Sitting of 13 August 1947

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FRENCH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker: Through the French Ambassador I have received the following communication, which I think I ought to read out to the House:
"MR. SPEAKER,
The delegation of members of the National Assembly and the Council of the Republic which the British Parliament kindly invited to the United Kingdom have just returned.
They have been touched by the warm reception given them by the House of Lords and the House of Commons; by the kindness of the Franco-British Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in arranging a number of most interesting visits showing various aspects of British life; as well as by the many friendly demonstrations they have everywhere received.
Our members have particularly appreciated the honour which their Majesties were good enough to pay to the French Parliament in receiving them at Buckingham Palace.
The numerous friendly contacts which our members have made with their British colleagues and the mutual understanding with which various points of view have been discussed, will, without doubt, make our Parliamentary collaboration to which we all look for the future democracy and the welfare of our two countries, productive of happy results in the future.
We hope soon to resume this collaboration in Paris when we may, in our turn, be able to give a welcome to those of our British colleagues who would care to visit the French Parliament
May we offer you, Mr. Speaker, our warmest appreciation for your welcome and assure you of our gratitude and deep respect."
That is signed by M. G. Monnerville, President of the Council of the Republic and M. Herriot, President of the National Assembly.
Hon. Members: Hear hear.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  NIGHT FLYING OPERATIONS, FORD
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the hon. Member for Chichester may expect a reply to any of his letters to his Department, dated, respectively, 1st May, 5th June, 16th June, 8th July and 21st July, all dealing with the question of night-flying training at Ford Aerodrome, Sussex.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): As I informed the hon. Member verbally some time ago, I am not yet able to hold out any hope of the cessation of night-flying operations at Ford. While I regret the disturbance which such operations are bound to cause wherever they take place, they are in fact a necessary part of the training of the officers and men connected with naval aviation.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that he was exploring the possibility of transferring these night-flying training operations to some other locality? Can he say what is the result of his explorations?
  Mr. Dugdale: I regret that, as indicated in this reply, my explorations have not so far been successful. Wherever night-flying operations take place, they are bound to cause disturbance. Another complication is that we have not adequate facilities for night-flying operations at other aerodromes which could take the place of those at Ford.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the Admiralty going to do nothing whatever to ameliorate the conditions of these unfortunate people, who are disturbed night after night, and can get no sleep in that part of the country?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that our Services are suffering from great inconveniences, and will he assure us that their training facilities are not limited by Questions asked in this House, bearing in mind that the week-end should be kept free, but that normal training should take place?

  CABLE AND WIRELESS (SUPERVISORY STAFF)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the offers made to employees of Cable and Wireless employed in the supervisory grade in substitution for the profit-sharing bonus previously enjoyed by them; and whether, in view of the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government when this concern was nationalised, he will arrange for this offer to be increased so as to prevent a reduction in the earnings of this section of the staff.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Yes, Sir. I am aware of these offers. I think that this matter can best be pursued in the negotiations between the company and its employees which, I understand, have not yet been carried to a conclusion.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the assurances that were given to the staff of this company that their position would not be made worse by nationalisation; and is he aware that in the case of the grade to which I invite his attention in this Question, the net effect is a reduction of salary of something in the nature of 30 per cent.?
  Mr. Paling: I think that both parties to these negotiations are aware of the promises, and the whole matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the pledge given by His Majesty's Government, is, in fact, honoured?
  Mr. Paling: I do not at this moment feel inclined to interfere. The negotiations are being carried on through the ordinary channels and in the ordinary way, and I think I would be ill-advised to interfere.
  Mr. Charles Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman be certain to keep the incentive motive going in this particular industry?
  Mr. Paling: I suppose that is always one of the considerations.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Bombing Ranges, Selsey
    Mr. Joynson-Hieksasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will now relieve the apprehensions of, and potential disturbance to, agriculturalists, residents, workers and visitors in the Selsey area by discontinuing its use for bombing ranges, pending a final decision in the matter after full inquiry.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The use of the Earnley range has been suspended until a final decision about its future can be made. The range at Bracklesham Bay is needed for important training and development work, conducted jointly by the Royal Navy and the R.A.F. Its use has, however, been much restricted, and the beach is open to the public at all hours of the day and night.

    Exercises, West Wittering
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Air under what authority members of His Majesty's Forces evacuated the public from the beaches at West Wittering on the afternoon of 31st July; whether he is aware of the consternation and inconvenience caused to the public in that area on the same morning by the exercises of a large number of Meteor aircraft flying at a height of only some hundreds of feet; and what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of these incidents.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: On the afternoon of 30th July, an officer asked the public to leave the beach at West Wittering. In so doing, he acted without authority, and I have ascertained that he was in fact unaware of the orders now in force. I greatly regret his mistake, and I have taken steps to ensure that it shall not happen again. On 31st July, Meteor aircraft took part in a special exercise with the Royal Navy, in which low flying was required.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Secretary of State give any assurance to the people in this locality, who, very largely, are industrial workers and have gone there for a holiday, that they will be able to get some rest and recreation free from the eternal disturbance of the air from low flying aircraft which drop bombs and other impedimenta all over the countryside?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I know there was one incident when two smoke bombs were dropped. I am in correspondence with the hon. Member about it and hope soon to give him a final reply. For the rest, the low flying is avoided, if possible, and I think the nuisance on these beaches is now reduced to the absolute minimum consistent with the necessary training.
    Mr. Bing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that disturbances of this nature are absolutely necessary in view of the excessive concentration of troops of all arms which we have in this country at present?

  AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS (TRADE UNION NEGOTIATIONS)
  Mr. Frank Byersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are the terms of the policy directive issued by his department to the managements of B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C. or B.S.A.A.C. to the effect that their trade union negotiations should take a particular line or be conducted in a particular way.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): No such directive has been issued and my noble Friend has no intention of interfering with the established machinery for such negotiations which, in the case of civil aviation is the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport.
  Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the views of the British Air Line Pilots' Association in any of these negotiations?
  Mr. Lindgren: The organisation referred to is a member of the National Joint Council.

  GERMANY (OCCUPATION FORCES)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the U.S. Government concerning occupation forces in Germany with a view to securing a more equitable distribution of the burden of armed manpower in proportion to population and ability to pay the cost.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): No representations have been made.
  Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister state why no representations have been made and whether it is a fact that the occupation Forces of Britain in Germany are twice as large as those of the Americans; also, has his attention been drawn to statements by American staff officers in Washington last week to the effect that the British Government are maintaining too large occupation Forces in Germany?
  Mr. McNeil: I hope that I did not mislead my hon. Friend. No representations have been made. I should not think that His Majesty's Government would necessarily accept advice upon the disposition of our Forces from an officer in another Force.

  AUSTRIAN OIL REFINERY (SOVIET OCCUPATION)
  Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take regarding the seizure by the Russians of an oil-refining plant in Austria, the disposal of which is under discussion between the Allies.
  Mr. McNeil: The British representatives on the Allied Council for Austria and Austrian Treaty Commission have protested against the occupation by Soviet troops of the Austrian Mineral Oil Works Company Refinery at Lobau on the night of 1st August to 2nd August. Furthermore the British Deputy Commissioner has stated that the Law of the Control Council for Germany quoted as a basis for the Soviet action has no application in Austria; further that reparations cannot be secured from property which is in joint British-American beneficial ownership. The United Kingdom representative on the Austrian Treaty Commission has stated that this unilateral action by the Soviet authorities is in total disregard of the discussions at the Treaty Commission on the question of what are, and what are not, German assets. The subject will be raised at the forthcoming meeting of the Allied Council in Vienna.
  Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that so far no reply has been given by the Russians to these representations?
  Mr. McNeil: A statement has been made quoting an authority for the action, the authority being, we think, only relevant to German procedure and not to Austrian procedure.
  Mr. Granville Sharp: In view of the apparent mystery which surrounds the operation by the Russians of the Austrian mineral oil resources and oil refineries and the apparent failure to supply more than a small proportion of the Austrian oil requirements from Austrian oil resources, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend to continue to press the Russians to adopt his precept of putting their cards on the table face upwards.
  Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government, quite properly I am sure, have been as concerned about Austrian interests in this and allied matters as they have been about their own and about the legality of any behaviour in this area where we are joint operatives.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister state whether this matter is being pressed through the Allied Control Commission, because I gathered from what he said that the protest had been made there but that the reply had been received from some other source?
  Mr. McNeil: We are using three instruments where it is appropriate to apply pressure, one of which is the Commission.

  JAMAICA (TOURIST DEVELOPMENT)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has sent, or proposes to send, to the syndicate which has offered to acquire the Milk River Baths in Jamaica and develop them as a modern pleasure resort.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ivor Thomas): This inquiry is at present being considered by the Government of Jamaica, with whom it rests to decide what response should be made to it.
  Mr. Gammans: Can the Under-Secretary assure the House that no obstacle will be put into the way either in Jamaica or by His Majesty's Government of any reasonable and legitimate schemes for the development of this very useful asset to the tourist trade?
  Mr. Thomas: This question is one that must, I think, be left to the Government of Jamaica.

  MALAYA (RICE RATION)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any further statement to make on the rice situation in Malaya.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir, there has been no new development. All who are concerned with this problem are doing their best to obtain the largest possible quantities of rice for Malaya, consistent with the needs and claims of other rice-eating countries, and with proper regard to price. Every practicable step is also being taken to stimulate local production.
  Mr. Gammans: Is the position the same as it was a few weeks ago when the people of Malaya were getting a considerably smaller rice ration than the people of Japan?
  Mr. Thomas: I have no exact figures of the rice ration in Japan. The position in Malaya certainly is serious and we are doing our best to alleviate it.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Is it not the case that the rice ration in Japan is about 10 ounces, in India about 9½ ounces and in Malaya about 4½ ounces, and will my hon. Friend make representations to secure a more equitable distribution of rice? Further, is he aware that if the rice ration of one of the other countries were reduced by, say, half an ounce, it would enable Malaya to get a sufficient rice ration compared with what is now being issued in other countries, instead of a quite inadequate ration which compels Malaya, and all the Asiatic employees of the Services to be dependent on black market rice, so that the Services must pay a black market price for it.
  Mr. Thomas: I cannot confirm the figures, but certainly the ration in Malaya is lower than in a number of other countries round about and very much lower than we should wish to see.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware of the absolutely desperate position, which cannot be dismissed lightly?

  ARMED FORCES

    Home Strength
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Defence (1) to what extent

    2407
    the proposal to have 700,000 men stationed in this country on 31st March, 1948, will involve an increase in the accommodation required; and to what extent this will involve outlay in works service or further requisitioning of civilian accommodation;
    (2) to what extent the proposal to effect by 31st March, 1948, a net reduction of more than 200,000 men now serving in overseas stations will increase the number of those stationed at home; and for what purposes they will be used.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): On present plans there will be a net reduction in the strength of the Armed Forces in this country by 31st March next. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is accordingly no likelihood that any increase in accommodation will be required.
    Mr. Sharp: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that there are at present over 700,000 men in the Forces stationed in this country?
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. That can be deduced from the figures which were given on 23rd July.
    Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to state the amount of land occupied for training of all the Forces, and can he give any indication when the promised White Paper on this subject will be available?
    Mr. Alexander: I could not give it this morning.
    Mr. James Callaghan: How many of these 700,000 men, or over, are at home at the moment engaged in training and how many of them are not doing anything at all?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister give an assurance that as many of these men as can be spared will spend the next few weeks working on the land?
    Mr. Alexander: A request has been made already for people from the Forces to help with the harvest and that is being granted. In regard to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) the percentages can be given, but I have not got them with me this morning.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will everything possible be done to ensure that Polish workers are employed on the land?
    Mr. Sharp: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the latter part of Question No. 20, which asked "for what purposes they will be used?" Can he say whether he is satisfied that there is a useful purpose which they perform, and which will be performed, by all the men who are stationed at home?
    Mr. Alexander: I am aware of that, but there will be a further answer, I think, to a later Question.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that a regulation is now in force which will prevent people in the Forces from working on the land because they were not agricultural labourers before they joined up? Will he look into that, because there are people who wish to work on the land, but who cannot get agricultural leave, although they are waiting about with nothing to do?
    Mr. Alexander: I will certainly look into the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that there has been an appeal to education authorities in Scotland to free children for the potato harvest, will the answer given by my right hon. Friend enable these troops to be used for the potato harvest and prevent children from being taken from the schools?
    Mr. Alexander: We are allowing men from the Forces to engage in harvest operations, but I think that the use of soldiers will largely be a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On the general issue, can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not be panicked by the economic crisis into a reduction of the Armed Forces below the safety level?
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence for what purposes it is necessary now to maintain 700,000 men and women under arms in Great Britain.
    Mr. Alexander: The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have now reverted to their normal peacetime practice of keeping the bulk of their strength in the United Kingdom and its adjacent waters. The

    2409
    Army, in addition to maintaining its operational, administrative and training base in the United Kingdom, has a considerable range of duties to perform in connection with clearing defence areas, removing ammunition dumps, dealing with ordnance, supply and other depots, etc.
    Mr. Swingler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, now that these figures have been disclosed, there is widespread anxiety in this country that there is a very considerable wastage of manpower in the Armed Forces at home? Will he seriously review the situation, and does he not think that it is about time that this Parliament should be informed of the composition of these Forces in terms of the three Services?
    Mr. Alexander: In regard to the first point, as my hon. Friend knows, we have had manpower committees sitting, and we should welcome evidence from any Members of Parliament of specific instances of wastage to be passed to the committees to be examined in detail, and we hope that will be done. As regards the question of breakdown, I should have to look at that more carefully.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend consider concentrating the bulk of these Forces into clearly defined military areas, thus freeing land and buildings in various parts of the country?
    Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one regulation makes it impossible for hon. Members of this House to make effective representations to the committees, as no effective information is disclosed to the House on which such representation could be made? Will he now state the number of men in the three Armed Forces at present in the United Kingdom, because on that information very strong representations could be made to the manpower committees?
    Mr. Alexander: I have not that information with me this morning, because it does not actually arise upon this Question. I have already said that rather more than half of the home strength referred to previously would be in the Navy and the Air Force.
    Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the House yesterday, the
    2410
    Secretary of State for War stated that the manpower economy committees were not concerned with immediate economy in manpower, but rather with the long-term problem, and, in view of that, will he suggest that the manpower committees in their deliberations should consider the urgent need for securing economy in the Armed Forces now?
    Mr. Alexander: There is not any doubt at all that one of the important functions of the committees is to examine methods, staffs and targets for the long-term problem, and there is every reason why anyone who has any evidence of wastage in any particular instance should bring the evidence to the appropriate committee, who, I am sure, will examine it at once.
    Brigadier Lowasked the Minister of Defence (1), how many of the 750,000 men, approximately, in the forces who are at present serving at home belong to the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F., respectively; and how many of the 707,000 estimated to be serving at home on 31st March, 1948, he estimates will belong then to the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F., respectively;
    (2) whether he will state, for each of the three Services, what is the respective percentage of men now serving at home, undergoing training, on the teaching or permanent staff of training establishments or units, in ships, units or formations which belong to the home establishment for other than training or administrative reasons, on administrative duties connected with the supply and maintenance of equipment, other than headquarter's personnel, and on headquarters above unit level.
    Mr. Alexander: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made in replying to the Debate on the Adjournment on Monday last, in which I gave the maximum information I prudently could.
    Brigadier Low: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, at any rate, between now and the time when Parliament next meets, and does he not realise that much of the doubt and opposition to him is due to the fact that we have had far too little information upon which we can make up our minds?
    Mr. Alexander: We must be, at least, one of the first two countries in the world which give the most information, and we do not get anything like the same information from other countries.
    Mr. C. Williams: May I ask what proportion of these Forces are on the Continent, or are those Forces included in the figures of those in the British Isles?
    Mr. Alexander: That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. In the redistribution plan for bringing men home from abroad, the figure of approximately 300,000 will include the German occupation Forces.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Will my right hon. Friend give the break-down figures, and let us know how many women there are in the Armed Forces, because many people think that a woman in the Forces is wasted?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the complaints which we have heard in the House this morning and outside in the country about the number of men banging about doing nothing would be completely obviated if the right hon. Gentleman would give special attention to maintaining an adequate inflow of new weapons and keeping the Army and the other Services up to date?
    Mr. Alexander: There is always a great difficulty with priorities in this matter. The main thing we have had to do has been to speed up our production for export and civilian purposes, and, for the time being, we have had to live on the fat of the accumulated war supplies.
    Mr. Callaghan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the 700,000 men now held in the Forces are being kept because of a strict adherence to the age and service principle of the release scheme?
    Mr. Alexander: I should not say so, in broad terms. There may be some cases of that kind in the Army, but certainly not in the other Services. In our general review of the situation, we are examining the question whether that will not have to be altered.
    Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider giving some of the
    2412
    information asked for in Question No. 24, even though he cannot give all the information, because, even if we got some of the information for the Army only, I think it would help hon. Members of this House and the people in the country to have some slight understanding of what all these men are required for?
    Mr. Alexander: I will look into that matter. There have been certain security reasons advanced to me, which I have accepted, but I will certainly look into it again.

    Demobilisation Procedure (Staff)
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the substantial increase in demobilisation necessitated from 1st April, 1948, to 31st December, 1948, by the lower rate of release between now and 31st March, 1948, will involve an increase in the staff dealing with demobilisation procedure; and whether he will avoid this by increasing the rate of release between now and 31st March, 1948, and, at the same time, provide manpower urgently required by industry.
    Mr. Alexander: It is not expected that any increase in staff will be required for this purpose.

  INDIAN TEA (EXPORTERS' OFFER)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food what action he is taking on the offer conveyed to him on 23rd July by Messrs. H. S. Hames-Mathew on behalf of Indian tea exporters to supply, at once, any quantity of tea.
  Mr. Simmons (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. All offers of tea received by the Ministry of Food are considered on their merits. The prices quoted by Messrs. Hamer-Mathew were considerably above the prevailing rates, and, accordingly, the firm were informed that the Ministry was not prepared to accept their offer.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his answer which bases the refusal to take this tea on the question of price is completely inconsistent with the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary last week that all the tea that could be

  2413
  obtained was being obtained, but despite that the tea ration had to be reduced?
  Mr. Simmons: I understand that it was open to all Indian tea producers to offer their tea to the Tea Control in Calcutta, and that the tenders were asked for, but that the total offers received were in excess of the quantity which the Indian Government were prepared to allow us to purchase by private contract, and that, therefore, the offers had to be scaled down proportionately.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that that is the third inconsistent explanation which has been given to the country for this shortage?

  TIMBER IMPORTS (REDUCTIONS)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Health what reduction in the number of houses to be permitted for other than agricultural workers and miners is anticipated to result from the reduction by £10,000,000 in the value of timber to be imported in the next 12 months.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there must be other sources of supplies of timber available, and cannot he tell us whether he is doing something to enable these sources to be made available for housing purposes?
  Mr. Bevan: Every effort is being made by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade to get softwood for housing and hardwood for furniture from various parts of the world, and he has had a certain amount of success. In the meantime, there need be no apprehension about our own housing programme. At any rate, the contracts will not be interfered with, and there is sufficient timber coming forward for houses already under construction.
  Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade why he refuses to grant a licence for the import of 73,000 scaffold boards from Luxemburg?
  Mr. Bevan: That, of course, is a question which ought to be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I will certainly make inquiries, because I am quite sure that, as usual, the hon. Member's information is inaccurate.
  Mr. Sharp: Can the Minister say what proportion of the £10,000,000 reduction on timber will affect the timber required for houses?
  Mr. Bevan: I am not yet in a position to apportion it, because we do not know how far it will fall on the rest of the building programme. But the House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about the building programme being reduced. It does not necessarily follow that any substantial effect will fall upon domestic housing.
  Major Guy Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman want the local authorities to understand from his statement that, when they are frustrated in building houses, his Ministry will never again say that it is due to a shortage of timber?
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not interpret what I have said beyond the frontier of what I have said. Indeed, the local authorities are not being frustrated; they are being released to build houses, and they are extremely grateful because of the fact that this is the first Government to give them a chance to build houses.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned apply also to Scotland?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, it is a United Kingdom figure.
  Mr. J. H. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman says that all existing programmes will not be affected by the £10,000,000 cut, but can he give some indication as to when future programmes are likely to start?
  Mr. Bevan: I did not say programmes; I said contracts. Obviously, it is not possible for me to outline any modifications in the housing programme in answer to suppleraentary questions, but, when we return from the Recess, I shall certainly be prepared to make a full statement.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH (CALL-UP)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the proposed reduction in the Forces, he will reconsider the call-up of the medical officer of health for Enfield.
  Mr. Bevan: I am advised that this medical officer's services are still required by the Forces, though the future needs of the medical branches of the Forces will, of course, be subject to review in the light of the proposed reduction.
  Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give very careful reconsideration to this matter, in view of the fact that this medical officer of health is 38 years of age and had only been able to be a full-time medical officer of health for Enfield for 12 months, that a deputy has only recently been named, and that the health centre will be seriously affected if this officer is called up?
  Mr. Bevan: As my hon. Friend knows, very careful inquiry has been made into this matter, but it is not fair that doctors should be retained in the Forces beyond a just period in order that other doctors may remain in civil life. There is always a matter of equity between the one to be called up and the one to be released, and that has always to be taken into account.
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Health the number of full-time medical officers of health that have been called up to serve with His Majesty's Forces during 1947; and their number over 30, 35 and 40 years of age, respectively.
  Mr. Bevan: Four whole-time public health medical officers have been called up during 1947, and two others are now under consideration for recruitment, Another has been nominated for call-up, but has been granted postponement on grounds of personal hardship. All these are over 35 and under 40.
  Mr. Davies: In view of his reply, does my right hon. Friend really believe that there are not cases where the detrimental effect would be less than in the case of Enfield, which has a population of over 100,000?
  Mr. Bevan: I admire my hon. Friend for pushing Enfield's claims, but I must
  2416
  have regard to the claims of the country as a whole. I think he will realise from what I have said that very few medical officers of health have been called up, and that, therefore, the danger to public health is not great.
  Mr. Edward Evans: Is it not a fact that the proportion of medical officers in the Services is about four times as great as that in civil life?
  Mr. Bevan: I do not know whether my hon. Friend means medical officers or doctors, They are in completely different categories. But I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very conscious of the need for more doctors in civil life, and the Forces will not be allowed to steal more than they can justly claim.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (STREET TRADER)
  Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement in the case of Harry Joseph Stevelman.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): This young man has now registered for National Service, and has already been medically examined.
  Mr. Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that there are reasons to believe that this is not an isolated case, and that this man is one of a growing class of people; and, further, will he consider with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what steps can be taken to get rid of these petty crooks and leave street trading to decent honest traders.
  Mr. Isaacs: On the information that we have about this young man, I do not think it is reasonable to put him in the class of petty crooks. After all, street sellers might be unnecessary, but that is no reason for calling them "petty crooks." So far as the question of making use of any manpower of that kind is concerned, when we have the powers for which the House has been asked, we shall take steps to see whether they can be used in that direction.
  Mr. Greenwood: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that this man has been fined £1,000 during the last 12

  2417
  months, and if he does not consider that to be evidence of petty crockery, will he say what is?
  Mr. Isaacs: If the question of petty crookery is based on the amount of money that people can make by the exercise of their wits, then there are lots of people who ought to be brought into that category. My opinion is that these people will be called up irrespective of whether they are petty crooks or large crooks.
  Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that until this Bill which we are discussing becomes an Act of Parliament, he has no power to deal with these people?
  Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

  BUILDINGS, RICHMOND PARK (USE)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Works for what purpose he proposes to use the buildings in Richmond Park, shortly to be vacated by 102 Convalescent Depot.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): When the convalescent depot is vacated, which will probably be about the end of the year, it is proposed to use the buildings to house competitors in the 1948 Olympic Games.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the fact that the Kingston Council applied to his Department for the use of these premises for housing the homeless, and is it really the decision of his Department that it is better to use this accommodation for the housing of international athletes, than for the housing of thousands of homeless people?
  Mr. Durbin: It would not be possible, as the Amendment to the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1945, was withdrawn, to use these buildings in a Royal Park for housing purposes?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that with the permission of his Department that would be possible?
  Mr. Durbin: Since the decision was taken that the Olympic Games should be
  2418
  held in this country we are under the necessity of finding appropriate accommodation for the visiting athletes, such accommodation must be reasonably near to the scene of the meeting, and these are unquestionably the most logical premises to use for the purpose.

  SEVERN BRIDGE SCHEME
  Mr. Molsonasked the Minister of Transport the present position with regard to the Severn Bridge and the Government's intentions in the matter.
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Transport whether instructions have been issued to suspend the erection of the Severn Bridge; and, in view of its urgent need for developing transport and trade between Wales and South-west England and the continued unemployment in this area, if he will give every possible priority to its completion.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): This scheme, together with other major schemes of capital equipment, is under consideration, and my right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that it was not under consideration on 22nd July when the Order was made?
  Mr. Strauss: There is no question of the scheme not being carried out. It is only a question of time. It is a very necessary and desirable scheme in the interests of South Wales.
  Mr. George Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Transport has assured the House that this scheme is part of the rehabilitation of South Wales, and will my hon. Friend emphasise to his right hon. Friend that this scheme should have a very high priority if South Wales is to get back on to its feet?
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend fully agrees with that.
  Mr. Freeman: Does not my hon. Friend also think that this scheme will help to cement the friendship between these two great countries?
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the Minister give a clear answer to this question?

  2419
  Are they going on with the Severn Bridge, or are they not?
  Mr. Strauss: I cannot say anything further than what I have already said, namely, that this proposal and other schemes of capital expenditure will be considered very shortly.
  Mr. Callaghan: When the Department are reconsidering this scheme, will they bear in mind that there is no point in stopping it while there is a large reserve of unemployed, unless those men are going into the export trades? Further, will the Department also bear in mind that if they do not supply another 10,000 tons of structural steel to South Wales, they will not get the export factories completed anyway, and they will just continue to have unemployment?
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. That is one of the factors which we have in mind.

  NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
  Mr. Dribergasked the Attorney-General, if his attention has been called to the seditious libel contained in an editorial article in the "Morecambe and Heysham Visitor" of 6th August, which is professedly anti-Semitic in character and commends the use of violence against the Jewish community in Britain; and what action he is taking.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): My attention has been drawn to the publication referred to by my hon. Friend, which I have forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
  Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if the existing law and powers prove inadequate to deal wth this most dangerous disease of anti-Semitism, it may be necessary to introduce new legislation?
  The Attorney-General: I have no doubt of the deplorable character of this movement, or, indeed, of the article in question, of which the avowed intention is to create anti-Semitism. Whether it involves any breach of the criminal law is a matter which is now going to receive consideration in connection with this article. The wider aspects of the matter will certainly be looked at in the light of
  2420
  the result of the consideration to which I have referred.
  Mr. McGovern: Will the Attorney-General bear in mind that while deprecating anti-Semitism, sometimes when one tries to cure an evil one only extends it, and that it is far better to allow public opinion and reasoned opinion in this country to operate instead of going in for wholesale repression which may affect more than the people concerned?
  The Attorney-General: I quite agree. That is a very important consideration and and one to which, of course, we have regard, both in connection with prosecutions in particular cases, and in connection with the wider aspect of the matter which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg).
  Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Attorney-General aware that anti-Semitism is, in its essence, an incitement to murder, and should it not be treated as the crime which it really is?
  Mr. Bechervaise: While hoping that some action will be taken against this movement, may I ask the Attorney-General at the same time to consider some of the violent anti-British propaganda?

  SURGICAL BOOTS (DELIVERIES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that a disabled ex-Service man, case No. 2/MH/2984, is unable to follow his employment on a seed farm at Kelvedon, Essex, because his surgical boots are completely unserviceable; that renewal of boots was due last December and that this man was remeasured for them at a Ministry of Pension's clinic on 14th January last; that he has for seven months addressed repeated appeals to the Department's regional office at Cambridge, but has still not received his new boots; and if he will expedite the provision of these boots and explain the cause of this long delay.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): The order, which was placed on 16th January, two days after the man was measured, involved the making of a new last by the contractor. Owing to a shortage of skilled labour there is, in general,

  2421
  delay in the delivery of new boots and the position is especially difficult when a new last has to be made. In this case, delivery of the new boots has been promised within a fortnight from now. Appropriate allowances will be paid for any period during which the pensioner has been prevented from working. To help in remedying the position as a whole, some disabled ex-Service men have been taken into training, and a number of European volunteer workers have recently been brought to this country and are employed at the factory of our principal contractors.

  TOBACCO DUTY (OLD AGE PENSIONERS)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon the special arrangements for enabling old age pensioners to get tobacco cheaply will be in force.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. On 13th October next.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this decision could be made retrospective from the introduction of the Budget?

  BINDER CANVASES (REPAIR MATERIALS)
  Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is
  2422
  aware that there is an acute shortage in Liskeard, Cornwall, of ash slats or rods for repairing binder canvases; and if he will make supplies available with speed in order that these canvases can be repaired in time to cut this year's corn.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): There is a shortage of ash generally, but my attention has not previously been called to any particular difficulty in Liskeard. I am, however, making inquiries.
  Mr. Marshall: Has the hon. Gentleman received the letter which I have sent to him, and will he make particular inquiries with regard to the specific matter which I mentioned in that letter?
  Mr. Belcher: I received the letter in my office this morning. We have taken the matter up with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do all we can, as we recognise the importance of the matter.
  Earl Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a quantity of good ash which can be cut in Surrey, Sussex and the Home Counties if we get the labour? Will the hon. Gentleman take the matter up with the Ministry of Labour, because they are crying out for labour in those places?
  Mr. Belcher: Certainly. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to communicate with me and let me have the details.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered:
  "That Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House this day until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Six o'clock adjourn the House without Question put."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House, at its rising this Day, do adjourn till Monday, 20th October."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
11.47 a.m.
Mr. Eden: I beg to move, to leave out from "till", to the end of the Question, and to add: "Tuesday, 16th September."
This is a manuscript Amendment. I feel the more emboldened in this course by events which occurred in another place yesterday. It would not be in Order to quote those events, but I think it would be a fair summary if I were to say that when in another place a number of noble Lords thought it desirable that the House should meet earlier, the Lord Chancellor, at least, did not show himself in any way hostile to the proposal. I hope—in fact, I feel sure—that there will not be any differences among the Government on this point. We know there never are any differences among the Government, and I feel sure, therefore, that we can count on the Lord President to be at least as forthcoming as was the Lord Chancellor in another place. If he feels able to meet us in the same spirit and temper, we shall have made remarkable progress.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The right hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that it is another place.
Mr. Eden: It is the same Government, or it ought to be. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) must not interrupt, because I have noted a vote which he gave a little time ago. He voted against adjourning for six weeks in the year in which we were winning the war, so he had better be careful not to vote in favour of adjourning for 10 weeks on this occasion.
I want to ask the House to consider our position and to examine the reasons why,
2424
in all seriousness, we on this side of the House urge the recall of the House on the date which I have mentioned, namely, 16th September. Nobody will deny—unhappily, nobody can deny—that this country is in a balance of payments crisis, and, according to the estimate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us yesterday, the American loan will have run out before the House re-assembles, if it does re-assemble on the date suggested in October. There will then be a yawning gap, with little except our reserves of gold and free exchange available to bridge that gap; and, we are all agreed, as the Chancellor told us the other day, that we must not fritter away those last reserves.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: What do the Government propose to do to meet this situation—the final exhaustion of the American Loan—which will arise before this House resumes, on the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself? We do not know what the Government propose to do. All that we have been told so far is that there are to be some cuts in imports, cuts which may, perhaps, reduce this yawning gap by—shall we say?—a third, probably more nearly a quarter. We have also been told there is to be some increase in exports, but not, I should imagine, before we return in October. That increase in exports can only come about at a considerably later date. The Government have not claimed it will be sooner than that.
So we are in the position that we are to adjourn in the certain knowledge that the American loan will run out before we resume, and with no information from the Government as to what they propose to do in these conditions. I say deliberately that such a situation is quite unprecedented. What we are asked to do is to adjourn when the Government have no plan—to adjourn, if you will, to enable the Government to seek for a plan; in other words, to adjourn to enable the Government to do something which they ought to have begun to do a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman feels any doubt as to the justice of these observations, let him re-read—because I am sure he must have read it before—the letter in the "Daily Herald" of last Friday signed by 19 of his own supporters on the back benches.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman must be in a bad way if he has to quote them in support.
Mr. Eden: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should say that.
Mr. Morrison: Why not quote 19 Tory Members?
Mr. Eden: I am speaking for the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. I am drawing the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he could not speak for the views of those behind him on this occasion. I hope that is quite clear. It seems to me that some of the arguments there adduced are worthy of consideration. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is what we feel about the present situation, and about the decision to adjourn for so long a period, when the Government have not only shown a lack of foresight but have already shown a stubborn unwillingness to face the facts which were apparent to any person of average intelligence without any of the Government's special sources of information. That was true of the fuel crisis last winter, and it is true also of the balance of payments crisis with which we are confronted now.
I am going to quote just one other witness in my support for saying that this Adjournment is too long. I say that we cannot leave the Government in sole charge for this long period in view of the extent to which they have misjudged the situation up to date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in this House in the spring said this:
"Questions have been raised also about the overseas balances in regard to which I would refer those who have spoken, particularly those who have spoken in terms of great gloom, to a very clear and cogent article, which I read this morning in the 'Daily Herald' by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay). I am sure that any hon. Member who has not read his 'Daily Herald' this morning, would profit by reading, at any rate, this article."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1068–9.]
I turned up the article. My reason for quoting it in this connection is to show how impossible it is to leave the Government in sole charge of our affairs for two and a half months when they can so misread the situation as also does this article. This is what the hon. Member for North Battersea wrote:
2426
"I have heard talk lately about the alleged rapid rate at which the American loan is being used up. The talk is grossly exaggerated. The loan is, in fact, being used more slowly than we expected it would. Therefore, do not be misled by the alarmists who argue from nightmares rather than from facts and figures. They say that the American loan—they usually forget the Canadian loan—will be used up by next winter. The truth is, I repeat, that the two loans are likely to last for about two years from now."
That was the article which the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few short months ago commended with the warmest commendation to the House.
Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if matters of this kind are pursued, will not the Debate range very widely indeed beyond the Question before us, which is the date of the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: This is one of the Debates which it is very difficult to control, because, after all, there may be hundreds of reasons for limiting the Adjournment, and hon. Members must be allowed to state them.
Mr. Eden: I hoped I had made my argument clear. The reason why I quoted this article and its commendation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to show how impossible it is to place any confidence in the forecasts of His Majesty's present advisers about the state of the balance of payments or anything else in our economic position. That being the position, I do not feel, and my hon. and right hon. Friends do not feel, that it is possible to adjourn this House for a period of 10 weeks. If the Government had a plan, a plan endorsed by the House and endorsed by the nation, which they were to work, it would be a different state of affairs which could be examined accordingly. We have, however, now come to a most remarkable point, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all men, could so completely misread the situation so short a time ago.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: Was the article to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in the "Daily Herald" in February?
Mr. Eden: March.
Mr. McLeavy: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the

