Sitting of 3 June 1947

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 23rd May, 1947, for the Whitsun Recess —met at Half-past Two o'Clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. SPEAKER: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Dr. Richard Clitherow, the Member for the Borough of Liverpool (Edge Hill Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
HOVE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
    TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Bingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 14105099 Private R. J. Harrison, R.A.P.C., was recommended by the Command Interview Board of Western Command on 18th December, 1946, for transfer to the R.A.E.C.; that he subsequently attended the Holly Royde course for R.A.E.C. Instructors from 17th February to 14th March, 1947, and was graded as having outstanding ability as an instructor; that his Department have now refused to transfer this soldier to the R.A.E.C.; and whether he will state the reasons for this refusal.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): Yes, Sir. Owing to the pressure of work in Army Pay Offices due to demobilisation and the introduction of the new Pay Code it was decided that transfers from the Royal Army Pay Corps to the Royal Army Educational Corps would be suspended except in the case of applicants in possession of teaching qualifications. The position will be reviewed again in the next two or three months.
    Mr. Bing: Does not my right hon. Friend think it a great waste of time to send this man on a course in order to be trained for something to which he is prohibited from being transferred?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I do not think it was a waste of time, although it might not have been appropriate to send him just then. I am hoping that it may be possible to utilise his services later on in the R.A.E.C.
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for War why 14173500 Private Key, R.A.S.C., who died of tuberculosis on 15th May, 1947, in a Middle East hospital, was refused an X-ray examination prior to his embarkation from this country on 28th April.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have called for a report and will write to the hon. Member.

    Soldiers' Treatment, Egypt (Inquiry)
    Mr. Keenanasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Kirkdale will receive the report of the promised inquiry about the maltreatment of soldiers detained in a former prisonerof-war camp at Tahag, Egypt.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have had exhaustive investigations made into this matter and have myself spent considerable time in going through the evidence. I am now in a position to make a statement. As it is necessarily very long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gallachcr: Will the Minister tell me when he is going to circulate the report of the inquiry into the treatment of prisoners at Tel el Kebir?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.
    Following is the statement:
    As I informed the House on 11th March, I ordered a Court of Inquiry to be held to investigate certain allegations made in the Press of improper treatment of those held in arrest as a result of the mutiny at Tel el Kebir between 8th and nth November, 1946. I have now received the proceedings of this Court of Inquiry which show that a most thorough examination of all the circumstances has been made. The sequence of events was as follows:
    On the date in question, the garrison of Tel el Kebir contained mostly technical units and installations and comprised some 4,000 British troops and 15,000 others including Egyptians, West Africans and German prisoners of war. A further 11,000 Egyptians came in daily for work; thus 4,000 British troops were respnnsible for the supervision of some 26,000
    4
    Africans, Egyptians and Germans. Moreover Tel el Kebir is a very important installation. It is the "wholesale" depot for the support of the Land Forces in the whole of the Middle East and holds warlike stores, clothing and general stores worth many millions of pounds. It also includes large workshops with valuable machinery and tools which have to be looked after.
    On 7th November, the new release programme was announced in the Press. On 8th, 9th and 10th November, a series of meetings were held to discuss this programme and were attended in all by some 2,000 men, or about half the British garrison.
    On the mornings of Saturday, 9th November, and Monday, 11th November, a number of men either failed to return for duty or left their work to attend meetings. Officers who tried to attend these meetings were excluded or not allowed a hearing, though one commanding officer did manage to warn his men that what they were doing was mutinous.
    Meanwhile, as a result of the mass meeting on the Saturday night, at which threats to seize arms were uttered, the officer commanding troops asked for reinforcements. Three battalions which arrived on the Monday morning in response to his request occupied key points such as armouries and the power house. If this had not been done an ugly incident might have occurred. This had a salutary effect; the men returned to the camps and by that afternoon all was normal, with depots and installations again working.
    It was obviously not possible without completely disrupting the work of the garrison to arrest and charge with mutiny all the men who had banded themselves together and absented themselves from parade, nor indeed was it desirable to do so. It was, therefore, decided to arrest only those believed to have been the leaders. Between 11th and 20th November, 89 such men were arrested and these men were further questioned by the Investigating Officer, with the result that to N.C.Os. and men were finally brought to trial by Court-Martial. Four of these were acquitted, whilst proceedings in the case of the six who were convicted were not confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief, M.E.L.F. The remaining 79 were tried summarily by their commanding officer and in the majority of cases were found guilty.
    The allegations which have been made have been gone into in great detail by the Court of Inquiry and after studying their Report I am satisfied that all, apart from two or three minor exceptions, are entirely unfounded. I will deal in some detail with what I regard as the two most important of these allegations, firstly, that confessions were extracted from the arrested men under duress and, secondly, that the accommodation in which they were held was unsatisfactory.
    With regard to the first allegation, an Investigating Officer was appointed, and his sole duty was to discover by questioning those under arrest, who were and who were not the ringleaders. In each case, at the conclusion of the interrogation, the Investigating Officer said that if the soldier wished to make a statement he could do so to another officer,

    5
    but that there was no compulsion of any kind to make such a statement. He also stressed that any such statement would be made after caution, and that if any man wished for time to consider his position he was free to do so. Finally, I would say that no information which was given to the Investigating Officer during interrogation was used during the trial. The information was used solely to find out who were the real culprits, so that it might then be possible to find witnesses willing to give evidence against them. There is no doubt, and it is admitted by the Investigating Officer, that he ordered the arrest in error of one of the accused, but this soldier was acquitted by the court. Bearing in mind the extremely difficult task he had to perform, the methods he employed were in general unexceptional, and I am satisfied that this officer carried out his duty fairly.
    As regards the allegations concerning accommodation, the substance of these is that the men were confined in the cells of an abandoned prisoner of war camp where conditions were crowded and dirty, and that this treatment was deliberate in order to induce the men to confess.
    It was necessary for the local commander to make arrangements at short notice to segregate and hold in safe custody the 89 men who had been arrested. After making use of such cell accommodation at Tel el Kebir as was not already occupied and of 25 cells at Moascar, 30 miles away, the only remaining possibility was to use prisoner of war camps. Two of these camps were still occupied by Germans and, as it was obviously undesirable to confine British prisoners in camps occupied by Germans, it was decided to reopen the vacant prisoner of war camp. This camp, consisting of two compounds of 16 and 6 cells respectively and an enclosed area capable of holding up to 500 men, was reasonably close to Tel el Kebir and thus accessible to the regimental officers of the men concerned. Preparations were immediately made to carry out such small repairs as were necessary, to clean up the area and to move in the necessary stores such as tentage, palliasses, blankets, mosquito nets, etc. The 89 men were then disposed as far as resources permitted in the vacant cells at Tel el Kebir and Moascar, with the balance at the prisoner-of-war camp.
    All the administrative arrangements made for the occupation of the prisoner-of-war camp were those normally made when a camp was occupied by British troops, including cooking, sanitary and lighting arrangements. During the time the camp was in occupation, the Officer in Charge of the guard and the guard itself lived in the camp under the same con ditions as the accused (except that.they had greater freedom) and although, as is indeed the case whenever a new camp is freshly occupied, there were minor difficulties and discomforts to be overcome, these were quickly put right. The mass of evidence compiled by the Court of Inquiry clearly shows that the conditions in this camp were no worse than in any other detention camp in the Middle East. The prisoners were frequently visited by their regimental officers and made no com-
    6
    plaints, and it is noteworthy that when they eventually left the camp, all but four of them expressed their gratitude to the Officer in Charge for the efforts he had made to improve the conditions under which they were detained. Any suggestion that these men were placed in appalling conditions in this camp in order to compel them to confess is fantastic in the extreme. There were cockroaches in some of the cells—there are liable to be cockroaches in any camp in the desert—but immediately these were reported action was taken to deal with them. There were mosquitos, as there are in most other camps in that area. For a short time the latrine did smell as may occasionally happen in all latrines in field service conditions, but this was quickly put right.
    After reading the whole of the voluminous proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, I am in full agreement with the Commander-in-Chief, M.E.L.F., in emphatically repudiating the charges that harsh and unfair treatment was accorded to British soldiers in this case. The actions of the authorities on the spot in their prompt handling of this mutiny have my full support.

    Personnel, Egypt (Clothing Issue)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool may expect the report of his promised inquiries regarding socks and underpants issued to certain Service personnel in Egypt.
    Mr. Bellenger: One hundred and fifty pairs of socks from Army comforts were issued by the unit concerned as normal replacements owing to temporary shortage of Army pattern socks, the intention being that they should be replaced free by an additional issue when worn out. This was an isolated instance which occurred in quite exceptional circumstances. The pants complained of were of Indian manufacture and were issued in Italy to eke out stocks which were short owing to the closing of supply installations in connection with the withdrawal from Italy. All garments of this kind are to be exchanged.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a complaint with reference to this matter was made by one of the personnel of the regiment to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and that immediately on receipt of it the person who wrote to the right hon. Member for Woodford was severely remanded by his commanding officer? Will he have some inquiries made into it?
    Mr. Bellenger: I cannot answer for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), but if the hon. Member will give me any information in connection with that matter I will certainly look into it.
    Mrs. Braddock: I have already given it.

    Despatches, Malay Peninsula and Singapore (Publication)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War when the despatches covering the loss of the Malay Peninsula and Singapore will be published.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is expected that these despatches will reach their turn for publication some time in the autumn of this year.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say why this has taken so long? Is he aware that several battalions from my neighbourhood marched straight off their boat into captivity, and that their friends and relations want to know how this happened, and they cannot learn that until they see these despatches? Will he please hurry them up?
    Mr. Bellenger: Strange to relate, I also want to know what happened and I am calling for this despatch myself. I am afraid it will not be possible to expedite it. There are many other dispatches which have to be published.

    Extra-statutory Pensions
    Mr. Bingasked the Secretary of State for War what extra-statutory pensions are paid by his Department; the names of the recipients and the nature of the service in regard to which these pensions are paid; and whether it is intended to seek statutory authority for their continuance.
    Mr. Bellenger: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the provision made in Vote 10P of Army Estimates 1947–48 for the grant of extra-statutory pensions to two former officers of the Polish Forces: The officers in question are General Anders and Admiral Swirski. The circumstances in which the awards have been made are explained in the note to the Estimate, and their continuance from year to year will be subject to approval of the provision in future Estimates. No other similar awards are in payment from Army funds;
    8
    should any be proposed, authority for the expenditure will be similarly sought in Army Estimates.
    Mr. Bing: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making similar extra-statutory grants to British soldiers and to those who, for example, such as prisoners of war, are now not paid the rate for their rank?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think my hon. Friend should bring any particular cases to my notice. I am only concerned to deal with the two officers who are the subject matter of this Question.
    Brigadier Peto: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why an Admiral is paid out of Army funds?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I cannot without notice.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for War, what is the reason for refusing to allocate a seat on the Army Council to the Director-General of the T.A.
    Mr. Bellenger: Executive action on Territorial Army matters is now the responsibility of the military members of the Army Council dealing with the same subjects for the Regular Army.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware of the feeling on the part of Territorial Associations that they might have the same status as they had before the war?
    Mr. Bellenger: Actually, because of the changed rôle of the Territorial Army, I think it is more appropriate that these matters should now be dealt with by the military members of the Army Council who are now responsible for the T.A.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War if he will ensure that adequate up-to-date equipment and vehicles are immediately available for the formation and training of units of the T.A.; and whether special provision is being made for units covering widely dispersed' areas.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): Action has been taken to ensure that up-to-date equipment and vehicles are available to the Territorial Army. As the requirement of every unit will vary, depending on recruiting and the accommodation available, it has

    9
    been left to units to ask for what they want against scales laid down by the War Office. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Territorial units are very short of canteen equipment and elementary furniture for their offices?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir. I am very well aware of that.

    Stored Vehicles (Conditions)
    Brigadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to maintain in good condition 100,000 fighting vehicles which are now in dumps in this country or in Germany.
    Mr. J. Freeman: As far as circumstances permit, serviceable vehicles are maintained in a state of care and preservation and vehicles due to be reconditioned receive maintenance to prevent further deterioration.
    Brigadier Low: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there are, in fact, 100,000 fighting vehicles in dumps, and what object he has in mind in keeping all these vehicles in good condition?
    Mr. Freeman: No, Sir, I am not prepared to give the figure, but some vehicles are being kept by the Army for subsequent use; others are in Ministry of Supply dumps for disposal.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say when such of these vehicles as are suitable for the purpose of adaptation to farming use will be made available to the agricultural purchaser?
    Mr. Freeman: I should want notice of that question.

    Personnel, Palestine (Postal Facilities)
    Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider restoring the concessions in respect of free postage and an issue of duty-free cigarettes to British Forces in Palestine while they are serving under Active Service conditions.
    Mr. Richard Lawasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, under a new regulation, officers and men serving in Palestine now have to pay postage on letters sent by air mail; and if, in
    10
    view of the high cost of living and the hardships already being endured, he will reconsider the decision and allow free air mail postage as hitherto.
    Mr. J. Freeman: The wartime concession by which troops serving in operational theatres abroad enjoyed free postage of letters by air or surface mail has been modified only to the extent that they are now required to pay 1½d. for letters up to one ounce sent by air. My right hon. Friend does not consider, however, that this should result in financial hardship. As regards the issue of cigarettes in Palestine, there has been no change: the free issue of 50 cigarettes a week is continuing.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the postage which is now being required is a source of great irritation to troops in Palestine, and is it worth it for a mere penny halfpenny per letter? Will he not "go the whole hog" and discontinue the postal charge?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not think it is unreasonable. Surface mail is still free, and a penny halfpenny an ounce for air mail is not unreasonable.
    Major Mott-Radelyffe: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that troops are now operating in Palestine under conditions that are far worse than in a great many areas during the war?
    Mr. Freeman: That is the reason why we have preserved their free issue of cigarettes for them.

    Stanford Battle Training Area
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Secretary of State for War why it is considered necessary permanently to retain and extend the Stanford battle area, and if it would be possible to reduce the 28,000 acres involved so as to exclude all cultivated agricultural land.
    Mr. Bellenger: The position remains as stated in reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 22nd April. No decision has yet been taken by His Majesty's Government regarding the future of this area.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Could the Minister say why it is necessary to retain any of this area at all, as the numbers in the Eastern area are now so greatly reduced from what they were in the war?
    Mr. Bellenger: This is all part of a much larger problem, and the time is not very far distant now when His Majesty's Government will be making their considered views known to the House.
    Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that Norfolk has already lost a great deal of good agricultural land through the claims of the Royal Air Force, and would he not give most careful consideration to moving this away from the county altogether?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would only wish that I could meet the views of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the country who want precisely the same thing, but if we are to have an Army, we must have somewhere to train it. I would ask the House to await the statement, which may not be very far distant now, when His Majesty's Government will state the case quite clearly for all hon. Members to consider.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not a definite pledge given, so far as this particular area was concerned, that it would be returned at the end of the war; and was not that pledge given by G.O.C., Eastern Command, on behalf of the War Office?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that I can go into that now; as I say, it is all part of a-much larger problem.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Would the Secretary of State for War say when the decision can be given, so that local authorities and local activities can know what plans they can make?
    Mr. Bellenger: Very soon, I hope.
    Sir William Darling: Will the right hon. Gentlemen in coming to their decision, have in mind that in England the population is 714 to the square mile, whereas in Scotland it is 165 to the square mile?

    Transit Camp, Hiltingbury (Use)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that transit camp No. 73 at Hiltingbury, Chandler's Ford, Hampshire, is not in continuous use and is mainly occupied by a maintenance staff; and whether he will arrange for this camp, or a portion of it, to be made available for local civilian housing needs.
    Mr. J. Freeman: The numbers accommodated in this transit camp necessarily
    12
    fluctuate. I regret that I cannot at present accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will bear it in mind.

    Bureau of Current Affairs
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost to the Army of the services of the Bureau of Current Affairs; whether any lecturers of this organisation are employed by his Department, and whether these are members of the Army Education Corps; also, whether there is any obligation on units to avail themselves of the services of this organisation or to display its posters in barracks, camps. or other military establishments.
    Mr. Bellenger: The estimated expenditure in 1947–48 for the purchase of the fortnightly issues of "Map Review" and "Current Affairs" of the Army is 118,000. This is borne on His Majesty's Stationery Office votes, not by Army funds. Lecturers of the Bureau of Current Affairs may be used where necessary to assist the Army in the same way and on the same terms as have been approved for other civilian lecturers employed under the Army Education Scheme; none of these lecturers belongs to the Royal Army Educational Corps and there is no obligation on formations and units to employ them. The publications, "Current Affairs" and "Map Review" are purchased by the War Office and issued for use in discussions on current affairs in the same way as similar publications previously issued by the War Office. Commanding Officers are instructed to ensure that the material provided is communicated to and discussed by all ranks.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already more than enough during their service for soldiers to learn without the addition of some political matter put over by this Bureau? Is he aware that I hold in my hand an Army Council Instruction saying that C.Os. will ensure that the material thus provided is communicated to and discussed by all ranks in training or working hours, and that a minimum of one hour a week will be included in the programmes of all units (including A.T.S. and V.A.D. units) for this purpose? Is not that an obligation on C.Os.?
    Mr. Bellenger: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct; that Army

    13
    Council Instruction was issued with the approval of the Army Council, and I find no fault with it.
    Mr. Driberg: How much of this money was wasted when my right hon. Friend's Department banned the circulation of the Bureau's excellent and objective pamphlet on "The Control of the Press"?
    Mr. Bellenger: That is a very stale thing now.
    Major Tufton Beamish: Is not this Bureau.of Current Affairs an agency of Socialist propaganda, in the same way as A.B.C.A. was during the war?
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: How are these lecturers selected by the Department?
    Mr. Bellenger: I could give the answer, but it would mean going into a great deal of detail.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly in his original answer that there was no obligation on commanding officers to avail themselves of this organisation. In view of the Army Instruction, which I quoted, will he explain that discrepancy?
    Mr. Bellenger: What I said was that there was no obligation on the commanding officers of units or formations to employ civilian lecturers under this scheme. The obligation, of course, is to carry out the Army Council Instruction.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it the case that attendance at these lectures is compulsory? Could they not be placed on the same basis as attendance at church?
    Mr. Bellenger: Attendance is compulsory in the one hour a week. I think it does the mer much good. and they appreciate it.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Is it not a fact that any organisation which exists for the dissemination of truth must inevitably disseminate a certain amount of Socialist propaganda?
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the Bureau of Current Affairs poster No. 26, of 26th April, which, under the authority of an Army Council Instruction, was displayed in barracks; whether this poster had his approval; and whether
    14
    he will cause a copy of every Bureau of Current Affairs poster which is displayed in barracks, camps, or other military establishments to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that the poster in question has given rise to some criticism. It has not hitherto been the practice to submit these posters to my Department for approval before issue as they are mainly factual and depend for their value on topicality, which might be lost by any delay. Without expressing any opinion on the particular case, I agree that any poster which contains matter of a controversial nature should be submitted, the same way as the Current Affairs pamphlets, before it is distributed to the Army, and I have asked for this to be done in future. A copy of each issue is already supplied to the Library of the House.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: In view of that reply, am I correct in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a definite check by Army authorities on all literature issued by this organisation in future?
    Mr. Bellenger: That is really the purport of my answer.
    Major Beamish: Is not the Bureau of Current Affairs an agency of Socialist propaganda, in the same way as A.B.C.A. was during the war?
    Mr. Bellenger: I disagree entirely with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. A.B.C.A. did very good service during the war, as is admitted by all who served in the Army.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: The right hon. Gentleman said that any poster of a controversial nature should be submitted to his Department; surely, he means that it should not be exhibited without that submission?
    Mr. Bellenger: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will trust my judgment.

    Dance Incident, Newbury
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for War if he has called for reports from the military police on the fighting between paratroopers and Polish soldiers at a dance in the Corn Exchange, Newbury, on 16th May; if he has considered grievances put forward by the paratroopers: and what action he has taken to prevent a recurrence of such behaviour.
    Mr. J. Freeman: This incident is being investigated with a view to taking disciplinary action against those responsible for the disturbance. The airborne troops have now left the area, and steps have been taken to provide military police patrols in Newbury.
    Mr. Hurd: I am most grateful for that assurance, but I would like to know whether these Polish soldiers are doing any useful work in the day time. May I have an answer?
    Mr. Freeman: That is a different question.

    Parades, Singapore
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War why the reforms in Army discipline, including a reduction in the number of parades, announced by Field-Marshal Montgomery, have not yet been introduced into 65 Con. Troop, 3rd Squadron, 19 A.F.S. Regiment, stationed at Singapore; and if he will take steps to see that they are.
    Mr. J. Freeman: I have every reason to believe that Army Council policy regarding parades is being fully implemented by units in South-East Asia. If, however, the hon. Member will let me know what unnecessary parades he considers are being held in the unit referred to, I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Lipson: If I send a letter I have received from a member of the unit, will the hon. Gentleman say that this soldier will not be subject to disciplinary action?
    Mr. Freeman: Most certainly.
    Brigadier Low: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what these abbreviations mean?
    Mr. Freeman: I had to inquire about them myself. They mean the 65th Construction Troop, 3rd Squadron, 19th Air Formation Signals Regiment.

    Officers' Uniforms (Superseded Items)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War if officers of the Army, in accordance with long-established custom, are still permitted to wear out superseded items of uniform in their possession.
    Mr. J. Freeman: Yes, Sir, generally speaking officers are still permitted to
    16
    wear out superseded items of uniform except for prewar full dress and mess dress.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this long-standing custom in the Army has been washed out in the case of mess kit?
    Mr. Freeman: Because my right hon. Friend and the Army Council decided that it was a wise move.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Yes, but what does the right hon. Gentleman know about it?

    A.T.S. (Releases)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War what effect the reduction of the period of conscription from 18 months to 12 months will have on the release of the A.T.S.; and which trades are affected and to what extent.
    Mr. J. Freeman: None, Sir.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (MARRIAGES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that reasonable social intercourse between British civilians and German prisoners of war is now permitted he will state his attitude to the marriage of British women and German prisoners.
  Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this matter requires careful consideration and at the moment I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 15th May to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton).
  Mr. Driberg: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulties, might I ask him what action he has taken in relation to the particular case of the marriage which occurred recently?
  Mr. Bellenger: I believe that the matter is sub judice at the present moment, and therefore it would be improper for me now to give a reply.
  Mr. Driberg: With respect, is it not only a particular point that is sub judice, that is to say, the alleged false entries in the register? What is my right hon. Friend's attitude to the general question of the marriage?
  Mr. Bellenger: As to that particular marriage I cannot say any more than I have said in answer to the general question, namely, that the whole principle is under consideration.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Arising out of the original reply, is it not unreasonable to allow this social intercourse and rule out the probable consequences of it? Would it not be reasonable to allow both?
  Mr. Bellenger: I do not know that I would agree that all those associations end in wedlock.
  Mr. Stokes: Is not my right hon. Friend the last person in the world to obstruct the course of nature in this matter? Does he not realise that he cannot resist the inevitable course of nature?
  Mr. Bellenger: I have never attempted to resist the inevitable course of nature.
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: If there are difficulties about British women marrying German prisoners in this country, will he try to make facilities for British women to go out to Germany to marry returned prisoners of war? I have the case of a constituent who wishes to do this now. May I have an answer?
  Mr. Bellenger: I think that is an entirely different point from the one raised in the Question.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will arrange to pay the new rates of unemployment benefit immediately.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): As I have already stated in reply to previous similar Questions, provision has already been made by regulations for extended benefit on the lines of flection 62 of the National Insurance Act and for the repayment of waiting days under Section II of that Act. I do not contemplate that any further provision of the Act relating to unemployment can be introduced in advance of the main insurance scheme especially where, as in this proposal, an increase of contributions would be involved.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that where there are pockets of unem-
    18
    ployment the fact that 24s. a week is being paid to a single man and 40s. a week to a man and wife, who are ablebodied, causes consternation about the fact that these sums have not been increased since the advent of the present Government?

    Approved Society Staffs (Transfer)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of National Insurance when he expects to be able to announce the terms of transfer of staffs of approved societies to his Department.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have now had an opportunity of considering the recommendations made by the Committee I appointed to advise me on this matter and I have arranged to place copies of the Report in the Library, together with a statement of the action I have decided to take. Printed copies will be issued as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this answer will be received with appreciation by many thousands of people interested in this matter? Will he see that sufficient copies are available for genera] needs?
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise 100 per cent. of the staff, or, if not, what per cent.?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Report is very long and an important one, and the statement will be placed in the Library. We hope to take over practically all the persons concerned.
    Mr. Hughes: May I have an answer to my question?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these people at present resident in Scotland are not removed to England, as happened in the case of the Insurance Ministry at Newcastle?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is one of the matters referred to in the Report. In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), I will make as many copies available as possible, and very soon we hope to have further copies available.
    Sir W. Darling: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this concession will be something of a solatium to the

    19
    approved societies, who are suffering from the broken pledge of the General Election?
    Mr. Griffiths: Representatives of the approved societies, both of employers and workers, have sat on the Committee, and I am grateful to them for their co-operation

  EMPLOYMENT

    Manpower
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Labour when ascertaining the manpower necessary for 1947, as noted in section 15 of Cmd. 7046, what standard of output was taken and for what year.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): As pointed out in Paragraph 61 of Cmd. 7046, the central fact of 1947 is that we have not enough resources to do all that we want to do. The Economic Survey for 1947 does not purport to estimate the manpower that would be needed to meet all requirements; it only suggests the desirable distribution of the manpower likely to be available at the end of the year.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister realise that owing to the fuel crisis and to the demand for shorter hours and higher wages, and to the decreasing output per man-hour, Cmd. 7046 is of no value at all now? Will the Government say so, and scrap it?
    Mr. Isaacs: The Government will not say so because we find that the information given in that document is still of great value to industry.

    Displaced Persons
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour how many displaced persons have now entered this country to work here; what are the numbers from each country; and what industries they have entered or are entering.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Approximately 10,000 European volunteer workers have been brought over from the displaced persons camps in the British zone of Germany. They 'consist almost entirely of Balts and Ukrainians, but the precise numbers of each nationality are not readily available. They are being
    20
    placed in the essential undermanned industries such as agriculture, textiles and laundries as well as in nursing and domestic work in hospitals and farmers' households.
    Mr. Beswick: Have people placed in an industry to give an undertaking to remain in that particular industry, and what is the period for which they have to remain in that industry?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: They have been asked to stay in an industry for 12 months. They can move about in the industry with the consent of the Ministry of Labour, but they are expected to remain in the undermanned industries for 12 months.
    Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman said that precise numbers are not readily available. Does he mean that there is no check being kept on the nationality of displaced persons?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That check is being kept in Germany, and it would mean getting the information from there. If a Question is put down information can be supplied.
    Mr. Paget: How long, on the average, is it taking to place these people into industry after their arrival?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The placing of the Balts and Ukrainians is proceeding satisfactorily. Indeed we are afraid that it may prejudice some of the other foreign workers who are already here.
    Mr. Sidney Shephard: Can the Minister say whether these displaced persons are the same as the European volunteer workers?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour whether applicants from among displaced persons who wished to work in this country are screened before being admitted; who is responsible; and the percentage that have been refused entry following screening.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Selection of displaced persons for employment in this country is made by my officers on the basis of industrial suitability. No displaced person, however, comes within the field of recruitment for employment in this country who has not previously been

    21
    screened as a condition of receiving displaced person's status. This screening is undertaken by U.N.R.R.A. and the Control Commission jointly and is designed to exclude from displaced person's status collaborators, quislings and war criminals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs regrets that figures are not readily available of the numbers of persons rejected by these bodies for displaced person's status.

    Cost-of-Living Index (Laundry Charges)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the recent sanction of increased laundry prices of 1½d. in the shilling, due regard will be paid to this in arriving at the new cost-of-living index figure which is now under consideration.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is proposed to include laundry charges as one of the items to be covered by the new index, which will be introduced at an early date.
    Mr. De la Bère: While I thank the Minister for that reply—and I do not often do that—may I ask him if he does not agree that it is a fact that there is a great shortage of soap for home washing and that the high cost of washing outside makes it very difficult for the housewife? Can he give the matter further consideration?
    Mr. Isaacs: The supply of soap does not come under my Department. I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues. The point is that this rapid increase in the cost of laundry should, of necessity, be taken into consideration.

  AGRICULTURE (PRISONER-OF-WAR LABOUR)
  Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the refusal by his Department to allow German prisoners temporarily unemployed on agricultural work to be employed in private gardens on vegetable production and, in view of the importance of food production and the desirability of keeping such prisoners in employment, if he will authorise such permission to be be granted in appropriate cases.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have been asked to reply. At any time when "agricultural" prisoners are not all wanted for agricultural work, my Department is prepared to arrange, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, for them to be employed on other urgent work of national importance, but the type of employment to which the hon. Member refers is not one in which, in my view, the use of prisoner labour can be justified.
  Sir W. Smithers: Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture about a case I sent to him recently as to why someone with a large garden, who wants to produce all the food he can, cannot get labour? If German prisoner-of-war labour is available, why will the right hon Gentleman not grant the concession?
  Mr. Williams: Because all the German prisoners available for agriculture can find full work.
  Sir W. Smithers: No, they cannot.

  NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS
  Mr. Spenceasked the Prime Minister if he will now say what has been the result of the review of the numbers employed in national and local government, indicated in Cmd. 7046, Paragraph 120 (vi.); and whether the assumed reduction is taking place.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As regards national Government staffs, I shall be making a statement in the very near future. As to local government staffs, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have arranged for circulars to go to all local authorities, drawing attention to this passage of Cmd. 7046 and inviting them to effect the maximum economies (consistent with the discharge of duties resulting from Government policy); it is too early yet to say what reductions will result.
  Mr. Spence: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the 13,000 snoopers which his Ministry is employing are really necessary?
  The Prime Minister: My Ministry has no snoopers.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Is the Prime Minister able to say that he is confident that he will get results from the local authorities, unless the central Government set an example first of all?
  The Prime Minister: I think that both will do their best.
  Major Bruce: Would it not be a good thing for private industry also to set a good example in these manpower economies in the administrative grades?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly.

  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT)
  Captain John Crowderasked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement next week.

  WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS (NEXT OF KIN)
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider issuing medals to the next of kin of those who were killed or died of wounds on Active Service between 1939 and 1945.
  The Prime Minister: The campaign stars and the medals earned by those who were killed or died of wounds incurred on Active Service during the war will be sent in due course to whoever is named in the will of the deceased as the person who should receive them. If there is no will including this provision, they will be sent to the next of kin.
  Mr. Renton: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that when the issue of medals begins those for the next of kin will not be postponed for the medals of those who are living, because they feel this matter very much?
  The Prime Minister: I will look into that but I do not see why they should.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does that reply cover decorations granted in addition to campaign medals?
  The Prime Minister: I will look into that point.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (FUTURE STATUS)
  Sir Alan Herbertasked the Prime Minister whether the possibility of including Newfoundland in the United Kingdom under similar arrangements to those concerning Northern Ireland has been considered by His Majesty's Government or suggested to the National Convention now deliberating in Newfoundland.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I said in my statement in this House on 11th December, 1945, the National Convention was elected with the object of considering the changes which have taken place since 1934 in the financial and economic situation of Newfoundland, and in the light of these to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future Government to be put before the people at a national referendum. It rests with the National Convention to make such recommendations as they think suitable and it would not be appropriate for the United Kingdom Government to make suggestions as to the form which these recommendations should take or to express an opinion as to possible solutions.
  Sir A. Herbert: In the case of this particular form of Government would it not be impossible for Newfoundland to ask for it to be done without some indication from His Majesty's Government that it would be welcome and practicable? May I ask the Prime Minister to answer the first part of the Question as to whether the Government have in fact considered that solution?
  The Prime Minister: There is nothing to prevent anyone from asking for anything. The suggestion is that they should put forward proposals, but that does not mean that we should say that we should accept them. In regard to the hon. Member's first point, I have looked into this particular matter and examined it.
  Sir A. Herbert: May I take it that the Government have not definitely made up their mind against it?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will read my reply, he will see that I said that I think it unsuitable for His Majesty's Government to express an opinion at this juncture.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Redundant Post Office Grades
    Captain Crowderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why established civil servants in redundant grades in the Post Office are not given the same facilities as new recruits from outside the Civil Service to sit for open examinations in order to qualify for promotion to clerical posts.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): All established civil servants who were within the normal age limits for the clerical class competition during the period of the war, and as a result of the war lost opportunities of competing, are eligible to compete in the Open Reconstruction Competition for the clerical class on precisely the same terms as candidates from outside the service. In addition, members of the minor and manipulative grades of the Post Office can compete in the limited competition, which is open to established civil servants only.
    Captain Crowder: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some priority should be given to established servants compared with those coming from outside?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally, provided that they are within the age limits, they have exactly the same chance as someone coming in from outside. In addition, they have this limited competition open to them.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep feeling among members of the redundant grades in the Post Office that as a result of reorganisation of the services something more should be done in the direction indicated in this Question, and will he examine the matter further with a view to seeing what are the possibilities?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Certainly. We are always ready to look into these things. I should make it clear that, although these people have become redundant, there is no suggestion that they are to be discharged. They are established.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: In considering the case of these redundant men, will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the other half-dozen categories of people who are entitled to consideration, and be extremely careful about what he does?

    Resignations (Gratuities)
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware of the hardship caused by the fact that civil servants who resign their posts after a number of years' service for reasons other than marriage, in the case of women, are not entitled to any gratuity; and if he will now amend the present regulations so as to permit gratuities to be paid on resignation in suitable cases.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. For reasons which I have already explained to the hon. Member, the existing practice must continue.
    Mr. Bower: Is it not a fact that Civil Service salaries are based to some extent on the expectation of a gratuity or pension at the end of service and, if that is so, is it not unfair that civil servants should receive nothing at all after serving for many years?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If they serve the requisite number of years, they get a pension. We have to lay down regulations and they are well known to people when they go into the Civil Service. If this suggestion were acceded to, it would need legislation to put it into effect.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that the present practice under which a man who resigns forfeits all claim to pension in respect of the years he has put in has the effect of keeping a lot of square pegs in round holes, and also that it makes it practically impossible for the head of a Department to dismiss anybody, however much he ought to be dismissed? Is not this a matter that ought to be reconsidered?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is hardly a matter that can be considered by way of question and answer in this way.

  EXCISE OFFICE, DENBIGH (CLOSING)
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to a large rural population centred around Denbigh and Ruthin through the closing of the excise office at Denbigh; and what arrangements his Department Is making to deal with the requirements of this area, particularly in regard to entertainment tax matters.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret any local inconvenience that may arise from the closing of the excise office at Denbigh, but, with the loss of work due to the transfer of the administration of non-contributory old age pensions from the Customs and Excise to the Assistance Board, the areas covered by some excise officers must be enlarged, and it is unavoidable that there should be fewer local excise offices, if there is to be economical use of manpower. The small amount of excise work in the Denbigh area, including all work in connection with the Entertainments Duty, will be covered by the excise officer stationed at Rhyl, which has been selected as the most convenient centre for the economical performance of all the work in this area.
  Sir H, Morris-Jones: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of this rural area is largely Welsh speaking; that it is a deprivation to them to take away an office with a Welsh-speaking official who dealt with their needs; and further that the people of Ruthin object to going to.0swestry, 40 miles away in England, to transact Entertainment Duty matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have looked into this matter. The trouble is that if we did what is suggested, the office would only have about one and a half hours' work a week. We think it is unfair that we should keep an office open with a man there to do nothing else but carry out work which would occupy him, perhaps at the most, for two and a half hours a week. On the question of the language difficulty, most of the old people who received old age pensions could only speak Welsh and it was then essential that we should have someone who was able to speak Welsh. Those circumstances do not apply now because someone else has taken over.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Exports (Volume Percentage)
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the volume percentage of exports
    28
    monthly, compared with 1938, instead of three monthly as at present.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): This is already done in the monthly trade article in the "Board of Trade Journal."

    Paper Making (Home Produced Straw)
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy to encourage the use of home produced straw for paper making; and to what extent there has been a reduction in the use of straw for this purpose consequent on increased imports of esparto grass.
    Sir S. Cripps: The choice between straw and esparto within the supplies available is left largely to the paper makers, and straw consumption has fallen since 1945 by about 50 per cent. The use of esparto rather than straw involves a considerably smaller consumption of coal per ton of paper produced.
    Mr. Hurd: Does esparto grass involve the use of hard currency?
    Sir S. Cripps: No.

    Crombie Cloth (Military Tailors)
    Brigadier Petoasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that military tailors have been without supplies of Crombie cloth to make up into British Warms for over six months and whether any supplies are likely to be released in the near future.
    Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the term "Crombie" cloth describes the product of a particular firm, but a number of other manufacturers make cloth for the same purpose. I have no information to suggest that supplies of such materials generally are not available.
    Brigadier Peto: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that military tailors have had orders on their books for a considerable period of time and that they would take more than six months to fulfil completely the orders not only for this particular type of Crombie cloth, but also for Bedford cloth and other types which are required?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am quite aware that there is a shortage) of textiles in this country.

    Norfolk Broads (Boat Equipment)
    Mr. Medlicottasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that boat owners on the Norfolk Broads who let craft to holiday makers are experiencing difficulty in furnishing the full number of boats required for the holiday season; and if he will make available the necessary supplies of furnishings and equipment, information as to which has been sent to him, so that the maximum number of people desirous of spending their holidays on the Broads this year may be accommodated.
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member will by now have received from my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade a letter which gives details of the help which it is possible to give the Norfolk Broads boat owners in respect of furnishings and equipment.
    Mr. Medlicott: Can the Minister give me an assurance that the special help which he has been good enough to arrange through his regional office at Cambridge will not be subject to a time limit in view of the number of people left out of the original arrangements?
    Sir S. Cripps: We shall certainly do all we can to help.
    Mr. Driberg: If this letter contains news of a new concession to small boat-builders, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider publishing it in HANSARD, as there are a number of other places interested, besides the Norfolk Broads?
    Sir S. Cripps: I will consider it.

    Textile Machinery Exports
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware of the difficulties of British manufacturers of textiles in supplying orders from South America in competition with Italian and other continental firms; and if it is still his policy to allow the export to the Continent of modern textile machinery needed in this country.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that British exporters of textiles have difficulty in meeting all the orders offered to them from South America and other markets because of shortage of production, but I am not aware that they are experiencing difficulty in disposing of available cloth
    30
    because of Italian and other Continental competition. With reference to the second part of the Question, the output of textile machinery will continue to be divided between home and export markets with full regard for the importance of home requirements.

    Clothing Coupons (Old Issues, Invalidation)
    Mr. Pagetasked the President of the Board of Trade, if, in order to ease the work of shopkeepers, he will cancel some of the older clothing coupons.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I recognise that while the number of old clothing coupons outstanding is not likely to be considerable, their variety is increasing the task of shopkeepers with each succeeding issue. I propose accordingly to invalidate from 1st November, 1947, all coupons in the ordinary clothing books for the year 1945/46 and earlier, and certain supplementary and Service coupons of types which have not been issued recently. Valid coupons in the 1946/47 clothing books and the current types of coupon vouchers, Service and Merchant Navy coupons and supplementary coupons will remain valid until further notice. Full details will be published in the Press during the summer
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider replacing some of the older coupons with new coupons, because there are a number of young people who are saving up their coupons in order to buy furnishing equipment when they get married?
    Sir S. Cripps: This matter concerns clothing coupons. One cannot buy furniture—
    Mr. Taylor: I said "furnishing equipment"—curtains and sheets, etc.
    Sir S. Cripps: That is why we are not withdrawing them until 1st November. so as to give people time.
    Major Cecil Poole: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what people have been wearing who still have clothing coupons for 1945?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister assure the House that when this influx of coupons comes on the market there will be adequate supplies to meet them?
    Sir S. Cripps: Provided that the output of textiles remains at least as good as it is today, we calculate that there will be sufficient.

    Hong Kong Garrison (Claims)
    Mr. Pagetasked the President of the Board of Trade when the claims of members of the Hong Kong garrison, in respect to possessions lost upon the Japanese invasion, are likely to be settled.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am consulting my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this matter, and a communication will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware of the abnormal delay there has been in settling claims both under war risk insurance and other categories, and that they have recently been put back another three months? Will he see that these claims are heard very promptly and settled equally promptly?
    Sir S. Cripps: As I said in my answer, I am communicating with my right hon. Friends.

    Stump Socks
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of clean stump socks to disabled ex-Servicemen and as any failure to ensure strict cleanliness results in sores and ill-health, he will give an assurance that an adequate supply of these stump socks will be made available to all the limb-fitting centres of the hospitals throughout the country.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Special steps have already been taken to increase the production of stump socks, and limited quantities are also being imported. Although a shortage of skilled labour is the main difficulty, I have every hope that we shall be able to meet current demands and make early inroad into the present arrears.
    Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that we owe such an enormous debt of gratitude to these disabled ex-Servicemen, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care to ensure that in future every possible relief is given to these 'men to see that at no time are they really short of the necessities?
    Sir S. Cripps: I agree that we should give special consideration to these men.

  SCOTLAND

    School Children (Defective Speech)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what pro, vision is made by Scottish education authorities for teaching children whose speech is defective and curing their defects; how many, and in what Scottish schools, speech therapists are employed; what are their qualifications; and what is their record of success or failure.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): In the course of their training, all certificated teachers receive instruction in the treatment of speech defects. Special provision for remedial treatment is made by 10 of the larger authorities, whose names I am arranging to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These authorities employ 27 speech therapists and the services of some of these specialists, all of whom are licentiates of the College of Speech Therapy or holders of other recognised qualifications, are used also by neighbouring authorities. In general, results of treatment are satisfactory.

