say it is actually being considered; I have no knowledge of it; but it might be considered. Could you do that under the purpose simply to promote the productivity of industry, industry generally, industry as a whole? I doubt it. I therefore suggest to your

1289
Lordships that some words like (c) are necessary to make it plain that we must have a discretion. In considering what is to be clone, we must have regard to the necessity of "ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use … in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
My right honourable friend the Minister of Food, Mr. Strachey, the other day announced that he was going to export from this country biscuits, and he was careful to explain, because he thought this might lead to misapprehension as people might think we were in a strong position if we could export food, that he was exporting biscuits in order to get exchange—I do not know if it was dollars—to pay for less luxurious but more essential forms of food. That is an example of the sort of thing you might have to do. If it proved a profitable line of business, you might have to instruct some industry to go on to biscuit making and export the biscuits to build up dollar exchange. Can these things be done? I do stress that it is desirable, whatever powers we have, that they should be powers which can be exercised on an occasion and for purposes with regard to which there should be no ambiguity. I cannot think anybody is going to gain if there is ambiguity, because when a man does not know whether he has to obey the instructions he gets under one of these purposes, he is going to argue that the purpose is not one of the authorized purposes.
What I feel about these purposes and powers is this. I have already said that since the 1945 Act was passed there has been to my knowledge no complaint as to the way in which these powers has been exercised, and I would say the justification for having these powers is perhaps best to be found in this, that they never have had to be exercised. It is the fact that these powers exist in the background which makes it possible to arrange things by agreement and by normal give and take. The fact that these powers may not be exercised is no reason whatever why we should not bring in a Bill conferring these powers.
In another place, if I may say so with the greatest respect to everybody concerned, there was a complete confusion as to what the doubt was. Some people
1290
seemed to think there was a doubt as ID whether the Act of 1945 was a valid Act of Parliament. Of course it is, and the Regulations in this formidable book take effect by virtue of the Act. There is not a shadow of doubt about that Act. Others thought there was some question as to whether the transition from war to peace was finished. It was pointed out that technically we, like a good many other nations, had not signed a treaty of peace yet. The transition is still going on. That is not the question. The question is whether the phraseology used in the 1945 Act is wide enough in defining the purposes to extend to those purposes for which we may require powers today. So stated, there really is, I venture to think, nothing to get wildly excited about. If we were attempting for the first time to introduce powers of this sort which were not in the Act of 1945, I say at once that there would be a great deal of feeling about it. But if I am right in my apprehension of this matter, the point on which doubt has arisen is a very much narrower point, and therefore that is all the more reason why we should come to the House frankly and say that doubts have been expressed. That being so, the straightforward, honest and candid thing to do is to cone to Parliament and say we want to resolve the matter by making it quite plain that the purposes for which we may use these existing powers include those purposes which are relevant to the present grave emergency. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill now be read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, many members of this House spoke last weak in the debate on the economic situation. I was not one of them, nor do I intend to look now into the causes of our present distresses. But in this Bill, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has explained to us, the Government are asking for powers to do things now or in the immediate future for purposes for which it is said they already have power. In his speech to-day the noble and learned Viscount referred to some doubts which were expressed in another place. May I point out one little way in which that might have been caused? He may not have noticed that when it first went to another place the

1291
Bill was headed "Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers)." Its title, however, was afterwards altered to "Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes)." If the noble and learned Viscount will look at the side note to Clause r, both in the original Bill and in the Bill now before your Lordships, you will see that it says "Extension of powers under." If there were misapprehension in another place that might have had something to do with it.
The Government are asking that they might have the power for additional purposes, but they have only told us in the vaguest possible outline what they intend to do. Without any of the provisions of this Bill, they can try to get the miners again to work more than the strictly five-day week; they can get the steel industry to increase its output, provided that they find sufficient coal and other fuel with which to do so; they can help the transport industry to get its rolling stock back up to its pre-war standard, if only they will curl) the gentlemen at the Board of Trade who insist on sending a lot of our capital goods out of this country when we ourselves are in dire need of them here. They can secure the extra agricultural production if they approach the farmer in the right way, for it is especially important that it should be done at once if a complete new year is not to be missed. They can, in fact, do all those things which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred to, I think, as the more concrete measures, which he outlined to us the other day, and which simultaneously the Prime Minister was describing in another place.
Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the present situation is that we are completely in the dark as to what the Government intend to do under this Bill—"this little Bill," as the Lord Chancellor has termed it. In another place the Lord President used these words: "We have no preconceived notions as to how precisely we propose to utilize it. All we need is the power to utilize it." Having been in power for two years, the Government quite frankly say that they have no preconceived notions how to deal with the crisis which all of us knew was coming upon this country at some time. After two years, on the confession of one of their leading Ministers, they have no preconceived notions how to deal with it!
1292
In this House, on numerous occasions during the last two years, speeches have been made in all quarters—at any rate from the two Opposition Parties—drawing attention to this crisis that was coming. What a confession from a Government who received their mandate from the people because things had to be planned, who claimed that they were going to be the Government which could and would plan them! Here we are, right on the brink of this crisis and the Lord President says that he has no preconceived notion at all—he has no plan.
I never like making just a destructive speech, and perhaps I may be allowed to make a few additional suggestions. I had something to do with planning in the earlier part of the war. I happened to be cast for the role of Chairman of the Materials Priority Committee and of the Production Priority Committee, a matter to which my noble friend Viscount Portal was good enough to refer in addressing the House the other day. The first thing we did—and I believe that if I performed any service to this country during the war, this was the best thing I did—was completely to scrap the whole system of priorities which had been worked out before the war. We found that there were blue forms and green forms, red forms and yellow forms, forms numbered Ai to 1,000, B1 to 1, 000 and C, and so on. We scrapped all that and came down to a simple matter of the allocation of what materials we had, so that there would be no hasty scramble on the part of one Department to get ahead with everything, and every Department would have their proper share of the "cake." The "cake" was cut up in the right proportion, so that what remained of our civil economy—and there were a certain amount of exports could go on despite the war-time pressure for munitions.
I am told that all that has been scrapped, and that now the Cabinet, from time to time, just lay down a priority, with the results that we see to-day. We see masses of houses started when there is not sufficient material to complete them, just because the material has not been properly allocated, and because there is not that co-ordination between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Works, and the Ministry of Labour whereby labour and materials would flow to the job in equal proportions. My Lords, we

1293
have to come back to the kind of system I have outlined if we are to have any planning whatever, and therefore I do beg of the Government—I know I am giving good advice—to get back to a system of allocation instead of a system whereby one Minister after another, following pressure in Parliament, is saying that he must have priority for this, that, and the other, which, when it is obtained, probably puts out somebody else's programme—and then does not give him what he wants.
With regard to our export trade I had the privilege last week of listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, when he addressed your Lordships' House and spoke largely upon this matter. The sellers' market will not last for ever, and we must get back to a better quality of goods in this country. We have the designers and we have the craftsmen. Already I am told that South Africa is over-stocked with consumer goods, and other countries will soon be getting into the same position. It is no good relying on increased exports to get us out of our difficulty if we cannot sell the goods when we have made them. We must get back to the good quality and good finish for which this country's goods have always had a reputation, and to do that we must get out of people's minds—both the managers and the craftsmen—that utility furniture, utility fabrics, utility this, that, and the other, are the be-all and end-all of manufacture. I am not at all sure that the time has not come when we ought to abolish all the utility lines. Most of the people for whom they were brought into being have now re-equipped themselves—people who were bombed out and large masses of people demobilized from the Army. If furniture and fabrics were to cost a bit more it would help to encourage the extra incentive which we want for more work. The wife will certainly say to her husband, "We want some curtains. You go to it and' work the extra clay or two next week in order that I may be able to re-equip the house with the extra things we both know we want."
The third point follows up the simile made by my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury last week. He was likening this nation to a man who had used his savings and borrowed from his friends in order to get successfully through a surgical operation and the necessary after-treat-
1294
ment. In the case of a nation, if I may follow up that simile, as in the case of the individual, the time comes when a variation in the treatment may become necessary, when the doctor has to decide that if the man stays any longer in hospital or nursing home he may get more and more depressed, that the time has come for a change of treatment. This country is getting more and more depressed under more and more controls, and really I believe, although it may be taking a risk, that the time has come to scrap a great many of these and to give the people of this country more freedom and a change of treatment. I believe that given that at this time we shall get more production out of them than by extending the controls, and at the same time it Will be possible to release, I hope, a large number of these additional people who are required to work these controls, in the Civil Service, or in local government service, or, people whom we often forget, those extra people in industry needed in order to complete the mass of forms now demanded from everybody. Those people are not doing any productive work at all. If the Government ire calling for more production from the nation—as, rightly, they are doing—let them set an example by getting rid of some of these surplus people and allowing them to find their way back into production.
While I am on this matter I would like to refer to the question of Mr. Strachey and his biscuits for export. When I was the Minister of Food, l did not say much about it, but we exported biscuits. We did not need a control to do it; we merely asked the biscuit manufacturers whether they would make up some special biscuits for abroad. Then it was largely to keep our trade lines on the markets, looking ahead to the situation when we wanted once again to expand our exports. Although there was very little food which I let go out of this country, I did let those biscuits go. They brought in some hard currency exchange, and kept our lines before the Americans and other consumers, so that we could go back to them after the war. I think that was the right kind of policy. But to say that you need this Bill in order to induce our biscuit manufacturers to export is, if I may say so, complete nonsense, because they will quite well do it if they are given the lead,

1295
and are told that it is in the best interests of the country.
The next point I want to make is that we should not export more of our vital capital goods which we urgently need ourselves until our wants are fully supplied. I have in mind electrical power production machinery. How much of that did we send to Russia before our breakdown of electric power last spring? A lot went. A lot of agricultural tractors have also gone abroad. I would send them abroad to our Colonies, and to countries which are sending back the foodstuffs; but I would not send them anywhere else, as long as there is a risk of shortage of food in this country. Nor would I send any other machines essential to our export trade.
Then there is the question of this programme of building vast new factories. Ought not that to be looked at again, since we have not the materials to keep going at full-time the factories which we already have? I see that since the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place the Minister of Town and Country Planning has said that we are going on full blast with our satellite towns. I think one of the things that amazed this House more than anything else when the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was addressing us was his saying that we were reducing our target for timber. We did not understand whether it was the target or the amount of timber that was to be reduced, but I think I may take it that he meant we are not going to get as much timber as we at one time hoped we should. In that case—although the satellite towns may be extremely good things—is not that the kind of thing which ought to be held up, and all attention devoted to building the extra houses for the farm workers, for the miners, or for the people in the essential industries? I think the Government must give a lead in this way if they are going to convince the country that they are in earnest in saying that something really should be done.
I feel bound to say one word on the matter of agriculture, although my noble friend Earl De La Warr dealt with it very fully in the economic debate. It really does sadden my heart when we are told that we have got to reduce our food imports by £12,000,000 worth a month. That is a terrible cut. It saddens my heart that nothing whatever has been
1296
done in the last two years in regard to implementing the White Paper entitled Post-War Contribution of British Agriculture to the Saving of Foreign Exchange, which was produced by Mr. Hudson and myself in January, 1945. Agricultural production has gone down since then, not up, yet here was a White Paper for all who could read to see the way it pointed. That was a White Paper which the present Government inherited from the Coalition Government, and which we produced as Ministers of Agriculture and Food respectively. It saddens my heart now to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, say that we have got to make an extra effort with our farmers, and to see that the extra effort is below the target that we set in this White Paper in 1945. That something on these lines has not been done before, again, I think, shows the incompetence of the present Government.
Quite frankly, this Bill seems to me to show completely the incompetence of the present Government. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has been quite frank with us to-day—as, indeed, he always is, and we all like him for it—as to what his views are on this Bill. He referred (and I am going to refer to it rather more fully) to what he said when introducing the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill in 1945. On the Second Reading he said:
"Your Lordships are, of course, all aware of the difficulty which we have by reason of the shortage of supplies—the shortage of foodstuffs, of clothing and so on. I think we shall all agree—at any rate it is the policy of His Majesty's Government—that so long as those shortages continue the principle of fair shares ' must go on. It is not only a question of foodstuffs and clothing; there is a very great shortage of raw materials of all kinds, and the difficulty of getting the necessary raw materials is very closely bound up with the manifold difficulties relating to the dollar exchange. It is obvious that we must continue to produce at home everything that we can, both in our fields and in our factories. It is obvious that we must concentrate our production upon the most essential things; first things must come first."
Further on the noble and learned Viscount said:
"Having said that, I do not conceal from your Lordships for one moment that we are asking for immense powers to face them."
That is, to face the problems that he had just outlined.
I do not think you can put the case stronger than that. The Government got