2427
House when the increase of prices started—the ramp in America? Would it not be true to say that the statements in the article were perfectly true at that particular time when it was published?
Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed. The rise in prices has been going on for the last two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would add this—I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it is quite correct—that the rise in prices was actually steeper just about the time that this article was written. At any rate, I do not think there is anybody who now says—is there anybody who now says?—that in March it was impossible to foresee what was going to happen now. If so, why did the article rebuke us for the warnings we uttered?
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the rise in prices became particularly steep at the time when the United States Government decided to adopt the policy which the Conservatives were advocating in this country?
Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to make that point. I am simply dealing with the facts, and the facts are that, as recently as last March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer commended an article which completely misread the situation.
Mr. Driberg: It is perfectly true that the increase of prices started earlier, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only between two and three months since President Truman made a speech regarding the recent very considerable increase of prices?
Mr. Eden: I am perfectly aware of the President's speeches, and I am aware that there has been a rise in prices. But are hon. Gentlemen really going to tell me that in March this year it was impossible for the Government, with all their knowledge of the facts, to foresee that there was going to be a rise in prices? If they are going to tell me that, I say that no Government of this country have ever made so pitiable an excuse to the House of Commons.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Since the right hon. Gentleman did quote
2428
an article of mine, perhaps I may just say this. What I said in that article was, that at the existing rate of dollar drawings the American and Canadian loans would together last to a certain date; and let me say that it was perfectly correct at that time. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at "The Economist" of 5th April he will see that they made exactly the same calculation.
Mr. Eden: I am not in any way criticising the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I am not. Perhaps the House would be patient and allow me to develop my argument; I have given way several times already. I am not complaining of the hon. Member's statement, any more than I should complain if I or any other hon. Member on this side of the House, with our sources of public information, had happened to misread the situation. What I am complaining of is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is the one man who ought to know better, who has the sources of information available at the Treasury, and who must know about the trends of prices and what they are likely to be in the immediate future—should so utterly have misread the situation a few months ago. That is what I complain of. If hon. Members opposite find that satisfactory, then I make them a present of that satisfaction. I can only say that to me it seems a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I apologise to the House that I should be taking a little longer than I intended——
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Member went rather far from the point.
Mr. Eden: I was pushed farther. I like to give way to hon. Members opposite, for if they wish to make a contribution that is what the House is for. I said that Parliament has been given no explanation about what will happen in October, or what will be the various measures to increase our exports, which is to be one of the methods of bridging this gap. Therefore, I say that the suggestion that Parliament should adjourn for so long in these circumstances is unacceptable to us.
I want to put to the House two or three questions which have still not been answered, which should, I think, convince any hon. Member that we cannot disperse for so long a time. We have not yet been told—as was evidenced at Question Time today in regard to the Severn

2429
Bridge—what reduction the Government propose to make in the present estimates of capital expenditure. What are they to be? Presumably, during the Recess some form of answer will be worked out to that question, but I say the House should be available to receive that answer and to discuss it. What steps will be taken to meet the current inflationary pressure, which has been referred to by the Chancellor, and the certainty of greater inflation when the loan runs out before we meet again, and to deal with the effect of further cuts in consumer goods when they make themselves felt? What will be done about that? Again, we have not yet been told the answer to that question. All the Chancellor did was to pose the problem, but to provide no solution. What is to be decided about the coal production programme? Are the Government still persisting with the extra half-hour a day, or are they now thinking of the 11-day fortnight? Which is it to be? Those are matters which the House must be told. Or, is there some other plan? On all these issues we are still without information.
What is the Government's intention in respect of the direction of labour? Do they intend to apply the Control of Engagements Order? When and how do they intend to apply direction of labour, and what will the penalty be? Those are questions of the greatest moment to every one of us, and I say it is unreasonable that the House should adjourn for 10 weeks while the Government make up their minds on these issues, without our being informed what the decisions are. The country has not been given, neither through the House of Commons or through the Prime Minister's broadcast, any effective account of how the present difficulties of our balance of payments are to be surmounted. That is hardly disputed anywhere. Every day evidence grows that the Government have, in fact, neither plan nor policy.
I just want to say a few words about the actual date we have chosen.
Mr. H. Morrison: Hear, hear.
Mr. Eden: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says that. I was about to try to explain the merits of this particular date, which I am sure he would like to hear. I know as we all know that the House has had a gruelling Session, and that all hon. Members, including Ministers,
2430
are tired. That is accepted. We on this side of the House naturally think that perhaps the time of the Session might have been better devoted to examination of some of the problems by which we are now in danger of being overwhelmed, rather than to other matters, but it would be out of Order to go into that now. I concede at once that the Session has been a long one, and I also concede that the House must adjourn for a while. We do not propose in our suggestion that the House should sit for long when it resumes in September, but we do ask that at that date we should meet to review the situation, and to satisfy ourselves that the Government have, at long last, got a plan by then to meet the situation.
It is, I repeat, the absence of a Government plan or a Government policy which makes the present course inevitable. If the Government had a plan, endorsed by the House and the nation, we should feel differently; but they have no such plan. Today, they ask for a blank cheque in respect of policy for the next two and a half months, just as yesterday they were asking for a blank cheque in respect of our liberties for the next three years. No House of Commons should grant either of those things to the present administration, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members of this House cannot be content to be absent spectators while the Government do the splits over an ever-widening abyss. That is the situation which is developing before us. The situation which now confronts this country is, we would all agree, one of the utmost gravity. In many respects I think many of us are more concerned with the present situation than we were even in the darkest days of 1940. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in those conditions the House has no right to take a long Adjournment. The request that we make is a modest and a reasonable one, and I trust the Government will accept it in that sense. If they accept it they will show themselves sensible of the task that confronts them, and sensible of their responsibilities both to this House and to the nation.
12.7 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: Had times been normal, undoubtedly Members of the Government and hon. Members of the House of Commons would have been entitled to a rather long rest. We have

2431
had one of the most strenuous Sessions that this House has ever had, and undoubtedly Members of the Government and hon. Members of the House are tired, But times are not normal. In fact, everybody has been admitting—the Prime Minister, hon. Members, and others elsewhere—that we are face to face with one of the most critical, if not the most critical, economic situation this country has ever faced; yet we are now proposing to adjourn for the long period of 10 weeks.
Before passing to other matters, I wish to point out the very serious psychological effect which that is bound to have upon the people of the country, upon the constituents of every one of us. The fact that this critical situation has been growing, has not only been known to the people but advertised on the walls by the Government for quite a long period. The nation has been told: "We Work or Want." It has been my fate, time and time again since 1939, living in the very serious days we have passed through since that year, to ask the Government not to adjourn this House for as long as they have done. Events are moving so rapidly nowadays—and they have been moving particularly rapidly during the last six months, as everyone admits—that they are not only marching along, but actually hurtling along. It is difficult for anyone to prophesy not merely what the position may be in a month's time, but what it may be in about a week's time. I would recall to the House that on 7th May, 1940, the Government of that day proposed to adjourn, with the consent of all sides at that time, and I then had to move an Amendment that the House should not adjourn because of the seriousness of the situation. It turned out that I was right, because the very day after the House adjourned Holland and Belgium were put completely and absolutely under the heel of Germany. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Did you know about that?"] I do not know why the hon. Member laughs.
Mr. William Adams: I can tell the right hon. and learned Member. He said that he had moved that the House should not adjourn in 1940. Is he doing so now, because if not, his argument falls to the ground?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member was not following what I said. I was saying that
2432
events are moving so rapidly that it is completely wrong to ask the House to go away for such a long period as 10 weeks, Hon. Members ask why we should adjourn for even a month. If I disagree at all with the Amendment, it is that even one month is far too long a period. However, it is far better than an Adjournment for twice as long.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman overlooking the fact that Parliament can, if necessary, be easily recalled?
Mr. Eden: Only by the Government.
Mr. Davies: I am glad that that question has been asked. Under a Sessional Order made at the beginning of the Session—and we could not foresee last November that the Government would be sending the House away at such a critical moment as this—the Government provided that Parliament could not be recalled except on the initiative of the Government. If there had not been this change in procedure, I should have moved an Amendment, which is on the Order Paper, asking that not only shall the initiative be in the hands of the Government, but also in the hands of 40 Members on sending a written request to Mr. Speaker for the recall of Parliament. Unfortunately, I cannot have that matter debated before the House adjourns.
Events are moving extraordinarily rapidly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) quoted what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last March, but only a month ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling us that the amount of drawings on dollars was perfectly normal. What is more, if the reports in the newspapers this morning are correct, the report from Paris ought to be ready by 1st September, as the conference is aiming to complete its work by that date. That report will have to be considered by His Majesty's Government. Not only will they have to consider it, but they will have to come to a quick decision, and that decision will affect not only the people of this country, but the people of Europe as a whole. That being so, their decision ought to be discussed in the forum of the House of Commons, and should not be kept locked in their breast until we return at the end of October. We have been without a plan and without a policy

2433
to deal with this economic situation. That has been admitted even by the Prime Minister when he last made a speech in the House. We want to know and discuss the Government's plans to deal with the situation, and I ask the Government to give a fixed date when their plans and policy will be ready, and the measures they propose to enforce under the Bill, now in another place, to deal with the labour situation, the material situation and capital expenditure.
The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) got very excited about the Severn Bridge, but when the Government have to take action in that matter, he will be away in Cardiff. He will not even know about the decision which has been taken, and he will be unable to ask any questions. The decisions the Government will be taking will affect individuals, industries, businesses and everything else, and I say to the Government that it is absolutely wrong in these circum-stances to ask us to go away for such an extended period. If agreed to this September date, we could reassemble and then discuss whether there should be a further Adjournment. The Government having announced to the House their decisions, the House could then discuss them, and then, if necessary, we could adjourn for another week or so. I say again, that it is far too long to postpone the decisions which will have to be taken and the discussions on those decisions which ought to take place.
12.18 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I regard this issue the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). In my view, as Members of Parliament we were elected to look after and safeguard the interests of our constituents and the nation. One of the main and proper functions of Parliament is to keep an eye on the Executive, and that function becomes even more vital when half the Executive, to quote from an apt description in the "Daily Telegraph" this morning, is flaccid and frightened, and the other half is frightened and frenzied. If we were to comply with the Motion on the Order Paper, we should be abdicating our duties as Members of Parliament and deserting our country and our constituents in the moment of their greatest crisis.
Mr. Pritt: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell the House how many times in the last Parliament he voted against similar proposals to recall Parliament?
Sir T. Moore: That is one of the usual irrelevant interjections made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). As my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, we are dealing with the situation which exists today, and not with a situation which existed five or seven years ago. I was saying that we are deserting our people in the hour of their greatest crisis. But the trouble, the tragedy is that our people have ceased to believe that there is a crisis. Why should they believe it, since although the Government were assisted by the entire Press of the nation during the past few weeks, they so fumbled and fiddled with the issue that the people have now sunk back into the pathetic apathy they were bludgeoned into during six years of war and two years of Socialism?
Are they to be blamed? They looked for a clarion call, they waited for an inspired voice, but they were denied even a noble enterprise, and all they got was fiddling, tinkering and vacuity. What were we told a few days ago as the inspiration on which we should take off our coats, and get down to saving the nation? We were told that the Government had decided to fix a target for the steel output. I think the country was justified in viewing that suggestion with a certain amount of cynicism when they remembered the targets for coal and for houses which have been long since discredited. Then, of course, we had that noble exhortation of the Prime Minister to women to come back into industry—to forsake their washtubs, their queues and their housework—and all this at the same time as the miners were enjoying a five-day week and children were being kept an extra year at school in spite of the fact that we are short of the schools, teachers and text-books to teach them with.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going even wider than usual.
Sir T. Moore: I will come back to the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite never like to hear the truth, and as far as possible

2435
they deliberately close their ears to any exposures of the vacuity and fatuity of the Government from this side. I should like to ask the Leader of the House what the Government are going to do in the Recess. What are they going to do about production? As my right hon. Friend has said, they have no plan and have advanced no justification for the Recess. No doubt as he said, they are tired——
Mr. Speaker: What the Government are going to do during the Recess is not really a question which is applicable to this Debate. After all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) gave certain questions which he thought ought to be answered on 16th September, but he did not ask what the Government were to do during the Recess. He merely wished to indicate certain questions which he was prepared to ask at that date.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You say that what the Government may do during the Recess is not appropriate to this Debate, but if they were to regulate labour during the Recess would that not be a reason for this House being recalled on 16th September?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter in which it is for me to say "yes" or "no," but that was not the question which the hon. and gallant Member was asking. He was asking the broad question what the Government were going to do during the Recess and was not referring to a specific action. That more or less specific question was included by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in a general question.
Sir T. Moore: My point was that I would feel happier in allowing the Government to have this Recess if I knew that they were going to use it wisely, but they have given us no indication that they are going to use it at all. If, on this question of production, they would tell us even today that they have a plan for definitely increasing production instead of merely fixing vain targets, circumstances would be quite different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said in a very notable and distinguished book called "The Rise and
2436
Fall of the ex-Socialist Government "—which you can buy at any good bookshop—owing to the attitude of the Government now there are only two means by which, during the Recess or any other time, they can increase production. Those means are the carrot or the stick. By the Bill which is now awaiting Royal Assent the Government have thrown over the carrot and the encouragement of incentive, and are using the method of the stick. If they go on as they are going it will be the stick of unemployment and hunger.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going all over the place, so to speak, and he must get back more or less to the question of the date when we are to return. I must say that I do not think that this is an occasion when those who were unfortunate enough not to catch my eye during the recent Debate should attempt to make the speeches which they wanted to make on that occasion.
Sir T. Moore: I would say, "touché," but believe me, Sir, I had a much more powerful speech to make than this, but my recognition of the possibility of being called to Order guided me in cutting out a great portion of it. In response to your request I will conclude my remarks by saying that no one willingly hands over a high-powered and, therefore, dangerous motorcar to an epileptic. Certainly, no one would travel in it, but what are we doing? We are doing exactly that today. During the past few days we have given a powerful instrument to an incompetent and inept Government and, therefore, the whole future of this country is now in danger because it has been left in their hands without the criticism or safeguard of Parliament for the next ten weeks.
12.26 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: Knowing Parliamentary procedure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was able this morning to ramble over a great field of Government activities, occasionally bringing in the date 16th September, but I want to suggest to the House that the reasons he put forward for our coming back on 16th September were far better reasons for not adjourning at all. There is, therefore, a degree of

2437
humbug—I do not know whether that is a Parliamentary expression but if it were I should say that it was humbug——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say it, because it is un-Parliamentary.
Mr. Messer: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, has it not in fact been ruled that "humbug" is a Parliamentary expression.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am now giving a Ruling that it is not Parliamentary, and that that will have to stand as far as this Debate is concerned.
Mr. G. Thomas: I think I can help by saying that I will not speak my thoughts aloud. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the impression this morning that he was seeking another stick with which to beat the Government—that it was not a question of the Adjournment at all but merely another excuse to try to create some feeling that the Government, and in particular this Front Bench, were not doing their duty by having a break at the present time. There seems to be a mistaken idea opposite, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party—who has now been joined by one other Member of his party——
Mr. C. Davies: That is cheap.
Mr. Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is cheap. This morning the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hysterical and foolish in the line that he took. I know Wales, I know Welshmen when they are excited, and we had an excitable Welshman there who was carried away with some deep feeling that somehow or another he had to hit at this side. He reminded me of the fact that before I came to this House I was a schoolmaster, and that it used to be my task on occasions to mark exercises. As I was correcting them—I do not mind giving this professional tip—I was saying to myself "accuracy, presentation, context," and I gave marks for them, and further marks for neatness. Neatness would not have entered into it in the presentation of the right hon. Gentleman's case. When it came to context I asked myself, "What is he really saying? What substantially worth counting has he brought forward?"
2438
At the end I said to myself, "Words, words, and still more words, without any reasoned argument——"
Mr. Price - White: The hon. Member has described the right hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) as an excitable Welshman, and has implied that excitable Welshmen are a danger. Can he say, before he leaves this part of his subject, whether the nine Welshmen who are now in the Government, are also a danger?
Mr. Thomas: Hon. Members may not realise that that is an example of humour from North Wales.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the House will get back to the Debate on the Amendment.
Mr. Thomas: I will leave the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is certainly creating the danger of making me excited as well. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) was quoting what some hon. Members had been saying on this side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member, who is remembered of course for his remarkable article in the "Daily Mail"—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Member, and I appreciate his reaction. I would be sensitive if I had written such an article. I know it is the accustomed duty of the Opposition to oppose, but apparently this Opposition have a link with the Liberal group who are here, and it is just as well for the country to know how many are left here.
Mr. C. Davies: The hon. Member is engaged in the usual habit of some Members opposite, of sneering. I can assure him that I and my colleagues are much more faithful in our attendance in this House than most.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see what all this has to do with the Amendment, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member will not pursue this subject any further, but return to the Amendment under discussion.
Mr. Thomas: I think the country ought to be aware—when the deputy Leader of the Opposition asks us to go away for five weeks, forget it all, have our holiday and then come back—how many Members

2439
of the Opposition were here after the all-night sitting.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That has really nothing to do with the Amendment. The House should get back to the consideration of the terms of the Amendment.
Mr. Thomas: When we return on 16th September, how many Members of the Opposition will be here? What a false idea it is that when we leave these premises we are on holiday. Hon. Members opposite may not be very well known in their constituencies. I shall not be on holiday because I believe it is the duty of hon. Members to be in their constituencies.
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. [Laughter.] Is it funny? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.
Earl Winterton: It is awfully funny, I know, but my point of Order is this—[Laughter]—when I can put it and when hon. Members opposite have ceased their derisive laughter—that the hon. Member who was on his feet was asking whether hon. Members on this side of the House were going to be in their constituencies during the Recess. What on earth have such wounding observations about hon. Members on this side of the House to do with the Motion before the House?
Mr. H. Morrison: Further to that point of Order. I submit that the remarks of my hon. Friend as to what hon. Members do with their time in the Recess is very much more relevant to the Motion before the House than the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Eden: I would point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what the Leader of the House has just said, which was to imply that my speech was out of Order.
Earl Winterton rose——
Mr. Morrison: When the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) gets into this state of extreme excitement I often wonder what his end is going to be.
Earl Winterton: We know what yours will be.
Mr. Morrison: Sir, I did not say what the right hon. Gentleman has implied. I
2440
only asked if my hon. Friend's observations were not nearer to the point of the Amendment than the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition. I did not say that he was out of Order.
Mr. Eden: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and he said that the hon. Member was more in Order than I was. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I am within the recollection of the House.
An Hon. Member: He said: "More relevant."
Mr. Eden: Very well, but that implies that my speech was irrelevant.
Mr. Morrison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can follow ordinary English? "More relevant" means that the speech of my hon. Friend was, in my judgment, more relevant than that of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was irrelevant, indeed I could not, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling.
Mr. Eden: I have only one further comment to make—[Interruption]—If I may be allowed to make a comment. I regret that the Leader of the House felt it necessary to use language like that.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not for me to pronounce judgment upon what has happened. Obviously if Mr. Speaker had thought that any speech was irrelevant or out of Order, he would not have allowed it.
Mr. G. Thomas: It appears that there are other excitable people, apart from Welshmen. We have been expecting a Recess, and hon. Members have made arrangements, not for their holidays, but, so far as I am concerned, for a whole list of activities with my people and in my constituency. I believe that a Member of Parliament has far more to do than even addressing this House. We cannot say that attending this House is our only duty. We have a place and a duty in the country. Whatever—I hope the noble Lord will not get excited at this—hon. Members opposite will be doing, I know where I and my hon. Friends will be.
Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thomas: We shall not be shooting grouse.
Earl Winterton: In the pub, that's where you will be.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot get into this kind of tangle. It is becoming almost farcical.
Mr. Davies: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to imply that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) will spend his Recess in a pub? As it happens, the hon. Member is a complete teetotaller.
Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot deal with two points of Order at the same time. On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) it would not be correct, or even possible, for me to suggest that it was out of Order for any hon. Member to spend his Recess in the aforesaid place.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Would it be in Order for the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) to give an assurance that he will not be shooting a line instead of shooting grouse?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be out of Order because it has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment.
Mr. G. Thomas: Further to the original point of Order——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman now continues his speech and that the incident is now closed.
Mr. Thomas: The noble Lord opposite distinctly said in the hearing of my hon. Friends that I will spend my time in a public house.
Mr. Harold Davies: In a saloon bar.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Might I suggest that while I do not know what the hon. Gentleman will do with his time, we are wasting a good deal of time here today.
Mr. James Callaghan: Further to the point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You may be aware that in Wales there is a very strong feeling on the subject of public houses.—[Interruption.]
2442
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) may sneer. Perhaps he does not agree.—[Interruption.] I am going to put my point of Order. It is a very wounding charge to level against an hon. Member who is a total abstainer that he is going to spend his time in public houses. May I therefore ask whether the ignoble Lord opposite will have the decency to withdraw?
Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of Order——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot deal with more than one point of Order at a time.
Mr. J. Hudson: It is the same point of Order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With regard to that point of Order, I did not hear the statement made——
Mr. G. Thomas: But the noble Lord made it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I submit that the hon. Member is so well known in Wales that if it were said, it would be known to be untrue.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Earl Winterton: I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his most serious charge against me that I was going to spend the Recess shooting grouse, to withdraw any suggestion that he ever enters a pub.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the House that we are getting no further with this Amendment, and I call on the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.
Mr. G. Thomas: I do not see why the noble Lord should get away with an insult of that kind. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the noble Lord has no right, with his knowledge of the customs of this House, to lay down conditions upon which he will withdraw his statement, and I ask your protection that it should be withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member asks for my protection, which is accorded to him immediately, but I think that at the moment we are making a tremendous lot out of a very small—[Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would allow me to complete my sentence. In

2443
view of the fact that the hon. Member is so well known, it is obvious that the charge is untrue.
Mr. Thomas: I am not going to continue with my speech, even if I have to leave the Chamber, until that statement is withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member certainly should not speak in that tone.
Mr. Thomas: The statement should be withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot compel me to take a certain course of action. The Chair decides, and accepts responsibility for what it does. We seem to be on an entirely false track and are spoiling what is really a very important Debate and one on which we want to arrive at a conclusion early. I hope the hon. Member will consider the incident closed.
Mr. Callaghan Mr. Callaghan rose——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have appealed to the hon. Member—[Interruption.]—Order. I appeal to the hon. Member to regard the incident as closed and now to continue with his speech.
Mr. G. Thomas rose——
Mr. Callaghan: I desire to put a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if I am out of Order, doubtless you will tell me so immediately. The point of Order is that when a charge is made against the personal integrity of an hon. Member and he denies that charge immediately, is it not the custom of this House that the hon. Member who has made the charge should withdraw it?
Earl Winterton: I have done so.
Sir Wavell Wakefield: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there has been no charge against' the integrity of any hon. Member? Do not many hon. Members know that by sitting in a public house in one's constituency one can obtain extremely valuable information and make the closest possible contact——
Mr. J. Hudson: Further to that point of Order——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot speak unless he is called upon.
2444
The hon. Member must wait for a minute while I am hearing the point of Order for the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield).
Sir W. Wakefield: I was saying that in that way it is possible for Members of Parliament to obtain the closest possible contact with their constituents. I suggest that if the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) carried out that procedure he would learn from his constituents their feelings towards this Government. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really must appeal to the House. It is not for me to determine the accuracy of any charge, if a charge were made, and I am not convinced that any such charge was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] It may be that personal offence was taken, and the hon. Member is justified in feeling offended, but I did not appreciate that any individual charge was made. I cannot allow the Debate to continue on these lines.
Mr. J. Hudson: Further to the point of Order. I submit that the charge is of an extremely serious character if any hon. Member of this House who is well known to take certain standards of conduct is accused in the House of deliberately and deceitfully, after his own professions, going where he says that people ought not to go. Is that not a serious charge to make against a man who takes the standard my hon. Friend takes?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As a matter of fact, I never heard the charge made in the form in which the hon. Member has expressed it. It may or may not have been a jocular remark, but I feel that there is no question now, even if there were before, of the hon. Member visiting such places.
Mr. Keenan: Further to that point of Order. May I point out that the noble Lord did admit that he made such an observation when he was up the last time?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not denied that I heard the noble Lord. It may have been an unfortunate remark or a remark intended to be of a jocular character, but what I feel is that we are now wasting more time than is desirable and that we should get on with the business.
Mr. G. Thomas: In view of your request, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and despite my feeling, I propose to leave the matter there. I trust that the people in my constituency know me well enough.
Earl Winterton: And in mine, too. [Interruption.]
Mr. Thomas: If I cannot get on, it is not my fault, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The people of this nation realise that the Government need this opportunity in order that they shall be better prepared to carry on with the work afterwards, and I think that no great and useful purpose will be served by saying 16th September rather than 20th October since the Government have the power to call us back, if it were needed, on 1st September and not 16th September.
12.49 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I rise to try to recall the House to the subject matter of this Debate. The subject we are discussing is a serious one. It affects our responsibilities as Members of the House of Commons, whether we sit on that side or on this side. It affects our responsibilities to our constituencies during the coming weeks. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, when he moved the Motion, advanced no argument at all as to why we should adjourn until 20th October. Whatever views he may have about the relevance or irrelevance of other people's arguments, he did not dare present his own. I should have thought that, at a moment such as this, it is an astonishing thing to suggest that we should adjourn for 10 weeks, without hearing a single thing in support of that suggestion. One would have thought that the House was at least entitled to some explanation on the subject.
I want to put to the Government and to the House the reason why I support the suggestion of ray right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). A great deal of talk has gone on about the crisis which this country is in at the present time. The real crisis has not even yet come upon the country; it has not really started. There is a sort of crisis going on, but it is a Governmental crisis. The crisis going on now is that the Government have suddenly recognised the state of affairs which everyone else, including most of the back-benchers on
2446
the other side, knew perfectly well had been going on for a very long time. That is the real crux of the matter at the moment. The suggestions put forward by the Government amount, as my right hon. Friend said, to dealing with only about one-third of the problem which will have arisen by 20th October. The Government have suggested that certain cuts should be made in imports; but they only close the gap by about one-third. What are the Government's proposals for dealing with the situation which, on most people's estimate, will certainly be with us by about 20th October. Are the import cuts to be trebled while the House is not in Session? Are we to read these things in the newspapers, without having any opportunity of discussing them, of making our points about them, or of representing the views of our constituents? It seems to me that that is not treating the House with very proper respect.
Before we go away for 10 weeks, I should like—if I may have the attention of the Lord President for one moment, because I want to put an important point to him—to know, as I think a great many people in the country want to know, what has been happening to these dollars? I have studied, as far as I can, the very complicated account of the dollar expenditure, which was presented in a two-hours speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Stubbs: What has that to do with the matter?
Mr. Thorneycroft: Whatever may be said about other arguments, this is a peculiarly relevant one. I am saying that, before we go away for 10 weeks, the country is entitled to know whether the Government are looking after the dollars which we have left as well as they should be? I say that they have not been looking after them very properly. I say that there is some money missing from the till; it is public money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in charge of that till. I am not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dollar bills—[Interruption.]
The Minister of Health (Mr. Bevan): I thought that was an extremely inelegant metaphor.
Mr. Thorneycroft: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of the elegance of metaphors, but I

2447
would prefer to choose my own. I was under no doubt that we have had, so far as it is possible for us to see, an explanation of how these dollars have been spent, but there is a real suspicion, widely expressed in this country, that there are leakages, for some reason which, so far, has not been properly understood. I suggest that before we go away, we should be satisfied on that point. We want to have a clear and concise account to show that the figures have been properly set out to us, and that this kind of leakage is not going on. Unless we have some special assurance, I think it is wrong that we should disperse, and see the Email remaining total of dollars squandered when they could be put to more proper usage.
Various decisions have to be made by the Government. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) is a neighbour of mine in South Wales. We are both interested in the question of the Severn bridge. Only a few weeks ago, after many promptings, the Minister of Transport announced that work on this great scheme—always wanted—was to start next spring. I have no doubt that the Government got some credit for that announcement. It was thought, "Here, the Government mean business at last, and this great scheme is going forward." Why were the Government so out of touch with the realities of the situation that only a week before this crisis broke they announced the launching of a great scheme of capital construction? Is it safe to go away for 10 weeks and let them do the same kind of thing? I do not propose to argue the merits of the Severn bridge. Everyone in my constituency wants that bridge, but I think that it would be a great mistake, at this moment to go on with a great scheme of capital construction, when we know that we are expending our resources far beyond our means. Let the Lord President of the Council have the courage to say whether the Government are going on with it or not, and let the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport come here, having made an announcement that it was going on——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member said that he did not propose to discuss the Severn tunnel, but he appears to be doing so.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I mentioned it because it was referred to by other speakers, and one end of it happens to be in my Division. The real point about this is that the Government, within the last few weeks, have been utterly out of touch with the speed with which this particular subject is developing.
There is one other point. There might be a case for the Government going away for 10 weeks, even if the situation were fairly serious, if the Government had been pursuing a policy for which they had a mandate, and which manifestly had a vast majority of the nation behind it. That is not the state of affairs today. The Attorney-General announced the other day that the Government of which he is a Member had the vast majority of the public behind them. For what purpose? The policy, so far as one can ascertain it, which is being pursued by the Government today, is one for which they have no conceivable mandate whatsoever; they have not even a shred of mandate. I think it is necessary for Ministers and hon. Members opposite to go back and make contact with their constituents. I think that we shall have rather less talk then about the vast majority being behind the Government.
I am not one of those who think that we ought to sit here and go on sitting all the time. I think that would be quite wrong. I think that we all ought to have a holiday. I propose to have a holiday, and I propose to shoot grouse, if that is of any interest to hon. Members opposite. In pursuing the other matter, to which I would not like to refer, I shall certainly do that for my entertainment as well. I think that it would do all of us good to go for a holiday. But it would be wholly wrong if we were to go away for 10 weeks in the situation which is developing very fast indeed, the full seriousness and gravity of which is not apparent to the whole country, and which I do not believe is even now apparent to His Majesty's Government, a situation for which no solution has been proposed by the Government. Even such matters as they have suggested go only one-third of the way towards solving it. We know on their own admission that they are going to have to do things about three times as harsh as those things they have vaguely suggested at the present time—and we are told to

2449
go away for this period. That would be wrong.
There must be some hon. Members opposite who share that view; there must be many who take their responsibilities towards their constituents as seriously as anyone else. I do not think that they can be altogether happy to go back, to go round their constituencies, perhaps making a few speeches, knowing all the time that their real job is to be here at Westminster, dealing with the situation which is developing very fast indeed. The only way in which they can have any check whatever on the Executive is by being here to challenge them face to face. In those circumstances, I hope that when this matter comes to a Division, it will not be solely a party Division. I hope that one or two hon. Members opposite will have the courage to vote according to their consciences, and vote with us to say that they desire to come back on 16th September to do the job for which they were elected.
1.2 p.m.
Mr. Daines: I wish to deal briefly with the interesting and moving appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). The last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing the House was during last Session, when I also had the privilege of following the hon. Member. I must say that quite a lot of what he said in regard to the whole situation commended itself to me. It is certainly true that hon. Members on this side of the House have a deep sense of the urgency of the situation, and are not too happy to be going away, leaving the situation where it is. That arises, not from the functioning of the Government and its relationship with back-benchers, but because the duty of His Majesty's Opposition has had to be assumed on these benches because of the inefficiency of the Opposition. That is a situation which we have had repeatedly to face in the House. I am always entranced by the contributions which the hon. Member for Monmouth makes. They are forthright and dashing. In fact, it seems to me that the hon. Member has cast himself for the rôle of the twentieth-century Disraeli. I am sure that he will not misunderstand me if I say that most of us think he fills the rôle of the nineteenth-century Noel Coward. We are, of course, terrifically
2450
concerned, but I would say of the tactics of the Opposition that there is nothing new in His Majesty's Opposition crying havoc. We had not assembled in this House for many weeks when they cried havoc. It has always been "cry havoc."
Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It has always been true.
Mr. Daines: The Opposition are so weak politically, and have such a poor political sense, that they are incapable of having any sense of tactics. Of course, we are going away, we all need to go away, we all need to be refreshed—no one more than the Opposition. It is not only in the interests of the House that the Government should have opportunities of preparing real plans which will capture the imagination of the country; it is also necessary for the Opposition to go away and try to shape themselves so that they can begin to assume the function of the Opposition, and give real efficiency to the working of Parliamentary Government in this country.
1.5 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not desire to say anything at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—about the merits. I am glad I have hon. Members opposite with me on that. I desire to put to the Government a technical question of some importance, which will probably arise in the event of my right hon. Friend's Amendment not being accepted. I am sorry that the Law Officers have just left. The point I desire to put is not in any sense a party one, but one that does affect the powers of this House.
The point is that under the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill which left this House at ten minutes past eight yesterday morning, the Government will no doubt issue a number of orders. That, I think, is generally agreed, and it is indeed the intention of the Bill. During the discussion of that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President told us very properly that the only Parliamentary control over those orders would be under Section 4 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. That is the only Parliamentary control over these orders, and I think it is accepted on both sides of the House, that it is the form of Parliamentary control

2451
which is the least that is acceptable. Under that Section these orders can only be prayed against within 40 days of being laid before Parliament, subject to a proviso that—
"In reckoning any period for the purposes of this subsection—"
that is 40 days—
"no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
That means, of course, that the time during an ordinary Recess, with both Houses adjourned, is not counted, and the 40 days begin to run from the time the Houses come back.
My right hon. Friend referred to yesterday's proceedings in another place. I may be entitled to say that the possibility of another place being in session during our proposed Recess is one which cannot be eliminated. There is a distinct possibility. I need not say more. The 40 days period during which Prayers against orders can be made runs during the time when either House is sitting. On reading the proviso, it can be seen that the 40 days period does not run during the time in which both Houses are adjourned. It is surely an elementary construction that it does run during the time in which only one House is adjourned. Perhaps the House can see what might happen. Let us assume, as a hypothesis, that the other place resumes on 9th September. Then the 40 days during which a Prayer may be made against orders which have been made before then begins to run from 9th September and would have expired by 20th October, upon which date it is suggested this House should re-assemble.
Mr. Bevan: I do not think that the hon. Member should start that hare, because it is one which will not run very far. It would be most undesirable if there should be a misunderstanding. The decision of another place cannot, in such circumstances, limit the power of the Commons. The Commons itself must sit in order that that provision may come into operation.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the Minister of Health has got the point. It is not a question of the decision of the other place or of the
2452
Commons. It is a question of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Bevan: No, but the hon. Member has said that the time begins to run if another place sits, and that, therefore, the order would mature before the House of Commons had an opportunity of considering it—that is the gravamen of the case, it is perfectly simple—and, therefore, the decision of another place, if the hon. Member's reasoning is correct, would, in fact, be taking away from the Commons the right of considering the order. That is a clear point. As I understand the situation, that is not the case. It certainly would be quite unreasonable for irresponsibility exercised somewhere else to limit the authority of the Commons.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whether or not it is desirable, I do not propose to be led away to discuss——
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "irresponsibility exercised somewhere else." Is it in Order to suggest that the other place act in an irresponsible manner? I thought that we could not criticise the other place.
Mr. Speaker: If I heard the Minister correctly, he was not speaking of irresponsibility with that meaning, but merely that it was a position which had no regard for this House.
Mr. Bevan: May I make it quite clear? What I meant was that if the construction put upon the Statute by the hon. Member is correct, then indeed it would be an act by another place which would very gravely limit the authority of this place. I do not believe that that construction is a proper one.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I deliberately do not want to get into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman on merits. The point I am trying to get clear, because I think it is important, is what are the legal consequences? I submit that the proviso I read is perfectly clear, and that the 40 days are only suspended during such period as both Houses are adjourned or, though it does not arise hers, prorogued. If that is so—and I should be very interested to hear any argument to the contrary—does it not follow that if another place were sitting during a period in which this House were not sitting, the time during which Prayers could be made against orders, would be running. It is

2453
quite possible that the whole 40 days might have run before this House comes back on 20th October. If that is so, it would be a very serious matter.
Mr. Bevan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whether the fault was that of another place for sitting, or of this House for not sitting, is a matter upon which there could be legitimate argument on another occasion. I want to clear up the legal position. If this is right—and I think we are entitled to have an answer—one of the consequences of this House adjourning until 20th October may well be that this House would forfeit any power to use the Parliamentary checks which we were told existed under the Act of 1945, in respect of any orders which the Government may make in the next week or two. The constitutional implications of that are quite obvious. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would object to being denied the right to discuss orders. That would be a very serious blow to the authority of this House, and that is the reason I felt it to be my duty to put the point before hon. Members.
We are entitled to a full answer on the legal implications of this. I want to be clear that if the Government's Motion is carried, and my right hon. Friend's Amendment is defeated, our right to pray against Government orders will not be forfeited in any way by reason of the provisions of the Act of 1945. Those provisions were put through when the present situation was not contemplated by hon. Members on either side of the House. We are entitled, before we go away, for whatever period, to be perfectly clear that we have retained our power on this point. I hope that the Government will put up some representative to tell us authoritatively what the position is. I hope that whoever replies will not say, as the Minister of Health said when he interrupted just now, that it would be a bad thing. I hope that whoever replies will be in a position to tell the House what the true position is, whether it be good or bad. We should be told the legal consequences, so that we may make up our minds in the light of that, what we are to do in order to secure the best possible results.
1.15 p.m.
Mr. Yates: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames
2454
(Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has raised an important legal question which, I have no doubt, will be answered. If I, as a Member of this House, were asked to agree that the House should not adjourn to enable hon. Members opposite to pray against orders, I should very much question the request because of the way in which the time of this House has been used in the past. The right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition raised the question of complete mistrust in the Government. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to their point of view, but I do not think it is fair to ask this House not to adjourn in the normal way because, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the Government have shown an unwillingness to face facts and have shown the extent to which they have misjudged the situation. We on this side of the House do not accept that point of view. I say definitely that it is hon. Members opposite who on a number of occasions have completely misjudged the facts of the situation. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept the view that the Government have shown a lack of appreciation of the facts and, therefore, cannot be trusted during this period of vacation.
From time to time I have criticised the Government, and I shall continue to claim to exercise my right of conscience. I am perfectly satisfied to put my trust in the Government in this difficult economic situation, knowing full well that if it was necessary to recall the House the Government would do that. If they did not call the House together and the situation was extremely serious in a particular emergency, the Government would receive serious criticism from this side of the House. During the Debates of the last few days it has been said that there is very much worse to come. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) emphasised that point again today. I do not understand this sort of panic which hon. Members opposite are trying to whip up in the House. I can only say that from childhood, I have been told that this country has been on the brink of ruin. I think it was Wilberforce who said the future was so black that he dare not marry. Really, if we are to allow ourselves at the end of a very difficult and hard Session to be whipped into this kind of panic, we shall make a mistake.