    Housing Contributions
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to announce the result of his review of the contributions provided for in Section 14 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946.
    Mr. Westwood: I am discussing this matter with the Scottish local authority associations on Friday of this week, and hope to make a statement to the House shortly thereafter.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Station, Kinloss (Overtime)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what rates of overtime are reimbursed to the contractor who is building married quarters for the R.A.F. at Kinloss, Moray; what is the average number of hours' overtime each operative works per week; and what is the estimated additional cost by adopting overtime rates.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I have been asked to reply. Overtime has not been ordered by my Department on the contract for building these married quarters, and, therefore, no overtime rates are paid to the contractor. I understand, however, that overtime is being worked, up to a maximum of ro hours a week, but this is the contractor's own arrangement and my Department is not involved in any additional cost.
    Mr. Marples: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that contractors who build for the R.A.F., and pay these increased rates of pay by way of overtime, are inducing labour away from local authorities who are building houses for the civilian population?
    Mr. de Freitas: the contractor is stopping the practice. The matter has just been brought to our attention.

    W.A.A.F. (Releases)
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Air what effect the reduction of the period of conscription from r8 months to 12 months will have on the release of the W.A.A.F.; and which trades are affected and to what extent.
    Mr. de Freitas: None at all.
    Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of women who had their release retarded recently have been given the reason that it is because of the reduction in the period of conscription, and will he give the matter his attention?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am certainly not aware of that. We are not delaying release, and we are up to Group 59 already. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that there is no truth in the statement.

  COTTON TEXTILE MACHINERY (EVERSHED REPORT)
  Mr. Rhodesasked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice
  34
  Evershed to undertake investigations into the cotton textile machinery industry.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): The Report of the Committee on the Spinning Section of the Industry was published on 30th May. I welcome this opportunity of paying tribute to the Committee for their helpful and constructive Report, and to Textile Machinery Makers, Limited, for the spirit in which they have responded to the suggestions made by the Committee during the course of their inquiry. The recommendations of the Report, some of which are already in course of being implemented, provide a promising and workable basis for further action by my Department and the Company to bring this important industry to a high level of efficiency.
  Mr. Rhodes: Are the Committee now pursuing these investigations?
  Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir. They are going on with the next section of their work.

  W.R.N.S. (RELEASES)
  Major Beamishasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what effect the reduction of the period of conscription from 18 months to 12 months will have on the release of the W.R.N.S.; and which trades are affected and to what extent.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "None, Sir." The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
  Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: It large numbers of personnel are being discharged after every 12 months, instead of 18 months, does the hon. Gentleman not think that this will cause extra work in ships' offices?
  Mr. Dugdale: We are quite capable of dealing with that, without at all altering the release date for W.R.N.S.

INDIA (TRANSFER OF POWER)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I desire to make an important statement on Indian policy. A similar statement is being made at the same time in another place, and by the Viceroy in New Delhi. The statement, in the form of a White Paper, will be available this afternoon.
I am glad to inform the House that the plan contained in the announcement which I am about to make, including the offer of Dominion status to one or two successor authorities, has been favourably received by all three parties represented at the Conferences held by the Viceroy with the Indian leaders during the past two days. Before making this statement, I would like to express the gratitude and appreciation of His Majesty's Government for the great services which the Viceroy has rendered.
On 20th February, 1947, His Majesty's Government announced their intention of transferring power in British India to Indian hands by June, 1948. His Majesty's Government had hoped that it would be possible for the major parties to co-operate in the working-out of the Cabinet Mission's Plan of 16th May, 1946, and evolve for India a constitution acceptable to all concerned. This hope has not been fulfilled.
The majority of the representatives of the Provinces of Madras, Bombay, the United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces and Berar, Assam, Orissa and the North-West Frontier Province, and the representatives of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and Coorg have already made progress in the task of evolving a new Constitution. On the other hand, the Muslim League Party, including in it a majority of the representatives of Bengal, the Punjab and Sind, as also the representative of British Baluchistan, has decided not to participate in the Constituent Assembly.
It has always been the desire of His Majesty's Government that power should be transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Indian people themselves. This task would have been greatly facilitated if there had been agreement among the Indian political parties. In the absence of such an agreement, the task of devising a method by which the wishes of the Indian people can be ascertained has devolved on His Majesty's Govern-
36
meat. After full consultation with political leaders in India, His Majesty's Government have decided to adopt for this purpose the plan contained in this announcement. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that they have no intention of attempting to frame any ultimate Constitution for India; this is a matter for the Indians themselves. Nor is there anything in this plan to preclude negotiations between communities for an united India.
It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to interrupt the work of the existing Constituent Assembly. Now that provision is made 'for certain Provinces which I will specify. His Majesty's Government trust that, as a consequence of this announcement, the Muslim League representatives of those Provinces, a majority of whose representatives are already participating in it, will now take their due share in its labours. At the same time, it is clear that any Constitution framed by this Assembly cannot apply to those parts of the country which are unwilling to accept it, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the procedure which I will outline, embodies the best practical method of ascertaining the wishes of the people of such areas on the issue whether their Constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly consisting of the representatives of those areas which decide not to participate in the existing Constituent Assembly.

When this has been done, it will be possible to determine the authority or authorities to whom power should be transferred.
The Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab (excluding the European members) will therefore each be asked to meet in two parts, one representing the Muslim majority districts and the other the rest of the Province. For the purpose of determining the population of districts, the 1941 census figures will be taken as authoritative. The Muslim majority districts in these two Provinces are set out in the appendix to the White Paper of which copies will be available when I sit down.
The members of the two parts of each Legislative Assembly sitting separately

37
will be empowered to vote whether or not the Province should be partitioned. If a simple majority of either part decides in favour of partition, division will take place and arrangements will be made accordingly.
Before the question as to the partition is decided, it is desirable that the representatives of each part should know in advance which Constituent Assembly the Province as a whole would join in the event of the two parts subsequently deciding to remain united. Therefore, if any member of either Legislative Assembly so demands, there shall be held a meeting of all members of the Legislative Assembly (other than Europeans) at which a decision will be taken on the issue to which Constituent Assembly the Province as a whole would join if it were decided by the two parts to remain united.
In the event of partition being decided upon, each part of the Legislative Assembly will, on behalf of the areas they represent, decide whether their constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

For the immediate purpose of deciding on the issue of partition, the members of the Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab will sit in two parts according to Muslim majority districts (as laid down in the Appendix to the White Paper) and non-Muslim majority districts. This is only a preliminary step of a purely temporary nature as it is evident that for the purposes of final partition of these Provinces a detailed investigation of boundary questions will be needed; and, as soon as a decision involving partition has been taken for either Province, a Boundary Commission will be set up by the Governor-General, the membership and terms of reference of which will be settled in consultation with those concerned. It will be instructed to demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. It will also be instructed to take into account other factors. Similar instructions will be given to the Bengal Boundary Commission. Until the report of a Boundary Commission has been put into effect, the provisional boundaries indicated in the Appendix to the White Paper will be used.
38
The Legislative Assembly of Sind (excluding the European members) will at a special meeting also take its own decision whether the Constitution of Sind is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent 'Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

The position of the North-West Frontier Province is exceptional. Two of the three representatives of this Province are already participating in the existing Constituent Assembly. But it is clear, in view of its geographical situation, and other considerations, that, if the whole or any part of the Punjab decides not to join the existing Constituent Assembly, it will be necessary to give the North-West Frontier Province an opportunity to reconsider its position. Accordingly, in such an event, a referendum will be made to the electors of the present Legislative Assembly in the North-West Frontier Province to choose whether the constitution of the Province is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

British Baluchistan has elected a member but he has not taken his seat in the existing Constituent Assembly. In view of its geographical situation, this Province will also be given an opportunity to reconsider its decision and to choose whether its constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

Though Assam is predominantly a non-Muslim Province, the district of Sylhet which is contiguous to Bengal is predominantly Muslim. There has been a demand that, in the event of the partition of Bengal, Sylhet should be amalgamated with the Muslim part of Bengal. Accordingly, if it is decided that Bengal should be partitioned, a referendum will be held in Sylhet district, under the aegis of the Governor-General and in consultation with the Assam Provincial Government. to decide whether the district of Sylhet should continue to form part of the Assam Province or should be amalgamated with the new Province of Eastern Bengal, if that Province agrees. If the referendum results

39
in favour of amalgamation with Eastern Bengal, a Boundary Commission with terms of reference similar to those for the Punjab and Bengal will be set up to demarcate the Muslim majority areas of adjoining districts, which will then be transferred to Eastern Bengal. The rest of the Assam Province will in any case continue to participate in the proceedings of the existing Constituent Assembly.
If it is decided that Bengal and the Punjab should be partitioned, it will be necessary, to hold fresh elections to choose their representatives on the scale of one for every million of population according to the principle contained in the Cabinet Mission's plan of 16th May, 1946. Similar elections will also have to be held for. Sylhet in the event of its being decided that this district should form part of East Bengal. The number of representatives to which each area would be entitled is set out in full in the White Paper.
In accordance with the mandates given to them the representatives of the various areas will either join the existing Constituent Assembly or form the new Constituent Assembly.
Negotiations will have to be initiated as soon as possible on administrative consequences of any partition that may have been decided upon:—

(a) Between the representatives of the respective successor authorities about all subjects now dealt with by the Central Government, including Defence, Finance and Communications.

(b) Between different successor authorities and His Majesty's Government for treaties and regard to matters arising out of the transfer of power.

(c) In the case of Provinces that may be partitioned as to administration of all provincial subjects such as the division of assets and liabilities, the police and other services, the High Courts, provincial institutions, etc.

Agreements with tribes of the North-West Frontier of India will have to be negotiated by the appropriate successor authority.
His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that the decisions which I have announced relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet
40
Mission Memorandum of 12th May, 1946, remains unchanged.
In order that the successor authorities may have time to prepare themselves to take over power, it is important that all the above processes should be completed as quickly as possible. To avoid delay, the different Provinces or parts of Provinces will proceed independently as far as practicable within the conditions of this Plan, the existing Constituent Assembly and the new Constituent Assembly (if formed) will proceed to frame Constitutions for their respective territories; they will of course be free to frame their own rules.
The major political parties have repeatedly emphasised their desire that there should be the earliest possible transfer of power in India. With this desire His Majesty's Government are in full sympathy, and they are willing to anticipate the date of June 1948, for the handing over of power by the setting up of an independent Indian Government or Governments at an even earlier date. Accordingly, as the most expeditious, and indeed the only practicable, way of meeting this desire, His Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation during the current session for the transfer of power this year on a Dominion status basis to one or two successor authorities according to the decisions taken as a result of this announcement. This will be without prejudice to the right of Indian Constituent Assemblies to decide in due course whether or not the part of India in respect of which they have authority will remain within the British Commonwealth.
His Excellency the Governor-General will from time to time make such further announcements as may be necessary in regard to procedure or any other matters for carrying out the above arrangements.
Mr. Churchill Mr. Churchill rose—
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. When a long statement of this kind is being made, Mr. Speaker, which it is impossible to follow, and when the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of it in his hand, is it not within the right of Members of Parliament that they, too, should have a copy so that they may follow it properly?
Mr. Speaker: It has always been the custom of this House that the Leader of the Opposition should be made acquainted

41
with such a statement, Hon. Members hear the statement read. I understand that it is now in the. Vote Office, and any hon. Member who wishes to have a copy can get one.
Mr. Churchill: It is, of course, impossible for the House to weigh and measure the full meaning of the most important statement which has just been made to us by the Prime Minister. I am bound to say that it seemed very difficult to understand, but the White Paper which is in the Vote Office will have to be studied with attention and will probably carry the largest measure of proof to those who are best instructed. No doubt we shall have a Debate at a suitable moment on this question. I am not asking for any particular date to be fixed at the present moment. I am bound to say, however, that the two conditions foreseen at the time of the Cripps Mission, which was set up under my Administration—namely, first, agreement between the Indian parties and, secondly, a period of Dominion status in which India or any part of it may freely decide whether or not to remain within the association of the British Commonwealth of Nations—seem to be fulfilled.
Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there is any Motion before the House? Surely, this is developing into a Debate and is out of Order.
Mr. Churchill: May I respectfully say that this is a matter of considerable importance? Surely, the Opposition party should be permitted to make some passing and brief comments.
Mr. Speaker: I was watching the matter. Of course, it is perfectly true that there is no Motion before the House, but I do think that at this moment there should be a slight amount of latitude. I feel sure hon. Members will not abuse it and I think it is only right.
Mr. Churchill: As I was saying, the two principles on which the Cripps Mission stood—namely, agreement and a period of Dominion status with perfect freedom to choose—appear to be fulfilled, as far as I can see from the copy of the White Paper which is now in the Vote Office and which, through the courtesy of the Prime Minister, I received an hour ago.
Mr. Gallacher: Why have we all not had a copy?
Mr. Churchill: Even in Russia there are distinctions between the grades which different people occupy. If it should prove to be the case that these two conditions have been maintained in fact and in form, then I say that all parties in this House are equally pledged by the offer and the declaration that we have made, and on these points we can only be well assured by the course of events in the next few weeks and months. It is quite true that the agreement of the various parties in India has only been achieved on the basis of partition. I gather that is the foundation. Nevertheless, after a reasonable period of deliberation and responsibility, should all these parties decide to remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations, the theme of the unity of India will be preserved, and the many nations and States of India may find their unity within the mysterious circle of the British Crown, just as the self-governing Dominions have done for so many years after all other links with the Mother Country, save those of sentiment, have been dissolved. It may, therefore, be that through a form of partition, the unity of India may, none the less, be preserved.
I do not wish to trespass upon the indulgence of the House but, finally, we must ask ourselves even at this early moment whether, after matters have proceeded thus far—and my opinions about them are well known—any better way can be found of saving India from the blood bath which may stand so near. I cannot doubt that, at first sight, and subject to the unknown factors working out in a favourable manner, it would seem that a settlement on these lines may offer to India some prospect of escape from one of the most hideous calamities which has ever ravaged the vast expanses of Asia. Naturally, we cannot form opinions upon the very great outlines and the complicated details that have been given; nor can we form decided opinions without knowing what will be the correspondence of the actual facts with what is hoped for from them, by the Government, the Viceroy and others responsible for India. However, I will say at once, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about impending legislation, that if the facts correspond to the outlines with which we have been presented this afternoon, and if it is necessary, as I gather it is, that legislation should be

43
introduced to implement speedily the transference of power, on Dominion status terms, to the various parts of India so that they can decide their future for themselves at leisure, it would not be right that such legislation should be deemed contentious, or that any long delays should elapse after it is introduced before it is passed into law. Therefore, while reserving our full freedom to discuss points of detail, we shall not oppose any Bills to confer Dominion status on the various parts of India, which may be presented to us on the basis of the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister *said that great credit was due to the Viceroy. These are matters about which it is extremely difficult to form decided opinions now, but if the hopes which are enshrined in this Declaration should be borne out, great credit will indeed be due, not only to the Viceroy but to the Prime Minister who advised His Majesty to appoint him.
Mr. Clement Davies: I wish to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). In the first place, one would like to point out at once that the Viceroy has shown great gifts of statesmanship and a combination of patience, initiative and energy which is indeed rare. Throughout the whole British Commonwealth, we have all been waiting for the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, and we are gratified that all three major parties in India have acquiesced in the Plan. Ever since this country announced its intention of handing over to the Indians the government of India, and the conduct of Indian affairs, we have been anxious about three things: first, that there should be a responsible authority to whom the power and duty of government can be handed over; secondly, that the authority should be such as the Indians themselves would desire, and of their own design and choosing; and, thirdly, that there should be an avoidance of turmoil. Today, the less said about details of the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister, the better. We are anxious to hear Indian opinions and views, and we should say nothing that might cause any disruption. We only hope that all will he settled amicably for the benefit of Indians of all classes, without distinction. One would only add that time is running on,
44
and the sooner steps are taken to enable the transition to take place effectively, the better.
Mr. Blackburn: In view of the tremendously important votes which will be taken as the result of the welcome announcement which my right hon. Friend has made today, may I ask whether the Government will support the Viceroy and the authorities in India in all the steps they may take to ensure that the communities in India are able to exercise their rights without fear of violence and intimidation?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may rest assured that every endeavour will be made to get a true reflection of the views of India.
Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the reprints of the White Paper referred to by the Prime Minister are not in the Vote Office?
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions. The first is about the Anglo-Indian community. A great many of these people wish to retain British nationality for 10 years until they see how these new Governments progress. The second question is about the district of Cachar, which adjoins Sylhet in Assam. It also wishes to be included in Bengal. The third point is about the tribes on the North-East frontier of India. The Prime Minister mentioned the tribes of the North-West frontier. He did not mention the tribes on the North-East frontier.
The Prime Minister: With regard to the first point, I think it hardly arises. That is a matter that will obviously come up under the Constitution. With regard to the second point, I did say there would have to be a boundary commission with regard to Sylhet, and I would take it--I am not acquainted with that particular district intimately—that, if there is any district adjoining that might be brought into Bengal suitably, that would be a matter for consideration. With regard to the tribes on the North-East frontier, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows so well, they come into the Province of Assam; and that will fall to be dealt with by the Constituent Assembly of which Assam forms a part.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to address a couple of remarks to the Prime Minister.

45
I see in one of the national papers that the Indian leaders agree to the carve-up. I do not think it is a very desirable solution of the problem of India. I think our deliberately coming out of India would be a complete solution. I am very suspicious because of the fact that the Leader of the Tory Opposition gives the Plan support, because, after all—
Mr. Churchill: What of the leaders of the Russian opposition?
Mr. Gallacher: That is an old and worn record that is sadly played out. The Leader of the Opposition has a long record in connection with India, and it is a very bad one.
Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with the statement that the Prime Minister made.
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. How is it that the Leader of the Opposition can make a statement of the character he did without my making a reply, and pointing out my objection? I have not got the document, but my objection to the document—whose contents I heard only today—is strengthened very much by the fact that it is so wholeheartedly supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who has a very bad record in connection with India. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that he and his immediate advisers and Lord Mountbatten have earned the thanks of the people of this country and of India for generations to come, by the brilliance with which they have borne this present phase of our relations with India?
Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the plebiscite to be taken in North-West India —of the conditions and circumstances in which it is to be taken?
The Prune Minister: It will be under the of the Viceroy. I may explain that the position of the North-West
46
frontier is rather different, because in the Legislature there is a weighting of various minority communities' views, and it is proposed to take a plebiscite in order to find out what is the view of the total number of actual voters. Obviously, that will have to be done with very great care, with the local Government and Central Government taking part.
Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, to say something about what is causing tremendous anxiety, and that is the position of the Indian Army? I do think that at this stage we ought to be told something, so that those people may know where they are in relation to the proposed changes.
The Prime Minister: I should rather not make a statement without considering the whole matter very closely. It is one, of course, that is under very close observation. But I should be ill-advised to make a statement now.
Mr. Peter Freeman: In the event of the political parties in India showing greater unity in the near future than they do at present, is there any arrangement or proposal to call a Conference of the political parties in, say, the next four or five years, with a view to taking up a united Constitution then, although they are not agreed at the moment?
The Prime Minister: I think that is looking rather far ahead. One cannot look too far ahead. There has to be consultation.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is to be an opportunity for a Debate; and, if there is not, if he will try to keep the House constantly informed with authoritative information?
The Prime Minister: I certainly will. I should rather deprecate a Debate at the present time, because the affair is now in the hands of the Indian leaders. But I will certainly do my best to keep the House informed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 116.

Division No. 228.]

AYES

[3.56 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Monslow, W

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Gibbins, J.

Moody, A. S.

Alpass, J. H.

Gibson, C. W.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gilzean, A.

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

Attewell, H. C.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Moyle, A

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Austin, H. Lewis

Grenfell, D. R.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Ayles, W. H.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Bacon, Miss A.

Guy, W. H.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Balfour, A.

Haire, John E (Wycombe)

Oliver, G. H.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

Hale, Leslie

Orbach, M.

Barstow, P G.

Hall, W. G.

Paget, R. T.

Barton, C.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Parkin, B T.

Battley, J. R.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Bechervaise, A. E

Hardman, D. R.

Pearson, A.

Benson, G.

Hardy, E. A.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Berry, H.

Harrison, J.

Piratin, P.

Beswick, F.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Bing, G. H. C.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Binns, J.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Blackburn, A. R.

Herbison, Miss M.

Proctor, W. T.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hobson, C. R.

Pryde, D. J.

Boardman, H.

Holman, P.

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Bottomley, A. G.

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Randall, H. E.

Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.

House, G.

Ranger, J.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hoy, J.

Rankin, J.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exchge)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Reeves, J.

Bramall, E. A.

Irving, W. J.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Janner, B.

Rhodes, H.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Robens, A.

Brown, George (Belper)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Brawn, W. J. (Rugby)

John, W.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Royle, C.

Burden, T. W.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Keenan, W.

Sargood, R.

Byers, Frank

Kendall, W. D

Scott-Elliot, W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Kinley, J.

Segal, Dr. S.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Champion, A. J.

Kirkwood, D.

Sharp, Granville

Cluse, W. S.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

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

Cocks, F. S.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Shurmer, P.

Coldrick, W.

Lever, N H

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Collins, V. J

Levy, B. W

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Comyns, Dr.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Skeffington, A. M.

Cook, T. F.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Skinnard, F. W.

Corvedale, Viscount

Lindgren, G. S.

Smith, C (Colchester)

Cove, W. G.

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

Lipson, D. L.

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

Daggar, G.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W.)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Longden, F.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Davies, Edward (Burstem)

Lyne, A. W.

Sorensen, R. W

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McAdam, W

Soskice, Maj Sir F

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

McAllister, G.

Sparks, J. A.

Deer, G.

McGhee, H. G

Steele, T.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Mack, J. D.

Stokes, R. R.

Diamond, J.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stross, Dr. B.

Driberg, T. E. N.

McKinlay, A. S.

Stubbs, A. E.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Swingler, S.

Dumpleton, C. W.

McLeavy, F.

Sylvester, G. O.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Edelman, M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Ewart, R.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Fernyhough, E.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Maninng, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Foot, M. M.

Marquand, H. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

Forman, J. C.

Mathers, G.

Tolley, L.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mayhew, C. P.

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Mellish, R. J.

Viant, S. P.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Middleton, Mrs. L

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Gallacher, W.

Mitchison, G. R.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Warbey, W. N.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Woodburn, A

Watkins, T. E.

Wilkes, L.

Wyatt, W.

Watson, W. M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Yates, V. F.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Young, Sir R (Newton)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Mr. Michael Stewart and

While, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Willis, E.

Mr. Simmons.

NOES.

Aitken, Hon. Max

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Nicholson, G

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

Haughton, S. G.

Noble, Comdr. A. H P

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Barlow, Sir J

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Baxter, A. B.

Herbert, Sir A. P.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Geamish, Maj.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Birch, Nigel

Hope, Lord J.

Prescott, Stanley

Boles, Lt.-Col, D C (Wells)

Howard, Hon. A.

Raikes, H. V.

Bossom, A. C.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Boyd-Carpenter, J A

Hurd, A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

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

Renton, D.

Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Sanderson, Sir F.

Butcher, H. W.

Keeling, E. H.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Challen, C

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Channon, H

Langford-Holt, J.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Smith, E. P (Ashford)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Smithers, Sir W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Low, Brig. A. R. W

Spearman, A. C. M

Crowder, Capt. John E

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Spence, H. R.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

De la Bère, R.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E)

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Drewe, C.

Mackeson, Brig, H. R.

Sutcliffe, H.

Duthie, W. S.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Thorp Lt.-Col. R A F

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Marples, A. E.

Touche, G. C.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Marsden, Capt. A

Walker-Smith, D.

Fraser H C. P. (Stone)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Medlicott, F.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Grant, Lady

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

York, C

Gridley, Sir A.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Grimston, R. V.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Molt-Radclyffe, Maj. C E

Mr. Studholme and

Major Conant.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Ascertainment of activities to be treated as comprised in an industry.)
    (1) A development council order shall designate, in such manner as appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be requisite for preventing uncertainty, the activities that are to be treated as constituting the industry for which the development council is established (whether being such as are regarded for any other purpose as those of a single industry or such as are regarded for any other purpose as those of a group of industries or of a section or sections of an industry or industries).
    (2) An order amending a development council order may provide that further activities, designated as aforesaid, are to be treated as
    50
    included in the industry for which the council is established, or that activities, designated as aforesaid, which are for the time being so treated are no longer to be so treated.
    (3) The preceding subsections shall apply also to an order under section nine of this Act and an order amending such an order, with the substitution of references to the industry in connection with which funds are to be made available under that section for references to the industry for which a development council is established and other requisite modifications.
    (4) In accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, the expression "the industry," where used in this Act in relation to a development council or to an order under section nine of this Act, shall be construed as references to the industry that is for the time being in accordance with those provisions, that for which the council is established or in connection with which funds are to be made available, as the case may be.—[Mr. Marquand.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.6 p.m.
    The Paymaster - General (Mr. Marquand): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had to leave the House on important business but he will be returning shortly. This new Clause is designed to meet a point which was made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), with his usual vigour. He was supported from both sides of the Committee, and carried the Committee with him in a famous battle on his proposal to amend the Bill. He suggested that the term "industry," which is used throughout the Bill, should not be confined to narrow groupings of firms. He gave the example of textiles, in which he argued there were factors common to wool, cotton, silk and the staple rayon industries, and that it was desirable to have a development council for the whole textile industry. The Government want to meet the point then raised and, of course, to accept the view which the Committee registered by its vote.
    However, we were not entirely satisfied with the Amendment carried by the Committee because, for one thing, it might throw doubt on the power to set up a council for what might be regarded as part of an industry; for another thing, it would be meaningless to refer to an industry or a group of industries in the first instance but throughout the rest of the Bill simply to refer to "the industry." We have been advised that the two expressions, though intended to describe the same thing, would in law have different meanings, and that confusion might thus result. In order to meet the point to which the Committee attached importance, this new Clause has been drafted to replace the original Clause 14, which dealt with the definition of an industry. The new Clause states explicitly that "industry" may mean a group of industries, or a section of an industry, as well as what may commonly be called a single industry.
    The Clause is designed to meet another point which was raised in Committee. Hon. Members opposite objected to the fact that Clause 14 was drawn permissively; that is, it authorised the Minister to define an industry to which an
    52
    Order related but did not require him to do so. The view was then expressed that a definition ought invariably to be included, in order to avoid any doubt as to what activities brought firms within the scope of an Order. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, during the Committee stage, said that he was advised it would be undesirable to impose an absolute obligation on Ministers. He was advised that while definition could undoubtedly be inserted in the great majority of Orders, there might be cases in which that would be impossible without excessive elaboration. In such cases the scope of the industry concerned could be clearly ascertained in practice; and it was wiser to leave the matter to practice than to introduce a verbal formula. My hon. Friend agreed further to consider the point, and this Clause goes far to meet the criticisms which were made. It requires the Minister to designate the activities which are to be treated as constituting the industry for which the development council is to be established, and ensures that there shall be no uncertainty. The Government have done their best, after considerable thought, to meet the criticisms which were made from both sides, and I hope that this Clause will be found acceptable.
    Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I will not detain the House further than to say that this Clause is acceptable, and that its 23 lines handsomely recapitulate the attitude indicated in Committee. I thank the Paymaster-General for having conceded a Parliamentary victory to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), especially as I, too, had some part in the battle.
    Mr. Rhodes: I wish to express my appreciation of the way this Clause has been drafted, and also to say that we have been handsomely met in this matter.
    Mr. William Shepherd: While we are pleased to see these two matters incorporated, I do not think the Paymaster-General paid sufficient attention to the second point. With Clause 14 as it stood, this Bill would have organised nothing but chaos. It is possible under the new Clause, by an amending Order, to extend the scope of the activities of a development council. When the activities

    53
    of a development council are to be extended, I should like an assurance that all sections of the industry concerned will be consulted before any alteration takes place.
    Mr. Marquand: I think I can safely give that assurance. It seems a perfectly reasonable point.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to establish development councils, and purposes thereof.)
    Amendment made: In page 1, line 6, leave out "or groups of industries."— [Mr. Marquand.]
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "and shall not make any such order if it shall appear to him that a large majority of the persons carrying on business in the industry, representing the greater part of the production in that industry, and a large majority of the workers in that industry are opposed to the making of such an order."
    The object of this Amendment is to meet the point, frequently expressed in Committee, that development councils should not be imposed on an unwilling industry. I think it is the general opinion of both sides that these development councils will not be successful, and will not attain the object we all have in view, unless they are set up with the good will of all concerned. We have put forward one or two other Amendments in different forms to meet this point, and I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this one. It provides that a development council shall not be set up when there is a large majority, in either of the two sections which make up the industry concerned, in opposition to the proposal. We have had several statements and assurances from the Government that only in the last resort do they intend to impose a development council on an unwilling industry. We should like to see this assurance in some statutory form, and this is the mildest form in which we can ask the Government to do it.
    Mr. Harold Roberts: During the Committee stage, objection was taken by hon. Members opposite on administrative grounds to any Amendment of this kind. They
    54
    pointed out that it might be difficult to ascertain a majority. That point is met in this Amendment, because it is left to the Minister to gather the sense of the industry concerned in such way as he may think most appropriate.
    Mr. Marquand: I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment. It would lay upon the Minister an obligation to ensure that there was a majority on both sides of the industry in favour of a development council. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear that the Government have every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion, and does not wish to impose a development council on an unwilling industry. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee said:
    "My right hon. and learned Friend hoped very much that it would never be necessary to impose a development council, by Order, without the consent of everybody concerned. He went on to point out that if the Government did decide to impose a development council upon an industry which did not appear to want it, the Order setting up the development council would have to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House."
    There is that check already provided in the Bill, that if a Minister went so far as to propose setting up a development council against the substantial opinion of the industry, he would have to have his Order approved by the House where objections could be taken. My hon Friend then went on to say:
    "I should regard it as highly probable that it would be precisely the industry which needed the development council which would be the one not to want it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 24th April, 5947; c. 57–8.]
    It is on that point that we fail to agree with hon. Members opposite. We wish to proceed by agreement rather than by compulsion. While my right hon. and learned Friend does not wish to impose a development council upon an unwilling industry, nevertheless the fact may be that the least progressive elements of the industry concerned might constitute the majority.
    If the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Supply, or whoever it may be, has in reserve the power to bring an order before this House before setting up a development council he is in a stronger position in dealing with a backward industry, or an industry which happens to have a numerically large proportion of unprogressive elements. It may

    55
    be said that a "numerically larger proportion," is a rather vague phrase, but if anybody asks me what is meant by it, I ask those who put forward the Amendment how they propose to ascertain the majority in such cases? It would be difficult to ascertain whether the majority existed one way or the other. In view of the difficulties of ensuring majorities, the difficulty in arranging polls to determine majorities, and the desirability—
    Mr. H. Roberts: If there is a technical difficulty in ascertaining the majority, how will the Minister ascertain if the industry is unwilling? Surely, the technical difficulty is still there.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, the technical difficulty remains, but it is more serious when the obligation is imposed upon the Minister, rather than that he should sense opinion and hold discussions. The Minister might feel that the majority of the industry was against him, but that the good sense of the progressive persons in the industry was on his side. It would be for the House, in view of all the circumstances, to decide whether a development council should be set up in that industry.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: We have had a very disappointing reply from the Paymaster-General. He asked how a majority of the industry was to be determined. I would refer him to his own Bill, Clause 1 (3) of which says:
    "Before making a development council order the Board or Minister concerned shall consult any organisation appearing to them or him to be representative of substantial numbers of persons carrying on business in the industry and such organisations representative of persons employed in the industry as appear to the Board or Minister concerned to be appropriate."
    There is an indication of the means by which the Minister proposes to determine whether there is a majority of people in support of or against this proposal. We on this side find no comfort in the fact that a Resolution will be submitted to the House. We know that the Government have a mammoth majority here, and that it is possible for an industry which took a go per cent. objection to have a development order made in respect of it because of the substantial majority in this House. While there are technical difficulties in the determination of the majority, I believe that the value of accepting an Amendment of this kind, the
    56
    psychological value, overrides these considerations. If industry holds the view that this is something which will be imposed upon them whether they like it or not, this Bill will lose a lot of its value. But if the Minister would say that the Government intend to go by the will of the majority, to pursue the voluntary, rather than the compulsory, principle, the Bill will have a better showing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken the view he has taken, because I do not think it is in the best interests of all concerned.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I can see the difficulty in which the Minister is placed. He wants to be able to impose development councils on industries where necessary. At the same time, to be able to do that he is taking power to be able to impose such orders against the will of an industry. During the Committee stage, it was clear that Government spokesmen were anxious to carry with them as large a measure of approval in industry as they could possibly get. Now, while paying a certain amount of lip service to the desirability of having the consent of industry, they are taking powers to override industry at any time. They are asking us to rely on promises and intentions at some future date, which might be worthless. I should have thought that a method could have been devised to meet both points of view. I am certain that the brains which devised a Measure like the Transport Bill would not be stuck to find a definition of the words, "a large majority," whether it was in relation to capital, output, or workers. The Minister said that the Government would be involved in finding out whether there was a majority in favour of a development council. The Amendment would reverse that. The onus would lie on the industry to say to the Minister that they do not want a council. That would make the issue clear. There would be no obligation on the Minister to say, I propose to do this." It would leave to industries the onus and responsibility of saying that they did not want a development council, that a majority did not want a council.
    Mr. Rhodes: There would be only two instances in which such an order would be made, perhaps against the wishes of the industry—first, in the case of a very badly organised and inefficient industry;

    57
    second, in the case of a highly organised, but closed, industry, working in a price ring. In the latter case, a development council might be necessary to investigate prices and conditions in relation to consumers overseas. It might be necessary to investigate conditions right the way through the industry. The Minister, or the Government, could not possibly arrive at a majority.
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir John Barlow: I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this Amendment. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) that the industries not wishing to have a development council would probably be those which were either backward or highly efficient, with price rings. There are many other reasons why councils should not be imposed. The Minister put forward two objections to this Amendment. It is one thing to discuss with an industry the value of a council in that industry. It is a very different matter to discuss the question with an industry with the possible threat that, if it does not agree, a development council will be imposed upon it against its will. I think that would introduce an element into these bodies which would be very undesirable and would mitigate against their best use. With regard to the difficulty of getting the views of the majority of either section—employers or those employed in an industry—I cannot think that it would be impossible to do so. In many industries votes have been taken on different matters. Yardsticks have been agreed upon—it may be in regard to production—and there have been agreements on different points. Probably most of the industries in this country, at one time or another, have had discussions and have come to decisions on matters. Many of them have developed their own particular yardsticks which could be very well used by a Minister when wishing to find out the advisability of imposing a development council on any particular industry. For those reasons, I am sorry that the Minister is not able to accept this Amendment.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: I think the argument put forward by the Paymaster-General proves the weakness of his own case. If he will cast his mind back, he will recall, I imagine, that there
    58
    was no industry in this country in which those concerned were more tenacious and stubborn in their point of view than the cotton industry. Yet the President of the Board of Trade went to Manchester on various occasions to address representatives of that industry and succeeded very largely, I believe—perhaps even sometimes against their will—in persuading them that development steps must be taken to help that industry to meet the future. If there is an inefficient industry in which it may seem, in the first instance, difficult to obtain a majority either of the employers or of the employees on the necessity for a body of this kind, is the Paymaster-General asking us to believe that the Minister concerned will not feel it his duty to go to the heart of this industry, wherever it may be, to call together the responsible leaders, and to say, "Look here, for this reason and that reason, we think it necessary that there should be set up one of these bodies to go into the position of this industry"? If he had all the statistical evidence that is to be provided in the future, chapter and verse to support the argument which he will put before the representatives of this inefficient industry, is the Paymaster-General asking us to doubt that the Minister will carry the day? Of course he will.
    In this Amendment, it is left to the Minister to decide. If it should appear to him that a large majority of the persons carrying on the business, or a large majority of the workers in the industry, are opposed to the making of an order, it is in his own hands to decide, and I should have thought that, in those circumstances and having regard to the powers and the information which an intelligent Minister could present to an industry in a persuasive way, he would bring them to his point of view. Therefore, I think that there ought to be no difficulty in the way of the Minister accepting this very reasonable Amendment. A great many men engaged in industry are very nervous about what would appear to be the extensive powers sought under this Clause which we are trying to amend. We have all to work together in the future to get through the great economic crisis with which we are now faced, and which may become greater within the next six or 12 months. If we are to get through this crisis, there

    59
    must be real co-operation between the Government and industry—the Government contributing their knowledge which they alone have, and industry contributing the experience which it alone has. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: It seems to me that, in theory, most of us would say that this was not an unreasonable proposal. No one wants to apply compulsion unless it is essential in the public interest to do so. What is the weakness of this Amendment? It seems that the Opposition are putting forward a theory, and we must try to see how it would work out in practice. I think that it is almost impossible that the majority of employers and workers in industry will object to development councils being set up. My argument is based on what has already come out in the working party reports. I think that hon. Members opposite will generally agree that the working parties were representative of the industries concerned, both employers and workers, and in the majority of cases the working party reports have definitely advocated the setting up of development councils. Therefore, it seems that the odds are 99 to one against this contingency arising. Supposing it were to arise, and that there was a small or inefficient industry. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), who pointed out to the House that there may be other reasons—it seems to me that if there are other reasons the Minister must use his judgment. But supposing, as I am prepared to do, that a small industry is inefficient and badly organised, and one in which employers and workers are not willing to accept modern ideas, then I think that we are faced with the dilemma of what the Minister is to do. This is a point which I want to put to hon. Members opposite. Is the Minister to sit down under this, or are the Government going to govern and take what is the best line in the broad public interest? I conceive that this Bill is in the broad public interest. I do not regard it as standing for any particular section—for organisations of workers or employers. It is to get everyone to work together and to get industry more efficient in the public interest. I agree with what the Paymaster-General has said. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I
    60
    shall have much pleasure in going into the Lobby to vote against it.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude. I believe that these development councils in appropriate circumstances are capable of doing very good work, but only on two conditions: First, that they are not set up unnecessarily to do a job which is already being done by other agencies successfully; and, secondly, that they are voluntary. I do not think that, if they are forced on an unwilling industry, they will do any good. Those who have had any experience of co-operation know that an ounce of voluntary co-operation is worth a ton of compulsion. I know that the President of the Board of Trade feels that way, but we have to look ahead and to provide for the possibility of more dictatorial and more intolerant Presidents of the Board of Trade than the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now occupies that office.
    I gather from the Minister that he sees three difficulties in this. First, he sees the possibility of one party holding up development in the industry. This Amendment provides for not setting up a development council if a majority of both sides of the industry are against it. The second difficulty was that of counting heads, but I cannot believe that that is insuperable. It is the sort of thing that we have to do in our everyday life, for example, in ascertaining the feeling of a meeting for or against a certain course. It cannot then be simply a question of counting heads. The third point was in relation to forcing development councils upon inefficient industries when both sides of those industries believed that the idea would not work. The only thing is, I suggest, to go flat out and tell both sides of the inefficient industry that a development council would help to get things right. I, therefore, urge the Minister to consider once again whether there is in the Amendment anything which is really contrary to the proposals which he has in mind for getting these development councils to work.
    Mr. Marquand: With the leave of the House I should like to say firstly how much I appreciate the helpful contributions which have been made in the discussion on this Amendment. The spirit on both sides of the House is the same. We all want to make this plan work and

    61
    to use the most appropriate means to persuade industries to take advantage of the opportunity of having one of these development councils. The speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) was particularly helpful in this matter. It seems to me that the argument which he adduced really supported the attitude which I have taken. He instanced the example of the President of the Board of Trade going to Lancashire in order lo persuade a reluctant cotton industry to accept his policy. I agree; I understand that that is what happened. But the President of the Board of Trade went to Lancashire and persuaded the industry because he had, not exactly a blank cheque, in his pocket but one with a limit on it; and secondly, he represented the Government which could bring in legislation to deal with the affairs of the industry, because the parties concerned could not agree on the policy which they thought appropriate. He had power in reserve. I attach little importance to my subsidiary argument about ascertaining the majority.
    The argument on which I should like to rest my case for continuing to resist the Amendment is that the power in reserve for bringing an Order before the House of Commons will help the Minister considerably in persuading an industry. I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) was going to demonstrate the independence of the National Liberal Party froth the other
    party opposite, but unfortunately he came down on the wrong side of the fence. I would ask him to remember the example of the trade boards which were introduced 40 years ago by the Liberal Party, in relation to industries, which would be unanimous today in desiring to keep those trade boards. There are cases in which the imposition of a progressive reform of this kind proves eventually to the industries concerned that the reform is desirable and worth while, and those industries end by accepting it. I would point out in conclusion that the argument about consideration by this House is the one which has substance in it. It is not only this House which has to consider these matters but both Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) said that the present Government had a majority in this House. That is so, but the time may come when the Government will not have such a large majority; and thee is always another place. In present circumstances it brings to bear a different set of opinions, or if we like, prejudices. I should have thought that the matter was well safeguarded by those considerations.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 229.]

    AYES.

    [4.47 p.m.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

    Marples, A. E.

    Amory, D. Heathcote

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Grant, Lady

    Medlicott, F.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

    Birch, Nigel

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Nicholson, G.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

    Challen, C.

    Hurd, A.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Channon, H.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

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

    Prescott, Stanley

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Keeling, E. H.

    Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Cuthbert, W N.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Digby, S. W.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Dadds-Parker, A. D

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Drewe, C.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    York, C.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Webbe, Sir H (Abbey)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Major Conant and

    Touche, G. C.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Major Ramsay.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Hale, Leslie

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Proctor, W. T.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Hannan, W (Maryhill)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Hardy, E A.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Harrison, J.

    Randall, H. E.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Hastings, Dr Somerville

    Ranger, J.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Rankin, J.

    Ayrton, Gould, Mrs. B.

    Herbison, Miss M

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Bacon, Miss A

    Hobson, C. R.

    Reeves, J.

    Balfour, A.

    Holman, P.

    Rhodes, H.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Barstow, P. G.

    House, G.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barton, C.

    Hoy, J.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Battley, J. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Royle, C.

    Benson, G

    Irving, W J

    Sargood, R.

    Berry, H.

    Janner, B.

    Scott-Elliot, W

    Beswick, F.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Bing, G. H. C

    Jeger, Dr S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.)

    Sharp, Granville

    Binns, J.