1297
those immense powers for those matters, one of which was to deal with the difficulties of the dollar exchange. My complaint is that, so far as I can see, except the omnibus Regulation to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, the Government have done practically nothing about it since they got those powers in. December, 1945. More than that, it has taken them two years to realize that the powers were not wide enough to deal with the very matters that they ought to have been dealing with all this time. It really does show frightful incompetence. I believe it was Saint Paul who railed against spiritual wickedness in high places. I am not accusing the Government of that. I wish it were only that, because wickedness is curable; but incompetence is an incurable disease, and that is what we are suffering from in our Government at the present time.
The Prime Minister may ask us on the wireless to have faith and to have vision. Any faith which there may have been in the present Government is fast evaporating—and why? Because they themselves have not shown the vision, and have not the vision, to see and to do in time the things they ought to do. At a late hour they bring in a measure like this, and it is only after the Conservative Party in another place, and the leader of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House, insisted upon debating the economic situation before we adjourned that the Government after two years, suddenly say, "Have we the powers?", and then produce "this little Bill." I only hope that they will go ahead, and go ahead in this way.
This House has consistently acted, during the past two years—I have no doubt that this House has always within recent history acted in this way, but I mention two years because I have had the privilege of being a member for that time—for the good of the country as a whole. That is how we have acted, and that is how the Government ought to act to get us out of our present difficulties: not to please this or that section of their followers. Whether or not they take that line will be the real test of the Government. If they try to act under this Bill, and under the previous measure, in a Party spirit, then their national appeal is bound to fail. It is only by the whole nation standing together at a time like
1298
this that we can pull through, and it lies with the whole Government—I particularly use the words "the whole Government"—so to speak and so to act that they secure a national result. We shall wait and see. The whole country will wait and see, and indeed practically the whole world will wait and see how they act and in what spirit they act. If they can and will drop Party politics and Party programmes, they will have the country behind them; then indeed they will get the results.
If at this time, when they want to increase the target of steel to 14,000,000 tons, they split the steel industry and nationalize a part of it, then they will fall short of that programme. There is not the slightest doubt of that. If, however, they deal with the steel industry in the way we dealt with it during the war—and I had quite a lot of dealings with it—and say, "We want so many extra tons" and if they give it an incentive by saying that if it produces this 14,000,000 tons it will not be nationalized at all I would take a bet that, provided the steel industry had the necessary coal, they would get their 14,000,000 tons. But if the Government insist on going in for Party politics when we must unite together as a nation, the verdict will be that they deserve to rail.
I hope that we shall not do anything in this House to hamper them in anything that they think necessary, and in the. powers and purposes for which they think they want those powers. But I still hope they will use those powers for wide national purposes on a national appeal, and will show that that is the way they mean to use them. If they do that, if they will really lead the nation and not attempt to drive it—because the British do not like being driven—only then is there the likelihood of the nation working together to get us out of our present grave difficulties. As long as we are properly. led, it is to that end that we should apply our efforts. And if we are properly led in that kind of national spirit, that is the way in which we, at any rate, shall all act.
3.56 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, most of us in our youth have taken part in a debate on a familiar theme about the House of Lords: That the House of Lords is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished. To-day this House finds

1299
itself faced with the problem as to whether the Bill which has just been introduced to them is more useless than it is dangerous, or more dangerous than it is useless, and upon which of those two alternatives the Bill ought to be read a second time. Let me say that my position is clear—and I think it is the same as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—that the Bill is more useless than dangerous.
I am sure that every one of your Lordships is deeply indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for his clear exposition of the purposes of this Bill. I cannot help feeling that if another place had been fortunate enough to have him explain the Bill there, and if they had listened with the same care, then they might have spent last night in bed instead of in another place. I feel that we must thank the noble and learned Viscount most deeply for the very clear exposition of what this Bill is about. As he has pointed out, the existing powers are immense, and this Bill is only concerned with a fresh definition of the purposes in the Minister's mind for which the Minister may use those powers. It is admitted that the existing powers are immense, and this raises a point which I think ought to be made clear in this House, which is that the negative power contained in this Bill of a Prayer against an Order in Council is of no avail to protect the Bill from being misused, if such is the intention. As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has explained, there are existing Orders in Council which give immense powers and no existing Order in Council can be prayed against; it is already the law of the land. Therefore, anything that can be done under the existing Orders in Council—and what can be done is immense—can be done.
The argument which was used in another place—which I am glad was not used in this House—that the negative power of praying against Orders in Council is an effective check against misuse of powers under this Bill, was not used by the Lord Chancellor. It does not apply. But that very fact makes any question of the extension of the purposes for which these powers are asked a serious matter. Provided the Minister is satisfied that he is honestly acting for the purposes named, the fact that nobody else could possibly
1300
come to that conclusion does not invalidate his action. That is the position.
What are the purposes for which these great powers can be used? The existing Act of 1945 says that any Defence Regulation can be made
"for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling, and regulating supplies and services so as—(a) to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the well-being of the community or their equitable distribution or their availability at fair prices."
That is paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. Then there is paragraph (c) which says:
"to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace."
That Act can remain in force for five years. It is very relevant to read the debates which took place on the Bill in 1945 in the other place. The purposes which apply to the present crisis were present in the minds of Ministers in 1945. The Government in 1945 resisted firmly any cutting down of the period of the Act's operation from five years to two years. They said the country must not be misled into thinking that we should be out of our difficulties in two years, that it would take at least five years to overcome them. Both the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council emphasized the vital importance of adjusting our international trade, of maintaining the balance of payments, and of controlling imports. All those purposes were named then; and that makes it even less necessary to re-define those purposes afresh. I cannot see any conceivable difference between the existing purposes under the Act of 1945 and at any rate the first two of the three purposes named in this Bill.
This Bill is really quite unnecessary; at the same time it might, I think, be dangerous, in particular in respect of the purpose contained in paragraph (c). That purpose is expressed in totalitarian terms. It is to ensure that "the whole resources of the community"—the community means men and women—are "to serve the interests of the community." That is totalitarian. I feel that the Bill would have been better without that paragraph. But that does not alter the main conclusion that the Bill is in itself not necessary. The Government, in their difficulty, are doing the one thing at which they are really good—getting Acts of Parliament passed through both Houses.

1301
They are getting this Bill passed without really knowing what it is about. Reading what the Lord President of the Council said in another place the other day, I was reminded of a gentleman who was talking to a charming lady and was asked by her to explain the meaning of a Greek quotation. He said: "My dear lady, I just could not tell you"—suggesting that he knew, but that it would be improper to tell her: the real fact being that he just did not know. And the real fact is that the Government do not know in the least what they mean to do with these powers. This Bill is just a piece of window dressing addressed to the Left Wing of His Majesty's Government.
I suggest that this Bill is dangerous for other reasons, and that is that it is diverting attention and energy from the real problem. The real problem is desperately serious. It is the question whether next year and the year after we, in this country, can avoid serious want and devastating unemployment. That is the problem which we ought to face. I want to say at once that I do not think that that problem is the product of the Labour Government. I would like to quote what was said by a Senator in Coriolanus:
"For the dearth,
The gods, not the patricians, make it."
It is the gods, and not the patricians on the other side of the House, who have made this dearth. But that does not mean that we proletarians on this side of the House are altogether content with the patricians. After all, it is the Government who have got the facts before them. Had they been keeping continual watch they must have known what was going to happen before it did happen. If they did not know, they were asleep on their watch. Now they come and tell us about this coming danger, two months before the American Loan is about to run out. That really is an inexplicable position. They must have known what was happening, not only here but in other countries, with regard to the dollar position, and so forth, and the drain on the American Loan. But at the last possible moment, two months before the American Loan is going to run out, they come and tell us of the difficulties; and they go on making Acts of Parliament.
We plebeians have another complaint against the patricians on the opposite side. It is as to the utter inadequacy of
1302
the proposals they are making to-day. The Prime Minister has not told us how far the cuts proposed would go towards filling the gap. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did give us some idea in saying that the cuts proposed would cover about one-third of the yawning gap of £600,000,000 between our imports and our exports. I say the Government should know what to do much better than anybody else. But let me suggest some things that they should not do. They should not go on as at present. Fundamentally we are in this trouble because we have run too long in the wrong direction. The whole country has been running on wrong lines, very largely, so far as this Government is concerned, under the misguidance of those excellent people the trade union leaders. The trade union leaders have thought that they could get an easy time for all. They have pressed for more and more leisure, and not only leisure for the people who want it but also a compulsory five-day week for people whether they want it or not. That is what they have been pressing for.
They have been pressing for higher money wages, and the Government, not controlling them in any way, are now trying to boost the National Savings Movement in order to deal with this surplus of money for which there are no commodities. We have been running on wrong lines. We in this country have been led for a long time to believe that we could have a better time than our fathers but with doing less work than our fathers. The real position is that the economic position has so altered that we cannot live as well as our fathers did unless we work more effectively than they did. We have got to change the whole direction of our policy. We must reverse our engines. There are very hard times ahead. If the country is going to reverse its engines, ought it not to get a lead from the Government?
If everybody is going to be asked to sacrifice something, ought not the Government to set an example by sacrificing something? I am not suggesting that they should sacrifice office. I do not believe that we should have a Coalition Government; I am as much against that as are the Conservatives and Socialists. That is not what is wanted. I do not suggest that the patricians should surrender any of their Socialist principles, but I suggest that they might put them into cold storage

1303
for a little time. I ask the Government to hold up some of their cherished schemes for a year or two, until we have had time to adjust our balance of payments.
I would like to support what was said by Lord Llewellin upon that point and to follow it up with one or two practical illustrations. I think that the Government—it is too late now—might have made a great gesture of reversing engines by not proceeding with this Transport Act; at least, they might not put it into force at once. I heard the Prime Minister the other day talking about the necessity of making transport more efficient, but 'even if the Act will make it more efficient five years hence, just think what it is going to do next year to the transport industry, when everybody will be filling up forms instead of running lorries and all the people with lorries will be unable to run them as before. That is what the Act will do. It would have been a magnificent gesture for the Government to say: "This is the thing we want, but we will not have it until we can enjoy it, and we can all enjoy a good time later." The same remarks apply even more strongly in regard to the Government's attitude to the steel industry. I cannot really imagine that the Government are going on with what would be the folly next year of nationalizing, or attempting to nationalize, the steel industry.
May I make one more suggestion in regard to what seems to be the kind of thing the Government might do? There is another measure which has recently been passed into law—the National Insurance Act. Under that Act, in the course of the next year, if things proceed as planned, there will be a complete ending of all the approved societies and a tremendous scrambling of their staffs. That will involve a waste of manpower during that year and the year after. It may be the right thing to do in the end, but there is no doubt that carrying through that reconstruction of the administrative machinery next year will waste manpower which could be used otherwise. I do not think anybody who really sat down with the approved societies, the friendly societies and the insurance companies and asked them what this Act was going to do next year to their staffs would have any doubt that it would entail a waste of skilled manpower. I ask the Government to go back on their decision.
1304
If the Government say, "We are not going to hurry this year," it would be good in itself and it would be a sign that they would be reversing engines, as the whole country has got to reverse engines for the moment, but not permanently. The Government should set the example of sacrifice for a common purpose. If they will dedicate themselves for the next year or two to the purposes upon which the whole country is agreed, then we may all live to fight one another most heartily another day.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am going to intervene for only a few moments. I am going to address myself to one single topic, and to be bold enough to make a proposition to the House. I think we all feel that the House is in a great difficulty in dealing with this Bill at the present time. It is alleged—and I accept the Lord Chancellor's account of the Bill—that the object of this Bill is to remove doubts as to whether the Government were or were not entitled to use all the powers of the Act of 1945 for the purposes of this economic crisis. I am bound to say that in the Governments in which I have served, we have generally gone to the Lord Chancellor for our legal advice in Cabinet. In those days we trusted our Lord Chancellor to give us a legal opinion on a legal point, and when he told us definitely that we had the powers, we did not bring in a curious Bill at the tag end of the session. I think, respectfully, that the Lord Chancellor's view is probably right, although I do not understand why, if the Government's purpose was merely to do what he said, this curious paragraph (c) was tacked on to Clause I, unless it was to fly a flag which might rally a few doubtful supporters in the Division Lobbies. But let us assume—and I am assuming—that this is an enabling and legalizing Bill. Assuming that, no one certainly would dissent from the Lord Chancellor when he said that the powers of the Act of 1945, even without this paragraph (c), are extremely wide and the Government promulgated what one might describe as an all-embracing regulation.
Undesirable as the form of this legislation is—and no one has criticized it more formidably than the Lord Chancellor himself—what matters much more, I submit to your Lordships, is the use which is to