2455
Hon. Members opposite have shown time and again, that whatever the Government propose, it is never the right time to put it into effect. During the past year, when we showed quite clearly that it was necessary to ration bread, the Opposition prayed against that, and showed that they did not at all appreciate the situation as the Government did 12 months ago. I submit that no real case has been made out why the House should be recalled earlier than has been suggested by the Government. The Government are entitled to work out carefully schemes for dealing with the situation in the immediate future. I have every confidence that the Government will do the right and proper thing and that, if necessary, they will recall the House to discuss the situation.
1.20 p.m.
Brigadier Rayner: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) took objection to a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who had accused the Government of having been unwilling to face facts. I would like to explain to the House that I entirely agree with that expression of opinion by my right hon. Friend, and on that I shall base the enthusiasm with which I shall vote for the Amendment at the end of this discussion.
In my opinion, the greatest weakness of the Government has been their inability to face facts. In two years of time, they have thrown away the whole of the fruits of victory for one simple reason—their inability to face facts—and we, on this side of the House, during the last four or five days, have performed a very useful service in that we have made the Government face facts. That is the reason I shall vote for this Amendment that we should come back earlier than has been proposed, in order, once again, to make the Government face up to the facts. There is one fact in particular which the Government do not face, and that is that the whole cause of this crisis in the country is the fact that, generally speaking, the country is not prepared to work hard. We have had a series of red herrings dragged across the trail——
Mr. Speaker: This, surely, is part of a speech which might have been delivered the other day.
Brigadier Rayner: I am not going to use the speech which I delivered last week, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to say that the cause of our troubles today is the lack of the will to work hard, and the fact that the Government are showing no leadership at all in this connection. The other day, we saw them, with one hand, placing up the posters "We Work or Want," and, with the other hand, reducing the hours. Now, we find that they are going back on that and increasing the hours again, and we are not surprised, because, if there is one thing which this Government has shown it can do, it is running around in circles—vicious circles.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is whether the date should be 20th October or 16th September.
Brigadier Rayner: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I gathered from your Ruling during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that we could give our reasons why the House should come back on 16th September instead of in October, and I was trying to give them. However, I will finish by saying that this Government is a round peg in a square hole, and "hole" is the word. The right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench look more miserable and harassed every day and obviously have no idea how to get us out of the hole into which their crass inefficiency has got us. I for one am not prepared to give them until 20th October to go on making a mess of things. Therefore, I shall be delighted to vote for the Amendment.
1.23 p.m.
Mr. Pritt: I can look on this matter with a certain impartiality, not being a member of either of the two main parties conducting this discussion, and I recall the history of these discussions. Almost ever since I came into this House, the country has been in a crisis. I do not think it is really my fault; I have always taken the view that it has been the fault of the Tories and the system which they supported, though I must not go into that at the moment. Certainly, every summer, the Opposition has demanded, in one form or another, either that the House should not go away at all or should come back at an earlier stage, or that provision should be made empowering a certain number of

2457
hon. Members, and not merely the Government, to call the House back, or to request you, Mr. Speaker, to recall the House, which I think would be the more correct form, on any suitable occasion. I am bound to say that there were times when I felt a certain sympathy with that plea, but the real question of principle we are discussing today is this: With whom should the initiative lie?
We are all agreed that the House should come back if the crisis develops to such a point that either views of the House or legislation by the House is required, or an explanation by the Government or criticism of the Government is really called for. The Tory-dominated Governments which I have seen in the past, before 1945, always insisted on retaining the initiative in that matter in the hands of the Government. I did not much like it, because I did not much like those Governments. Nobody ever thought that I did like them, but that is a constitutional practice which was well-established. Now, the suggestion is that the House should come back at a point relatively soon in time, so that, in fact, the initiative is taken away from the Government, and we are confronted with a choice between taking 10 weeks' holiday or taking only four or five weeks, with a latent power, of course, to call the House back, which, however, would not be exercised if the Amendment were carried, because the time would be too short.
The only reason which I can think of why anybody suggests that we should depart from what can be described as constitutional practice and come back much sooner was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who, I am glad to see, has now recovered his temper, and who, in fact, never loses it for long. In a very charming speech, the right hon. Gentleman told us that everything done by the other side of the House is wrong, and that, if the Opposition had had the opportunity of doing it, they would have done it differently, but, really, his arguments were not very impressive.
Let us recall the history of this subject. I have plenty of which to complain, in one way or another, about this Government, if I wanted to. They came into power just about two years ago, confronted with a most appalling task, such as no other Government in the world was ever confronted. There were unprecedented
2458
destruction of property, and, above all, of domestic dwellings, the loss of every conceivable market, the loss of every conceivable productive capacity, for the time being, the actions of other people whom I suppose it would be wrong to describe as "shabby moneylenders," because, in fact, they were very bright. They were confronted, among other things, with the problem of getting millions of men out of the Armed Forces and back to work, and confronted also, as we may notice from time to time, by a vigilant well-informed and courageous Opposition, who think they know-all about everything, but who have not succeeded in winning a by-election for months, and who now say that the country is in such a state of crisis that the Government cannot be trusted to go away for a few weeks' holiday.
I think it would be very interesting to have a by-election to see whether the Government are still enjoying the almost undiminished support of the country. My impression is that it docs. [Interruption.] Well, I cannot issue writs; at least, in this place. My impression is that the Government command more support than they deserve, but, at any rate, a great deal more than hon. Members opposite suggest. Surely, unless there is some vital reason for bringing the House back early, there are good reasons for having a holiday? I think that everybody is tired. I am very nearly tired myself, and I, after all, do not have to run the Government, or the Opposition. I do not know which would tire me most. I think it is time that Ministers and hon. Members went down some quiet mousehole and had a little rest. Their work will be all the better for it. I do not think that the Opposition have advanced any convincing reasons for saying "No" to that.
I want to add one other thing, even if it should excite a little resentment. If the House is going to meet again, it will meet for discussion, and if it meets for discussion, the Opposition, as inevitably happens, will do a good deal of the discussing. That seems to me to be the most appalling prospect. I have followed, as best I can, the criticisms and observations of hon. Members opposite, and of all the concentrated nonsense that I have had to listen to in the last 12 years, I think that is the most concentrated nonsense. Take the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill; that was discussed

2459
for hours and hours. I am sorry that a duty which I thought was paramount, for once kept me away for many hours on Monday night and Tuesday morning. It was the first time in my career that I had not been present at an all-night Sitting, I thought about it before the discussion took place, and afterwards when I perused the report. Anything that could reasonably be said about that Bill, or against that Bill, or about its Clauses in Committee, or against its Clauses in Committee, could really have been said by any intelligent controversialist in an hour and a half.
Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. You will have heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) discussing the Debate which took place on the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill. Is it in Order, when considering the date on which this House is to adjourn, to discuss the value of the arguments put up by the Opposition in the Debate on that Bill?
Mr. Bevan: On that point of Order, and before Mr. Deputy-Speaker gives his Ruling, I would like to point out that I did not understand the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to be discussing that at all. What he was pointing out was that, because of the character of the speeches made by the Opposition, it would be undesirable to come back and be compelled to listen to more of them.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in the difficulty that I did not hear what the hon. and learned Member said, because I was otherwise engaged, and, as there seems to be a diversity of opinion as to what the hon. and learned Member said, he had better proceed with his speech so that I can determine whether or no it is in Order.
Mr. Pritt: I certainly would not want to take advantage of the Opposition in a matter of debate where the boundaries are necessarily somewhat blurred, but the essence of what I was saying was that it is surely relevant to the discussion as to whether we should come back early or not, to consider what we should do when we came back. I suggested that
2460
hon. Members opposite would waste a great deal of public time. I did not put it as offensively as that the first time, but that is the result of prodding me. I gave an illustration of how they had wasted time during the last few days. I do not intend to recite the speeches of hon. Members opposite to show that they were wasting time. I think I have made that sufficiently clear already. There is a great deal too much—particularly in times of what can fairly be called "crisis"—of the Opposition making speeches just because it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. Sometimes, when watching the present Opposition, I have wondered whether it was not the duty of an Opposition to decompose. One hon. Member has suggested that I am making my Monday speech. I am trying to speak on this topic, and I hope that I am keeping fairly well within the confines of it, but, of course, in such discussions, it is always a little difficult, because one hon. Member goes a little too far and then one has to be allowed to answer him.
The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), who spoke immediately before me, succeeded, before he was stopped, in getting across the proposition that the people of this country were not working hard enough, and that that was the reason for the trouble. He represents a class who have never done a willing stroke of work in their lives, and yet he comes here and tells the miners that they are not working hard enough. I do not think that is a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment which be says he will vote for with such enthusiasm. I wonder what his enthusiasm would be like if it was carried and he had to come back. However, I feel that no solid ground has been put forward by the party opposite——
Brigadier Rayner: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? In the "Daily Telegraph" this morning, there was an account of four brothers at Coventry who had been fined for doing a really good job of work in building a house and workshop with their own hands——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. It is obviously not a matter with which I can deal.
Brigadier Rayner: May I come to the point of Order? It is that Mr. Speaker

2461
very properly ruled me out of Order just now when I tried to produce that point. I would like to know, because my knowledge of procedure is not what it should be, whether I can move the Adjournment of the Adjournment Motion in order to consider a matter of great public interest?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the hon. and gallant Member cannot do that.
1.38 p.m.
Sir Peter Macdonald: In moving this Motion for the Adjournment, the Leader of the House adopted such a nonchalant and easy manner that he seemed to take it for granted that the Motion would be accepted by the House as a matter of course. As a fairly old Member of this House, I must say that I am amazed at the lighthearted way in which the supporters of the Government have dealt with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I recall that, at the beginning of this Parliament, one of the first acts of the Government was to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament. The ground on which they based and justified that action was that Members of Parliament, in the pursuit of their duties, had a fulltime job. I do not dispute that, because I can assure the House that I have never worked so hard in my life as I have in this Parliament.
Mr. Alpass: We set the pace for the hon. Gentleman.
Sir P. Macdonald: Nevertheless, I find it very difficult today to justify going away for three months at this time of crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not three months."] Certain hon. Members have put forward the claim that they must go away, because they have already made plans. I think that claim was made by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). For my part, I made plans to go away a couple of months ago.
Mr. George Wallace: I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) make the point. His point was that he had made plans to meet his constituents. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) rather inferred that my hon. Friend had made plans to go away on holiday, and to leave his responsibilities to other people.
Sir P. Macdonald: If the hon. Member had not been so hasty, I was going to deal with the point. It does not matter much to me what plans were made. I do not think that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff, or anyone else, is going to have a holiday all the time. Some people can have a holiday in their own constituency. As far as I am concerned I made plans a couple of months ago and, what is more, I went away last week. But I saw such glaring headlines in the Press relating to the economic situation that I was alarmed, and I have come all the way back. [Interruption.] I think I have just as serious a sense of responsibility of my duties in this House as hon. Members opposite. Having come back, I was amazed to find confronting me an emergency Bill which had to be rushed through in 48 hours, giving the Government a complete blank cheque to do what they like in order to meet the economic situation, and, having got that Bill through, they are going to disperse for three months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For 10 weeks, then; that is nearly three months. That is a situation I cannot accept, and that is why I most wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).
Another reason why I was almost certain the Government would postpone the Adjournment of this House, was because of the broadcast made by the Prime Minister the other night. That broadcast gave the impression, if it gave any impression at all, that there was a severe financial and economic crisis. So far as I can make out, the Prime Minister asked us to deal with it by harder work and, in some cases, longer hours. What kind of example are the Government themselves setting?
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member went away for a holiday when the House was sitting.
Sir P. Macdonald: I agree. Because plans were made, I did go away, but I came back immediately I knew there was a crisis; I certainly came back to oppose the Bill, which I did not see before I went away because it had not been introduced to the House at that time. In his broadcast the Prime Minister exhorted the country to work harder and longer. He certainly told the country that we were faced with a very severe crisis. I read in "The Times" a letter from a

2463
farmer who said that he listened to that broadcast because he was very anxious, as a farmer and a producer, to know what the Prime Minister was going to say, and what lead he was going to get, because he was told that agricultural production was necessary.
Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the date on which the House is to reassemble? Are we in Order in discussing the content of the Prime Minister's broadcast? Surely, that is entirely outside the range of this discussion?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It has been extremely difficult to confine this Debate within clearly defined limits, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not wander too far.
Sir P. Macdonald: I understood that other hon. Members had gone very wide from the Motion, but I apologise if I have gone too far.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I suggest that this is an opportunity for the hon. Member to set a good example?
Sir P. Macdonald: I do not wish to take up too much time, because I know others want to speak. Very good reasons have been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington why this House should come back on 16th September.
Mr. Alpass: If the Amendment is carried, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that he and other hon. Members opposite will come back and attend better than they have done?
Sir P. Macdonald: My attendance is just as good as that of the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass). Reasons have been given by the deputy Leader of the Opposition why we on this side of the House think that the Government should return before 21st October. We are running out of dollars; there is the economic situation generally, and there is also an absence of policy with regard to exports, and various other matters. I can give one or two more reasons. During the Recess, one of my duties as a Member of a Select Committee will be to proceed to Germany. I should be prepared, and still am, to give up part of my holiday for that purpose, with other Members on
2464
both sides of the House, but I must say that before we go on this mission to report on the economic situation in Germany, I think it will be very difficult for us to form any conclusions unless we have a pronouncement of policy in relation to that country. At present, as far as I understand, there is a complete lack of high policy with regard to Germany. We were told recently that there is to be a fusion of zones with one of our Allies, and we all acclaimed that as a very good thing indeed. Since then, I am told that owing to a clash of ideologies between ourselves and our Allies, there is a hold-up of the introduction——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see what that has to do with the Amendment under discussion.
Sir P. Macdonald: I thought it was a very good reason why we should all come back and hear a statement of policy and, if necessary, discuss it. But I will not pursue that matter. All I have to say is that I wholeheartedly support this Amendment, and I certainly commend it to the House. As far as I am concerned, I could not justify myself either to my conscience or to my constituents in going away for 10 weeks at this time.
1.47 p.m.
Mr. Harold Macmillan: Ministers and Members of the party opposite in the earlier and, perhaps, more lively stages of this Debate have shown a certain nervosity which I quite understand. I think it is natural, after a very hard year's work, that Ministers should try to get the House away. Certainly, in recent weeks they have not had very much to enjoy in the Debates which we have had. No doubt, there are other reasons why they are anxious to get away; continual quarrels and rifts must be very exhausting. I read today that Ministers are to have, like everybody else, staggered holidays. I certainly think they should have holidays. I do not know whether it is quite fair for them to have staggered holidays when one goes to Blackpool and another to Burma; I do not know how it works out, but we must leave it to them. We would be very foolish if we were not to recognise that after a very strenuous Session, the whole House requires a reasonable change and some holiday, in addition to all the work which we do in our constituencies. Therefore, we have moved an Amendment which

2465
would ensure not that we should continue the Session permanently, but that we should come back to see how things are going, have a Debate, and then arrange a further Adjournment in the light of the situation then existing.
The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) referred to other occasions when Motions or Amendments of this kind had been moved relating to the Adjournment of the House. I think he was wrong in saying that on previous occasions it was a question as between the initiative of the Government and that of private Members. Great Debates on this subject have often turned on Motions to fix a date different from that moved by the Government of the day. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would refresh his memory, as I have refreshed mine. He has a reputation for supporting minorities, and I hope he will do so today.
Mr. Pritt: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in no summer between 1935 and 1945 have Tory Members sought to move that the return of the House should depend on the initiative of private Members rather than on that of the Government?
Mr. Macmillan: No. I was referring to great occasions—rather historic occasions. In 1941 there was a Motion put down by the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Fuel and Power. After Debate, so reasonable were the Coalition Government of that day, that the Prime Minister, then deputy Leader of the House, accepted the Motion and cut the holiday in two. That was in December, 1941. I am now coming to great Debates on other occasions. A long and important Debate took place in the summer of 1944. On another occasion there was, as my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition reminded the House, a plea that we should adjourn for five weeks—not ten, but five. That was the summer, if hon. Members will cast their minds back to it, when Field-Marshal Alexander's armies were sweeping through Italy, after the capture of Rome, after the successful landings in France, when the war was going very well, and we were about to win the war. My right hon. Friend was courteous. I shall go rather farther than him, and say that now—instead of winning the war as we were then—we are losing the fruits of victory.
2466
My mind goes back to, perhaps, the greatest of these Debates. It lasted a whole day. It was in the summer of 1939. I remember that Debate. It was one of the most historic Debates in this House. The Motion of the Government was to adjourn until 3rd October—not 20th October, but 3rd October. The Amendment to that Motion in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister without' Portfolio was that we should adjourn until the 20th August—for only three weeks. In moving that Motion he used these words:
"I want to put it quite bluntly. A considerable number of Members of this House … do not trust this Government.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 2427.]
I am not sure I would go as far as that now, but I would go as far as to say that I do not wholly trust this Government. That Debate was memorable for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That Debate will always remain in my memory because it was notable also for a speech by the then Member for King's Norton, which was one of the most dramatic speeches I have ever heard in this House. It was, alas, the last speech that he ever made. There was brought to an untimely end a wonderful and brilliant career.
The question at issue was whether the House should adjourn for a long period, or come back sooner in view of the character of the situation as it appeared to hon. Members who put forward the plea for a shorter Adjournment. It was not—and is not now—a question of coming back necessarily to transact the normal business of the House, but to come back to take counsel together, to get some statement from the Government of the day, either on external affairs, which were then the main problem, or on home affairs; and, having heard that statement and taken counsel, to decide what it is the duty of the House to do. I think that if ever there was an occasion when that course was suitable to the dignity and the propriety of the House of Commons, it certainly is the occasion in which we now find ourselves.
My right hon. Friend was forced to say that one of our major anxieties is that the Government have failed in the past to take notice of warnings. My

2467
right hon. Friend quoted in support of his argument on the question of the balance of dollars and the running out of the dollar loan, an article written by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) in March, 1947—so recently as that—pooh-poohing all the possibility of a rapid using up of our dollar resources. That article was quoted with approval by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members opposite have stated in defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the American price level had not begun to rise at that stage, to make an alteration in the value of the commodities we could buy. That will be within the recollection of hon. Members who were in the House at the time.
Mr. Pritt: Then why tell us again?
Mr. Macmillan: Unfortunately, the hon. Members who said that were wrong in their facts. I will re-state the facts. The American price level in January, 1946, was 107; in July, 1946, the American commodity price level was 124; in January, 1947, it was, 141; the article was written in March; in May, the level was 146; and in July it was 150. Therefore, there has been a total rise during the whole period of the dollar loan of 43 points; and 36 took place before the writing of the article, and only seven afterwards. Therefore, as a defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that argument is as slender as most of the arguments hon. Gentlemen have on which to rely for their defence.
Once more we have to decide what course it is the duty of the House to take-On previous occasions—there have been many great occasions, and I have quoted two or three—Governments have some-, times acceded to the views expressed by a minority of the House; sometimes they have resisted. I do not think that the precedent of the refusal to accept by the Government of 1939 is a happy one. On other occasions, Governments have accepted partially the consideration of the views put before them. But, at any rate, there do not apply here many of the alibis which it is now the practice of His Majesty's Government to plead for everything that goes wrong—for nothing is their fault: it is always the fault of somebody or something else, the weather, Tory misrule or the failure of the price level, of
2468
which they took no notice until it had grown large. So much do they rely on alibis that I am reminded of the advice of old Mr. Weiler, "Samivel, Samivel, we ought to have an alibi." The Government have never forgotten that advice.
Unless Parliament be dissolved—ah, if it were dissolved there would, indeed, be a great solution to our problems. Then the country would be able to carry the burdens that lie upon it. But unless Parliament is dissolved, and until that happens—and then there would be plenty of holidays for many hon. Members below the Gangway—the House of Commons is still the master of its life and work. It can decide how and when it shall sit. On all the previous occasions there have been members in more than one part of the House who supported such a plea as we are making today. I confidently appeal to hon. Members to support our plea today. In days past there were independent Members in all parts of the House——
Mr. Gallacher: There were just 63 on Tuesday morning.
Mr. Macmillan: I appeal with confidence to all hon. Members, certainly to those of my party, and also to those of the Liberal Party to support us in this matter. There are even some independent Members in this House of Commons who are Members of the Labour Party.—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Why 'even'"?] We have heard them in the Debates. I appeal to all men who really value the position the House of Commons should take at such an immense moment in our history, to give at least an example by taking the trouble to come back here sooner than the Government propose to hear a statement from the Government, and, in the light of events at that moment, and in the light of that statement, to decide upon the future action of the House.
Mr. Pritt: The right hon. Member was good enough to quote the rise in American commodity prices, and he gave certain details. Has he had those figures broken down, so that we can see the prices of the commodities which we were mainly buying with the dollar loan?
Mr. Macmillan: No. I obtained these figures partly from the Government, and partly from the Chancellor's speech, which gave some figures. But these figures are

2469
not put out in full for the information of hon. Members. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the difficulty in obtaining accurate figures when the full sources of information are not published. My figures were obtained as a result of much work and delving into certain sources, but these matters are published very little. I cannot break them down into the whole range of commodities. I would say, broadly speaking, the most important commodities, being on the longest-term contracts, are least affected by a rise in prices.
2.1 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: As to three-quarters of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), we have had one of the most logical, coherent and relevant speeches which has been made in this Debate. For the greater part of his speech he kept to the point, although it is true to say that at the latter end he got on to the somewhat wider field which, undoubtedly, is in Order because it has been so ruled—and I do not question that a bit. That wider field was covered amply, and I think with some extreme feeling, by the deputy Leader of the Opposition who, indeed, was nearer to the wild irresponsibility of the Leader of the Opposition than he is usually. If I recall aright, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) got as far as recalling what happened in 1940 about some Adjournment or other, and he said that our situation today was more serious than in 1940.
Mr. Eden: In some respects.
Mr. Morrison: I thought that was rather an extreme partisan observation.
Mr. H. Macmillan: The President of the Board of Trade said so.
Mr. Morrison: Did he? Well, I will tell the right hon. Member for Bromley what he himself said yesterday. I am bound to say, I prefer the moderation and more realistic tone of the right hon. Member for Bromley, today, because yesterday he said——
Mr. Macmillan: At 8.0 a.m., just before breakfast.
Mr. Morrison: We were dealing with the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Bill. I think he put his views forward, and repeated them with
2470
absolute sincerity and clarity, as he always does. He said:
"I do not agree … that we are in a position as serious as during the war in the period from 1940."
He later went on to say:
"Nor do I believe we are up against difficulties such as those in 1940."
Mr. Macmillan: Read what I said about the reasons.
Mr. Morrison:
"We only need courage and a renewal of our faith to make a big inroad into the path of progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, nth August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 2228.]
Mr. Macmillan: I gave the reasons; people being killed and wounded.
Mr. Morrison: Of course. I prefer the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley today to that of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. Indeed, if there is anything I deprecate about this Debate it is certainly this: Undoubtedly, the country is facing some serious economic difficulties, which nobody denies, and about which certainly nobody on this side of the House is happy or pleased; but I sometimes think hon. Members opposite are happy and pleased about it. I sometimes feel that they think that the more the country is in trouble, the better politically it is for them. The fact that a whole series of speakers have gone out of their way today, after this week of pretty acid and controversial Debate about a Bill which need not have been controversial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It really need not have been, and when hon. Members opposite compare the proceedings of yesterday and today in another place with what happened in this House, I think they may be ashamed of themselves.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Tell that to the Minister of Health.
Mr. Morrison: What have the Opposition been doing all the time? They have used every conceivable opportunity—even to the point of stretching the Debate—not for the purpose of helping the country in its economic difficulties, not to encourage the nation to put its best foot forward, not to seek to steady the national nerve, which is vital in these critical times, but they have, every time, gone out of their way and done their very best to stir up mud and trouble, to cause people to be

2471
nervous, frightened and jittery if they could; in fact to do everything they could politically to impede the success of the nation's efforts to solve its economic difficulties. That has been the role of this Opposition. Some of them have made speeches encouraging other countries not to co-operate with this country.
Mr. James Stuart: We have not called the Americans "shabby money-lenders."
Mr. Morrison: I am sorry the Opposition Chief Whip should be so noisy.
Mr. Stuart: We did not call them,"shabby money-lenders."
Mr. Morrison: If I remember rightly, there have been references by Conservative people to the nation being in pawn?
Mr. Stuart: "Shabby money-lenders."
Mr. Morrison: I know, but have there not been references from Conservative people about the nation being in pawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is all right, if nobody said it, because otherwise it would be an allegation of pawnbroking somewhere.
Mr. Stuart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stand up."] The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were "living on tick."
Mr. Pritt: The Tories have done it for centuries.
Mr. Morrison: Of course, the Chancellor said that. He sometimes stands up for the Conservatives; he almost seems to enjoy it. I am bound to say, this active intervention by the Opposition Chief Whip is causing me apprehension as to whether I have any moral authority over my own Whips in keeping them silent any more. The Opposition Chief Whip has come into the Chamber full of life and vigour, and if he comes to the conclusion that he ought to be a debater in the House instead of a Chief Whip, nobody will welcome him into the ranks of the debaters more than I shall. I say that the Opposition, at every conceivable time, and in every conceivable way, have taken such opportunities as they could to unsteady the nation, to weaken its nerve, and to weaken its industrial effort in the belief and on the basis that if the nation gets into an economic mess it is
2472
not a bad thing, because it will be embarrassing to His Majesty's Government. And I say that such opposition is pure negative opposition and not particularly useful in the life of our country.
Mr. Orr-Ewing Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare) rose——
Mr. Morrison: I cannot give way. I have said before in this matter, that in three-quarters of this economic field it is not a matter of party politics at all, but a matter in respect of which we ought all, Government, Opposition and everybody else, to make the best contribution we can, objectively, to what is needed.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Tell the Attorney-General.
Mr. Morrison: But the Opposition constantly say that the Government have no ideas. After having listened to the detailed speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It was a detailed programme. Has any Member of this House ever heard a constructive detailed programme from the Opposition? I am sorry to say these things, and I intend now to get away from them. But I must say that the Opposition at this juncture are lacking in public spirit. They are doing all they can, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, to injure the nation in these times of trouble, and judged by any reasonable standard of good public conduct and spirit they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Having followed the order and scope of this Debate, I now come back to the date. We are discussing two dates; one is 20th October, and the other 16th September.
Sir Waldron Smithers: And 5th November.
Mr. Morrison: That is a very natural observation from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). We have put down a Motion for the resumption of the House on 20th October. We have put it down, of course, in accordance with the usual custom and practice, and, indeed, subject to the Sessional Order, namely, that if His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion—and if the circumstances warrant it, we shall certainly be sympathetic about it and give consideration to

2473
it—that it is in the public interest that the House should resume earlier, then we shall make representations to Mr. Speaker and to the Lord Chancellor in another place. I freely give that undertaking to the House. I cannot see that it would be useful at this juncture that we should meet earlier than that date, unless the circumstances warrant it. It is perfectly true that another place has decided to meet earlier.
Mr. H. Macmillan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Morrison: It is competent for another place, as it is for this House, to decide when it shall meet. I am not going to comment upon it, and I am not sure that I would get very far if I did try to do so. It was commented on by the acting Leader of the Opposition, and, therefore, perhaps I may say that I am sorry there is to be this difference. I think it is untidy. If action were taken in relation to a Defence Regulation—and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) called attention to this—it would be a bit awkward. It would be a bit awkward if their Lordships annulled a Regulation, just as if they disagreed with any particular thing, but in their present mood, judged by the way they have handled this Bill, I think we can trust their Lordships better than we can trust the Opposition in this House. However, we cannot help it, as it is competent for either House to resolve when it shall meet. I have no power over another place, and another place has no power over the House of Commons in this respect.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to answer the question I put in his absence, namely, whether the effect of another place sitting earlier may not be to deprive this House of the possibility of moving to annul an order?
Mr. Morrison: This House is in no worse position because another place is to meet earlier. It is perfectly true that this House will not be able to annul a Defence Regulation until we come back, whatever the date may be, and if another place comes back earlier, it will, in that respect, be able to act more speedily.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: During my speech, I ventured to invite the attention of the House to the proviso in Section 4 of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, which
2474
says that if one House is sitting, the period of 40 days during which a Prayer may be moved continues to run, even if the other House may not be sitting. I put the point that the 40 days might expire before we came back, and, therefore, we might have no chance to discuss the annulment of an order.
Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Member's speech, but like the right hon. Gentleman, I was getting something to bite at that moment. I see his point, and I admit straight away that it is difficult, and that it raises a difficulty. If it happened, we should have to see what we could do about it. I would certainly examine it. It is one of the reasons why it would have been better perhaps if the practice hitherto adopted had obtained, and there had been synchronisation in the Sittings of this House and another place. However, I have no authority over another place, and I am afraid there is nothing we can do about it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington covered the very wide ground of economic and financial policy. I am so sorry that I cannot deal with these matters, because, quite frankly, I came here equipped for a Debate on the dates when the House should resume. Perhaps my imagination was deficient and I may be faulty in that respect, but I suggest that if these matters were to be raised, notice might have been given, just as with the other matters which are to be debated later on. The right hon. Gentleman could never have expected that I would enter on the whole and varied field of economic and financial policy on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to a particular date. He must, therefore, forgive me for not replying to his points, just as I will have to forgive him for making them.
Mr. Eden: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how serious it all is?
Mr. Morrison: I do, and I wish the Opposition, instead of playing about as they have been doing in the matter of politics, had taken a serious view of the situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred to the Sessional Order which I have dealt with, and said that he would like to have a provision whereby

2475
40 Members could recall the House. I should not like to have such a provision, nor would anyone else in power. Judging by the way hon. Members in various quarters sign papers, I do not know how often the House would have to sit if it required only 40 Members to make the request. I think it is rather a light-hearted proposition.
Mr. C. Davies: I am not sure, but I think that in 1931 the right hon. Gentleman supported such a Motion which was brought before the House.
Mr. Morrison: It is an unfortunate historic fact that I was rejected as the Member for South Hackney in the 1931 Election, and so I do not think I could have supported such a Motion. Whoever did it at any time, I say that it is a foolish idea.
The Adjournment of the House is for three purposes. First of all—I am not talking about Ministers, because we are not allowed to claim any consideration for ourselves, and I being a modest Minister would be the last to do so—hon. Members have had a hard Session and they have said so; indeed, it has been complained that we have worked the House too hard, but now they object to having a fair stretch away. The House has been hard-working, and I think there are signs of stress and strain, especially on the opposite side in the last few weeks, and that hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, would be all the better for a break. Members of Parliament are entitled to a holiday. I am glad that it has been said that so are Ministers of the Crown, who, I hope, are going to have one—I am going to have one—because it is good for us to have a holiday, otherwise we shall be a ragged lot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking about the House, not the Government. Secondly,
Members need to renew contact with their constituents to lead them in the path of light and learning, and that refreshing renewal of intimacy will be all to the good. Thirdly, Members of Parliament need time for reading. They will need to read during the Recess to improve their minds, and I hope also that all Members will busy themselves in the country and help in the economic drive for the well-being of the country as a whole. I invite all hon. Members, from whatever part of the House they come, to assist in that direction.
For all these reasons Members are entitled to a break, but this is not going to be a holiday, and it is a misuse of term to say that it will be a holiday. Members are going to have a break and a holiday but they are also going to do work which is strictly relevant to their duties as Members of this House. That is the case, and for these reasons and in all the circumstances—the House having had two and a half hours or so of discussion in which hon. Members have expressed a variety of views about a variety of subjects—I hope that the House will now be good enough to come to a conclusion on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman and on the Motion which I have moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
The Paliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Monday, 2oth October' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 84.

Division No. 383.]

AYES.

[2.30 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Bing, G. H. C.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Binns, J.

Cluse, W. S.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Blenkinsop, A.

Cocks, F. S.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.

Collick, P.

Alpass, J. H.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Attewell, H. C.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Bacon, Miss A.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Cook, T. F.

Barstow, P. G.

Bramall, E. A.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Barton, C.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Brooks, T. J, (Rothwell)

Corvedale, Viscount

Belcher, J. W.

Bruce, Major D. W. T.

Cove, W. G.

Benson, G.

Burden, T. W.

Crawley, A.

Berry, H.

Burke, W. A.

Daines, P.

Beswick, F.

Callaghan, James

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Champion, A. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McAllister, G.

Sharp, Granville

Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

McEntee, V La T.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McGhee, H. G.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Diamond, J.

McGovern, J.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dodds, N. N.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

Skeffigton, A. M.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Dumpleton, C. W.

McLeavy, F.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Sparks, J. A.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mathers, G.

Steele, T.

Farthing, W. J.

Mayhaw, C P.

Stephen, C.

Follick, M.

Mellish, R. J.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Messer, F.

Stross, Dr. B.

Gallacher, W.

Moody, A. S.

Stubbs, A. E.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Morley, R.

Swingler, S.

Gooch, E. G.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Symonds, A. L.

Gordon -Walker, P. C.

Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Moyle, A

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Nally, W

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Naylor, T. E.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Guest, Dr. L Haden

Meal, H. (Claycross)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Guy, W. H.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hannan, W, (Maryhill)

Oldfield, W. H.

Thurtle, Ernest

Hardy, E. A.

Oliver, G. H.

Tolley, L.

Herbison, Miss M.

Orbach, M.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Hobson, C. R.

Paget, R T.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Holman, P.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Viant, S. P.

House, G.

Pargiter, G. A.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Parkin, B. T.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Weitzman, D.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pearson, A.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Peart, Thomas F.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Popplewell, E.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Jay, D. P. T.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Pritt, D. N.