    John, W.

    Shurmer, P.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Silverman, J (Erdington)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Silverman, S S. (Nelson)

    Boardman, H.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Keenan, W.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Kendall, W. D

    Skinnard, F. W.

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

    Key, C. W.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Kinley, J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Bramall, E. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Lang, G.

    Snow, Capt. J. W

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Lawson, Rt. Hon, J. J.

    Solley, L. J

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Lee, F (Hulme)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Bruce, Major D. W. T.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F

    Burden, T. W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Levy, B. W.

    Stamford, W.

    Byers, Frank

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Steele, T.

    Castle, Mrs B. A.

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Stokes, R. R.

    Champion, A. J.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Chater, D.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Longden, F.

    Swingler, S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Sylvester, G O.

    Collins, V J.

    McAdam, W.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Comyns, Dr L

    McAllister, G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cook, T. F.

    McGhee, H. G

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

    Mack, J. D.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Corlett, Dr J.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    Corvedale, Viscount

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Cove, W. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Crawley, A.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Tolley, L.

    Daggar, G.

    Mallalieu, J. P W

    Usborne, Henry

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

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

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Deer, G.

    Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

    Walkden, E.

    Diamond, J.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Mathers, G

    Wallace, H. W. (Waithamstow, E.)

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Edelman, M.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Watkins, T. E.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Monslow, W.

    Watson, W. M.

    Ewart, R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Foot, M M.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

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

    Forman, J. C.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (L'wish'm, E.)

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

    Gallacher, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wilkes, L.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    Moyle, A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gibbins, J.

    Neat, H. (Claycross)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Gilzean, A.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Glanville, J E. (Consett)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Orbach, M.

    Willis, E.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Woodburn, A

    Grierson, E.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Yates, V. F.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Piratin, P.

    Guy, W. H

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "and the appointments which the Board or the Minister concerned proposes to make to the development council as the independent members of such council shall he considered in such consultations.''
    It only needs a sentence or two to commend this simple Amendment to the Government. It provides that those whom the President of the Board of Trade proposes to appoint to the development councils shall be appointed after consultation with those in the industry whom he is charged to summon under this Clause. I am sure that the Paymaster-General would agree that those we appoint should be men who would merit the confidence of those engaged in managing and in producing in the industry under consideration. The President of the Board of Trade desires to have the good will of all sides of the industry, and I cannot conceive that he can possibly find any exception to this Amendment, which I hope he will except.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I beg to second the Amendment.
    A good deal of the efficiency and success of the development councils will depend upon the care which is exercised in the selection of independent members. It is possible to foresee that an unwise selection of independent members would be sufficient to ruin a development council, and, therefore, we on this side are most anxious that the independent members selected shall have the confidence of those with whom they have to work. This Amendment suggests that in the consultations which normally must take place between the Minister and the industry the question of the selection of individuals to act as independent members must be considered.
    There is a very great similarity between the position of independent members of the development councils and independent members of working parties. One feels that, as they have to work side by side over a long period of time, the members who form the backbone of the councils—the workers, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other—should have some say in making certain that the independent members are men in whom they have confidence.
    5.0 p.m.
    One does not want the independent members to be Government stooges, or to
    66
    represent the London School of Economics or the City of London. One wants to have as independent members really practical men. It will he difficult to get such men to act as independent members, and for that reason, I hope the Paymaster-General will see the wisdom of this Amendment. If there is faulty selection of the independent members, the work of the development councils may well he jeopardised.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman explain one point? I see that his name is attached to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 28. Does he intend to move that Amendment, which would mean that, if the present Amendment were carried, any consultations about the appointment of independent members would be embodied in a report to Parliament? In that case, it would certainly be difficult to get independent members.
    Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member had better wait and see what happens.
    Mr. Marquand: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) that it is very desirable that industry should have confidence in the independent members. I hope I shall not be suspected of having any special affection for the London School of Economics, and I do not know why my right hon and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade should be suspected of such affection. There is every intention to appoint to the development councils not only persons who are well qualified by their knowledge of industry, their public spirit, and their honesty and uprightness, but also persons who will gain the confidence of members of both sides of industry In order to ensure that there shall be an opportunity for consultation in that way, provision has been made in the Bill, but it is made at the point at which such consultation would be wanted to take place. The Amendment refers to Clause r, in which we are dealing with the making of an order for the establishment of a development council
    The point at issue is whether a given industry should have a development council. At that stage, one does not necessarily consider who should be members of the development council. When agreement has been obtained and it has been decided to set up a development council,

    67
    one then proceeds to consider who ought to be on it, and at that point we find, in Clause 2 (5), a provision that
    "a development council order may specify requirements as to the appointment of, and the tenure and vacation of office by, the members of the council, as to qualification or disqualification for membership, and as to bodies or persons whom the Board or Minister concerned is to consult before appointing persons to be members."
    Those words are included deliberately to take account of the desirability of there being consultation before the indepedent members, as well as the other members, are appointed. There is every intention of consulting both sides of the industry as to the acceptability of the independent members. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Lyttelton: As my name appeared to this Amendment, I will advise my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw it on the assurances which the Paymaster-General has given.
    Sir A. Gridley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "and there shall be presented to each House of Parliament at the same time as the draft of the order is presented a report by the Board or Minister concerned on the consultations required under Subsection (3) of this Section."
    This Amendment covers a slightly different point. We recognise that in regard to consultation there is a difficulty. The Government wish to preserve the idea that there is no obligation upon them to take the advice tendered to them in the consultation; indeed, in matters of defence, we have had recently an example of how perfunctory the consultation with the Chiefs of Staff can be. The Government are always in a position to say, "We have to carry the responsibility, we have consulted this or that body "—they may or may not say so—" but we have decided to proceed on the following lines." The line of demarcation between informing the representative bodies either of the workers or the employers of what the Government intend to do, and consulting them upon what is the best course to take, is a very narrow one.
    68
    The object of the Amendment' is to bring out into the open what consultations have taken place so that the Government may be questioned as to exactly what points of view were put forward by either side in industry. It is quite a different point from the one which deals with the appointment of independent members to the development councils. We pressed for an Amendment of this sort in Committee, so that where there is a concensus of opinion in the industy against the composition of a development council, the Government will perceive it. The Amendment is designed merely to ensure that there would be a report to the House on the consultations, with the names of the bodies with whom the Government had consulted before the development council order was brought forward.
    Mr. Marquand: The Government are in agreement with the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in believing that Parliament should be informed of the views of the various parties in the industry on the Minister's proposals, but we do not welcome an Amendment which would compel the Minister to publish a report on the consultations, simply because we find it very difficult to see how a formal report of that kind would serve any useful purpose. Consultations with industry on matters of this kind are fairly intimate affairs. They do not consist of one or two strictly formal meetings, with people in attendance taking shorthand notes; they are informal meetings, soundings here and there, and they might even take place over a luncheon table; they might take place sometimes with two or three members of an organisation, leaving out some others.
    There must be a certain amount of flexibility and informality in a situation in which it may be necessary to persuade a rather reluctant group of individuals to accept a desirable course of action. In the course of discussions of this nature the points of view of the members of the industry, and even the Minister's point of view, might undergo changes as the consultations proceeded. Modifications might be agreed upon, explanations accepted, and compromises negotiated. It would be difficult to give in a brief Parliamentary paper even a bare summary of the conclusions of a complicated series of discussions which would be accepted by all present as balanced and fair, and which

    69
    would avoid the danger of reawakening controversies which were on their way to being settled. It would be undesirable to include in the Statute an absolute requirement for this purpose, but my right hon. and learned Friend certainly has in mind, not merely to have consultations, but also to give Parliament, when the time comes for the presentation of the order, an outline of the sort of discussions that have taken place. I feel that, on the whole, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Roberts: We are informed that there are in this Bill two safeguards against Ministerial tyranny—one, consultation with interested parties, the other, approval by both Houses of Parliament. If the safeguards were to be a reality.one would have thought that there was not the least difficulty in furnishing a clear account of how the Minister has implemented the first before coming to Parliament to ask them to proceed with the second. It appears from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that consultations may be so very irregular and informal that no coherent account may be given without reawakening angry passions. I do not believe that. Any competent civil servant could perfectly well prepare a concise and reasoned account of consultations whether they took place at the Ministry, or over cups of coffee, or, indeed, anywhere else. There would not be the least difficulty if the will were there; if the will were not there then, of course, it would be very difficult indeed. If the idea is that this provision is not to be in the Act but that it is to be left to the will and pleasure of the Minister to tell the House from time to time as much or as little as he chooses, I agree that there are great difficulties. But the difficulties do not arise in the subject matter; they arise from the fact that in reality consultation is not at all welcomed by the Government.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I listened to the statement of the Paymaster-General and I and my hon. Friends on this side sympathise with the difficulty in which the Government may find themselves in this matter of recording consultations. However, we also find grave cause for concern in the feeling that exists in the minds of many manufacturers that they have not been consulted. In connection with many Bills, doubt and dispute are arising as to whether consultation has taken place. We
    70
    had a dispute on the Floor of this House a little time ago as to whether a particular industry had been consulted in connection with the Statistics of Trade Bill. What we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to remove the element of doubt which exists and which may cause friction between industry and the Government in the application of this Bill. It is as important that industry should feel that it has been consulted as that it should, in fact, have been consulted, and we suggest that our Amendment—calling upon the Minister to give an account of the consultations. or even, perhaps, a list of the organisations consulted—would go a long way to reassure these people. It would, at any rate, show Members of the House which organisations had been brought into consultation with the Government. I hope that if the Minister is unable to accept the full implications of our Amendment he will at any rate give us an assurance that when an Order is brought before the House a list of the organisations consulted by him during the process of the negotiations will be laid.
    Mr. Sparks: I do not think that there is very much substance in the argument put forward from the benches opposite, and I believe hon. Gentlemen are stirring up what is very much a mare's nest. As I understand the Bill, the draft order would, in any case, be laid before each House of Parliament and if, in fact, there had been no consultation, or if there had been tyranny exercised by the Minister over some industry or organisation, I cannot imagine hon. Members opposite remaining dumb. As a matter of fact, when an order is presented to the House, that is the opportunity they will have of calling attention to any so-called tyranny or lack of consultation which now appear to them to be a danger.
    5.15 p.m.
    As for a report of the consultation, the only satisfactory one would be a verbatim record of what Tom said on the one hand, what Harry said on the other, and what somebody else said about this, that and the other, which is absurd. Unless we had a verbatim report the record would have to be put into very condensed form, and once we start condensing a report of that description it is always liable to be misinterpreted. I ask hon. Members opposite not to press this Amendment. As I have said, the opportunity to voice any

    71
    misgivings which they may feel is open to them at any time when an order comes before the House for approval.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Who will listen to them?
    Mr. Sparks: Some of us will be there to listen to them, and in any case, I hope that the benches opposite will be full on such occasions. The Minister will not do these things behind the back of the House and I feel certain that if there has been any tyranny or unfairness the Opposition will have a great deal to say when an order comes before Parliament.
    Mr. Challen: I thought that the speech of the Minister emphasised the need for some report of the kind suggested in the Amendment. He made it quite clear that there may be the most informal consultations—as he said, over a luncheon table—and I cannot conceive anything that would give rise to greater apprehension than his holding a luncheon at, say, the Dorchester, with a few selected persons behind closed doors, at which a conclusion was reached about the appoint. ment of a development council for the whole of an industry—
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): If such a luncheon were at the Dorchester it would undoubtedly be at the invitation of an industrialist.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Or a Cabinet Minister.
    Mr. Challen: I was going on to say that such a proceeding would lead to a good many questions as to who was present and who paid the bill. The suggestion has been made that questions and complaints of this nature concerning hole-and-corner methods can be raised on the Floor of the House when the Government come forward with a development order, but we know very well that that is too late. Surely, it is clear that we are not asking for a complete report of all that is said, but for some indication of the nature of the consultations in order that we may decide whether we consider them sufficiently important.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution, etc., of development councils.)
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "number," to the first "of," in line 10.
    72
    May I ask your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with regard to the remainder of this group of Amendments:
    In line 11, at end, insert:
    "so however that each of the said categories shall be equally represented on the development council."
    In line 11, at end, insert:
    "Provided always that the number of independent members on the council shall be less than the number of persons specified to represent either category (a) or category (b) as defined in the preceding Subsection."
    In line 11, at end, insert:
    "Provided always that the number of persons from categories (a) and (b) as defined in the preceding Subsection shall, taken together, be such as to form a majority on the council."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if all four Amendments were discussed together.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I hope very much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to cut short the discussion by accepting one or other of these Amendments. Naturally, I would prefer him to accept the strongest of the four. The point is not a very elaborate one and I think that if, on the Committee stage, the Whips had not been frowning so much after an early defeat of the Government, those on the benches opposite might have supported this Amendment. However, they received a severe admonition about the dangers of bringing the Government down by defeating them continually in Committee, and therefore they voted against them.
    The point is a very simple one. Ministers—not only the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his nicety in these matters, but certain other Ministers as well —are getting very wide powers over industry to appoint development councils, and I do not think it is a very outrageous thing to ask that those eight Ministers should not have the power to pack development councils with Government nominees, whether those nominees are ex-Ministers who have been unable to hold their jobs satisfactorily, or whether they are retired officials of the Labour Party. Whoever they may be, we do not want to think that Ministers have the right to pack development councils to such an extent that Government nominees can outvote both sides of the industry. It is bad enough when there is a conflict of opinion

    73
    between workers on one side and employers on the other; then the Government nominees really hold the balance, and get into the position which the Irish Party used to occupy in the days when I first took an interest in politics.
    The idea that one of those eight Ministers should be able to mobilise a platoon or even half a company of nominees in order to out-vote both the workers, who represent the major element in production, and the employers, who represent of course a less respectable but nevertheless tolerably important part of production, is very uncongenial to our way of thinking, and I believe it is to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. So I ask him to do what visitors to Conservative fetes or other charitable institutions sometimes do, and put his hand into this pile of Amendments and select one. We hope it will be the strongest of them, because I am sure the object we have in mind is as dear to his heart as it is to mine.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am very glad to hear that Conservative fetes are charitable institutions; I thought they must have some reason for them, but I have not discovered what it was before. The right hon. Gentleman has always a most attractive way of putting forward propositions when he wants to get them accepted, which consists of making suggestions which would be quite ridiculous when made against any Minister, let alone Ministers of a Labour Government. Nevertheless, I do not want to be embittered by his partisanship; I want to do all I can to make this a good Bill. There are really two classes of Amendments to be dealt with, the first and the three following ones. As regards the first, which sets out that the number can be a maximum or minimum rather than a hard and fast figure, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me that in a Bill which is obviously experimental to a large extent it is very advisable to keep that latitude. One thinks, for instance, of some industry in which a particular section grows very much in importance, and one therefore wants to add a person representing that particular section. In that case one wants to keep some flexibility within a minimum and maximum number, it might be between 9 and 12 or whatever the figures may be, so that such a person can be added if
    74
    necessary without having to reconstitute the entire body. So much in regard tr., that.
    When it comes to the other matter referred to in the Amendments in page 3, line 11, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is neither our desire nor our purpose that in those cases the industry itself should be out-weighted by independents. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has always been the practice in the working parties to keep two-thirds for representatives of the industry and not more than one-third for independent representatives. Therefore, I should be quite prepared to accept the principle of the last of the other three Amendments:
    "Provided always that the number of persons from categories (a) and (b) as defined in the preceding Subsection, shall, taken together, be such as to form a majority on the council."
    That is perfectly in accordance with what we believe is right, and we are quite prepared to accept it. I would rather not accept it exactly in its present terms, however, but we will have it put in in proper form in another place, if that is convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Lyttelton: In those circumstances, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his assurances; although the dish is to be cooked in his own special fashion, it is none the less digestible and acceptable, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out Subsection (7), and to insert:
    "(7) A development council order may provide for the payment to all or any of the independent members of the council, or to such other members as shall devote the whole of their time to the work of the council, of such remuneration, and to all the members of the councils of such allowances for expenses as may be determined by the Board or Minister concerned, and for the payment on the retirement or death of any members of the council who have devoted the whole of their time to the work of the council and as to whom it may be so determined to make such provision of such pensions and gratuities to them or to others by reference to their service as may be so determined."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the payments to members of development councils are contined to those who spend their whole time in the

    75
    work of the councils. It provides that expenses can be paid to all those serving upon them, but that neither payments nor pensions nor retiring gratuities should be paid to those who are not whole-time members. The objects of the Amendment are so simple that I do not think they require any elaboration from me, but I think it is a vicious idea that payments should be made, especially pensions and gratuities on retirement, to those who spend perhaps only a few minutes a month on the work of the development councils.
    Sir S. Cripps: The object of preventing abuses is one which I share with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that the Amendment he proposes would really serve his purpose, while it would create a number of rather difficult anomalies. In the Subsection as it stands it is quite clear that the board, or the Minister concerned, has to give approval to payments of this kind. The allowances have to be determined either by the board or by the Minister. Therefore, the safeguard is the usual administrative safeguard of the responsibility of the Minister to Parliament. If we try to begin to lay down in the Bill itself provisions as to who may and who may not be paid, we get into inevitable difficulties. It may well be that there are people who do two or three days' work on one of these councils and who cannot afford to do it unless they get some remuneration, and mere expenses might not be sufficient to enable them to afford to do it, whether they happen to be on one side of the table or the other.
    There is no particular reason why a person who is independent but who perhaps does only one day or less a week should be entitled to get these payments, whereas someone connected with the industry who may do more work is not entitled to them. It is quite an illogical division between the two categories of people. Payments should be made only on merit, whoever the person is, for work done, and that would be the principle we should apply again to the question of pensions or gratuities. There may be a man who serves for ten or twenty years doing one or two days a week and who belongs to the industry, and there may be another man, an independent, who started only last week. If the independent who
    76
    started last week is to be entitled to a pension or a gratuity whereas the man who served for 10 or 20 years doing a really good job is not entitled to either, it would be an extremely raw deal for people connected with the industry. All the plums would be going to the independent members, and that would be quite impracticable and quite unfair. It must be left to the discretion of the Minister and the Board to decide, where there is a genuine material contribution made to the work of the council, to permit payments to be made in those cases. There may be cases where a man has given a lot of work and perhaps jeopardised his other form of employment. It may be that there should be gratuities or pensions in isolated or particular cases. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is better to leave the matter at large as it is left in the Bill as drafted rather than try to lay down hard and fast rules which will produce anomalies and great unharminess as between the two parties.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: The President of the Board of Trade has stated the view of the Government on this Amendment. With some aspects of his remarks there will be agreement on this side of the House and possibly on his own. He is overstating the case in relation to the entitlement of a representative of the workers or the employers to a pension. I hope we shall be given some idea of the services which are involved to get a pension for a day a week or a day a month's service to one of these organisations. I do not believe that a man who gives part-time service is going to be a better part-time server by virtue of the fact that he will be granted a pension at the end of a certain time. The view I take is that these councils must attract men of public spirit, men whose desire it is to improve the lot of the industry and those in it. No attraction in the way of a pension or large-scale remuneration should be offered to them as an inducement, for that type of man would not be induced by offers of a pension for service of one or two days a month. I do not conceive any circumstances in which it would be desirable to offer a pension to a man giving service of a day a week or a day a month to an organisation. For that reason I regret that the President of the Board of Trade

    77
    has not seen fit to accept our Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions for furnishing development councils with information as to their industries.)
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11,at the end, to insert:
    "Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall authorise or be deemed to authorise a development council to require persons carrying on business in the industry to furnish any information with regard to a manufacturing process which the said persons carrying on a business in the industry claim to be a trade secret without direct authority so to do first having been obtained from the board or Minister concerned."
    Let me begin by recognising that there is here a real difficulty with which the Government must be faced over this matter. There are trade secrets which it would be most undesirable to disclose, and companies and firms would resist most strongly any attempt to make those trade secrets known to their competitors. On the other hand, unless there is some attempt to define a trade secret, which I find very difficult to do, there would be the possibility of an element of obstructiveness frustrating the objects of this Bill. The objects of this Bill command general assent. We should be content if the Government accepted this Amendment, which states that a development council cannot require a company or firm to disclose something which they claim to be a trade secret unless it is referred to the Minister or the Board. Here is a ministerial function in which we should have confidence. This may look at first rather a weak Amendment, but there is a real difficulty. We wish to be reasonable and to understand that somebody who is obstructive might frustrate the whole objects of the Bill if stronger words, were used. This Amendment puts it fairly on the Minister to say whether the claim of this or that company as to a trade secret being disclosed is justified or not. I ask the Government either to accept the Amendment in this form, or else to accept the principle if they have better words. I believe these words are about as far as it is practicable to go while achieving the objects which I believe the President of the Board of Trade has just as strongly at heart as I have.
    Sir S. Cripps: I quite appreciate that this is a matter which might cause some
    78
    concern among certain traders, and as we are most anxious to get the fullest cooperation in this from the traders I should be quite prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, subject to putting it in a slightly different form in another place. It will of course cause some little embarrassment if people try to use it too much, but we are so anxious that nobody should feel that they will suffer as a result of these councils that we will accept this principle.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade may find it possible to insert some definition of a trade secret. I appreciate that it is possible for some frivolous objections to be raised and if some formula could be agreed upon which would define within reasonable limits what a trade secret is, there would be some justification for the approach to the Minister.
    Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly do that.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for accepting the principle. I do not know whether it is possible to define a secret or whether once one has defined it, it remains a secret. That is a metaphysical question upon which I will not ask the House to follow me this afternoon. In the light of the President's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Levies by development councils.)
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Before making such an order the Board or Minister concerned shall satisfy themselves or himself that the incidence of the charges as between different classes of undertakings in the industry will be in accordance with a fair principle."
    This Amendment is moved as the result of the representations of the Opposition in Committee to make quite sure that the incidence of the charges which can be raised as between different classes of undertakings in an industry should be in accordance with a fair principle. It was thought that if charges were raised simply upon raw materials used, it might fall very unfairly on those firms when one a large amount of raw materials when one compares them with those firms which use only a comparatively small

    79
    amount of raw material but by a large amount of processing work give the materials a greater value. This Amendment will enable that danger to be obviated.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I would like a little further elucidation from the President of the Board of Trade. I thank him for bringing forward this Amendment. The particular point which worries me is that we might have in an industry three or four companies of a progressive nature. I turn aside to say that "progressive" is not a word which should be used in the sense that the Paymaster-General used it earlier this afternoon. I took it from his remarks that those who agreed with the Government were progressive and those who did not, were not. That is a particularly repulsive form of definition to my hon. Friends. Leaving that aside, let us imagine that in an industry there are three or four, in a truer and wider sense, very progressive firms which spend large sums of money on the promotion of their exports and upon research and development. It is unfair that those firms should be required to pay a substantial levy to bring up the laggards who have neglected to gain the same standard of efficiency which these firms have achieved with their own money. I do not suppose that the Government would be particularly upset if it was unfair. They would say that the big people could probably afford it. I do not mind that so much as the fact that it might frustrate the object we all have in mind.
    We must not get a feeling abroad in industry that if we spend as little and in as niggardly a fashion as possible on research and development for export promotion the Government will do the work for us by raising a levy upon all those who are engaged in the industry, or, in other words, to replace the private individual responsibility which they may feel now with a comfortable leaning back on a levy. If the President of the Board of Trade, by bringing in "a fair principle," is directing his mind to that particular subject, I welcome this Amendment all the more. I do not think, for example, that it would be a fair principle to assess a firm for purposes of a levy for research and development by the number of people it employs or by the number of square feet of floor space it
    80
    occupies in the process of manufacture. I am sure the House will forgive me if mention that if that way of doing it was applied to my own company, we should find ourselves providing very nearly the whole of the research and development for the electrical industry, which I do not think would be a fair principle.
    Again, I see great difficulties in trying to get a definition which will enable a reasonable levy to be made, which does not put unnecessary restrictions on the amount and, at the same time, will not inflict the injustices and the disadvantages I mentioned. If the President can assure me that his phrase "a fair principle "—which seems to be a very ingenious one in this connection—is intended to protect people who spend large sums of money on export promotion and research work from having to pay large sums twice, then I should feel all the happier that this Amendment is being introduced. If the levies for research and development, and maybe for fundamental research, run into hundreds or even into a small number of thousands, there are few of the big companies which would have any objection to paying, but firms spending perhaps over half a million pounds a year on research would think it hard if they had to pay again in order to bring the laggards up to the state of efficiency which they have reached with their own money. I am only speaking on this Amendment to ask the President to give us a little further elucidation. If he can do that, I will accept it all the more readily; if he cannot, I still think the Amendment is an improvement to the Bill.
    Sir S. Cripps: With the permission of the House, may I say that it is certainly not the object of this Amendment to penalise people who are doing a good job. It will be observed that the development council order will provide for the imposition of the levy, whatever it may be, by the development council with the approval of the Board. The matter will therefore have to be laid down in the order which comes before the House. It will have to be discussed with both sides of the industry beforehand, and one imagines that some sensible and fair method will be worked out and, with the addition of this Subsection, it is made the particular care of the Board or the Minister to satisfy himself that such a fair principle is

    81
    applied. It is quite impossible to say what that would be. There are certain industries where it is comparatively simple, like the cotton industry, where it has been accepted as a fair levy, but there are other industries, like the engineering industry, where it would be extremely difficult to work out a fair levy. Therefore that will be largely for the industry to do, and if they desire to have such a levy raised, I think they will be able to devise some method which will broadly meet the desires and needs of the industries. The expression "in accordance with a fair principle" is purposely put in to cover everybody, and not merely to cover one particular section. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matters he has in mind, in addition to others, will be borne in mind.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on disclosure of information.)
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, after "proceedings," to insert:
    "(whether civil or criminal, and."
    This and the next Amendment on the Order Paper run together on exactly the same lines as that which was introduced into the Statistics of Trade Bill, whereby material obtained as a result of the operations of this Bill will be usable for proceedings under the Bill and not for other proceedings. The Amendment was asked for during the Committee stage, we introduced it into the other Bill, and now we are introducing it into this one.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I want to thank the President for introducing these words which I asked for on the Committee stage. I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not taken the opportunity of inserting these words in view of the fact that he had done so in a previous Bill, and it was only at the last moment that I discovered they had not been inserted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 29, leave out from "Act," to second "or," in line 30.—[Sir S. Cripps.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Reports, and accounts, of development councils.)
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out from "year," to "and," in line 11.
    82
    This Amendment goes with the one in my name to line 13. They are intended to cover the point in an Amendment to line 11 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The object of these two Amendments is, first, that the statement of accounts shall be in a form approved by the Board or Minister, and also in a form which conforms with the best commercial standards; second, that the statement of accounts shall show the total remuneration and allowances paid during the year to members of the council. Those are two matters which, on the Committee stage, I understand, it was desired to have inserted, and we are quite prepared to insert them in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 13, at the end, insert:
    "(3) The statement of accounts shall be in such form as the Board or Minister concerned may direct, being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards, and the statement shall show the total of remuneration and allowances paid during the year to members of the council."—(Sir S. cripps.)

    CLAUSE 9.—(Levies for certain purposes for industries for which there is no development council.)
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) Before making an order imposing charges under this section the authority making the order shall satisfy themselves or himself that the incidence of the charges as between different classes of undertakings in the industry will be in accordance with a fair principle."
    This is really consequential upon the Amendment made in the earlier Clause, and applies to the case where levies can be raised without the intervention of a council. The same provision is made that they shall be judged by the authority making the order, the Minister or the Board as the case may be, and that they shall impose charges on different classes of undertakings in accordance with a fair principle.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Power to define activities to be treated as comprised in an industry.)
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, to leave out Clause 14.
    This is consequential upon the earlier new Clause which was introduced, and

    83
    cuts out Clause 14, which gives the definition bf "industry," in favour of the new definition.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Short title.)
    Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, after "Organisation," to insert "and Development."
    This Amendment arises out of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) in Standing Committee to alter the title of the Bill from "Industrial Organisation" to something which included the term "Development." Therefore we propose to add the words "and Development" so that it will read the "Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1937."
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I rise to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) is very indebted to the President for the alteration of the Title of the Bill. Unfortunately, he is away performing a semi-official duty in Geneva, and consequently I have the task of thanking the President though I do it less charmingly than my hon. Friend would.
    Amendment agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Functions which may be assigned to development councils.)
  Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, at the end, to insert:
  "21. Promoting the establishment of machinery for securing more effective consultation between managers and administrative, technical and production personnel in matters affecting the better organisation of production and the welfare of persons employed in the industry."
  This Amendment seeks to achieve the same objective as one which was put down on the Committee stage, and which the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking to consider. I understand that it has not been found possible for the Government to incorporate in the functions described in the First Schedule, a function covering the point raised in this Amendment, and for that reason it has been put down again. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that development councils shall encourage the formation of what are generally known, by a generic term, as joint production committees. While it is quite clear that the
  84
  precise form and method of operation of joint production committees must be a matter for discussion between representatives of employers and workers, it is also desirable in the view of those supporting the Amendment that the development council as such should have placed upon it the responsibility of encouraging the formation of joint production committees and their general adoption throughout the industries with which they are concerned.
  Some of us regard this as a very important addition to the functions of development councils, because here is an opportunity of getting the principle of cooperation between the two sides of industry down to the roots of industry itself. It is not going to be very much use if all the co-operation is at the top, and there is no reflection of that co-operation where production actually takes place. During the war we had experience of the working of joint production committees. Some worked extremely well, while I am afraid others had very little to do with production. It is important that when joint production committees are being fostered, care should be taken that what is fostered is a form of co-operation which is concerned, not merely with petty grievances in industrial establishments, but with the actual processes and organisations of production.
  We are concerned with the question of whether the workers are to have a real voice in the organisation of production. Is the lip service which is being paid today to the right of the workers to have a say in the running of their industries to be translated into reality? By giving this official sanction in the Bill to the conception of the need for, and the value of, joint production committees, we shall be taking a long step forward towards overcoming the resistance of some of those backward employers who still show very little enthusiasm for promoting such organisations. It is perfectly true, as may be said by the Minister in reply, that discussions are proceeding at present between the two sides of the industry on this matter. But it is also true that a good deal of reluctance, to say the least, is being shown by some sections of employers—reluctance even to encourage the formation of joint production committees. With a view to overcoming that reluctance, and making it clear that the formation of joint production committees is

  85
  regarded by the Government and should be regarded by the development councils as an essential part of the promotion of co-operative planning development of industry, this Amendment has been put down.
  Mr. Edelman: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The question of joint production committees goes to the very root of industrial democracy. During the war they undeniably had a very considerable psychological effect which in turn had the result of stimulating production. I recall how my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was then Minister of Aircraft Production, was actively concerned in promoting joint production committees in factories. I remember attending a meeting in a factory when he said that the function of these cornmittees was not to usurp the function of management but to act in a consultative capacity. It should be stressed today that so long as these committees function in a consultative capacity, they have as useful a task to perform in peace as they had during the war. The joint production committees should be to the development council what a local authority is to Parliament—a manifestation locally of the all-over industrial democracy which is our aim. For that reason I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not, by leaving out joint production committees from the schedule of functions of the development councils, perpetuate a divorce between the joint production committees and the development council. There seems a direct and natural link between these committees and development councils.
  At present the Minister of Labour is most directly concerned with the joint production committees, both from the employers' side and the workers'. But there has lately grown up a feeling among employers and officials that the joint production committee is neither necessary nor even desirable, but is rather a luxury or a nuisance. That attitude has gained considerable ground. If my right hon. and learned Friend can include joint production committees within the scope of the interests of development councils he will do a great deal to renew the efficiency of this most valuable instrument of industrial consultation. Only yesterday in my constituency I was present at a meet-
  86
  ing of a joint industrial committee of one of the biggest aircraft firms in the country. The stimulus to production as initiated by that joint production committee was something which, if widespread throughout the country, would cause an immediate and considerable rise in output.
  It is quite certain that the joint production committee has a definite value which my right hon. and learned Friend would amplify if he would enlarge the functions of the development councils to cover the workings of those most important organs of industrial co-operation.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that anyone will accuse me of lack of interest in joint production committees of all kinds, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who, with me, did a great deal during the war to try to stimulate the setting up of these bodies. However, I do not think that this is an appropriate place to deal with them in order to give the maximum encouragement possible to the propagation of the idea. The House will remember that the origin of joint production committees was an agreement between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Employers Federation, and they still continue in the engineering industry to be based upon that agreement, which lays down their constitution and sphere of operations. As a result of the Government's desire that a much fuller use should be made of this device for the purpose of stimulating production, the matter has been discussed, as has been said, quite recently in the National Joint Advisory Council, under the aegis of the Minister of Labour, with a view to seeing if something could not be done on both sides of industry to stimulate the formation of joint production committees. Agreement, has been arrived at in that body with a view to the steps that should be taken.
  That is a different chain of responsibility to that of the development councils, and we believe that if we were to insert this Amendment it would not encourage the setting up of joint production committees but would rather discourage those who at present are, we hope, actively engaged in trying to spread the area of this type of organisation. So far as regional matters are concerned, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) has mentioned,

  87
  there is, of course, a direct link between joint production committees, district committees and regional boards of industry, and we do not want to disturb that link. Many of these matters can be dealt with better on a regional basis than on an industrial basis, that is, on the basis of a particular industry spread over a great many regions of the country. We believe, therefore, that in furthering the desire, which we share with my hon. Friend, to do all we can to stimulate the movement towards the setting up and the active use of joint production committees, we shall be doing a greater service by not including this matter in the duties of development councils, but by leaving if to be dealt with by the National Joint Advisory Council and the various bodies I have mentioned, and leaving with them the responsibility for stimulating this movement.
  If we were to divide that responsibility the result might be that it would be carried out by neither body, and it might lead to disputes as to which was the proper body to carry it on. It is quite clearly a border-line case. The development councils will not be charged with matters concerning wages or conditions of work. It might be said that this is an area into which they could penetrate, or it might be said that this is an area which should go with wages and conditions of work. As it has hitherto been organised it has gone with wages and conditions of work, and is being so dealt with at the present time. We feel it is wiser to leave that line of responsibility where it is rather than try to mingle with it another line of responsibility. I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friends will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Shackleton: The President of the Board of Trade has excelled himself in the almost legalistic quality of that reply. I agree with him that there can be no doubt in this House as to the value of joint production committees, but I do not think that that is the issue, nor do I think we need to debate that. Hon. Members of the party opposite, in the Tory "Industrial Charter," have themselves emphasised the need for joint production committees. The question is whether development councils shall be used as an instrument of propaganda for promoting the setting up of joint pro-
  88
  duction machinery. I feel it is a rather hair splitting argument that we cannot divide responsibility in this matter. Surely, in democratic planning, which are the words which are now rather popular in describing this kind of legislation, it is essential in a matter of this sort to operate through the agencies that are available. We are not asking that development councils should impose joint production machinery. They are not in a position to do so. We are asking that they should supplement the action of the National Joint Advisory Council by putting out propaganda, by providing opportunities for employers and employed to understand the advantages of joint production machinery. The matter is one of such vast importance, and the whole situation of the nation industrially is so urgent that I urge the President of the Board of Trade at least to consider some way in which development councils can be used as an additional channel through which propaganda for the setting up of joint production machinery can be made. It is a delicate matter, but I feel that we are treading almost too delicately. I do not think that we need to imitate Agag to that extent in a matter on which the future prosperity of the nation depends.
  Mr. Sparks: We need to lye very careful that we do not impinge upon the policies with which the trade union organisations are concerned in this matter. This is not mainly a political question; it is largely an industrial question, with which the trade unions are intimately concerned. The President of the Board of Trade himself told us just now that the joint production committee is the result of an agreement between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Employers' Federation. I believe that joint production machinery must be evolved through that channel. Efforts are being made by many trade unions to evolve an organisation adaptable to their own industries and peculiarities of those industries, because not every industry to be covered by a development council is quite in the same category as the engineering industry. I think a case can be made out by the President of the Board of Trade for rejecting this Amendment which seeks to impose upon development councils the obligation to carry out what is essentially an industrial purpose and function, in which the trade unions are closely concerned.