1305
be made of the powers which are to be taken and how those powers are going to be exercised. We all accept to-day the need of delegated legislation, but I thought we all, sitting at the feet of the Lord Chancellor, had also accepted the essential principle of delegated legislation: that you should not in delegated legislation take more powers than it is necessary for you to exercise. The Act of 1945 certainly does much more than that, as the Lord Chancellor himself admitted when he was moving it, and he said again and again how much he disliked it. It must be very distasteful to him to have to espouse so many distasteful causes, but he justified the very wide powers which were taken under the 1945 Act by saying—and there was complete logic and some force in his argument—" The Act of 1940 is running out. We have before some date in February to decide what powers and what regulations we are going to retain, and if we want to make a now regulation we must make it at once. We have to do this distasteful and far-reaching thing because, quite frankly, we have not the least idea what we shall find ourselves compelled to do, or what we shall want to do during the course of the five years this Act is in force."
The trouble here, as the economic debate showed, is that the Government themselves do not in the least know how they are going to deal with the economic crisis, for which they ought to have had all their plans prepared months ago. What we ought to have had, not at the tail end of the session, but some months ago—and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said about these academic but damaging Bills—is some constructive measures. If we had had such measures, the crisis might by now he in hand; at any rate, we should all be going forward on a course which we had fully debated and, I have no doubt, by common consent, moulded and approved. That is the mischief here. We have this Bill because the Government have no 'plan. The planners have no plan. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he was introducing the 1945 Bill, tried to meet that kind of issue as fairly as he could. The powers are given, but the powers are exerciseable only by Orders or the like—what I think he called, and what I believe in the Act itself are called, subordinate instruments.
1306
On that occasion I moved an Amendment, which in fact was unnecessary in its words, but which drew from the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Government, three specific undertakings of the most important character. Those undertakings were these. In the first place, the preservation of the power of Parliament, that each House would have full authority to approve or to reject such Orders, the subordinate instruments. I want to be quite fair. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, made it plain that that would apply to what he called "Orders in the nature of general acts." The difference made was whether an Order was to be of general application or whether it was a direction, say, to an individual firm to sell something to a particular place or at a particular price; everything which was in the nature of a general order or directive was to be brought here. And the Lord Chancellor very fairly said that if there were a borderline case, where there might be a doubt whether it fell within the general or the particular, then that would rest with himself and Mr. Speaker to decide. He said it was so important to preserve the control of Parliament that, in any case where there was the least doubt, he would say that it should be general and would be laid. That was the control of Parliament.
The second undertaking was, that every such subordinate instrument would be laid, so that each House would have an opportunity of considering it if they wished, and either approving or rejecting it. It does not require an affirmative Resolution, but there would be the opportunity, if it were desired, to discuss it or to throw it out. Either House would be able to say to the Minister: "We do not think it will do in that way, but if you produce it with certain Amendments we are prepared to pass it." That right of each House was to be fully preserved, and I think that is most important. The Lord Chancellor gave, as the third undertaking, the promise that the Order would he made and laid only when the Government required the power contained in that Order, and could justify both the scope of the Order and the 'way they meant to use it at the time when they brought it in. The time factor was vital. They did not know then, as the Government do not know now, what they were going to do. They will not make

1307
general orders but they will make executive orders—these subordinate instruments—when they know exactly how they are going to carry out their powers; and they will then bring the Orders here, or lay them, so that we can have the proposed action justified when that action is said to be necessary.
If you are going to have this kind of legislation at all, those undertakings, which the Lord Chancellor gave most fairly—I will not read them because they are all recorded in Hansard, in Volume 137, give Parliament as effective a control as can be devised. The essential thing is that Parliament should be able to exercise that control at the right time, and the right time is when the Order is made, and when the Government say that they wish to act in a particular way and intend to act in that way. These Orders, as I have said, are not the subject of affirmative Resolution, they are negative; they have to be prayed against if they are objected to. That is not a very material difference, or not a vital difference if Parliament is sitting. It is a vital difference, however, if Parliament is not sitting.
It is proposed, although I have not seen the Motion and I suppose it will be on the Order paper to-morrow, that we should adjourn until some date in October, I think October 21. It would be intolerable in my view, and I believe in the view of nearly all your Lordships, if important Orders giving effect to plans which neither we nor the Government now know anything at all about, were made and acted upon during the recess, and Parliament was impotent. I believe the country would not stand for that. What are we here for, as a Council of State? We have no right to do any such thing. There is an obvious way of avoiding this. An adjournment Motion in difficult times has always been effected so that the House shall adjourn until such and such a date, but that in our House the Lord Chancellor shall have the power to call the House together if circumstances require it. The House, under such an order, can reassemble at short notice, and can consider any activity of the Government or any Order that has been made. But I say, frankly, that that should not rest, nor would it be fair upon the Government to say that it should rest, entirely with the Government.
1308
There is a simple way of meeting this issue. We are the masters of our own procedure, and can so order our adjournment that the House can be regularly in session, adjourning from time to time, meeting at relatively short intervals. Then if, in the meantime, an Order of importance has been made, if the Government have devised a plan and are putting it into execution, then that plan and that Order—whether the Order has been actually laid or not is, in a sense, immaterial though if it has been laid it can be prayed against—will have been made and published. The Government will have acted upon it, or will be about to act upon it, and this House would then take cognizance of the Order as made, and of the plan as proposed, and would be able to give it full consideration and criticism at the right time, the time when debate in this House would be effective for the purpose of influencing the course of action. In that way, I suggest to your Lordships, we can give the Government the enabling powers which some lawyers think they need, but which the Lord Chancellor thinks they already have; and, what is much more important, we shall keep control over the use of these vast powers and keep that effective control which, as the Lord Chancellor last time said in much better language than mine, it is so important that Parliament should exercise and exercise at the right time. That is the simple proposition which I wish to put before your Lordships for your consideration.
Now I have a question which I wish to put to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I apologize for not having given him notice of this particular question, but we have not had a lot of time to study the Bill. He, himself, was only instructed at two o'clock, and we were not instructed as to what was to be in a Bill very long ago. I can put my point very simply. It is this: Could the Government by Order under this Bill, or even under the 1945 Act, override or alter a previous Act of Parliament—I mean a public Act? Let me take a specific instance to illustrate what I mean. In 1946, we passed the Bank of England Act which nationalized the Bank of England. Your Lordships may remember that when that measure was passing through this House a controversy arose as to what was the meaning of a

1309
very important clause in it. The clause was one about instructions being given to the joint stock banks. I, advised by able lawyers, contended that as the Bill was drafted it meant that the Treasury could order the Governor of the Bank of England to order the banks to do something. The Governor of the Bank of England said that it did not mean anything of the sort. I said to him, with great respect, that I valued his opinion as a banker enormously, but as a lawyer I valued it no more than my own.
I made an appeal to the Lord Chancellor to say what the Bill meant, and he said that the Bill meant exactly what I was contending and not what the Governor of the Bank of England thought it meant. And, very rightly and properly, the Government themselves introduced an Amendment to make it perfectly plain that there would be no such right in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give those instructions, that the instructions had to come from the Court of the Bank to the banks. What I want to know is, whether by virtue of any power under this or the 1045 Act the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could override that specific provision which Parliament has inserted into the Bank of England Act and, going counter to it, give orders direct to the joint stock banks or order the Governor of the Bank of England to give such orders. I ask whether that is so, and I trust that the answer will be: "Of course he could not do anything of the sort." But if it could be done, would that be in the nature of a general act, or a special order? I hope sincerely that the answer to that question which I have just posed, will be that I have started a very bad hare, and that there is nothing at all in the point. I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that it would be clearly undesirable that power should be taken or used in an enabling Bill to vary legislation which Parliament has considered moulded and passed in a particular form. That is a specific question which I put to the Lord Chancellor. I do not think that he will have any difficulty in answering it during his reply, because obviously it is important that we should know what the answer is to that before we enter upon the Committee stage of this Bill tomorrow.
1310
But my main point, in which I feel sure that I shall carry the whole of your Lordships with me, is that we must retain, so far as we can, control of this situation which is so fluid at the present moment, and that we should on our Adjournment Motion make sure that we automatically reassemble from time to time. If the Government have done nothing then, may be, we shall be able formally to adjourn again for another fortnight, though it may be that it would be a very good thing that there should be some question put as to why there has been inaction, because there are sins of omission as well as sins of commission. But certain it is, I submit, that we should be in a position at frequent intervals, and at the correct time, to criticize and, I hope, it may be also, to approve, bet certainly to consider fully and effectively any powers which are taken and put into operation under the Bill now before us.
4.36 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I rise to-day with the utmost reluctance. During the six years that I have been a member of this House, I have been true to my resolve never, in any way, to intervene in discussions on internal politics, but to speak only of those things which I know—international affairs—and if today I seem in any way to depart from that resolve it is because the course of affairs at home has just begun—I would not put it higher than this; you will get no dramatization or exaggeration Loin me—to remind me a little uncomfortably of the course of some affairs abroad in the inter-war period. Even so, I shall de cart into no legal argument or political controversy, which is the province of others. I know and I welcome my limitations, but, merely as evidence of dispassion, perhaps I may point out to noble Lords on my left that for the past two years I have done my best to support the foreign policy of this Government. That said, I depart on my brief excursion.
I knew much of Hugo Preuss the draftsman of the Weimar Constitution. His son is a friend of mine. He was a good German if ever there was one, and the Weimar Constitution was a good enough Constitution—on paper. But it contained one vital flaw, and that Has Article 48 which enabled the Government in times of emergency to govern by decree. Now I am quite sure that Preuss

1311
and his associates would have indignantly and sincerely disclaimed any idea that that Article could ever be abused. But I think that they would have done well to remember one of the world's most cogent sayings, which is that appetite comes with eating. Within a comparatively brief measure of time Dr. Bruening had discovered an abiding emergency, and had slipped into the habit of government by decree. We all know that that was followed by something much worse. I do not suggest for a moment that anything of that nature will happen here, but I do rather dread lest, in the course of time, we may be gradually drawn further along the road of government by decree—further, perhaps, and imperceptibly.
I know that the Government have assured us that they have no sinister designs. I am equally sure that those assurances are given in all good faith. At the same time, I noticed last week that the Lord President of the Council had declined cross-examination. As an independent observer I would have thought that people who asked for such extensive powers for one Party in peace time, must expect constant and close cross-examination, otherwise, again in the course of time, it might be possible to drift into some pre-totalitarian precedent. Now while I accept the assurances of the Government, I cannot accept the assurance of a large body of their followers, and for the very good reason that they have given none. On the contrary, they have used language which seemed to me rather in contradiction with that of the Government. I do not doubt that these are men of transparent sincerity but they are also men of transparent aims, and to the independent and dispassionate observer, which I claim to be, it seems that during the past year two very clear aims have emerged. One has been to weaken or oust Mr. Bevin, whose policy I have supported. The other is to divorce us from the United States and wed us to dependence on Russia. I think there was an unworthy exhibition of that in another place yesterday.
That policy will always bring me into the field and it seems therefore important to examine both the intentions and interpretations of this large body. As to the intention, I think it is set forth by fifteen of them, in their pamphlet entitled:
1312
Keep Left. I do not propose to comment in any way on their internal programme. I have done my best to make sense of the chapter on foreign policy, and have not been very successful, because while I rate Mr. Bevin at test form this seems to be village cricket on a bad wicket. Their interpretation differs considerably from that of the Lord President of the Council who represented this all-important clause as rather a matter of clarification.
Take the case of Mr. Crossman. He said that we are at the turning of the ways. That is rather a curious expression. Perhaps he meant at the parting of the ways. Perhaps he may be right. I devoutly hope not. If he were right I suppose he would mean we were at the parting of the ways between true democracy and some more drastic or semi-totalitarian interpretation of it. And I was rather confirmed in that apprehension when I read on and found that he regards these drastic powers as a permanent cure for unemployment. That is practically word for word what Hitler said. And might I remind your Lordships that Hitler did cure unemployment? But at what a cost! Furthermore, he went on to say that our natural markets were not in the United States but in Eastern Europe and Russia and there he came clear into the field in which I operate. But some of his friends went further still. One of them, for instance, said that these powers would be appropriate for seeing that we were integrated not only into Western Europe but Eastern Europe and Russia.
I make no implication of ill-faith in this description of how these powers might be used. I simply say that people who speak like that are unable to see what is going on under their noses. For the past two years Russia has been more closely interlocking the Eastern bloc and rendering it more exclusive and rigid. That purpose has been feverishly speeded up during the last few months. Into that Eastern bloc is now to be integrated Soviet Germany. In future we shall make a mistake in talking of Eastern Germany; Soviet Germany is the more appropriate expression. The intention is to increase the trade of Soviet Germany with Poland and other satellite States who have recently lost their political and economic independence. The purpose of all that

1313
is very manifest: it is to exclude so far as possible western trade and render it unnecessary. Are we to wait for the balance of trade to be redressed until this impossibility has been achieved? How can sensible people talk about integrating us into a system like that!
Your Lordships may wonder why I dwell on that point but the reason is perfectly clear. A large body of Government supporters obviously regard these very drastic powers as a permanent lever not only in home affairs but also in foreign affairs, and that is where I come in. The fear is that we may be asked to accord these vast powers which less mature minds may inherit. In any case, I would have thought that, however men may speak or vote or profess, it is difficult indeed for any democratic conscience to accept the granting of such sweeping powers in peace-time, without some apprehension. When I was a young man I remember that a French philosopher once said to me: "That which is superfluous is dangerous." I did not pay any attention to him at the time, but I am not sure that, after all, there may not be something in what he said.
4.46 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, in my view it might be a wise thing if this debate had been comprised only of the speeches of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. It seems to me these two speeches dealt with the relevant matters that we have to discuss to-day. For my part I am intervening only for a moment to urge the Government to control and direct labour in the fullest possible sense. There are two points in that which need to be considered separately. One is as to the effect on the individual and the other is as to its effect on the community as a whole. I may say in passing that I had intended to urge the adoption of the control and direction of labour as long ago as last March and circumstances prevented me at that time from making any contribution to a debate.
I would say at once that the agitation for mere output per man is usually made with more heat than knowledge and very often is more extravagantly made in the middle of the week at the 19th hole. We know that the responsible leaders in industry, both on the employers' side and on the workers' side, will urge the
1314
workers to higher output but they urge it with a knowledge of the physical limits of the particular job. It is a mistake to regard restriction of output as the invention of the devil, or of the Communists, if you prefer it. I remember only too well during the last war the effect of incentives on the health of women in munitions. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is not here now but he would be able to confirm what I am about to say. During the First World War, in consequence of incentives in munitions factories on the North-East coast, women were encouraged to work what they called "doggy," double doggy, triple doggy and quadruple doggy. Many of your Lordships will remember that in those days the Press was full of the spendthrift nature of women in that part of the country—fur coats, grand pianos and all that kind of thing were in every house. But I had something to do with the health of women for many years after that and l assure this House that the country has been paying a very heavy price for the incentives to women in industry at that time. I do hope that, whatever the Government may do on this occasion in the need for more manpower, they will take the greatest care to ensure that incentives have some regard to the physique of the workers.
As to the community as a whole feature of the present situation which is incontrovertible is that we just cannot afford the luxuries and amenities to which we have become accustomed. There must be a reduction of both. Persons engaged in non-productive trades and services and those not occupied at all must be directed into essential trades. The White Paper which we discussed in March rejected the idea of the control and direction of labour, and many of our politicians of all Parties have applied to the control and direction of labour terms which, to say the least, it is extremely unwise to use. We have heard to-day the word "totalitarianism." The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who is not present at the moment, said in this same connexion that he did not like what he was pleased to term the "slave State." Whether we like it or not we have arrived at the point at which we shall require to have control and direction of labour in a very large measure. There is a good deal of humbug talked about the freedom of the individual. Some of us are disinclined to believe that the workers always had