Wigg, Col, G. E.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Proctor, W. T.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Pryde, D. J.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Keenan, W.

Pursey, Gmdr. H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Kenyon, C.

Randall, H. E.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Key, C. W.

Ranger, J.

Wise, Major F. J.

Leslie, J. R.

Rankin, J.

Yates, V. F.

Lever, N. H.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Levy, B. W.

Rhodes, H.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Lindgren, G. S.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Zilliacus, K.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Logan, D. G.

Robertson. J. J. (Berwick)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Longden, F.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Lyne, A. W.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Mr. Simmons.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gammans, L. D.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Harris, H. Wilson

Nicholson, G.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Beechman, N. A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Boothby, R.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Bossom, A. C

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Raikes, H. V.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hurd, A.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hulchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bullock, Capt. M

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Renton, D.

Byers, Frank

Lancaster Col. C. G.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Carson, E.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Smithers, Sir W.

Challen, C.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Clarke, Col R. S.

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Teeling, William

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Touche, G. C.

De la Bère, R.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Diamond, J.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Drayson, G. B.

Marples, A. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Maude, J. C

Fox, Sir G.

Molson, A. H. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Moore, Lt-Col. Sir T.

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and

Major Ramsay.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
"That no Questions be taken on Monday, 20th October, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PLACE OF SITTING (MESSAGE FROM THE KING)
  Message from His Majesty considered [12th August].
  Message again read.
  Ordered:
  "That on Monday, 20th October next, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session, this House do meet in St. Stephen's Hall."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

  PLACE OF SITTING (MESSAGE FROM THE KING)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. W. Whiteley.]

  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  2.34 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I wish to deal with a subject which, I am sure, the House will be glad to know, after the turmoil of the previous Debate, should raise no controversies within the House itself. I am sure that I have the sympathy of the House when I say that at any moment, for reasons which I cannot explain, the proceedings are liable to be interrupted, and as this is a serious subject, I am concerned not to get to the gist of my speech before then. I am sure that the Leader of the House will be glad to know that I am raising what I think is a non-controversial subject, and I shall display none of those maniacal tendencies which he feared could be attributed to me when he intervened in an earlier Debate. I think it is generally agreed that it is high time that we should discuss this matter. I can perhaps fill the time before the interruption to which I have referred by quoting to the House, before I come to the point which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary, some information which I have received, through the husbands of
  2480
  these ladies themselves, about this situation. I think it will interest the House.
  I am informed that during and just after the war about 30 officers, other ranks and officials connected with various British Missions in Moscow, Murmansk and elsewhere, contracted marriages with Soviet girls. The first point I wish to make, which is an important one, is that the Soviet raised no objection to those marriages, put no objection in the way. They would have been perfectly entitled to have made representations to His Majesty's Government, and to have said, "We do not like your nationals, who are members either of your Missions or of your Armed Forces, marrying Soviet girls." No such objections were made, and these marriages are valid in Soviet law and are also valid in British law. The marriages were registered at Soviet marriage bureaux and they were also registered with His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow. I have the authority of one gentleman concerned to say that he was given a special visa by the Soviet authorities for the avowed purpose of going to marry his wife. That shows that the Soviet authorities put no impediment whatever in the way.
  Of these 30 wives—it is important that the House should have those figures in mind for a reason which will be apparent in a moment—about 15 were granted permission to come to this country, the most recent permission having been granted as late as 1945. There are still 15 wives remaining in Russia, with their five children, and they have been told that they will never be allowed to join their husbands in this country. I understand, and the Under-Secretary will be able to correct me if I am wrong, that the legal position is that the wives and children are bi-national, that is to say they are British in British law and Soviet citizens by Soviet law. The point I wish to make, and with which any hon. Member of the House who is a lawyer, who has had legal experience would agree, is that it is by no means an unprecedented state of affairs. It has happened before in international law.
  Mr. Pritt indicated assent.
  Earl Winterton: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for North

  2481
  Hammersmith nods his head in assent. Never before, so far as I know, has any country placed the obstacles in the way of wives joining their husbands which the Soviet Government have done in the case of these wives. I must say frankly, tough politician that I am, that I am horrified by the information which has reached me about the position of these unfortunate——

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Appropriation Act, 1947.

  2. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.

  3. Electricity Act, 1947.

  4. Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947.

  5. North Cumberland Water Board Act, 1947.

  6. Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1947.

  7. Preston Corporation Act, 1947.

  8. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947.

  9. London Passenger Transport Act, 1947.

  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  Question again proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."
  2.49 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I was saying before this House went to another place that 15 out of the 30 Russian wives who had married British subjects had been permitted to leave Russia. I went on to say that the position of the others, as evidenced by the correspondence which I have here and with which I do not propose to trouble the House, was a most grievous one. I will select only one or two points from this correspondence. Four of the wives in the provinces have great difficulty in communicating with their husbands. One of these ladies has been ill, and she recently wrote to her husband to ask if he wished to divorce her, as she had received no letter from him for three weeks. The husband writes without fail every week. This is one of the many general complaints, that letters sent to and written by these Russian
  2482
  wives fail to reach the wives or husbands as the case may be. The economic situation in the Soviet Union makes living extremely difficult for these separated wives and their children. They cannot get work in ordinary circumstances, although the Embassy is employing some of them.
  May I take the opportunity of saying, as I see an hon. Lady opposite who has taken a very humanitarian interest in this matter as, indeed, Members in all parts of the House have done, that I am assured by these gentlemen married to these Russian wives that they deeply appreciate the sympathy which hon. Members have shown to them. Some of these girls—and they are only girls, many of them 19 or 20 years of age—I understand, have received demands to pay the childlessness tax, which is payable by ail women over the age of 20 in the Soviet Union. Of course, this only applies to girls over 20, but some, married before they were 20, are now being charged with the tax, which amounts to some 1,500 roubles a year. My informant says, speaking on behalf of these husbands:
  "The irony of this is obvious, and we feel this to be the cruellest blow of all. One girl has been threatened with imprisonment if she does not pay."
  I could quote a great many other cases of hardship, but I will not do so.
  I want to say, at the outset of my speech, that I wish to confine my remarks solely and simply to this one issue, and not to Anglo-Soviet relationship in general. That, so far as this bench is concerned, is within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I think that I shall be more likely to succeed in my object—that is to bring this matter to the attention of the House—if I confine myself directly to the question of these Russian wives and not to Soviet policy generally. I think that it is not for me, and that it would be a gross piece of impertinence for me, to suggest that should be the line followed by other hon. Members, but I would suggest, if I may do so in the most humble manner, that is the line that might be followed.
  What is the justification for us, on both sides of the House, raising this question? I would like to put it in three or four contentions. I would say, at the outset, that this matter is only a drop in the ocean of misery in the world today in which men and women have forsaken the teaching

  2483
  of Christ and the leaders of every other religion, and in which justice, tolerance, truth and mercy are even rarer than food and housing. But, although this is only a drop in the ocean of misery, it is poignant enough for those concerned. I would go on, secondly, to say that this country has, to its eternal credit, ever asserted the cause of justice and right in the case of an individual or individuals, however humble. Thirdly, I would say that the formidable corporate protests of Parliament have sometimes resounded round the world and caused, in the past, nations, far more materially powerful than these Islands, to pause and think again where injustice has been done or was about to be done to British subjects. The same influence may have some effect on those whom we still call, very properly, our Soviet Allies.
  I would ask, on behalf of those Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter, for the strongest possible support for our protest from public opinion outside. Particularly, may I say without offence—and I am very anxious to say nothing to offend—that there is a duty that rests on the Christian churches in this matter. They place the very highest importance on husbands and wives not being separated, and I would suggest that someone, for example a man like the Dean of Canterbury, who has spoken very strongly on Anglo-Soviet relationship, and who is possibly of the opinion that the Soviet system is analogous to Christianity—I would like to see him speak up, and others who have taken an interest in this matter. I put this to you, Mr. Speaker, to him and to others outside this House that I think that he has a duty to the church to which he belongs, and others who have spoken on this matter who belong to the churches have a duty to express an opinion on this question.
  Perhaps one reason, as important as any of the reasons which I have given, is that I think that we in this House and the country generally are entitled to know the reasons for the Soviet action, which seems so extraordinary in the case of the relationship of one country to another. Those reasons have never been given publicly. I do not know why the Soviet has done this. I have heard very unflattering suggestions as to the real
  2484
  reason for their action, which I am not even going to hint at, because I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will feel that he ought to give the reasons. I do not know what they are, but I think that I am entitled to propound a question, and to ask him: What are the reasons, and what fault have these people committed?
  Is there any other action which His Majesty's Government can take, or any other pressure which they can apply? I suggest that there are two, possibly three, further courses which they could take. First, I think that the official correspondence on the subject should be published—I think that very important—in the form of a White Paper, so that we may know the alleged reasons for the Soviet action. Then, I think, that His Majesty's Government should consider who is the appropriate international authority to which an appeal should be made. I cannot believe that with the existence of U.N.O., the Supreme Council, and all the other means which there are for exchanging views between the Allies, and for getting the protests of the Allies or any country considered, it would be right to refrain from bringing this matter before the appropriate international body, whatever it may be. It makes nonsense of the talk of international co-operation if when what is regarded by hundreds and thousands of people in this country as a plain injustice is done to British subjects, that injustice could not be considered by some international body.
  Finally, I make this suggestion, although I do not want to embarrass the Government. I have carefully refrained from making any hostile references to the Soviet Government, and I do not want to end my speech on that note, but I think that here a very delicate and embarrassing position arises. I think that if the Soviet Government continue to take up this attitude, pending the hearing of the question by some international body, the Soviet Government should be informed that it is embarrassing—I put it no higher than that—to His Majesty's Government to provide visas for the wives of members of Russian delegations. Obviously, they could not refuse visas to members of the actual Embassy. We are always reading of Russian delegations

  2485
  coming to this country, such as trade delegations, and delegations from the Soviet Parliament. Some were received in this country, and in this House, I believe. I think it should be said that so long as these British wives—British Soviet wives, because we regard them as British subjects—are treated in this way, it is embarrassing to His Majesty's Government, and to Members of this House also I should have thought, to receive the wives of members of Russian delegations. I am quite prepared to be told that that would not be a proper way of doing things and would only irritate the Soviet Government.
  I am most grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the attention which they have given to this matter and I think they will acquit me of any intention to make cither party capital or international mischief out of it. Relying, as I have always done in the 42 years I have been in this House, upon the generosity of hon. Members, I would like to add that this matter almost keeps me awake at night. I hate to think of the anguish through which these people are going, and I hope that hon. Members, whatever their political opinions may be, will agree that this separation is quite unnecessary and only adds to the general horrors of today's world.
  3.2 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in relation to this question. I have in my mind grave doubts about the effect of any Debate in this House upon the subject of these British Soviet wives, and whether the Kremlin is prepared to listen to the voice raised in this Parliament on almost any issue of which one can conceive. I hate the regime in Russia. I make no bones about that. I hate the methods that are adopted. If the Russians are to have international co-operation of any kind with the outside world one would expect that arrangements would be reciprocated by the Soviet Government and that they would attempt to deal humanely and justly with issues of this description.
  The Soviet Government and the Kremlin have sent it out to the world that they are the internationalists in the world,
  2486
  that they have thrown over the old capitalist moral code and instituted a more humanitarian code and process. But events like this give a direct lie to statements that are made by those individuals and by their defenders. It was always said, in my early days in the Labour movement, that Governments and regimes were known mostly by the things they did to isolated citizens, injustices and acts that lacked humanitarianism. These women have committed no crime. Their husbands have committed no crime. Indeed, they have been moderate in their attitude on this question. They have resisted the more extreme denunciations regarding the regime and its behaviour.
  Statements have been made from time to time that the regime in Russia cannot allow this moderate number of women to leave Russia. Those statements become just a lie. Why should any nation with 180 million human beings require the retention of some 30 women? The Russians have shown lack of reason as applied to these women. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) intends to add his voice in appeal, so that the Russians will know that Members of this House, although closely tied to the Soviet Government, are not bound hand and foot, and tongue, to that Government, and can stand up for the rights of British citizens as well as defend the interests of the Soviet Government in all its actions throughout the world.
  Therefore, I say, realising, reading, studying and knowing the activities in Russia, that I really begin to fear for the safety of individuals who raise matters in this House. If one is to accept even moderately the statements in Jan Valtin's "Out of the Night" and "I Chose Freedom," by Kravchenko, and others, one knows that the punishment of individuals, who may have had nothing to do with the raising of an issue, may be of a very severe character. Therefore, I wonder. I believe that the Soviet Government do not intend to listen to the voice of reason from any part of the world and that there is a great fear operating. I believe that the Soviet Government are determined to smash through all agreements, frontiers and incidents, in order to achieve their will.

  2487
  With the noble Lord, I am driven to ask for what reasons the Soviet Government refuse to allow these 30 women to come into this country? If the Soviet system is such that it would attract supporters among the workers in every part of the world then the Soviet Government should be delighted to have such missionaries going into those countries, praising the Soviet system and saying in a propaganda sense, "You ought to have a similar system to ours, because it is superior to the British, American and other so-called democracies," but they do not say that. Are the Soviet Government lacking in faith about their own system? Have they a fear that no case can be made Out for the superiority of their system? Indeed, do they fear these 30 women coming as missionaries to this country, telling the truth of what is actually happening in the Soviet Union because what they would say might do more damage to the Soviet Union than anything they might say in praise of the system they had left behind?
  I am driven, through all the sordid things that are happening in this war-weary and torn world of tragedy, to believe that the Soviet Government are afraid to allow these individuals to come to this country to tell the truth about this Soviet El Dorado and New Jerusalem that is in operation in Russia. Not only that: I say further, when the noble Lord suggests that we might consider reciprocal action of some kind, that although I do not believe in unjust punishments I want to know whether this country is to take all the kicks, the hidings and all the false propaganda, and is to be always on the defensive, accepting it all, and at the same time to get down, grovelling, before the Soviet State?
  Earl Winterton: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member. I am sure his reference to me is intended to be friendly. No one has made more violent speeches in this country against the Soviet Union than I, yet I refrained from doing it in connection with this case. I confined my remarks to the narrow issue. I had very much in mind the position of these unfortunate people.
  Mr. McGovern: I am taking my own line on this issue. I have never been a believer that grovelling before any State did any good. I believe that if we are
  2488
  against any form of injustice we should stand forthright and state the things in which we believe. We must consider whether or not things have come to the stage where the word or attitude of the State can be depended upon on any issue. The issue of these 30 women is a small one. The ordinary member of the public is absolutely amazed that the Soviet Union refuses to allow them to come here. This country has been generous in allowing every form of national to enter the country and allowing her own people to leave to go to the uttermost ends of the earth. The public cannot understand why we should have footballers, diplomats and delegations here and that at the same time these women should be denied the opportunity of coming to this country.
  People may say that it is a small sentimental issue. Any man or woman who has no sentiment is completely dead from the shoulders up. I refuse to agree that any individual, the most hard-boiled—even the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith—has no sentiment in his being. I am quite satisfied that everyone has. There is the sentiment of love for our wives and our children. We can, surely, understand the feelings of individuals who have fallen in love with young women, become attached to them, lived with them and, in some cases, had children by them. This is a tremendous issue for them individually. These individuals are perplexed. They feel that their whole aim in life is being defeated by the refusal of a so-called great State to allow this action. That State cannot be great when it stoops to actions of this kind in the case of a number of young men and women, many of whom have served in the war in the purpose of the Allied cause.
  I have seen the stupid acts which have been perpetrated both by the Soviet Government and by their fellow-travellers in this country, and by the Communist Party, and I have wondered from where they got their advice. Their actions were stupid and against popular and public opinion in this country. But if their defenders in this country can make their voice heard—if they are not afraid to do that—it would be of assistance. Hon. Members should note that the people who defend the Soviet Union are closely allied to them. I do not blame them for that. They attack everybody in this country

  2489
  but their voice has never been heard criticising anybody in the Kremlin because they dare not do that. Therefore, I say that if they can make their influence felt, if they can show to the world that they are not tied hand, foot and tongue to this regime, if they can dare to stand up for British citizens as well as Soviet citizens, if they can raise their voices urging the Soviet Government to reconsider this issue, then, much as I am opposed to the regime, I would like them to succeed. I think they have great opportunities if they act differently and attract the eyes and the ears of the world to the system of which they are laying the foundations. I refuse to accept the view that the attitude adopted is anything in the nature of a humanitarian attitude. If these people, by word or action, can get a reconsideration of this issue and persuade the Soviet Government to act more humanely and intelligently and give these young people an opportunity to go through life as they ought to be, united in marriage, I am sure that even at this late date, it will redound to their credit. There will be general acclamation, no matter what may be the point of view of any hon. Member of this House, that they had at least taken one intelligent action on the road to building up a humanitarian State in Russia.
  3.15 p.m.
  Brigadier Low: I am sure hon. Members will agree that we are fortunate to have had a speech on this issue from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). He expressed his feelings with that great depth of humanity which we know him to have. Also I would like to pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for raising this issue and for introducing into the Debate such an atmosphere of dignity and depth of feeling. I merely wish to refer to one case. I do not propose to give the name of the person concerned but I wish to make one point about it The uncertainty and doubt which arises when letters are posted and no answers are received is well known to most hon. Members; but, in addition to that, there is the uncertainty which follows from sending money remittances and not knowing for a long time whether they have got to the right people. That is an uncertainty which becomes almost too hard to bear
  2490
  when, from time to time, one is told that the money has been refused.
  Here is a case where there has been much difficulty in getting the money through. The Moscow Embassy has been helpful but on the last occasion when money was sent, after several months it was returned because the wife had not been located. This is what the man concerned says:
  "I am thus left without any knowledge of whether my wife has been moved from the place in which she was, whether she is still there but has changed her mind and so refused to accept the allowance any longer, or whether she is there and has been told by the N.K.V.D. that she has to lay off, and fears the consequence of non-compliance. Personally, I believe that the last is probably the case but this may be no more than personal conceit."
  In such cases, is it the fact that there has been pressure from that sort of organisation which we in this House despise, or is it that there has been a genuine change of mind? It is that sort of uncertainty which is pulling at the heartstrings of my correspondent. I believe that a similar state of affairs exists in the other cases. I hope that this Debate will be of some assistance to the men concerned in that they will gain greater strength, knowing that they have the people of the country behind them. Also, I hope that it will be of some assistance in that it will increase the chance of His Majesty's Government being successful in getting the wives released from Russia. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will be able to say that his right hon. Friend has changed his mind since a few days ago when he answered Questions on this subject in the House. Whether it was an aside or whether it was part of a considered statement, I do not know. On that occasion he said something to the effect that he had given up hope of getting these wives cut of Russia.
  That is what I heard him say. It may have been that he had given up hope, but, anyway, the Under-Secretary is going to reply and can tell us the Foreign Secretary's views. If he has given up hope, we want to know what other steps can be taken. If he has not given up hope, there is one other way in which this Debate might help, and that is if those who have shown themselves consistently friendly to Moscow, if even one of those, will state clearly in this House that

  2491
  he agrees with the opinions expressed by the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in deploring the attitude of the Soviet Government, and will join with us in demanding that the Soviet Government should change their minds.
  One more point. There has been discussion already about reciprocal action in the nature of reprisals. I am sure that it is part of the British spirit that we never do "tit for tat" just for the sake of doing "tit for tat," but we have now waited a long time, and, in dealing with the Soviet Government on other things, it seems to be the case that firm action has a better chance of success than sitting back and taking kicks. If that is so, I have no doubt that the Foreign Office have considered whether it might be wise to refuse visas. They might have considered whether it would be wise to reduce the facilities so generously offered to Soviet Delegations of all kinds. They must have considered that, and I would like to hear the results of their considerations. What were their decisions about it, and what is in their minds? I am one of those who hesitate a long time before doing "tit for tat," but it may interest the House to know that we are very generous to Soviet delegations. If any hon. Members have looked up the London Telephone Directory to see how many telephone numbers the different offices of the U.S.S.R. have—and we know how difficult it is to get telephones—they will have found that they number up to 48, in different trade offices, but where is the trade?
  Hon. Members may not know that, contrary to the normal practice, I believe, the Soviet Embassy in this country does not employ British subjects but mans that Embassy entirely from its own subjects. That is the position, and we should bear this in mind, since one reason given for the detention of these wives in Russia is that Russia is short of manpower. If that is the real reason, His Majesty's Government might consider that we should ask them to withdraw the 30 women who are in this country for various reasons, and that, in return, the Soviet Government might consider releasing these wives. His Majesty's Government must have a view on all these matters, and, although I do not want, in any carping or critical spirit, to put any more proposals forward, I hope
  2492
  the Under-Secretary will give us and the men concerned some further hope that he will be successful. If he has to tell us that there is going to be no hope, it is incumbent upon the Government immediately to make the future happiness of these men possible, and immediately to take such legal steps so that the damage which has been done in the past by the action of the Soviet Government should be repaired, and that their chance of happiness in future may be restored to them.
  3.24 p.m.
  Miss Bacon: I hope the House will bear with me if, following a recent throat operation, my voice is not quite as strong as usual, but I do not want this Debate to pass by without adding my word to what has been said already, because I believe I am the only hon. Member of this House who has actually spoken to one of these Russian brides in Moscow. Exactly a year ago, I was in Russia, and I had not been there for more than a few days before I became acutely aware of this difficulty. In fact, I had been in Moscow only two or three days when I had a letter sent to me from one of the Russian wives. I do not want to weary the House by reading the whole of the letter but I want to make one or two extracts. It begins by saying:
  "As the wife of a British subject, I am, though Russian by birth, a British subject by marriage, and, as such, I am anxious to exercise what I understand is a privilege enjoyed by Englishmen in England, namely, the privilege of being received by a Member of Parliament."
  The letter goes on to state the writer's case, and at the end, she asks me not to approach the authorities in this matter on her behalf alone:
  "I would ask you to do it in general terms on behalf of all wives in my position, of whom there are a number in Moscow, and without any mention of my name, as you will appreciate that the Soviet authorities may not regard favourably my approaching British Members of Parliament. I should add that the British Embassy has made efforts on our behalf."
  Two or three days later, another of the wives came to see me, and she also told me the terrible position in which they were situated. She also had been to the British Embassy, and she spoke very highly of the help given to her there.
  The question has been raised time and time again in this House, and again in

  2493
  this Debate, why the Soviet authorities have taken up this attitude. Because of the fact that these women had approached me, I took the liberty of approaching, quite unofficially, a member of the Soviet Government on the matter, and I asked him why these wives were not allowed to go to Britain, and he gave me a number of reasons. The first reason was that, according to him, the British men had not chosen the best type of Soviet women for their wives, and he said the new idea was that only the best was fit for export. He said that the Soviet Government wished that only the best type of girl should go to this country. I told him that the women I had seen were a really good type of Russian citizen, as I am sure the others are, too. Next, he said that they had allowed a few wives to come, but they had been ill-treated by their husbands and had decided to go back to Russia. When I "pooh-poohed" that, he said that he himself had married a Russian woman when he wanted to take a wife, and that he believed that everybody else should do the same. I reminded him that that was a very strange argument to be put forward by a representative of a country so international in its outlook as Russia, and that I really did not know how far we could get in this matter.
  The fact is that the Foreign Office and the British Embassy have done all they possibly can. The noble Lord, in his speech, appealed to someone like the Dean of Canterbury to do something about it. I am given to understand, though I do not know whether it is correct, that the Dean of Canterbury approached Generalissimo Stalin himself on this matter, but that no further progress was made, so that it is difficult to know what we can do in order to get these wives over here. We all know that the reasons given to me by the member of the Soviet Government were not the real reasons why the wives are being kept in Russia, and I want to say in conclusion, that I do not believe that we shall get any further in this matter until we can convince the Soviet authorities that there is nothing to be lost, but everything to be gained, by contact between the people of Russia and the people in the outside world.
  3.30 p.m.
  Mr. Follick: I would not intervene in this Debate, but for one rather singular fact. Being a bachelor, I think that standing up for the wives of men who have married, either in this country or abroad, is a thing which a bachelor should try to do, because, not being married myself, I do see the great attachment there must be between a man and a woman who marry and live abroad.
  The case I want to bring to the attention of this House is a very singular one, pertaining to a very important and very beloved past Member of this House—no less a person than George Lansbury. I was in Russia in 1933, and, when in Moscow, I met George Lansbury's daughter and the professor with whom she was living. At that time, I thought that they were married, and when I came back—I was a great friend of George Lansbury—I went to see him and told him that I had spoken to his daughter and her husband. He corrected me, and said, "No, not her husband; they are not married." I was a little surprised at that, because, after all, we all know what a very religious man George Lansbury was. Yet, there he was, boldly correcting me on the error which I had unwittingly made. Naturally, I would not have mentioned a thing like that to a person for whom I had such a terrific respect as I had for George Lansbury. He told me that they could not marry because, if they did, his daughter would not be allowed to come to England to visit him.
  There is an entirely different outlook in Russia from what there is in other countries on the question of marriage. People who want to get married in Russia go to a sort of little office and just say that they are going to get married, and they get married. At the time I was there, much the same sort of process was adopted if a person wanted to be divorced. I think the system is rather different now. George Lansbury was a great friend of Russia, and nobody stood up more for that country than he did. Even when Russia was down and out and had no friends, George Lansbury remained her friend. And yet, even this great man had to submit to the position that his daughter could not marry the man with whom she had fallen in love because, if she did, she would not be

  2495
  allowed to return to England to visit her father.
  I am not going to say anything to disturb the relations which exist between this country and Russia. I have heard it said by hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, I have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself say, that he had given up hope. But that does not mean that he has given up trying. I believe that he is still trying to straighten out this difficulty. I appeal to Russia from these benches to allow these wives to come to this country. It is a small matter to a country of nearly 200 million people to lose 15 persons because they are short of workers, as is asserted, but it is a great matter to the husbands of these women and to this country that these men should have their married state destroyed by a version of marriage that is alien to us. I appeal to Russia to give way on this small point. If they do, they will find that millions of people in this country will again become friends of Russia, and will be only too willing to pardon their sins.
  3.33 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I think it is most unfortunate that neither of the two Communist hon. Members are here this afternoon, because, surely, as Communist Members of this House, the one thing they want to do is to improve the relations between this country and Russia. I should have thought it a most suitable occasion for one of them to be here to see what he could do to assist in solving the problem which confronts the Government.
  I am not quite clear whether the number of women concerned is 15 or 30. My information is that 30 were originally married, that 15 have come over to this country, and that 15 still remain in Russia. As ray noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said, these marriages were contracted with the permission of the Soviet authorities. Having given their permission, why do they now go back on it, and not allow these wives to come to this country? Has that ever been explained? I would be very grateful if the Minister would give me some explanation on that point. The 15 wives still in Russia have five children, and, as one hon. Member has already said, we do not know how they are being cared for. We
  2496
  know that the Embassy is taking a considerable interest in the matter, but do they know the whereabouts of all the 15 wives and how the children are getting on? I should also like some information from the Minister on that point. I understand that one of the officers already referred to, has not heard from his wife for 18 months. Is the correspondence being destroyed, or deliberately held up? Even if these women cannot come over to this country, surely, they can be allowed to correspond freely with their husbands, even if the mail is sent through the diplomatic bag to Moscow, and then distributed personally.
  How many of the wives are employed in the British Embassy? Could more such employment be given to others, who, I understand, are having a difficult time in sustaining themselves and their children? The Soviet authorities have said that these wives were not suitable women to go abroad. If that is so, why on earth did they allow the marriages to take place? They knew the girls concerned before they were married, and if that is really their objection, they should have said, on some pretext or another, "No, we are not going to allow these marriages." I am told that, at the present time, there are over 130 Soviet officials in this country who are here in connection with trade delegations, and that many of them have their wives and children with them. I also understand that special schools are run—and quite rightly—for their education.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that it is about time we really stood up and said what we thought in this matter. It has been too noticeable in the past that, in such matters, we have not adopted a strong enough policy. I say that even though I have a great respect for the Foreign Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. Have we, so far, used the radio to any extent in explaining our point of view to Russia and the world? If not, I suggest that we do so right away, because my experience of dealing with such countries is that when one stands up to them and deals with them by their own methods, one makes progress, whereas, if one sits back and allows oneself to be dictated to, no progress at all is made.
  I implore the Minister, to take up the matter with our Ambassador, and, instead

  2497
  of writing polite diplomatic letters to adopt a forceful attitude, and to insist as a right on the provisions of the international law. Surely, if the Russians want friendly international relations, they will meet us on the point. I refuse to give up hope that these women will be allowed to come to this country.
  3.38 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I would like to address myself mainly to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I am sure he will not mind my saying that I thought he displayed admirable restraint. I dare say he did not find it easy to do that, and I dare say that I shall not; but I propose to do so. There is a danger of this Debate developing into a general anti-Soviet tirade. I rather agree with what has been said in this House and elsewhere that we should sometimes speak up and say what we mean, even if we do not achieve our object. But when one sets out to achieve an object, it is better to try to achieve it, and I have some anxiety as to whether this Debate will not do more harm than good.
  I would say, first, that I would be very happy indeed if these 15 ladies were allowed to come to England, but I want to deal with the matter generally and in its proper proportion. The theoretical position, as I understand the procedure, is that we are discussing on the Adjournment something which is the duty of the Foreign Office. I suppose it is the duty of the Foreign Office—it is certainly the right of the Foreign Office—to use every possible persuasion, in the manner which they think is best calculated to achieve the object, with any foreign Government. As far as I know, they have been doing it; I have not the least tittle of evidence to show that they have not. That is really all that this Debate should strictly be about; but necessarily the matter has ranged a little wider, and so I want to deal with it as I understand it.
  Let me say, first, that it is not really light to think of 15, or even 30, Soviet wives. The problem of mixed marriages, which has been a problem for a century or more, has got to be faced. The problem of Soviet citizens marrying British wives is one which, to my knowledge, has been going on for 25 years, and it is certainly 20 years since I was first asked to intervene in such a case. I will not give
  2498
  the name of the people concerned, but I persuaded the Soviet authorities to let a young woman come to this country, and the only people who bitterly regretted the act within a year were the young lady and her husband. Some people say that it is a question of international right. The Under-Secretary has, no doubt, been into all this, but, as I understand my law, it is not a matter of law at all. These ladies are Soviet citizens, and the Soviet Government can exercise jurisdiction over them. They are also British citizens, and our Government could exercise jurisdiction over them if they were here. But so long as they are in the jurisdiction of the Soviet Government, the Soviet Government can withhold their permission. I do not believe it is the slightest good discussing this matter on legal grounds. We should discuss it on humanitarian grounds—on grounds of humanity, good sense and what can fairly be done.
  It is said, perfectly truly, that the Soviet authorities raised no objection to these marriages. Of course, there would have been a frightful outcry if they had. Why should they, if British subjects in the Soviet Union seek to marry Soviet citizens? I do not think any permission was required by Soviet law, and certainly not by British law, unless the girl was under a certain age. Therefore, these marriages were contracted; but everybody concerned must have known perfectly well that it is the practice in the Soviet Union not to allow the permanent export of its citizens, unless they choose in a particular case to do so. In some cases, at any rate, the British subjects concerned knew that they were in danger of being sent back to England at once by the British Embassy in Moscow if they married Soviet girls. They all married—the 30 people involved, and the 15 people directly involved—and they took the risk with their eyes open. I dare say I would have done the same, and then fought as hard as I could to get my wife over here.
  I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord say that the total number involved was as small as 30. I thought the number was larger. But be that as it may, I am right in saying that in every case in which a British subject working or fighting in the Soviet Union married a Soviet girl during the period of hostilities, the Soviet Government waived their natural ordinary objections and allowed the export of the wives, if I may so put it. The cases with

  2499
  which we are now dealing concern entirely people who married after hostilities ceased, and the Soviet Union have not so far chosen to give way. It is a matter for them. I would very much like to see them give way, but they have not done so, and that is that. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that no Government had ever behaved in a similar way before——
  Earl Winterton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to me, perhaps I may interrupt him. My information is that there is no discrepancy between these cases and the cases of those who have been allowed to leave. I have been consulting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) and I understand that the officer previously mentioned married in 1942. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. The distinction is that the Soviet Government chose to allow 15 wives to go away, and for reasons of their own they did not choose to allow others to go. There is no official distinction.
  Mr. Pritt: There may be no official distinction, but my information is that the wives concerned in the marriages which were contracted during hostilities, were all allowed to come away. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that no other country had ever behaved in such a way. I have said that mixed marriages are a difficult problem. I myself, in the course of the last five years, have dealt, with far more than 15 cases, on behalf of constituents of mine alone, in which our humanitarian Home Secretary was deliberately keeping wives and children from their husbands because it was part of his settled policy that where Frenchmen or any other refugees in this country married English citizens, and of course did not thereby acquire British nationality at the end of the war, they had to go back.
  Earl Winterton: But, surely, this is a completely different point. I do not think I shall be giving away an official secret when I say that I myself protested in the case of the refugees. But they were not British subjects. I said that as far as I know—and I would be very interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject—there was no
  2500
  case in which a British subject had been refused permission by a friendly country to bring his wife to this country.
  Mr. Pritt: I took the noble Lord to be dealing with something much wider.
  Earl Winterton: Oh, no.
  Mr. Pritt: I am not interested on such a point as this, in whether a man is a British subject or not. I am trying to get this unhappy matter into proportion by showing that, in truth and in fact, the British Government, which I support, have in fact treated far more than 15 people with at least equal severity. [An HON. MEMBERS
  : "How?"] By allowing men and women—and really, a woman is a woman and a man is a man whatever the colour of their passports—of, say, French nationality, who have been here during the war as long as they were useful making munitions, to marry and have children, who are British subjects like the noble Lord and myself, by the accident of birth, and then turning the husbands out at the end of the war and separating them from their wives and children.
  Mr. Marples Mr. Marples (Wallasey) rose——
  Mr. Pritt: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Member, I have made no charge against him. I was asked for an explanation, and I gave one. I do not wish to be recorded in HANSARD as having spoken for 30 minutes when, in fact, I spoke only for 15 minutes and other hon. Members interrupted for 15 minutes. The noble Lord says that he knows of no case where a British subject has been so treated. What about the case of the Australians and the Indonesians? A number of Australians, fighting for their country and for ours, in and around the Southern seas, returned to Australia with their Indonesian wives. What did the Australian Government do? They sent the wives back. The men said, "Let us go with them." "Oh, no," said the Australian Government, "you are Australian subjects. You must stop here." I only give these illustrations to remind hon. Members——
  Mr. McGovern: If it is recorded in HANSARD, it is the truth.
  Mr. Pritt: So long as I have the venomous hatred of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) I am satisfied