  89
  I agree, as I think every hon. Member agrees, on the importance which joint production committees can achieve throughout the length and breadth of our industrial undertakings in this country. If we leave the matter where it is, with the trade unions and the employers' organisations, it will be the most satisfactory way to deal with the Matter. I can see all sorts of complications arising, if development councils are charged with this job. Some trade unions and some employers might consider it an interference in matters which are linked with wages and conditions. We should leave well alone, and not try to duplicate the machinery which already exists, and the avenues which already remain open, for developing this most valuable incentive in industry—not in one kind of industry but all kinds, to bring workers and management together, with a view to stimulating and encouraging productivity throughout their undertakings.
  Mr. Warbey: I should like to make it clear that this Amendment has not been put down without some discussion with persons who are intimately concerned with the trade union movement. I am assured that some trade unions are very anxious that some kind of semi-official approval should be given to the formation of joint production committees. I appreciate the difficulty of the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the negotiations now taking place. I wonder whether he would be prepared to meet us half way by agreeing that the provisions of Clause 1 (4) might be extended at a later stage to cover this matter. Subsection (4) provides that
  "A development council order may provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be necessary or expedient to provide."
  Among the functions mentioned in the First Schedule is the
  "Promoting or undertaking inquiry as to materials and equipment and as to methods of production, management and labour utilisation …"
  Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the encouragement of joint production committees might be regarded as a function ancillary to those mentioned? If he would undertake to consider putting into future development council orders, a provision covering the encouragement of joint production committees, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir S. Cripps: It would hardly be honest if I were to promise to extend Subsection (4) to cover this specific point. Hon. Members will have it in mind that there is nothing to stop a development council interesting itself in this subject The question we are debating is whether it should be given them as a specific job. If both sides on the development council want to encourage joint production committees, there is nothing on earth to stop them. No doubt they could do very useful work. But once one assigned this job to them, then the other bodies now dealing with it would think it was no longer their job, and we should get a complete lack of drive, as the points where we want it today. We do not want to trespass in any way on the work which we hope will be done by the other bodies. We do not want to put this in as a specific job for the development councils, but there is nothing to stop them from taking an interest in it, and in doing all they can to help.
  Amendment negatived.
  6.15 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  This Bill has had a smooth and rapid passage through the House because I think that, broadly speaking, its principles are in accordance with what hon. Members on all sides would like to see carried out. It arises very largely out of the recommendations made by a number of working parties on the method that should be adopted, for the development and organisation of the various industries into which they have been making inquiry. The Bills lays down a procedure whereby, subject to the future consent of Parliament, councils can be set up for various industries, with largely advisory functions and composed of representatives of both sides of industry, together with such independent persons as are thought desirable in any particular case.
  The object is to get one responsible body of persons who can speak for all interests in the industry with a single voice and who, in their considerations of the interests of the industry, will have in mind as well, the interests of the nation and of the consumers of the industry's products. It is the intention of the Government to give great weight to the recommendations of these bodies when they

  91
  are set up, and to use them in a large degree for that liaison with industry which is now such an essential part of any national planning or the execution of any plan which is made. As I stated on an earlier occasion we do not wish to make this a rigid or inflexible form of procedure. Our object is to assist industry in every way we can. That is why the Bill has been drawn in a permissive form, to enable us to have plenty of latitude and variety of form. What is suitable and desirable for one industry is not necessarily desirable or suitable for another. Therefore, we do not intend to enforce this pattern rigidly upon all industry. We hope and expect that most important industries will be willing to conform, to some extent, to the pattern here laid down.
  In deciding which industries are suitable for the setting up of development councils under the Bill, we shall take into account the views of both sides of industry, though perhaps with a bias in favour of setting up a development council where the two sides may differ in their opinions. We hope that by negotiation with both sides, we shall reach a measure of agreement on the precise form of the council and what its functions should be. The functions set out in the Schedule which can be conferred upon the councils cover a very wide range. We do not expect that all of them will necessarily be appropriate in every case. Indeed, whatever steps we now take must be considered as in the nature of experimental steps. We must be prepared to alter and adjust the functions whenever it appears advisable so to do.
  As the House knows, Orders setting up a council will require an affirmative Resolution. As the matter is experimental and as I am anxious to get the best possible results, I propose in the initial cases, to take the somewhat exceptional step of publishing, in advance, a summary of what we propose should be inserted in the Order before it is made, so that there will be time and opportunity for interested persons to let me have their views upon it which can then be considered before the Order is passed. I hope that that procedure will assist in getting the cooperation not only of those in the industry but of interested Members of Parliament as well. I should like to emphasise the necessity for the fullest consultation with industry upon all these matters because
  92
  the success of the councils will, of course, depend very largely upon the degree of co-operation given by both sides of industry. I hope that neither side of industry will be nervous or anxious as to the development and the outcome of the setting up of development councils. They have the knowledge that what they are being asked to embark upon is an experiment which the working parties, on which they have been well represented, and others who have studied the situation, consider to be a hopeful approach to the coordination of private enterprise industries with the planning and control necessary for organising the national economy. We want to give both sides of industry the fullest opportunity of influencing Government action in a sense favourable to their own efficiency, and to their maximum contribution to the nation's welfare; and we believe that the devices laid down in this Bill represent the best way of accomplishing that objective.
  Perhaps I should interpolate a word or two on joint consultations, the subject which was raised on the last Amendment discussed during the Report stage. The Government are convinced that one of the most important factors in obtaining full production, and, therefore, full employment, is the most complete system of joint consultation between workers and employers at every level. It must be at every level if it is to be successful. During the war, we established joint consultation to a degree never known before. There was the National Joint Advisory Council, on matters of wages and conditions of working; there was the National Production Advisory Committee on Industry, on matters of production, and, now, there is the Joint Planning Board, to cover the top levels of industry and the trade unions. There were also the Engineering Advisory Council, the Shipbuilding Advisory Council, the Cotton Board, the joint Industrial Councils and other bodies dealing with consultations for particular industries. It is at this level that the new councils, under the present Bill, will fill a gap which at present is very visible. In addition to the top level central bodies which I have mentioned, joint consultation on joint production matters takes place regionally in the regional boards and in the district committees, where these exist. Indeed, it is our desire that the whole country shall be covered adequately by district committees as soon as possible,

  93
  but it is essential that all this high level joint consultation should be backed up by joint consultation in the factory and the particular units of production in such a way as to penetrate right down to the floor of every shop.
  We are building a structure of joint consultation which depends for its ultimate efficacy upon its completeness. It must become an integrated scheme, in which every branch and unit of production shall be able to contribute its full value. That is why I attach particular importance to this Bill, which enables us to fill up one of the most important gaps in the present organisation of industry upon a consultative basis. I hope that all those concerned will appreciate its objective, and do their utmost to help to make that success of the councils which we seek today. Broadly, the principles which it seeks to establish are those which we have been able to secure from consultation with employers and workers. I believe that this Bill is an important contribution to the efficiency and productiveness of our private enterprise industry, and I therefore ask the House to give it a Third Reading.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: My gratification in seeing the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his place to move the Third Reading of this Bill is somewhat marred by the fact that today is the 400th anniversary of the foundation of Trinity College, Cambridge, to which I am attached by long ties of tradition and affection. I entirely absolve the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a Wykehamist and late Rector of Aberdeen University, from any responsibility in the matter but I must say that I should have found it more pleasurable, and he may think more profitable, if I had spent this afternoon on the banks of the Cam. Having said that, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having accepted, in a spirit of compromise, many of the Amendments which we have put on the Order Paper.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very agreeable speech. I found it difficult to follow because it was couched in those emollient terms that might mean anything or nothing. The reason which he advanced for this enabling type of legislation, which covers almost everything, was that we must maintain
  94
  flexibility. It would not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, be the aim of the Government to enforce this in every case, because the provisions of the Bill were not appropriate in every case. It is very agreeable to us to hear that, but, unfortunately, once we take this blunderbuss power and shoot into the air, the slugs are often liable to land in the pants of those for whom they were not originally intended.
  Our main objection to this Bill, with the main purpose of which we are in entire sympathy, is that it is too wide, and gives to Ministers powers which can be extended in almost every direction. It is not much consolation to hear that these very wide powers arc taken because of the desire to have flexibility. That is really a very disingenuous argument. If the House wishes to have an example, let us look at Clause 1 (4):
  "A development council order may provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Board or Minister concerned to be necessary or expedient to provide."
  With the Parliamentary draftsmen so hard worked, we understand why that sort of thing is put in. It just enables the Minister to include anything regarded as expedient in a development council order. I think these are very grave defects. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession he has made regarding the independent members. I think there were grave defects in the Bill as it stood previously. It would have enabled any Government to pack the development councils with independent members, without going to either side of industry, either singly or in combination, and I am particularly gratified that he has met us on that point. He has met us on another point—the matter of the disclosure of the remuneration to be given to the independent members. Until today, I have been making some rather sour criticisms of the Board of Trade, on the ground that one section was rather anxious to follow the recommendations of the Cohen Report in regard to the remuneration to be paid to directors during the time they held office and making statutory the disclosure of any emoluments, or pensions which they might afterwards receive. It was a little curious to us to see that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hand was doing was unknown to his left, because, in drafting this Bill,

  95
  the Board of Trade never provided for the disclosure of the remuneration to be given to the independent persons. He has now met that by seeking, in the modern jargon, to secure the proper liaison between right and left. He now tries to bring this matter, under this Bill, up to the standard of the best commercial practice. I hope that the powers taken under this Bill are not going to be used in competing for the shrinking supply of country houses, and that any that are left over by the National Coal Board will not be snatched up by development councils. I trust that none will be used for keeping the new rich in comfort, while cluttering up industry with a great mass of paper which can only be used at the expense of the free Press.
  However, I am here on this hot afternoon in an attitude of blessing rather than of cursing, and my anxieties are somewhat allayed by the number of Amendments which the Government have accepted. I should have been glad if they had given us something further on the principle of consultation, but at least we have had some very solemn assurances—although, I admit, they are not expressed in the Statute—about the nature of these consultations. I should also have been glad if the Government had accepted the Amendment which sought to exclude from Clause z conditions of employment and wages. Later in the Bill there, is an Amendment which excludes wages and working conditions from any amendment to a development council order. In discussing this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the reason why it was not included in Clause 1, was because the Schedule specifically excluded wages and working conditions. That, I feel, is not quite accurate. Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule says that the functions which may be assigned to development councils are:
  "Promoting or undertaking inquiry as to materials and equipment and as to the methods of production, management and labour utilization…"
  Paragraph 9 says:
  "Promoting the adoption of measures for securing safer and better working conditions…"
  Paragraph 11 says:
  "Promoting or undertaking arrangement, for encouraging the entry of persons into the industry."
  96
  Paragraph 15 says:
  "Promoting the development of export trade, including promoting or undertaking arrangements for publicity overseas."
  I find great difficulty in entering into a discussion on any of these subjects without bringing wages and working conditions into it. I should have preferred its specific inclusion in Clause I rather than to be told, by means of assurances, that these matters are not to come within the purview of development councils. I am genuinely anxious not to see the voluntary machinery for negotiating wages and working conditions. overlaid or overlapped in any way by statutory bodies. We in industry take a pride in the way these voluntary bodies have worked. By and large, they have worked greatly to the advantage of industry as a whole, and I recoil from the idea of statutory bodies being introduced which would overlap these functions. I must say frankly to the House that I am somewhat relieved 1?y the assurances which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given to the effect that there is no intention of abrogating those functions. I was a little surprised at one or two hon. Members, who are trade unionists, adopting an almost menacing attitude during the Committee stage when they said that there was no need to worry about the trade unions because they would look after. themselves. But once a law is passed by this House, even the trade unions are expected to obey it. Apart from the assurances which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us, there are many instances where, if the provisions of this Bill are loosely applied, the development councils might abrogate the functions of the voluntary negotiating bodies.
  I am very grateful for the "fair principle" Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced, and for the subsequent explanation which he gave. That relieves another anxiety, and is a great improvement to the Bill. If it is properly administered, more good than harm is likely to come out of it. But I cannot help regretting the handing over of such wide powers to eight separate Ministers. The First Schedule is very wide indeed and there is a great danger of duplication and overlapping. I still think it would have been better to have had ad hoc legislation which would deal with groups of industries or even with

  97
  individual industries. I also think it would have been better to have had the unusual experience of having not only a competent Minister—which, in this instance, we have—but also a competent Measure, designed and defined to fulfil this or that object, instead of a blunderbuss Measure. If the levies are open to considerable objection, these represent the disadvantages of trying, in one Bill, to cover such a complex field. But we shall not divide against the Third Reading of the Bill because we want it to have the largest measure of support and the best chance of success, as its objects are those with which we all agree.
  I only hope that we may not live to regret the decision. Administration is not the Government's forte. Development councils are really very much wanted inside the Government itself, and I suggest, in a spirit of great seriousness, that the Government might consider the setting up of a development council in an endeavour to attain a greater measure of efficiency and co-ordination in Government Departments. In their own language, those who live in vitreous mansions should not be lithobolic, or, in plain English, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Under this Bill, the Government have very great powers for throwing stones, and all the gracious speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not detract from the plain fact that they have the right to throw a great many stones through other people's windows. It would be much better if they concentrated their attention more upon their own affairs than upon those of other people. As I have said on more than one occasion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is quite possible that those who have devoted their lives to these industries may know more about them than his own Department or even himself. I hope that this Bill will be administered in a way which will be helpful, and which will, as far as possible, release 'individual genius and enterprise, and that private enterprise industries will not become further victims to the increasing bureaucracy.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Warbey: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be unduly perturbed by the rather small stones which the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) concealed in
  98
  the bouquets which he flung across the Floor of the House today. Throughout the different stages of this Bill—Second Reading, the Report stage, and the present stage—we have had what I believe the right hon. Member for Aldershot once described upstairs, as "quite a happy family party." I can well appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, not very greatly alarmed by the provisions of this Bill. It is, indeed, rather a modest Bill which, no doubt, in course of time will do a fair amount of good, but some of us on this side of the House, while welcoming the Bill as a step forward, have been a little disappointed to find that it has not contained within it the fulfilment of the promises which the President of the Board of Trade himself gave, particularly in his speech this afternoon. He did say, I think, that it was to be regarded as establishing machinery for the co-ordination of the private enterprise industries with national planning. In other words, it was to be a link in the chain of economic planning machinery which we arc now seeking to build up in this country.
  Same of us, in Committee and subsequently, have tried to define a little more precisely;the links between the proposed development councils, the Government Departments and the central economic planning machinery. I am not in the happy position of the right hon. Member for Aldershot in being able to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for accepting Amendments, and I must say that I had hoped to have, especially at this stage, a rather clearer picture of how the Government themselves envisage the way in which these development councils will work and the way in which they will play their effective part in our overall planning machinery. What is to be the means of co-ordination between the central Departments and the development councils? We have been given no clear picture of that at any stage in this Bill.
  I put this question to the Minister: Are the development councils to be regarded as the main means by which the private sector of industry is integrated into the overall national planning machinery? What is to be the scope of the development councils? Is it intended that they shall be extended as widely as possible in order to cover, in course of time, all the main sections of private industry? Is it

  99
  intended, for example, that they should cover the very important field of the modern engineering industries—the motor car, precision instrument, electrical equipment and machine tool industries, and other modern industries such as the chemical industry, on which a great deal of the economic future of this country will depend, including very much of the expansion of our export trade which is vital to our success in the future? Are development councils going to be established for these industries, and are these industries, through the development councils, to be properly integrated with the national plan? How is the attention of development councils going to be drawn to the requirements of the national plan? If the central planning office lays down certain targets—production, investment, manpower and export targets—how are we to see that each individual industry is playing its part in the realisation of these targets? Are the development councils going to be used for that purpose, and if so how?
  In Committee, some of us proposed Amendments by which this integration could take place. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that, in his view, the function contained in paragraph 19 of the First Schedule would cover the coordination between the development councils and the Ministries concerned. That paragraph says that the development councils shall have the function of
  "advising on any matters relating to the industry (other than remuneration or conditions of employment) as to which the Board or Minister concerned may request the council to advise …"
  Will that function be the main means of contact between the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply and the individual industry? Will it be the means of contact between the Lord President of the Council, or the Postmaster-General, or whoever is responsible for our central economic planning, and the individual industries? How are these things going to be worked out in fact? Some of us are really concerned about that matter. In other words, is this Bill really an instalment of Socialist economic planning, or is it merely an example of that pseudo democratic planning where certain vague and general targets are set by the Government, and private industry is left to get on in its
  100
  own way and with its own sweet will, with the hope and prayer that it will fulfil what is required of it? That is the kind of thing that some of us would like to know before we part with this Bill.
  6.47 p.m.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: We have had this afternoon the Third Reading of this Bill advocated by the President of the Board of Trade with all that persuasiveness of manner which he possesses, perhaps, to a greater degree than anyone else on the Government Front Bench. Listening to his advocacy of the Bill, it would be difficult for us to have any fears at all about its future success. One thing I was particularly pleased to hear the President of the Board of Trade say was that it was his intention to publish an advance copy of any proposed order which he might bring to the House, to give industry an opportunity of considering its contents. That is an extremely valuable concession, and I am sure that industry will appreciate it very much.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this Bill being flexible and experimental, as indeed it must be. I think that largely answers the numerous questions that have been addressed by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). However, it is not for me to say how he should be answered; I leave it to much more capable hands on the other side of the House. I agree most heartily with the President of the Board of Trade when he says that if this Bill is to be a success, co-operation of the most friendly type is essential, not only between employer and worker but also with the Government as the third partner, because, whether we like it or not, we are bound to look forward to the future when there will be a closer partnership between the Government, employers and employed. It is recognised that there cannot be trade expansion and full employment in the world unless many governments co-operate with each other. One country alone cannot do it. For that reason alone, there must be a partnership in the right way between the Government and industry, greater than there has been in the past. Therefore, co-operation between all three partners is absolutely essential if we are to bring about our industrial recovery.
  Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the value he attached to

  101
  what he called "joint consultation at every stage." That moans, from the board-room and management down to the shop floor. I am a believer in consultation, and one of those employers who practise it. But I would make this reservation. I would say that joint consultation, if it is to be introduced and become effective, must be pursued cautiously, because what may be practicable and beneficial in one works, and very suitable for that works, may be very difficult to apply in another. Therefore, in these matters, one has to feel one's way, and not try to act too precipitately. I think one of the important hopes for our industrial recovery will lie in securing, not so much the interference of the Government, but better relationships between employers and employed, between management and men. There is room for greater understanding in many industries than exists today, and I am quite sure much can thus be brought about. I take every opportunity myself, when I meet employers in every part of the country, of emphasising the tremendous chances there are if only time and trouble are taken in calling the employees together and in explaining to them such things as, why that policy is being changed, or that design is being modified, or why, for a few weeks, the change Will mean less work for that shop, but that, in four or five months' time, that shop will be busier than ever before; if there are intelligent questions from the men, and satisfactory answers given, perhaps, to a man who has great influence among his fellow work-people. If such a man says, "I am entirely satisfied with the explanation that you have given," the effect among his fellow workers will be far greater, perhaps, than that of anything said on the part of the management. Therefore, I am a great believer in joint consultations, provided that they are proceeded with cautiously, until there is an atmosphere of trust between one side and the other; so that the consultations are not merely idle talks, but talks for the benefit of masters and employed, and so for the benefit of the nation.
  I must confess that industry—at least, those industries That I know—has been very nervous since this Bill was first printed. I have here in my hand a batch of communications from industrialists all over the country expressing their anxiety as to how the Government propose to
  102
  operate this Bill. I am satisfied myself that everything will depend upon how wisely and how reasonably the Government exercise the powers which they will get when this Bill reaches the Statute Book. If the Government act reasonably. and well, I think this Bill will prove, in time, to be of great benefit to our industrial prosperity. On the other hand, if it is not exercised reasonably, wisely and well, then the reverse results will follow.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I welcome the opportunity to wish this Bill a speedy passage into operation, so that the economic life of the country may have the benefit of its provisions. For the last couple of years we have had working parties in several of our important industries, not least among them the industry with which I am closely connected, the pottery industry. I know that there is a long felt desire that some of the excellent advice that has been given by those working parties should be implemented at an early date. It was most encouraging and illuminating to hear the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), who occupies so very distinguished a position in the world of business and commerce, say he recognises that today the Government have to play an increasing part in the economic life of the country. But he went on to produce a sheaf of papers which expressed the apprehension of his colleagues in the country. I think the Opposition do well to welcome this Bill, because some of us feel that it might perpetuate the state of private enterprise in some industries too long. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) is satisfied or not in his queries, whether the industries left under private enterprise will help themselves, or whether this is the first measure of socialised planning, there is much to be said for what it intends to do.
  I do not know and I cannot say for certain, but I hope this Government will remain sufficiently long to extend their influence in industry, and I believe they can rightly do so for many considerations. We must recognise that for toe long many of our industries have been in a condition of backwardness, and in a condition which has called for very radical attention and reorganisation. If this Bill has the effect of bringing the

  103
  workers and the employers and the independent members together it will do good. I do not share the apprehensions about the independent members which were expressed in the Committee, because I believe that a new slant brought from outside an industry—from the engineering, distributive, or design points of view—may be useful. If these joint interests can be brought together, I believe much good can be done, with the assistance of the Government, which will be valuable in improving the economic life of this country, which has to be improved it we are going to take our place in the economy of the world as one of the great trading nations. It would not be appropriate at this stage to discuss the relative prospects of this country vis-a-vis America or some of the other trading competitors who are likely to emerge in the future, but it goes without saying, I think, that we have to put our own house in order; and I believe this Bill does much to that end.
  I do not share the apprehension which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) seemed to have in his mind in the Committee and in the speech he made a few minutes ago in regard to the abrogation of functions from the authorised, organised trade unions, on the one hand, and the employers on the other hand, when matters relating to pay and conditions of employment are under consideration. I will agree that some of the functions as outlined in the First Schedule are rather indefinite, but they must be indefinite for the very good reasons which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, unlike his right hon. Friend, brought out—that is to say, that this is an enabling Bill; that, instead of having a Bill to implement every working party's report and for every industry, here we have a Bill which—in general terms, and only general terms—can be adapted to the particular needs of an industry or an occasion. I take it that as we consider the various industries there will be a deletion or extension of the functions set out; and therefore, quite rightly, matters incidental and supplementary to the functions set out in the Schedule could fall within the power of the Minister and be incorporated in the Order.
  I am glad that provision is made for research in industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) is not here at the moment. He could speak
  104
  with greater authority on this matter. Fundamental research, as distinct from that research which individual manufacturers have to consider—and have considered in times gone by with good results—will be one of the considerations of the development councils under this cooperative organisation, and I believe great good can emerge. In matters relating not only to the scientific composition of the article, but to questions such as the., marketing and distribution of the product, much useful service will be done by this Bill. Quite obviously, the Bill could not cover all the problems which are likely to arise in the several industries. In the pottery industry, of which I have some knowledge, it is important that attention should be given to the local by-laws; for example, in reference to the type of building which is erected, because the type of building has such a great effect upon the health, and so on, of the occupants. It might also be felt quite competent to include matters such as Income Tax relief at a later stage, and certainly factory regulations of all kinds. We should not regard consideration of these things by a development council as transgressing upon the ground previously occupied by some other unit such as the trade unions. We should feel that we here have matters of mutual interest which could be helpful to all engaged in the industry. For that reason, I am glad the Bill is sufficiently flexible to permit of all those things being done in the future.
  In my view, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whose absence today we all regret, who dealt with this Bill in. Committee, did a good job of work. There was good feeling in the Committee, and I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House will feel that the good industrialists will have a measure of protection in this Bill against the poor industrialists. Many good industrialists were prepared to pay decent wages and to provide good conditions for their workers, but they were unfairly handicapped because some of the less well-disposed people in the industry were not prepared to foot the bill and 'provide decent conditions. Because of that I believe the more enlightened sections of industry will welcome the Bill. I wish the Bill a happy landing, and hope that we shall feel the effects of it in industry without too much delay, and particularly in my own industry in

  105
  which a working party was set up in October, 1945, and in respect of which we believe a good job of work was done. Many manufacturers were suspicious of the working parties when they were mentioned. The name of my right hon. and learned Friend was looked at askance, but when he came down with his charms, and what my hon. Friend described as his emollient words, they were persuaded, and in the end they almost stayed to cheer. When the working party reports were made public the former impression of so-called Government interference was changed completely. I think that has been a common experience, wherever working party reports have appeared, and I believe that will be the experience under this Government when this Bill becomes fully operative.
  7.5 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I take particular interest in this Bill, because during the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade referred, so rightly, to the Cotton Board; he suggested that because the Cotton Board had been a success it might be used for many other industries, and that this Bill was largely based on that idea. Before the Cotton Board was brought into being there was considerable discussion in the industry as to whether it would be advisable for them to have it. I took part in that discussion and heard a great many of the criticisms at that time. I was a member of the Cotton Board for a time and naturally saw a great deal of its inner workings. I think that on the whole it has done a fine job of work; I would, however, point out one difference between the Cotton Board in its present set-up and the proposed new councils. The Cotton Board is made up of people representing different interests; that is to say, people who are experts in different jobs, with an independent chairman. In this case three groups of people will be set up: those representing employers, employees, and independent members, the chairman being one of the independent members.
  I dislike the introduction of a substantial number of independent members. I know they have been recommended by different working parties, but that does not convince me that they will be really useful on these councils. In my experience of the Cotton Board, representing a very large industry composed of many different
  106
  industries, I was astonished at the ignorance of one part of the industry concerning different sections of that industry. For instance, the spinner knew nothing in many cases of the cloth merchant and his problems; the worker knew nothing of the difficulties and problems of the different employers. More than once I was astounded at that complete ignorance, and on one occasion I went to great trouble to collect detailed costs to prove to a friend of mine, who was representing the labour side, that profits were nothing like as much in a particular section as he—and, for that matter, many other people —had thought. That is the sort of ignorance which probably people outside the industry do not realise exists. 'I was astonished to find that ignorance, not only in one direction but in different directions, and it would be for the good of the industry as a whole, and everybody engaged in it, that the mutual suspicion and distrust created by that ignorance should be removed as quickly as possible.
  I must confess that I dislike certain aspects of this Bill. I dislike having one large enabling Bill by which these industrial councils can be imposed comparatively easily. I think it is unnecessary that eight different Ministers should have this power. Most of the rest of this week will be taken up by the Minister of Agriculture with a most important Agriculture Bill, which will give him great powers in his particular industry. I do not see that it has been proven to be at all necessary for all the Ministers mentioned in this Bill to have the powers which it gives them. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, in his eagerness to get these organisations started, will not try to impose them too quickly. We all know that there is a great deal of criticism from inside each industry, which perhaps does not understand exactly what these organisations can and may do. Possibly, if they are started fairly slowly they will start on very much firmer grounds. Although I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman is most anxious to get some of them started, I hope he will not try to start them too quickly. It is much better to get them started with substantial support and co-operation, than to have suspicion creeping in because they have been imposed too quickly.
  The President of the Board of Trade has told us that the chairman is to be one

  107
  of the independent members, but I am not clear whether the deputy chairman is also to be one of the independent members, or whether he can be chosen from those representing the other sections. There is one other aspect to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. With the different Ministers having the power to set up these organisations in their different spheres, there is the possibility of an enormous increase in patronage. I am not suggesting that the President, of the Board of Trade will do anything which we would wish to criticise, but there is this possibility in view of the tremendous powers Ministers will have. The President of the Board of Trade may smile at this now, but it is a real possibility at some time in the future.
  The Public Accounts Committee, which have power to investigate expenditure of public money, will not, I am informed, review the salaries paid in this direction. In view of the fact that an enormous number of people will be receiving Government patronage, I should like to see a counterpart to the Public Accounts Committee set up to investigate those salaries and appointments. I know the drawback to appointing more committees, but the fact remains that there should be the most careful check of these vast numbers of people.
  In conclusion, I would urge the Minister to proceed slowly with these organisations. They are capable of great work, but much will depend how they are brought into being, and how they are initiated in the first year or two. In the early days they will be made or broken, and much, therefore, will depend on the organisations first set up. One of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters has wished him happy landings, but I would warn him not to take his fences too fast.
  7.14 p.m.
  Dr. Barnet Stross: There is so much in this Bill which is agreeable and stimulating that it is impossible for me not to welcome it wholeheartedly. I am referring in particular to the functions of development councils defined in the First Schedule. It gives us confidence and courage that the future of the industrial areas will be very much better than the past. It is appropriate that I should speak so soon after my hon.
  108
  Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies), because I come from a neighbouring division and am associated with an industry which depends on quality and design more than anything else. I am deeply interested in some of the provisions in page 11. I am particularly interested in paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, which deals with the promotion of improvements in design, and also includes the establishment and operation of design centres. The promotion of design centres is very near to the hearts of those associated with plastics and plastic art of any kind. We are under no illusion in my area that, although we lead the world in quality and, to some extent, in design, there was a time in the eighteenth century when they were better. We look forward to the stimulation which should come from this type of encouragement, so that we can give to the world the pottery and design it wants. We turn out nothing which is bad today, because it is all plain white and cheap, and if it is chipped after it is first used, there can be no fault attributed to us. When the new products are seen, I think the public will be content and satisfied with them.
  I am a little disturbed when we, come to paragraph 3, because I do not know what is involved. It speaks of promoting research into matters affecting industrial psychology. I am wondering whether the President of the Board of Trade views this in a narrow sense, or whether he is prepared to look at it broadly in conjunction with paragraphs 9 and 10, which are associated with the adoption of measures for securing safer and better conditions of work. Paragraph 10 speaks of researeh in the prevention of industrial diseases. All these matters are intimately linked up with paragraph 3, if it is to be fully and properly understood. A narrow understanding of industrial psychology would suggest the study of wages and how best to co-ordinate muscular movements to secure the very last ounce out of the workers. I should be surprised if that is all that is involved. If we take a wider understanding, it means the study of the relationship between the workers and the employers, the psychological effect of the environment of workers, proneness to accidents and friction between management and workers, and between different classes of workers. I should expect some use to be made of the psychological knowledge obtained during the war. What

  109
  excellent work was done at Tavistock Clinic. Does the President of the Board of Trade propose to introduce into industry the same type of psychology which was used for officer selection in the Army, to fit people into jobs they can do and prevent an enormous amount of wastage of production?
  It would be possible to give many instances of how an understanding of a man's situation and temperament can turn him into an excellent and skilled worker. One instance comes to my mind, from my own area in the potteries, of a miner who had fractured his spine. Owing to the collapse of one of the vertebrae, he was totally incapacitated. He sat at home in a chair, unable to work and scarcely able to walk. As nothing was being done for him other than payment of compensation, his wife suggested that he might occupy his mind by learning to knit. He learned to knit appreciably well, but became bored. His wife thereupon suggested—and this is an example of true industrial psychology—that he should learn to ice a cake. He laughed at her at first, but he was eventually persuaded to try. To his astonishment, and hers, it was a remarkably artistic effort. It was shown to the neighbours, whereupon steadily, but regularly, orders began to come in to this remarkable man. A little while later he went to his solicitors and said, "I want you to settle my claim." They said, "You must not accept less than £1,400 or £1,500," but he said, "I have a contract for the next five years at £400 a year with the biggest firm in the country, to Mach young women how to ice cakes, because I won a national competition against all corners." That is the sort of thing we want to see if industrial psychology is to be used properly. We know that it hinges on rehabilitation, but rehabilitation is not in a watertight compartment.
  Lastly, industrial disease in some areas has been appalling. In North Staffordshire we have been able to conquer lead poisoning as a scourge until it no longer threatens us. Nineteen years ago many industrialists and their advisers told people like myself that there was no such thing as silicosis. We are now showing definite ways in which we shall free ourselves from that tomb. I beg the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers, whether they be concerned with mining, pottery, or agriculture, not to take heed of those who say, "Go slowly. There is
  110
  much good in what you are doing today, but do not hurry." We cannot afford to wait when we are concerned with the health and life of the people, and I hope we shall be told that the Government will hasten as quickly as possible.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: On the Second Reading of this Bill I thought it right to express my grave doubt of its value. Not only was I in a minority in the Lobby, but I was duly punished by being sent to serve on Standing Committee C, which had to go into the details of this Measure. Careful listening to the Debate today has not convinced me that the Bill is a good one or that it will confer any real benefits on industry. I agree in part with those who have said that a good deal depends on the spirit in which the Bill is worked. That is true of all legislation, but we have to remember that Ministers and Parliaments are very ephemeral, and that in all these matters it is necessary to see what is said by the Act.
  I can well understand that industrialists regard this Bill with some misgiving. What does it provide? That the Minister may set up development councils, which are to be corporations with a common seal and are to have power to hold land. They are to have a number of very large and rather indefinite powers. They are to have power to make levies on industry of a specified amount and to engage and dismiss employees whose remuneration they fix. We are told that there are to be checks on these powers. They have extensive powers to demand from manufacturers the most intimate details of their business. They have power to demand details of costing organisation, expenses, output, and so forth. Manufacturers are liable to furnish this information under the penalty of a fine up to £100 and two years' imprisonment. When that information is given it has to be kept confidential, we are told. But confidentiality does not extend to the information being imparted to the Minister, and manufacturers know that the Minister will, in the vulgar phrase, "have them in his grip," by having the fullest and most intimate knowledge of all their affairs.
  It is not a very encouraging prospect that one finds references to integration. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) talked about the integration of

  111
  industry. It may be due to my rather morbid turn of mind, but that phrase makes me think of nothing so much as a man who, catching his coat in moving machinery, was integrated into the machine. I should be the last man to accuse the President of the Board of Trade of insincerity, but he told us with the utmost candour that his approach was toward the integration of industry, the coordination of industry with a national plan. He referred to the planning and control necessary for the national economy. He said that there must be integrated schemes as a contribution to the efficiency of private enterprise. That was the very honest and straightforward approach of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to all these problems. But he is only one of a large family. There are many people who think that what is required to restore and improve British industry is more planning, more control, more interference from outside and a tidying up from without. That is a big assumption. Not only is there no vestige of proof of it, but the record of the would-be planners is not such as to inspire any remarkable degree of confidence in their ability to plan other people or things successfully. One thing which is certain, however, is that the passage of this Bill will at once impose a further overhead charge on certain industries. It will create "jobs for the boys" in large numbers,. indeed, in indefinite numbers, because the employees of the corporations are to be within their control, and not under the control of this House at all.
  What are the safeguards against Ministerial irresponsibility—consultations? I think that by now we know pretty well that they have very little value against a determined Minister. We have been told in effect that the right hon. Gentleman was able to "talk the bird off its perch" in 'Lancashire. I do not doubt it. One of the leading advocates of the day would, I am sure, be able to do so. I doubt whether in its true sense that could he called consultation. Then we have the safeguard put up for us by the Minister dealing with the matter this afternoon that the matter is to pass before both branches of the legislature. The way to stop things from going through the House of Commons if you do not like them is to pray against them. In this Parliament there have been so far 40
  112
  Prayers and not one of them has been successful. In other words, if a Minister decides on a scheme that scheme will be run through this House. Then, of course, there is another place, and it has been delicately hinted that it may not be entirely in accordance with the spirit of this House. It was suggested ingenuously from the Front Bench that what the Minister of Fuel and Power would call a great constitutional crisis is likely to be promoted by something of that kind. If it is supposed that certain people somewhere else are going to poke their fingers into the machinery in that way, I doubt it. These alleged securities are not securities. If we pass this Bill we are giving unlimited power to the Executive in the last resort to control industry. I share the view of all who have spoken that the powers when given, will, I have no doubt, be wisely exercised, but if I am asked whether on balance I consider that the good to be done to industry by this Measure will outweigh the harm caused by further regimentation and control, I am not convinced of the merits of the Bill.
  7.34 p.m
  Mr. Nigel Birch: I was not a member of the family party in Committee upstairs, but I hope that I will be excused for saying a few words. I want to talk about certain dangers which I can see the Government running into in connection with this Bill. What the Bill does is to set up permanent working parties. We may, therefore, assume that when these working parties are set up, they will share some of the defects of the working parties whose reports we have all read. The main defect of the working parties was their parochialism—the one-eyed view which they took of matters, and the danger that if that one-eyed view is taken in industry, it may lead to a distortion of the national plan—assuming that there is a national plan. To give a rather ridiculous instance from a working party's report to show what I mean—and I give this instance because I think it is a good one and shows the extraordinary state in which people's minds can get when thinking of only one thing—in the hosiery report, these words appear:
  "Few things occupy a more prominent place in our national life at the present time than stockings."
  That is a rather astonishing statement. It may be so. I do not think that there are

  113
  any female Members in the House at the moment, and the foreground of their minds may be filled with these things, but I think that on this side of the House the foreground of our minds is not occupied with stockings. That is ridiculous in itself, but it leads to certain dangers. For instance, every working party report has recommended that there should be unlimited capital re-equipment of the industry of which they were talking, and, with the exception of cotton, none of those industries was a basic industry, It is obviously impossible that that can all be done at the same time, but it is recommended that they should all try at the same time. We are near a balance of a payment's crisis. We have an enormous shortage of consumer goods, and to advocate now a wholesale policy of re-equipment would cause an enormous expansion in our capital goods industries and a further distortion of our national economy. That is contrary to Keynsian ideas and against common business prudence. That is the type of thing that may happen if we get these development councils.
  Everyone who has spoken has attributed the fact that a great many people in industry are in favour of these development councils exclusively to the charms of the President of the Board of Trade. He has been represented as a sort of super-principal boy, which throws rather a new light on him. There may be one other reason for people being in favour of development councils apart from the charms of the President of the Board of Trade. It may sound rather cynical to mention it, but it is very real. Where there is a development council there is a foot in the relevant Ministry. If any hon. Member asks an industrialist how he spent last week, he will find that nine times out of ten his time has been taken up in wrestling with some particular Ministry, trying to get some permit, licence or permission. If industry has a development council, it will probably get more favour than if it had not a development council. The influence of industries which have development councils may lead to a distortion of the national plan. Many of these industries which will get development councils are not basic industries, and if they are to have preferential influence because of these councils there will be more muddle than there is at present, and that is saying something.
  114
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) gave a qualified blessing to the Bill, but I hope that these development councils will not be too freely set up because I think that in many cases they will tend to retard rather than to stimulate our recovery. Sir Norman Kipping at the F.B.I. Conference on exports said:
  "There is, I think, too hasty a tendency on the part of both Government and industry to stimulate the creation of new organisations each time some matter arises a little outside the existing functions when the need might be met more economically and efficiently, and with far less friction, by adapting some existing body."
  I think that there is a great deal of truth in that. The President of the Board of Trade and other hon. Members have mentioned a great many organisations now existing which are already on the job—the National Production Advisory Council, the Council of Industrial Design, the Board of Trade Production Efficiency Branch, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the whole machinery of joint consultation, which is better in some industries than in others; and, above all, such joint industrial councils as were set up with the terms of reference suggested by the Whitley Committee—terms of reference very similar to those of the development councils. I think that in creating this new machinery there may be a danger of overlapping in industry. The danger is that we will lose sight of the essentials.
  I wish to give one further quotation. Sir John Woods of the Board of Trade said something at the same conference, at which Sir Norman Kipping spoke, which I think is extraordinarily true. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will read it again. It was published in the Press. This is what he said:
  "The primary business of industry is to design, manufacture and sell, and in so doing to give the best service it can to its customers while at the same time making a profit."
  That is simply put, and it is fundamental. The danger in the Bill is that we will draw men away from that task to attend yet another committee which may very well be otiose and do very little good. The right place for a leader, whether of labour or of industry, is at sight of the work itself or in the market place, and not sitting upon endless committees. If the answer is that the best men will not sit upon the development councils, that

  115
  makes the position worse. We shall merely be endowing the Socialist peerage.
  I hope that, as we are now accepting the Bill, the Government will guard against the dangers to which I have referred, the danger of setting up unnecessary machinery which will confuse and retard our recovery; the danger of the Government weakening their own central planning by allowing privileged councils to get more than the share they should have according to that national plan; and, finally, the danger of taking good men away from the work that they ought to be doing.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Shackleton: This Debate has provided quite an agreeable contrast to the Debate on Second Reading. Only the last two hon. Members who spoke, and particularly the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts), have struck a hostile note. A particular contrast is that between the speech made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) today and the speech he made upon the Second Reading, in which he damned the Bill in no uncertain terms. His speech today gave it a rather qualified blessing.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member will no doubt acknowledge that the Government have learned a good deal during the progress of the Bill.
  Mr. Shackleton: I was rather expecting some such remark. The Government have made no concession of principle on the Bill. They have accepted a number of minor Amendments, but the principle is exactly what it was when the Bill was first introduced. The speech of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) raised points which involve the principle of the Bill, but this is not the time to re-argue the whole case for the Bill. The purpose of the Bill and the terms in which it is drawn are such that I cannot see that there is a danger of industries getting themselves into an unduly privileged position in relation to the national plan for investment. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that if there were such a danger as, for example, the hosiery industry saying that more stockings were in the best interests of the country, it would be undesirable, but obviously each industry will make the best case it can. Where there is need for
  116
  a properly constituted body, it should be constituted along clear and definite lines, with limited functions. This is what the Bill does. I do not see that there is any particular danger of the silver tongue of the President of the Board of Trade talking business men into something against their best interests. I can assure the hon. Member for Handsworth—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—that Lancashire is a much tougher nut to crack than he may think. If the President of the Board of Trade has succeeded in selling this scheme to Lancashire—it took a bit of selling to both sides of the industry—it is because of its intrinsic merits, and the advantage to the cotton industry of its proposals. The Bill is the basis for carrying out those proposals, which commended themselves to the industry of Lancashire.
  There is a danger when it comes to finding men for the councils. We should avoid taking too many efficient business men out of the private sector of industry and putting them on to development councils. That point should be borne in mind. Obviously, there is a limit to the number of able leaders.
  I should like to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Flint when he quoted the head of the F.B.I. as saying that existing organisations could have taken over these duties. Existing organisations are the trade associations, and it has been clearly shown during the discussions on the Bill that those associations are not entirely suitable for the purpose. It is necessary that the labour side should be fully represented, if we are to get the maximum utilisation of our resources particularly in the utilisation and development of labour. Trade associations are obviously not suitable for that purpose, quite apart from the fact that they are not always fully representative of the industries to which they are related.
  I am glad that the Paymaster-General is to reply, because I would put to him two points, one of which concerned him in his previous capacity at the Department of Overseas Trade. I hope he will be able to answer them. The first point relates to export research and other forms of export promotion. I hope that full use will be made of existing organisations and that the danger of duplication will be avoided. There is a perfectly good national organisation available, namely B.E.T.R.O., and if it is not

  117
  the right one for the promotion of export research then whatever organisation there is should be used. There obviously must be a limit to the extent to which individual industries can set up their own export promotion research departments. The second point is that which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). We would like to know how the Board of Trade propose to administer, to exercise supervision and to give advice to a large s number of development councils. That will be a very serious administrative problem. I know it has not yet arisen because the development councils are not there. But it will not be possible for every development council to work on the basis of the Cotton Board by personal letters going between the President of the Board of Trade and Sir Raymond Streat. That is an admirable way of dealing with a special problem but there will be many industries concerned. It will be very interesting for the House to know how the Board of Trade intend to supervise, to ensure there is no overlappng and no waste of resources.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I think most Members will agree that great progress has been made for a long time past in co-operation in three particular respects. These are co-operation among industries, between industry and the workers, and between industries and the State. Any scheme, to be successful, must contain those three facets of co-operation. The test of the Bill, when it becomes law, will be whether it really promotes all that co-operation or merely acts as a drag upon it. There is one point about the Bill which I felt, thoughout the Committee Stage, to be obnoxious because of the responsibility of abuse. It is that these schemes do not have in them sufficient of the voluntary element. I appreciate that in the setting-up of development councils, the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister concerned, will consult the proper parties.
  I ask the Minister whether he has entirely closed his mind to the possibility of persons appointed by him being, in fact, elected by the interests concerned. I suggest that that is particularly important, so far as the workers' side is concerned. There are obviously difficulties to be overcome on the side of industry itself,
  118
  but a system of Voting might easily be worked out. It would, I think, have to be a mixed system based on the interests and importance of the concern, and weighted possibly in accordance with regions and such like considerations. It obviously could not be a numerical system, because the smaller factories would completely outweigh the bigger ones, in numbers, while if it were based entirely on interests, the big factories would dominate the development councils. I ask the Paymaster-General to give some consideration to the important principle of the development councils being elected.
  There was another factor on the Bill which I, personally, disliked. That is the penal Clause and the provisions for audits by the development councils. We have in this country a body of men who have gained a very great reputation for integrity, namely, chartered accountants. I should have thought that a chartered accountant's certificate would have been adequate in this regard. I can see that in the early stages, the problem will be to keep the co-operation of all units in any industry, just as in the later stages it is going to be the maintenance of the influence of these development councils without tightening up their control, as occurred to the case of the Merchant Guilds in the Middle Ages. If a regime is not imposed compulsorily on industry in the early stages, then I think this Bill will have a great future.
  There are one or two other questions which I should like to ask. One follows very closely on what has been said by the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton). It relates to the bodies or persons with whom the appropriate Minister is to consult, before he grants the renewal of the charter to a council, which is to be done after three years in the first instance and after every five years in subsequent reviews. With whom does the Minister propose to consult? Has he in mind the setting up of a body of independent experts, be they lawyers, economists, engineers or accountants, who will be recruited after a certain experience in industry and who will not have a purely Civil Service background? Will he have a panel of these to consult; and will they, in turn, be capable of being appointed to the development councils as independent members? Is that how he intends to work the scheme?