1315
freedom to choose their job. A very large proportion of wage-earners never were able to choose their jobs and many more were unable to choose their jobs in time of unemployment. Therefore let us be clear what we mean when we talk about the freedom of the individual to choose his job.
So far as the White Paper went—I believe the Government have now gone a little further—the remedy for our economic evils in part was to rest upon priorities and the rationing of raw materials. I look upon the imposition of priorities and the rationing of raw materials as another method of directing labour, but an indirect method. There will be concealed unemployment and concealed direction in all industries and trades which are not regarded as essential. Without the complete direction and co-ordination of labour and industry there is bound to be a gradual paralysis of the non-priority trades. There will be uncertainty and worry for both employers and workers. Good employers will keep their men on, hoping for the best, long beyond the point at which it is economical for them to do so. A time will come, however, when the employer will have to say: "I am very sorry, I have no prospect of getting raw materials, I must put you off." And at that point, and at that point only, does the system of control of engagements come into force. Thus you will have under-employment and a very considerable and serious lack of direction of labour which is so important at this time, and even then it will be weeks before the stubborn worker will be able to be directed into the job to which you want him to go.
I am speaking, with due modesty, from some experience of the machine which does this work. For twenty years I have been concerned with the Courts of Referees which deal with the recalcitrant worker. During the war I was also chairman of the Appeal Boards under the Essential Work Order. There I saw at first hand where the shoe pinched, and I have no hesitation in saying that the workers will not be against direction of labour if—but only if—it applies to everybody. The direction that I envisage need not be quite so rigid as the war-time direction, and I would limit the power of the Man-power Boards if it is intended to resuscitate them. One other point in con-
1316
nexion with this direction of labour that I regard as extremely valuable, and which in my view will be of enormous service to the nation in the times before us, is the educational value of the appeal boards, both to the employer and the worker. Employer; sitting on those boards realize some of the difficulties that create mischief between employer and worker in a way they would never otherwise have realized it.
But it is not only the direction of labour that will automatically flow through the employment exchanges that I am concerned about. There is a great reservoir of potent al labour which without some new registration will never be amenable either to control or direction. Under the social insurance scheme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, a little while ago, a new phrase appeared, I think for the first time, in legislation—the term "gainfully occupied." It would ill become me to suggest who is not gainfully occupied in this House, but I would not say that all the "Spivs" referred to are men with padded shoulders and narrow waists if "Spiv" means, as I understand it to mean, people living by their wits. The net in that case could be drawn very wide indeed.
We are sometimes charged with fostering class warfare. Could there be a more mischievous example of fostering class warfare, in a time of unexampled anxiety to the nation, than the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in another place? "Serfdom in time of peace"—that is not my phrase, it is his. "Any one of you," said Mr. Churchill, "may be taken from your homes at any moment and from your employment, and sent off wherever some obscure official .. . may decide you are to go." I would welcome the Government using their powers of direction ruthlessly, but I would paraphrase Mr. Churchill's bogy in these words: "Any of you may be taken from your street barrows, and your clubs, and your extravagant receptions, and your racecourses, and your idleness and profligate way of life, and sent off to do a decent honest job in the interests of the nation which hitherto you have exploited for your own ends." It cannot be denied that there are great numbers of people who are not usefully occupied at this time—people who ought to be registered and brought into the national scheme of service.

1317
I conclude by begging of the Government two things. The first is not to induce the mothers of young children to go into the factories until every able-bodied man has gone into them. I happen to be Chairman of a Bench in this Metropolitan area, and I do not want to see any further effects of children being left without motherly care during the day. My last point is that I hope the Government will, as I have said, ruthlessly control and direct labour and industry to the common good. I have no fear as to the wage-earners in this matter. In so far as I have contacted the wage-earners (and I have contacted great numbers since March), shop stewards and ordinary decent working men, they do not mind the direction of labour provided that it is applied thoroughly and without fear or favour to every section of the community. I do hope the Government will take courage and at: once get on with that job.
5.2 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I begin by saying that I think this Bill is completely unnecessary, and I propose to give your Lordships a number of reasons for holding that view. Some of your Lordships will remember that as long ago as 1944 I began to agitate a little with regard to looking to see what was going to happen to the economic state of our country in the future. Subsequently, in February, 1946, on a Motion of my own, I raised the whole question again: I would like to read to your Lordships an answer I got from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who was replying for the Government. This is one of the things he said:
"May I, before I leave Lord Teviot, say this. He wanted an answer to one thing in particular. He said he did not expect me to give an answer to-day but he hoped we would give one presently. I am going rather to surprise the noble Lord by giving him an answer to-day. He asked, would the Government set up a Royal Commission to go into the whole question of the debt and the expenditure of the country? I am prepared to give him an answer straight away, and the answer is No."
Your Lordships see the sort of response one got from the Government when one tried to warn them of what one was quite sure was going to happen.
Then let me read two other short sentences, in which the noble Lord referred to prices:
"There then was a scramble for goods"—
1318
he is talking about after the First World War—
"which the Government of the day did not control, and as a result prices rocketed upwards."
Then, again, he says that, after what he calls" the shooting war in 1918,"
"prices increased by an additional 100 per cent. over those which prevailed before the war."
What are they now? One hundred per cont. is nothing to the price increase to-day of many of the goods which we all want. There is another quotation which I would like to read, and it is a remark made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He said:
"Lord Teviot questioned our policy to pay for the commitments upon which this country is entering. My noble friend, Lord Cherwell, viewed with apprehension the future."
You might just as well be talking to a brick wall. Not the slightest attention was paid to all that.
I am going to read a further quotation, for in May, 1946, I had a Motion down on the subject of nationalization. I begged the Government to wait until they saw the result of one instance of their nationalization policy, to see whether it was a success or not. I said:
"I wish that if in future what we anticipate does take place we shall be able to say that we have expressed to the Government our belief that within a year or eighteen months there will be a very serious crisis in this country as a result of the policy pursued by the present Government."
That was in May, 1946, and here we are faced with this crisis. I seem to have been very punctual in having made that prophecy, and we are in this appalling situation. With regard to the question of this being totalitarian, I do not know whether any of your Lordships noticed, but in The Times, I think of yesterday, that great supporter of the Government, Mr. Victor Gollancz, wrote a letter in Which he said that, in his view, undoubtedly this Bill has totalitarian potentialities. I do riot think anybody for one moment can think otherwise. I have suffered from being jeered at, not only in this House, but by the Press, for having been the most gloomy man who ever spoke. Yet here we are; unfortunately, and alas! I was perfectly right.
I am now going to suggest a few reasons for saying that this Bill is quite unnecessary. I do not suppose for one moment

1319
that what I put forward will be carried out, or even considered. I think the Government are puffed up with their own policy to such an extent that they will not consider anybody else's ideas. As the Yorkshireman says, "What's to do?"; and, as Mark Twain said, "We all talk about the weather, but what are we going to do about it?". I propose to say a word or two on that. I would like to refer to the utterances and writings of one or two prominent Government Ministers. It will be in the recollection of many of your Lordships that in 1933 Sir Stafford Cripps wrote a book called "The Problems of a Socialist Government".
Curiously enough, he referred to a Bill which he called the Emergency Powers Bill, to be passed through all its stages on the first day. He wrote these words about it:
"It is probable that the passage of this Bill will raise in its most acute form a constitutional crisis."
It seems to me that the Government went into this with their eyes open, and realized that a storm would be produced in all walks of life, and probably all over the world. Let me now quote the Prime Minister, who wrote a chapter in that book:
"I am envisaging a period of the first Socialist Government in power as one of crisis. Indeed, the whole transitional period must be viewed from this angle. The atmosphere will be comparable to that existing in this country at the beginning of the Great War. The important thing is not to do things with the most scrupulous regard to theories of democracy or exact constitutional propriety, but to get on with the job."
That is pretty clear thinking, and it is what is happening now.
I believe that many on the Government Benches are beginning to realize, and are beginning to get a bit shaky as to whether their policy will really achieve the things they thought it would. But apparently Sir Stafford Cripps thought so, because he said on August 7 in another place:
"We cannot abandon these long-term aims because of the immediate difficulties, and, indeed, the difficulties are the reason for intensifying and not for abandoning… . "
That terrifies me, because it is quite evident that the Ministers are learning nothing, as the result of their policy, as to the state the country is in.
Can anybody, looking back at what has happened already, say that this economic crisis has been relieved at all
1320
by the nationalization of the Bank of England? Can anybody say that the wrecking of the cotton market of the world in Liverpool has done anything to help the economic situation of this country? Did the removal of Cable and Wireless from that great institution which had been built up, which was full of experts of the highest quality who are now doing nothing, help the economic situation of this country? I understand that now, if you want to get a cable sent efficiently, you do not go to Cable and Wireless, but, if you are a business man, to the Western Union. The last two industries I have mentioned were instrumental in bringing into this country a great deal of foreign currency which has now gone. Therefore, I do not think anybody can feel that any legislation which has been put through has been any good at all in helping us in the dire situation in which we find ourselves.
Those of us in touch with all walks of life among our people know perfectly well the confusion and uncertainty that has been caused by town and country planning, and by the nationalization of transport and electricity. One noble Lord—I forget who—said: "For goodness sake let us delay these things, because, whether they are right in the long run or not, it is not the time to embark on the terrific upheaval they are going to cause." I do ask the Government to consider that. In the debate which I raised I did beg them to wait; but they would not wait. In the course of my remarks I said that I knew of no country which had nationalized an industry which had been a success. The noble Lord got up at once, and said, "I will tell the noble Lord of one—the General Post Office."
A NOBLE LORD: The telephones.
LORD TEVIOT: That embraces the telephones. But to put that up as an industry—one of the greatest monopolies that has ever been created—shows the type of mind which is completely unable to realize the situation we are in. Now, it seems, the tremendously complicated industry of iron and steel is to be nationalized. The upheaval there will be worse than in any industry I have mentioned. There is one question I want to ask the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said the other day that

1321
we had £250,000,000 of the American Loan, about £125,000,000 of the Canadian Loan and about £600,000,000 in gold reserve which we could count upon. I want to ask a question about this gold reserve. Does all this £600,000,000 really belong to us? I ask this because I understand that in that amount there is a certain amount of foreign money, and I would like to know to what extent that £600,000,000 really is an asset of our country.
I must touch upon the question of coal. I raised this in a debate six or eight months ago, or it may have been at the beginning of this year. There are two things, and two things only, on which we are going to exist in this country, coal—and I will refer later on to a proposition I want to put to the noble Lord on that subject—and food. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is not here, but no doubt he will be back in a minute. I was rather distressed the other day by his remark that the Government were investigating the placing of Poles to work in our mines. Another thing he said which distressed me a good deal—I nearly interrupted him, but I hate interrupting anybody who is speaking—was that the miners' leaders were going into the matter. I want to know who is governing this country, the miners' leaders or the Government. We have a right to know that. It is quite right to negotiate with the miners' leaders in these matters, but if they are to decide whether or not it should happen, then the Government are not accepting the responsibilities of office.
I am delighted to hear that my Motion on foodstuffs—which was accepted by the Government, though not to the full extent—has now been adopted. My Motion laid it down that we should grow £100,000,000 more foodstuffs in this country. But why put it off until 1951? I raised this matter in your Lordships' House in the spring of this year. A great deal could have been done which has not been clone in the last six months, and I do urge the Government to insist that we give every facility, as soon as possible, to those on the land to increase their animal population, particularly in regard to pigs and poultry. That is not a very difficult proposition. We know both of
1322
them to be the most prolific and the best fertilizers that one can get.
There is a matter which is very grave indeed, which I saw reported in The Times yesterday, and that is with regard to fertility. There is no doubt that the crops this year will not be as good as they ought to be, and I saw in The Times yesterday figures of what they call "harvest yields." I will not go into many of the figures but it means, by and large, a 14 per cent. drop from a nor red harvest. That is due to no other cause than the want of fertility, tired land; and that is caused by the want of animal population. Let us get busy on pigs and poultry as quickly as possible. Let the Government realize that although you have to feed them on a certain amount of food which can be consumed by human beings, you will get far more food in the end by so doing than by having this very poor number of animals on the land.
However, I believe this Bill to be quite unnecessary, and I shall not go over the ground which some other noble Lords have covered. The Government appear to have no plan at all. In their attempt to strangle the profit motive it seems to me that they have sandbagged the economic life of the nation. I wrote some of this speech last week, before Mr. Churchill spoke in another place and he very nearly said what I had written. lie used the words "blank cheque." What I am saying now is that it seems to me that the Government are asking for a blank cheque against an account which is already very much overdrawn. That is the real situation.
Now I come to the first of my constructive ideas. For goodness sake, do not let us go begging for more money outside our own Commonwealth of Nations. I believe it to be quite unnecessary. I believe my late friend Viscount Bennett said in your Lordships' House, at the time when the Loan was being discussed, "Let us have a family party." I beg the Government here and now to go round the whole of the Empire, to ask the responsible members of the Governments of the Dominions and Colonies to meet, to get them over here, and to put all the cards on the table; and I believe if we were to get that family party it would disclose many easy ways not row apparent of getting over our difficulties.