  2501
  that I am on the right path. We are complaining, quite rightly, that we would like to see the 15 Soviet girls come and join their husbands in this country. But there are many more than 15 Soviet citizens in the British zone in Germany, whom the Soviet Government would like to go back. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Do they want to go back?"] Some of them want to go back, and some of them ought to go back just because they do not want to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly. We in this country—[Interruption.]— Well, children, cannot you keep your mouths shut? We in this country have demanded that a few traitors we had lying around in Germany should be brought back to this country. Why should not the Soviet Union have their few traitors back? Very largely, the Soviet citizens in the British zone who are wanted to go back are very anxious to go back themselves.
  It is one of the necessary tragedies of a discussion like this that it is important——
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is it in Order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to traitors, with the inference that there is some implication of these ladies?
  Mr. Pritt: If any hon. Gentleman thinks that when I was referring to a few British traitors in Germany and a few traitors in the Soviet zone of Germany, I was referring to the young women in Soviet Russia, for whom I have expressed sympathy already, should he not see a doctor? One of the inevitable tragedies of a discussion like this is that feelings are aroused amongst various Members of the House, almost all of whom are entirely ignorant of the Soviet Union. [Interruption.] I am not going to be goaded into saying anything hostile or provocative. I am going to follow—I think I shall succeed in following whatever happens—the noble Lord's example and thus put the matter calmly. I am glad to say there is not very much more that I need discuss.
  Mr. Follick: The hon. and learned Member is not discussing anything.
  Mr. Pritt: I would say one or two words about the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) who is interrupting a little less than the others, but quite a lot. With regard to the daughter of the late Mr. George Lansbury, her reason for not
  2502
  marrying the professor as he is sometimes called——
  Mr. Follick: He was a professor.
  Mr. Pritt: —sometimes called a professor because he was one—I wish the hon. Member would keep quiet; cannot he go and get married or something—the professor, as he was sometimes called because he was a professor, and Miss Lansbury, the reason she did not marry him then—she did later—was indeed because she wanted to come to England freely; and, if she had married, obstacles to her coming to England would not have been raised by the Soviet authorities but would have been raised by the British authorities.
  Mr. Follick: It is perfectly untrue. What George Lansbury told me was bold and true.
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is there not something rather disgusting in the discussion of this lady's private affairs? What has it got to do with this Debate? These are most wounding charges being made against her.
  Mr. Speaker: On the Adjournment I cannot stop these things. They may be very unpleasant, but they have been raised, and so I cannot stop them.
  Mr. Pritt: I did not raise this question. All I was saying is that the reason the lady wanted to retain her British nationality was in order not to be prevented from coming to England, not because of obstacles placed by the Soviet authorities but because of obstacles which would have been placed by the British authorities. Quite frankly, to the hon. Member who is so free in calling me a liar, which convinces me I am telling the truth, I would say that there is no inconsistency. What Mr. Lansbury said to him was that she was keeping her British nationality in order that she should be able to come here; but he did not say what Government would stop her.
  Hon. Members have said that in Russia they do not take the same attitude to marriage which we take. Their attitude to marriage has varied a good deal. So has ours. But while theirs has been getting better and better, ours has been-getting worse and worse. At one time the number of their divorces was about 10 times as bad as ours; now, ours, is about

  2503
  10 times as bad as theirs. Men and women in both countries love one another and get married. We are pretty good in this country in keeping the marriage tie, and we are pretty good in this country in looking after our children. So they are in the Soviet Union, and I do not know why the matter was brought up at all.
  The only other thing I want to say, because I do not want to get into too much controversy, is that a good deal has been said about the fear and anxiety these ladies may have for their own safety in the Soviet Union. I have been in the Soviet Union. People have come up to me publicly and abused the Soviet Union in English or German, both languages understood by the inevitable hordes of the N.K.V.D. of which hon. Members talk, for hours and hours, and nothing has happened to them. People are really worrying unnecessarily; and when they complain of the difficulties of correspondence and the difficulties of remittances getting through, all I can say is that that is, unfortunately, a very usual feature. I do not know whether it is due to the British Post Office, or to the Soviet Post Office, or to the inefficiency of some country in between us and the Soviet Union, but it is in fact notorious that the percentage of casualties in all types of correspondence between here and the Soviet Union is very high indeed. Somebody complained to me the other day that a relative of his—perhaps, I had better not give the name, it was a prominent Englishwoman married to a prominent Soviet citizen who was married, I think, some 35 or 40 years ago—had not communicated with him. He said he had had no news of her, and wondered if she had been done away with in the usual mysterious fashion. I was able to reassure him that I myself met the lady and talked to her in Moscow.
  The Foreign Office have no power to do anything but persuade the Soviet Union of this matter of these wives. I hope that they will succeed in their persuasion. I hope the wives will come here. For myself, I feel almost certain that this Debate will have hindered their case rather than helped it, but I wish the Foreign Office all success in their efforts.
  Major Tufton Beamish: The hon. and learned Gentleman made two
  2504
  very grave charges indeed which I am sure he would like to substantiate if asked a question about them. He made a charge, first, that there are traitors—Soviet citizens who are traitors—being sheltered in the British zone and that the British Government are refusing to hand them back. He also said that there are Soviet citizens who wish to return to their own country who are not allowed to do so by the British Government. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the name of one single Soviet citizen coming within that category, and to give the name of the camp he or she is in now, or else to withdraw.
  Mr. Pritt: That, I think, does come singularly oddly from an individual who poured out the filthiest abuse on the Soviet Union last night or the night before—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—Is it every little rat in this House who is making my speech for me, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. and learned Member should call hon. Members rats.
  Mr. Pritt: I will amend my question. Is everybody trying to make my speech for me? The charge, as I say, comes singularly ill from an individual who is notoriously——
  Mr. Logan: Is it true?
  Mr. Pritt: The charge comes singularly ill from that particular individual. All I can say about it is that I have not such names with me. I am assured on the highest possible authority that there is a large number of cases, and I cannot help thinking that it would be useful if the Under-Secretary, who is possibly informed on the matter, would tell us about them.
  Mr. Logan: The hon. and learned Member has no right to make such charges.
  4.0 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I am sorry that the tone and usefulness of the Debate should have been ruined by this last speech. The hon. and learned Member said he wanted the 15 wives to come to England, and he hoped that this Debate would do more good than harm to their cause. But that cannot be reconciled either with the tone or with the substance of his speech. I do not propose to follow

  2505
  all the points he made. Some of them were familiar questions which have been answered time and time again, with full evidence and full substantiation by the Government. For example, he raised the question of Soviet citizens being prevented from returning to Soviet Russia from the British zone of Germany. There is no substance whatever in that charge. On the contrary, we are under an obligation to return people of certain categories who are Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union; and, repugnant though it is to our whole conception of these things, we do honour such obligations to the Soviet Union. If the hon. and learned Member has any specific evidence at all, or any specific case, I will look into it immediately. But these charges have been made, and unless he can substantiate them he has no right to bring them forward in this fashion.
  Before that speech I think I may say, without presumption, that both sides of the House appreciated the moderate and responsible speeches that were made on this occasion, and particularly the deeply felt but very responsible and helpful speech of the noble Lord. I would like, too, to join with previous speakers in expressing sincere sympathy with the husbands of the wives, who find themselves in this unhappy plight. There is the tragedy of enforced separation; there is all the agonised uncertainty; there are aggravations such as the tax on childlessness, which must be hard to bear; and, over all, there is the widespread publicity and high level diplomatic activity over what any normal person regards as his purely private and personal affair. In view of all the stress and provocation, I think the House will agree that the conduct of the husbands has been admirable in every way.
  I was particularly glad that speeches were made on this subject from both sides of the House. Frankly, when I saw the notice to raise this matter on the Adjournment signed by 12 Conservative Members of known downright views, I was afraid that it might give the impression that all concern at the Soviet Government's attitude was the monopoly of one particular section of the British people. That is not so. Concern is shared by all parties, and by the vast majority of ordinary men and women in the country. The truth is, the Russian attitude on this
  2506
  problem does violate all the democratic ideas and convictions of the British people.
  I now wish to answer one or two of the specific points put to me in the Debate. Reference was made to the Dean of Canterbury. In the past, I have on many occasions disagreed strongly with the Dean of Canterbury, but it is only fair to him to tell the House that on this occasion he did make an appeal to Stalin on this point, and we were very grateful to him for his intervention. Then I was asked whether we could not use international machinery in some way in this matter. The answer is that no international machinery exists to which, we could appeal. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith was right on several of his legal points; it is a fact that in Soviet law these wives are Soviet citizens, and the relations between a sovereign country and its nationals cannot be brought before any existing international organisation. However, we are considering working into the Bill of Rights, which is to be considered by the Human Rights Commission, possibly some Clause relating to the rights of individuals to leave their countries; but I do not think that will have any bearing on the present issue. Apart from that, I am afraid there is no help to be sought from international institutions. I was also asked about what might be termed the policy of reprisals; that is to say, as stated by the noble Lord, that we should refuse visas to the wives of Soviet representatives visiting this country.
  Earl Winterton: I want to be quite plain on this. I did not put it quite as strongly as that, although other hon. Members did. I would not presume to put it like that. I said that we should indicate to the Russian Government that it was disagreeable, or embarrassing—which was my actual phrase—to give visas to persons who were not actually members of the Embassy. I thought that might, to use a vulgarism, do the trick.
  Mr. Mayhew: I appreciate the point. I had forgotten the precise standpoint of the noble Lord, which was slightly warmed up by subsequent speakers. We have considered matters of this kind, of course, in the Foreign Office, but I am myself doubtful whether there is anything helpful which we could work out along these lines. The essence of reciprocity is that it should be exact, and the noble Lord will appreciate that there is by no

  2507
  means an exact parallel between the refusal of an exit visa for the Soviet wives of British citizens and the refusal of a visa for the wives of Soviet representatives visiting this country. It is not an exact parallel, and, therefore, much of the case of reciprocity goes. Furthermore, I think it rather undermines our whole attitude to this problem. After all our whole point, surely, is that the lives and liberties of individuals should not suddenly be disrupted in this way by State policy, and we should be very careful not, by our actions, merely to increase the area of injustice and difficulty. Therefore, I am rather doubtful whether anything could usefully be done along the lines suggested by hon. Members.
  Mr. McGovern: I can see the difficulties involved, but could not the Under-Secretary consider prohibiting any British subjects in this country who are politically interested in the Russian ideology from going to Russia?
  Mr. Mayhew: Again, I think that is a very doubtful suggestion indeed. Without thinking about it, I should not like to give a decision, but it strikes me as very unusual, and it would need very careful consideration.
  Mr. Marples: Stop them coming back when they get there.
  Mr. Mayhew: The third main point about which I was asked by the noble Lord was whether we would issue a White Paper summarising the diplomatic exchanges, which have gone on in relation to this problem, so as to show the reasons for the Soviet attitude. The first thing I have to say about that is that I am afraid that publication of these documents would not reveal any statement of the Soviet reasons. Reference was made, as I will show later, to the conduct of two of the Soviet wives who did reach this country, but there is nothing in the correspondence to indicate the reasons for the Soviet's refusal, and there is nothing official I can say about it. We have had evidence from the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon)—and here let me say how glad we were to see her back in good form again—but nothing official has been stated about the Soviet reasons. Therefore, I do not think it would help to publish all this correspondence.
  Perhaps for the record, and because it would interest hon. Members, I could give
  2508
  a fairly full account of the series of negotiations, partly to show that the British Government have made the utmost efforts to solve this problem along diplomatic lines. I should like to tell the House of the continuous negotiations since the war. On 25th May, 1945, our Embassy in Moscow wrote to Mr. Vyshinski urging the Soviet authorities to consider releasing the Soviet wives from Soviet citizenship, and also to consider applications of six of the wives for foreign passports with exit visas. On 12th June, our Ambassador spoke personally to Mr. Molotov, and reminded him that during the war we had made many appeals on this subject and had received no satisfactory answer. Then, at the end of the Potsdam Conference, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to Marshal Stalin himself, and was told that the necessary instructions had already been issued that the Soviet wives should be allowed to leave the Soviet Union immediately.
  Shortly afterwards, our Ambassador was led to believe that the matter had, in fact, been satisfactorily concluded, when, after an interview with Mr. Vyshinski, he was told that work was in hand on the lists of Soviet born wives which we had sent to the Soviet authorities. Two days later, to ensure that no slip should be made in the nominal roll, our Ambassador sent to Mr. Vyshinski a fresh and complete list of cases. On 1st September, the first apparently firm decision was reached by the Soviet authorities when Mr. Vyshinski informed our Ambassador that it had been decided to allow eight of the wives to leave the Soviet Union at once on Soviet foreign documents—that is to say, to receive exit permits but not to relinquish their Soviet nationality—and promised to send a further letter about the exit from the Soviet Union of the other women. This division of the wives into two categories was made because some of the wives had applied for exit permits on Soviet foreign documents, while others had applied for release from Soviet citizenship, which can only be obtained by decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. On 4th October, we again approached Mr. Vyshinski who explained that the outstanding cases were still being examined.
  On 26th November, 1945, our Ambassador wrote another letter to the People's-Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. In

  2509
  January he spoke once more personally to Mr. Molotov. On 23rd October the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs wrote to our Ambassador authorising three more of the wives to leave the Soviet Union, but mentioning that Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Liddell, two other Soviet born wives, had met with difficulties with their husbands on reaching the United Kingdom. Further correspondence was exchanged during January, 1946, but in April our Embassy reported to London that no progress had been made, but that we had done what we could with Mr. Vyshinski to dispel the allegedly bad impression "created in Soviet public opinion" by the alleged difficulties of Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Liddell.
  On 30th May our Ambassador handed to Mr. Vyshinski a revised list of 15 outstanding cases, and urged that early action should be taken. In spite of this, on being approached personally by our Minister on 23rd August, Mr. Dekanozov of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs could give no indication that any immediate or general settlement could be expected. Just after Christmas, 1946, our Ambassador spoke again personally to Mr. Molotov, who, accepting the list of outstanding cases, promised to see what he could do. On 10th January, 1947, Field-Marshal Montgomery spoke personally to Marshal Stalin, but we know of no action being taken. On 15th March, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote personally to Mr. Molotov. On 25th March, in an interview with Mr. Stalin, he informed him that the Prime Minister had specially asked him to raise the question again on a personal basis. Mr. Stalin replied that he had twice been hardly dealt with by the Supreme Soviet for raising this subject, and that he did not think that anything could be done.
  Since then the Minister of State has written to Mr. Kuznetsov, the leader of the Soviet delegation which recently visited this country, and our Ambassador has written again to Mr. Vyshinski—as recently as 18th July—but all to very little effect. The Soviet authorities have remained completely un-co-operative, and despite this formidable list of approaches by His Majesty's Government, have persisted in refusing to grant this very small concession. We had the feeling that throughout, from beginning to end, we were knocking at a very firmly closed
  2510
  door. For the future, the position is that we have still not heard from Mr. Vyshinski in reply to the letter we sent on 18th July.
  I was asked about the statement of my right hon. Friend that there was no hope. If I understood him aright, I think he was saying that there is absolutely no hope in rashly trying to prophesy or foretell the future. At present, there is no evidence whatever of any change in the Russian attitude, and it would be merely raising false hopes to give any indication that there was such a change in attitude, or that there was likely to be such a change in attitude. It is, I think, my duty to make that quite plain. When we receive Mr. Vyshinski's reply, we shall have to consider whether there is anything further we can usefully do. But the position is thoroughly unpromising, and it would not be improved by any particular action which we could take at the moment. We are always open to suggestions, and I only wish that I could suggest to the House some new method we could try to deal with this problem.
  Earl Winterton: As I think the Under-Secretary is about to conclude his speech, may I say how grateful we are to him for what he has said, and that I agree that none of the suggestions I have made can be pursued? I hope, therefore, that the Debate itself will have done some good.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am glad that the noble Lord appreciates the position so well. I think our record shows that we have done our utmost in the past, and that if we are not coming forward now and suggesting new measures, the House will not think it is because of lack of sympathy or indifference on our part.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Under-Secretary has referred to the recent proceedings in connection with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I believe I am right in saying that the United Kingdom Government have submitted a draft text of a Bill which does not contain any reference to the fundamental right of a man and wife to live in the same country, or for a wife to join her husband if they are separated. Will my hon. Friend consider inserting a Clause to that effect in the United Kingdom draft which is now being considered by the Commission on Human Rights?
  Mr. Mayhew: I think I have indicated that we are trying to arrange something of the kind. Our Bill of Rights was perhaps in too general terms to cover this particular point, but we will consider whether or not we can do anything of the kind, either in connection with this particular draft, or of some other. I should like to echo what other speakers have said and say that I am absolutely certain the Russians, if they could even at this stage change their minds on this point—and there would be no embarrassing questions because they have now passed a law forbidding marriages with foreigners—would be doing good to Anglo-Russian relations. It is the small things which sometimes tell in these matters. It seems a very small concession to make to bestow this great blessing, particularly when so few people are involved.

  WORKS OF ART (IMPORT AND EXPORT)
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Benn Levy: I wish to bring to the notice of the House the question of the circulation, or, rather, non-circulation of works of art, partly in order to have clarified what is the real position, and partly in order to suggest that if the position is as anomalous as I understand it to be, it might be quickly revised. As I understand it, there is no import tax on paintings or drawings, but there is a tax on sculpture, engravings, etchings, etc., unless they are destined for a museum or certified by the Director of the Tate Gallery to be indeed works of art. The first objection which presents itself is that the Director of the Tate Gallery should be invested with the obligations of an arbitrary censorship. After all, if the position of Director happened to be held by someone like Sir William Reid Dick, it is conceivable that he might not accept the view that a sculpture by, say, Mr. Henry Moore, was in fact a work of art; and conversely Mr. Henry Moore, if he were the Director of the Tate Gallery, might find it very difficult indeed to persuade himself that the products of the diligence of Sir William Reid Dick had anything remotely to do with art. That is the difficulty in which we always find ourselves. I know quite well what is a work of art, and my hon. Friend knows quite well what is a work of art, but he
  2512
  does not know that I know; nor do I know that he knows. That is the eternal dilemma of subjective censorship.
  I do not wish to put any further particular emphasis on this point, but to ask now what is the procedure involved. If you spend a year or two abroad hacking away at a five- or six-ton piece of granite, trying to convert it into a piece of sculpture, what you have to do, I understand, is this. First, you have to crate it and send it to England and fill up Entry Form 107 in duplicate. Then you send another form, also in duplicate, to the Director of the Tate Gallery providing information under a further seven heads. You then take two photographs of what you hope to have been a work of art and despatch them to the Director. Then you leave a deposit on security for it for an unspecified sum with somebody, although I am not quite sure and cannot find out exactly whom. Finally, you cart your problematical work of art to the premises of Messrs. James Bourlet of 17, Nassau Street, Mortimer Street, London, W.I, and there it remains and you wait. If, in due course, the Director of the Tate Gallery decides that you have in fact committed a work of art, well and good. If, on the other hand, he decides that what you have deposited at the premises of Messrs. James Bourlet, of Nassau Street, is still only five or six tons of granite, then, presumably, you must just cart it away again—no doubt calling at Carey Street on the way.
  Luckily, none of this ever happens because the Treasury have invented an ingenious device for circumventing these difficulties. They just do not let anything in at all. When I learned this orginally, I found it very hard to believe, and I asked my hon. Friend at Question time whether in fact there was a virtual embargo on works of art. He was unable, of course, to deny it, but he said that we were allowed to bring works of art in on condition that they were sent out again almost immediately. As a matter of fact there was one other loophole which he did not mention: I believe that one can bring works of art in provided that they are certified to be household effects, but then there arises immediately the question of what is a household effect. Another censor is involved, and this time I understand it to be a customs officer. The wife of a friend of mine, who is an artist and

  2513
  had painted some pictures in France, attempted to bring them back home. She informed the customs officer that they were indeed household effects and that her intention was to hang them in her bedroom. The customs officer looked at them and, being obviously of the opinion that nobody could possibly want to hang them in his or her bedroom, he decided that they were not household effects and the lady was not allowed to bring them in.
  I am sure that my hon Friend will admit that all this is fairly average nonsense, and I believe it to be the case that this situation is not the result of policy at all but of a kind of hangover of old regulations that have been overlooked. The reason given by my hon. Friend in his reply to my Question was, in a phrase, "balance of payments reasons." In these days those are, indeed, very formidable reasons, but we must have some sense of proportion and the dollar saving in this field is quite negligible; for the simple reason that, although the United States of America are very good at producing a number of things, they are not very good at producing works of art. The result is that whereas our total gross expenditure on imported works of art in 1939 was £626,000, the dollar expenditure was only £119,000, which, as I said, is negligible. Is it really worth saving? Is in worth all this dislocation and anomaly which nobody would defend for its own sake?
  After all, if we accept the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) more than six times this sum, this paltry £119,000, is spent by us annually on the importation of American magazines. That continues and, unfortunately also, on the same day that I raised this question, my hon. Friend had had, in answer to a previous Question, to admit that import licences had actually been granted for certain American motor cars. The worst parallel has, I am glad to say, been changed, but until the last few days we had been acquiescent in the loss of £17 million or £18 million worth of dollars on imported American films.
  I mention that only because whenever an attempt to justfy it has been made, it has always been on the theory that if we allowed the British film industry its head in a free trade market, somehow or other it would be able to redress the adverse balance
  2514
  of trade by selling British films in America. Nobody who knows anything about the film industry can find the slightest tittle of real evidence for believing that in any foreseeable period of time £18 million worth of dollars net can be brought back into this country from the sale of British films in the States. I mention this because it provides an important contrast. There the balance of trade is violently against us whereas here, in the art world, it was very much in our favour. London was for many decades the prime market of the world for works of art, but it is gradually and dangerously ceasing to be so. What we are doing, if we are not very careful, is to argue that free trade should be allowed in films, where the balance of trade was against us, in the chimerical hope that one day in the far future the position might change. At the same time as that argument was being advanced we were refusing free trade in a field where the balance of trade was in our favour and where, as a result, we were inexorably losing our advantage.
  For it happens to be true that before the war free trade in works of art brought us in dollars. I quoted £119,000 as the 1939 figure for imported works of art from America just now, but I said at the time that that was gross. My hon. Friend may have the overall figures although I have had some difficulty in obtaining them, and I think he will be able to tell the House that every year the balance of trade was in our favour in terms of dollars. That is a very important consideration which I think we can emphasise. As I say, I have had difficulty in obtaining the overall figures—a difficulty which does not operate in my hon. Friend's case—but I have managed to find certain individual figures as examples.
  Although, for obvious reasons, I cannot mention the firms involved, one leading firm in 1937 bought £100 worth of stuff in America and sold £62,500 worth to America. In 1946 that £62,500 had been reduced to £9,400, which is a very big drop. Another firm which imported nothing from America exported in 1938 £144,000 worth to America. In 1947 that had dropped to £90,000. The drop is significant because, while my hon. Friend might argue—although I do not suppose for a moment that he will be

  2515
  sufficiently disingenuous to do so—that, after all, these regulations do not impede the export trade because an import licence can be granted to anybody who is willing to re-export, I am sure that he will realise that we cannot maintain let alone build up a trade on that basis: you cannot possibly give an assurance beforehand to anybody that certain pictures will be sold within a specified time for dollars.
  The second reason why it is important is that, although import licences have seldom been refused when applied for, they have seldom been granted. The technique is largely one of procrastination, with the result that applications are very seldom made. One firm, one of the biggest firms of art dealers in the world, has made only four such applications since 1942, and of those four applications three have been rejected. They tell me that, on a conservative estimate, the rejection of those three applications cost the Treasury 125,000 dollars. Mind you, the firm would have applied for more licences if the difficulties had not been so great. On the basis of their prewar trade they would have brought this country 500,000 dollars at prewar prices. Those prices have since doubled, so there may very well have been a million dollars lost as a result of these regulations.
  Perhaps the most important consideration of all is that one cannot continue to export if the stock is perpetually running down. Unless one replenishes the stock one cannot maintain the export trade. London will be no longer the centre of the art trade unless we are very careful. I have laid particular emphasis upon the economic side of this matter. But even if we were losing a few dollars I still say that the position ought to be considered very carefully, because nothing could be more reactionary where works of art are concerned than to shut ourselves behind an iron curtain.
  I therefore ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this situation for this reason and for three others that I have given, and which I will summarise. First, our preeminence in the world market is being jeopardised; second, this trade does not cost us dollars but wins us dollars; and third, even if that were not the case, the sum involved is so small and the principle involved is so great that an elementary sense of proportion must dictate other cuts and deprivations before these.
  4.33 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) for the extremely reasonable fashion in which he has argued his case and particularly for what I took to be his implication that at least I was not insensitive on the matter of the exchange of works of art. In fact, I regret very much that there is such a small attendance of Members, although perhaps that can be forgiven on such a pleasant afternoon as this. I wish that this very important cultural subject could have attracted a greater attendance of Members. I notice the complete absence of the Liberal Party and of the Liberal National Party, and the almost complete absence of the Conservative Party. However, I am glad that culture in this country is, for the time being at any rate, in the safe keeping of the Labour Party, and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would point out that Scotland is represented.
  Mr. Belcher: Yes, Scotland has always had a very great reputation for culture and hon. Members who represent Scotland are keeping up that reputation today.
  Let me tell the House the present position. It is true that there is a very complicated and intricate procedure for getting a work of art into this country, but it is circumvented by the Treasury simply declining to allow any imports, so the complicated procedure does not arise. We allow them to come in here for exhibition purposes, provided that an undertaking is given that none of the works will be sold in this country, all of them being re-exported either to the original source or to some other destination at the conclusion of the exhibition. We have had it urged upon us repeatedly by painters of repute that if we are to build up a British school of painting in this country, it is essential that our painters and particularly our younger and newer painters, should have an opportunity of seeing what is being produced currently abroad. I understand that there is especial interest to see what is going on in France. In present circumstances, for obvious reasons, it is not possible for those painters, particularly the younger ones, to go abroad as freely as they did in the

  2517
  days before the war. On the other hand, I imagine it would be difficult to persuade foreign artists to hold exhibitions in this country unless they felt that, at the conclusion or during the course of the exhibition, they would be allowed to sell some of the paintings which they were exhibiting.
  It has also been urged upon us that it would assist in building up a British school of painting if our painters could exhibit their works of art in other countries. Naturally, in this as in other matters, other countries are demanding a quid pro quo. If we are to exhibit our pictures from Chelsea in Montparnasse, or wherever these exhibitions are held, the people on the other side say, "That's all right, if we can come along to Bond Street." We have been approached by Dominion and Colonial Governments on this matter, but on balance of payment grounds we have been compelled to resist them, because of the non-discrimination clause in our Financial Agreement with the United States of America, which would make it impossible for us to have in this country exhibitions of paintings from the Dominions and Colonies unless we were prepared to offer equal rights to the United States. We have not been prepared hitherto to admit works of art from the United States precisely because of our dollar shortage and we have not allowed works of art to be included in the token import scheme.
  Art dealers have approached us also, asking us to allow them to import works of art freely without any obligation to re-export them. They have not confined themselves to paintings but have included drawings, tapestry, sculptures curios, antiques, coins, and all kinds of other items. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that one has to draw the line somewhere. It is not easy to draw a line. Some hon. Members interested in art may be particularly attracted to pictorial art, and other hon. Members may be drawn to sculptured art, while others prefer furniture, and so on. It is necessary to look at these matters very carefully. I doubt very much whether any relaxation is possible but if it is possible to relax it will not be over a wide field. We shall have to define fairly carefully what is a work of art and what is not. Who is to undertake that task of definition,
  2518
  whether the head of the Tate Gallery or a customs officer, I do not know. I can only say that I should not like to have to do it. I hope that the suggestion made in my hon. Friend's speech will not be taken too seriously.
  I agree that on the financial side the figures are interesting. In prewar years our chief source of import of pictures and of other works of art was France, the United States coming second. The average import from France in the three prewar years, 1936–7–8 was valued at £656,000 per year. The corresponding average from the United States was £196,000. From Empire sources during the same three years it was £55,000 a year, mainly from Canada and Eire. It has been suggested to us in the light of those figures that we should not fear the non-discrimination obligation in regard to imports from the United States, because of the smallness of their prewar exports of pictures to this country compared with the imports from France and Empire countries.
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: What kind of pictures were they? Were they works of art?
  Mr. Belcher: They were pictures. I take it that they were works of art. We are dealing generally at this moment with works of art. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that no works of art are produced in the United States of America—I do not know that he is—I am not competent to argue about it. I should have thought it would have been possible for works of art to be produced in the United States of America as in almost every other country.
  Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman must not consider that I think works of art are not produced there. I happen to know that many works of art are produced there. But I am surprised at the figure for imports, and I wondered whether there was any re-import.
  Mr. Levy: Would my hon. Friend say if that figure includes the re-importation of works of art which have been sent out to the United States of America, for example, where an art dealer has a firm in New York to which he sends out works of art and then brings back those which are not sold? Are those included?
  Mr. Belcher: I do not know. This is the total figure of imports into the country from the United States. If there has been an importation into the United States and the subsequent re-export to this country, the figures I have quoted would include that re-export. I can give the House the figures showing the imports of pictures from the United States in the years, 1936, 1937 and 1938, and the exports and re-exports of pictures from this country to the United States in the same years. They are interesting. In 1936 our imports were £117,000 and exports and re-exports £537,000. In 1937 imports were £227,000 and exports and re-exports £512,000. The 1938 figures are not so satisfactory from our point of view because the imports were £245,000 and the exports and re-exports £313,000, but I agree that if we are dealing with the matter purely on currency grounds the prewar figures appear to lend some substance to my hon. Friend's argument that permitting the resumption of this trade might very well be to our advantage in a dollar sense. As I told my hon. Friend recently, the matter has been discussed and is still being discussed between Departments but we have not yet agreed upon a plan which would be satisfactory to all the Government Departments concerned. The basis of any such scheme would be that if we were to allow imports freely, so far as currency is concerned, the scheme would depend for its continuation on whether or not we were able to show, if not a profit in dollars, at least something like equality in dollars.
  I do not think it could be suggested at the present time that the free importation of works of art would mean a considerable dollar drain. On the figures we have had today, I do not think that that could be shown, but I would not like to suggest at the moment that we could easily have a scheme for the free importation of works of art. We would require to have safeguards. We should have to safeguard ourselves against people who might be buying works of art as a speculation. My hon. Friend would not want to make it possible for people to obtain works of art from the United States in this difficult currency time as a
  2520
  speculation or insurance against inflation. I should regard such people as guilty of questionable transactions. It would be very different if the purpose were to build up a school of art here in this country or to make available to our people something of cultural value.
  Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about modern works of art?
  Mr. Belcher: Any works of art. If they are the work of current painters in the United States of America, they will be modern works of art, but they might exist in private or public museums in the United States, in which case they might be modern or ancient.
  Mr. Bracken: Is it not the case that no duty is payable on works of art over 70 or 100 years old?
  Mr. Belcher: One does not have to pay duty on any such works of art at the moment because we are not issuing any licences in such cases. The burden of my hon. Friend's argument is that we should be issuing licences. We have had no request for importation on behalf of public galleries. If we had, they would have to be treated in the same way as any other requests for importation. I can only say to my hon. Friend, as I told him at the beginning, that I am not insensitive to this subject. I realise that there are other considerations quite as important as the material consideration with which we are concerned most of our time. There are cultural and moral considerations. I regard cultural considerations as of prime importance. I will promise that while this question is under discussion between the various Departments concerned, I will personally give the greatest possible attention to it with the most sympathetic attitude that I can summon up, and although our present currency difficulties, about which we have been so preoccupied during the last three or four days, make it extremely difficult to come to a favourable decision on the matter, I can assure him that there is no lack of sympathy so far as I am concerned, and that I will not lightly allow a decision to be come to which will reject out of hand the possible free importation of works of art.