  119
  Or has he in mind a panel of all chairmen of development councils which have already been set up to give advice to him; and how is the public interest to be looked after when it comes to renewing the charters after the first period of three years, and for a subsequent period of five years.
  Finally, as I have said, this Bill is the culmination of a period of progress and co-operation, and it seems to me that its future will depend on the extent to which industry is allowed to govern itself, and central control is avoided. It is obvious, of course, that what we have to obtain is compliance with the over-all State plan, while at the same time maintaining initiative in industry. For that purpose automony of industry is essential in my view for the maximum amount of initiative to be maintained within industry itself. This generation has a great urge to get things done, and to see things work. It is prepared to experiment on how things should be done. There are, however, pitfalls to be avoided, and I think that the principal pitfall will prove to be too much interference in the affairs of a particular industry. If we can achieve co-operation in industries without controlling them politically root and branch, I think this Bill will work, and will be of great benefit to the nation.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Sparks: I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words in support of the Third Reading of this Bill. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs, and I think it is true to say that both sides found the passage of this Bill through Committee of very considerable interest. I think the House will agree that this Bill is of outstanding importance, because it endeavours to set a guiding principle in industry, which we have never yet so far attempted to establish in legislation. As one who has considerable experience of trade union work, I realise now significant and how important it is that we should have provisions which arrange for the worker, whose labour makes production and output possible, to be found a place in industry with the employers and the Government where he can accept some measure of control and responsibility for his own industry.
  Too often in my experience have employers taken the view that the worker is
  120
  just a commodity item, which is bought for a wage. He is expected to do what he is told and apart from that he is not expected to have a voice in the welfare, interest and future of his industry. That day is past and gone. I believe we are living in an entirely different world from that in which we have been living in during the last century. I am very glad that hon. Members opposite recognise the changing conditions of our time, and realise that the worker has the same rights as the employer in regard to industrial development. If this Bill is adopted and operated in the right spirit, the spirit of which we have heard so much from the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), I believe it will be of great and lasting interest to the welfare of our country and people.
  In my own constituency, where we have over 500 factories and a large industrial working population, I recently sent to some of my friends in a well known factory the report of discussions in Standing Committee on this Bill. As a result of their reading that report the workers' side of the joint production committee approached the management and asked if it was possible to have a conference of the whole works, in order to discuss the policy of the factory and give some indication to the workers of what the future policy was. More than 300 workers in that factory stayed for an hour and a half during their own time to listen to the managing director explain the policy of the factory and what its future development was hoped to be. There were also spokesmen from the workers as well, and afterwards many questions were asked and answered. That is an indication of the spirit which exists in most of our factories and enterprises today. If the correct and proper approach is made, the workers will respond, not only by taking an interest in the main essentials and needs of the industry, but by showing that spirit about which we have heard so much in regard to co-operation between the workers the managements and the Government.
  The hon. Member for Stockport asked that we should endeavour to bring about he closest co-operation between the Government and the masters and workers. I feel that he made a slip of the tongue because the day of masters and servants has passed, and I think that, psychologically, the relationship of master dictating

  121
  to servant is one that we might usefully relegate to the Victorian age. We must realise that, in facing the problems in front of us, it is not the master-and-servant relationship that is needed in industry, but rather a partnership between management and workers in a joint enterprise. If the workers are approached in that spirit, they will respond, to the benefit both of industry and the nation. I would like, in passing, to make a comment upon paragraph 14 of the First Schedule, which in my view describes one of the most important functions which the development councils are to undertake. It provides for
  "Promoting arrangements for co-operative organisations for supplying materials and equipment, for co-ordinating production, and for marketing and distributing products."
  If that function is carried out by the development councils, it will be of great assistance to the smaller industries and enterprises. It will be of inestimable value in placing at their disposal a cooperative organisation for supplying materials and equipment. With regard to co-ordinating production, and marketing and distributing products, that is a prime function of the development councils. On this side of the House we understand too well the state of industry in the period between the two wars. Industry went along its own blind course, experiencing under-production, overproduction and unemployment as well, and there was a lack of any national co-ordinating plan. As a consequence of anarchy in industrial production, we found ourselves in a morass of booms and slumps from which it was very difficult to lift ourselves. I believe this Bill will give valuable guidance to industrial undertakings; greater knowledge and more facts to the individual industrial enterprises. I believe it will go a good way towards avoiding slumps and depressions in the years ahead and will enable industry to plan more securely and effectively its enterprise in the years to come. I would like briefly to comment on paragraph 8 of the First Schedule, which provides for
  "promoting the training of persons engaged or proposing engagement in the industry, and their education in technical or artistic subjects relevant thereto."
  There is in my constituency a famous technical college which serves a great part of the North-West London industrial concentration. At the present time that
  122
  college has not sufficient accommodation for all the young men and women who wish to equip themselves with scientific and technical knowledge in the service of industry. We are living in a time when the tempo of scientific knowledge and discovery is increasing by leaps and bounds. Men were content for 4,000 years to accept wind as the motive power of sea transport. It was barely more than 100 years ago that that motive power changed to steam.
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is still the motive power of the Government.
  Mr. Sparks: We are living at a time when the momentum of scientific and technological development is increasing very rapidly, and if we are not careful we shall find that industry will be left very far behind. The war has brought in its train very considerable scientific discoveries; to mention only one, there is the emergency of atomic energy, with all its possibilities when harnessed to industry and production.
  Therefore, it is most important, in facing the problems of the future, that we should see to it that there is the highest standard of scientific and technological knowledge among the men and women who are entering industry. Unless we are prepared to march in step with new discoveries, inevitably we must lapse into stagnation, and stagnation ultimately means death. I hope the development councils will pay special regard to the recruitment and training of persons engaged in industry. I hope they will not limit this training and knowledge to the mere humdrum, everyday affairs of an enterprise. There are men and women from humble walks of life who possess the ability, given the opportunity, to undertake the highest responsibilities in industry and management. Every effort should be made by the development councils to provide a means of training and education to the ordinary workman and workwoman in industry who possesses the ability to develop that ability and to take managerial and directive responsibility in industry. I hope the development councils will provide that opportunity.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in moving the Third Reading, said that he regarded this Bill as being very largely of an experimental nature, and he said that

  123
  it had arisen very largely from the reports of working parties and was very closely linked to the industries in which working parties had already been established. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will go wider afield than that. I hope he will endeavour to spread the principle of this Bill not only to industries where working parties are established, but to other industries as well where there is a general acceptance of this principle. What we must do, in the struggle for production ahead of us, is to co-ordinate our industrial undertakings, particularly the smaller units, in a nationally constructive line of policy so that they can act and work together with the full knowledge and information which they need not only to develop maximum production, but also to market those products when once they have been produced. I welcome the Third Reading of this Bill and I feel sure that if it is accepted in industry—as I believe it will be—it will bring a better understanding, promote that spirit of co-operation which is so vital, and equip industry the better to face the problems of the future and to give the nation the maximum of benefit from their energy and enterprise.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Like the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) I have followed the progress of this Bill through its various stages. We now come to what is the final stage so far as we are concerned. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Acton was guilty of an error in his approach to this Bill—an error which I hope will not actuate Members of the Government when they come to put it into operation. Neither this Bill nor any development council is a substitute for individual effort and enterprise. Nothing that can be established in the form of an industrial council will take the place of the drive and energy of men in industry. If hon. Members opposite think that it is possible to devise some piece of legislation which will take the place of the spirit of adventure and enterprise which has established the industrial greatness of this country, they are sadly mistaken. The hon. Member for Acton very rightly pointed out that we are experiencing in this century a growing social consciousness. There is a desire, on the part of all sections of the community, that the interests of the ordinary man
  124
  should be regarded as paramount, and that industry should serve the interests of the mass of the people. We on this side of the House are just as sympathetic towards that view as those who sit opposite.
  It may be that there is something in this idea of development councils which will help to bring about that state of affairs. We have been searching for the past 30 years for some method of coordination between the State and industry. We have amassed a host of organisations, and one of our criticisms of this Bill is that it adds one more organisation to the already difficult and complex pattern of links between the Government and industry. Nevertheless, as I have suggested, there may be something in this Bill which will serve as a link between the State and industry, and help to ensure that industry serves a social purpose. At any rate, this is a better idea than the stale, barren and unprofitable idea of nationalisation, and we accept it in that spirit.
  The Government have been wise in excluding Government representatives from the development councils. I know that there has been considerable pressure brought to bear by their own supporters to suggest that the councils should include representatives of the various Ministries concerned, and I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on resisting it, because I am certain that the conception of a council which can be effective would be destroyed if the councils themselves actually included Government representatives. These councils may be very successful, or they may be complete and utter failures. They may be discarded pieces of machinery in three or four years' time. Whether or not they are successful depends upon a variety of things. If they are to be successful, we certainly have to capture in some way, the spirit of the guilds to which an hon. Member on this side referred a short time ago.
  We still object very strongly to the compulsory nature of the powers which the President of the Board of Trade has thought fit to take to himself under this Bill. We still believe that nothing can be done through compulsion so far as development councils are concerned. We believe that the overwhelming principle must be a voluntary one, and it would have been worth while had the President of the Board of Trade sacrificed some of

  125
  his powers in order to convince industry generally that there was in fact a desire to work on a purely voluntary basis. There has been some talk by hon. Members opposite about this being the second layer of nationalisation. I hope that the Paymaster-General, who is to reply, will make it clear that that is in no way the conception of His Majesty's Government. I hope he will make it clear that this Measure is an attempt to improve—if it can be improved—the private sector of industry. Whether, after Margate, the Paymaster-General or the President of the Board of Trade will be capable of damming the tide I do not know. It seems to hon. Members on this side that they have established a Frankenstein monster which has developed an insatiable appetite, and that they may not be able to resist demands for further encroachment on what we must regard as the private sector of industry. At any rate, if we are to have definite sectors of industry, one operated by the Government and another by private organisation, it is essential that there should be a clear understanding of the lines of demarcation, because unless industry has confidence in its own position and security it cannot go ahead.
  During the Second Reading Debate we said that we did not like the idea of an enablement. We thought that a separate Bill to deal with each industry would have been more desirable. We still hold that view, and it has been strengthened by the innumerable occasions upon which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has had to give vague assurances. Indeed, in moving the Third Reading today, the President of the Board of Trade himself said that legislation which would be suitable and desirable and necessary in one industry might not be suitable or desirable in another. We are certainly not satisfied with the old sedative of an affirmative Resolution because we know very well that we are unable to amend it in any shape or form.
  I want to know from the Paymaster-General what exactly is the position of the development councils in the economic plan—always assuming that we have an economic plan. We are told that we have, but what it is no one really knows. However, assuming that we have one, we want to know what is the relationship between the development councils and the
  126
  Government, the various national bodies, the Council of Industrial Design and the Council of Industrial Psychology, More important still, what is to be the relationship between these development councils and the trade unions and trade associations? In the unfortunately close relationship which exists between industry and the State at the moment, many communications go from the Government to the trade associations. What is to be the channel of communication under the new regime when these development councils are set up? Are there to he duplicate sets of instructions and advices sent to the trade associations, the trade unions and the councils? We should like to know exactly how the development councils fit in with the general economic plan, and to what extent they will impinge on the territory of the trade associations.
  I turn now to one or two points of detail. The first is, will the Paymaster General tell us why the Admiralty and the Ministry of Food are designated as appropriate authorities? There may be some justification for the other six mentioned in the Bill, but it is difficult to imagine why it is necessary to bring in the Ministry of Food and the Admiralty. Secondly, there is that iniquitous Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which says that a development council order may provide for any incidental or supplementary matter. The danger of that was emphasised in this House this evening, when the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) suggested to the President of the Board of Trade that he should insert into this Bill a provision which the President of the Board of Trade very rightly said belonged to the Ministry of Labour. That indicates the danger of having such a wide Clause in this Bill. Indeed, it seems hardly worth while having the Bill at all with such a Clause in it.
  Much has been said about independent members, and there is obviously a difference of opinion on that subject between the two sides of the House. Independent members obtained some prestige in the eyes of some people as a result of the working parties, but there is a very material difference between the functions and purpose of an independent member of a development council and those of a member of a working party. The working party was a brief survey, and it is

  127
  true that independent members of such parties proved valuable, but an independent member who is permanently attached to a development council ceases after a short time, to be an independent member; he becomes steeped in the industry and has a part in its advantages and disadvantages. We on this side of the House say very firmly that the selection of these independent members will have to be made most carefully. There is no room, in the ruthless battle which we will have to fight for production, for passengers. It does not matter whether they are passengers from the City of London in top hats, as my right hon. Friend said in the Committee, or whether they are gentlemen who affect the disordered appearance of Left-wing intellectuals. Neither class is desirable at the present time. Moreover, the trade union element would object to that kind of independent member, as the President of the Board of Trade ought to know, because they have objected to him several times and have regarded him as a kind of independent member. I hope that in appointing these independent members due consideration will be give to the need for getting sound men who can serve a useful purpose.
  There are one or two items in the Schedule to which I wish to refer. The first Schedule is like Noah's Ark in that it contains something of everything. But it also deals with one or two important points, and of those the one with which I wish to deal is research. This country is very rapidly becoming research conscious, a thing of which I think most hon. Members on both sides of the House will approve. There is however a very real danger that we shall rest upon the idea of centralised research, that we shall neglect individual research and come to depend upon a central organisation. In research, as in every other field of human activity, individual effort is the most important thing. If we had 30 or 40 separate research organisations in an industry, each pursuing its ends, we should be likely to get more results than if we had one large central organisation. The danger which my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) pointed out, that we are going to take from industries which are maintaining large research organisations such sums of money that they have to cut down their own organisations, is a very real danger. The
  128
  President of the Board of Trade was reassuring up to a point, but I hope that the Paymaster-General will be able to say that in assessing the levy upon firms which are already conducting large-scale research account will be taken of what they are spending.
  There is one point in connection with the Schedule which I want to stress, and that is that the councils will be concerned with the training of personnel for industry. I hope they will pay particular attention to the training of foremen and charge hands. One of the weaknesses at present is that foremen and charge hands are not sufficiently trained; often they are men who are capable of doing their job very well, but they have none of the qualities of leadership and no conception of organisation. A great deal can be done in improving the quality of these N.C.Os. of industry, and that is a task which may very well be put into the hands of the councils.
  By this Measure I believe we may well do something to improve our industry. It is true that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have now said that they do not propose to do anything to rock the industrial boat, a process in which they have been actively engaged for a large number of years; they now are, or pretend to be, reformed or semi-reformed characters, but industry is still suspicious of the overnight change, almost as suspicious as their own supporters. It is essential, in my view, that they should apply this Bill in a manner which leaves no doubt as to. their intentions. If this Bill is implemented in a way that shows a clear desire to take advantage of and improve private industrial organisations, it may well be of some service, but if it takes the form of a threat, if there is a background of Margate mutterings, it may well do much harm to our industrial organisation.
  As in the past the real industrial progress of this country is dependent upon the drive and energy of individual industrialists, and if this Bill does anything to kill that it will do something to kill British industry. If it is implemented in an enlightened way, if the division between the private and public sectors of industry is clearly made, if the Government show their intention to co-operate, I am sure it will do something to create improvements. There is among industrialists a growing feeling of statesman-

  129
  ship; I am sorry that among the Government there is not a corresponding spirit of business experience. If there were, then we could look for very great results from the future. I hope that in the implementation of this Bill wisdom will prevail, because it can be either a great success or a complete failure, and that will depend not on industry but on the actions of His Majesty's Government.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): The Bill has had a general welcome from both sides of the House with, I think, one solitary exception. As it has already been explained at some length by my right hon. and learned Friend when he moved the Third Reading, I feel sure the House would not wish me to take up a great deal of time. Nevertheless, a great many points have been raised tonight on which I feel I ought to comment, though really I ought not to be at this box at all. We all regret, and I regret as keenly as anybody, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not here to wind up the Debate on this Bill on which, as has already been said, he has done a great deal of valuable work in Committee. I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery from the indisposition from which he is suffering.
  I cannot, of course, answer all the interesting points and all the numerous questions which have been put from both sides of the House. I give what is a usual undertaking on these occasions and I give it very sincerely, that those questions which I do not answer and those suggestions to which I am not able to refer in this short speech, will be carefully studied by my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department and by the other Ministers who are responsible for this Bill. I cannot be tempted by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) into giving a list of the industries which will never be nationalised. He asked me to draw a line between the public sector and the private sector of industry. If I attempted to do so, that is what I should be drawn into. The intentions of the Government in promoting the Bill were clearly explained by my right hon. and learned Friend when he moved the Third Reading, and I do not wish to repeat, or attempt to amplify anything he said. I have no need to refer again to the reiterated objection of
  130
  the hon. Member for Bucklow to compulsion. I have said something already on that point and I need hardly repeat that we have no desire to impose development councils upon completely unwilling industries. Nor can I usefully add anything to what I have tried to say about the qualifications of independent members. We want them to be people who are acceptable to the industry and qualified to give sage advice.
  He asked why the Ministry of Food and the Admiralty were included in the list of Departments concerned with the development councils. The answer is that they are both production Departments for certain industries. The Admiralty is responsible for the shipbuilding industry, and the chain cable industry, and the Ministry of Food for all food manufacturing and processing. Development councils might be set up for some of these industries.
  I must say another word about an objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) still apparently feels somewhat keenly—that there is a danger in the functions described in paragraphs 2, 9 and 11 of the First Schedule. The danger, he suggests, is that the development councils may interfere in matters concerning labour relations which are normally dealt with by other bodies. I should like to say again, as my right hon. Friend has already said, that we have every intention of trying to secure that the appropriate machinery is used in each case. We felt that the insertion of an express exclusion of such functions, as suggested in an Amendment on the Order Paper, might throw doubt on the way in which the development councils should exercise certain of their functions. It might hamper them in seeking to promote safer and better working conditions because they relate to conditions of labour and may affect remuneration.
  The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) said, no doubt speaking with good authority from his experience of the pottery industry, that the trade unions would welcome the help of the development councils in matters relating to conditions with which they did not happen to deal. Some of the existing voluntary bodies deal with a very wide range of activities. Others deal with a smaller range. Where they deal with a smaller range and the development

  131
  council can help by undertaking some study or inquiry and making recommendations and representations, surely it should be allowed to do so? Moreover, as my right hon. Friend has already said, where the joint industrial councils or similar bodies exist, they will be invited to nominate One member from each side, to serve on development councils for the express purpose of securing—I almost hesitate to use the word "liaison"— liaison and preventing overlapping.
  The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), in an interesting account of his own experience in the cotton industry, referred to the suspicion and distrust which can exist in industry between employer and the employed, and pointed out that this suspicion and distrust frequently arose from lack of information, and might be dissipated by the giving of proper information. I entirely agree, and I was surprised that he seemed to be suspicious of the value of independent members on these bodies. Surely independent members looking with a detached eye on the industry, can help in this way to disseminate the full facts regarding each side to the other side, and thus improve the feeling of trust and confidence which is essential if these councils are to work? May I express the hope that when a development council is established, the members will not think of themselves always in terms of two sides. This division into two sides, which frequently takes place in discussions between employers and employed, may be very appropriate when wages or profits and other matters are concerned. But when the mutual improvement of the industry, the increase of its output and efficiency, are under discussion, I hope that, to some degree, that feeling of belonging to two separate sides will disappear and members will contribute of their knowledge and experience, though of course they derive their experience from different types of occupation in the industry.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Niall Macpherson) asked whether the members would be elected. I should have thought not. I should have thought it unwise to go in for election in that way, because that might do the very thing which would contribute to the feeling of "sides" in the industry. The selection of people from a panel of nominees put forward by each side, would be the best
  132
  way to create that co-operative feeling, and that feeling of unity for the 'special purpose of the development council.
  As I said just now there was a solitary voice of protest against the Bill. It came from the hon. Member for Hands-worth (Mr. H. Roberts) who is not now in his place: I will only say that it seemed to me to be a voice from the past. He expressed fear of the disclosure of information and fear of persons whom he described as planners. Surely the information that will be asked for under the provisions of this Bill, is information to be given to the industry as a whole? The industry itself, through its workers and employers, will be the planner in this case. The answer to the hon. Member for Handsworth had really been given before he spoke, by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), whose wise and valuable speech I greatly welcomed. He laid emphasis on the desirability of the spirit of friendly co-operation in these industries and alluded to the necessity for freely given information in order to create that impression. He specifically alluded to the desirability of explaining all the time, and I quite agree with him that people need to have things explained to them. British people do not like to take orders from somebody up above, without an explanation of why the orders are necessary. We must explain to the men in the workshops the need for particular industrial schemes, for particular allocations of materials and for the production of new equipment for export as against home trade.
  All that kind of thing needs to be done even more fully than we have been able to do it up to date. We are applying our minds very carefully indeed to seeking ways and means of explaining more and more, and we hope that the development council will be a piece of machinery for explaining, as the hon. Member for Burslem said. The experience gained in the working parties proved the success of this method of collaboration, this tripartite system of organisation in industry. I am sorry to notice that the face of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot—who is leading a praiseworthy campaign for the improvement of our language on these occasions—pales at the rather cumbersome word "tripartite." But a triangle suggests domestic discord, so I feel we must stick to the word "tripartite" on this occasion.

  133
  The hon. Member for Stockport said we must be cautious in consultation. In these matters, he said, if one is wise, one feels one's way. I agree. At the same time one is all too conscious of the fact as the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) said, that time is short. There must be some speeding up, some slight danger incurred, perhaps, in pursuing this method of organisation because it is so necessary at present, and because the job which we want it to do is so urgent and necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) asked—and the hon. Member for Bucklow repeated the question later on—how will the development councils help; economic planning? How will they fit into the machinery for devising a national plan and carrying out that national plan, explaining that national plan? How, asked the hon. Member for Luton, are we to give each industry its target, make the target known and see that the target is hit? Is the function, described in paragraph 19 of the First Schedule to the Bill, he asked, the instrument for this purpose? I can only say that some of his questions go too wide to be debated now; this is not the place to attempt to describe machinery for planning the whole of industry in Great Britain. All I would say is that, clearly, the method of conveying any information relating to planning, must vary from industry to industry. It would be most unlikely that the central planning organisation would reject an instrument which lay ready to hand and, when the development councils are established, they will be appropriate instruments undoubtedly, and must be used for this purpose of giving information, but not necessarily in every case for the purpose of implementing a plan.
  In that connection I should refer to the valuable remarks made by the hon. Member for Burslem about the necessity for research and for expansion of some of the industries in which the councils will be established; also to the remarks of his colleague in the representation of the pottery area, the hon. Member for Hanley, who made some most interesting remarks which I shall certainly study in detail later, about the importance of human relations aad industrial psychology. I agree. That is the kind of function which these development councils can best perform, and in conducting research into psychology, into exports, into all the other
  134
  things mentioned, they will surely be playing a valuable part in the general economic plan.
  The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) felt that somehow the existence of the development councils would spoil planning by over-emphasising the importance of stockings. Referring to the development councils, he said that if industries have preferential treatment because they had these councils, we shall get into a muddle. Of course we shall, but I do not see any reason, and I was unable, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton), to find any reason why the existence of a development council should lead to the giving of preferential treatment in the allocation of supplies, labour or equipment, to any industry. He urged us not to create too many organisations, but rather to adapt the old and existing organisations to our purpose. I entirely agree. One does not want forever to create new organisations every time a new problem arises, we want to use the existing organisations, and my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of setting up a large number of development councils very quickly. I asked him this question specifically before he had to leave the House, and he gave me that answer. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Flint and the hon. Member for Preston who asked that we should not create in these new organisations something which would overlap existing bodies. The hon. Member for Preston mentioned B.E.T.R.O. which may already be doing valuable research work. The Ministers responsible will have to watch that very carefully indeed when they draft their orders. I am sure that hon. Members will not lose the opportunity given to them, when the orders are placed before Parliament, of seeing that such overlapping does not occur. I hope I have answered some of the more important questions put to me. If I have failed to satisfy hon. Members' curiosity perhaps they will forgive me, since I have not been so closely concerned with this Bill as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Collins: I apologise for interposing a few remarks at this late stage, but I do so because of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Buck-low (Mr. Shepherd) that there was little or

  135
  no experience of these matters on this side of the House. It so happens that for the last five years I have been chairman of an advisory committee which has exercised most, if not all, of the proposed functions of development councils, and some of the experience I have had in this matter may therefore be of interest. In 1942, with the approval of the Ministry of Supply, this purely voluntary body was set up consisting not merely of manufacturing interests, but also of the producers of raw materials in this country, the importers of raw materials, the merchants, in fact every single interest connected with the production of the goods with which we were concerned. The Committee involved the organisation of every single employer in the country to a total of some thousand, and the concentration on a particular type of product needed for the war effort. The Committee had no statutory functions but was able to exercise certain sanctions by reason of the fact that it controlled the importation and the distribution and the home production of all the raw materials.
  Now those functions are continuing although the war is at an end, and they are continuing by the desire of the members of the Committee and of the whole industry. In my experience the vital importance of that Committee and of the development councils which are to be set up under this Bill when it becomes an Act, is that they must communicate with and have relations with every single employer in the particular industry with which they are concerned, and somehow get that information down to the individual work-people in the industry. If they can do that, they will be a big success; if they do not, then they will fail.
  Today we have exhortations and slogans on the hoardings, but they do not reach the individual workman. They do not even reach the individual employer. A suggestion has been made largely from the other side that the future depends so much on the initiative and enterprise of individual employers. The hon. Member for Bucklow said rightly that there is no substitute for individual effort, but he was wrong in implying that enterprise is lessened, or at an end, when people act in concert. The whole experience of
  136
  people engaged in development councils is that improvements are enormous when people act together, whereas where industry is disintegrated and employers are acting as independent units, cutting each other's throats, industry goes down, and continues to go down. What the hon. Member calls the stale idea of nationalisation, has been found to be the only remedy to save those industries which have got into such a situation. The only possible way in which development councils can assist in getting information, and in getting the message down to the individual, is through the encouragement of works' councils. Probably they will encourage joint production committees, but if they are on an industrial level, the main objective will not be achieved. They must be in the workshops.
  I have been chairman of a works council on which only four of the 14 members were ex officio, and the other To were elected. They have complete executive powers in running the business, and the effect on production in such cases is indeed remarkable. It is the only way in which necessary information can be got down from council level to the level of the people engaged on the job. In the last 16 months it has been my experience in the council with which I am connected that production has been quadrupled, and that rests entirely on the fact that each individual understands his part in the industry. If only development councils can introduce that kind of spirit throughout their industries, they will be able to play the part in the production effort for which they are designed. I feel this Bill has been framed on the right lines. But whether it is to be a great success, depends entirely on the way in which it is implemented, and on the spirit with which it is received. If there is sufficient enlightenment among employers' organisations they will be queuing up for powers to get development councils formed under this Measure, and in that spirit I welcome the Bill.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

CHIEF CONSTABLE, SALFORD (APPOINTMENT)
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Hardy: I make no apology for raising this question this evening. It arises out of a Question I asked the Home Secretary on 8th May, and out of his unsatisfactory and ungracious reply. I feel that Salford has the right to have its case presented through its representative from the watch committee in the same manner and spirit as that in which the Home Secretary dealt with the Question. I asked the Home Secretary about the appointment of the chief constable of Salford. The Home Secretary has no greater freedom or right in this House to say things about a person outside than has a back bencher. I am a humble Member of this House, and I feel I am entitled to protect people who are not able to defend themselves against an onslaught such as was made by the Home Secretary on 8th May, against the watch committee. For many years Salford has been proud of its police force. Its former chief constable, the late Major Godfrey, was a national figure who for many years was held up as a sterling example for other police forces to follow. I am not going to take up a great amount of time in dealing with the individual concerned; I am concerned about the watch committee whose confidence has been shaken. They should know more about their job than any hon. Member in this House, and I want to raise this matter in their interest.
The person concerned started as a probationer constable, and went through every phase of police work until in 1939 he was appointed deputy chief constable of Salford. During the blitz period, with a chief constable aged between 65 and 70, one can appreciate the responsibilities and duties which fell to the deputy chief constable during war difficulties and overcrowding, and the type of work for which he was responsible at that time. When the vacancy occurred, the watch committee decided on a ballot by 12 to three that this man should be appointed chief constable. On the vote for the substantive motion it was unanimously agreed. We were then told that because the person had not served in any other police force the Home Office were not too ready to approve of the appointment. Arising out of the first refusal, a deputation went from Salford Watch Committee and
138
waited on the Home Secretary to whom they put their case on behalf of the deputy chief constable being appointed chief constable. I believe the Home Secretary will agree that he complimented them on the manner in which they put their case and on the very good case they made out. Until then we were told that the appointment was not confirmed because the man had not served in any other police force.
Since then a second refusal was brought about after the Home Secretary had agreed to see the individual who had already been turned down once, and he had no knowledge of the atmosphere at the meeting of the deputation and the Home Secretary. He was sent for to be interrogated and interviewed by the Home Secretary, and following the interview the Home Secretary again refused to confirm the appointment. At the interview reference was made to some little difficulties which existed in 1940 between the deputy chief and the chief, and members of the deputation were not able to do justice to the references the Home Secretary made, with the result that the deputation brought the person who was mayor in that year to deal with the question in every aspect. In the meantime, I saw the Home Secretary, and he said he had forgotten all about it, and now we are in the position that we do not know why it has been turned down, except that, arising from my Question to the Home Secretary asking why the man had been disqualified from the post, we were simply told that he was unfit and, in reply to a supplementary question, that he was inefficient—
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Would my hon. Friend mind saying what it was that he said I had forgotten?
Mr. Hardy: The Home Secretary will remember that I asked if he had received a letter from the town clerk of Salford asking to see the deputation again, and he said "Yes." My right hon. Friend then said to me, "That is not an indication that my mind is open." I replied, "I hope it is not an indication that your mind is closed either, for you are wasting your time in fixing up the interview." I said, "They are bringing a man who will deal with the questions and answers arising out of the matter you raised at the previous interview." The answer I got was, "That has gone from my mind. I

139
have finished with it and have thought no more about it." We brought the man, who talked. We are told that the officer concerned has been rejected because of an interview that may have lasted for 45 minutes.
This is a serious matter for watch committees and local authorities. I know that my right hon. Friend may tell the House, as he told us on the deputation, and as he is very fond of repeating, as though no other person has served on any local authority, "I have given the greatest part of my life to a county borough." I would never use that for the purpose of building up my case. Even if I had been on a county council or on a joint committee, that would not give me any greater right to say that I was in a position to decide in 45 minutes whether a stranger was a fit and proper person to be the chief constable of a particular city.
This man has an exceptional record. If there is any weakness in his case at all it is because he does not wear "the old school tie." He had no college or university education. He came from a working-class family, left school at 14 years of age and continued his studies at night school, which was all that his parents could afford. In course of time he was seconded to A.M.G.O.T. and sent out as a lieutenant-colonel. Since he came back he has carried on as the deputy chief constable, and has been acting chief constable during the time this vacancy has been pending. He has only achieved that in 27 years, passing through every phase of the service. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Members of this House that in 1939 there was a minute from the Salford watch committee, which was approved by the then Home Secretary and the Home Office. I hope that the House will pardon me if I read it, as I feel it is very material. I recognise that a lot of people have said, "You are wasting your time; the Home Secretary will never change his mind." That may be true, but someone else's battles have to be fought, and there is a vital principle involved in this matter, because we pay 50 per cent. towards the cost of our police force and it is somewhat difficult to maintain efficiency if we are refused the appointment of a chief constable because he is not satisfactory to
140
the Home Secretary. That is why the public of Salford are so keenly interested.
I know that the Home Secretary and the chairmen of watch committees have said from time to time that the watch committee have the power, but when it comes to a question of choosing a man., the cost of whom the ratepayers would have to find, it becomes a people's question. We on the watch committees represent the people. We have been elected to the watch committee to represent the same people who have elected us to represent them here. The minute which I wish to read is dated 28th March, 1939. It states:
"SIR,
Recommendation for the award of the King's Police Medal
I have the honour to submit a recommendation by the Watch Committee of this City for the award of the King's Police Medal to Mr. Robert Howard, the Deputy Chief Constable, in respect of the services he rendered in connection with the recent trial, Rex v. Walsh and Others, at the Manchester Assizes. From six o'clock in the morning of the 16th January, when a series of bomb explosions took place in the city of Manchester, until the conclusion of this trial on 10th March, Mr. Howard was daily engaged on investigations regarding members of the Irish Republican Army and the preparation of the case in question. On t7th January he remained at this Headquarters until after midnight, arranging for the protection of vulnerable points, armed patrols, etc., and soon after returning home in the early hours of the 18th he was notified that certain information had been received con cerning a man named"—
I do not think I need mention the name—
"who was suspected of being concerned with the outrages. He immediately left for this man's address and, taking charge of the party of police officers who went to arrest him, Mr. Howard was the first to enter the house. He was later successful in obtaining evidence which led to the apprehension of one of the ringleaders, who was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, and throughout the period the prisoners were on remand he worked in close co-operation with the Manchester police officers engaged in the case. On l0th March, at the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Justice Stable spoke of the excellent work performed by all the police officers concerned, and I have since been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that Mr. Howard was the principal officer of this Force to whom he referred. In my opinion he thoroughly deserves the honour for which he is recommended."
That letter is signed by C. V. Godfrey, chief constable.
Mr. Howard is the man about whom this country has been talking. He has been front page sensational news. People

141
are saving that somebody must know something about this man that the public know nothing about. That is why I raise the matter here. I want information to be given rebuking what has been stated in this House. I want the information to be given so that hon. Members and the people of the country can form a judgment for themselves. This man has had the confidence of the watch committee for many years. In a democratic State, who knows the nature of the duties of a particular police force better than those on the spot? We at Salford, like many other authorities, promoted our town clerk from the position of deputy town clerk. He is a man who started work on our staff and has never served anywhere else. Our transport manager has been in the employment of the corporation since he was a boy and we have followed the same procedure with regard to the gas and electricity undertakings. We have never had any trouble from any Government Department. We have confidence in our officials. We think they are as good as those of any corporation in the country.
The deputy chief constable was bred and born in the town, was seeking only what has happened in other cities and towns. Only a short time ago under the present Home Secretary the Corporation of Wigan appointed one of their own men to high office though he had not served in another police force. The present chief constable of Cardiff, Sir Henry Wilson, started in that city's police force. Other men include the one at Oldham and the former chief constable of Manchester, Sir John Maxwell. This is a very important matter and I know that other hon Members wish to take part in the discussion. I have left my brief because if I had stuck to it I should have spoken for a great deal longer. However, I think I have said sufficient to indicate the indignation created among the ratepayers of Salford and the watch committee who were told deliberately and coldy on 8th May that they had appointed a man who was unfit to be their chief constable. In reply to a supplementary question, it was stated that he was said to be inefficient. I am satisfied that no one has any authority to disqualify a person because he has never served in another police force. There is no statutory right to do it, unless there is a background, and there is no background in this case. We may have had it
142
in one particular case where there was a background and another Home Secretary, but that excuse is not going to be used today as far as Salford is concerned.
We are entitled to know—and we should not be given a cold-blooded message—why the Home Secretary came to the conclusion that a man with an exemplary record like this man, who was approved by the watch committee and who had been complimented from time to time by the watch committee and at the assizes, and to whom the Home Office had given the Police Medal, was not suitable for this appointment. I am raising this question tonight in the interests of the people of Salford and of the man concerned. Some people may say that I am not doing him any good by so doing. It cannot do him any good to agree to his condemnation for the rest of his life. This man has been sentenced for life never to receive a chief constableship in this country because of the reply which was given by the Home Secretary on 8th May.
9.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the.Home Department (Mr. Ede): On 8th May, I was asked a Question by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Hardy), and, in this House, when I am asked a Question I endeavour to give a straight-forward and honest reply. I did not raise this issue in the House; the hon. Member for South Salford raised it. The hon. Member has not given a complete history of what led up to this matter. After he had asked this Question, supplementary questions were asked by another hon. Member for Salford and by an hon. Member from the Manchester area. I had to give a truthful answer to the questions put to me, and it would have been a poor compliment to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming), who also put a question, if I had given other than truthful answers to the questions put to me.
I made no slur on the watch committee. Let me read to the House what I actually said:
"I make no reflection on the good faith of the Salford watch committee. They have discharged their responsibility. I have discharged mine. I regret that our views do not coincide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 783–4.]
If we were to accept the logic of the speech of the hon. Member for South

143
Salford, it would mean that the confirmation of the recommendation of a standing joint committee, or watch committee, with regard to the appointment of a chief constable by the Home Secretary, would be a mere matter of form. That is not the position. The position is that the final responsibility for approving the appointment of a chief constable rests with the Home Secretary. That is a duty which I have to discharge. It is always a difficult thing for a watch committee, or other appointing committee, to hold the balance fairly when they are interviewing a person who has been previously in their employment and other people whom they have called up on a short list. That is a difficulty which practically every committee has to consider at some time or other, and, when the watch committee of Salford informed me that they were proposing to interview five chief constables and their own deputy, I realised that particular difficulty with which they would be faced, and I took the precaution of having a letter written to them, in which I pointed out that, in the case of any of the five chief constables whom they chose to select, I should be quite willing to confirm the appointment. But I added this paragraph:
"There remains the question of the remaining candidate on the short list, namely, the deputy chief constable. We recognise Mr. Howard's merits as a practical policeman, and it is primarily for the watch committee, as police authority, to consider whether, in addition, he has the qualities of personality and leadership needed in a chief constable. We hope, however, that the watch committee will bear in mind the desirability, on general grounds, of wide experience, particularly where, as in the present instance, there has been no change in the chief constableship for such a very long period. Other things being equal, therefore, we would suggest to the Committee that they should consider the question of selecting an officer who has wider experience than can be obtained by long service in a single force."
That was followed by a visit from the Inspector of Constabulary who went at my request to interview the mayor, the chairman and the deputy chairman of the watch committee to bring before their notice, once again, the views that had been formed on this particular case.
A chief constable is something more than a mere policeman. He has to be a man who can take his part in the conferences with surrounding chief constables with regard to police matters generally,
144
and who is able to count as at least one in any such conferences. On the reports that were in front of me, I had reached the conclusion at that stage that this particular man—as my hon. Friend has raised the matter again, I am quite sure that he would desire me to be as frank with him and the House as he has been about my many shortcomings—had not those qualities of leadership and ability in conference which would justify him in holding the position of chief constable. There are plenty of people in this country who are perfectly competent to fill the post of a deputy but who are not competent to fill the chief post when it becomes vacant. It is no reflection on a man to say that. I was only asked in this House whether I regarded him as an efficient chief constable, or whether he was inefficient for the job. I made no reflection at all on his past service.
The watch committee met. Their attention had been particularly directed to this phase of the importance of the appointment All I received was a bare notification that they had made the appointment. They did not allude to the letter that had been sent or to the interview that had taken place with the Inspector of Constabulary, even though they knew the point which was exercising my mind with regard to this appointment. Therefore, on the reports that I had in front of me, with regard to this man, I declined to confirm the appointment, and the Salford watch committee asked for an interview. I am told that it is most unusual for a Home Secretary to give an interview in circumstances like that
Mr. Hardy: Was it not unusual?
Mr. Ede: Oh no, there are plenty of examples. In any case, I am not here to follow precedents but to create them when I think they are good ones. I agreed to see the watch committee. They came up, and I am bound to say they made out a very good case for this man. I told them so, as my hon. Friend has admitted. I was faced with this dilemma. I had the reports of my inspector and my staff on whom I am entitled to place reliance. I had also the very good and, I believe, sincere testimony of the watch committee, who were, of course, hampered in making their selection by the fact that they knew this man and did not know the other five. What was the fair thing for

145
me to do, having responsibly to exercise my authority and to decide whether I would or would not confirm this appointment? I thought the proper thing to do was to see the man himself and to judge for myself. Does my hon. Friend object to that?
Mr. Hardy: I was not there. I do not know anything about it. I do not know the atmosphere.
Mr. Ede: Does my hon. Friend object to my calling up the man for interview by myself? It is true I may have conducted the interview badly, but that does not matter. Did I take a reasonable step in saying that I would like to see the man and judge him for myself? I had the responsibility of confirming or rejecting this appointment. I had two sets of evidence, each of which I held in great respect. I thought, and I hope the House will think, I did the right thing in saying that I would see the man for myself. I saw him and interviewed him for three-quarters of an hour. I did all I could to put the man at his ease. I will admit that it is, of course, difficult for a man, such as a deputy chief constable, who knows that he is coming up to be interviewed for a job for which he has great and legitimate ambitions, to be faced with the ordeal of interviewing a Secretary of State. He does not know me as well as my hon. Friend who has never shown any such fear of me in my presence. On the answers he gave to me on the two points which I have submitted are essential, namely, his ability to conduct a conference and to work with adjoining chief constables—and those, to my mind, are the essential things for a policeman who expects to become a chief constable—I came to the conclusion that he did not fill the bill.
I want to draw the attention of the House to this: When this man came up for interview by the Salford watch committee, five chief constables were called up as well. I would not have disclosed this to the House had my hon. Friend not done so, but on the first vote the voting was 12 for this man and three for another. Having disclosed it, my hon. Friend must not mind-if I disclose a little more. Within a few days of this appointment, the man who received only three votes as against 12 was appointed chief constable of Leeds. Every man is entitled to be proud of his own city, but I would say that the
146
appointment of chief constable of Leeds is a more important job than the chief constableship of Salford.
Mr. Hardy: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is within his knowledge that not so long ago there was a Caretaker Government Home Secretary, and then a few days afterwards there was a Socialist Home Secretary in office? Two men cannot occupy the same job at the same time.
Mr. Ede: But they are not people who are applicants, interviewed by committees. The Prime Minister sees one man at a time. So far as I know, no one has ever refused the job of Home Secretary when it has been offered to him. But I did not interrupt my hon. Friend—at least, only once, when I did not understand a point he was making—though he was making a most provocative speech; and I am trying to pour oil on the troubled waters. I venture to say that, had these six men been interviewed by a body which had not previously known this particular man for the 27 years, the man who was appointed chief constable of Leeds would have been appointed chief constable of Salford. Another man who came a cropper, within a few weeks was appointed chief constable of Stockport. There are people who think it is better to be chief constable of Salford than of Stockport. I understand that there are some people who think that, though Stockport carries rather less money, it is better to be in Stockport than in Salford. I saw this man. I would not myself have alluded to his experience in Italy but for the fact that my hon. Friend introduced it. But, really, of course, if things are put up, the hon. Member must expect that I shall answer them. This man was sent to Italy as a policeman, but the police authorities of A.M.G.O.T., after some little experience of him, decided he was unsuitable to be a policeman out there, and he was made head of a labour force instead. I regret having to say that—
Mr. Hardy: The deputation asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell them if there was anything else, apart from the interview, that the right hon. Gentleman had against him; and the right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing.
Mr. Ede: The interview was quite sufficient for me. I should not have mentioned this now, but for the fact that the hon.

147
Gentleman himself raised the matter. We are told that there is great indignation in Salford about this. I was threatened that this would be raised at the Margate Conference. Apparently, the Margate Conference had something better to do. But the Salford watch committee went to the Manchester and Salford trades council on the issue, and they submitted a resolution, asking the trades council to congratulate the Salford watch committee on the dignified and statesmanlike manner in which it conducted its representations—
Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of Order. My right hon. Friend referred to the Salford watch committee, saving they went to the trades council. Would he tell us how long the Salford watch committee has been a body affiliated to the trades council?
Mr. Hardy: It is not true.
Mr. Ede: All that I can say is that I am reading a report which appears in the "Daily Telegraph," the "Daily Dispatch" of Manchester, and the "Daily Graphic "—
Mr. Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman quotes those newspapers only when it suits him, of course.
Mr. Ede: But of course.
Mr. Hardy: It is not true, what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Ede: There was a resolution submitted.
Mr. Hardy: Not inspired by the watch committee.
Mr. Ede: There was a resolution submitted to the trades council in these terms: The resolution urged:
"That the council congratulate the Salford watch committee on the dignified and statesmanlike manner in which it conducted its representations concerning the appointment; it records with regret that a Socialist of such high rank as the Home Secretary should be so irresponsible as to defy two accepted codes by an unwarranted attack from his privileged position in the House of Commons on an official who was unable to reply. Finally, this council views with major concern the vicious bludgeoning of the Salford people into submission to the dictates of a Minster by the withdrawal of the Police grant of £100,000 a year, an impossible burden for a city impoverished by the ravages of industry, bombing and the flood."
148
On that motion Mr. Blackwell of the E.T.U. said:
"I believe the Watch Committee have been totally irresponsible, and to an extent I have never known before. I do not consider it in the interests of the people that the. Labour Government should depart from Standing Orders which have been laid down. I stand by Mr. Chuter Ede and ask that this motion be thrown into the wastepaper basket."
At the end of the discussion the motion was turned down, according to these three newspapers, by an overwhelming majority.
Mr. Hardy: By people who did not live in Salford.
Mr. Ede: So much for the indignation of the people of Salford on this matter. I have also had letters from Salford congratulating me on the stand that I have taken, but I do not lay undue emphasis on that. I do want, however, to assure the House that, in reaching this decision, I took every precaution that I could to see that justice was done to this particular applicant. I know of no other step that I could have taken. But the responsibility for approving or disapproving this appointment rests on me, and while I have that responsibility resting on me I shall discharge it to the best of my judgment and ability, and I shall take every step I can to be fully informed on all the matters that appertain to such an appointment.
I regret very much that the Salford watch committee and my hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to compel statements to be made in this House on this matter. I believe that the best interests of all parties would have been served had they taken the hint—which is generally taken—when the letter, which I read, is sent to a watch committee or a standing joint committee, and had recognised that there would be at least difficulties, probably insuperable difficulties, in securing the appointment of this man. Now, I regret that in this matter it was not possible for me to see eye to eye with the watch committee. I do not think it can be said that I failed in my endeavours to reach an understanding with them. I sent a letter; I sent the inspector; when they sent me the appointment I arranged for an interview; after the interview I interviewed the candidate; and after that I again interviewed the Committee.