1323
I wish we had the late Lord Snowden as Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. Your Lordships will remember that Lord Snowden went to the Hague and to some other foreign countries, and when they tried to "put it across us" he stood up to them. We should not owe money to any country in the world. We saved the world. We fought for the world—for nearly two years alone. And yet Egypt, for instance, wishes payment from us, with Alamein almost at the front door of Cairo! All these countries are now demanding money from us because we took certain things from them to save them from utter destruction. I should like to see immediately initiated the question: Who owes whom? I believe that when it is all worked out, the blood we have expended, the riches we have spent—of course for our own good but for the rest of the world as well—it will be generally agreed by the nations that we ourselves should receive a very large sum as our due.
I am going to borrow a word generally used by some trade unionists, and that is to "demand" things. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has thrown a little light to-day on some of this Bill, but in the other place the Lord President of the Council, so far as I can see, when he was pressed on the question which I am going to put, said that there was no answer. That is not the way to treat responsible members of Parliament, either in the other place or in your Lordships' House. I believe we have a right to know the answer to this question: To what purpose and how are these totalitarian, Hitler-like powers to be used? I feel so strongly about this, that nothing would induce me to vote either for the Bill or to remain in your Lordships' House and not vote. I should like to see a Division challenged on this Bill—I believe it would enhance the prestige of your Lordships' House—but I know it is not going to be done. Therefore, before this matter comes to be put to the question, I shall leave the House. I do not want to have on my conscience any responsibility, either directly or indirectly, for the passage of this Bill.
With regard to coal, I have a suggestion to make. The Government have set a target of 200 million tons—or 220 million tons; it does not matter, for both are entirely worthless. The "planning" of
1324
the past two years has produced the present chaos, The "planning" that is now proposed is synonymous with parsimony. We are to wear less, to eat less, and to spend less; and we are to produce more. Is that likely? There is no incentive anywhere. If the Government would set at this serious moment a high target of 400,000,000 tons of coal to be produced in the next year, and go out into the highways and by-ways of Europe, where plenty of people would be found willing to come and work in our mines, import displaced persons from Europe, and employ the Poles as the French have done, it would raise output to that level. They could give the miners a guarantee of full employment for a period of not less than five years. I believe that if the Government would put up that target they would reach it, because they would rouse such enthusiasm for the big thing. As to the question of the importation of foreigners, I was distressed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that no decision had been arrived at with regard to the Poles and that no decision had been reached by the miners' leaders. I thought I saw signs of worry in Lord Pakenham——
LORD PAKENHAM: I can assure the noble Lord that any worry of which I gave evidence was not due to the contents of my speech but simply to my unfortunate physiognomy.
LORD TEVIOT: I could never look upon the noble Lord and take that view of his appearance. It would, I believe, create in this country and in the world an enormous feeling of hope if, by some miracle, we could wake up in the morning and find that Mr. Winston Churchill was Prime Minister here and was followed by his team of intelligent men, to deal with the economic situation. I believe the whole world from East to West, from North to South, would say, "Thank God, we are at last going to have the British Government taking the lead"—instead of, I am afraid, a Government which is just tinkering with the situation. I have been, I hope, not altogether critical. I have tried to make certain constructive suggestions; and I would end with a paraphrase from a famous utterance of Mr. Churchill: "Never in the long history of Parliament have so few done so much harm so quickly to so many."
5.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the longer this debate goes on the more perplexed I am as to what this Bill exactly means and why it is necessary. I am quite unable to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in making any constructive suggestions, because as the debate proceeds I doubt more and more whether the Bill is necessary. But the fact remains that this Bill has been produced and laid before Parliament partly as a first indication of what is going to be done in order to remedy this very serious state of affairs, and in that light I would like, if I may, to look at it. If one looks for an historical parallel to the Bill one has the choice of two occasions—1931, when an Act was passed which I think was called the National Economy Act (and there was another Act at the same time for the abandonment of the gold standard), and 1940, the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. Those two Acts had this in common with each other: that they were both passed at a time when there was a very much greater measure of national unity than there is at present.
That brings me to my first doubt over this Bill—whether it is right or proper that any Bill of this sort containing such sweeping measures should be laid before Parliament when there is not anything like the same measure of national unity as there was on those two great occasions. As regards those two occasions, 1931 and 1940, so far as I can judge from the speech we have heard from the Lord Chancellor in this House and the speeches made in another place which I read, the parallel is intended to be that, as in 1940, the Bill is to be presented as a war-time measure rather than as a peace-time measure. I would like to consider that for one moment, because here I again doubt whether this is the right and proper method of presentation. I ought to admit that I have, perhaps quite wrongly, an instinctive aversion from too many Dunkirks and too many Battles of Britain. This is not the first we have had since the real Dunkirk and the real Battle of Britain, and I am not at all sure how far we ought to make a habit of making comparisons between our own domestic crises and those occasions when we were fighting the King's enemies, when many of our countrymen paid the supreme sacrifice. But perhaps I am over-sensitive on that point.
1326
May I therefore put it in another way? We can either look at this Bill, at this situation if you like, as the last stage or as the nearly last stage in the war and its consequences, or we can look at it as the beginning of a new chapter, the beginning of our facing up to our economic problems on a peace-time and not on a. war-time basis. For my own part, I believe that the peace-time approach is better than the war-time approach. I feel we can describe ourselves much more accurately now as being at the beginning of a new chapter than at the end of an old chapter. I feel that this Bill represents the beginning of a new chapter in the doings of His Majesty's Government. I find it very hard to convince myself that this Bill was part of the plans with which the Government came into office in 1945. I do not believe that: if one looked at the two gracious Speeches one 'world find anything to encourage one in that belief. But, apart from that, surely we are now at the beginning of a very long period of very difficult times. If in our discussions on this Bill we make it appear to the public that we think that we are at the end of one phase and that good times are just around the corner, instead of our being at the beginning of another very long and difficult phase when Party politics should be put aside and the greatest measure of national unity should be secured, then I think we are creating an impression which is some. distance from the truth.
For that reason, I feel that the Fill and the appeal with which it has been surrounded are rather too dramatic to be really businesslike. Perhaps quite wrongly I feel that it is not a very good plan to make these constant appeals to the nation to give an extra spurt, and so on and so forth. Anybody who has rowed in a racing boat would know perfectly well that if the captain of the boat constantly called on his fellow oarsmen to "give her ten" the race would rot be won by that boat and confidence would soon be lost in the captain. It seems to me that we are having these appeals and I begin to wonder, perhaps very wrongly, how much public relations have to do with appeals of this sort. One of these days, when times are quieter, it seems to me that it might be of profit to this House if we debated a Motion for Papers calling attention to the growth of

1327
the public relations service and its influence upon the conduct of public affairs. I feel that that would be justified if only from the circumstances surrounding this Bill: And for this reason: that, from what I have gleaned of the work of public relations services, there is always a tendency to make everything as dramatic as possible and to create as much news as possible. The taking of sensible decisions well in advance under quiet conditions capable of producing thought and in ordinary office hours is not usually news at all, whereas rush and hurry and doing things in the middle of the night or standing on your heads, if you like, is much more like news. Therefore, it seems to me that sometimes people yield to the temptation to create the appearance of the dramatic rather than possibly the less exciting methods of carrying on our business, the methods more likely to deliver the goods in the end. It may be entirely wrong that we should be debating this Bill so quietly in your Lordships' House. I wonder if we ought not to set about it differently, take the vote, if there is to be one, in the middle of the night and possibly adjourn to the bottom of a coal mine. I can only throw out suggestions.
However that may be, we come to the other objections to the Bill which I am not going to speak about in detail because my noble friend Lord Beveridge has described them so much more ably than I can. We recall the fact that neither the Bill nor the debates which have so far accompanied it give us any indication of what plans, if any, are to be produced in order to deal with the state of affairs which by common consent is before us. We are back again in fact, I think, at our old friend which we met and battled with in the Transport Bill—the plan to have a plan. I do not think that we have got any further except that in this Bill we have produced something so totalitarian—for the moment I am not dealing with the question whether the powers could be used or not; but there they are—that I do not think anybody in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy would have despised such powers had they been given them. But we have not got beyond that point, and, as we have not got beyond that point, I do not think it is unfair to look round and see what the previous powers which have
1328
been given by Parliament to the Executive have so far produced.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to mention a very popular show which was on many years ago in London. Mr. H. G. Pelissier put on a show called "The Follies" and in that show I remember that someone was talking about making a violin. This was said to be very easy to do, because all you had to do was to make the "S" holes first, and then put the violin together around them, and there it was. This Bill seems to have made the "S" holes very successfully, but I still do not know how you build the violin, and I wonder if the noble Lords opposite know that either. So we must judge of affairs as they are. Have the measures already taken by His Majesty's Government to deal with the crisis which has been coming on us for some months, as witness the debates in this House, given noble Lords on these Benches such confidence as to justify conferring still greater powers? I can only speak of things I know about. If I were to speak as an agricultural landlord for one moment, I would say that never in the twenty-five years that I have been concerned with such things have I had to go and beg a single bag of cement from my suppliers as I did last week-end. Before I leave agriculture, is it unfair to say that, although there have been plenty of opportunities, we are still confronted with those three blots on the agricultural plan, as I see them, those three drops of blood, as it were, on Bluebeard's key, which you wipe off in one Bill and which recur in another—the failure to deal with the Hobhouse Report on the housing of rural workers, the Ridley Report on rents as a whole, and that supreme nonsense, quite unrelated to actual farming, the tied cottage? There they are. They can be removed in an instant. But no.
Now let us look at industry. I am not a person to speak about industry like other members of this House, but I know for a fact that every time greater powers are taken, powers to switch allocations and priorities of raw materials from this job to that job, the unfortunate manufacturers of goods are kept in a state of conditional dither and uncertainty as to whether the suppliers for whom they have contracted to manufacture goods are going to have the priority taken

1329
away from them. And, if this Bill does anything it adds to that uncertainty and does not take away from it, and will not take away from it until the good intentions of this Bill are translated into concrete plans. It the deterioration in these matters, which I am sure is there, is any sign of what is going to happen if we pass this Bill, then I feel that, as matters get worse and more of these Bills are passed, so the immediate effect of this Bill will be to make matters worse and not better. I shall be only too pleased if I am proved to be wrong. But, taken by and large, I shall be very sorry to see this Bill go on the Statute Book. I shall be very sorry because I think it has been wrongly introduced in a war mentality. I shall be sorry because it removes the control of Parliament just at a time when one would have thought there was every necessity to strengthen it. And I shall be sorry because, so far as we have yet heard, it does not in itself herald any concrete plan to deal with the sad state of our affairs.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I feel, like many others in the House, that conscience compels me to register as briefly as I can my strong feelings. I remember, on the occasion of the action which this House was asked to take on the American loan, that there were many who had not the courage that Lord Wootton had, to express emphatically his plea that we should be better off not to accept that loan. To-day it would seem that most of us will associate ourselves with what has so clearly been said by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, that we are profoundly dissatisfied with the intentions expressed by the Government in order to meet this crisis. It would seem that we should do better, in our discussion, to confine ourselves to making suggestions as to what should be avoided in the future, rather than to making criticisms of what has been done or omitted in the. past. My noble friend Lord Beveridge laid emphasis on that point.
I suspect that when the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading to this Bill is analysed, it will be decided that a personal success has been attained by the Lord Chancellor. His pleasurable candour, disarming in its frankness, will have allayed many of the anxieties on the
1330
technical aspects of the Bill. That does not lessen the feelings that most of us have as to the inadequacy of the Government proposals. I want just to ease my conscience by emphasizing, as my noble friend Lord Teviot has just said, that a saving of £200,000,000, as suggested, does not go very far to bridge a gap of £600000,000. So much has been said on the economic aspects of the matter that there is little purpose in retracing the ground. But I would refer to just two points. One is, the anxiety that remains in relation to whether some gap exists which has not been blocked with regard to the convertibility clause, arid the other is miscalculations with regard to our exports.
In the discussions last week we had two outstanding contributions, one from the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, on the longer range problem, and one from Lord Trefgarne on the nearer problem. I do particularly want to associate myself with that aspect covered by those two speeches, particularly that of Lord Bruce, who speaks with such experience arid knowledge. He dealt with the longer rang problem, as to whether we really are going to find that our capacity is adequate to make sure that the long range gap will be bridged. The other speech was that of Lord Trefgarne, whose plea was that we are intending to bridge this gap by increasing our exports to all parts of the world. Those of us who have been in industry all our lives have a vivid recollection of the 1930's and the crisis of 1931. Would it have been sensible to think that we could increase our exports under those conditions? Of course, the, thing was, impossible. Lord Trefgarne made a particular point, however, as far as the United States was concerned. If, as has been prophesied by many speakers in another place, the United States is herself faced with difficult times in the future, she will not be a ready recipient of our exports.
There is the question of subsidies, which was referred to in another place with such emphasis by Sir John Anderson, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. He laid stress on the fact that there should be a reduction in the amount spent on subsidies of food, and I will go as far as to say that I am sure my noble friend Lord Pakenham will agree that, in spite of the burdens of Income Tax, his Ministerial salary will assure him of such