  AIRPORTS (FIRE PRECAUTIONS)
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Bowden: From time to time we discuss aircraft crashes, inquiries into aircraft accidents, and generally the results of accidents to persons who are passengers in aircraft or who are engaged in flying, but this afternoon I intend to raise for a few minutes the question of the policy of the Ministry of Civil Aviation in dealing with the work of rescue and fire fighting. I do this knowing full well that it is a relatively new Ministry which has had just over two years in which to put its house in order and tackle very many problems, but the time has now come when we should have some assurance that this problem is being tackled. It is a matter of supreme importance to the flying public, although perhaps of little importance to the members of the public who do not fly. To the people who fly in aircraft it is of great importance to realise that should they be involved in an accident, there is every possible chance of their getting out alive.
  I am raising this matter purely to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation information as 10 what has been done, and I do so in no critical sense whatever. I could not be critical about the work of the Ministry, as I have no knowledge of what it has done in this matter. We are fast approaching the period when we shall have still larger, and, I hope, better aircraft. We are rapidly approaching the era of the flying airliner which may carry a very great number of passengers. Therefore, the subject we are now discussing is of greater importance as this aspect of the work of civil aviation increases. We shall have not only more passengers but larger crews, and the work of rescuing them when aircraft liners are involved in accidents will become of increasing importance. These aircraft will carry greater fuel loads and, therefore, the risk of fire will be greater than it is with the smaller aircraft. I shudder to think what would be the effect of one of the proposed new airliners crashing with a full complement of passengers and crew and immediately bursting into flames. That is something we must face up to, objectionable as it may seem.
  Experience has taught us that most aircraft crashes occur in or near aerodromes.
  2522
  There is the occasional aircraft that crashes into the sea or hits the side of a mountain, but usually accidents occur when aircraft are taking off, through over-shooting the runway, or for some other reason when landing. Because of the fact that crashes occur, in the main, on or near aerodromes, it is important that on each large airport there should be stationed crews and equipment capable of dealing with any accident that may occur. As a result of Questions which I put in the House in January, regarding the Dakota aircraft that crashed at Croydon, the House was told that when the crash-tender arrived on the scene it was found to be incapable of dealing with the fire because it was not serviceable. One of the valves had frozen up owing to the weather at that time. I know the particular type of tender used, and I say, quite frankly, that it is possible that the valve may have been frozen up, but I say, equally strongly, that ought not to have happened.
  It is wrong, again, to assume, as memers of the public often do who have not flown a great deal, that on every occasion when an aircraft accident occurs the passengers or crew are killed outright. Experience has taught us differently. While it is almost impossible to acquire definite information as to how many of the crew who might perhaps have subsequently been killed by fire were only dazed or unconscious when an aircraft crashed—it is impossible to ascertain the percentage—undoubtedly, during the war years in the R.A.F.—and it is not a nice thing to say, perhaps, from the point of view of those people who have relatives who were killed in aircraft accidents—many men were trapped in aircraft crashes and were burned to death by fire before they could be rescued.
  One cannot ascertain how many people have been unconscious and how many have become injured and not actually killed outright, but there are figures available which clearly indicate that in the R.A.F., at least in 1945, out of 818 personnel who were either injured or killed in aircraft accidents, 144 were completely incinerated in the tire that followed. It is sometimes assumed that the fire is immediate, but that is not always so. Often some minutes elapse before an aircraft bursts into flames. In those cases where it bursts into flames immediately on crashing, it is very

  2523
  difficult to effect rescue, but rescue can often be effected at that stage. In the important minutes before the escaping fuel touches the hot portions of the engine, rescue work can be done.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who is I know, interested in this subject, what his Ministry are doing with regard to it: Are they tackling it from the centre as a centralised policy, or is each aerodrome manager permitted to work out some programme and plan of his own? My view is that the subject is so large that it needs centralised policy and ought not to be left to the Corporations and to the individual airport managers, but should be dealt with centrally by the Ministry of Civil Aviation through a special Department. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that something of that sort has been done.
  On every airport, there should be trained crews standing by, manning the best possible equipment that can be obtained, to carry out this rescue work. The crews must be specialised because it is specialist work. They must know the types of aircraft with which they are likely to deal. They must know something of aircraft construction and know where the passenger carrying parts can be attacked by axe or other means to effect an entry to get out the passengers. It is specialised training not only in the knowledge of fire fighting and the various methods for fire fighting, but of aircraft construction as well. Many times during the war years I feel sure—in fact, I know—a fire was made more severe by a fuel pipe being cut by someone who was most anxious to get on with the work of rescue. Therefore, I would say that the Ministry of Civil Aviation, should at some future date, if it is not possible now, open up an establishment where fire fighters can be trained, and to which they can go from all parts of the country and from all aerodromes periodically, every six or 12 months, for a refresher course, because the technique of dealing with this particular type of accident and fire is ever changing. I go further and say that all members of the ground crews, flight mechanics, in fact everyone assisting on an airfield who is likely to be near at hand when an aircraft accident occurs, should be given an opportunity of attending a course at a fire school, with a view to
  2524
  becoming at least partially efficient in the important work of rescue.
  I have heard a rumour—and I hope that it is only a rumour—that the Ministry of Civil Aviation are considering handing over this work to the National Fire Service. Far be it for me to say anything derogatory about the work of the National Fire Service. It did excellent work during the war on airfields in conjunction with the R.A.F. fire crews, but it would be a complete mistake to hand this particular job over the N.F.S., as I know that at the end of the war years they had neither the equipment nor the trained personnel to do it. If they can acquire and are prepared to provide the equipment and to give the crews the specialised training necessary, then, perhaps, something might be done in the way of liaison with the Ministry of Civil Aviation fire service, but I hope that the whole of the work of fire fighting in the Ministry of Civil Aviation on British airports will not be left to the National Fire Service.
  I want to say a word about equipment. The equipment of British aerodromes at the end of the war was largely the fire fighting equipment of the R.A.F. If it has never been said before, I should like to say now in the House that the fire personnel, the trained crews of the R.A.F. during the war years, did an excellent job of work. They were always undermanned, and they were dealing with equipment that was completely out of date, much of it was, at the time, a mock-up of the real thing, in that a vehicle could be obtained and made up into what was supposed to be a fire tender. That was the legacy which my hon. Friend took over in the way of fire fighting equipment. It was important, therefore, for him and his Department to tackle the job and see what could be done to bring up to date the equipment that was being used. I hope that they have done that. I might say a word about the type of equipment used for getting over rough ground outside the general circumference of the airfield and for quickly traversing fields, ditches and hedges. It is quite wrong to assume that the ordinary motor vehicle can do that. I can never understand why someone has not thought of using some of the many thousand tracked vehicles such as brengun carriers which are lying about in this

  2525
  country, and converting them into fire-fighting tenders for use at civil aerodromes.
  The policy which I have advocated of a centralised department dealing with this matter as a big job is expensive, and perhaps this is not the time to advocate anything which will be particularly expensive. However, we cannot afford to do without a completely efficient fire service. It is an expenditure which we shall have to face, and the Department, or section or level of the Department which decides that we cannot go ahead with this plan must take full responsibility if aircraft crashes occur and we are not able to deal with them efficiently. I am not for one moment advocating a fully-manned fire tender or fire section on every air strip and on every field where private aircraft fly where everything is carried out for sport and general amusement. That is not at all necessary. That type of aircraft is smaller. There is a certain amount of risk that it may burst into flames, but it can easily be dealt with on the spot by first-aid appliances. It is not necessary to go to the extent of manning-up that particular type of aerodrome and air strip, but it is essential that the larger ones should be so manned. The British accident record in civil aviation is extremely good. It compares favourably with any in the world. We have had a fairly good run without many bad crashes, but the time may come when our luck, and much of it is luck, runs out. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the House that the problem is being tackled as a major one and that the Ministry of Civil Aviation is to provide an efficient fire service.
  5.3 p.m.
  Captain Marsden: The matter which has been raised is most important, and one which I thoroughly appreciate. I have a little extra fear that we are not being adequately looked after in this respect. I speak as an ordinary passenger who occasionally flies. I suppose like many others, I never get up in the air without some qualms—not that we shall not land, for that is one thing which is certain, but about the condition in which we shall do so. That does rather worry me. I agree about fire-fighting services on the aerodromes, but what I have always in mind is crashing on some
  2526
  mountain or in some far distant place where there are no fire-fighting services to help My thoughts immediately turn to escape from the aeroplane. Of all forms of death there is none more terrible to contemplate or to experience than being in a plane with the flames slowly advancing on one, as the hon. Member indicated, with no means of escape.
  I have never been in a plane yet in which, in my opinion, it has been adequately or clearly pointed out, where the escape doors are or how they are operated. In the Navy, in my experience, we know a great deal about watertight doors which can easily be opened with one turn of a lever against a tremendous pressure of outside water. Modern planes could have doors with a couple of levers so that people inside could easily get out. In that case the plane would be on the ground, and there would be no outside pressure. This matter has been brought up previously. I remember an hon. Lady opposite raising the matter, and saying that she had just been in a plane and on looking round had not been able to imagine how she would get out. In considering fire-fighting appliances from without, I hope that the Minister of Civil Aviation will also consider as most important a method of escape from within.
  5.5 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicester (Mr. Bowden) for providing this opportunity to discuss this subject. As a nation I think we are prepared to face danger and to take risks, but there is a universal horror of being burnt alive. Generally speaking, there is nothing we fear more than fire. Therefore, the public have the right to be assured of the effectiveness of the provisions made for them in circumstances where there is a real risk of fire. If air transport is to be the success which it is the duty of my Ministry to ensure, the travelling public must have confidence in the safety precautions taken in the case of accidents. During the war I had a certain amount of experience in fire fighting and fire fighting organisation. At the Ministry I have given special attention to this part of our work.
  The fire fighting service is a difficult service to organise because it is not glamorous. It is standby service and

  2527
  the less it is required, the happier everyone is. When, in fact, the various rescue services are never required, then air transport will be the most efficient service in the country; but where there is a risk there should be a standby service ready to cope with the emergency which no one wishes to happen. Fortunately, over long periods, emergencies do not happen. To get this standard of service and to maintain it at the pitch of its efficiency continuously is very difficult. Despite what some people say, most men like to be doing a job. They like to be on the go instead of waiting about for something to happen.
  There are three sections of this problem. First, there is the possibility of an aircraft catching fire in flight; second, there is the fire following a crash on take-off or landing at an aerodrome; and third, there is the fire following a crash on a hillside away from an aerodrome. In the case of fires in aircraft in flight, there has been a considerable amount of research, in cooperation with the Ministry of Supply Technical Research Department and the industry. There has been provided in increasing numbers, though not yet in all aircraft, a fire check for engines during flight; also, provision is being made for the impact operation of extinguishers immediately an aircraft crashes. I think that the difficulty about escape hatches is somewhat exaggerated. The matter was mentioned on a previous occasion by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). She even made a joke of it because of her personal figure. In fact, on all aircraft the escape hatch is plainly marked. It is true that in some cases the means of escape is through a small aperture, and if one is of great bulk then there may be difficulty. This is an important matter and great attention is given to it.
  In addition, there is the question of aerodrome organisation. Perhaps this is the section for which my Ministry has the greatest responsibility. As has been said, the Ministry came into existence two years ago. At that time, the equipment and the service on the vast majority of aerodromes was provided by the Royal Air Force. We did not accept responsibility for the provision of crash and fire-tender crews until some time later.
  Therefore, immediately, one has to consider which is the most efficient organisation
  2528
  that one can have, because it is not desirable that everybody should set up their own tin-pot organisation. We went into this very conscientiously and considered whether or not we could get a general service which would cover the Ministry of Civil Aviation, normal civilian fires, Air Ministry fires and R.A.F. fires, and whether it was possible or not for one or other of these organisations to take over the functions of that general service. We finally came down to the view that it was unwise to proceed on that basis, and that, in fact, the most efficient organisation could be provided by our own service within the Ministry itself. The reason for that was that, first of all, an aircraft fire, a crash, or the rescue of persons from aircraft present a very specialised job. Dealing with conflagrations in domestic and industrial hereditaments is a much different thing. It was therefore decided to build this service around our own Ministry, but to have two standby organisations, the N.F.S., who are notified every time there is a possibility of a crash, whenever this is known beforehand and, secondly, to reinforce the N.F.S., which is the first reserve, by people within the aerodrome organisation itself—an auxiliary service made up of various persons doing runway jobs or in the shops and who have some first-aid and fire fighting knowledge.
  The organisation of that service is important, because the efficiency of the set-up will depend on the lay-out of the service. First, at the Ministry, we have the Chief Fire Officer, with a deputy and two or three technical officers, and they are the central pivot on which the service will operate. They will be responsible for general policy, supervision of training and the standard of efficiency in the individual units. Then, the service is broken down into four divisions, and Scotland, which is so well represented here, is one of these four divisions. There is a divisional officer in charge of each division under the Ministry, and, at each airport, the commandant or manager is the administrative person responsible, because we must have only one chief at an aerodrome. He has a fire officer or section leader, dependent upon the size and importance of the aerodrome, who is responsible to the airport manager for the general condition and organisation of the aerodrome itself, and then, of course, to

  2529
  the area officer and the divisional officer for the general efficiency of the service.
  The recruitment of the men for this service is from the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm, ex-members of the N.F.S., and other persons who make themselves available for it. The service will have proper rates of pay and conditions of service, and it will be a uniformed, disciplined service, a nation-wide service, in which there will be opportunity of promotion right throughout the country. I am glad to say that the Treasury, with whom we carried out our discussions about the provision of the money concerning the rates of pay and conditions of service have, in fact, given full authority for that aspect of the matter. It is equally true that we must have, and we have already established at Cardiff, a training school, at which the whole of the personnel in the service will, at one time or another, go for a refresher course.
  That training school will be the basis upon which the service will be built up. There is not only the question of the fire-fighting and crash service. There is the medical side. Accidents happen, and medical and nursing attention is required. That is an expensive service to provide. One cannot have doctors and nurses standing by at every airport waiting for a crash which may not happen. But at the larger airports there will be, generally speaking, that medical and nursing service. At the smaller airports, we are having the assistance of St. John's Ambulance and British Red Cross.
  Finally, there is the question of equipment. Some time ago, I made a speech in this House in which I stated that sufficient thought had not been given in the past in regard to the provision of aerodrome equipment for fire fighting, and the rest. That statement seems to have touched the industry itself, although I do not blame the industry, because, I do not think it was given the necessary encouragement. One cannot expect manufacturers to make certain equipment unless those who require it say exactly what they want. The industry has reacted magnificently, and we are now getting the active co-operation of the various manufacturers of fire-fighting equipment to meet the demands of the Ministry of Civil Aviation services. There is an inter-departmental committee upon which the Ministry of Civil Aviation,
  2530
  the Ministry of Supply, the Air Ministry and the Home Office are represented. The Home Office are represented on that Committee because of the supervision they exercise over the local authority service when it is transferred back from the N.F.S.
  We are seeing to it that we get the most up-to-date equipment that it is possible to obtain. It takes a certain amount of getting, because of the difficulties of manufacture. In the meantime, as has been said, we have taken over R.A.F. equipment and certain American equipment, and, in that respect, the disposals branch of the Ministry of Supply and of the Ministry of Works have been most helpful in seeing that we get the best available equipment. We are satisfied that, generally speaking, the standard is good.
  I am glad to have had this opportunity of assuring the House and the public at large that the service is being organised on a thoroughly efficient basis. It will be my duty, on the direction of my noble friend to see that this service which might sometimes be termed "a sleeping partner," is kept efficient, and is given the opportunity of encouragement and competition, so that we may make it the service which we ought to have. My hon. and gallant Friend had great experience of this matter in the Royal Air Force. May I say that we have no peacock's feathers in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. We shall be glad to have the assistance, the criticism and the investigation of any hon. Member, of this House, and, if any hon. Members would like to sec what is being done, we shall be delighted to grant them the facilities for doing so.

  OFFICE ACCOMMODATION (SHORTAGE)
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Skeffington: I am very glad at this eleventh hour, or, should. I say, twelfth hour to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House and of the Board of Trade to a very serious obstacle which is confronting thousands of small enterprises today, both in London and in many of our great cities. I hope that it is not inappropriate that the last subject to be debated during this historic and memorable Session should concern small firms, many of which have contributed very greatly to our economic fortunes in the past.

  2531
  The problem of the acute shortage of office accommodation, and the resulting hardships to many small business firms, which I wish to raise, was first brought to ray notice by some of my own constituents of Lewisham who have their normal residence there, but whose daily place of work is in the City and who, in the course of years, have come to own their own organisations, and to rent premises outside the Division. There are three elements in this problem centring around the shortage of accommodation. First of all, there are the very heavy increased rents which are being imposed without any check, legal or otherwise, upon tenants owing to the shortage of accommodation which itself has been affected by war circumstances. So severe are some of these increases in rent, as I shall show in the course of my remarks, that a number of small firms face ruin or extinction. The second grievance of office tenants is the fact that many of them find their leases terminated without any option or any safeguards at all, and they have nowhere else to go. Thirdly, where a tenant is successful either in retaining his old or in securing fresh accommodation, there is the most objectionable practice of demanding a very high premium.
  I first drew attention to this problem in a Parliamentary Question on 26th November last year, and I followed it up by writing to the Board of Trade a letter giving some of the reasons which led me to feel that there was need for investigation and possibly for action. The Board of Trade said that they were aware of some increases in rent, but that they had to get sufficient evidence as to the need for action. I hope that in the course of the Debate I will be able to give them some evidence. I may say that since I first raised this matter, I have had letters from small business firms, not only in London but from all over the country.
  One of the results of these prevailing hardships can very readily be seen if one takes a walk into our own City of London. Instead of finding it a busy hive of industry, contributing to the renewal of the economic life of our country, we find that in many parts there are large blitzed areas which are now only the haunts of artists painting the ruins made picturesque by willow-herb and evening primrose.
  2532
  The need for providing accommodation for living purposes is, of course, most urgent and must come first; but, surely, some balance has to be maintained. It seems perfectly useless providing people with places in which to live if there are no places for them to work in. This is particularly a problem in places where there are great concentrations of population doing office, secretarial, managerial and professional work, in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and other cities which are affected in this way. The first grievance, as I have said, is that in contradistinction to tenants of ordinary dwelling houses, there is no security of tenure for the tenant of an office, and there is no restriction on the rent which may be charged. In consequence, buildings in the cities are changing hands at very inflated prices, and existing tenants are being turned out as their leases expire. People who have been conducting socially useful businesses for many years find themselves without accommodation and, therefore, are unable to continue. The second grievance which springs from this situation is the device, which I understand is perfectly legal, of demanding a high premium for what office accommodation is available. This has the advantage, from the point of view of the landlord who charges it, that he does not have to show it in his business accounts, and he pays no Income Tax on it, just as if he were winning a bet; whereas the poor unfortunate incoming tenant is not permitted to treat this ex premium as a rent, and it is deemed by the Inland Revenue officials as a capital asset.
  I now come to the first suggestion. It would be out of Order for me to suggest that new legislation ought to be introduced to make premiums illegal, even if it were practicable to do it, and I realise that there are very acute difficulties in devising any legislation which would prevent this practice taking place between a person who feels he must pay a premium in order to get accommodation, and a landlord. But I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that his officers have talks with the board of Inland Revenue, to consider whether or not some redefinition of this type of transaction can be made. I understand that it might be arranged, without any new legislation, that if a premium is charged it should be treated as

  2533
  rent and, therefore, chargeable to tax upon the person who receives it, and count as a normal business expense of the person who has to pay it. I think that is a bad solution, but as it would be out of Order for me to suggest any other I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have it considered. There used to be in the Board of Trade, when I had the honour to work there during the war, a taxation sub-committee of which I acted as secretary. On some occasions we had meetings with the Board of Inland Revenue. I am quite certain that this matter might well be tackled by that body if it still exists; and if it does not, there may be a case for resuscitating it.
  I should like to give examples covering the two points I have made, because I think that that is the most effective way of bringing home what the situation means to hundreds of small firms. I do not want to give the names but I have the complete documents in my possession. I am not making wild or baseless allegations. I have the facts in every one of the four cases of hardship to which I want to refer.
  Let us take the first case. It is that of a young man whom I will call "Mr. G." He set up just before the war as a designer and consultant. I am sure we are all very glad that a young man should, as a result of his own initiative, be able to get going in business for himself. This man took offices in Fleet Street—or, rather, I should say an office. He had only a table and telephone with which to start. He worked very hard and was employed by a large number of firms. His staff now includes some six artists and others, carrying on this good, useful work. A few months ago he was given notice, without any option. He was glad to get any premises during the war, and had not got them on the conditions he wanted; he had no legal safeguard. He has had to stop his work mainly to search for new accommodation. A short time ago he was offered an office of 900 square feet on a four-year lease with no guarantee, of course, that after the four years he could continue to stay there. The rent was £250 a year. He could manage to pay that, but it was undoubtedly grossly in excess of prewar prices. But in addition to that, he was quite blatantly asked by the estate agents for a premium of £2,500. It meant
  2534
  that it was quite impossible for this young man, with his assets, to consider those premises. There was a suite of two rooms on a floor of the same building that he could have had provided he paid a premium of £1,250. That man has been searching for 12 months for premises and has been unsuccessful. He has worked extremely hard and has had all kinds of people searching for him. The outcome is that his energetic work for eight years in providing a really useful service is likely to be completely dissipated if some sort of accommodation cannot be found.
  The second example, the details of which also are fully documented, concerns an old-established but small export merchanting firm. I would point out that many of these firms are small. The very fact that they have had to specialise, and that they have specialised successfully, means that they are of a small nature, for their work could not be done by large organisations. This small export business, with contacts in the Far East, has, over the course of years, built up a very considerable business. I will call the firm "Brown and Company," but the Parliamentary Secretary can have full details if he so desires. They occupied a small office in London for the rent of which they paid, until a few months ago, £13 a quarter. The building was sold last October, and they immediately had notice to quit or to pay three times the rent per quarter, namely, £39. They wanted to move elsewhere, but they could not, and very reluctantly agreed to pay the increased rent. Since then the building has twice been sold over their heads, and in order to retain the occupancy of the building, with a lease of 21 years, they have been asked to take on a whole set of offices which they do not require, with the use of four additional rooms, at a rental of £700 a year. Probably this firm, with their assets, could pay £700 a year, but it means it would no longer be worth while, because it would entail paying over the whole of their proceeds in that fashion, and that firm has been forced to close down.
  An additional feature I do not like in this type of case is that not only accommodation is let, but that a certain amount of furniture goes with the offices. In the example I have given, as soon as the building had been sold the furniture was also sold, so that before the firm had

  2535
  taken its books and ledgers out, the office tables and desks had gone.
  My third example concerns a firm of a rather similar character, namely, an exporting firm with a useful trade to this country in foreign markets. They occupied two small offices at a rent of £27 a quarter. I think that the landlord in this case must have been a descendant of Scrooge, for on 25th December they received an order either to move or to pay £82 per quarter; in other words, an increase in rent of 300 per cent. Again, this firm could not afford it, but they managed to get accommodation with friends of theirs in another office building not far away. They thought they were happily settled, but now that building has been sold, and both concerns will have to find alternative accommodation or be forced to close down. I apologise to the House for these details, but I think precise examples are much more telling evidence than anything else.
  The last example concerns a man whom I shall call Mr. "F," who rendered very valuable services to many firms in the City for over 30 years. Recently the building in which he worked was sold, and he was turned out with his staff after a court order. He was offered, first of all, two rooms, with floor space of about 500 square feet, at the top of the building, for a period of three years—the unexpired portion of the lease. He was told he could have those two rooms at what, I suppose in present circumstances, is not an unreasonable rent, but again provided he paid a premium of £800. There was no certainty that at the end of the three years he would be able to retain possession, and, as he pointed out to me, with Income Tax at its present level, he would have to earn about £1,500 in order to find the money for the premium alone, before he could get possession. Among other offers which this particular individual received was one of two rooms on the second floor of a building in Clerkenwell. One room was 15 feet by 15 feet, and the other 12 feet by eight feet six inches; the rent asked was £284 per annum, exclusive of rates, plus a premium of £395.
  Since I first raised this matter I have had innumerable examples brought to me of this kind of racket which is going on in London, Birmingham, Glasgow and other
  2536
  of our large cities. It affects thousands of small firms, and is a matter which the Board of Trade, as the guardian of trade, ought particularly to consider. I have three or four suggestions to make. I have already made a suggestion about this very objectionable form of additional payment called a premium. In addition to that, there ought to be some way of freezing rents. Again, I should be out of Order if I suggested that some form of new legislation was necessary.
  I am advised that it might be possible to extend the action of rent control tribunals, in certain circumstances, to cover office accommodation. If we could dc that, it would be possible to give some stability and permanency to these small business firms, who at present do not know when they may be faced with extortionate increases in rents. It would bring a welcome permanency into their commercial life, and would enable them to make arrangements for the future. I ask, therefore, whether that proposition has been considered, and if not, whether the Board of Trade will consider some other kind of action, so that stability may be given to these tenants, and so that they will not have to face these repeated rises in rents. Thirdly, I suggest there are many unusable buildings which could be made useful at the expense of a relatively small amount of labour and materials. I went into some buildings not very far from Blackfriars Bridge the other day which could be made, not into first-class business premises, but into better alternative premises for those firms whose history I have been discussing in this Debate. I am wondering whether there could not be more drive along these lines.
  My final suggestion is in connection with additional accommodation. If additional accommodation could be provided, it would bring about most desirable results. How can that be done? I am wondering whether it would be possible to allow the erection of some sort of prefabricated buildings on blitzed sites. A number of local authorities have now very nearly come to the end of their temporary housing requirements, and there must be some existing productive capacity of temporary buildings in the country. I have made inquiries in regard to the purchase of huts from surplus Government stores which would be quite suitable

  2537
  for office purposes for small firms. These huts could be purchased at about £100. I know there are snags which immediately arise in pursuing this course. It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain sites in the City, because the ground landlords naturally are very anxious that there shall be no delays when it is possible to start permanent buildings; they feel that if there is a temporary structure on the land, a considerable time might elapse before they can get possession to build. The result is that there is great reluctance on the part of ground landlords to allow temporary structures to be erected on their land, and even if they agree to a temporary structure being put on their land, there is a pretty heavy ground rent; for example, for a £100 hut of the type I have mentioned which is something like 25 ft. by 12 ft., an insurance company wants £500 a year for three years, with no certainty after that period has elapsed of the firm being able to continue their occupancy.
  The Government ought to make some announcement that the building of office accommodation is not likely to take place for five or more years. I am wondering whether it would not be possible, under the Town and Country Planning Act, for the Board of Trade, in co-operation with the local authorities, to take over, for temporary development, certain blitzed sites for a period of five years. It would mean that the installation costs could be shared among a group of firms, and that these individuals would have to pay far less rentals than at the present time. Installation costs in the case that I have just mentioned of the £100 temporary hut, are heavy. In addition to the £500 a year required for rent, the cost of connecting the office with drains and services, if done by one firm which had to prepare a concrete raft and various other things, would work out at something like £600. There again, no small firm could afford to pay that plus installation expenses. If it were done in consultation with the City of London authority, in the case of London, or with the other appropriate authority, it should be possible for a whole area to be serviced simultaneously, which would obviously reduce the cost to the individual tenant. The result would be three-fold. Many firms would obtain some temporary accommodation for a period of not less than five years; the fact that accommodation was available should have some effect on the
  2538
  high rents being charged now; and the local authorities would benefit because they could charge rates for the premises and obtain some revenue for land which is now idle and making no contribution at all.
  It seems to me to be vital that speedy action should be taken by the Government to restore our commercial life to its fullest extent. Many of these small but highly specialised firms have contributed a great deal to our national life in the past and I believe that many of them can do much more, but they find themslves faced from day to day with this ever recurring threat and apparently no one is there to protect them. I feel that it is the function of the Board of Trade to act on behalf of small firms who are defenceless as circumstances are today. It is a matter which the Board cannot ignore and I shall wait with interest to hear what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.
  5.42 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am well aware of my hon. Friend's keen interest in this matter. He, together with some other hon. Members, has been very active in this connection for quite a long time, and I hope that these activities will be appreciated by those on behalf of whom they are undertaken. What he says is quite true, and at a time like the present when we are doing our utmost to stimulate the trade and interest of the country and to expand our commerce——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am at fault as much as he, but as this is the second occasion on which he has addressed the House he must ask leave to do so.
  Mr. Belcher: I had overlooked that, Mr. Beaumont, and it is with your permission and that of the House that I wish to speak again. It is not my desire that I should bother the House unduly with my speeches, particularly on the last day, before the Recess but this is something which has been thrust upon me rather than sought by myself. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) has said, that we should be doing all we can at present to stimulate our trade and industry and to expand our commerce. It is also undoubtedly true that there is a considerable shortage of premises of the kind to which

  2539
  he has been referring, as well as of housing premises and the like.
  We have received at the Board of Trade since VE-Day something over 100 complaints or representations arising from the fact that, unlike the occupant of the controlled dwelling, the business tenant has no security outside the terms of his lease or tenancy agreement. He has no security against a landlord who wishes either to raise his rent or to give him notice to quit, and the cases which have been brought to our attention have included office premises, business premises of various kinds, shops, garages and small industrial premises. A large number of these cases have come to our notice through Members of Parliament, and we have had some 14 Parliamentary Questions on the subject, all indicating that there is very considerable feeling about it. So much so that people have been stirred to get into touch with their Members of Parliament, and the Members concerned have thought the matter of sufficient importance not only to write to Ministers at the Board of Trade, but, in addition, to raise the matter in this House by means of Parliamentary Questions.
  In Scotland there has been a very considerable outcry, and as a result of a discussion which took place in the House about retail shop premises the Secretary of State for Scotland, as my hon. Friend knows, set up in April of this year a committee of inquiry which has still to report. In England and Wales, among the representations we have received, quite a number have concerned retail shops, but there has been an equal if not greater prominence given to offices and small industrial premises. That would be the case particularly in London, of course, and especially in the City of London.
  It is not easy for me to deal with this matter fully and still remain in Order, for the obvious reason that we do not possess the power at the present time, so far as we can see, to deal with any abuse which may be brought to our notice, and that I would not be allowed by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to go into the question of obtaining such powers. As to the extent of the problem, we have little evidence outside the correspondence and the Parliamentary Questions to which I
  2540
  have referred. I have no doubt that if we were to set up a committee of inquiry we should find a very much larger number of cases than those which have been brought to our notice. It would be foolish to deny that some tenants of business premises have suffered very acutely indeed. In my public life and in my private life I have come across these cases, particularly in London and in the more sought-after parts of London.
  My hon. Friend has made some suggestions. He suggested that officials of the Board of Trade might have talks with the Board of Inland Revenue about including premiums—I do not like these premiums any more than does my hon. Friend—as rent and allowing to the tenant a claim for relief from tax as a business expense. This is the first time that the suggestion has been made to me, and I will certainly go into it and see that the talks do take place, in order to discover whether anything can be done along those lines. I do not feel particularly happy about taking any kind of action which will encourage the extension of what I regard as the not too desirable practice of asking for premiums. It may well be that if action were taken along the lines which the hon. Member has suggested, instead of doing what he and I want, namely, ensuring fairness to the tenant of business premises, we might be encouraging the extension of this not very desirable practice of premiums, and the giving it a façade of legal responsibility. I will, nevertheless, certainly look into the suggestion.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the freezing of rents. That has been tried previously. In the period 1920–21, business premises were included in the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act. I understand that experience then was not particularly happy. It carried difficulty for the landlord, and the possibility of some unfair discrimination, in view of the rights and opportunities of other potential occupants. It is extremely difficult. Perhaps the difficulty does not occur to the same extent with a tenant of a dwelling house, because it is fairly easy to decide who ought to be the tenant and what ought to be the rent. In the case of premises which are to be occupied for business purposes, it is not easy to decide among tenants A, B and C which of them, from the point of view of national importance, is the right tenant of the premises.

  2541
  I understand that the experience in 1920 and 1921 rather suggests that that might be the case.
  The house-owner is more vulnerable than the business man. The business man may be able to deal with the situation created of having to pay an increased rent by increasing his own prices or by doing something to increase his turnover. Again, the domestic householder is frequently, I should have thought, in a more difficult position than the business man because his choice of premises is in many cases more limited. However, like the other suggestion made by my hon. Friend, I am certainly prepared to give it further consideration and see whether anything useful can emerge.
  My hon. Friend then spoke about making small additional repairs to existing premises to bring them into use or to extend their use as business premises. He will know as well as I do what the difficulty is there. All over the country there are clashes between rival claimants for the very restricted supplies of building materials available. In some parts of the country the emphasis is on the building of factories, as in the development areas, but in other parts like London the emphasis is all the other way—restriction on the building of industrial premises and concentration of the available building labour and materials on the provision of living accommodation for the people. While I quite agree that it is altogether possible that something might be done by way of extensions to or adaptations of existing premises, I would not hold out any hope that we can meet this very widespread and difficult problem altogether by the extension or the adaptation of existing premises; but it shall certainly be looked at.
  There was also the interesting suggestion that the Board of Trade, together with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the local authorities, might go into the possibility of taking over blitzed sites for the erection of prefabricated business premises. I remember, as my hon. Friend does, that during the war years when, as in the City of London, vast quantities of office premises were destroyed in the blitz, temporary offices made their appearance almost over-night, including inquiry offices to which people could go if they wanted to do business with a firm whose premises had completely
  2542
  vanished during the night. That was a remarkable example of improvisation, and I take it that is the kind of thing my hon. Friend suggests. I am so anxious to meet my hon. Friend in this matter and to do all I can to assist these people who do not at present have the accommodation they need that I will certainly ask officials of the Board of Trade if they will inquire into the possibility of any such developments.
  The real answer to this question, whether the extortion of exorbitant rents, or the asking of a premium, or the inability of a business house or an individual business man to have the accommodation he requires, must in the long run be the provision of suitable and sufficient accommodation for the needs of our business and commercial communities. Once there is a sufficiency of the right type of premises, at least two of the evils will tend to disappear of their own accord. When it is fairly easy for a firm to get the premises it requires, it will be in that degree more difficult for the rapacious landlord to demand a premium or a rent higher than is really economic having regard to the nature of the premises.
  I am certain that the long-term solution, whatever we might do in the meantime to deal with the more pressing and immediate difficulties, must be the provision of a sufficiency of suitable accommodation. I agree that the cases which have been brought to my notice by my hon. Friend and in Parliamentary Questions and by letter indicate the existence of a very disagreeable feature in our commercial trade. We think that it should be an endeavour of the Government, whatever Department is involved—in this case the Board of Trade—to do everything we can to assist in this matter. Because we do not possess, so far as we can see at the present time, legislative power to deal with this matter, it is not easy to give encouragement to those who hope for immediate alleviation.
  My hon. Friend has performed, I am sure, a most useful public service by bringing up this matter on the Floor of the House. I am extremely grateful to him for his interest as, I am sure, will be all who are concerned with the encouragement of business, trade and industry in this country. I find his suggestions interesting, and I give the House a promise that I will take them, together

  2543
  with a report of the Debate, back to the Board of Trade. We will use our utmost endeavour to see if it is possible to adopt any or all of his suggestions or the suggestions any hon. Member may care to put to us on this matter. It is so important that we will deal with it very seriously indeed, as it is our desire, that as, I am sure, it is the desire of the House, to do everything that we can to encourage trade and industry, particularly at the present time.

  AIR TRAVEL (SAFETY)
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I be allowed to use a few minutes of the concluding stages of this Session to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for the spirit in which he has responded to the appeal that the Government and the Treasury should take a broad view of the necessity of spending a greater sum on securing the protection of the public who are travelling under Civil Aviation plans. I speak as a member of the travelling public who is fortunate enough to be able to travel to Scotland tomorrow morning in a few hours. I can leave London at 10 o'clock and arrive in Prestwick at about 2.30. It makes all the difference in the world to those of us who are travelling to and
  2544
  from Scotland on Parliamentary duty to be able to travel with the minimum amount of fatigue and inconvenience.
  We want the public to be assured that air travel is comparatively safe. We shall feel a greater sense of reassurance now that we have had that very generous reply from the Ministry of Civil Aviation that there is not to be parsimonious cutting down of expenditure on research on safety so far as the civil aeroplane is concerned. We are asking for only a small fraction of a sum of money to be spent on the civil aeroplane compared with what has been spent on the R.A.F. and on aeroplanes which we hope will never be used again for the purpose of destruction. There has been too great a casualty list in the development of the aeroplane. We know in the West of Scotland, and we know in Prestwick, for example, that aeroplanes went out over the Atlantic and crashed over the Island of Arran, where there are monuments on the lonely summits of that beautiful island to people who crashed and who went to their deaths as pioneers in the enterprise which we know is going to mean a great boon in the future.
  It being Six o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, till Monday. 20th October.