149
I think I ought to say this with regard to that last interview. At the first interview I was asked to appoint this man because he had carried the confidence of the previous chief constable. Now let us be quite certain of this: Chief constables cannot leave the jobs in their wills; there has to be a proper competition. I knew of an incident, about which apparently the members of the watch committee who came to see me did not know. There was a great deal of mystery as soon as I mentioned it. On the next occasion when they came, they said, "We will bring the man who knows all about that incident." I was then asked to appoint this man because he was at loggerheads with the previous chief constable.
Mr. Hardy: No.
Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend says "No," but he will recollect that the ex-mayor, who was produced for the occasion, said: "If I had had my way at the time it would not have been Howard who would have been in difficulties: It would have been the chief constable."
Mr. Hardy: Did he say it to my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Ede: He said it in front of the whole deputation. Admittedly, these appointments are always a matter of great delicacy, and need very careful handling. I hope I have convinced the House that as far as my handling of this matter was concerned, until it was raised in this House, I took every possible step to deal reasonably with the Watch Committee of Salford. Once questions are asked and debates are raised in this House, it is essential that this House should be spoken to truthfully and fully by the Minister who is attacked in the course of the proceedings. I regret that I should be one of those animals who when attacked defends himself. I have no apology to offer, either to the Salford watch committee or to this House, for the way this matter has been handled. I assure the House that it is a matter of great regret to me that these Questions should have been asked and this Debate should have taken place, but if my action as a Minister is attacked, it is due to me and to the House, and more particularly to the House, that I should state, fully and frankly, the whole of the circumstances which have led me to take a certain decision.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Home Secretary tell the House the strength of the other forces and the strength of the Salford police force, because I think he will find that in one case the strength was 31 in another case 32, and in another case it was 41? The 151 in Stockport seem to be grieving because we did not make the appointment instead of Leeds.
Mr. Ede: I am quite prepared to accept those figures. When I was in the Army I was told opportunity was a fine thing. These men called up were evidently regarded by the Salford Committee as being, at least worthy of interviewing. They had their opportunity, and I regret that they had it under circumstances which prevented real justice being done.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (ADMISSIONS)
9.39 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: I wish to raise the question of admission to the Scottish universities and to look at some of the problems which arise therefrom. This matter was referred to in a Question in November, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that for the session 1945-46 there were 6,440 applicants for admission to the four Scottish universities, and of that number 2,703 had not been admitted, even though they were in possession of a certificate of fitness. In other words, almost 50 per cent. of those boys and girls seeking a university education, and testified as being equipped by reason of their school training to benefit from a university education, were denied it. This was an actual demand that was not being met. There is another demand, which I call a potential demand. The raising of the school-leaving age, and the developments which are expected to ensue in secondary education, will create the need for something like 15,000 new science teachers in our secondary schools. This is another demand which the universities as a whole must meet. Looking at the scientific aspect of the problem, the Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower, over which Sir Alan Barlow presided, pointed out that by 1955 we would need a capital accumulation of something like 90,000 graduate scientists. They also pointed out that as a result of our present methods we might expect to produce about

151
64,000, leaving 26,000 extra graduates to be provided for from universities in the United Kingdom.
The question on which I want to focus attention is, what is to be Scotland's contribution towards that deficiency? Student numbers in Great Britain have risen by 32 per cent. since the war, but in Scotland they have risen by only 28½ per cent. While we readily admit that the Scottish student population is much greater per thousand than that of England, nevertheless that percentage fall shows a regression on the part of Scottish universities. I believe that Scotland possesses about one-fifth of the number of degree awarding institutions in the United Kingdom, so our contribution in Scot-land towards the deficiency of 26,000 ought to be in the region of 5,000 to 6,000. Last year, the number who graduated in pure and applied science from all the Scottish universities was 460. Even allowing for the fact that that number covers the barren period of the war, and assuming that we could increase that output by one-third, or even a half, when we allow for the wastage of students who graduate but do not pursue their studies, or marry, or who come from foreign universities, I do not think we can provide for a figure much in excess of 500 or 600 per year as our contribution. That would give us less, in the next eight years to meet what ought to be our total commitments according to the Barlow Report. When we add to that the numbers in medicine and arts, it seems fairly clear that the obligations which are being placed upon us in arts, science and medicine in the future will not be met by the present university equipment.
Have we the material on which to draw —the reservoir of potential students for the universities in the future? According to the Barlow report, something like two per cent. of the whole population of the country reach university standard. On the other hand, something like five per cent. show on test an intelligence equal to the upper half of the university students. Therefore, only one in five of all the boys and girls with an intelligence equal to the upper half of the university students reach the universities. Moreover, 80 per cent. of that five per cent. pass through the public elementary schools and no per cent. through the in-
152
dependent schools. Of the two per cent. who reach the universities, 60 per cent. are from independent schools and only 40 per cent, from the public elementary schools. That would seem to indicate that the income level of the parents is still a very serious drawback to a university education. While I pay tribute for the increased grant which has been given for recurrent expenditure in our universities today, and also for the great increase in grant for capital expenditure, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best to see that these boys and girls in our midst who merit a university education will not be prevented by their pecuniary circumstances from getting it. Commenting on the position, the Barlow Report says:
"We cannot, however, believe that in Scotland we have yet approached the limit of what is either possible or desirable in the national interest."
If we have not approached the limit, what are we to do about it? That raises the type of institution. Are we to meet it by an extension of the universities? That problem, as we see from the Press, is affecting Edinburgh and Glasgow. When we begin to talk about extending universities, we have to face the problem of the size of the university? Glasgow has 5,500 students, Edinburgh has over 5,000. Is that number to be still further increased? Are we aiming at some of the Continental figures? I understand that Poznan has 12,000 students, and Rome 42,000. Are we to go on expanding our universities? Or are we to try to say that a university shall have a particular size and that this is what the size of a university ought to be? I think that Glasgow, and perhaps Edinburgh, are as large as is desirable at the present moment. I therefore do not look kindly on the question of extension.
The problem of the functional college arises. I have no objection to the university college as such—provided it grows to full stature. In seeking to face this problem my thoughts turn towards that organisation which comprehends not merely the production of good scientists and good technicians, but of good citizens, who in many ways are of equal, if not of greater importance, than the other two. I suggest that the solution of the problem lies along the lines of another university. That immediately raises the problem of location. [Interruption.] My hon.

153
Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) says that that is easy. I can assure him that if he had been in my shoes he would find that it is not so easy. Dundee thinks that the university ought to be there, and Oban too has its eyes upon the fifth university. The Queen of the South thinks she, too, ought to be favoured. My thoughts turn towards that scene in which King Duncan, looking round Macbeth's home, says:
"This castle hath a pleasant seat; the air Nimbly and sweetly recommends itself Unto our gentle senses."
Banquo, looking at him, replies:
"…I have observed
The air is delicate."
I think, therefore, of Inverness.
Each region except one into which Scotland is to be divided—she will be divided into five—will have a university. The region without a university will be that of Inverness. Apart from the delicacy of its atmosphere, Inverness will fit in well with the regionalisation plan. In addition, it is the gateway to a hinterland of 300,000 people. It overlooks the silvery Ness, and it the gateway to a land of surpassing beauty and rich in traditions which are dear to the heart of every Scotsman. There we might create the nucleus of what could grow to be a completely residential university; something new in Scotland. After the last war we placed in our present capital our war memorial; why not, in the ancient capital of the Highlands put this second memorial, built by the voluntary effort of Scotsmen at home and abroad, giving permanence to all that is best in modern architecture; a thank offering for peace; a tribute to the unflinching zeal with which countless hosts of Scottish youth, fortified only by their poke of meal, endured in the quest of knowledge and passed to us the Torch, unflickering and undimmed; a gift to the incomparable splendour of generations yet unborn.
9.56 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I listened very carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), and as he developed his theme I wondered more and more why he had raised this subject at all, because what he suggests is that Scotland should have another university. These things are not
154
normally pushed on to a country by the State, but they begin in a voluntary fashion and go through a spontaneous and voluntary effort by the local inhabitants themselves, after which the State eventually steps in and does help by the provision of grants of one kind and another. I began to doubt whether my hon. Friend was aware of this until in his wonderful peroration, in which he advocated that this university should be at Inverness—and I do not wish to take the part of Inverness or of any other place in Scotland—he argued that it should be built by the voluntary effort of Scotsmen all over the world. That being so, this is not the place for him to deliver that speech. The place to deliver it is in the various towns of Scotland in order to enthuse the people for this project, and eventually—and none could do it better than my hon. Friend—to speak of it to Scotsmen overseas wherever they congregate and help to make the British Empire what we know it is. I have no doubt that from them the scheme would receive generous support.
I compliment my hon. Friend on his very fine speech, but I would remind him that Scotland is not alone in having its universities crowded at the present time. Other universities—and I am glad to think that it is so—are absolutely packed out, which is partly due to the fact that 90 per cent. of the places have to be reserved for ex-Service men and ex-Service women. That means unfortunately that for a year or two many a bright lad and many a bright girl, who show great promise and who have won great academic distinctions, cannot for the moment find a place in any of our universities. It has to be remembered that that is temporary. Hon. Members of all parties have promised that the men and women who have been abroad in the Forces in the last six or seven momentous years should be given an opportunity to go through the university. We are trying to crowd into. one or two years what would normally be extended over a much longer period. Scotland. of course, believes in education. There are many attractive things about Scotsmen and Scotswomen, and the value of education for education's sake is one of the most outstanding. Far more boys and girls in Scotland are sent by their parents sometimes at great sacrifice to the universities than—
It being Ten o'Clock, the. Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have the figures here. There are at present in full-time attendance at Scottish Universities 12,868 students, as compared with 10,034 in the last year before the war. My hon. Friend referred to the Barlow Committee's Report. It is true that that committee recommended that there should be an expansion over the next 10 years to no fewer than double the prewar percentage. The Government recognise this need to expand and are fully cognisant of what the Barlow Committee's Report said, and they have generally accepted the recommendations made in it. We have to realise, however, that physically circumstances are against us at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done what he could to help students to the universities, and the grant has gone up from £9,450,000 in 1946–47 to £11,875,000 in the current year. I think the House will agree that, in the circumstances, that was a very generous increase which my right hon. Friend gave with a song in his heart. My right hon. Friend believes in university education and desires to help the poor student as much as he can.
My hon. Friend mentioned that Scotland lagged behind England by about 32 per cent. Actually, I am informed that Scotland proposes to increase by 32 per cent. the places available for students. She proposes to raise them from 9,500 to 12,550, and the expectation is that she will be able, by one means or another, to crowd in even another 2,000 over and above the figure I have given. I think that is pretty good. It shows that, in spite of all the difficulties which Scotland is experiencing in common with England and Wales, she is doing her utmost in these rather difficult years to see that as many as possible of those who want to go to universities shall be enabled to do so. There are, however, limiting factors which would prevent the Government from initiating the building of a university in Inverness. We cannot even yet consider expanding university building as we would Ike. Housing is one priority, and there
156
are others which could be mentioned, and universities and schools are among them; but, frankly, we could not undertake to find building labour or material, nor would there be the teaching staff al the present moment to increase as we would like.
Mr. Rankin: It is not a problem of building, as my right hon. Friend is well aware. It might be a problem of acquisition of buildings that are awaiting reconversion to a better purpose.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: That may be. I confess I do not know sufficient about this to indicate where such buildings could be found. It may be that my hon. Friend knows of such buildings which could be easily converted, and if so, it would be for him to let those responsible at the Ministry of Education, or my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, know where those buildings are to be found, so that, if possible, extra places can be found for the students who undoubtedly want to go there. I would like to give one or two figures, particularly as during the war years no figures have been published as to how the grant has. been made up. Normally, His Majesty's Stationery Office issue these figures as part of a report year by year, but the war came and the issue was suspended. It is true that certain roneod copies have been circulated to various universities, but the figures have not been given publicly. My hon. Friends who represent Scottish divisions may be interested to have them. Recurrent grants for all purposes given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the universities are as follows: Aberdeen University, £158,000; Edinburgh University, £255,200; Glasgow University, £303,550; Glasgow Royal Technical College, £37,000; St. Andrews University, which includes Dundee, £162,050, making a total of £915,800.
In addition, capital grants for building and equipment have been allocated as follow: Aberdeen University, £16,000; Edinburgh University, £36,000; Glasgow University, £8,500; Glasgow Royal Technical College, £9,600; St. Andrews University—again including Dundee—£102,000, a grand total for capital grants of £172,100. There are also grants of £15,000 to Edinburgh and £80,000 to Glasgow yet to be approved—I hope that the approval will come through quite shortly—to make a

157
complete total of about £267,000. In addition grants to Scottish teaching hospitals attached to the universities amount to £109,550 out of a total of £500,000 allocated to this purpose. There are other smaller grants with which I will not trouble the House now.
I think my hon. Friend will agree with me when I claim that these figures show that Scotland is receiving her share of the grants which are now allocated by the Chancellor for this purpose. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that if, when conditions improve—when building materials are more plentiful and teachers have been trained—he comes again and asks for help and has, in the meantime, awakened enormous interest in his project among his fellow countrymen, as I am sure he will, the answer of whoever stands at this Box then will be very different.
Mr. Willis: Do the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend refer to the current year or the past year? In other words, are they to be read in conjunction with the expenditure of £9,000,000 or that of £11,000,000?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: They refer to the academic year 1946–47 and are actually allocated on the work of the last year.
10.8 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The figures which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given us are very interesting. As he rightly said, we have not been able to follow these, matters closely during the war years. The figures would be even more interesting if we had further comparison with previous years. They are also more interesting if we can, as has just been suggested, work them out on the basis of the expansion of expenditure from £9 million to £11million, which is a substantial increase. As a matter of fact, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who works only through the University Grants Commission in these matters, will find his machine heavily laden in attempting to handle these large sums in connection with the University programme. The relatively small staff of the University Grants Commission is already seriously taxed, and an expansion of this order in itself may begin to lead to restrictions and cramping. I think the Chancellor should look into this matter with the University Grants Commission. I know from discussions I have had with
158
some of them that they are a little uneasy about the task in front of them in vetting and revising five year programmes for all the main universities in receipt of those grants, and a certain balance will need to be kept in these matters.
For instance, the Financial Secretary has just said that it is the desire of the Government and of the university authorities that all who wish, and are able, to profit by a university education should be able to enjoy it. There is one class of students to whom he should give further attention, and that is the ex-Service students, who are now much older men than the usual run of university students and who are in receipt of allowances which are small compared with the sums necessary to keep a married man. It should be remembered that these are whole-time students who, by hypothesis, are unable to engage in anything more than the merest auxiliary programmes for increasing their incomes.
In passing, I may say that I am glad that the somewhat Scrooge-like attitude of demanding that any contribution which a student was able to obtain to reinforce his Government allowance should be recompensed by immediately reducing his Government allowance proportionately, has been relaxed. It was no incitement to self-help, and I am glad to know that it has been modified, partly as a result of correspondence from several hon. Members of the House, including myself. The Treasury is always apt to take a somewhat stingy view about income supplementary to a grant or a whole-time salary. I well remember that during the war the flying men who were brought up from the Battle of Britain to broadcast about the progress of that epic and enormous struggle, and who received some modest fee of £5, £10, or £15 from the B.B.C.—which was no more than enough to give them a reasonable night in town once they got away from the battle—found it promptly pounced upon by the Treasury. The view of the Treasury was that they paid the men a whole-time salary to fight all the time and if they like to engage in other activities it was just too bad, the Treasury would take the money. It was not the best way of encouraging those young men, and I am sure it is not the best way of encouraging students Although the actual confiscation of the sums which the student earns

159
for himself has, I think, been done away with, the allowances made to those students are still inadequate in view of the increased cost of living. A man of 28, 29 or 30 with a wife is not able to live en the sums which are now given, and has in fact to draw upon his parents or on his gratuity.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I am taking correctly the point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making, I should like to tell him that those grants are now much more generous than they have ever been. For the first time, as I understand—and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find I am right—those making the grants do not take the parents' circumstances into account at all, nor the fact that a parent might make a grant to the son. If the son is married and has children, and gets a University grant, he gets a grant sufficient to keep him and his wife and family without help from anyone else.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not suggesting that that is not the theory of the grant. What I am suggesting is that the grants are not, in fact, in present circumstances, sufficient to carry out the intention which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced. I wish he would look into it from that point of view. I admit the grants are more generous than before, as is inevitable. The sever years' war has meant that the students coming up to the Universities are even older than they were at the end of the last war, and the cost of living has increased. Although, in theory, the money which the student may derive from his parents is not taken into account, I know from budgets which have been submitted to me that in many cases the student is not able to carry through his university course without either drawing on his parents or, which they resent even more than that, having to draw upon his gratuity which he regarded as a nest egg to be laid by and kept in order to establish himself in civil life when the period of university training is over. I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would look again into the question, because nowadays even "digs", to use a homely student phrase, are expensive enough, and there is very little left of the sum which is given by the Treasury even when the cost of lodgings and breakfast is taken into account. The extra costs of living over and above, are not
160
fully met by the allowance as it stands at present.
The other point the right hon. Gentleman made was of general and of very great importance. He said we could not consider for a moment the building of a new university. We must take his opinion as the definite decision of the Government for the time being. I must say that when he goes on to say that he will find it difficult even to expand the university buildings sufficiently, I find myself still more disquieted because the classes are crowded enough at the present. The figures he gave as to the proposed expansion of the Scottish University impose a great degree of overcrowding, and overcrowding to a point which begins to diminish the actual value of the university education itself. I remember after the last war when the English literature class in Glasgow University was held in the Bute Hall holding from 1,500 to 2,000 people. The study of English literature in a class 1,500 strong is not the best way to get the most accurate appreciation of the nicer points of scholarship. I think it is necessary to consider the priorities on a level somewhat different from the level which he has been presenting to the House this evening. This is seed corn we are talking about and it must have space to grow. It is true that from some students' discoveries, we may get a line of advance which will revolutionise the whole future of our work in Scotland, and indeed throughout the Empire, just as a student of no great fame at the time, and no great technical achievement, hit upon the work in television which opened up complete new avenues of research, and bade fair to put Great Britain right ahead of the whole of the science of television if we had not been held up by the war delays.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will strain every nerve to see that at least an adequate building programme, laboratory programme, research programme, and scholarship programme, in the sense of the humanities, the antiquities and pure thought of one kind or another, should be made available to our people in the years to come. After all, we are a poor country, and if we have devoted ourselves, as the Financial Secretary was kind enough to say, very extensively to education, it is really because it is a case of, "root hog, or die." We have had to live by our brains, and to develop our thinking machines because the natural resources

161
in front of us were all too scanty. Indeed what once applied to Scotland applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
The flying start with which the United Kingdom got away has been heavily reduced in recent years. It is to the universities that the United Kingdom will need to look, and perhaps primarily to the concentrated thought and opportunities for original work which the universities present, in order to get our country out of the trough of depression in which she is labouring at the present time.
The sums which the Financial Secretary mentioned are interesting. They take a little adding up because, while he mentioned amongst the capital grants £16,000 for Aberdeen,£36,000 for Edinburgh and only £8,500 for Glasgow, it sounded a little disproportionate. It is true that subsequently he made an addition to that which added £15,000 to the Edinburgh figure and £80,000, as I understood it, to the Glasgow figure, but even these short quotations will show how necessary it is to go a little more closely into the figures, before we can fully appreciate what the Financial Secretary has been saying. The annual grants of £158,000 for Aberdeen,£255,000 for Edinburgh, £303,000 for Glasgow, with £37,000 for what we affectionately call the "Tech," and £162,000 for St. Andrews were all interesting, though the St. Andrews' figure is considerably above that of Aberdeen. St. Andrews includes Dundee, but it seems to show a certain discrepancy and I think the University of the North will look very closely at these figures tomorrow.
With regard to the grants to the teaching hospitals, I should like to see the figure broken down a little because it is interesting to note in passing that the Financial Secretary has had no difficulty in defining a teaching hospital—a description which has hitherto baffled the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who I see has joined our Debate. I would call his attention to the fact that the Financial Secretary has just defined the teaching hospitals in the most thoroughgoing of all ways, namely, institutions to which he finds it possible to make Treasury grants. I would like the Joint Under-Secretary to look at that when he is considering, as we have asked him to consider from time to time, whether, in fact, teaching hospitals in Scotland might
162
not share the same privileged position which they have in England.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Of course the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that we have debated this matter already, and that the Committee have come to a decision. I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has said about the teaching hospitals, but that does not alter my opinion, and the Scottish make-up in this matter is, as usual, ahead of the English way.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will leave the Front Bench to compose their own difficulties—
Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is unity here.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In general, I think the Financial Secretary has touched on a point of considerable importance, that these hospitals are closely linked with the universities and sufficiently closely linked to receive substantial grants from the Treasury direct. I trust that in the set-up which is being considered, that link will not be broken in any way, and that it will be possible still for these hospitals to remain in some sort of definition which will allow them to receive those large direct grants amounting to £109,000, of which the Financial Secretary has just spoken.
Mr. Buchanan: It is not our intention to link up. It is our intention to add one or two other hospitals, but not to link up the work further.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to find myself at odds with the Joint Under-Secretary and will only say that you can spread the butter so thinly, that it becomes indistinguishable from the surface of the bread, and for this purpose it is necessary to make sure that the high educational institutions are obtaining a grant which is adequate to bring them to, and keep them at the very forefront of medical and teaching knowledge. We are indebted to the hon. Member for raising this matter. I know that he has had it under consideration for many weeks. I compliment him on having taken his Parliamentary chance when he could take it, to enable us to have a rather longer discussion than is possible within the usual half-hour on the Adjournment Motion. I again ask the Financial Secretary to look at the allowances, and see if they are adequate;

163
to look at the machinery of the grants and see whether it is being overstrained by the distribution of these large sums, and to look very closely at this building programme to see if it is not possible to squeeze out a little extra accommodation. The figures he gave were impressive, but it might be that the squeeze would diminish the value of the education which was received. Either by the institution of a new university altogether as suggested by the hon. Member for Tradeston, or by extensions of the older universities, the slips which we are laying down for the new generation, should be made adequate for the ship we hope to launch.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. McAllister: Scotland tomorrow will be deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) for raising this topic this evening. It is useful that the House should have an opportunity of showing its vigilant care and regard for our ancient universities. The anxiety shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston has been shared generally by people in Scotland, and we regard it as rather frightful that young boys and girls who have gone through secondary schools and qualified academically for places in the universities should then be denied those places. We do not think that is a light thing to be passed over without complaint. I have carried on a rather lengthy correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject. The statement made this evening will be received with
164
the greatest possible pleasure by hundreds of families in Scotland tomorrow when they find that an additional 30 per cent. of students is to be received and if possible another 2,000 will be squeezed in. I am sure that my hon. Friend and all who have shared his anxiety will feel that we have at last made a substantial contribution towards solving what was a very difficult problem. It is a very difficult matter to raise the question of Scottish Universities in Parliament. As the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) said, we have to look forward to a building programme and the extensions of the universities. It may take the form of university extension such as that adopted in the South-West, in Exeter and Bristol. From wherever the initiative comes, whether from the universities or from Members of Parliament like my hon. Friend, it will be an initiative which we feel after the speech of the Financial Secretary will be greatly encouraged.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I associate myself enthusiastically with the references to the good sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Trades-ton (Mr. Rankin) and with his request to the Government seriously to consider whether it is practical to undertake an extension of existing buildings, or the desirability of having a new university.
It being half past Ten o'clock, Mr.DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

BRITISH ARMY
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Surrendered Arms, Colchester
  Surrendered Arms, Colchester
  Closed Road, Wrottesley Park
  Closed Road, Wrottesley Park
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Transit Camp, Singapore (Mail)
  Transit Camp, Singapore (Mail)
  Colonial Service
  Colonial Service
  Military Cemetery, Nijmegen
  Military Cemetery, Nijmegen
  Cigarettes, Rhine Army
  Cigarettes, Rhine Army
EMPLOYMENT
  Wales
  Wales
  Wallasey
  Wallasey
  PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN
  PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN
  HANSARD (VOLUME 429)
  HANSARD (VOLUME 429)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hungary (British Credits)
  Hungary (British Credits)
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
SCOTLAND
  Herring Landings
  Herring Landings
  Return of Electors
  Return of Electors
  Shot Man (Police Award)
  Shot Man (Police Award)
  Water Supply, Easter Ross
  Water Supply, Easter Ross
  Housing, Crofting Areas
  Housing, Crofting Areas
  POLISH SERVICEMEN (FAMILIES)
  POLISH SERVICEMEN (FAMILIES)
  MALAYAN COURTS (CONGESTION)
  MALAYAN COURTS (CONGESTION)
  NIGHT TRAINS (PRIORITY BERTHS)
  NIGHT TRAINS (PRIORITY BERTHS)
  SHIPPING (UNUSED SPACE)
  SHIPPING (UNUSED SPACE)
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Horseflesh
  Horseflesh
  Cake Mixtures
  Cake Mixtures
  MENTAL HOSPITALS
  MENTAL HOSPITALS
  RURAL HOUSING RENTS
  RURAL HOUSING RENTS
  CASUAL POOR
  CASUAL POOR
  HARVEST OVERTIME (PRISONERS OF WAR)
  HARVEST OVERTIME (PRISONERS OF WAR)
  KNACKERS (LICENSING)
  KNACKERS (LICENSING)
  NATIONAL STUD (BUILDING)
  NATIONAL STUD (BUILDING)
  MINING WAGES AGREEMENT
  MINING WAGES AGREEMENT
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Marquess of Salisbury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
SOUTH-WEST MIDDLESEX CREMATORIUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEMORIAL TO THE LATE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
2.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we proceed to the Business of the day, I should like, if noble Lords will permit me, to take this opportunity of saying to your Lordships a few words of a personal character. While I was away, I heard of the decision of this House that the money which was so generously subscribed for a diamond wedding present for my father is to be devoted to setting up a bust of him in your Lordships' House. May I say how deeply touched my mother and I, and my family, are by this news? I cannot imagine any more appropriate memorial to him, nor any tribute which he himself
2
would have so greatly appreciated. He was, more than anyone I have ever known, essentially a House of Lords' man. To him, the House was a second home. He loved every stone of it, and regarded every member, old and young, almost as a member of his own family. Nothing could be more fitting than that the wonderful present that was destined for him by members of all Parties in this Assembly, to which his life was devoted, should now go to perpetuate his memory here. I wish that he could have known of that present; it would have been a source of unending pleasure and pride to him. May I thank the whole House on behalf of my mother, My family, and myself, both for your thought at that time and also for the signal honour which you are now paying to his memory? We shall remember it with pride and gratitude to the end of our days.

PRICE OF NEW TAXI-CABS.
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDLESLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what will be the price, including Purchase Tax, of the type of taxi-cab recently approved for use in the Metropolitan area; and whether, in fixing that price, consideration was given to the economic position of the owner-drivers of taxi-cabs?]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, the only make of, taxi-cab of the type recently

3
approved for the Metropolitan area which is so far available is the "Oxford," which costs £997 8s. 4d., of which £217 8s. 4d. is Purchase Tax. The price of taxi-cabs, as of all other motor vehicles, is fixed by the manufacturers. It is understood that hire purchase terms will be available to meet the needs of owner-drivers.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Have His Majesty's Government taken into consideration the greatly increased costs of maintenance and insurance, and the fact that fares are still stabilized at pre-war level?
LORD WALKDEN: The matter of adjusting other costs is rather another question. I have answered the noble Lord's question in respect to the price of the taxicab. Other factors may be considered in due course.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
2.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading marks a complete change in the attitude of the citizens of this country to the question of defence in peace time. In the past, British people have had the strongest objection to the introduction of compulsory military service in any but the most exceptional circumstances, and, indeed, have resented the very idea of introducing it under conditions of peace. All our instincts in the past have been to live in such a peaceful manner, that we entered the last two wars quite unprepared whereas, on the other hand, almost every country in Europe which could directly be invaded by land had a system of national service which provided them with large military forces. Up to the last war, the two major countries—Britain and America—coud not have been so invaded and had large navies to protect them. These countries only of the major Powers did not deem it necessary to introduce compulsory service.
In this country the Labour Party has, since its inception, consistently opposed
4
conscription. It is, therefore, noteworthy that now it is a Labour Government which take the significant step of introducing legislation for compulsory service in this land. In taking this step, the Government have the support not only of the Parliamentary Party but of the Labour Party as a whole. This has been made manifest at the recent Party Conference, where an overwhelming vote in support of this measure was given. Notwithstanding that, I should stress that conscription is asked for, not because the Government, Parliament, or the people of the nation, welcome it, but because of the changed conditions which have made it necessary. Before dealing with these changes, I should like to emphasize the significance of the Bill, which lies in the fact that it introduces a universal obligation to give service in the Armed Forces during peace time.
The new system of peace-time compulsory service contains much of the principles of democracy, for it provides for the universal calling up of men of every class and Party, rich and poor, each having to discharge an equal liability in time and under the same conditions. It marks that the safety of the nation is the responsibility of all its citizens, regardless of their social and economic position. None the less, the universal obligation to give such service in the Armed Forces during peace time must necessarily cause a great deal of interference with the lives and the liberties of our young men and with the whole industrial machine. Clearly, no Government, of whatever shade of opinion, would undertake such a course lightly or, indeed, without the strongest justification.
Let me explain as briefly as possible why the present Government have found it necessary to introduce this Bill. There are two major reasons. The first reason, and the one generally accepted as predominant, is the imperative need to build up substantial reserve forces to ensure our continued preparedness in the event of a major emergency. We must be ready at all times to defend the security of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and to support the United Nations organization in any collective measures they may decide to take in the interests of world peace. For these purposes, in particular, we need a large and adequately trained Reserve. The increasing com-

5
plexity of modern weapons and the enormous technical developments in arms for the Forces make it essential that every man using them should have a period of full-time training, if he is to reach even an initial minimum standard of efficiency in his job.
This was stressed in the opening pronouncement of the Government on compulsory service. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in another place in November:
"First of all, the development of modern warfare has made this country more vulnerable. We are now part of the Continent. We can be reached by attack from the Continent. While in the past we always had a long breathing space on which we could depend, that breathing space is most unlikely to be available should any war arise in the future. The logic of that is that while we keep our first-line forces as low as we can, consonant with efficiency and the jobs they have to do, we must have trained reserves who can take their part right away without waiting for initial training."
The second reason is the special necessity for maintaining adequate Forces during the difficult years ahead, and to assist the Regular Forces, so far as may be possible, in meeting our numerous military commitments. As a result of the war, we have had imposed upon us new military liabilities in various parts of the world. Some, we hope, are of short duration; others will continue for at least some years to come. In the aggregate, and taking full account of such reductions as may be necessary in the years immediately ahead, our overseas liabilities are substantially greater than they were before the war. A general description of the current overseas commitments was contained in paragraph 9 of the White Paper Statement Relating to Defence (Cmd. No. 7042), issued in February last. Those commitments still remain.
Let me examine briefly what Forces are available and will be available in the near future to meet those military commitments without having compulsory national service. The Regular components of the Army and the Royal Air Force are seriously depleted, owing to the suspension of Regular recruiting during the war. The Regular Army now numbers little more than 100,000 men and the regular Air Force rather less than 70,000 men. Many of those now serving are nearing the end of their Regular engagements, and the rate of wastage will be high. The Royal
6
Navy, who had the advantage of some recruitment throughout the war through the junior entries, have about 90,000 Regular men at the present time. But even in that Service it will he several years before the pre-war manpower position can be fully restored. In the meantime the Forces have been losing trained national service men in large numbers, and it is estimated that the run-out in this respect, between now and the end of next year will total no less a figure than some 750,000 men. The Auxiliary Forces were maintained before the war on a voluntary part-time basis. By the end of hositilities they had virtually ceased to exist, because their members were embodied during the war and the engagements, mostly short-service, have now expired. It is true that these Forces have been reconstituted, but it will be a long time before they can be built up on the new basis and made fully effective.
It became clear to the Government when they assumed office that the need to build up Regular Forces was particularly urgent if the release of men already serving was not to be unduly delayed. So much so, that a special recruiting campaign, inaugurated over a year ago by the Prime Minister, has since been continuously assisted by advertising and Press conferences. This has already resulted in an increase in the number of men joining on Regular engagements. Excluding officers, 27,000 volunteers were accepted for normal Regular engagements during the first four months of this year. This figure shows some reduction on the intake towards the end of last year, but it is substantially higher than the total for the corresponding period of 1946. Every effort will continue to be made to build up the Regular Forces to the required level by voluntary recruitment, but it will inevitably be a slow process. The Government have, therefore, reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no alternative to the continuance of compulsory national service, involving a Reserve liability, if the Forces are to be maintained at an adequate level and if Reserves are to be built up without undue delay.
It is for this reason that His Majesty's Government have introduced the present Bill. No-one can at present foresee the results in the years ahead of the recruiting campaign, or what reduction or realignment of our military liabilities will take place. The Bill has accordingly been

7
drawn up to continue the National Service Acts for a period of five years from January 1, 1949. It cannot be continued beyond that period unless a later date is fixed by Order in Council. The Order in Council will only be submitted if it has the consent of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill is, therefore, to amend the present National Service Acts so as to provide for a continuance of national service with the Forces from January 1,1949, onwards. Under this Bill men will be called up for a shorter period of whole-time service than at present, but in addition they will be liable to part-time service. The period of whole-time service has been fixed at one year, and the part-time service at six years. During their part-time service men will be liable to be called up for Reserve training not exceeding sixty days in the aggregate, of which up to twenty-one days may be required in any one year. They will normally begin their wartime service at the age of 18, but they may ask to be called up from 17½if they have good reason. Alternatively, calling-up may be deferred up to the age of 26 in the case of apprentices and students, and provision is made for statutory postponement on the grounds of exceptional hardship.
Until the new Bill comes into force, call-up for national service will continue under the existing Acts. It is intended that men who were serving in the forces from January 1,1947, shall be released by the end of 1948—that is, before the new Bill comes into effect. Those who are called up during 1947 and 1948 will serve for not more than the fixed periods described in the White Paper Call-up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948 (Cmd. No. 6831), and it will be the aim of the Government to ensure that so far as practicable, and apart from individual exceptions, all men called up before the Bill comes into force on January 1,1949, shall be released from the Services before the first of the men called up under the Bill are released at the end of 1949. The methods by which the periods of service are to be reduced to achieve this object are being carefully examined. No man called up before January, 1949, will be liable for part-time service after his release from whole-time service. Men called up before January 1,1954, will still be liable to complete their whole-time and part-time service, and those who become liable
8
before that date will remain liable for call-up.
As I have already indicated, the period of full-time service has been fixed at twelve months. In fixing this period the Government had to reconcile the conflicting claims of defence and of civilian economy. The original Bill, indeed, gave power to reduce the initial period of training from 18 months to 12 months. From the defence aspect it is desirable to allow enough time for full initial training, together with a margin during which the individual can assist the Regular Forces and, at the same time, obtain some training on a collective basis with an active force unit. But in view of the serious economic position in the country, and the extreme shortage of man-power in industry, it was necessary to restrict the time spent in the Forces to the absolute minimum required to meet the essential needs of the Services. Clearly, the training of men could have been carried to a more advanced stage and the usefulness to the Forces increased had a period of rather more than twelve months been decided upon, and as I have just remarked—and as I am sure noble Lords are aware—a period of eighteen months was, in fact. originally proposed. When, the position was later reviewed, however, the Government, for the reasons which I have given, came to the conclusion that on balance of national advantage 12 months was the maximum which could be justified.
Looking at the Services as a whole, it can be said that the initial training can be completed within the twelve months, and there will be a margin during which the individual can be attached to a normal unit. In certain specialized branches it will be more difficult, and a greater intensification of training will be necessary. In general, methods of selection, posting and training, will be reviewed to ensure that the Services obtain the maximum benefit in the time at their disposal. As I have already explained, very substantial numbers of trained reserves are essential at the outset of an emergency. This is the only alternative to maintaining much larger Regular Forces in peace-time.
The voluntary auxiliary Forces, when fully reconstituted, will play an important part in meeting some of the reserve requirements, and the Government attach

9
the greatest importance to a maximum response of volunteers in the coming months. They hope especially to attract large numbers of men with fighting experience in the ręcent war, but the build-up of these Forces, even to their pre-war strength, will necessarily be a long process. Admittedly, there are at the moment many thousands of trained ex-Service men who would be available in the event of a sudden emergency, but for a variety of reasons these are a rapidly diminishing asset from the Services' point of view. A large and continuous intake of trained men over a period of years is necessary, and if the Reserves are to be built up without undue delay a fairly long period of Reserve service is unavoidable. For this reason, the period has been fixed at six years. In view of the amount of training which will have to be given during whole-time service, a reasonable standard of efficiency in the Reserves can be maintained by short spells of refresher training. The Bill prescribes 6o days' full-time training spread over the whole period of the Reserve service, of which not more than 21 days may be required in any particular year. The training requirements will vary according to Service and branch. In the Army, for example, it will he usual to arrange a camp period of about two weeks with evening or week-end instruction in addition. In some branches of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force it may be necessary to arrange for longer periods at less frequent intervals.
Briefly, the arrangements for the discharge of the liability for part-time service are as follows. On completion of whole- time service a man will be deemed to be entered into the Service in which he served his 12 months term of full-time duty or the final part of it. If this was in the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines he will be entered into the Royal Navy Special Reserve; if in the Army into the Territorial Army or the Army Reserve; if in the Royal Air Force, into the Royal Air Force Reserve. Since future circumstances may render desirable adjustments between the Services, the Bill provides for a certain degree of flexibility in operation by empowering the Service authorities to transfer a national service man's compulsory service from one of the Forces to another. It will be appreciated that these training periods will interfere very much with industry, and it is intended that the Minister
10
of Labour shall have conversations with industry with a view to arranging the best periods of the year in which the Reserve training can take place, so that the minimum of interference with the industrial life of the country may be achieved. National service men will be permitted to do their part-time service on voluntary engagements in the Auxiliary Forces if they wish to specialize or to continue in the Auxiliary Forces after their liability under the National Service Acts has expired.
I have outlined briefly the principles underlying the Bill and its main objects. The Government cannot be charged with rushing this measure, for before it came to your Lordships' House no fewer that eight long Parliamentary days were given to its consideration and many important changes were made in it. Your Lordships will riot, therefore, expect me to discuss each of the clauses and accompanying schedules in detail, but there are some important features to which I consider I should direct your Lordships' attention.
The Government firmly intend that, except for the few classes specifically exempted under the National Service Acts, all young men who are liable and are medically fit shall perform their period of national service. At the same time they are fully alive to the question of avoiding, so far as possible, the interruption of the training of those preparing for the professions and the skilled occupations, and of encouraging efficient schemes of professional and industrial training. A provision is therefore made—as I have already indicated—for deferment of the calling up of students, apprentices and learners who wish to complete their studies or training before undertaking their national. service. As men will be liable for calling up between the ages of 18 and 21 the Minister may call them up at any time within those limits. It will be to the advantage of the Services that a number of doctors and dentists wishing to specialize should be allowed to complete their training before doing their national service. In such cases the upper age limit for calling up may be raised to 29 years. The important feature is that the initiative for claiming postponement of calling up will rest with the individual.
It is not intended that deferment shall normally be granted on grounds of in-