1331
affluence that he needs not to be in the privileged position common to all of being able to buy wool apparel at the cost of the taxpayer. The sooner that that can be changed the better.
Equally, I feel that there is not sufficient in the recitals with regard to the requirements for this Bill. I do not think that enough has been said with regard to restrictive practices, whether by employers or workers. The Prime Minister, in his broadcast on Sunday night, referred to this matter in one sentence, and that related to the movement of workers. The handicap on production which results from restrictive practices is something which I suggest that the Government should review, since their limitation of some of these practices would do a great deal to increase production, which is the aim of all.
With regard to the American Loan many of us feel that, whatever is being clone now with regard to such things as films, tobacco and petrol, fantastic sums were spent on them last year. I am told that the expenditure for the year 1946, was at the rate annually: on American films, £17,000,000, on tobacco £44,000,000 and on petrol from £26,000,000 to £30,000,000. That expenditure could surely have been drastically reduced much earlier. A relatively small proportion of the loan was spent as it was intended to be spent, in getting re-conversion equipment from the United States to make our own industries more efficient. We should be much further along the road of saving ourselves by our own exertions if more had been spent in this way. I appeal to the Government to permit more generously the importation of essential equipment from the United States to make our own industries more efficient.
With regard to coal, I would like to give an illustration from the industry which I know best—that is the wool textile industry. The position is that we have had the Government pinning their faith to an increase of £60,000,000 in exports of textiles, and at the same time coal is not being provided to enable that to be accomplished. The coal allocation to-day is on the basis of 1946 consumption, but industrial activity to-day is substantially greater than it was in 1946, and the target for present production cannot be balanced against the coal allocations. Appeals have already been made by my noble friend
1332
Lord Llewellin and others for a delaying of the Government's nationalization programme. Long residence in the United States has convinced me that one thing which is going to make it difficult for us if we have to seek concessions from the United States Government, whether in respect of existing undertakings or of matter, in the future, will be adherence to the present nationalization programme. Continuance by the Government of the carrying out of that programme is calculated to do us great harm, so far as the United States are concerned.
I will not weary the House with my own views, but I am going to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I read two quotations from the' American Press, The New York Times says that Britain is
"guilty either of having made a serious miscalculation in setting up her schedule of successive annual export 'targets,' or of failing to provide the political leadership required to live up to that table of expectations—or both."
The Cleveland Plain-Dealer, a journal of great influence in the Middle West, says that
"it's probable that there will be strong opposition in this country to the further expenditure of American funds in support of a system of government planning which has resulted in such an outstanding failure."
For that reason the Government, as has been suggested by other noble Lords, should postpone seeking the fulfilment of their aspirations, their ideologies, doctrines and wishful thinking with regard to their long-range policy. Particularly, I think, should they postpone it with regard to the nationalization of the steel industry, because if the Government embark on manufacturing steel consumer and durable goods of which the Americans are themselves large exporters, inescapably that will bring us up against the most bitter competition of the United States, the very source from which we seek to get concessions, present or future. In any case, I cannot see why the Government want to nationalize everything. To a minimum of 5o per cent. they are partners in all industry now.
There is one further question which I wish to put before I sit down. Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor is momentarily not present. I must, therefore, put it to whoever is going to represent him. I wish to refer especially to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the

1333
Bill, which states that one of the purposes is "generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use …" It has been said by a previous speaker this afternoon, and not resisted by the Lord Chancellor, who was present at the time, that that would include the whole man-power and woman-power of the nation. The question I particularly wish to ask is whether an assurance can be given that this will not in any way result in an order or a regulation being made the effect of which would be to restrict the free movement of men or women to any country to which they might desire to emigrate. I put that question because—and I am sure that other noble Lords will agree—this is a matter which is causing great anxiety among very many ex-Servicemen and others whose ambition it is to emigrate—to follow the footsteps of their forefathers who emigrated and built up our Empire. I seek an assurance that it is not the intention under that paragraph to set up any impediment to the free movement of any who seek to emigrate.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I rise for a few moments, as one of the elected Scots' representatives, privileged to sit in your Lordships' House, to make a solemn protest against this Bill as being unnecessary and a surrender of our hard-won liberties. The dangers inherent in the Bill have been well set out previously in this debate by another noble Lord—like myself an independent member of your Lordships' House—Lord Vansittart, in illustrating what occurred not long ago in another country. He saw the tragedy from the angle of the Foreign Office. I saw it from the angle of Weimar; but our conclusions were the same.
We Scots are few in numbers but we will fight as ever before for freedom. Our freedom, by the measure of this Bill, is being gravely challenged. More than that, it is being removed. When the Scots Parliament sat in the Abbey of Arbroath in 1320, a. desperate situation faced our forbears and a plea was addressed to the Leader of Christendom in which we find these words:
"For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honour, but it is liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life."
We have to fight an economic Bannock
1334
burn. Before that historic battle The Bruce, addressing the Scots Army, said, in words of our National Anthem:
"See approach proud Edward's power, Chains and slavery."
This is a "chains and slavery" Bill. I beg leave to oppose L.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, your Lordships' House last week had a most interesting debate for two days on the general economic situation. There was a considerable measure of agreement as to the causes of our situation. There was complete agreement in all quarters as to its gravity; meantime, time is running on and our credit balances are running out. The Government have two powerful antagonists facing this battle: one is the calendar and the other is arithmetic. The impression left upon our minds by the declarations of the Government, in Parliament and out of it, is that what they say amounts to this: "We do not know what to do, but we are absolutely determined on doing it." Hence this Bill. And if the preamble of the Bill were candidly to state what its purposes are ought, in truth, to run in some such terms as the following:
"Whereas His Majesty's Ministers have no adequate plan for dealing with the present grave economic situation but are under the necessity of impressing the nation with an appearance of energy and resourcefulness, now therefore be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent …"
and so forth.
I must say that this is not the explanation given to us by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. He put the matter on quite other grounds. He told us that the Bill was intended partly as a measure to clear away legal doubts that had arisen as to the powers of the Government under existing Statutes and partly to extend the purposes that they were authorized by law to pursue. But when the Government are asked what the new definition of "purposes" is intended to include, and for what reason it is inserted in the Bill, they resolutely refuse to give any answer. It is permitted in this House to quote ministerial statements made during debates in another place, and I would quote a few words used yesterday by the Lord President of the Council who was in charge of the Bill.

1335
Answering a speaker from the other side of the House, he said:
"The real point he raised was, first, 'What are you going to do with this provision?'"—
That is the much-criticized paragraph (c) in subsection (1) of Clause 1—
"My answer is the same answer as I gave on Second Reading, that is, no answer. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!]"—
which is not surprising—
"All I have got to show is that there is a prima facie case for this paragraph in the Bill."
The right honourable gentleman went on:
"It is a reasonable thing for which to ask, and if I were to set out in a speech all the purposes for which this provision is to be used, I should at once circumscribe the action of His Majesty's Government under the Bill."
To that an honourable Member replied: "Give us one," and Mr. Morrison's answer was: "I am not going to do so." That is where we stand, and that is the full extent of the information which has been given to us. All this causes a considerable measure of anxiety. I am not an alarmist. I try to speak in no exaggerated terms, but the anxiety arises from the fact that the Government have been engaged in a large programme of Socialization which they have been intending to extend further in the coming session of Parliament; the anxiety is whether this Bill is worded in such wide terms as to make it possible for the present Government to use it as the engine for carrying that policy into effect.
This anxiety springs from the very constitution of the Party whose representatives are now in office, for the constitution of the Labour Party has as its first purpose:
"(1) To organize and maintain in Parliament and in the country a Parliamentary Labour Party"
and then later, in paragraph (4)
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of every industry or service."
This is not merely a document of long ago, passed and perhaps forgotten; this is reprinted in the Report of the Labour Party Conference every year. And the anxiety arises from the fact that there
1336
may be the temptation for the present Government, perhaps under pressure from a section of their supporters, to use the crisis, if it became more severe, as a justification for taking further measures in that direction.
August is a dangerous month for crises. We remember August, 1914. I remember very vividly the crisis of August, 1931, and it was in August, 1939, when war became certain. While he would be foolish indeed who would seek to prophesy the course of events, no one would deny that it is at least possible that our present economic situation might be greatly worsened, perhaps owing to events not occurring here but in the United States of America. And if the power existed in the hands of the Government to carry out some sweeping measure, allegedly in the interests of economic progress and recovery of the nation, the temptation might be too strong to be resisted. There are some who would wish to profit by such a crisis to upset the Government, and I spoke in deprecation of that when I introduced a Motion a week ago, but there are others who might be tempted to seek to profit by the crisis in order to carry out the whole programme of their Party quickly, by whatever means lay at their hands.
They may be acting on that most fatal of all doctrines, that the end justifies the means, the doctrine which will prove to be the ruin of the Communist Party—who are the modern Machiavellians—and has brought to destruction every movement in every country through every age that has practised it. In particular, it has been stated by leading members of the Government that they propose in the next Session to press on with the nationalization of iron and steel. The question we specifically wish to ask is whether there is anything in this Bill which would confer fresh powers on the Government to carry out a measure of that sort without passing independent legistlation.
I happened to listen this morning to the eight o'clock news on the radio, and there I heard that in the later stages of the sitting in another place the Lord President of the Council had given an assurance; in answer to a question, that that would not be so, and that there was nothing in this Bill which would be used (I do not know whether he said "could" or

1337
"would" be used) to effect the nationalization of any particular industry. We have not yet had the Hansard Report of the debate; therefore I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, if, when he replies, he would repeat the assurance which it is alleged has been given in those terms—I am dependent on my memory of what was said on the radio as to the exact words used. If he would do so it would relieve our very real anxiety lest these powers should be used for that particular purpose.
There is another question I should like to address to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. It relates to the question whether the measures taken under this Bill, when it is passed, can be the subject of what in our strange Parliamentary jargon is called a negative Prayer: that is to say, an Address asking His Majesty to disallow or to revoke an Order in Council which has been made or is to be made in draft—I am not seeking to define it in precise legal language. Here again a statement was made in the other place by the Attorney-General, who used these words:
"If we regarded paragraph (c) in isolation, and apart from the wide powers which already exist in the 5945 Act, paragraph (c) would contemplate a pretty wide purpose for the exercise of the existing powers and regulations. It is a wide purpose, and it is intended to he. It is a purpose not dissimilar from, although not quite as wide as, the power which was conferred on the Government by the Act which was passed unanimously by Parliament in 1940.
Now comes the point to which I wish to draw special attention:
"But wide though the purpose is, its exercise is, of course, subject always to the important safeguard in case it should be misused, of the Parliamentary check by way of negative Prayer.
That would be very reassuring. But my noble friend, Lord Beveridge, gave some reasons for thinking that that might not apply as widely as was suggested. Any regulations made under the 1945 Act are still in force, long past the period when a negative Prayer in either House would be admissible, and if any fresh action taken by the Government were made by regulations under those Orders in Council, would they be liable to a Motion in either House praying for annulment? That is a question I would wish to address to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. As he would naturally desire that the assurance given by the
1338
Attorney-General to the other House should be implemented, if there is any doubt whether any measures taken under this paragraph in the new Bill are subject to the procedure of the negative Prayer, I should like to ask whether he would move an Amendment to-morrow to put the matter right. It would be very difficult for any of us who have not the expert assistance of Government draftsmen to be sure that cur Amendment was in the right form. As what I am asking would be merely carrying out the avowed and declared intention of the Government, I hope your Lordships will agree that it is not improper that I should venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that if the wording of the Bill does not fully carry out their intentions the Government themselves should take the initiative in making the necessary Amendment.
Another point—and it is my only other point—relates to a suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on behalf of noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. He urged that Parliament should not adjourn for two months if——
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That this He use should not adjourn.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I beg his Lordship's pardon—that this House should riot adjourn for the proposed period of rather more than two months in view of the fact that some great crisis might arise, that the Government might be taking very drastic action, and that some of us, or many in this House, and many people in the country perhaps, might object to that action. The Government itself, as his Lordship pointed our, would have no reason for summoning Parliament in order that Parliament should oppose an action which the Government themselves were proposing to take. He suggested that in those circumstances we ought to adjourn for a period of no longer than three weeks, in order that at the end of three weeks, if no such contingency had arisen, the House should sit for a formal session and straightway adjourn for another three weeks; but if, on the contrary, any considerable body of this House thought it essential that there should be debates in Parliament, we should, as a House, meet and discuss those matters of grave moment. For my own part. I should support that proposal. It seems quite reasonable, and I cannot see that His Majesty's Government need have any