  ERRATUM
  In Division No. 383, Col. 2477, the name of Mr. J. Diamond should be omitted from the Noes.
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M.S. "Glorious" (Loss)
  H.M.S. "Glorious" (Loss)
  "Y" Scheme (Entrants)
  "Y" Scheme (Entrants)
POST OFFICE
  U.S.A. Parcels (Delivery)
  U.S.A. Parcels (Delivery)
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
  Contracts (Payments)
  Contracts (Payments)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Huts, Houghton Green
  Huts, Houghton Green
  Mobile Beacon, Renfrew Aerodrome
  Mobile Beacon, Renfrew Aerodrome
CIVIL AVIATION
  Air-Cargo Services
  Air-Cargo Services
  Air Accident Inquiry Procedure
  Air Accident Inquiry Procedure
GERMANY
  Denazification (Directives)
  Denazification (Directives)
  Morgenthau Plan
  Morgenthau Plan
  Peat Collection
  Peat Collection
  POLISH ARMED FORCES (REPATRIATION)
  POLISH ARMED FORCES (REPATRIATION)
  TURKEY (BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  TURKEY (BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  SPAIN (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  SPAIN (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (PRECISION CHAIN)
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (PRECISION CHAIN)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTH)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTH)
  SURPLUS BOMB-SIGHTS (SALE)
  SURPLUS BOMB-SIGHTS (SALE)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Hangar, Helston (Sale)
  Hangar, Helston (Sale)
  Allotments, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
  Allotments, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
  BLANKETS (EXPORT ALLOCATION)
  BLANKETS (EXPORT ALLOCATION)
  ANTI-SEMITISM (INCIDENTS)
  ANTI-SEMITISM (INCIDENTS)
  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION (AUTUMN CAMPAIGN)
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION (AUTUMN CAMPAIGN)
  HOUSING (HAMMERSMITH)
  HOUSING (HAMMERSMITH)
  INDIAN SERVICES (ASSURANCES)
  INDIAN SERVICES (ASSURANCES)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Pithead Prices
  Pithead Prices
  Stocks
  Stocks
FUEL AND POWER
  Imported Motor Spirit
  Imported Motor Spirit
  Foreign Visitors (Petrol Coupons)
  Foreign Visitors (Petrol Coupons)
  TRANSPORT COMMISSION (SALARIES)
  TRANSPORT COMMISSION (SALARIES)
  SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
  SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (INSURANCE PREMIUMS)
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (INSURANCE PREMIUMS)
  TOBACCO DUTY (OLD AGE PENSIONERS)
  TOBACCO DUTY (OLD AGE PENSIONERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Dismissed Postmen
  Dismissed Postmen
  Polish Workers
  Polish Workers
  BRITISH ARMY (DESERTER'S SENTENCE)
  BRITISH ARMY (DESERTER'S SENTENCE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  War Damage (Business Scheme)
  War Damage (Business Scheme)
  Bakers' and Confectioners' Machinery (Exports)
  Bakers' and Confectioners' Machinery (Exports)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Factory-Made Jams (Ingredients)
  Factory-Made Jams (Ingredients)
  Kippers
  Kippers
  Rum Imports
  Rum Imports
  Tomato Sales (Buckinghamshire)
  Tomato Sales (Buckinghamshire)
  Welfare Foods Scheme (Milk Over-Claims)
  Welfare Foods Scheme (Milk Over-Claims)
PALESTINE
  Mr. Rokach (Detention)
  Mr. Rokach (Detention)
  Acre Gaol (Governor's Suspension)
  Acre Gaol (Governor's Suspension)
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL PLACES, GRIMSBY)
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL PLACES, GRIMSBY)
Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  The question was as follows:
  [To ask His Majesty's Government, in connexion with the experiments which are to be carried out during the recess with a view to remedying the ventilation of the House, whether care will be taken to avoid the system which obtained in the old House of Commons, whereby fresh air was introduced into the Chamber under member's feet, so that members were prone to suffer from cold feet and hot heads, thereby creating a bodily condition which did not facilitate the temperate consideration of legislative problems.]
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. It is not proposed to adopt the system which obtained in the old House of Commons. The change will be limited to the installation of fans and the regulation of the use of the existing air inlets to avoid the intake of hot air from the south side of the building.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, may I ask that the Government should give full consideration to the old-fashioned method of ventilating rooms by opening windows to let in fresh air, and that no scientific scheme should be permitted which will necessitate the closing of the windows, as did obtain, as my noble friend Lord Ammon knows, in the old House of Commons? I wonder if your Lordships are aware that the three yellow-tinted windows behind me, which look as if they allowed fresh air in, are but a sham, that they open into a box, and that there is but one small diamond-shaped window alone which opens to the fresh air. All this large number of louver windows are
  1358
  just a sham. The only window which allows the intake of fresh air is a small diamond about the size of a top-hat.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: A good sized diamond.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: Will the Government see that these windows are made to open so that we can have fresh air by that means and not depend on scientific inventions?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord has said, may I ask this: When winter comes, if the Minister of Fuel does not provide adequate heat, will the Government also see to it that the windows shut?
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, the question of the ventilation of this Chamber is at present being dealt with by the Minister of Works, and no doubt the points which have been made by noble Lords will be given consideration. Of course, there is a good deal of sham in the building just now, and that is entirely owing to the "Blitz." With regard to questions relating to new buildings, they, of course, are being given every attention, as has already been indicated.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The last words of the original reply of the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, were not clearly heard this end of the Chamber. He referred, did he not, to the intake of hot air into this 'Chamber? Where did it come from?
  LORD AMMON: I believe that it is sometimes resident in the building.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (EXTENDED PURPOSES) BILL.
11.8 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of powers under 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 10.
1.—(1) The Regulations which at the date of the passing of this Act have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945 (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1945"), and any

1359
orders or other instruments in force thereunder, shall, in so far as their operation is limited, expressly or by implication, to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of that Act, be extended so as to be applicable for the following additional purposes, that is to say:—

(a) for promoting the productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture;

(b) 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; and

(c 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;

and accordingly any references in the said Regulations, orders and other instruments to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of that Act shall be construed as including references to the purposes aforesaid:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to authorise the suppression or suspension of any newspaper, periodical, book or other publication.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "extended," to insert "as a temporary or exceptional measure." The noble Viscount said: We have been told that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it is with the desire to carry out that maxim that I have ventured to put down this Amendment. It raises a very short but, I think, important point. In the course of the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, yesterday—the admirable and convincing speech, if he will allow me to say so—he insisted very strongly that this Bill must be treated and taken in conjunction with the Acts of 1939 and 1945. I entirely agree with him. It is all part of a system or, at any rate, a tendency to interrupt and postpone some of the guarantees of liberty of person and property which are the result of centuries of political prudence and intelligence in this country.
In themselves, the actual proposals of this Bill, as was amply demonstrated by the debate yesterday, are not free from danger, but they have been justified—and the Lord Chancellor really insisted upon that most particularly—by the necessities of the time. I could not help feeling as I listened to the debate that that excuse or defence of the measure is merely an adaptation of the old raison d'état which was the excuse and justification for all arbitrary government
1360
in the past. But I do not question for a moment the validity of the principle of this defence. All I wish to press on your Lordships is that it very easily leads to radical forms of government. It is such an attractive and simple way out of difficulties. In 1939 the reasons were overwhelming, I quite admit it. We were fighting for our lives against an utterly cruel and unscrupulous enemy and we were bound to use whatever measures could be suggested to defend ourselves against treachery and fifth column disloyalty. In consequence, we had to accept measures which entirely suspended the ordinary guarantees of fair trial and publicity.
In 1945 we were faced by the enormous social and economic problems of the transition from war to peace. Here again the case, though not so overwhelmingly strong as in 1939, was certainly very powerful. As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, told us yesterday—indeed he made it part of his argument—it produced a very, very far-reaching remedy, though not quite to the extent of the previous Act. Now we have a new problem. It is, broadly speaking, the protection of our means of international trade and it requires a great increase of production. I do not think I am misstating the broad outline of the problem which now presents itself to us. This is no doubt a cogent matter, though not of course in the same line of urgency as the crisis we had to meet in 1939 or yet in 1945. What I ask myself, and I do it without any Party prejudice in this matter, is this: How far are we going to travel along this road? There are those who would go very far. We know it. They have said so quite openly. The speeches made by Mr. Crossman and Mr. Zilliacus show the length to which they hope and believe they will be able to press this kind of procedure. When I was young it was a common maxim of people of that way of thinking that private property was a form of theft, and a little later on it was freely said, with a great deal of justification I admit, that a manual labourer was nothing but a wage slave. Obviously, maxims of that kind may lead you very far.
I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I do not for a moment suggest that the Prime Minister or most of his colleagues are revolutionaries. All the

1361
same, if this way of legislation is admitted as a proper and reasonable political device, can we be quite sure how it may be used by, let me say, a Ministry presided over by Mr. Crossman? Therefore I submit that we ought to take any precaution we can take to make it clear that this is purely an exceptional and temporary measure. No doubt it is temporary, because it is an Amendment of the Act of 1945, which itself comes to an end in three or four years' time, but there is nothing on the face of this Bill to show that it is an exceptional measure. To put it on the face of this Bill does not make a complete protection, I quite admit, but it does help future minorities to urge strongly that a further step on this road is not justified by anything we are doing today. It is because I am most: anxious, passionately anxious, not to embark on anything which can really attack the foundations of the great structure of liberty which we have erected in this country that I do ask your Lordships and the Government to give earnest consideration to this Amendment which, after all, does not in any way take away from or diminish the practical effect of the Bill but merely constitutes a warning against going farther on this road for the future. That is the sole purpose of this Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("extended") insert ("as a temporary or exceptional measure").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not intend to intervene at any length. Indeed, there is very little I could usefully add to the profound observations of my noble relative to which the House has just listened. I am quite certain that everyone who has heard the noble Viscount will have been deeply impressed by what he said. My noble relative, if I may say so in his presence, is not a man who belongs strictly to any particular Party. He has always been noted for his independence of mind and no doubt anything that comes from him on a matter of this kind will be listened to throughout the country with the respect which it deserves.
The only argument I can conceive the Government might use against this Amendment is that it is unnecessary—it is inherent in the Bill as it stands. As the noble Viscount has just said, it is true it is a temporary Bill. The 1945 Bill was for five years. Two have already
1362
elapsed, and these new categories added by this Bill will only be in operation, unless extended, for another three years. But at the same time, I think it is very important from the point of view of all Parties, of all constitutional Parties, that the fact that: these things are temporary should be underlined, and underlined Very heavily. Moreover, there is another word which occurs in the Amendment, "exceptional." It should be clearly understood by everybody in this county that the Government themselves regard a measure of this kind as exceptional in the ordinary course of action a Government should take. That is, so far as I know, to be found nowhere in the Bill.
I have not the slightest doubt twat every noble Lord sitting opposite would accept the word "exceptional," but there are a great many of their colleagues in another place who do not, whose whole purpose and policy is to make the form of government represented by this Bill a real permanence in this country. There is no secret about it. They have said it openly in the House of Commons and outside. We consider it important that the Government should make it clear that they stand, just as we do, for the basic principles of liberty. Liberty is being attacked in every part of the world at the present time and I am quite sure that liberty can only be preserved by positive action, otherwise it will be crumbed away and crumbled away until we find ourselves in the unhappy position in which Germany and Italy and Russia have found themselves. That would be not only an absolute disaster but the antithesis of everything that this country has stood for ever since its Parliamentary history began. It does seem to me that, although this Amendment is not. of very great importance, it does enshrine a great principle. If the Government could see their way to accept it, I am sure that it would be regarding with satisfaction, not only by your Lordships hut by a large section of public opinion in the country.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I venture to hope, in spite of my great sympathy with tie mover of this Amendment, that it will not be pressed, arid I do not think the Government ought to accept it. If it is an Act of Parliament, it is something which the Law Courts have to interpret. I cannot see how any Court could decide

1363
whether a thing was temporary or exceptional for these purposes, as distinct from other purposes. There is one other point in this Bill. The Bill is simply adding to purposes already covered in an Act of Parliament certain additional purposes. I venture to say that I do not want to specify only those additional purposes as "temporary or exceptional." I think the whole existing Act ought to be regarded as "temporary or exceptional." By a well-known rule of law, which is no doubt well in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—I may be taking the words out of his mouth before he utters them—if you specify one thing you automatically exclude another. If you say that these three additional purposes are temporary or exceptional, you in fact supply an argument that the purposes already in the Act, and the immense powers already in the Act, are neither temporary nor exceptional. I suggest to your Lordships that it is far more important to maintain that the whole of the original Act is " temporary or exceptional."
VISCOUNT SIMON: With great respect to the noble Lord, they are temporary. They have to expire three years and three months from now.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Yes. Then why put in these additional words for these particular purposes? I venture to suggest that the Amendment is almost as unnecessary as the Bill which we are now considering. It is a little difficult to put it higher than that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I think the observations which have been made by the two noble Lords have largely covered the points. I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that anything which is said by the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment is entitled to and receives great consideration from your Lordships' House and from a much wider public outside. I agree that throughout his life he has stood for the principle which we must always remember, that eternal vigilance is necessary if we are to preserve our liberty. But, having said that, I do feel that this Amendment is not only entirely unnecessary—as to that I think there can be no question—but that in some sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, it is actually undesirable.
1364
The first thing to make absolutely plain (the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just pointed it out) is that this Bill, on the face of it, is a purely temporary Bill. The operative words are these:
"The Regulations which at the date of the passing of this Act have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945…"
As we all know, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, which received the Royal Assent in December of that year, runs for five years, and five years only. Therefore, the whole edifice comes to an end in December, 1950.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I think it should be on record that it can be extended for another year by Resolution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. That is, of course, accurate. It can be extended by the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. So unless both Houses so desire, and give an affirmative Resolution, it does come to an end in December, 1950.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: I did say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a fundamental consideration of which the noble Viscount has not lost sight. So much for its being temporary. With regard to its being exceptional, the whole object of putting in the Preamble which we did put in was to emphasize—in a much more effective way, if I may say so, than by putting in the word "exceptional"—that this is an exceptional measure. We do not very often get Preambles at all now. We have a Preamble to this Bill, the second paragraph of which says:
"And whereas, by reason of the war and the dislocation of trade consequent thereon, supplies and services available are, or are likely shortly to become, insufficient for meeting the essential needs of the community, and it has become necessary that the use of the powers conferred by those regulations should be directed more particularly to increasing production and redressing the balance of trade:
Now, therefore, be it enacted …"
The object of that Preamble is to call attention to the fact that we are here dealing with exceptional measures. Therefore, I maintain it is manifest that this Amendment is unnecessary.
The Bill is a temporary Bill, and it is a measure to deal with an exceptional state

1365
of affairs. I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Why should we extend to this Bill some provision and some statement which we do not extend to the Act of 1945? They are both, as we know, on the face of them, temporary measures. Why should we take the trouble to describe one as temporary, arid not so describe the other? I can well imagine the argument being used hereafter: "With regard to the Bill extending purposes, they pointed out that it was temporary and exceptional; but they did not use that phrase with regard to the Act of 1945. Therefore, let us go on with the Act of 1945." It very often happens that when you put in words like this they have the opposite effect of that which you desire. Of course, I realize the danger which the noble Viscount is anxious to guard against. I am afraid I do not myself have the privilege of knowing Mr. Crossman. I hope Mr. Crossman is not going to take the place of Professor Laski as a kind of bogy man. I have not read what he said in the debate in another place. I understand that in his young days he was a very keen footballer, and perhaps on this occasion he got offside. His Majesty's Government, with great respect to a very distinguished politician, are not represented by Mr. Crossman. If and when Mr. Crossman does become Prime Minister of this country, and forms a Government, then, of course, he will introduce with his colleagues such measures as he thinks proper; and I am sure we shall not prevent him from introducing those measures—which will no doubt be admirable measures—by any statement which we make in this Bill. I do not think that is being realistic. For those reasons, I ask your Lordships to say that, besides being unnecessary, this Amendment—if you do want to emphasize the fact that these are temporary things, the Act of 1945 as well as this Bill—is really inadvisable.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I find myself in the position of being able to say that the noble and learned Viscount contradicted himself in his argument. His argument is that it is not necessary to put these words in, because they are really implied in the Preamble. That is one part of his argument. But he said that you must not put anything into this Bill which makes it more exceptional than the Act of 1945, because that would be to indicate
1366
that the Act of 1945 was not exceptional. If his Preamble is really properly described by him as embodying the conception that this is an exceptional measure, then the Preamble ought to be struck out for the same reason.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting. I have not the Act of 1945 here, but my recollection is that there is a somewhat similar Preamble in that Act.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course, I do not know whether that is so or not. If that is so, then it does not do any harm to say that this is an exceptional measure, because the 1945 Act is already described as an exceptional measure. I think he gas been misled by the too great subtlety of my noble friend Lord Beveridge. The noble Lord has the very subtle intellect which always sees arguments that nobody else would appreciate. So far as I am concerned, I have nothing to add to these arguments upon one side or the other. I think it would be a desirable thing to have some statement on the face of this Bill flat it must not be used as a precedent for legislation which may conic to pass in the future. That, I think, is an important and desirable thing.
When my noble friend the Lord Chancellor says that the purposes of this Bill are clearly described in the Preamble, no doubt that is so, but the point is that you want something to say: "These are the purposes and they are exceptional in their character. It is only because they are exceptional that we ask for these exceptional powers." I certainly do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division if I am advised not to do so. I am certainly grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having made it as clear as he has and for the assurance that he, at any rate, would be no party to the use of this Bill as a precedent. All I want is to have something which we cm quote in future discussions with some more extreme Party, to enable us to sty that what they then propose is not justified by what we are doing now.
I feel very anxious about this matter. I feel that we are in the course of taking a step forward much longer and much more important than some of us perceive. I feel very strongly indeed that those members of the Labour Party who in

1367
another place said that they were against the entire Bill on those grounds, were perfectly right. It is a step towards arbitrary government, and it seems to me that nobody can deny it. I am very anxious indeed, but of course if the Opposition tell me that they do not feel that this is an appropriate step to take I shall certainly withdraw. But unless they say that to me I should be disposed to go on with this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would it be of any assistance if I were to say to the noble Viscount in the clearest and most emphatic terms that I regard this matter as a temporary and exceptional measure, and in saying that I am speaking as a member of this Government?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly it helps, but the trouble about statements of that sort, as my noble and learned friend knows quite well, is that they are very effective for the time being, but a year or two later they are not so effective. That is why I wanted it on the face of the Bill. That is all I want. I have no other purpose, and I do not want to cut down the powers of this Bill at all. I quite recognize the force of what was said yesterday, that we must not look too narrowly on the steps the Government recommend for the purpose of meeting a crisis of very great danger. But I should like to see those words inserted, and I must respectfully ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to support it or not. If they are not, then I shall withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I, of course, have the greatest sympathy, as I have already said, with the noble Viscount, and I cannot still understand, in spite of the arguments used by the Lord Chancellor, why these words should not be put in. I feel we are in a certain difficulty over this matter. The line which I advocated to your Lordships yesterday was that we should not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and should not amend it in Committee, but should concentrate upon maintaining the authority of Parliament—which is the important thing—by returning at an earlier date than had otherwise been intended, in order to keep an eye on each instrument which is introduced under this Bill. We intend to do that. We might put in this Amendment,
1368
desirable as it is, and send the matter back to another place, with all the delay which they would involve. But in view of the definite assurance which the noble and learned Viscount has given, I think that it would not, perhaps, be justifiable; and I should not be willing to recommend that course to your Lordships.
But I would make one comment on what the Lord Chancellor has said. We are grateful to him for giving such an unequivocal assurance on behalf, not only of himself, but of the Government. But if we are getting into a state of government by delegated legislation, we are also getting into a phase of government by assurance. Again and again we have tried to put into Bills things which everybody is agreed would do no harm, and might have done good, and each time the noble and learned Viscount has got up and said: "We cannot put these things into the Bill, but I am very willing to give you an assurance." I do hope the Government and the Lord Chancellor will realize that that is not the same thing. We recognize that the Lord Chancellor has great moderation in his views, but he is not the last Lord Chancellor, and the Ministers are not the last Ministers. We are putting Acts on the Statute Book, and these Ministers may be succeeded by other Ministers who will not be bound by these assurances. I hope that this phase is coming to an end; that we shall not have these assurances again but that in future, unless there is any definite disadvantage in the inclusion of words in a Bill, they should be put in and there should be no question of assurances.
I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to take that course in the present case. I see no reason why they should not have done so, but in view of the very strong words which the Lord Chancellor used, and in view of the fact that we in this House propose to keep a very strict eagle eye upon every instrument which is introduced under this Bill, I think on this occasion my noble relative should refrain from pressing the matter to a Division.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: In view of what has fallen from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, I shall not press the matter further, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 28), Bill read 3a and passed.

PALESTINE.
11.38 a.m.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the conditions in Palestine; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships on the Motion which stands in my name, I had no idea a week ago when I put this Motion on the Order Paper that this grave question of Palestine was to be discussed in another place, as it was yesterday. The sole reason that prompted me to put the Motion down was the amount of correspondence I was receiving, and have received, from all parts of the country expressing grave anxiety about the position in Palestine. Had I known that this was going to be discussed in another place I should have gone on with my Motion, and since reading the reply of the Under-Secretary in another place, I am bound to confess that my fears as to the future of Palestine during the holidays, when we are going to be away for at least eight weeks, have been added to rather than decreased.
With regard to the question that I was to raise and of which I gave private notice to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who is to reply, as to whether the High Commissioner had full powers to act without consultation with His Majesty's Government, I accept the reply given by the Secretary of State yesterday that he had. We come to the question of the Commander-in-Chief. We hear that there are vast Forces in Palestine at this moment—approximately, 100,000. Whether or not these Forms were being extended, the fact remains that terrorism is continuing. I give place to no one in my admiration of the patience and tolerance of our brilliant and magnificent troops in Palestine during this time; and I do not desire to criticize in any way the action of the Higher Command out there. But terrorism and crime increase in Palestine—alas! on both sides. I do not believe
1370
that Great Britain is aimed at, but that there is a feud in which we, unfortunately, intervene. But, as it increases, our anxiety in this country increases.
Many of us are implicated in the matter. I have a son who may be going out and there are many thousands like him. We can take it. We proved that we could take it in the. war, when many of us lost those of whom we were very fond. Then, however, there was an object, an enemy, and a policy—to win the war. We won the war, and no sacrifice was too great so long as England came out on top. What is the sacrifice we are called upon to make now? I believe in ruling or in out. Have we got enough getting troops in Palestine? Not very long ago one of our Judges was sitting in his Court out there; the Court was held up and the Judge kidnapped and taken prisoner. Are the greatest precautions being taken now so that our judges are no longer held up in their work? It is this sort of thing that is making people here very anxious. Then we had the appalling crime of the hanging of the two N.C.O.'s—one of whom came from my own port and city of Bristol. How does it come about that these things can happen if we are properly organized? Is every precaution taken to see that our soldiers do not walk about in driblets? Even as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was putting a recent question, a Ministry of Labour building out there was blown up, and three more of our police were killed. The position is getting worse day by day.
One thought we might get a little more encouraging news yesterday when the Secretary of State replied to the debate in another place. Apparently, we now have to wait further developments. I do not criticize that; but we are now told that we must wait four or five weeks before the results of certain investigations are known. I wish to ask the noble Viscount who is to reply whether a Committee is being set up. If not, would it not be wise to set one up before the House rises so that the result of the inquiries can be immediately investigated, and such action taken as may be necessary? Surely, whatever action is necessary should taken at once. That, I believe, is what the people of this country are looking for, and what, so far, they have not received. I appreciate that many of your Lordships have had far greater experience

1371
of this grave question than I have. Therefore, I do not wish to go into great detail, or to propound what I think should or should not happen. But I should like to express to His Majesty's Government the great anxiety felt by all the parents and wives of men serving in Palestine at this moment. They are getting more uneasy as time goes on.
But there is another aspect of the question, and that is the ships which convey Jews illegally to Palestine. These ships come from a port in a friendly country, a country with whom we have a treaty of friendship. These ships were allowed to leave, and I would like to ask His Majesty's Government whether we were informed that these Jews were boarding the ships, and if so, why did the French Government allow it to go? I should also like to ask whether representations have been made on this matter through our Ambassador in Paris. We are told that 4,000 Jews were illegally travelling on one ship to Palestine, and of course there are other ships. Who is paying for this? We are paying a considerable sum of money for our troops in Palestine. Are we to bear the whole burden of the extra cost caused by these ships?
The Under-Secretary of State in his reply yesterday said: "I think the French Government are feeding them." After four weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies does not know what is happening to these Jews. Surely we can have a definite answer as to what is happening and who is paying for these ships and for the feeding of these Jews? As they came from France, I should have thought France would have paid her share. Why should the cost fall on this country? So with Italy. Exactly the same thing happened there prior to this incident; a ship tried to get into Palestine but eventually the people were transferred from it to Cyprus. Were there no means of acting through our Ambassador to Italy? After all, we have done a great deal for that country. On the other hand, in the case of a Swedish ship in a Swedish port, I understand that we made representations to stop that ship leaving that port to go and pick up illegal Jews. If it can be done there, why can it not be done with France and Italy?
Can the noble Viscount when he replies tell us whether these illegally-travelling people—I am very sorry for them; they have had an awful time in Central Europe—are being financed by the Communists? If they are being financed by the Communists, the country should be told, and we should know then how to deal with this matter. But there is a complete silence. I am proud to say that I have amongst my friends a considerable number of Jews; I mean that with all sincerity. They subscribe to the fund in this country which, very properly, has been in existence for many years, to help their kith and kin in Central Europe. Two of those prominent Jews said to me the other day, "I wonder where this money really goes?" I am not making any insinuation against the Association, but do the Government know, as I am sure they must know because there is this Treasury ban on money, where this money is going, whether it is really getting into the right hands to help the Jews who are allowed to be sent to Palestine or whether it is getting into the hands of Communists who are using it deliberately to stab England in the back?
There are other questions that I would like to raise, but I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer, except to say this. Having read this reply on the part of His Majesty's Government that everything is to be postponed, that the Minister in another place regrets that he really cannot answer that, that it is all very difficult, I am bound to say that it is all very difficult. No one abhors riots more than I do, and you must not try the patience of people too long. You must try to help them. Tell them the facts and England will stand up to anything, but you go on putting it off and putting it off and shelving it. After the five weeks that these ships have been in port you can only answer "I think." In these circumstances it is right and proper that this Motion should be moved on the floor of your Lordships' House to-day before we go for our holiday. I beg to move for Papers.
11.53 a.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Viscount who moved this Motion did well—I say this very respectfully—to confine himself, in discussing his Motion, to the immediate situation and not

1373
to embark upon a longer-term view of a matter which is still under consideration and, one hopes, is possibly approaching decision by a Committee of the United Nations. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount point by point. The matter is for the Government to deal with, but I might perhaps say one word which I hope may be of some reassurance to him on one matter which he raised towards the end of his speech. He talked about a fund existing in this country for the purpose of assisting Jews in distress in Germany and Central Europe. I think I know the fund to which he is referring. If I do, I have been associated with it since its foundation in the early 'thirties. I think my noble friend Viscount Samuel was its first President and I do not think that any of your Lordships would accuse either of us or the others of the Jewish community who are responsible for the conduct of that fund——
VISCOUNT LONG: I was not attempting to accuse anybody here.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite accept that. I am not making any point against the noble Viscount. I make the general observation that I do not think that those responsible for the conduct of that fund would he accused by those who knew them of having Communist sympathy or failing to take proper precautions to see that such funds as left this country for the benefit of Jews on the Continent were used for those purposes and only for those purposes, and that every effort was made, wind I believe most successfully made, to seal off any possibility of those funds going astray and reaching undesirable destinations.
I only want to say one or two possibly somewhat disconnected words, reflections which have been borne in upon me by the course of recent events. In saying this and in saying anything else that I say to-day, I would make it clear that I have no authority to speak for the Jewish community in this country or indeed for anybody except myself, but I have an obvious interest in knowing, so far as one can, what the prevailing view is. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of indicating on one or two points what I believe that view to be. I have read on frequent occasions lately statements and exhortations from perfectly friendly sources appealing to the Jews of this
1374
country to use their influence with the terrorists in Palestine. At the first approach there is, of course, nothing in the least improper in that. Indeed, it would be quite right that the Jews of this country should use their influence, but it is no good asking them to use their influence if they have none. I sometimes wonder, when people exhort us here to use our influence with the terrorists in Palestine, what action they have in mind that we should take. IN hat do they conceive that we can do in any way to moderate or restrain the activities of these wild and irresponsible men? We who do not agree with them and are at the same time Jews are probably the people in the world who have the least influence with them, and all I would say on that is that it really is no good issuing vague exhortations to the Jewish community in this country to exercise an influence which they do not possess and which in the very circumstances of the case they are the persons least likely to possess.
I only wish—I think that is common to the whole of the Jewish community here—that we had some influence that we could use, because it is not an attractive position for any of the Jews here, perhaps particularly, if I may say so, for those thousands of Jews who in the past years served in His Majesty's Forces, to read now from day to day the horrible and squalid story of the events in Palestine. I think it is true to say of the past that in every country the great danger to the Jewish community of that country has been the growth of a. fanatical and perfervid spirit of nationalism. It is a terrible thing, perhaps particularly for Jews themselves, to see even a small section of Jews, even confined to that one country of Palestine, attacked by this same deadly virus which has been the destruction of so many of their fellows in the past. It does not make it any better that a considerable quantity of that virus is injected from outside and from a section of a country with which otherwise this country is on the friendliest terms, and in the interest: of the peace of the world should remain upon the friendliest terms. I believe it is absolutely true to say that the Jewish community in this country view with increasing disgust, detestation,

1375
and dismay, the campaign of vituperation carried on by a section, probably numerous and certainly vociferous, of the Jewish community in the United States, in which virulence of expression seems to be equalled only by ignorance and distortion of fact. It is a tragic situation, when the great need of the world is peace, that the opportunity should be taken by any section of any community to go to the lengths of excess, of incitement and execration which that particular section, by no means representing the whole of the Jewish community of the United States, has allowed itself to achieve.
Having said that, I want to say only one more thing. Hidden behind the dust of this unhappy conflict there still remain, either in the camps or elsewhere, many tens of thousands of those who were the inhabitants of the concentration camps in the days of the liberation of Germany, now two and a quarter years ago. I have seen it said that these two problems are quite separate, and that it is wrong to confuse the problem of Palestine with the problem of the ultimate settlement of these persons. I have enough personal experience to know that you cannot separate those two problems. In connexion with the same Fund that I referred to earlier on, in the years before the war, when there were many thousands of refugees fleeing from Germany and Austria to the sanctuary of this country—a fact which the section of American Jewry to which I have just referred seems now conveniently to forget—and when those many thousands of Jews were given temporary sanctuary here on their way to their ultimate destinations, those of us who were responsible for the organization which received them here looked after them during their stay and intended, if the war had not come, to send them on to their ultimate homes, found ourselves beating against one barred and bolted door after another.
I do not think the experience in the short interval of the post-war years has been very different. Whether one sympathizes with the ideological considerations which turn many Jews' thoughts to Palestine, or whether one's conscience—whether it be a Jewish or a Gentile conscience—is stirred by the plight of these unhappy people, there are these two considerations to be borne in mind. First of all, from whatever aspect, in what-
1376
ever state of mind they may have started at the time of liberation, I believe it is true to say now that their hopes are concentrated ultimately upon finding a home in Palestine, amongst people who want to receive them, rather than being given a home in some other country, amongst people who receive them out of kindness and charity, but perhaps with just a little hesitation and reluctance—enough to destroy the welcome.
I hope, therefore, that the Government have not forgotten the position of these people, and will do something in order to give them at least some hope upon which to live, looking forward to the time when they may achieve—or at least the majority of them—what is, perhaps, the only ambition now left to them in life. Some of them may take the view that they have earned, by what they have undergone during these past years, some right to a little consideration in the choice which is made as to their future. I do not propose to elaborate that, but merely to state it as a point of view which is present in many of their minds. My Lords, I know it is difficult. I know the reply which is made, and cogently made, by the Arabs in that part of the world is that it is for the other countries to share with them in the absorption of this population.
One has, I think, always to bear in mind, firstly, what they have gone through; and, secondly, one thing of which I am satisfied, the fact of where their hopes lie for the future. The picture at this moment may be sufficiently sombre. It is not easy to see a rift in the clouds which hang over Palestine, but at the same time there may, perhaps, be just this one brighter reflection. In the past few years, not once but many times in this House and in another place, there have been debates, sometimes acrimonious, certainly by no means unanimous, on the subject of India and the policy to be followed in regard to the future status of that country It is not long now since in both Houses a policy was approved, with almost, if not quite, complete unanimity by all Parties, which it was generally hoped would lead to a lasting settlement of the Indian problem. That example, perhaps, gives us a little foundation for hope that the time may not be too long deferred when, in this House and another place, we may welcome a solution of a kindred problem

1377
in Palestine, and that as a result there may return to that country the peace which is the ultimate and overwhelming desire of all sections of opinion.
12.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the most reverend Primate, I find myself called upon to say a few words on behalf of those who habitually sit on these Benches. Let me say at once with what deep sympathy every member of your Lordships' House must have listened to the very moving speech which we have just heard from the noble Marquess. Let me say, too, that we share to the full the distress and horror to which he has given expression, and which everyone else must feel at the present state of affairs in Palestine and at the mounting toll of outrages. and crimes by which that unhappy country's immediate history is being disfigured.
During these recent years of bloodshed and outrage, cruelty and violence, the world has supped full of horrors, and the mind is in danger of being hardened and habituated to the story of them. They become familiar, too familiar, to us all. It is important that we should not allow ourselves to give way to the idea that crimes of violence are either inevitable or excusable, or that the guilt or heinousness of them is in the least degree mitigated by repetition. Having said that, I would go on to say that the Christian Church cannot in principle identify itself with Zionism. The legitimate claim of the Jews in Palestine is not to the possession of the country but to a National Home there. Whether that home can be so extended as to take in all the displaced Jews from Europe who would desire to migrate thither is a question of obvious difficulty, and the noble Marquess who has just spoken himself recognized, by implication, that it might be impracticable for Palestine to receive them all. But the claim to a National Home——
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I was talking about those from concentration camps; I was not speaking of the whole Jewish population of Europe.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: Of course, in the last resort, it is a question of arithmetic. But the claim of the Jews to a National Home in Palestine—within the limits of what is practicable—which an
1378
Englishman wishes to see generously interpreted, rests with us not on any literalist interpretation of Old Testament prophecy but on the Balfour Declaration. Whether that Declaration was wise or not, it was made; and it stands. And whether or not conflicting promises, or promises not easily reconciled, were made both to Arab and to Jew, it is in any case obvious that neither Arab nor Jew can be excluded from Palestine. In the end they must share the country between them; nor is there any intrinsic reason why they should not, in the long run, do so to their mutual advantage.
In saying that I am echoing the hope to which the noble Marquess has himself given expression. They must in the end share the country between them. But to say that, of course, is to view the problem with a rational judgment, and the actual situation has become terribly entangled in irrational passions, so that the voice of reason has become wellnigh silenced. It has been silenced by a number of factors: Firstly, the more extreme claims made by the Zionists; secondly, the unscrupulous agitation on behalf of Zionism carrier. on by unwise friends of the Jews in many parts of the world; arid, above all, as the noble Marquess has emphasized, by the sinister exploitation of Zionism by interests extraneous to Palestine and not friendly to this country. Another important factor has been the development and continuance of the lamentable and shocking gangsterism which all right-minded and civilized persons deplore, and by which the cause of the Jews in Palestine has been so grievously prejudiced.
Jews and Arabs, Israel and Islam, both have religious interests in Palestine. So also have Christians. Apart from the fact that Palestine has been in the past, as it will be again in the future, whenever tranquillity has been restored, the goal of religious pilgrimages, Christians of whatever ecclesiastical colour, whether or not they are habituated to regard with sympathy the idea of veneration for holy Places and pilgrimages thereto, can never disinterest themselves from the fate of the land which was the scene of our Lords earthly life—the country, as Shakespeare says:
"Over whose acres walk'd those blessèd Feet,
Which [nineteen] hundred years ago were nail'd
For our advantage on the bitter Cross."