11
dustrial need, now that calling up is confined to young men of 18 years, but exception is already made in the cases of underground coal mining, agriculture and certain building materials industries. In view of the special position of the coal mining industry the Government have recently announced that underground coal miners will not be called up to the Forces for the next five years. Accordingly, young men who are already engaged in underground coal mining, when they become due for call-up, will have their calling up deferred so long as they remain satisfactorily in that employment. The question of the deferment of young men of 18 in other industries, to which I have referred, will continue to be reviewed from time to time. The existing provisions for postponement of liability on grounds of personal hardship with regard to conscientious objectors will remain broadly unchanged, but in some cases will be slightly extended, or otherwise modified, to accord with altered circumstances. Under these provisions, application may be made at the medical examination stage for a certificate of postponement of liability to be called up. These arrangements worked exceedingly well during the last war.
The normal age for call-up will continue to be 18, as at present, but it is realized that there are cases where a young man has good grounds for wanting to be called up earlier, such as that he has difficulty in finding employment owing to his impending call-up, or because his career will be seriously affected if he has to wait some months before being called up, or because he wants to get his service over as soon as possible so that he may return to his training or studies at a convenient time. The Bill, therefore, empowers the Minister to make regulations under which young men who may desire to do their military training before entering a university may be called up at any time after reaching the age of 17½—if they so desire and if they show sufficient cause. To this end a provision has been made to permit the registration of young men at the age of 17 years, 2 months.
Clauses 12 to 14 deal with the safeguards of a man's employment by adopting, with such changes as are necessary, the provisions of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944. This Act
12
has worked with great success while the release of over 4,000,000 persons from the Forces has been proceeding since the end of the war. Only a very small number of cases have occasioned difficulties. Under this Act volunteers, as well as men compulsorily called up for service, have reinstatement rights. In the present Bill these rights are preserved for volunteers joining before the Bill is passed, but thereafter will be restricted to national service men. The peace-time volunteer will join on a long-term Regular engagement with the intention, we hope, of entering on a career. Obviously it would not be reasonable to place an employer under an obligation to reinstate a person who might not be released to take up employment until many years later.
For men called up under this new Bill the obligation of employers will be to reinstate them for a period of six months after the end of whole-time service, instead of six months from the end of the emergency—as at present. Provision is also made for the imposition of penalties where employees are dismissed by reason of their liability for compulsory service. Provision is likewise made to safeguard men who are called up for training during their period of Reserve liability. In such cases the contract of service is not regarded as being broken; the Minister of Labour is empowered to make regulations adjusting contracts of service and of apprenticeship as necessary. It is envisaged that men will be granted leave after their full-time service. They can take their leave without losing their right to reinstatement. Clauses 1o and 11 make provision for the education of men called up under this Bill.
I would like to emphasize that the necessity for maintaining and increasing the present rate of voluntary recruitment to the Regular Forces remains as vital as ever, and His Majesty's Government will do everything possible to improve upon the present results of recruiting. Much has already been done. The pay and conditions in the Services have been improved, and much attention is paid to education and welfare, and to increasing the freedom for the individual man within the limits imposed by a disciplined force. We intend to improve living conditions to a greater extent, as time goes on. We believe that the Services will provide a healthy, open air and varied life, with

13
full maintenance and reasonable rates of pay, and we look forward to the growing success of our long-continued voluntary system.
His Majesty's Government do not minimize the importance of the effect of this Bill upon our national life, for it imposes compulsory national service, not as in 1939 when the nation was on the eve of war, but for a substantial period after the end of a long war. By so doing it will mean that we shall call up regularly for the period provided in the Bill some 200,000 men from their normal life for 12 months' full-time training, with a further liability of reserve training covering a further period of six years, and this must involve many new adjustments in the life of the individual, the family, and the industry in which the man is employed. I think that the large majority of those concerned will carry out the obligation imposed upon them under this Bill, fully realizing that by their service an indication is given to all concerned that it is the intention of the people of this nation to defend themselves against aggression at all times, and that we are prepared to give that ready support to the United Nations organization in any collective measures which it takes in the interests of international peace. I cannot too strongly emphasize that the main object of this Bill is to prevent war. That remains the purpose of His Majesty's Government, and we will bend all our energies unceasingly to that task. I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
3.11 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I think that this is the first occasion on which the noble Viscount has taken part in a major Defence debate in this House, and, if it is not an impertinence on my part, I should like to say how much I, on personal grounds, welcomed his appointment to his important office. For many years I had the privilege of working with him in another place and I always admired his balance and his wisdom. Moreover, I had the privilege of serving with him in the great Administration under which victory was achieved in the recent war. But I must confess that my congratulations and the pleasure which his presence here
14
in his high office gives me, are tempered (as I expect are the congratulations of a great many of your Lordships) with sympathy, on account of the difficult position in which he has been put. The First Lord with the Board or Admiralty behind him had produced an_ admirable plan, but they suddenly found that the Cabinet had thrown it back on the Service Ministers, who had to accept an entirely different scheme.
We are to-day discussing a National Service Bill. When a Bill under a. similar title was introduced in another place it was described by the Minister of Defence on April I as "being read a second time, on one of the most important debates which has ever taken place in this House." So vital a debate, I venture to submit, could not have been entered upon lightly, and for nearly two years His Majesty's Government must have been weighing up the pros and cons and deciding upon the basic structure of national defence, the economic situation with which they were then faced, their manpower requirements (all of which were obvious) and the extent of training essential to efficiency. Nor did that evidence come to them at a late hour. It is not an exaggeration to say that from the moment the defeat of Germany was certain, the expert advisers of His Majesty's Government were all working on the minimum needs of defence. Then came the time when, with entirely new Chiefs of Staff, entirely new officers upon whom to rely for their information, they again set to work to introduce a plan. The considered views of the Service chiefs were then screened, as we have been told, and reduced and again reduced, as the Minister of Defence confessed on March 20 of this year, "indeed to a still lower level."
The Cabinet had, therefore, a wealth of evidence before them and must with great deliberation have set themselves to judge and to embark upon their policy, already reduced to a lower level in order—if I may quote the Minister of Defence again—"to approach the whole question of national service for military purposes from the view of the ultimate security of our country and the liberties we enjoy." That surely was very proper and one would have thought it was the only test, and thus far there seems no doubt that His Majesty's Government did their duty and

15
placed the safety of the realm and the Commonwealth and Empire, and also our responsibilities to the United Nations, where they should be—namely, far above Party politics on the supreme test of security.
I should like here to say that their weighty decision, so long probed, screened and sifted under expert technical advice, endorsed by themselves, and adopted and advocated by the Cabinet, did require courage. We all recognize that their action must have won the approval of all in this country who, after two terrible wars, intend, if it be humanely possible, to avert by preparedness the possibility of the slaughter of their sons and the appalling miseries which war brings upon those who sacrifice safety for softness and ease, and in the search for votes. The Government appealed for the support of Parliament, and the Opposition, unlike other Oppositions in our recollection between the wars, and even in 1938, gave them all possible support, not only in speeches but in the Division lobbies. No political Party in opposition would, for choice, embark upon a policy of conscription in peace time unless it was regarded as absolutely essential for the safety of the Realm.
The Opposition might, without opposing, have taken the easy vote-catching course, have abstained from taking part on the Second Reading and let the Government, which has not been too considerate of their opponents, take the onus and any political opprobrium, if there be any, on their own shoulders. I am thankful to say that the Opposition did not take that course, and I shall always rejoice that the Conservative Party, when appealed to by the Socialist Government, went in full muster into the Lobby in response to the call for the nation's safety in 1947, just as we responded to the call of the Liberal Government in 1914. On April 1 the Government carried the Second Reading by a very large majority—the figures were 388 to 87, a wonderful democratic decision and a fine example of national unity. One could almost hear the sigh of relief which went up from all the small nations who look to us as the champions of civilization and liberty and the backbone of the United Nations organization.
16
That was on Tuesday, April 1. What happened on Thursday? On April 3 the Government, in supreme contempt for the decision of Parliament, tabled an Amendment which completely changed the time factor in the strategic use of our Forces and altered fundamentally the whole basis on which our defence was to be built, by cutting down by a third the training of all three Services, with the result that instead of being instantly ready for war they would be six months in arrears of the training previously regarded as essential to meet an immediate emergency. The Government then blatantly announced that they had run away from their own Bill purely and simply on Party grounds. A few hours later they realized that this explanation had rather shocked the nation, and they amended the cause of their stampede to grounds of economic necessity. We are getting used to shocks and crises under the present Government, but it must have been an economic volcano to have developed so speedily in forty-eight hours.
The naked truth is, I think, that they yielded to a comparatively small group of anti-military defeatists united with the crypto-Communists who appear to desire the destruction, or at least the discredit, of the Government they pretend to support. Was ever a vote face achieved in such circumstances? Was ever the great deliberative assembly of Parliament made to look so ridiculous? Especially was this true of all those Socialists who had screwed up their courage, in answer to the exhortations of their own leaders, to vote for the safety of the State. How difficult it must be for these poor patriots to face their constituents and explain their conduct! Search the annals of Parliament as you will, I doubt if you can find any action of a Government quite so contemptible, or any major issue ever treated with such unseemly and indecent levity.
We were told that this somersault was achieved after "consultation" with the Chiefs of Staff. I hazard a guess that what really happened was that the Cabinet ordered the three Services to abandon the Cabinet plan, to which the Chiefs of Staffs had agreed, and gave them twenty-four hours in which to conform to this acrobatic feat. I venture to suggest that it was a grievous wrong ever to mention the word "consult," unless it meant agreement. At a very late hour, in the

17
opening of the Committee stage debate, the Cabinet felt bound to explain the truth, having realized, I think, that the country would not tolerate the hiding of their political cowardice behind the shelter of the Chiefs of Staffs. All the Service Chiefs were tardily exonerated from any responsibility for this base act of scuttle.
It is not for us to judge the reactions of the Service Chiefs. They have to obey the Ministers in charge of their Departments. I wonder, however, if they were even asked to give a considered view on whether any man in the technical branches of the Royal Navy could be trained in a year, and how useful the national service men would be in a Fleet action, even as able seamen—much less as technicians; whether the Royal Air Force would be ready for a second Battle of Britain, with lads of no previous technical training and of less than a year's service; or whether, in the Army, a man in the Royal Armoured Corps, a highly-trained airborne parachutist, an artilleryman, an engineer, or a signaller could be trained, or even a modern infantry soldier (who has to master so many elaborate weapons and take part in mechanized transport) could be ready for war in twelve months—deducting leaves and periods of movement.
These questions appear all the more pertinent, if we are to understand the latest Russian expression of opinion on the United Nations Forces, that they must none of them be drawn from outlying stations in the Empire where so many of our Regular Forces are, of necessity, quartered. Who then, it may well be asked, will in fact garrison Germany whilst the bulk of our volunteer Army may be retained in India—I hope that will be so, though we may hear differently about it to-day—in Palestine, in the Middle East, and in overseas garrisons? Apparently it will be only partly trained national service men, and they will also have to wage immediate battle with an aggressor State should aggressive war commence. How can they complete their training in so short a space of time whilst scattered in Germany fulfilling the duties of occupation? Where is the strategic force which makes our contribution to the United Nations a reality?
All these considerations are vital, and surely they must have been exhaustively
18
examined and probed before the Government produced their original Bill. Why then was 18 months essential on Tuesday, and 12 months adequate on Thursday? I suppose that not out of your Lordships will deny that if the tragedy of war again afflicts the world, it will be without notice. Atom bombs, rockets, and other fiendish inventions of science would suddenly tell us, perhaps at dusk on some quiet summer evening in peace, that an aggressor had started once more the foulness of attack. No one who is wicked enough to make war again in this modern world would be good enough to give us five minutes' notice. No, next time there will be no year or six months of warning, and no "phoney" war of a year on top of that. It will be death from the blue, and only those who can act immediately in the air, on sea, and by airborne counter-attack will have any chance whatever of survival.
Insurance against sudden aggression is preparedness. All this was present in the minds of the Government—indeed it was present in the very able discourse by the noble Viscount on the principles affecting the need for this Bill. When they brought their Bill before Parliament two months ago the Government stated:
"the Regular element in the Services is likely to be insufficient to meet even a fraction of our minimum defence requirements."
And the corollary follows, for speaking of the need for adequate Reserve Forces, Mr. Isaacs said:
"Otherwise, all that we shall be doing will be saying to the volunteer Force, which is inadequate to meet the strain, you go into battle. We will sacrifice you and will wait a few more months while we train the others that are to come on.'"
That was well said, but what a damning indictment of the subsequent change of plan, for now they will have to wait not "a few more months" but certainly six months longer while "we train the others that are to come on."
A noble Lord remarked to me the other day, coming into the House, that the Socialists are running true to form on defence. I think that that is unfair on former Socialists, for never did they run so fast or so far from their deliberate purpose and from their conscience as their successors ran in those two remarkable days. If—which God forbid—the tragedy of war again comes to our land, and once

19
more the cry goes up "Too late" or "Unprepared," there can be no doubt whatever of the judgment of history. Their's is the blame. It is not Parliament which has failed; it is the Government, on whom lies the whole onus for a decision of such far-reaching consequences.
"We are looking only for the security of our country and our ultimate power to support the general development of the United Nations organization."
Those were the concluding words of the Government spokesman on April 1. Now the security of our country may be jeopardized to placate those who would not fight, and those who would not cooperate in the defence of our country. And the United Nations, upon which so many countries place their only hope for this major purpose, is being largely deserted, it appears to me, at birth, and Great Britain is being deprived of her ultimate power to make it a reality.
In conclusion—I know that your Lordships have further important business before you in a moment, so I will not delay you any longer—I say to His Majesty's Government: "On your conscience be it: on you must rest the supreme responsibility for an action for which you are condemned out of the mouths of your own spokesmen, and for which you have earned the censure of all who place first the safety of our country and the lives of our people." We were prepared to support the Bill which was introduced originally, and we showed that in another place. We shall support the Second Reading to-day, not because we believe that the emasculated Bill now before us is adequate, but because without it, even in its attenuated form, we would be courting immediate disaster, imperilling the fate of our country and betraying the United Nations, and because without universal service the whole defensive machinery of our country would break down in eighteen months.

INDIAN POLICY.
3.30 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for permission to interrupt the business of the House in order to make an important statement
20
on Indian policy. A similar statement is being made at the same time by the Prime Minister in another place, and by the Viceroy in New Delhi. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the plan contained in the announcement which I am about to make has been favourably received by all three Parties represented at the Conferences held by the Viceroy with Indian leaders during the past two days.
The announcement is as follows:
1. On February 20, 1947, His Majesty's Government announced their intention of transferring power in British India to Indian hands by June, 1948. His Majesty's Government had hoped that it would be possible for the major Parties to co-operate in the working-out of the Cabinet Mission's Plan of May 16, 1946, and evolve for India a Constitution acceptable to all concerned. This hope has not been fulfilled.
2. The majority of the representatives of the Provinces of Madras, Bombay, the United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces and Berar, Assam, Orissa and the North-West Frontier Province, and the representatives of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara and Coorg have already made progress in the task of evolving a new Constitution. On the other hand, the Moslem League Party, including in it a majority of the representatives of Bengal, the Punjab and Sind, as also the representative of British Baluchistan, has decided not to participate in the Constituent Assembly.
3. It has always been the desire of. His Majesty's Government that power should be transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Indian people themselves. This task would have been greatly facilitated if there had been agreement among the Indian political Parties. In the absence of such an agreement, the task of devising a method by which the wishes of the Indian people can be ascertained has devolved on His Majesty's Government. After full consultation with political leaders in India, His Majesty's Government have decided to adopt for this purpose the plan contained in this announcement. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that they

21
have no intention of attempting to frame any ultimate Constitution for India; this is a matter for the Indians themselves. Nor is there anything in this plan to preclude negotiations between communities for an united India.
4. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to interrupt the work of the existing Constituent Assembly. Now that provision is made for certain Provinces which I will specify, His Majesty's Government trust that, as a consequence of this announcement, the Moslem League representatives of those Provinces, a majority of whose representatives are already participating in it, will now take their due share in its labours. At the same time, it is clear that any Constitution framed by this Assembly cannot apply to those parts of the country which are unwilling to accept it. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the procedure which I will outline embodies the best practical method of ascertaining the wishes of the people of such areas on the issue whether their Constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly consisting of the representatives of those areas which decide not to participate in the existing Constituent Assembly.

When this has been done, it will be possible to determine the authority or authorities to whom power should be transferred.
5. The Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab (excluding the European members) will therefore each be asked to meet in two parts, one representing the Moslem majority districts and the other the rest of the Province. For the purpose of determining the population of districts, the 1941 census figures will be taken as authoritative. The Moslem majority districts in these two Provinces are set out in the Appendix to the White Paper of which copies will be available when I sit down.
6. The members of the two parts of each Legislative Assembly sitting separately will be empowered to vote whether or not the Province should be
22
partitioned. If a simple majority of either part decides in favour of partition, division will take place and arrangements will be made accordingly.
7. Before the question as to the partition is decided, it is desirable that the representatives of each part should know in advance which Constituent Assembly the Province as a whole would join in the event of the two parts subsequently deciding to remain united. Therefore, if any member of either Legislative Assembly so demands, there shall be held a meeting of all members of the Legislative Assembly (other than Europeans) at which a decision will be taken on the issue as to which Constituent Assembly the Province as a whole would join if it were decided by the two parts to remain united.
8. In the event of partition being decided upon, each part of the Legislative Assembly will, on behalf of the areas they represent, decide whether their Constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

9. For the immediate purpose of deciding on the issue of partition, the members of the Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab will sit in two parts according to Moslem majority districts (as laid down in the Appendix to the White Paper) and non-Moslem majority districts. This is only a preliminary step of a purely temporary nature as it is evident that for the purposes of final partition of these Provinces a detailed investigation of boundary questions will be needed; and, as soon as a decision involving partition has been taken for either Province, a Boundary Commission will be set up by the Governor-General, the membership and terms of reference of which will be settled in consultation with those concerned. It will be instructed to demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Moslems and non-Moslems. It will also be instructed to take into account other factors. Similar instructions will he given to the Bengal Boundary Commission. Until the report of a Boundary Commission has

23
been put into effect, the provisional boundaries indicated in the Appendix to the White Paper will be used.
10. The Legislative Assembly of Sind (excluding the European members) will at a special meeting also take its own decision whether the Constitution of Sind is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

11. The position of the 'North-West Frontier Province is exceptional. Two of the three representatives of this Province are already participating in the existing Constituent Assembly. But it is clear, in view of its geographical situation, and other considerations, that, if the whole or any part of the Punjab decides not to join the existing Constituent Assembly, it will be necessary to give the North-West Frontier Province an opportunity to reconsider its position. Accordingly, in such an event, a referendum will be made to the electors of the present Legislative Assembly in the North-West Frontier Province to choose whether the Constitution of the Province is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

12. British Baluchistan has elected a member but he has not taken his seat in the existing Constituent Assembly. In view of its geographical situation, this Province will also be given an opportunity to reconsider its decision and to choose whether its constitution is to be framed—

(a) in the existing Constituent Assembly; or

(b) in a new and separate Constituent Assembly.

13. Though Assam is predominantly a non-Moslem Province, the district of Sylhet which is contiguous to Bengal is predominantly Moslem. There has been a demand that, in the event of the partition of Bengal, Sylhet should be amalgamated with the Moslem part of Bengal. Accordingly, if it is decided that
24
Bengal should be partitioned, a referendum will be held in Sylhet district, under the ægis of the Governor-General and in consultation with the Assam Provincial Government, to decide whether the district of Sylhet should continue to form part of the Assam Province or should be amalgamated with the new Province of Eastern Bengal, if that Province agrees. If the referendum results in favour of amalgamation with Eastern Bengal, a Boundary Commission with terms of reference similar to those for the Punjab and Bengal will be set up to demarcate the Moslem majority areas of adjoining districts, which will then be transferred to Eastern Bengal. The rest of the Assam Province will in any case continue to participate in the proceedings of the existing Constituent Assembly.
14. If it is decided that Bengal and the Punjab should be partitioned, it will be necessary to hold fresh elections to choose their representatives on the scale of one for every million of population according to the principle contained in the Cabinet Mission's Plan of May 16, 1946. Similar elections will also have to be held for Sylhet in the event of its being decided that this district should form part of East Bengal. The number of representatives to which each area would be entitled is set out in full in the White Paper.
15. In accordance with the mandates given to them, the representatives of the various areas will either join the existing Constituent Assembly or form the new Constituent Assembly.
16. Negotiations will have to be initiated as soon as possible on administrative consequences of any partition that may have been decided upon:

(a) Between the representatives of the respective successor authorities about all subjects now dealt with by the Central Government, including Defence, Finance and Communications.

(b) Between different successor authorities and His Majesty's Government for treaties in regard to matters arising out of the transfer of power.

(c) In the case of Provinces that may be partitioned as to administration of all provincial subjects such as the division of assets and liabilities,

25
the police and ether services, the High Courts, provincial institutions, and so on.

17. Agreements with tribes of the North-West Frontier of India will have to be negotiated by the appropriate successor authority.
18. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that the decisions which I have announced relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of May 16, 1946 remains unchanged.
19. In order that the successor authorities may have time to prepare themselves to take over power, it is important that all the above processes should be completed as quickly as possible, To avoid delay, the different Provinces or parts of Provinces will proceed independently as far as practicable within the conditions of this Plan, the existing Constituent Assembly and the new Constituent Assembly (if formed) will proceed to frame Constitutions for their respective territories: they will of course be free to frame their own rules.
20. The major political Parties have repeatedly emphasized their desire that there should be the earliest possible transfer of power in India. With this desire His Majesty's Government are in full sympathy, and they are willing to anticipate the date of June, 1948. for the handing over of power by the setting up of an independent Indian Government or Governments at an even earlier date. Accordingly, as the most expeditious, and indeed the only practicable, way of meeting this desire, His Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation during the current session for the transfer of power this year on a Dominion status basis to one or two successor authorities according to the decisions taken as a result of this announcement. This will be without prejudice to the right of Indian Constituent Assemblies to decide in due course whether or not the part of India in respect of which they have authority will remain within the British Commonwealth.
21. His Excellency the Governor-General will from time to time make such further announcements as may be
26
necessary in regard to procedure or any other matters for carrying out the above arrangements.
3.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with the most intense interest to the extremely full and important statement that has been male by the Secretary of State for India. Clearly this moment is a crucial one both for India and for the world. If these new Government proposals are accepted by the Hindus and by the Moslems it seems that there is not only a hope that a horrible disaster may be avoided, but there may be a possibility that the fruitful collaboration of the Indian and the British peoples will continue within the community of the free nations of the British Commonwealth, to the advantage of all concerned. I am quite certain that I am speaking for all noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that that would be an evolution which we would warmly welcome and, indeed, I think it would be warmly welcomed by noble Lords in every quarter of the House. On the other hand, if these proposals are unhappily rejected, there is nothing that I can see before India but bloodshed and ruin on a vast scale.
In these circumstances, it is certainly not for any one of us, in whatever part of the House we sit, to say anything today that may make a delicate situation more difficult. We all honour the gallant courage and the pertinacity which has been shown by the Viceroy in tackling his formidable task, and we wish him, and the Government, good luck in their future negotiations. But, as I am sure the Government will understand, we wish to study this document further. It is extremely complicated and, after all, it is one thing to offer Dominion status and quite another to achieve it in a practical form. As I think is perfectly clear from the statement, the problem of handing over powers to several distinct authorities, with areas quite different from any combination of provincial boundaries at present existing, is bound to involve questions of very great complexity.
Moreover, we do not yet know what will be the final views of the leaders of the Indian communities themselves, although I understand from what was

27
said by the Secretary of State (and we warmly welcome the news) that the initial reactions have been favourable. While, therefore, we on this side of the House will do nothing to-day, or, I hope, ever, to hamper the efforts of the Government to produce so favourable a solution of the difficulties as that which has been adumbrated, we must reserve our position until we know more clearly how the situation develops. For that reason, I do not ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for a debate today. But I am quite certain that if an appropriate moment arrives the Government will agree to the House discussing the matter further.
3.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, before saying anything more, I would like, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, to associate ourselves with the tribute which the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has just paid to the Viceroy, who has certainly done magnificent work in a very short time. We, on these Benches, certainly agree that any discussion or even comment on the important statement that has been made would be premature, and might even be dangerous. We feel that the issues involved no longer lie with the people of this country, although, of course, they are deeply concerned about them, they lie with the populations of India. If the results of the plan put forward in the statement prove acceptable to these populations, and thus avoid civil war—the most terrible scourge that can ever fall upon the peoples of any country, especially if that country be a subcontinent—then we will welcome it. We can assure the Government that we will give them any help that may lie in our power to expedite legislation if they feel it is required for this particular purpose. We can only pray that the leaders and the peoples of India may he guided aright in facing these grave problems and responsibilities, and that what happens may lead to peace and to order in India, and thus conduce to peace throughout the world.
3.49 P.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords. may I thank both the noble Marquess and the noble Earl for their expressions of good will, for their willingness to wait for
28
a further statement from the Government and until events have taken us a little further, and for their kind references to the work that has been done by the Viceroy. I think we all appreciate that whatever degree of success has been achieved is due in large measure to the tireless and selfless devotion of the Viceroy since he went out to India.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
Debate on Second Reading continued.
3.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, after that very momentous statement perhaps we may return to the Bill we were discussing. It is obviously a Bill of very great importance, and it has had the advantage, not always in recent times enjoyed by major Bills passing through the other place, of having been the subject of a free and unfettered discussion in that other place. In the course of the debate which there took place it was discussed from many angles, from impassioned pacifism to impenitent conscriptionism. But, as I understand the Bill, it does not seek to impose upon this country—if impose be the right word—a permanent system of conscription. It is actually more limited, both in its scope and in its objective, and, as I see.it, is designed in the present unsettled state of the world to prolong into the immediate future, subject to considerable modification, a restricted form of that national service which has now been for some years a feature of the life of the country. I have said it is applicable to the immediate future, and from this point of view I think the years from 1949 to 1954 must be regarded as forming the immediate future, because the Services must know beforehand where they are likely to stand; plans must be laid in due time, and administrative arrangements be perfected in advance.
If that be the right approach, then I respectfully suggest that a general discussion upon the principle of conscription in itself is not germane to this particular Bill. I have never regarded conscription as being in any way a Party matter. There are those who hold it as a faith, perhaps as strongly as others hold pacifism as a faith—if you like, not as a matter merely of individual belief, but of

29
individual conscience—but, in my view, that is not the question raised by this Bill. We are not called upon here and now to decide whether or not for the future conscription is to be a permanent part of the life of this country; nor to decide whether or not it is in itself a good thing; and, if it is a good thing, whether it should be absorbed into the national life. This Bill is, however, founded upon the principle of compulsion, and from that point of view, not unnaturally, it is as repellent to the pacifist as it is acceptable to the conscriptionist; the conscriptionist requires no conversion, the pacifist is not susceptible to argument. But in between those two extremes there lie, I think, the great majority of the people of this country, who take the view, rightly or wrongly, that conscription is not an advantage to the country in itself, and who are prepared to submit to it only if they are satisfied that an abnormal state of affairs exists. If that again be the right approach, we have to consider this Bill in the light of that view, because, after all, we are not entirely expressing our own independent and individual views in this House—we are, so far as Possible, representing and considering what we believe to be public opinion in the matter.
What is the question to which those very large numbers of people, who, in my belief, cherish the view which I put for ward, have to address their minds? It is surely this: In view of all the surrounding circumstances is it likely that by the end of 1948, when the present system comes to an end—unless it be prolonged—that the world will have so far recovered its balance and returned to what we once credulously believed to be normal times, that the country will be able to afford to rely entirely upon a voluntary system and to dispense with any wider source of trained reserves? Obviously there are difficulties in answering that fundamental question, and one of the difficulties is that extremely little information has hitherto been vouchsafed by the Government upon which we could form a studied judgment of the position. But, equally, one of the Government's difficulties is that, even in a democratic country, not every matter can be shouted from the housetops; and there are matters, especially in the realms of strategy and defence, which in the interests of national security it is obviously the duty of the
30
Government, to some extent, to retain to. themselves.
It would be futile for me, speaking from these Benches, after the Conference of the Liberal Party which took place recently at Bournemouth, to pretend that there is no division of opinion in the Party upon this question. Obviously, those of your Lordships who may have studied the proceedings at that Conference will have seen that there was. Personally, I would rather see a difference of opinion voiced and voted upon than I would see it camouflaged by a plaster facade put up at forty-eight hours notice in order to preserve an appearance of unanimity at very considerable cost. We upon these Benches have to approach the problem from our own point of view, and we have, I think, to bear in mind this consideration—that this is a matter upon which it is immensely difficult to arrive at an informed conclusion without having the necessary material available. We have also to accept that the Government, perforce, have at their disposal—and rightly have at their disposal—far ampler material than is available to us, and far more skilled technical advice than is at the disposal of anybody else.
We have also to acknowledge another aspect. Obviously, unless they were afflicted by suicidal tendencies, no Socialist Government would launch out into a scheme of national service—or conscription if you prefer to call it by its perhaps still better-known name—unless they were satisfied and, equally, were prepared to justify to the country that it was essential for the future security of the country, that that scheme should be brought forward. We have to consider, also, that from the political angle they have much to lose and nothing to gain by bringing forward this scheme. And it is perhaps not a very rash deduction from those facts that they would not have done so unless they had been satisfied up to the hilt that there was no other way. We on these Benches have, I hope, in the quite recent past given some evidence of our interest in, and our desire for, the preservation of the liberty of the individual. At the same time all of us, however devoted to that principle, have to recognize that liberty cannot be absolute—except perhaps in a country populated exclusively by angels or anarchists—and that it must be, as Burke once said, that

31
"liberty must be limited in order to be possessed."
We shall support this Bill, although I confess that we should have followed the Government lead more willingly if we had not been confronted with the singularly inept and humiliating antics which were performed in another place as to the length of the period prescribed. Speaking for myself—and I think for other noble Lords on these Benches—I would greatly have preferred to see the retention of the 18 months period rather than the 12 months. After all, 12 months is a pitiable period of time in which to attempt to produce anything like a trained soldier. What we have always to remember—those of us who in a humble and highly irregular way have had personal experience of it will know this—is that when you are training a man, his training does not finish when you have trained him as an individual. The vital part of his training is to make him not a person by himself, but a unit in a corporate whole, so that he knows, if the time comes, how to take his place, where to take his place and how to function as a unit of a machine, and not merely as a man who has been put through a certain number of drills and attained a certain standard of proficiency in musketry.
There again, those of us who have had some experience of Territorial soldiering have known the difficulties of trying to collect a few men and pretend that they are a battalion, or a few vehicles and pretend that they are a column moving along the road. You cannot get into a man that sense of membership of a corporate body unless you have the real numbers there to impress him with the fact that he does belong to that body. Therefore, the only way in which you will really get the man trained to act as a member of a corporate body is by the actual period of his consecutive service of 12 months. Had that been 18 months, it would, in my view, have made a very real difference to the standard of training of the man. Not only would his education have continued, in the military sense, but in the remaining six months he could have seen the application of the lessons which he had been learning
32
during his early days, and come to realize the value and the necessity for what he had been taught, so that if he were recalled he would come back, not as a being in a vacuum but as a man with a background into which he could readily step in a moment of emergency. That, in my view, is the great and singularly regrettable weakness of having reduced the period from 18 months to 12 months. I confess that I find myself utterly unable to accept the thesis that this change took place as the result of prolonged deliberation and consideration of factors, military, economic and political, over a period of months, and by some nappy chance came to fruition in the space of forty-eight hours after some eighty of the more volatile and vociferous members of the Government—
LORD STRABOLGI: Including some Liberals.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Including some Liberals if you like—the noble Lord is entitled to his point—had taken the view that they did not like the Bill and that 12 months was enough.
I think one must ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate to give us a little enlightenment on one or two questions, and to dissipate for us the idea that perhaps the Government were a little scared by this noise of thunder on the Left, and thought that the only way they could deal with it was by an act apparently of abject appeasement. I would like to know when this decision to reduce the period from 18 months to 12 months was actually taken. I would like to know what new information, not present when the original decision was made, had come to the Government's knowledge to produce that change in their minds; and if the decision was not taken during those fateful forty-eight hours—if it was not due to what had taken place on the previous day—why it was that in the earlier stages of discussion on the Bill no hint, suggestion or indication of any kind was given, either to the House or through the House to the country, that the Government proposed to reduce this period from 18 months to 12 months. Admittedly, I have not given the noble Lord who is to reply notice of those questions, but surely on a matter of this kind no notice of such fundamental questions is necessary. They must be known to

33
every member of the Government, for they are indeed fundamental to this very important decision, involving as it did a marked change of policy which the Government announced.
I am glad that the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of the Bill laid strong emphasis upon the need to continue to stimulate and, if possible, to increase recruiting for the Regular Army, simultaneously with such steps as may be taken towards national service. For the Regular Army the long-service man must be the foundation, not only from the point of view of training those whose service is going to be concentrated into a pitiably short time, but also from the point of view of giving backbone and stability to the whole Force.
The aspect of reserves is of enormous importance. Some of us have twice seen the long, painful, discouraging process of trying to beat ploughshares into swords, and if it should, unhappily, ever happen that this country again found itself at war, there would, at least, be some insurance in the fact that we had trained reserves available and had not to start once more the business of bringing in men from all quarters, untrained to any degree in the handling of any weapon, and to try under the stress of conditions of war to turn them into soldiers, fit to take their places in the line of battle. I hope the Government will persist in their endeavour. It may be that, if the figures for voluntary recruiting increase, it will be found before the end of the period in 1954 that this system of national service may no longer be essential to the country. In that case the Government would, no doubt, take steps to repeal this Bill, and then would be the time to decide, after discussion, whether or not a system of conscription was, in itself, for the good of the country and therefore ought to be continued as an advantage.
This Bill will affect the lives of a large number of young men throughout the country. I think there was one sentence towards the end of the noble Viscount's speech to-day which was the first sign of any encouragement to these young men to face up to the obligations which might fall upon them under this Bill. The Government have—and I hope they will take it—a real opportunity on this Bill to make an appeal the youth of the coun-
34
try and to say to them "You have now so much that your fathers never knew; you have a system of social security, pre-cradle to post-grave, maternity services, infant welfare, education, health insurance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, family allowances, holidays with pay—
LORD STRABOLGI: And funeral benefits.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps the noble Lord will restrain himself for the moment. "You have funeral benefits, and pensions for widows. These are now your rights as a citizen. But must you therefore take them for granted? Surely, if citizenship is to be worth anything, is to have any meaning and any value, it must carry with it not only rights but also obligations. If it is to be citizenship at all it must be responsible citizenship, with the responsibilities that attach to the privileges of citizenship."
If the Government would say that to the young men of the country, and not approach this question of the young men being called up for service quite so diffidently and apologetically as they often do, but say to them: "In return for all you have, here is your opportunity to render thanks by rendering service," there might be a chance that they would be able to re-kindle in the young men of this country something of the spirit of the volunteers of 1914, who flocked to the recruiting stations, not because they wanted to fight a war but because they wanted to serve a cause.
4.15 P.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, as has already been said, this Bill affects the homes of this country and will affect hundreds and thousands of our young men for many years to come, and, I think that perhaps it is right, therefore, that one or two observations should be made on it from these Benches. We dislike the idea of conscription, and we regret that it has been found necessary to introduce it in this country. In our country we have been free from conscription except in times of war, and we have been proud of that fact. I am quite certain that the Government have introduced this Bill with great hesitation and regret, and that they have introduced it only because they are confident that without con-

35
scription it would be impossible for us either to defend our freedom or to make a contribution towards peace and order in the world.
We all of us detest and hate war, but, horrible as war has been in the past, we know that in the future, with the atomic bomb and with bacteriological weapons, war would be still more indiscriminating and horrible than it has been; and the question which we are forced to ask ourselves is this: Is war always the worst of evils, or may not a cruel tyranny sometimes be worse than even war itself? We also ask ourselves another question: What will best prevent war, a Great Britain unarmed or armed only with exhortations, or a Great Britain entering into conference with arms behind her? I, for one, feel certain that we shall be able to do much more for the preservation of peace if we are a nation which is armed, and I believe that those who are most anxious to see war abolished should realize that at this particular stage an unarmed nation with possessions is an incitement to war rather than to peace.
Before the last war I remember a pacifist in your Lordships' House whom we all respected but who is now dead—Lord Allen of Hurtwood—saying to me that though his own personal views remained the same he was glad that the Government were re-arming, for he was certain that their decision to re-arm was bringing a message of hope and courage to large numbers of smaller nations. I think it is possible that war might have been postponed or even averted if at an earlier stage this country had been armed. And if it is decided that this country must be armed, conscription seems obviously the fairest and most democratic way of bringing it about, when all classes, all men, irrespective of the social position or wealth of their parents, serve equally in the defence of their country. An exception, of course, must be made, and has rightly been made, in the case of conscientious objectors. Conscientious scruples have been respected in the past, and they will be respected in the future, and it is a remarkable thing that in the darkest days of the last war the utmost care was taken to safeguard the scruples of those who were conscientiously opposed to taking up arms.
36
There is one matter of detail to which I must make some reference, and it is a matter which affects the Church of England and other Churches. Under the Bill, candidates for ordination, like other students, may have their period of service deferred. If they become ordained before doing their period of service they are, as ministers of religion, altogether exempt. It is not the object of any denomination, by deferring its students and by ordaining them earlier, to obtain complete exemption from national service. I must make it clear that the Church of England did not want such an arrangement; indeed, there is a widespread desire in the Church of England that its candidates for ordination should take their place with all other young men in doing their period of national service. We do not want them to be treated as a separate class with special privileges; we hope they will do their period of service. But this will lead to certain disadvantages which must be accepted—including the fact that if they do their period of national service, they will then be compelled to do their subsequent period of annual training in order to take their ordination, while students who are deferred (and subsequently ordained) escape the whole thing. To that the Church of England does not propose to suggest any alteration; nor will any Amendment be moved from these Benches. I am anxious, however, to make it perfectly clear that it was far from being our own desire that this arrangement should be made.
I want now to make an observation on a much more important matter. One of the results of reducing the 18 months service to 12 months will probably be to enlarge the number of men, recently conscripted, who will have to serve in Germany or other places. I am not personally fitted to suggest why the Government so suddenly changed its mind, although I am bound to admit I have always been interested in the psychology of sudden conversion. I have always warned students that you must carefully distinguish between the reason which a convert gives, and that which possibly has been hidden in his subconscious mind. The two may be totally different. Whether the Government are right or wrong in this decision—and I am quite incapable of expressing an opinion on a technical matter like this—it means that if the period of service is to be only 12 months, prob-

37
ably a much larger proportion of these younger men will have to be sent over to Germany almost at once. I have the greatest admiration for all that our armies have been doing on the Continent. They have made a great contribution to the restoration of order in these countries. I have been very impressed with the discipline and the cheerfulness and the kindliness of the men in the ranks of our armies, but that does not meet the position. One realizes that to send young men out to occupied countries does expose them to certain very great temptations.
Take, for instance, Germany. I am told that in the British Zone of Germany there are several million young women in excess of the number of men. Many of them are attractive; some of them—because of the circumstances of the Hitler regime—are over-sexed. If those responsible were to make inquiries from the medical authorities I am sure they would see the result of the temptations to which these boys—and many of them are only boys—are subjected. Nor are the temptations only sexual. More than once I have heard of young men of no sort of criminal or vicious tendency who within a short time of arriving in Germany have been caught up in the Black Market, simply through inexperience. I do plead that these young conscripts should be kept in England for some considerable time before they are sent to Germany, or elsewhere.
I cannot speak too highly of all that is done by our Welfare Organization, by the chaplains, the welfare officers, and others in Germany. It takes some time, however, before their efforts can have any real influence on these boys, who go out to a country inexperienced, young, and full of high spirits, and find themselves in totally different surroundings. Often when they commit some misdemeanour, or they fall into temptation, it takes place in the first weeks. Of course, I recognize that any young man, wherever he is, is exposed to various temptations; but my point is that in an occupied country these temptations are far greater than anything which they would have to face in England, where there is a certain standard of conduct, and where the men are near their own homes.
I know the Government may find it extremely difficult to deal with this matter,
38
or to meet this plea. I make, and it may mean a great deal of re-organization to stop these younger men from going to Germany at once. But the fundamental difference, I think, between a totalitarian and a democratic state is this: The totalitarian State expects all its citizens to exist for its own sake; the democratic state exists for its citizens to enable them to live a full life, or—as would have been said in classical days—to lead "the complete and good life." It is because we are a democratic state that I make this plea that every effort should be made to safeguard the interests of these rather younger citizens who will be the flower of our manhood.
4.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure my noble friends on the Government Bench who have heard the remarks of the most reverend Primate will have done so with considerable satisfaction. If I may follow up his first point, that in relation to the undesirability of having young soldiers in occupied countries, and the results that may follow, I would say that most of us on these Benches hope that as a result of future deliberations the period of occupation will be very greatly reduced, and that presently all the armies will be taken out of Germany. That would be the best solution in regard to that point.
Before I make the few remarks I intend to offer to your Lordships, may I make one comment on the remarks of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, when he spoke on behalf of those on the Liberal Benches? I always thought that the great Liberal Party carried on the tradition of the supremacy and the independence of Parliament. The reduction from 18 months to 12 months in the period of service, which so upset the noble Lord, Lord Croft, was a measure towards the conservation of manpower for work on the land and in the vital industries, and it was thought better to come down on the side of a balance of economic strength rather than on the side of military strength, and this was the direct result of the arguments used by members of another place on the Second Reading upon the Cabinet. The Government acceded to a strongly expressed opinion by Parliament. And, after all, Parliament is not merely a debating assembly; it is sovereign.
THE MARQUESS or READING: Are you suggesting that there are very formidable factors which were new at that stage?
LORD STRABOLGI: No; but Parliament, after all, exists as a civilian assembly, and if there is a serious argument put forward the Government have to be prepared to answer criticism levelled at it.
LORD CROFT: May I interrupt my noble friend to say that I endeavoured to point out that Parliament decided by 380 votes to 80 in favour of the 18 months' period? I cannot quite see the noble Lord's point.
LORD STRABOLGI: My point is that the effects of the arguments in the Second Reading debate were such as to cause the Government to find it possible to cut down the period from 18 months to 12. And why not? That is what Parliament is for.
Now, if I may, I will come to the technical arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, which were far more important, I suggest, than the political part of his speech. With great deference may I say that I do not think, when it comes to the technical branches of the Services, that it makes very much difference whether you have a period of training of 12 months or 18 months? I do not think you can make a trained technical soldier in 18 months. You certainly cannot make a trained technical sailor in 18 months, any more than you can in 12 months. I imagine that in the future, for its trained and highly skilled technicians, the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy will have to rely on their Regular long-term volunteer elements. Even in the 18 months' period which the noble Lord, Lord Croft, wants, you can only train men to make up the higher members of your gun crews and that sort of thing. That is the position so far as the Navy is concerned. You cannot, I suggest, make a seasoned soldier—and far less a seasoned sailor—in 12 or 18 months. The best you can do is to build up a useful reserve to fill up the gaps, so to speak, in an emergency.
Your Lordships will perhaps remember the conditions which prevailed with regard to some of the great conscript armies of
40
Europe before the war. I believe that the period of services for conscripts in the German army was two years. The French made it as long as three years, and they once thought, I believe, of extending it to four. That was partly to get more men, but mainly to make up for their lack of numbers by more intensive training. I speak, of course, with all deference on Army matters, but on matters concerning the Royal Navy I can claim to speak with a little experience. I had a good deal to do with Naval training during the First World War: I was a member of the Grand Fleet Training Committee, and I have kept closely in touch with such matters ever since. I say, from such knowledge as I possess, that I do not think you will be able to do very much in either 18 months or 12 months in the way of making prime seamen. You can make very useful men for all sorts of duties but not prime seamen for the more skilled and technical jobs.
I am now going to make a few observations—of the purport of which I have given my noble friend notice, and on which I hope to have some information from him when he winds up this debate—with regard to the methods of training proposed for the Royal Navy. In wartime you can take an intelligent lad, put him aboard a ship and teach him to do a certain job. He can become a higher number of a gun's crew in a comparatively short time, and can even do such work as range-finding or sight-setting by concentrating him on that job. Later that boy goes into the peace-time Reserve, and if he is mobilized he may go to an entirely different ship from the one on which he has been trained, and everything will be entirely different. The only way to get over this difficulty as regards the Navy, I submit, is to increase the number of long-term volunteers. I did not hear any figures from the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I understand that recruiting for the Navy for long-term service is reasonably good. I am told that only about 25 per cent, of the men needed for the lower deck to-day are conscripts or compulsory national service men. The remaining 75 per cent., I believe, are volunteers. What are we going to do in the future?
I hope that the mistake will not be made—and here I speak with some knowledge of the facts—of trying to make