1339
objection to it. What the other place may do is, of course, not our concern, and it would be disrespectful on our part to make any suggestion with regard to it. But our own House is within our own control, and for that reason we may be well advised to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Viscount.
For the rest, we on these Benches shall not be disposed to refuse a Second Reading of the Bill which has been passed by the other place, but we must make it quite clear that this House, as indeed the nation as a whole, will keep the most careful and continuous watch on the mode in which its provisions will be applied.
6.18 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, on the last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships, during the debate on the economic situation, I said that I hoped and thought that that would be the last important debate of the Session. That, unfortunately, has turned out not to be true. In the last days and almost the last hours of the Session, before the Summer Recess, the Government have faced Parliament with a measure of a most controversial character and with very wide implications, and I feel bound, with all deference to noble Lords opposite, to protest most strongly that legislation of this character should have been thrown at us at the last minute with no proper time for considering it. It is not in accordance with the traditions of Parliament. If this legislation was necessary it should have been brought forward weeks ago.
I understand from what the Lord Chancellor has said, and from what was said by other Government speakers in another place, that they do not regard this as an important Bill. I think it was suggested that it was a merely technical measure—the Lord Chancellor called it "a little Bill," and he said that the Government already have extensive powers under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. I gather that this Bill was not intended by the Government, and is not intended by them, to widen those powers, but merely to apply the existing powers to new purposes necessitated by the new circumstances of the present emergency. As I
1340
understand it, I think that is a fair statement of the Government's case. That is their contention and, on the face of it, it sounds very innocuous indeed.
But, surely, this differentiation between power and the purposes for which power is used is a very strange and legalistic one. It may seem valid to the Government, but to the ordinary man I should have thought it must seem that, by widening the purposes for which powers are used, you in fact automatically extend those powers themselves. If I might take a very simple analogy, under the Common Law of England the justiciary may condemn a man to death by hanging for murder. That is a power. If that power to hang were to be extended to cover, say, opposition to the Government, would anyone contend that the power of the law had not been extended? It seems to me—and I believe it would to any ordinary, normal man—that the power and the purposes for which that power is used are not two different things at all but are merely different facets of the same thing. If you extend the purposes for which you use power, you automatically extend the power which you are giving the Government. To attempt to argue anything else, I should have thought, was a mere juggling with words.
In this present Bill the extended purposes for which the powers of the 1945 Act are required are, as your Lordships know, incorporated in three categories under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Those categories are what may be vulgarly called the "guts of the Bill"; they are really the only thing in the Bill. Paragraphs (a) and (b) seem to me—I speak personally—comparatively harmless. They relate to certain spheres of the public economy which are of vital importance at the present time. They are clearly defined and, to that extent, limited. I should have thought that it might quite clearly be argued that they were not unjustifiable. The Government made it clear in the economic debate last week (the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, himself made it clear) that they wished to increase the productivity of agriculture, of industry and of commerce. Those propositions received, I think the Government will agree, the general approval of your Lordships' House. The only doubt was as to whether the measures proposed

1341
were adequate. I should have thought it not unfair that the Government should ask that, for the comparatively limited spheres of paragraphs (a) and (b), the powers already granted in the 1945 Act should be extended for the purposes for which they are now needed. I do not personally complain very much of that.
Equally, the Government, as your Lordships will remember, stressed the importance of redressing the balance of trade. Personally, as your Lordships know, I have not very much confidence in the efficiency of Government Departments taking over from experts the conduct of our foreign trade. I know the Government think that public officials do it much better, but the results hardly seem to coincide with the anticipations of Ministers in that respect. Noble Lords on this side of the House believe that it is far better to leave these matters, so far as possible, to those who understand them. Therefore, on matters of that kind—redressing the balance of trade, and so on—I should think that most of us would agree that what is needed, broadly speaking, is less interference and not more interference; and for that no additional powers, either under this Bill or any other Bill, are necessary. At the same time, to be quite fair, no doubt it must he said that in the situation in which this country is at present some controls are still necessary. I believe it is, at least, arguable that Parliament might fairly grant to the Government—who, after all, have the responsibility of our affairs, until the country kicks them out, which personally I hope will be fairly soon—powers to apply the existing powers of the 1945 Act for a strictly limited and defined purpose.
I feel that we must look at this Bill with an objective eye. There has been a great deal of political heat raised on both sides over it, but I think we must try and look at this Bill objectively. Had this Bill been confined merely to paragraphs (a) and (b), I do not think it would have aroused the opposition that it has aroused. It is on paragraph (c) that the main controversy is raised. That is the paragraph which I think Mr. Churchill called "a blank cheque." It gives powers to the Government to apply regulations for very wide purposes indeed. It has been quoted so often this afternoon that I will not weary your Lordships by quoting it
1342
again. In any case, I think it may be described as "a blank cheque" with a vengeance. It enables the Government to apply these powers to what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has said are certain extended purposes. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the Bill gives them powers of a very strong order. It may be that the Government do not intend to use these powers in a very extravagant manner. We have had the noble and learned Viscount's assurance as to that.
If I may say so to the noble and learned Viscount, he made so very balanced a speech this afternoon that I thought the position he occupied on the Woolsack, exactly half way between the two sides of the House, had a symbolic significance. I am quite certain that if the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, were in the saddle, accompanied by some of his more responsible colleagues, we need not fear as to the practical application of this Bill. But we are bound to ask ourselves this question: Are the Government in reality masters in their own House? Personally, after the events of recent months and weeks, I gravely doubt it. They have a very strong and extremist tail, and one knows very well from what has been said in another place that that tail interprets paragraph (c) in a very different manner horn the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. In fact, it would be almost unbelievable to anyone arriving from Mars that the noble kind learned Viscount's speech and, say, Mr. Crossman's speech applied to the same thing. In his speech in another place on August 8, Mr. Cross-man, the Member for Coventry, did not describe this as "a little Bill." On the contrary, he described it, as has been said this afternoon, as "the turning of the ways," whatever that means, and as a mandate for full Socialist planning. He added at the end of his speech: "This is not a question of dictatorship. This is inevitable in the modern world.
Those are, indeed, rather different words from those used by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack this afternoon. They might well mean, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, said to us in the very moving and powerful speech he made this afternoon, that if Mr. Crossman and men of that type—and there are several cantering about another place at the present time—had their way

1343
it would mean, in fact, the end of Parliamentary government as we know it in this country, and the substitution for Parliamentary government of sectional dictatorship, and sectional dictatorship by a minority of the elected. Can we be absolutely certain that, however moderately minded the head of this dog may be, it will not be wagged by the tail? I do not think we can. We have had some very disturbing examples of this in recent months. There was, as your Lordships remember, the question of military service, and the reduction of the period of service from eighteen months to twelve months. Everybody knows—there was-hardly any secret made of it—that that was forced upon the Government Front Bench by the more belligerent Back Benchers. I do not think any secret was made of that. The Minister of Defence let the cat out of the bag, and he tried to pop it in again by the second statement. There is no doubt that Parliamentary pressure and Party pressure was brought upon the Government, and the Government gave way to that pressure.
Noble Lords will be able to remember many other instances of that kind. Can we be certain that the same thing will not happen again as a result of pressure from Labour Party meetings which appear to be going on in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster at almost every hour of the day? It is quite clear that the Government themselves—that is to say, the Cabinet—do not yet know, as has been pointed out by many speakers, what they intend to do with the powers for which they are asking in this Bill. I will not quote the Lord President's remark again, because it has already been quoted several times this afternoon; but the gist of it is that they have at present no policy and no plans. They have—I think the Lord President's words were—"no preconceived notion," which is a more euphemistic way of saying the same thing.
But if the Cabinet do not know how they intend to use the powers given to them in this Bill, the more extreme section of their supporters know perfectly well what use they mean to make of them. They mean to use them, so far as they are able, to destroy Parliamentary democracy, and to substitute, in effect, something in the nature of a dictatorship or, at any rate, to push the leaders of their
1344
Party just about as far as they can along that road. Is this a time, as the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, said, to give the Government a blank cheque to take the control of our affairs out of the hands of Parliament? I cannot believe that it is; and I think that noble Lords opposite would themselves do well to take full account of what the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, said about the Weimar Constitution.
One always assumes that what has happened in other countries will not happen in one's own, but it is not unwise, when one is in power, to take note of what has happened to other Governments in the past. If it is suggested to me that the same powers which the Government are seeking now were asked and given by Parliament to the then Government in 1940, I would answer—if it is necessary to give an answer to that—that those powers were given to a National Government, representing all sections of the population and all political opinions; and, as we all know, a Government of that character, if it is widely enough composed, contains its own automatic brake against extreme action, either by the Right or by the Left. This Bill is brought in by a Party Government, a Government not representing the majority of the electorate, and carrying out a policy of an extremely controversial character. I am sure, therefore, that noble Lords will agree that that is not quite the same thing as was done in 1940.
Surely the right course, in circumstances such as this, is for the Government to ask Parliament for powers, if they need them, for certain clearly defined purposes. That is what they do under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause r of this Bill. If it turns out that those powers are not adequate, then is the time for them to return to Parliament and ask for further powers, and justify them in debate. If they could prove that those powers were genuinely needed for the welfare of the country, I am quite sure they would not receive a negative response from any Party in this House or in another place. That is the constitutional course. That is the course which, as your Lordships know, we have followed, with only slight sporadic interferences, for the last seven centuries. It saved this country from civil strife and disorder; it has made

1345
our Parliamentary system the admiration of the world; it has preserved our liberties against dictatorship either by the Court or by the barons. I really do not think we ought, by any form of legislation—and this applies to noble Lords opposite, as well as to those who sit on these Benches—to consider sacrificing those liberties to give dictatorial powers to the sort of pocket Hitlers who are now attempting, if I may say so, to capture the Labour Party machine.
I am quite certain that that is not the intention of the more responsible members of the Government, any more than it is the intention of those of us who happen to belong to other Parties. But it is time for those moderate and responsible people to take their stand. I said something of the same sort on the debate on the Address at the beginning of this Parliament, and I was rather scoffed at by Government speakers. But, honestly, the moderate men, unless they are firm and strong always tend to be hustled and bustled out of their position by the more irresponsible extremists. This Bill gives power to the extremists to take unconstitutional action, and they will certainly take advantage of that power unless they are firmly stepped upon by the more moderate and more sensible members of their Party. Therefore, I do urge upon this Government and upon the whole House, that on this Bill, as with all other legislation which is likely to come before Parliament, Parliament must be earnest and determined to maintain its constitutional powers over legislation.
I have tried to be moderate this afternoon, and to make it clear that I do not think what the Government are asking for in this Bill is legitimate. Parliament must maintain its constitutional power to watch over, and if necessary to amend, that legislation. It is, therefore, for that reason that, with great deference, I would commend to the whole House the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, which he made in the debate this afternoon, arid which he made with my full approval. I would commend that to all noble Lords, because it seems to me exactly to meet the requirements of the situation. Do not let us—and I say this to noble Lords who sit on this side of the House—oppose this Bill on the Second Reading. Let us allow the Government to introduce such proposals as seem to
1346
them appropriate to deal with the difficult situation which we all know exists to-day. But let us put in the Motion for the Adjournment for the summer recess a provision that this House at any rate shall not adjourn itself for nearly three months, but shall meet after three weeks to consider any Order that may have been enacted by the Government and decide whether or not, in our view, it is in the interests of the country.
If there is nothing necessary for us to discuss—and very likely that will be the case—then the meeting will be merely formal, arid we can adjourn for a further period. But it does seem to me that there is a vital obligation on us to make ourselves available in case we may be needed. Only so, I suggest, is it possible for us to maintain the authority of Parliament over the executive. If the otter House is not willing to take such a course, that, as the noble Viscount:, Lord Samuel, said just now, is entirely their affair and it would be a great impertinence on our part to comment on it in any way. But we in this House must regard ourselves as trustees of the liberties of the British people. And I am quite certain that we shall all, in whatever part of the House we sit, conceive it to be our duty to do what we can to see that no step is taken which is detrimental to the country's welfare while Parliament is in recess. Unless, therefore, a better alternative is produced of achieving the same result, we on this side of the House propose to stand by the proposal which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, put to your Lordships this afternoon, and I hereby give notice that we shall table such a Motion when the Motion for the Adjournment comes before the House.
I hope that it will be agreed by your Lordships that I have tried this afternoon to speak in no controversial tone. I e o not believe this is a time for unnecessary controversy; it will do our country no good, either at home or abroad. I know that the Opposition in another place moved the rejection of this Bill on the Second Reading, and I myself fully recognize the strength of their preoccupations, which certainly have not been allayed by the debates which have taken place during the passage of the Bill through that House. But personally do not propose to recommend that course to noble Lords this afternoon. I do not