1379
Christians can never forget that our Lord came of a Jewish mother and was humanly of Jewish race. The record of Christian nations and of Governments and peoples ostensibly Christian, has, in the matter of their treatment of the Jews, too often been a black one. The record of the post-Christian and neo-Pagan regime which recently held sway in Germany has been without parallel in its vileness and horror, and is to-day universally execrated. Unhappily, it is not even to-day needless to draw attention to the fact that there are flagrant manifestations of anti-Semitism utterly irreconcilable with the spirit of Jesus Christ. Nothing can be more irreconcilable with His spirit than anti-Semitism in all its forms.
To-day in this country, to our shame, the spirit of anti-Semitism, provoked very irrationally by recent outrages in Palestine, is beginning sporadically to manifest itself. It is a spirit and a temper and an attitude towards the Jewish race which is in itself utterly out of keeping with our traditions and with what we like to hold to be true of our national character. Alike in the name of the religion which the majority of people in this country still claim to profess and in the name of reason and humanity, I express the hope that these incipient exhibitions of the mood and temper of anti-Semitism may quickly cease. I cannot admire the logic of those who, because of the outrages in Palestine by criminals of Jewish race, attack their own fellow citizens of Jewish race here in England. There appears to be clear evidence that active terrorism, even in Palestine, is confined to a small section of the population, whose activities are not supported—and in fact are condemned—by the majority of the Jews themselves, who themselves stand in terror of the terrorists. Those activities receive nothing but horrified condemnation from British Jewry. Therefore, anti-Semitism in England is without excuse, and I am confident that your Lordships will join with me in the prayer that it may speedily cease.
12.19 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, during the last year of the war I had the honour to serve as liaison officer on the training side of the War Department of the United States. There, in our deliberations and conferences, the factor which governed our actions was whether a particular
1380
course would save the life of one American soldier. If it would it was worth it. I believe that in our deliberations to-day, and in all dealings in the future, we should adopt that theory. Would any action we could take save the life of one soldier, sailor, airman, policeman or civilian serving his country in or round the coast of Palestine? If so it would be worth taking. In 1936 I went out to Palestine with the 1st Division, under the then General Sir John Dill, the late lamented Field-Marshal. Though where I was by the coast one had little in those days of the kind of warfare—I must call it warfare—that is going on now, one found that it was the most tiring, wearing and difficult form of military service possible. Now one never knows who is one's enemy, and our men never know from whence information is going to be given to the present enemy, who are, of course, the terrorists. In those days, any fighting that took place went on more in the hills and in the open. Now, to a great extent, it takes place in the towns. Small bands, like snakes, strike and are gone. So I would not under estimate in any way the difficulties which face the Government and the troops in bringing in the men concerned. And may I, in passing, join with everyone else who has spoken on this question in paying my humble tribute to all who have served so loyally, so well and so bravely in Palestine?
May I now turn for one minute to the subject of the aftermath of the dastardly double murder which has recently taken place? Can the noble Viscount who is to reply tell us whether there is any hope of the co-operation of the Jewish community in tracing not only the men responsible but also others who are taking part in these dastardly attacks? If there is not, I cannot help feeling that we must, from every point of view, put Palestine tinder Martial Law. Further, may I ask: Can the noble Viscount assure the House that if—as has been said—there is to be a reduction in the Armed Forces in the near future, Palestine will not be denuded of what Forces are there now? As I have said, what takes place out there is an exhausting and wearing battle of the nerves: and unless there are full reliefs, unless there is full leave, it is possible that tempers may get so frayed that there might he an incident which we would all deprecate. For that reason I believe that it is essential that we should keep up the

1381
strength which we have out there. And not only that: if necessary, we should not hesitate to increase it. In closing my few remarks I would express the hope that everything possible may be done to speed up consultations and to relieve the intolerable situation in which our soldiers, sailors, police and all serving in Palestine are placed. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give a clear indication of policy to be followed in the future in order that we may dispel the feeling, the existence of which I fear I must admit, that we are as a ship without a rudder, sailing in a stormy sea.
12.25 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships, in all parts of the House, will agree that the noble Viscount who sits behind me did well to put down this Motion for discussion to-day. It enable us to express our detestation and our horror at the crimes to which our troops are being submitted in Palestine. It also enables us to voice our deep and profound admiration for the manner in which they are bearing themselves under this most terrible strain. The situation in Palestine is indeed grave, and it may at any moment lead to a situation even more serious. That, speaking for myself, is one of the reasons why I am glad that this House is not adjourning for more than a short time. It is quite possible that things might happen in Palestine of which we should really have to take account in Parliament and on which we should express our views to the Government.
The situation is indeed a horrible one, and I feel that it is most horrible because the young men who are serving us there—at any rate in the junior ranks—are young men who can be forgiven for not understanding the kind of responsibility which we undertook in Palestine. It was undertaken in a past generation, and it later was universally—or at least very widely—declared to have been a mistaken responsibility for us to undertake. These young men can be forgiven for not realizing what we were at when we undertook it. They can be forgiven for not seeing any good moral or material purpose, or any national or international advantage, in the kind of duties which they have to carry out. That I think is the most terrible part of the situation. And that feeling is widely held. The feeling: expressed by many of our men in Palestine is: "Why should we
1382
have to put up with all this? Why do we not just give it up? "For my part I hope that that feeling will not come to a head. As the right reverend Prelate has said, we put our hand to the Balfour Declaration. We did undertake the Mandate, and we cannot abdicate it until some authority—which, in my opinion, can only be the United Nations—either takes it over or is prepared to support us in a course which we ourselves are prepared to approve and to undertake.
The behaviour of our troops in Palestine has been absolutely splendid, and it reflects the greatest credit on all ranks. But it is a terrible tragedy—and here again I agree with the right reverend Prelate—that the world does not seem to look with horror, as we do, on what is happening in Palestine. Civilized countries are taking these things almost for granted—as if we deserved what we are getting, as if there were no reason to sympathize with us. This is so in America and in France and, I believe. also in Italy and other countries. It is particularly regrettable that there should be this state of opinion in America and in France with regard to this matter. The behaviour of the French Government over the question of the emigrant ships, which sailed from France and were sent back, seems to me to be a matter on. which, as one of the oldest friends of France in this country, one should speak frankly. There is no hope for France or for ourselves, in my opinion, in our discharge of the common responsibilities which we bear in the Mediterranean, and in that part of the world generally, unless we co-operate all along the line. I am bound to say that the attitude which the French Government have adopted with regard to our difficulties in Palestine a not a ground for sympathy with them in their own great difficulties in North Africa. I think that it ought to be realized in France that if they are asking for sympathy—as thy are—they must be prepared to accord sympathy to us, and if they are asking for co-operation they must also be prepared to accord it to us.
We cannot throw up the sponge in Palestine—on that I insist—but it is our bounden duty to shorten the period of uncertainty by any means in our power. Perhaps the noble Viscount may be able to tell us something about that. When

1383
can we count on getting some decision from the United Nations? It seems to be a question of many weeks, but we are bound to do our utmost to shorten that period if we can. We owe that to the country and to the men on the spot. I think that may be done if we take measures in Palestine which will tend to show the urgency of a decision. International conferences are very apt to drift without adequate regard to what is happening on the spot about which they are deliberating, and I think we are bound to take all the steps we can to show how desperately urgent the decision on Palestine now is.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that it is a case for declaring Martial Law over a much wider area, or in certain specified areas. I hesitate to offer military advice to the military authorities there. They know much better than we can. I know that the answer of the Government when these suggestions are made is always that the military and civil authorities there, the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding, have got absolute authority to do whatever they think right. I do not think that is enough. It means a great deal for men carrying such responsibilities if they are sure the atmosphere behind them is cordial, and that in whatever measures they take they will be supported. It is not enough to say that they can do so. They must know that in whatever they do they will be supported in this country. The situation has reached that point. I think more consideration should be given to the imposition of Martial Law, at any rate in certain areas, or in wider areas than it has yet been tried—if not Martial Law, at any rate a much greater control of roads. All kinds of crimes are committed on thoroughfares, the stealing of lorries or taxis or something of that kind. The noble Lord described the kind of fighting which went on in the hills. These horrors are now taking place in towns and roads, and the control of roads is a vital matter. I wonder whether the convoy system might not be tried in order to get a greater control of traffic on the roads. It has been used very successfully in such conditions elsewhere. Again, one hesitates to make these suggestions, but I think the more we show how deeply concerned we are, even by throwing out suggestions that are not practical on the spot, the
1384
more we shall help and comfort the people bearing these responsibilities.
I have one other suggestion. I am not at all satisfied by the reasons given yesterday in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for the Government's refusal to impose collective fines. Collective fines are a proper measure of retribution when a whole community is obviously responsible, and the time has come when we must face the fact that the whole Jewish community in Palestine is responsible. They are not co-operating with the Government. These things could not take place if the Jewish Agency and the many great instruments of power that the Agency command were co-operating with the Government. In that case we are entitled to say that the whole community are to blame, and the whole community must take the responsibility. I press that because we imposed collective fines on the Arabs. If we imposed collective fines on the Arabs, what reason have we for not imposing them on the Jews? The only fine imposed was to increase the cost of petrol when the Jews attacked the refinery at Haifa. That fell alike on Arabs and Jews. It is all very well to reply that some of the fine is to be spent on social services for the Arabs. Why should, they have extra taxation because the Jews destroy a refinery? That is no justification for the course which the Government took, or at any rate approved. I think that to force on the Jews the realization that the whole of the Jews have the responsibility is deeply in the interests of Jews in Palestine, in this country, and throughout the world, because I do not believe they realize the extent to which the Jewish cause is suffering throughout the world as a result of what is happening in Palestine.
Finally, if the United Nations are going to delay, if we are going to find endless debate, decisions postponed and the strain continuing on our people until it becomes unbearable, I think the Government should consider demanding a denunciation of the crimes in Palestine from the United Nations, which they have not yet made. Astonishing as it may be, the United Nations have not denounced these crimes. The Government should demand the denunciation of these crimes and corrective action by the United Nations, if they go on while a decision is being reached. After all, that is what the United Nations exist

1385
for, and one of the most terrible things is that there has been no sign of moral indignation amongst the peoples of the United Nations about what is occurring in Palestine.
I could not agree more than I do with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who I see has left his place, about the dangers of nationalism at the present time. It is the tragedy of tragedies that the Jews, who have always been one of the great cements between different nations, should now have developed an extreme nationalism of their own, and are not only pursuing an ideal bad in the Holy Land, against the spirit of the age in the Holy Land, but pursuing an ideal which rouses up nationalism against them in other countries and causes this terrible wave of anti-Semitism. Everybody loathes anti-Semitism, but we can see why it arises and we must do our utmost to restrain it. If what is happening in Palestine continues, you will see whether anti-Semitism does not spread. Human nature simply will not stand it.
Here is the acid test for the United Nations. The United Nations were formed to bridge national differences and to broaden and transmute national purposes, to try and check the bitterness and narrowness of nationalism. Here the United Nations should be on their own ground. The noble Lord in his speech referred to the example of India. It is, in one sense, I agree, a cause for hope, but in another, surely there is no member of this House who does not regret that India is now partitioned and a conflict of nationalisms is going to take place there. That, I hope, will not be the case in Palestine. I have always felt that if racial and national co-operation cannot be established in the Holy Land, the birthplace of three great religions, in which the whole monotheistic world is deeply concerned—Christian, Moslem and Jew alike—if the United Nations cannot secure agreement and co-operation between the nations living there, is there any hope in the world?
12.39 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the quality of the debate to which we have just listened has justified the noble Viscount in initiating it, as he has done to-day. His Majesty's Government have no complaint at all to register that there
1386
should be on two succeeding days debates in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, and I feel that I should at once express my deep appreciation for the very helpful speeches which have been made by those of your Lordships who have participated in the debate here. We are quite conscious of the anxiety and concern in the minds of the people of this country with regard to the present situation in Palestine.
While I do riot want to single out any one of the speeches which have been made, I would like to say that it is some time since I have listened to a more profound, timely, important, and effective speech than that of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I have no doubt as to the attitude of, shall I say, almost every member of the Jewish population in this country concerning this question of Palestine. The speech itself was necessary to indicate to nations outside of our own that that is their attitude. Again, I think tie speech is timely for the remarks which he made as to the attitude of a substantial proportion of Jewry in America. I do hope the noble Marquess's speech will be read in its entirety (I wish it could have been heard) not only by Jewry in this country and America, but by the populations in these two countries an indeed, throughout the world. It may then well assist in bringing about the peaceful solution which all of us desire to this very difficult and long problem.
Many questions have been raised in the course of this debate, and I shall attempt to deal with them. I should say at once that the last crime which was committed in Palestine (I am referring to the murder of Sergeants Martin and Paice) was in some respects the worst crime committed in a series of dastardly crimes. These two British soldiers were innocent of offence against the murderers or, indeed, against Jewry. Their only duty was that of maintaining order—the responsibility which British arms have been called upon to undertake, without which it would not be possible for the very large increase in the Jewish population in Palestine, and without which there would be no prospect of a Jewish National Home, whatever interpretation one can put upon that. Following these murders, there has been a vicious circle of terror and retaliation, with resultant loss of life in Palestine, and the outbreak of anti-Jewish feeling in this

1387
country, which in turn has resulted in rioting and much anti-Semitism.
I would like to say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate who intervened in this debate, in what he said concerning the attitude of His Majesty's Government and the people of this country to those who participate in such actions. It is quite contrary to British feeling and British justice. I feel that I ought to say that this is a danger signal which cannot be ignored. I would that those who are charged with responsibilities in Palestine (I refer particularly to the Jewish Agency) could have their attention specially drawn to such actions as we have seen in this country during the last few weeks. I think I can assure British Jewry that these actions are the actions of misguided persons, who have not the support and sympathy of the British people in their conduct. It is useless to attempt to justify those persons who are responsible by indulging in acts some 3,000 or 4,000 miles away from the scene of the outrages in Palestine.
When this question was last debated in your Lordships' House, I dealt very fully with the effect which illegal immigration had upon the present situation in Palestine. On this occasion I will say no more than that the worst threat to good relations is the continuance of this illegal campaign which is not only hardening but embittering the Arab feeling, and is also stirring up a passion and hatred against the British, and particularly the British administration in Palestine. I agree entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord who spoke last. I do not propose to deal fully with illegal immigration, because I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Long, if he will read the remarks which I made on that occasion, will find that I did give concrete evidence of the source of revenue without which this illegal practice could not be continued. I know of no Communist organization—not that I should—which is behind it. I am convinced that if financial support were withheld from the United States, illegal immigration could not be carried out to the extent to which it has been practised during the course of the last eighteen months, if at all. Further financial assistance from the United States, and possibly some from other countries, has provided for the very large increase in this traffic.
1388
The very worst case of course is that of the ship President Warfield." That is a ship of 1,800 gross standard tonnage, which carried no fewer than 4,600 illegal immigrants. The attempt was made to land them in Palestine, and they are now housed in merchant ships of a tonnage of some 26,000 tons off the coast of France. The passengers in this ship left France with forged Colombian visas, in defiance of French regulations and of the requirements of the international conventions for the safety of life at sea and respecting the Plimsoll Line or load lines. As I said on a previous occasion, some of these ships would never have reached the Palestinian coast had it not been for the assistance which they received from the Royal Navy. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in Paris at the time of the ship's departure, and in fairness to the French Government I should say that this ship was held up in France for nearly three months as a result of the attitude of the French Government. She did not leave with the approval or the consent of the French Government, but slipped her cables about three o'clock, or very early one morning. She did not leave with the number of immigrants in her which arrived in the territorial waters of Palestine. These ships leave ports in France or Italy and at different points on the voyage collect more immigrants. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised this matter with the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, and His Majesty's Government have since maintained close contact with the French Government through the British Embassy in Paris.
The situation which has arisen has placed His Majesty's Government in a very difficult position. As noble Lords know, illegal immigrants who have been intercepted are taken to Cyprus. It is not that His Majesty's Government are unsympathetic to the entry of illegal immigrants into Palestine, for since the end of the quota of 75,000 under the White Paper no fewer than 30,000 immigrants have been received in Palestine and at the present time there are waiting in Cyprus some 15,000 or 16,000 persons who attempted illegally to enter Palestine. That number does not include those who are at present off the South Coast of France on the three ships to which I have referred. This matter is very costly and

1389
expensive to His Majesty's Government; it is no use pretending that it is not. We have to keep a number of ships of the Royal Navy on patrol, and there is no ship which arrives in Palestine conveying illegal immigrants that we consider fit to take them from Palestine to Cyprus. Indeed, we have to provide something like three or four times the accommodation, because we would never expect persons to travel in such miserable unseaworthy hulks as those in which the persons responsible for this illegal immigration expect the illegal immigrants to travel. I wonder sometimes whether this is done purely for propaganda purposes, bearing in mind the possibility of something happening.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked me whether the French forbade the ship to leave. Of course they did. The guards, however, were inadequate, and the cables were cut and the ship left. The noble Viscount then asked who feeds the immigrants. During the voyage from Palestine back to France, of course, His Majesty's Government were responsible, and the people were fed by ships' stores. Since their arrival in France they have been fed by French charitable organizations, and that is the position at the present time. There has been some criticism about the way in which those illegal immigrants are housed. I gave your Lordships the conditions under which they travelled to Palestine and I leave to your Lordships' imagination the conditions under which they are existing at the present time.
The attitude of the French Government is that they are quite prepared to receive these immigrants if they leave the ships voluntarily. They have camps provided for them, but they have informed His Majesty's Government that they will not take steps to remove them forcibly. Up to the present time there are some 130 who have left these ships. It may be, as a result of much propaganda in the ships which could not be prevented, that those who occupy the ships at the present time imagine that if they wait or stay long enough they will be taken either to Palestine or to Cyprus. Even at the expense of repetition of what was said by the Colonial Under-Secretary in another place last night, I do say that it is the present intention of His Majesty's Government that those 4,400 illegal im-
1390
migrants aboard those illegal ships will not be taken either to Palestine or to Cyprus. We do hope that they themselves will realize what the position is.
Noble Lords will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said that he was satisfied that the High Commissioner's powers, as explained by the Colonial Secretary in another place yesterday—and, indeed, the powers given to the military—are sufficient. Therefore there is hardly any need for me to reply now to that question, other titan to take up the point which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I was always under the impression fiat he, with his vast experience, thought that matters of this kind should be left largely to the men on the spot, provided that they have all the powers which are necessary. I want to assure him that in order to deal with an emergency no powers are withheld, and that there is complete collaboration between the military and the civil authorities. If, of course, there is time for consultation on matters of long-term policy, then consultations take place between them.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Would the noble Viscount forgive my interrupting? I should hate to think that anything I slid could be interpreted as meaning that I suggested any interference with the discretion of the men on the spot. That was the last thing which I intended. I am sure that the decision should be left to them. But having been a man on the spot myself I know that what the man on the spot can do depends very much upon the atmosphere of the Government at home, and whether he is going to be supported out and out in whatever he does. That was the point I wished to make.
VISCOUNT HALL: I can give the noble Lord an assurance, with possibly one exception, and that was the one to which he referred—namely, collective fines. As that is so, I shall not deal further with that particular question.
The noble Viscount then asked me what was the position of isolated cases of persons who are travelling, or who have to undertake responsibilities, and whether the Security Forces are sufficient to protect them. In the nature of things it is not always possible to guarantee the security of our Forces when they are

1391
engaged upon certain operations. Travel on roads is confined to essential duty or to journeys in convoys. When travelling, a party of British civilians, if not in convoy, must apply for and obtain appropriate armed escort. No officer or man is allowed to go outside his camp unarmed; nor is he allowed outside the camp or security zone unless accompanied by three others who are all armed. All vehicles carry at least one armed man beside the driver, and in dangerous areas they always move in pairs. Every possible protection is given to troops on any particular task in the cities. Moreover, in towns military and police patrol the streets that are within bounds.
Instructions have been sent out to make it clear that there are no circumstances in which security instructions can be waived, other than by order from the highest authority. Troops have not been allowed to go into cinemas, restaurants or other public places. It will be realized that these regulations are very irksome and restrictive. They are, however, considered necessary in view of the situation in Palestine. May I here join with other noble Lords who have intervened in this debate in expressing again, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the greatest appreciation of the forbearance, patience, and bravery with which not only the troops but the police and civilian authorities are undertaking their difficult and very distasteful task?
The question of Martial Law has been raised. I do not know whether the inference was that Martial Law should apply throughout the whole of Palestine. Those of your Lordships who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, have had long experience in Palestine, particularly appreciate what it would mean in numbers of troops and expense to apply Martial Law throughout the whole of Palestine. Indeed, there is scarcely any need; for, after all, it must be remembered that two-thirds of the population in Palestine are Arabs, and little has been said about the Arab situation during the course of this debate. Fortunately up to the present time, with one or two exceptions, the Arabs have been orderly, and indeed have assisted the civilian administration in every possible way. Had it been possible to obtain the co-operation of the Jewish community terrorism could not have lasted very long.
1392
It is true, as has been said, that terrorist groups in Palestine are made up of a small number of fanatical persons who assume that acts such as they are carrying out will bring nearer the solution of the Palestine problem. The trouble is that not only do they carry out these acts but they terrorize almost the whole of the Jewish community. If the Jewish Agency, in addition to expressing their sympathy and passing resolutions to throw in the whole of their support whole-heartedly, could bring Haganah into full and complete co-operation, terrorists would not remain in Palestine any longer than they would remain in this country if the whole community were in opposition to them. That is the difficulty in Palestine at the present time, and that is why the defence emergency regulations now contain a regulation by which a form of statutory Martial Law can be imposed in certain areas when required. This is considered more satisfactory than Martial Law, because the authorities can cordon off various areas and take complete control of them, as has been done in Tel Aviv and in Nathanya.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked whether I could say something concerning the outrage at the Labour Office in Jerusalem. This outrage took place shortly before the time at which the Office closed. It is a building which is situated in the Jewish area of Jerusalem, and in the present security conditions only Palestinian staff work there. At irregular times, and under escort, supervisory visits are made by members of British executive authorities, who carry on their own office duties from a security zone. The entry of visitors during office hours is controlled by doorkeepers, who were held up by the terrorists, but the alarm signal for clearing the building of staff—the majority of whom were present at the time when the bomb was placed—functioned successfully, with the result that casualties were reduced to a very small proportion. Outside office hours the building is guarded by two civilian Palestinian watchmen. It will be recognized, however, that it is impossible to guard every Government office, other than those in the security zones, sufficiently to prevent the entry of a determined gang of attackers or saboteurs, and that the most that can be done is to provide for speedy and orderly evacuation in case of danger.

1393
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, raised the question of collective fines and he referred, too, to the fact that the whole of the community was to blame. I am sure that he did not include the Arab community when he made that reference.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I said the Jewish community.
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Lord followed it up by referring to the Jewish community. He also referred to the petrol tax which is being levied for the purpose of compensating the oil company for the destruction of their refinery. That, in itself, discloses the difficulty of applying collective fines. If you apply fines by way of taxation, whether it is indirect or direct, it is difficult to eliminate certain sections of the community. That difficulty has been brought out in relation to the petrol tax. It would be difficult not to levy that tax upon all petrol which was sold in Palestine, and again, let me repeat, two-thirds of the population of Palestine are, of course, Arabs. The estimated amount which is raised in the tax upon the Arabs is returned to the Arabs; it is difficult to return it in the form of cash, but it is returned to the Arabs in the form of assisting in their social services and I think in a way upon which agreement has been reached. It is true, of course, that in the time of the Arab difficulty there was a tax of this kind levied, but it was not easy to collect it, and one of the problems with which the Government are faced is that of discriminating, which is so difficult. That matter has been considered and those difficulties——
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Will the noble Viscount forgive me for intervening, but I would like to say that if it is possible to impose a collective fine upon the limited community of Arabs, it surely is also possible to impose a collective fine upon the community of Jews. Arabs are exempted from the fine. If the fine should be imposed within a limited area, everybody would pay at that rate.
VISCOUNT HALL: I wish it was as easy as appears to be to the mind of the noble Lord, but I can assure him that this matter has received a good deal of consideration.
I now come to what after all is the wider question of policy affecting Palestine. Your Lordships will be
1394
conscious of the fact that the United Nations Special Committee have been collecting material for their report. The Committee arrived in Palestine during the middle of June, toured the country extensively, and received evidence from a very large number of people. Public evidence was taken from the Jews only. The Palestine Arabs had decided to boycott the proceedings, but the Committee spent the last few days of their time in the Middle East receiving evidence from the Arab States. They concluded their evidence on the 23rd July when they left for Geneva, where the committee are now engaged in the preparation of their report. There are prospects than: the report will be submitted on 1st September, so your Lordships will see that a further expression of view on Palestine policy in general will not be possible until the Committee's report has been received and examined.
I fully appreciate the dangers of delay, but I would like to recall to the minds of noble Lords the action of His Majesty's Government. When it was discovered that it was impossible to bring about an agreement as a result of the conferences held by His Majesty's Government with the Jews and Arabs, or at least those who would attend in this country, His Majesty's Government; with the full consent of this House arid another place, referred the matter to the United Nations and sought a special meeting of the Assembly for the purpose of preparing for a decision to be taken in the September meetings. In taking that initiative in the matter, His Majesty's Government have saved at least twelve months. It is hoped that a decision will be arrived at——
LORD ALTRINCHAM: In September?
VISCOUNT HALL: At the September meetings or the autumn meetings of the General Assembly of the United Nations. May I express a hope that the findings of the Committee will bring a complete solution and one just to both parties, capable of helping to assure the peaceful progress of the Middle East, for peace in Palestine is a matter of real concern to the whole world?
VISCOUNT LONG: Will the noble Viscount forgive me, but I would like to put one question. There have been some statements to the effect that the indiscriminate shooting from a car in Tel Aviv was due to our own military or police

1395
personnel. I believe that has been contradicted in another place. I hope the noble Viscount can confirm that contradiction that our men had nothing to do with it.
VISCOUNT HALL: I can confirm that, so far as the military are concerned, they had nothing at all to do With it. A suggestion was then made that the Palestine Police was in some way responsible, but an inquiry is now being held in connexion with that matter. Until we know the result of the inquiry, no statement can be made about it.
VISCOUNT LONG: The Army is not involved?
VISCOUNT HALL: No.
LORD GRENFELL: Could I possibly have an answer to the question of the reduction of the Armed Forces in Palestine? Could I have an assurance that they will not be reduced in Palestine?
VISCOUNT HALL: I am afraid it is impossible for me to give the noble Lord such an assurance. I think it would be very wrong to give any information with regard to the disposition of the Forces, whether in Palestine or anywhere else where there is such trouble as there is in Palestine. I am afraid it is impossible to give the noble Lord a reply to his question.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, if for no other reason this debate has been justified by the speech of the noble Viscount; and I am sure your Lordship will agree with me in thanking him for a detailed and long speech of immense interest. He has cleared up many points which have been in dispute. And, if I may be allowed to do so, I would like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for the great speech we have had from him this morning. In view of the time and of the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty has taken so much trouble to give the House a detailed report, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes past one o'clock and resumed at half past two.]

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Appropriation,

Town and Country Planning (Scotland),

Electricity,

Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes),

North Cumberland Water Board,

Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences,

Preston Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

London Passenger Transport Board.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE RECESS: ADJOURNMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9.
2.48 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, October 14. I may explain to your Lordships that the reason for this date of October 14, is that that is the date of the normal judicial sitting of the House.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn until October 14.—(Lord Ammon).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out the words "Tuesday, October 14" and insert "Tuesday, September 9." In moving this Amendment I can assure the Government, if they need such an assurance, that we, on this side of the House, are not acting in any Party spirit or with the mere object of causing any embarrassment to the Government. We have, I I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House, taken a moderate and, I hope, a statesmanlike attitude towards the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act. Although we have protested against the extent of the powers which are given to the Government, especially under Section 1 (1) (c), we have been at pains not to give any legitimate grounds for any charge that we have made it impossible for the Government to use what means they feel desirable to tackle this crisis with which the country is faced.

1397
But there is no doubt that the introduction of this legislation, with the very wide powers which it confers, and at a time when Parliament is separating for the Summer Recess for over two months, has exposed what I may perhaps describe as rather a serious defect in the constitutional machinery of this country, which I think it is for Parliament as far as they can to try to remedy. In the old days, of course, practically all legislation was by Act of Parliament, and Parliament went through every word of every clause of that legislation. In such circumstances there was fully effective protection for the community. But within recent years (and I am not referring merely to the period during which the present Government have been in power) there has been a new development—namely, the growth of delegated legislation. As your Lordships know very well, blanket powers are given to Ministers to make Orders within the limitations of the main Acts and as soon as they are made those Orders come into active operation. It is quite true that under the Constitution they must be laid before Parliament, and, as your Lordships know, either House can pray against them.
That is, of course, some protection when Parliament is sitting, but if Parliament is not sitting Orders may become operative weeks or even months, before Parliament can consider them. I should think that it would be generally agreed by noble Lords in every part of the House, whatever they may feel about this measure which we have so lately been considering, that that is not an entirely satisfactory situation. Indeed, it is a very unsatisfactory situation. It is to meet this new difficulty that we are proposing that, if necessary, this House, at any rate, should meet at convenient intervals during the Recess to examine such Orders.
No doubt the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor would point out, if I did not, that in these circumstances this House cannot pray against Orders, because Orders have to be laid before Parliament; and if only one House happens to be in Session they clearly cannot be so laid. In those conditions all the House can do is to examine and discuss them when they come out. That would be, or it might be, a useful function for us to perform. An earlier meeting of this kind, under the existing rather anxious conditions, might have this
1398
additional advantage: It might well give opportunity, if such were required, for general discussion of developments in the economic situation since the House last sat; that is, since to-day.
I would not for a moment suggest that we should have a sort of general session of this House, in which every kind and sort of question might be raised—in which there might be debates on foreign affairs. debates on this or debates on that. That, I think, would be entirely inappropriate. The general development in the economic situation would be very closely allied to this Act which has been lately under discussion, and a general discussion of that kind might be quite proper. That is the reason why I am moving this Amendment to the Motion for the Adjournment. It has seemed to us—that is, to those noble Lords whom I represent—that September 9 would be a suitable date for the next meeting of the House. For one thing, it will give almost a month for noble Lords and for the officers of the House to get that rest and refreshment which hey obviously need after the labours of the summer. It will also give time for the Government to initiate such steps as they may think proper to deal with the situation which has been developing.
We on this side of the House fully recognize that, owing to important public duties abroad, it will not be possible for the Lord Chancellor himself, or for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to be present on September 9. We entirely understand the reasons. No doubt there will be some other members of the Government Front Bench who will be able to officiate in their absence. I believe that the proposal which I am putting will be generally welcomed, both in this House and also outside, as evidence that your Lordships are willing to give what assistance you can to the alleviation of our present troubles, and also as evidence that we are prepared and determined to play our full part in maintaining the authority of Parliament. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("October 14") and insert ("September 9").—(The Marquess of Salisbury. )
2.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches will desire to

1399
support the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition. The reasons for this Amendment have been so fully and so ably stated by the noble Marquess that it is unnecessary for me to do more than say that we agree with them and regard them as conclusive. I hope that it is to be made quite clear that, if this House is summoned to meet again on September 9, it will only be for anything more than a formal sitting if some business of urgent importance has arisen meanwhile. The noble Marquess, I am sure, does not intend, and the House does not wish, that we should meet again in order to engage in the discussion of more or less normal business which may happen to have accrued meanwhile. We have had a very long and very arduous Session with a great deal of massive legislation, and I think that members of your Lordships' House, as well as officials, are entitled to a sufficient rest.
Public spirit is a great virtue, and a high sense of Parliamentary duty is greatly to be praised. But like other virtues, that ought not to be carried to extravagant excess. So we may hope that on September 9 it may be necessary only to summon here a quorum of the House, which is, as we know, three members. Three self-sacrificing members of your Lordships' House, preferably those who are accustomed to be in receipt of salaries, should he willing to attend in order to constitute a sitting of the Chamber.
I do not know what attitude the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will take on this Amendment. I can well understand that the Government would be in some difficulty in either proposing such an Amendment themselves or in formally agreeing to it if similar action is not being taken by the other House. Therefore, it may be that the noble and learned Viscount will view this Amendment without enthusiasm, but I hope the Government, if they do not agree, will at all events acquiesce.
2.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships on these Benches are really becoming very revolutionary. I and my Party are old-fashioned Constitutionalists in this matter and I am bound to point out that, so far as I know, this has never been done before. Quite
1400
frankly, being an old Constitutionalist, as we all are, I distrust this innovation. I doubt its wisdom. Your Lordships are very anxious to maintain the dignity and prestige of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships must ask yourselves whether the question before the House is likely to achieve that end. If the answer to that question, which you must have formulated yourselves, is in the affirmative, well then, so be it. The noble Viscount who spoke last, the Leader of the Liberal Party, anticipated that though I could not accede, I should acquiesce.
The constitutional position is quite plain. It is for each House (I am reading from Erskine May) to exercise its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown (which means the Government of the day) and of the other House. That is the constitutional position which I have to advise your Lordships exists. I would, however, like to point out that on August 10, 1914, which was just after the outbreak of the First World War, this House resolved that
"whenever during the present Session of Parliament the House stands adjourned for more than two days and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor may give notice to the Peers that he is to satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice and transact business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."
Since that date alterations have been made in that Motion. The Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is now frequently included, together with the Lord Chancellor, and since 1931 the Motion has been so made that the Lord Chancellor or the Chairman of Committees cannot act save after consultation with the Government. In its more modern form, in practice I understand it means that this is done with the approval of the Government. But I would point out that under the 1914 Resolution it was left to the Lord Chancellor to act independently and call your Lordships back if, and only if, in his or their opinion there was some case for so doing.
Frankly, I do not agree with the noble Marquess that the modern tendency of delegated legislation is any justification. When I have read books about "The New Despotism," I have thought that in the interest of historical accuracy it should be stated that that despotism is

1401
very old indeed and reached its height in the time of the Tudors. It is quite inaccurate to refer to it as the new despotism—despotism, if you will, but not new. And our ancestors, who did not adopt this course, were fully alive to the danger which the noble Marquess seeks to guard against. While it is of course for this House to decide to what date it will adjourn—and, I should not dream of standing in the way; your Lordships' wishes must be supreme in this matter—it is for the Government to decide what they will do when the House does meet. I am exceedingly sorry that the Leader of the House, Viscount Addison, is away. I am sure the wishes of all the members of this House go with him on his voyage, and I think at his age it shows great pluck and enterprise to undertake the very arduous and difficult task he has undertaken. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, is going, as your Lordships know, as a Parliamentary delegate to China and he also will not be present. And I, my Lords, am in a difficult position in that I have been asked both by the American and Canadian Bar Associations to go to America. It entails making a very large number of speeches and travelling pretty well over the Continent. Though I have considered in my own mind whether I ought to abandon that project, my own colleagues and those of your Lordships opposite who have been good enough to discuss this with me take the view that I ought to adhere to my decision and to go as the guest of the American and Canadian Bar Associations. I only mention these matters in order to apologize that I and my noble friends will not be able to be here. I have no doubt we shall do all we can to facilitate matters. I hope that your Lordships will understand that so far as the servants of this House are concerned it would be desirable to interfere as little as possible with their holidays, and if we find when the day comes that we are understaffed I am sure your Lordships will forgive it and realize the reason.
With that, would point out that in any event it will not be possible to pray against any Order. You cannot do that. All you can do is to debate an Order, but the question of a Prayer cannot arise. It is therefore no sort of solution of the constitutional problem, if constitutional problem there be, as it is a fact that
1402
these Regulations come into force and have effect unless and until a Prayer is passed. A Prayer cannot be under taken when your Lordships meet on September 9. I have pointed these facts out. Your Lordships have told me that you desire to meet again on September g. It is your Lordships' undoubted right to decide to which date you will adjourn, and, conscious as I am that the large majority desire this date, I shall do nothing to try to oppose the proposal. I will acquiesce in the proposal which has been made and we shall learn by experience and see how it works.
3.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I would not have intervened had not the noble Viscount in the course of his speech thought fit to point out a matter of historical accuracy. It is no doubt quite true that in the time of Henry VIII a Statute of Proclamation attempted to provide that the King should be able to Issue orders of the nature of laws without Parliamentary authority at all, a very bad precedent and one which we shall certainly not go back to. But it is just as well to remember that though that was true at the beginning of the Tudor period, it certainly was not possible at the end. I recall the answer of the schoolboy who was asked to illustrate the increase in power of the House of Commons during the period of the Tudors. The schoolboy replied that at the end of that period, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the House of Commons petitioned the Queen to marry—a thing, he said, which the House of Commons would never lave thought of doing in the reign of Henry VIII. The claim which was undoubtedly made in the period to which my noble and learned friend refers, and was made a little later, led to a very unfortunate incident in the time of Charles I, when he, in his turn, attempted to govern without Parliament.
Surely, the true position is this. I have never sought to state it too absolutely, or in too dogmatic a fashion. The truth is that it has been for a very long time past—in the lifetime of any of us, and going back beyond that—absolutely necessary to have in Statutes provisions that regulations should be made under the Statuses. You could not have an Education Bill, an Unemployment Insurance Bill, or a

1403
Factory Bill unless there were all sorts of regulations which were made under them—quite subordinate to them, but absolutely lawful, because the Statutes themselves provide for them. That is to say you give a certain discretion in matters of mere administration to the Department which is administrating the subjects. That is undoubtedly the case. I do not think Mr. Gladstone would have taken any objection to the provisions of the Education Act of 1870, which included provisions for regulations by the Board of Education. But that is quite a different thing—is it not?—from letting us slide into a situation in which more and more what is in effect legislation by regulation takes the place of what ought to be direct Parliamentary decision. It may be that it is inevitable that the cases should increase, because the complication of life increases, and even the most hard-working Parliament cannot manage to sit more than 365 days in a year—and possibly there are some who think that that would be an excessive time!
But there is a fundamental difference between the old idea that purely subordinate matters can be dealt with by regulations which are authorized by Parliament and the idea which is now unquestionably growing up. You may see it in its most emphatic form in some of the previous declarations of, let us say, Sir Stafford Cripps. To say that the moment a Socialist Government get a majority they ought on the first day to pass a Bill to confer on the Government powers to legislate on anything they like, and that after that Parliament should sit as little as possible, is a fundamentally different conception of what Parliament ought to do from the conception under which we have been brought up, and which most of us honestly desire to maintain. It is, therefore, not the case that we are dealing in this Act with cases where there may be just ordinary regulations, such as have been made for a long time past, and made of necessity by every great Department of State—the Home Office, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, and so on. That is not the case at all. It is recognized not to be the case, because it is admitted that there must be, at least, the possibility of Parliament negativing the regulation at the end, which itself is an admission that such regulations or instruments go beyond the
1404
mere detail of provisions for administration.
I venture to think, therefore, that while my noble and learned friend is perfectly right when he says there was a danger of a despotism in the time of Henry VIII, it has been the earnest endeavour of our ancestors to get rid of that danger of despotism; to keep it in bounds, and to make quite certain that it should not grow into something of the nature of a tyranny—government not by Parliament throughout the life of a Parliament, but government by the Executive once it has got its position for five years. That is the distinction. With that distinction in mind, I venture to think that the Amendment which has been put down by my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury is one which will commend itself to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  SHIPPING SERVICE TO THE WEST INDIES.
  SHIPPING SERVICE TO THE WEST INDIES.