1347
like the Bill, if 1 may say so, any better than the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, does, though I am rather sorry to have to speak in such very strong words. But I believe that that is not a case for the rejection of the Bill by your Lordships' House. After all, it was only last week in this House, in the debate on the economic situation, that we urged upon the Government greater activity; and we cannot surely logically at one moment tax the Government with not doing enough and at the next moment refuse them any additional facilities to enable them to do more. What we can do, and what in my view we must do, is to ensure that they submit all orders made under this Bill, or regulations for particular purposes in detail, to the decision of Parliament, whose servants they are. That, we can and must require, and that is the course which I should have thought would be acceptable to them. At any rate, by their readiness to welcome it I am certain they will be judged both in this country and by the world.
6.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion on this Bill, and at least we can say this: that though I am afraid the advice of the Walrus has been taken very much in that we have talked of many things, we have managed on the whole to keep a good deal nearer the point than some other people I know; and we have managed to keep there without any undue heat or undue controversy. For that I am grateful. I would like to deal with some of the misgivings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and I would say this: please do not consider the Bill as though it were the first essay in this sort of thing. The position is this. There is in force now an Act of Parliament of 1945. That Act of 1945 authorized the continuance of certain Defence Regulations. They continue under that Act for five years from that date. No further Defence Regulations can be made. I do not think that is always realized, but it is the fact.
It is not possible to make any further Regulations; all that can be done is to keep to those existing Regulations. If it is desired to apply these Regulations to any particular set of circumstances it would generally have to be done by an
1348
order—that is, by a subsidiary instrument. The Act of 1945 provides that that subsidiary instrument must be laid. It is the fact, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, correctly stated, that we are now hopelessly out of time for praying against the Regulations. No one did so. There was an Order in Council; everybody knew all about it, and nobody prayed against the Regulations. The time for praying against them has now passed. But I repeat, that if it is desired to apply those Regulations to any particular set of circumstances, it would be done by subordinate instrument, and that instrument has to be laid. And against that subordinate instrument a Prayer may be made.
Let me give your Lordships an illustration. I have already referred to Regulation 55, which is the Regulation concerning the general control of industry. The words of that regulation are "A competent authority … may by order provide." Your Lordships will notice that it is done by order. If the order is an order merely referring to some individual you would not lay; but if it is an order which, by any stretch of imagination, is analogous to an Act of Parliament it would be necessary to lay such an order. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me a question about the Bank of England. The answer is this, that none of these Regulations in any way applies to the Bank of England, and there is no power to make any new Regulation. A fortiori you cannot make an order applying to the Bank of England under any Regulation. We have received under the Act of 1945 vast powers set out in that book; and we are told by the Act of 1945 the purposes for which we may use these powers.
Those purposes, be it observed, are not purposes which, speaking generally and broadly, can be decided in the Courts at all, for the reason that the noble Lord understands. It is a question of the Minister putting his hand on his heart in the privacy of his own room and saying: "I am doing it for this, that, or the other purpose, being one of the specified purposes." When it is realized, for the reasons I have given, that there is a genuine doubt about the extent of those purposes, then surely the Minister, as a conscientious man, ought to come to Parliament and say: "This doubt has arisen and therefore I am not going to stretch

1349
these powers myself; I come to you who laid down the purposes, tell you of this doubt, and ask you to extend the purposes."
So far from that being a totalitarian frame of mind, I do not think we have received the praise which we assuredly deserve. I am not an expert on totalitarianism, but I believe that totalitarian people do not stick at trifles. If they can satisfy themselves by simply saying: "Well, never mind; I can use these powers given for certain purposes anyway, and whether it is for this purpose or for anything else, I will use the powers." The Government, however, have come back with the Bill, to put ourselves frankly before Parliament. We have stated the difficulty and we have said that in view of it we must have extended powers. It is, of course, a fact that by extending purposes you do extend powers in this sense: that you enable yourself to use powers, because otherwise you would not be able to use them. But it is important to observe the distinction between purposes and powers. I think the illustration which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, gave was not a happy one. At the present time there is power to hang for certain offences. If you were to extend that, and were to hang for all sorts of other offences—I think the noble Marquess suggested being critical of the Government—that would undoubtedly extend the powers; and the analogy would be altering these Regulations. That we cannot do and do not want to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Viscount, but hanging is the same thing for whatever purpose it is done. It is all the same to the "hangee"! The only difference is the purpose for which this penalty is exacted. I cannot see that there is any extension of principle. It is an exact analogy with what the Government are doing in the matter of the extension of these powers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot agree that it is an analogy at all. If so, it would be an analogy extending the things in this book, and that is what we cannot do.
The noble Marquess was good enough to refer to the fact that there is some small significance in the fact that the
1350
Woolsack is in the centre of the House. It is quite true that I am one of those who would very much like, at this time of crisis and difficulty, to have rallying round me the support of all the people. in this country, all sections and all classes, all determined to do the best they could. Like the noble Marquess, I am no economist; I only know that economists are very plausible gentlemen who always differ from each other. The only way out of our difficulty to-day is to get increased productivity. I think it is the case that everyone in the community ought to contribute to that productivity. Having said that, I want to register my respectful protest about the suggestion that I very often hear, and hear made in the utmost good faith by your Lordships, and that is this: " If you want our help, just for the time being stop your projects of nationalization. Just carry on arid let things go along. Remove these controls, stop making utility furniture and let everybody go out for themselves." That is your Lordships' conviction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a fact.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But, on the other hand, it is not fair to ask us who believe something quite different, to put our ideas into cold storage and to accept your ideas, and then to say. "Now see how friendly and impartial we can be." Your Lordships must also advance and see what you can contribute towards our programme if you want u to do that. That is by the way. The noble Marquess said that he regretted that there should be unnecessary controversy. I cannot help saying that 1 think the tone and temper of the discussions on this Bill have not advanced that harmony for which I, as your Lordships. know, personally stand. I think it a little hard that, after what was said last night and on similar occasions about this Bill, I should receive admonition—I quite agree it was in the friendliest way, but still admonition—about the desirability of my Party always being sweetly reasonable. Before you throw out the beam in the other fellow's eye, look and see if it is in your own.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was not the noble Marquess who said that. There are one or two other main points with which I want to deal. I was asked about the iron and steel industry and whether we were or were not going to use the powers under the existing legislation to nationalize iron and steel. Let me say emphatically that I do not know what Mr. Morrison said at eight o'clock this morning; I was not there; but I am quite certain that he would have said this: "It would be grossly improper to use these Defence Regulations which were entrusted to us by Parliament for a wholly different purpose, to carry out a major scheme of nationalizing that or any other industry." So it would be. But, be it observed, the powers existing to-day enable a controller to be appointed to any business and, having been appointed, the controller can then take over the shares of that business. Therefore we have had for the last two years, or nearly two years, the power to do it in that hole-and-corner way. When we decide to nationalize an industry, we shall come to Parliament with a straightforward
Bill and say exactly what we propose to do. I should think it grossly dishonest to use these powers, which are meant to apply to individual difficulties, to foist upon the country a major measure of that sort, without seeking Parliamentary approval.
The other important question was whether this House should or should not adjourn for the long vacation. I say quite frankly that I had not known that that point was going to be discussed and I had not considered it, but I am very ready to meet the noble Lord and discuss the suggestion and see what difficulty there may be in regard to it. I do not know about this, but it is my impression that we have never before acted in a different way from the other House. However, I suppose there is no reason why we should not do so if we so desire. It is a matter about which we might have some discussion.
Then there was much criticism about the absence of the plan which we are supposed to have. This is really not the occasion to discuss this. This is a Bill to remove a difficulty which has arisen in regard to the possible inadequacy of powers. When you go on a dangerous voyage or when you are likely to be beset
1352
by wild animals, whether two-legged or four-legged, you take a weapon with you; and if you are asked why you take that weapon, the answer is, "To guard against all sorts of dangers which may arise." We are taking powers in this way to guard against difficulties and dangers which may arise in the forthcoming months.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred to many other matters, such as utility furniture, exports, and so on. I feel that it is absolutely essential that the Government should have the power, the absolute power, to control what is being made and where it is going. If we can, as we generally can, get the good will and the consent of industry, then there is no need to exercise our powers. Our powers are there, and the fact that our powers are there is the best guarantee that we shall not have to use them. To Lord Vansittart's observations I pay, as all of us always do, the greatest attention. Directly the noble Lord sees me beginning to grow like one of Hitler's satellites, if he will tell me privately I will watch my step even more carefully than I do today!
The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, in a most interesting and authoritative speech, referred to the question of direction of labour. I am speaking on the spur of the moment about this and I have no knowledge about it. Personally I confess that I dislike and distrust directing labour if I can possibly avoid it, because though you can take a horse to the water you cannot make him drink. The danger seems to me that if you direct labour you may not get good work. But I do think it is intolerable, for instance, that there should be a large number of young people working in the "Pools" whilst the textile industries are lacking labour. I believe everybody would agree with me there, and I think, regrettable though this necessity may be, it is a matter which obviously will have to be considered. I cannot say more than that. I do not know more than that. But obviously one must not shrink from considering this very serious matter just because of the not unnatural healthy prejudice which we all have against it. There are times—I am not suggesting that this is an analogy—when people have to leave a ship and get into a lifeboat under the command of one of the ship's officers, and it does not matter whether you bring the bottle

1353
of water or the biscuits; you will properly be called upon to give up your bottle of water or your biscuits for the common good, and you will be told to take your turn at the oars and work as hard as you can in conjunction with the others. It is surely right that whenever our country is in difficulty the Government of the day should have the right to call upon all sections of the community to contribute of their best.
LORD BARNBY: What about intending emigrants leaving the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am coming to that. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, made an interesting speech. He criticized us for having no plan and then, in almost the next breath, he said that we were puffed up with our plans to such an extent that we would not listen to anybody else. He gave us some plans of his own. He longed for Mr. Snowden to be back; he hoped that Mr. Churchill would be Prime Minister to-morrow and that we should get 400,000,000 tons of coal next year. As I listened to him, I wondered why it was not a substantially larger target.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, criticized us and said he wanted to know what are the plans. He said that the agricultural plan had three blots on it, which he then proceeded to develop in a most interesting speech—albeit some way removed from this Bill—and I am afraid that the noble Viscount will have to address further observations in regard to that matter to the Minister in charge of agriculture. But he did say one thing which is very much my concern. He said that this Bill removed the control of Parliament. I cannot understand what the noble Viscount meant. I do not know what Parliamentary control has been removed. I have devoted a good deal of time to the study of this Bill and, quite honestly, I have not the least idea what he means.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment, surely the control of Parliament is removed whenever a subject is a matter of an Order and not of legislation in Parliament. That surely is an argument which has been used many times in this House; that is what I meant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is done by the 1945 Act, and that is fie position under which we are living today. The noble Viscount's proposition is that this Bill removes the control of Parliament. This Bill, however, leaves the control of Parliament just where it was before the Bill was introduced; that is to say, under the 1945 Act.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Except in so far as the powers are extended under. the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The powers under the Bill are not extended. The purposes are extended, and the purposes are not subject to control, either by this House or by the Courts, because the Minister merely has to say for what purpose he is going to use the powers. If the noble Lord will consider it, I am sure he will come to the conclusion that there is no existing control which is removed by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asked me a question about emigration. If only the noble Lord had communicated wit a me beforehand I might have been able to give an answer, but I do not think A is very near this question, and I cannot give an answer, because I do not know. However, from what I do know, I would say, quite frankly, that I think it almost inconceivable that we should stop emigration. After all, these people are going to emigrate to the Dominions, and if they want to go and if the Dominions want them, are we to say to the Dominions that they must not have them? That would be a poor return to the Dominions for al the help and assistance they are giving to us. I cannot say more than that. I cannot give the noble Lord any undertaking at the present time, but I think he need not be unduly worried.
That then, my Lords, is this Bill. I claim, and I maintain, that in coming to Parliament as we have done we have done the right thing. We do not want any further argument or difficulty about the facilities which enable us to use the powers. The Attorney-General in another place, in his forceful and I thought correct speeches, tried to put this matter quite plainly. I find myself, and it is only fair to say if, in complete agreement with the Attorney-General in spite of the fact that he was said to be talking "stuff." I can only say I thought it

1355
very good stuff, and if I could remember it I would gladly incorporate it in my speech.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Does the Attorney-General, may I ask, think that the Bill is unnecessary?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You had better ask the Attorney-General himself that: I really do not know. I will state my opinion to your Lordships. But whether the Bill is unnecessary or not, the point really is that a genuine doubt, a real doubt, has arisen. Surely it is only sensible to take steps to clear away that doubt. With regard to paragraph (c) it seems to me, with due respect to the noble Marquess, that paragraphs (a) and (b) would not be enough. Those paragraphs—to which he does not take any objection, I think—would leave you in this position. You may be challenged again, and now that this controversy has arisen I am sure that "purposes" will be challenged. It might lead to this difficulty. If you used simply paragraphs (a) and (b) it might be said, "You are not entitled to be selective with regard to your industries; you are not entitled to say, You must damp down, and you must work harder.' You are not entitled to say, Stop making pleasure motor cars and make tractors'." That is the danger of having only paragraphs (a) and (b); and that is why it
1356
seems to us that you want paragraph (c)—general words to make it plain that the purposes for which the Minister may use these great powers are those purposes therein expressed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Viscount suggest that paragraph (a) means that you must promote productivity of industry, and that paragraph (c) really means that you must discourage productivity of industry?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Paragraph (c) means this: that in promoting industry you may be selective. Industry embraces a whole mass of things, some of which are, and some of which are not, important. The danger is that if you simply said "promoting industry," that means industry globally, industry as a whole. We all agree that what we want is the promotion of the essential industries, even though it means some slowing down or perhaps stopping of non-essential industries. That is the position. I have tried to put this Bill frankly and fairly before your Lordships. Your Lordships have listened very well, and I am grateful to you for the way in which you have received me.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.