41
sailors on land. You cannot do it. The only way in which you can use this comparatively short period to make prime seamen is to send them to sea. If you have them at Whale Island, Portsmouth, the Gunnery School, Plymouth, or other training depots, what happens from dinner-time on Friday to breakfast-time on Monday? There is, for that period, a sort of hiatus. There are all sorts of distractions for the men—shore leave, week-ends, and so on. The only way you can really get results from 12 months' training is to revive the old training squadrons. Revive these squadrons and send the recruits to interesting parts of the world. When they have had a real taste of the life, no doubt a great many of thorn will want to sign on for 12 years or whatever the period is to be for long service. If you try to make men into sailors in drill rooms, barracks and naval schools ashore you cannot do it in 12 months. To revive the training squadrons, of course, will cost money, but in the end it will prove to be true economy. So much for that side of the matter. Those are points about the Navy which have not so far, I believe, been referred to in any of the speeches made.
Another suggestion which I wish to make to my noble friend is that he will consider still further increasing the opportunities for advancement in the Navy, and especially of widening the avenue of promotion from the lower deck to the commissioned ranks. I believe that if that is done well, we shall get all the volunteers wanted. We used to be able to get all the volunteers required—indeed so plentiful was the material that we could pick and choose for the Royal Navy. I believe that this would apply also to the Royal Air Force. If you widen these avenues of promotion, as I suggest, you will get all the volunteers you want from the pick of the youth of the country. I hope that will be the aim of the Admiralty, and that they do not intend to rely to any substantial extent on these national service men.
With regard to the Army the situation is quite different. The Army, except for certain sections—and I hope that by saying this I am not hurting the feelings of my noble friend Lord Croft—is not, and never has been during our time and generation, a popular service with the British people. Boys go willingly into the
42
Navy, but except in the case of the Territorial Army, they do not go anything like so willingly into the Army. How was the old voluntary Army recruited in practice? It was drawn from three particular categories of recruits. I are, of course, speaking now entirely of the rank and file of the Army under the voluntary system. First of all you had the category which was made up of a limited number of men who had soldiering in their blood. They came, very often, from generations of soldiers, and they had a natural inborn love of soldiering. They wanted to see the world and liked Army life. Another category went into the Army purely for patriotic reasons. That applied particularly to the Territorial Army. These men joined up because they thought it was their duty to do so. They joined up in answer to a recruiting campaign. They joined up so that it should not be said of them that they had let their county down.
In the case of till men from the Highlands of Scotland they joined up in order not to let the Highland Regiments down—or in order not to let their own particular well-loved Glen down. In addition to those two categories, there was a third very large category, consisting of men who were practically forced to enlist. In some cases, they were forced to enlist because of unemployment; in others because they got into some kind of trouble, which I will not specify, in their awn villages; or for some causes of that kind. The fact is that a great many of them were forced into the Army by economic causes. Now if we are successful, as we expect to be, in our policy of full employment (and I would remind your Lordships that that policy has been accepted officially by the Party opposite) the third category will almost disappear. If you rely on the voluntary system for recruiting in future you will not have men joining up under the compulsion of economic conditions. You will have only the men who have got into trouble in their villages, and the men of the first two categories that I have mentioned. Therefore, under a Socialist state, I do not see how the voluntary system can operate.
As some of my friends on these Benches are sincerely opposed to conscription, may I say just a sentence or two in support of this from the Socialist point of view? First of all, every Social-

43
ist Party on the Continent of Europe is in favour of conscription. That is so even in the case of Switzerland. The arguments advanced in its favour on the Continent are that it is more democratic, and Continental peoples are afraid of the long-term professional Army. The long-term professional Army, they say, is very liable to become a class army, a political army, and a menace to the State. And that might happen here. After all, what is the history of conscription? The first modern conscript Army was raised in France by Napoleon in order to safeguard the gains —the very great gains as we now realize —of the French Revolution. One of my noble friends says they were raised to conquer Europe. The fact is that in the first place the conscript armies of France had to throw back invaders who were intervening with a view to restoring the Monarchy and the powers of the French aristocracy. I am surprised to find any dissent from the Liberal Benches to that.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No dissent at all. I am challenging the noble Lord's historical facts. I am still not convinced of the accuracy of his history.
LORD STRABOLGI: Whether it was in order to conquer the rest of Europe or to destroy tyranny, the fact is that the first conscript army was raised in France after the French Revolution. I can foresee in the future, as a peaceful, economic revolution develops in this country, that we may need an armed force to defend the gains of that peaceful, orderly, economic revolution, not only against external threats. The Army has very important functions to perform; it must in certain circumstances come to the assistance of the civil power, and I would far rather in future have an Army raised in the way the Government now propose in this Bill than what would be in effect the highly privileged—because it would have to be privileged to get recruits—long-service corps d'élite which, as I say, might become a class army and might in certain circumstances be dangerous to the State.
Looking ahead many years—and this Bill looks ahead many years—there is from the Socialist point of view a case for conscription on grounds of fairness. It is not right for one man to sacrifice himself for patriotism for a neighbour who escapes, and we believe it is part of the
44
citizen's duty in a Socialist state to render his mead of service to that State, and this is the fairest way of getting it. I only regret—I speak frankly, and only for myself—that the Bill does not apply to women. I see no reason why women who are claiming equal rights and privileges and pay with men should not also have the privilege of serving in peace time with the great distinction and value they gave us in war time. It is a small and personal point, but it is my only regret. I am convinced by all the arguments which I have stated and heard that I should support the Bill.
4.43 p.m.
LORD MORAN: My Lords, the scientific way of life only exaggerates the natural disposition of a man of sense to speak only of what he knows. I should like to think that I have kept faith with that discipline during the short time I have been a member of your Lordships' House. In the Bill before us it is difficult to see where the provinces of the soldier, the doctor, the politician and the economist begin and end. When, too, a reasonable man finds himself in a small minority he must wonder whether his judgment is right. For those reasons I feel more diffident than usual in taking up the time of your Lordships' House.
The Government case for the Bill is based on two assumptions. In the first place, it is assumed that a certain number of men are needed in the Army; and secondly, that that number can be raised only by conscription and not by voluntary recruitment. May I take the second assumption first? It is said that voluntary recruitment has been tried and has failed. Has it really ever been tried? When a soldier leaves the Regular Army, what guarantee has he that he will get any work? There are charitable organizations, but he has no guarantee of any kind that he will get employment. Surely the reason why so many men in the past have not joined the Army is that there has been no security. The Army has not been as popular as it might have been, and the attitude of some people towards it in peace time has not been the same as their attitude in war. Even in the debates in another place, when appeals were made for higher pay for the soldiers there was an outcry. It appears that if he were paid sufficiently to provide for his family, he

45
might lose his head. Those who wanted to pay him a living wage are told that we are trying to create a Pretorian Guard, a military caste, and to foster militarism. My Lords, there are great dangers threatening this country on every side, but militarism is not one of them.
I served for two and a half years in the first war with a line battalion which was stiffened in battle by a pride in arms which had its roots in its achievements at Albuera, and in the traditions of the 7th Foot. These men endeared themselves to the French and Belgian citizens with whom they were billeted by their consideration and kindness. More, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, the character of the British soldier on active service in two wars has shown to many lands the flowering of our civilization. I am certain that this state of insecurity regarding employment is shortly to end, and that very soon when the soldier comes out on discharge from the Regular Army he will have reasonable security that he will get a job. To make that position real, the Government, the national services and industry will have to make provision to fit these men into civil life. I understand that will be done.
Why am I so particularly keen there should be a voluntary Army? Although there are many excellent conscripts, the conscript is no substitute for the man who has given up the best years of his life to the Army. The Navy and Air Force, I understand, are not really interested in conscription because, in their jargon, the conscript does not "make the grade" they require. It is assumed that the Army can do with a lower standard. Is that true? The next war will be more unpleasant than anything we have known, and much more technical. Only a man with a head on his shoulders and a stout heart will be of any use. Even in this war when we had a particularly dangerous job to do we looked for volunteers to do it—air crews, paratroops and commandos. Even if the conscript has his heart in his job, will he have the training? Brigadier Head, a very efficient Staff officer, said in another place that in the war he had helped General Leese to convert an infantry division of trained and disciplined troops into an armoured division. He said that at the end of a year those troops were barely fit for battle, and he ridiculed the idea that starting with raw recruits, tech-
46
nical formations could be trained in a year. It might be ready nine months or a year after the outbreak of war. There will be many more technical formations in our next war; even the infantry will be highly technical.
When the conscription period was eighteen months, many thoughtful soldiers were against it because it would not give time for adequate training. When it was reduced, there was a veritable landslide in Army opinion away from conscription. It seemed to be making the worst of both worlds; on the one hand getting an Army of half-baked conscripts, and on the other handicapping the regular Army in that it would have to provide picked officers and non-commissioned officers to train conscripts. The political world, which perhaps accepted conscription a little uncritically, is still supporting compulsion when all opinion that counts in the Army has condemned it.
The other assumption on which the Government's case rests is that a certain number is necessary in order that we may have security. Lat me say this about security straight away: that I shall have later to submit to this House details about venereal disease in the Army, and your Lordships may feel that this is a very serious social evil. You may still be persuaded that the invasion of this country and the ravaging of the land by rude and brutal soldiery of a foreign power would be a greater evil than for our sons to be eaten up with syphilis. Let me say at once that I would support conscription straight away if I were persuaded that conscription is essential for security. In regard to this number that is necessary for the security of the Army, who gave the Government that number? We have been told that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff submitted a number to the Cabinet, the Cabinet pruned it and returned it to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I can only say that the strategic sense of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was quite equal to the occasion. He seems to have left a generous margin for bargaining before he submitted his number. There are some risks we must take, but it is really a question of the correct balance of the economic, military, and moral risks; and, in that planning, some of us may feel there is very little risk of war in the next ten years, and that

47
that is the time to get industry on its feet, which would be our real source of strength.
We may believe all that or not, but I think we may agree that it is asking too much to leave this question of the numbers required entirely to soldiers. We do not think we had a sufficiently encouraging response, when we pressed for the demobilization of doctors, for us to give the C.I.G.S. and the Army a blank cheque in this matter. When Germany surrendered, the Central Medical War Committee, which had for long been perturbed by the denuding of the country of doctors, said that if there were a winter epidemic there would be a breakdown of medical services They pointed out that with the surrender of Germany the centre of gravity had changed from the Army to the home front. But the Army said they could not keep armies in being unless they had the necessary doctors. The result was that nothing happened, and the Army were obdurate, until Mr. Churchill gave an order that I,600 doctors should be demobilized "forthwith." "Forthwith" was the word he used. At once word came from the Army that if the order were carried out it would prevent the Army from carrying out their commitments—a word which has a very familiar sound. The word "forthwith" was changed to three months, and in that time the order was carried out without any alarming consequences of any kind.
In explanation as to why this number is necessary, stress has been laid on security in the next war. We have heard that we have ceased to be an island, that we are part of the Continent in the military sense, that we shall have no breathing space in which to arm, that we must have a larger reserve, and, therefore, we must have conscription. Intelligent soldiers whom I know are quite convinced that there is no human probability of a war in the period covered by this National Health Service Bill which is before the House.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: National Service, though National Health if you like.
LORD MORAN: It is the instinct of a doctor coming out. If there is no risk of war in that time, then clearly this Bill was designed and brought before the
48
House not to give us security in time of war, but to furnish us with overseas garrisons which cannot be furnished without conscription. If that is the case we have a totally different state of affairs which ought to be looked at in a different manner. The Government ought to say: "We have a short-term policy to fulfil our commitments, and that means conscription because we cannot get the men for these overseas garrisons without it. We have a long-term policy which will remain when all our commitments are ended."
The Foreign Minister said the other day that our commitments would soon be less than they have ever been.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Our overseas commitments.
LORD MORAN: I should have said "overseas commitments;" and that is the point I want to make. If what the Foreign Secretary said is really true, what is happening? The Government have said this number is not necessary for security in war, but that they have a long-term policy which is designed to find out what is the proper way of protecting this country in a future war, if one should unfortunately happen. I have not presumed to come to this House trusting in my own knowledge of military matters. I have sought the advice of many soldiers and others whose judgment I learned to trust during the war, and I have found that they consist of two schools. There is the school which is so impressed with the effect of the new weapons during the last war that they believe they will dominate the next war. They refer to the atomic bomb bringing about the surrender of the fanatical Japanese race, and they say what is well known—that in the next war atomic power will be much more powerful and that the only real restriction of atomic bombs is the question of raw materials and whether we have enough raw materials to make these bombs. The answer to that is that we shall have enough raw materials if America is included.
Then other views of members of this school, to quote Sir John Anderson—who is Chairman of the Atomic Control Committee—is that bacterial warfare is as disastrous as, and more insidious than, atomic warfare. Not everybody would

49
accept that at the moment, but everybody will accept that bacterial warfare in the next war. if it comes within the next ten years, will be as formidable. So we have this particular school of soldiers making the obvious deduction that England will be untenable in the next war. and, so far as their interest in conscription is concerned (and they are not very much interested) they say that the conscript will be only part of the security police, aiding the civil power in putting down rioting and in rushing food to people who are starving at the periphery, or who are hiding in caves—as the most reverend Primate mentioned in debate some time ago.
The other school admits that these weapons will dominate war, and says that it is only a question of when. They think it is premature to say that England will be untenable in the next war. I think this school contains some extremely able soldiers and scientists, but there is one great limitation with regard to the scientist: A scientist will form no conclusion unless every single one of the premises on which it rests is proved. War is a business of probabilities, and, therefore, I think this school may be too cautious in pronouncing judgment in the way it has done. I would point out that there is very little difference between these two schools. Both say that these weapons will dominate war in the future. The only difference is when. Both schools say that clearly these weapons will be used. They say that the next war will be a struggle for survival, and it is unthinkable that obsolete weapons should be used by any nation in such a struggle for survival. They say that the atomic bomb was used by the two most civilized nations in the world when the war against Japan was no longer in doubt, and it is simply putting our heads into the sand to say that they will not be used in the next war.
The anomalous position arises that we have a short-term policy which is being debated up and down the land for the supply of garrisons for these countries overseas, and we have a long-term policy which is to determine our survival as a country. That is where the real battle of conscription will come, even if this Bill passes this House to-day. It all depends on the potency of these weapons, and that decision has not yet been made by expert opinion. if I am right in all this, it comes down to this: that we cannot
50
for a moment entrust this decision solely to soldiers, or even mainly to soldiers. I believe, personally, that, among the soldiers there are as many able men as in any other profession, and probably more.
I have recorded that often in talking to Staff Colleges. But this is not a question of ability at all. In every profession, as I know so well in my own. ingrained conservatism is very powerful. It is not only that the two weapons that govern this position—the atomic bomb and bacteriological warfare—are outside the experience of soldiers, but also this question of the ingrained conservatism of the professions. Radical change is accepted in the profession only at the hands of genius, or more slowly and gradually by the sheer pressure of events. These revolutions of thought are framed in the minds of a few, and work out their lonely course in the stratosphere of the human mind. In the soldier's craft there have been long periods of stagnation, but the appearance of the internal combustion engine, comparable to the discovery of anaesthetics in medicine, quite altered war.
We are face to face with another similar revolution. Is it any wonder that not every soldier accepts the implications of what it means? To whatever school one belongs, we have all decided that this revolution in the profession of arms, and particularly in the matter of weapons, has altered the whole position of this country. It has altered it both for the better and for the worse. It has altered it for the worse because, as a result of our small size and dense population, these weapons would be extremely destructive. As has already been said, we are very vulnerable. That, I think, is going to have an immediate effect. In medicine, in my time we have shifted the accent from curative to preventive medicine, and I believe technically speaking, that the soldier will concentrate no longer on the successful conduct of a campaign but upon the prevention of war.
How can that be done? I am not concerned with the education of public opinion throughout the world, though in the long run that will obviously decide. I am concerned merely with the technical position as it appeals to soldiers. The Prime Minister really answered my question because he has said that it would be

51
utterly impossible for us to contemplate war with Russia when our resources are compared with theirs. If that is true, as I think your Lordships will agree it is, it means that conscription can never bring security in a war. We cannot compete with these nations in manpower. But when we come to the question of scientific warfare, England and America are so outstanding in this regard that no country will attack us if we develop our resources. In inventive genius and the application of science we stand apart, and our lead is such that, unless we give it up voluntarily, we cannot possibly be attacked.
What I am alarmed about is this. To ask the country to support scientific warfare is to ask a difficult thing, because it is asking the people to support something which it is difficult to make clear to them. I have not spoken about this to that distinguished soldier, our present C.I.G.S., but I imagine that if the alternative were put to him as to whether he would prefer these weapons or conscription, he would say that he would have these weapons. But a grateful country has given him both. Until we know the full possibility of these weapons, and when they will be available, it is wise not to discard the weapons that have proved effective in the past. I think that is true. But it is also true that it is generally thought that there will not be war for ten years, and we have to ask ourselves whether the slight risk we run in that time is comparable to the tremendous economic risk we run if we keep as frozen assets 200,000 conscripts every year. I cannot see recovery taking place under those conditions.
I have really reached the point where I feel the decision about conscription will not be made to-day, to-morrow or the next day. It will be made only when it is known what is the real potential of the weapons about which I have been speaking. Meanwhile, in the balancing of risks, I think there is great unanimity among really able soldiers that these weapons are as important as I have said; and if anybody thinks I have exaggerated the school which believes these weapons will dominate the next war, I would refer them to the Press report of yesterday, from which one learned that the Committee which President Truman set up to advise him on military training put it on record
52
that they thought there was a definite possibility that entire American cities would be wiped out simultaneously overnight by atomic bombs. That Committee recommended that industry should be dispersed and that the factories should be built underground. So this is not the mirage of an academic mind, but a practical conclusion come to in a great democracy.
I return, if I may for a moment, to the short-term policy. I think it would be very difficult to condemn conscription if it were only to be used for garrisons overseas. At the same time, I think it is important to remember, as the most reverend Primate made clear, that there are great risks in employing these conscripts overseas. It is a policy which no democratic European Government have ever countenanced. Mr. Churchill said the other day—and he cannot be accused of any lack of sympathy for the Army—that it is a policy which neither our Army nor any other army could indefinitely maintain. I am concerned about the medical reasons which make this service overseas for conscripts so harmful. Last September there came into my possession certain statistics concerning venereal disease in the armies of occupation overseas. I submitted those figures to the relevant members of the Cabinet, because I was anxious that they should be considered by them in any discussion of conscription, without the obvious disadvantage of publication. That has not been done, and therefore I am compelled to submit these figures to your Lordships' House to-day. I realize that I may be criticized for so doing, but they were given to me without any condition. They were given to me probably, I think, because I was a member of a small medical advisory committee which advises the Secretary of State for War. I believe that one is a member of those Committees for two purposes: (I) to advise the Minister, if he requires advice, and (2) to reassure the public that all is well in medical matters in the Army. And if all is not well—and all is not well—then I think it is time to speak up.
In September of last year, in our Army in Japan, of every 1,000 men 228 had venereal disease. In another command alongside, 600 out of 1,000 had venereal

53
disease—that is to say, more than half. In Germany at the same time the figure was 185 out of 1,000; in Austria and Italy 168 out of 1,000; and in Burma and Malaya 141 out of 1,000, The figure in the Middle East was 31 out of 1,000. I understand the reason for that lower figure was that there was really no mixing between the Army and the civil population. Those figures may alter from time to time, but I understand they are substantially the same now. The figure for the Army at home is 33 in every 1,000. That is very much higher than it usually is; it is generally in the neighbourhood of about 12.
The civil figure is almost impossible to get. Between 6o,000 and 70,000 had syphilis at home; but that has to be compared with the whole population. I am told that the figure works out at about 5 to 6 per 1,000 among the civil population. I would point out to your Lordships that we had the same prevalence of venereal disease in 1919, after the first German war when similar conditions prevailed. Then, the figure was 150 out of every 1,000 in the Army of the Rhine; while in the American Army in September of that year, of all the white American troops in Germany and France, 859 out of every 1,000 had venereal disease. I am quoting from Volume XV of Medical and Casualty Statistics.
LORD NATHAN: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him whether, as he has given his source of authority for the figure for the United States Army, he would find it possible—I hope it is possible for him—to give the source of his authority for the figures he has quoted about the British Army in the various fields in which they have been serving? The reason for my interruption is that not only are the figures he gives entirely different from those which were given to me, but they are wholly irreconcilable.
LORD MORAN: I am extremely surprised at the substance of that intervention. The figures were given to me in September. They are in print, although I have not brought them with me. But they are in print, and they come from our official Army organization. Not only that, but I have confirmed recently that recent figures, though I do not know them, are substantially the same.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He made a very startling statement about the American Army—859 out of every 1,000.
LORD MORAN: That was after the first German war, in Germany and France. It sounds an incredible figure, but you will find it in Volume XV of Medical and Casualty Statistics.
Leaving that figure for a moment, one comes to the explanation of these figures which is accepted by all those familiar with conditions in Germany, and my information on this point comes entirely from Germany. Those people are quite clear in their own minds that absence from home is the vital factor which leads to this high incidence of venereal disease. The longer a conscript is away from home, the higher rises the rate and incidence of this disease. A second point is that it is due largely to boredom and to the fact that the men have no healthy means of distraction. They lead a mechanical life, they have not enough to do and they are just waiting for the time to get out. This does not apply to all, but it applies obviously to the people of whom I am speaking.
These figures lend no support to the Prime Minister's attractive idea that the Army is a people's university at the present time, teaching men citizenship; and when the Leader of the Opposition says that one of the two reasons why his Party supported conscription was to sustain the moral health and safety of the people, one can only hope that his Party had better reasons than that for supporting the measure. When two men speak of England assuming the moral leadership of the world, I am sure they are not familiar with these facts which are so distressing and so mortifying to people like myself who have served in the Army and treasure its fine traditions. Noble Lords might ask whether these figures mean that the price of keeping an Army abroad is that one in every five or one in every six will get venereal disease; but I would point out at once that the times are abnormal in the sense that there are many men in the Army who have been there for several years and are in what might be called a "don't care" frame of mind. Furthermore, these figures will vary from time to time. But whatever qualifications you make you cannot get

55
away from the fact that they supply an indictment of the conditions under which these men are living. Moreover, the most friendly critic of the Army must feel that these figures mean that during the conscript's time abroad his experience in the Army is a demoralizing experience. To segregate young men at the beginning of their life, under these conditions, is a very poor preparation for the more serious view of life which is so sadly needed at the present time.
Does all this really matter? Am I exaggerating the damage which may be done to mind and body of the conscript? Some may say that boys will sow their wild oats; that it is, of course, a pity that so many get into trouble in this way while they are in the Army when, as one senior soldier put it, the whole pother could be cleared up if there were licensed houses. Your Lordships may take a different view. You may feel, even from the practical point of view, that this is not the way to train an Army. Sir John Dill once made clear to me that the purpose of training an Army, and the real difficulty in so doing, was not to instruct men in tactics or the use of weapons, but to instil into them the will to fight—what is called morale. If that is the real purpose of training, how can we accomplish it in countries where these conditions exist, and where the very thing we are trying to build up—the morale—is being destroyed?
Your Lordships may want to leave it at that, or you may pass on to a less obvious and, I think, more serious view. You may say that not only does conscription prevent the efficient training of soldiers, but it may sadly interfere with the turning out of good citizens. During the last war it was very difficult to keep the boys at school keen. There was no incentive to work. They were going into the Army, so they said, "Why bother?" Recently the Chairman of a juvenile employment committee put it on record that the same state of affairs is existing now, since it became known that conscription would go on. He said that the boys are restless; they will not settle to anything; they do not want to become apprentices and they do not want to learn to become craftsmen or technicians. If this is all true, and if there is anything in education, surely it is disastrous. When they
56
pass into the Army they find the same lack of purpose, the same "too-little to do"; and so they wait for the hour when they will get out. We are constantly sending into industry a stream of men of whom it may be said that for some years they have been ticking-over like a taxi looking for a fare. They have lost all power of concentrated work. Surely that is a great disaster.
I should have ended what I had to say at that point, had it not been for a previous speaker saying that the Government ought to make an appeal to our young men on more material lines. I believe you are not going to get anywhere by appeals. The practical man in our day seems never to have the capacity or the time to think anything out. How can a change of heart be brought about? For an answer I want to take you to Cairo, just before the battle of El Alamein. Mr. Churchill said to Field-Marshal Smuts: "As I get older I begin to see a pattern in things." General Smuts replied: "There is a pattern in history, but it is not easy to make out." He went on to speak of Gandhi. He said, "You and I, Winston, are mundane people. Gandhi is a man of God. He appeals to religious motives."
At that time, when things were pretty grim, there was every excuse for dealing with the thing which came to hand; but General Smuts, looking beneath the surface of things, saw that great changes were coming. He believed that when peace came patriotism would not be enough. He saw that there are times in the affairs of men when you must appeal to their deepest instincts, if they are to come through. This was not the utterance of a Prelate on fire with a consuming faith; nor even the words of a well-meaning physician. It was the pronouncement of the Prime Minister of a great Dominion, a man who had led armies in the field in two wars. Later, I received confirmation of the same thought when I was asked by General Paget to talk at the Staff College to the commanders of divisions, corps and armies in the Army at home. When I had done we sat discussing things, and more than one that night came to me and spoke to me on the effect of religion on the Army. It was the business of these men to get things done; they had striven to probe deeply into the springs of human

57
conduct, and they had come to the same conclusion as General Smuts. Perhaps' they were seeking for a less material and sterile way of life, and with all the inhibitions of their kind, and race, they were fumbling for an answer to the demand made by the old divine: "Shall there be a God to swear by and none to pray to?"
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, if this Bill had come before us in the form originally introduced in another place we should have very little except praise for it, for the Bill in its original form combined a statement of principle and an attempt to carry that principle out in practice, which is not the case with the 13i11 as it is before us now. Let us think, for the moment, of the principle before we come to the practice. This Bill, I believe, is the first approach to realism in our preparation for war since the Haldane Reforms of 1908; for the first time an attempt has been made to put the Armed Forces into a proper state of readiness. As everyone knows, we were not ready for the First and Second World Wars, and now at long last His Majesty's Government have planned this Bill with the idea—which they have declared—of forestalling war, as opposed to the lower ideal merely of fighting a war and winning it.
This Bill deals only with manpower. It does not deal with other matters, such as the provision of equipment, which are equally important for our Forces if they are to be ready for war. And preparation for war does not consist merely in the recruitment of soldiers, or even in the training of soldiers who are recruited, but also in the provision of a proper amount of war rnaterial—which I have no doubt is being made at the present time. I was not going on to deal at great length with the case for this Bill because I thought that was amply made out. But I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran—who I notice is no longer in the Chamber—and at the risk of seeming to be impertinent, as an unscientific ex-Regular soldier I would like to make one or two remarks on some of the things the noble Lord said.
First, let us deal with the atomic bomb for one moment. Those who can carry their minds back to 1934, 1935 and 1936, will remember that there was a school
58
of military thought, strongly supported by a well-known military writer, which told us that we poor "boobs" in the infantry were out of date, because the only thing that mattered was armour, and armour was going to win the next war—if it did not prevent it. Let us go on to the time of Dunkirk, when we found that every single man who was available was required to be trained—we came back to that in the last resort. It is our one solid insurance that everybody who is capable of being trained to arms shall be so trained. We then face the administrative and political problem of deciding, when the emergency comes, how and where to use those people who are trained to arms.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Moran, misdirected himself on two points. First, he did not mention that the atomic bomb is not an accurate weapon, and so long as it is not an accurate weapon, it cannot be used for the purpose of forestalling war. You cannot, for political reasons—apart from strategic reasons—make use of a weapon which kills the just equally with the unjust, for the purpose of forestalling war. The weapon to do that is still the rifle and bayonet, in the bands of a British soldier. The time may come when the atomic bomb is accurate. Very well; when that time comes no doubt there will be an Order in Council reducing or abandoning the demands of national service. But not yet.
The second point on which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, misdirected himself was this: there is a distinction between deciding to train the maximum number of people to arms, and the decision whether all those people are any time required to be used. You cannot improvise training, but it is a simple administrative matter to decide not to call up certain people. In the last war the Home Guard, who were part-time people in matters of defence, and whole-time in matters of industry and agriculture, were still required. Part-time military service from full-time munition and agriculture workers will still be wanted. It is politically impossible to start closing the stable door when someone is starting to take the horse away. I am glad that the Government are not paying too much attention to those people who, though they appear to glory in the name of Briton, do so only on condition that other people do the fighting. I am glad there is nothing more in this Bill than there has always been

59
in the National Service Acts about the proper treatment of genuine conscientious objectors.
I am going to try for a few minutes to see what is going to be the effect of this reduction from 18 to 12 months service. There were two reasons given in another place for this. The Minister of Labour, when he introduced the Second Reading, put as the first reason the stiffening of the Regular Army. The Minister of Defence later on, and the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading to-day, put the other reason—namely, the need to provide a trained Reserve. With great respect, I think that the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading had the two reasons in the right order. The long-term policy is far more important. As to the Regular soldiers we agree that we are far from out of the wood. The numbers are rising, but they are not right yet; but after all it is within the power of the Government to offer sufficient inducement to bring enough people into the Regular Army. They can pay them all £1,000 a year, if necessary. There are also some other things that they can do, such as to press forward with the new number one dress, the walking-out uniform. I feel rather doubtful as to how that is proceeding, and I think that would be a real inducement to the peace-time regular soldier, who up to the moment has had to be content with two suits of battle dress. Although before the war a soldier could buy plain clothes, I doubt whether he could get the coupons now.
I mention that in passing to show that I think the power of the Government to attract the Regular soldier, or the Regular sailor, or the Regular airman, is not by any means exhausted yet. And I hope that the Government are concerned about the effect on the Regular soldier of the whole of this business of this reduction from 18 to 12 months. In the first place it will mean that so long as the Regular soldiers are not up to establishment, and their place is being taken by national service men—whether of this vintage or the vintage which will be produced—when you take the Regular soldier, the individual will be spending much more of his time overseas for the next several years; and certainly he will be spending a great preponderance of his time overseas so long as the Rhine Army lasts.
60
The national service man, under the 12 months arrangement, will not, I think, be available to go anywhere further afield than the Rhine Army, except possibly Gibraltar or some such place. Therefore so long as you have commitments further afield the Regular soldier will have to spend more of his time in the more distant overseas stations—perhaps with his family, perhaps not. Then I notice that the Minister of Defence in another place, when he was trying to minimize the difficulties of this reduction, said that he thought the job could be done in the time (referring, I think, to the Regular Army's part in instructing). Of course, it can, but I suppose that when thinking out and making their plans for the Regular Army the Government had in mind that the Regular soldier, like the regular worker in other industries, would want his five-day week and his statutory holidays. And, mark my words, my Lords, they will see very few Bank Holidays or five-day weeks if this job is to be done anything like properly. Really, it is almost fantastic to suppose that we can do a proper job of work with the national service man in 12 months.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that this period has been set by the soldiers. The Bill was introduced in the other place by the Minister of Labour, and administratively he has screened all these figures. It is difficult to imagine how any Government would pass figures of that sort unless he were absolutely convinced, as an independent arbitrator, of the soundness of the Chiefs of Staff's calculations. If you take your national service man in regard to corps training and primary training it is calculated that it will take less than six months, but I do not think it will take less than six months in practice, including draft leave, and so forth. Then the national service man will have to be taken overseas, and he will have to be brought back for his leave before he is discharged. In the middle of that he has to be educated, and various other things. Then he will go overseas, quite possibly having done only his primary and his corps training. He will not have done any collective training or battle practice, and unless he has a full year's cycle in the Regular Army and a period of duty with a Regular unit, he cannot carry out the full Regular training-

61
There were about three months in Rhine Army last year where the whole Army was frozen up, and no training of any sort could take place; and that might be just the three months when the national service man appears. So, he cannot be fully trained and, whatever may have been the reasons for deciding on balance on the 12 months period, it does not add up. There is no need to try and lift the veil from what the Chiefs of Staff may have said or thought, because anybody—and there are noble Lords here in this House at the moment who have been concerned with the training of troops—knows perfectly well that it will not add up. The training will be a very poor substitute, and will not lead to readiness for war. There is no need to wonder what the Chiefs of Staff said about it. There are standards which everybody does not realize—standards of the training of the soldier. A soldier is not just a man in uniform, and in spite of what many people may think it is not: everybody who is put into uniform who can fight the King's battles. There are physical efficiency tests and weapon tests, and one wonders how the national service man with 12 months' service will face up to these tests. We may indeed have to ask if those tests are being preserved, and if there is any monkeying about with them in regard to preserving the percentages.
So lot us leave that, for time is short. I would say one word about the T.A. because this is the long-term issue. Here, fortunately, the effect will not be so serious as it is with the Regular Army. It will be a real boon to the Territorial Officer to have full ranks, and to feel that he is a real fighting force, and is being given the men to train with. The great proportion of these national service men will do part-time service in the Territorial Army, but my feeling is that the Navy and the Airmen will take their full batch of conscripts, whatever anybody may say. Let us think of the Territorial Army in relation to what was achieved in the Home Guard. The proper handling of these national service men means keeping a proper balance between their private affairs, and their status as private citizens; there will be the. strain on the senior officers and N.C.O.'s in the Territorial Army as there was in the Horne Guard, but that strain can be very much minimized if sufficient latitude is put in their hands.
62
I was rather surprised to notice that there has been no reference so far in any of the debates in another place to experience in dealing with the conscripted Home Guard. There are a great many lessons to be learned in dealing with the Home Guard, as many of your Lordships will know. We have to strike a reasonable balance between insisting on a certain standard of efficiency and having regard to a man's personal claims or the claims' of industry or agriculture, and I suggest that what was done for the Home Guard will very largely be successful with the part-time national service man.
Those, I think, are the chief points at this stage. I would like to appeal to any who are concerned with writing or talking about national service to resist the temptation to represent the national service man as being discontented and frustrated. With the Home Guard we were concerned to inspire them, and the people who are concerned here should give the show a big hand. With the slightest encouragement from my noble friends in front of me, rather than see this Bill on a far worse footing than it was originally, I would go into the Lobby to put back the eighteen months, not so much on political grounds, but because I believe, as I have tried to explain, that the twelve months is a military nonsense. I would add, however, that it would be a far worse military nonsense, for the reasons I have tried to explain, to reject the twelve months which is in this Bill. If this Bill receives a Second Reading, as I hope it will, that will not be the end. We have to watch constantly that this provision which Parliament is about to make is a real provision designed to forestall war, and therefore we must watch constantly the standards of efficiency and see that there is no backsliding to any imaginary standard a efficiency. If we do not do that the scheme will be worse than useless, and I wonder whether the Government have not already started on that "rake's progress."
5.40 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I do not wish to keep you very long this afternoon so I will confine my remarks to what seem to me to be two major arguments. I think it is obvious from the debate, so far as it has gone, that the House would agree that the most urgent and the most essential task before this Government is the establishment of peace. The noble Viscount

63
who introduced this Bill said that the main object of it was to prevent war. If I could believe that, then a great deal of my opposition to this Bill would fall away. I believe that the first aim of this Government is the establishment of peace, and that it is the first aim of our Foreign Secretary. I further believe that that aim has the support of the whole of the people of this country.
But I am not at all sure that it is understood that, if we are to attain world peace, all our efforts and all our policies must be governed by that aim. There occurs a conflict frequently between the policy to be pursued to achieve world peace and the policy to be pursued in the hope of achieving victory if war should, unfortunately, be forced upon us. I think, therefore, that the first thing that we have to do is to make up our minds as to which is to have first priority—the pursuit of world peace, or the pursuit of preparation for war. In view of the atomic bomb and developments of other aggressive weapons, it is coming to be much more generally recognized than it has been recognized in the past, that peace is infinitely more important than victory if war should come.
In spite of what has been said by one or two noble Lords who have spoken in this House to-day, I still believe that it has been proved, again and again, that war cannot be prevented by armed force —much less abolished. However we build up our armed forces, however we arrange out strategic frontiers, whatever strategic bases we acquire, whatever alliances we make with other States, those things are always regarded as a challenge or a threat by other nations and they reply in kind. Immediately, we are involved in a race for power, a race for defence as it is called, and sooner or later that race always ends in war. And it always will end in war. Great armed forces are not a defence of peace; they are a menace to peace. They produce fear, which is the greatest cause of war. I am very much afraid, indeed, that that race for re-armament has already begun. If that is so, then, in my opinion, the most important thing to do is to stop it.
But if we are going to stop it, we must make up our minds whether or not peace is going to be our first priority. There cannot be an equal priority between peace and defence, because the more we pre-
64
pare for war the less success shall we have in pursuing our aim for peace. To build peace requires a sense of confidence and mutual trust, and preparations for war destroy that mutual trust. That is my first ground of opposition to this Bill. In my opinion it will increase distrust of our peaceful intentions. We find it exceedingly difficult to understand how anybody can possibly distrust our present intentions. We are so certain that they are right, and in the interests of every other country in the world, and yet they are distrusted; and this Bill will, in my opinion, increase the distrust. It will, therefore, make our great task of building world peace more difficult, if not impossible. I believe that, perhaps, there are two groups of people in this country—those who believe that world peace is possible and those who do not. I am definitely one of those who believe that it is possible to eradicate war from the world.
LORD CHATFIELD: One day.
LORD DARWEN: I believe it is possible to build up a world order, such an order that every nation in the world will have more to gain by maintaining that order than by breaking it. That, I hold, would be the basis of a world peace. I understand that a great deal of work has been done already by the United Nations and by a lot of other bodies, in preparation for the building up of such a world order. But progress has been very slow; there have been a great many very serious set-backs, and I think that those setbacks and that slowness of progress have been due very largely to the fact that every nation has been thinking rather more of its own particular defence than of putting world peace as its first priority. Every nation, in my view, is seeking to ride two horses—the horse of world order and the horse of national advantage. I believe that this National Service Bill will add to the causes of distrust and the difficulty of building this world order.
Nevertheless I do believe that we can build such a world order, that we can build an order which would guarantee to all the peoples of the world a fair share of the opportunities of the world, a fair share of the food stuffs and raw materials, and a real prospect of a rising standard of living. And I believe that our Foreign Secretary is working to the very utmost of his capacity to that end. For this

65
country, it is an exceedingly urgent thing that the economic life of Europe, including that of Russia, Should be restored. It is vitally important to us, and I feel that it is equally, though perhaps not so obviously, important to all the European nations—even including Russia itself. I do not believe that there is any European nation—and again I include Russia—that can afford to waste manpower at the present time in making preparations for war.
To accomplish the colossal task of building up their economic life they cannot afford the waste. This Bill adds one more bad example to the plenty there are already in Europe of nations that are devoting more manpower than they can afford to preparations for war. Therefore it is going to make our Foreign Secretary's task more difficult than ever. I feel he should press definitely upon the nations the abolition of conscription, and press definitely on the nations a real measure of disarmament. I wish that having made such a proposal, this Government would set an example by withholding this Bill.
As I see it, we British people have presented to us one of the greatest opportunities in the history of our country of leading the world to peace. Our peculiar situation. economic and geographical, has taught us more dearly perhaps than any other nation has been taught that the nations of the world are all inter-dependent one on the other, that the good of each depends on the good of all and that we in this country are more deeply concerned to build a real co-operative world commonwealth than is any other nation, though fundamentally that co-operative world commonwealth is as important to every other country as it is to us. You may think that America could stand outside, that America could stand on her own feet for the next 100 years. For the next two or three years perhaps America may; but sooner or later she is going to realize that she is as inter-dependent upon the other nations of the world as we have realized ourselves to be. There is no single nation that can stand separate from the whole. Therefore I believe we have something to contribute to the world in this matter because we have learned this lesson so much more clearly than the other nations have done.
66
One great stumbling block to the new world order is the clash of ideologies and the fear that these clashing ideologies bring with them—Capitalism and Communism. Well, we stand between the two. We are engaged in a task of building the common weal without violence and without sacrifice of the essential freedom of the individual. I believe that that great experiment is of incalculable value to mankind, and I believe that this introduction of compulsory service is a false note in that great experiment. Conscription has been the basis of every totalitarian State. It prepares the mind for the denial of the rights of the individual. No totalitarian State could have come into being if its way had not been prepared by conscription. In the totalitarian States—and I think that the most reverend Primate has said this—individuals have no standing, they are merely pawns; whereas the basis of democracy is the recognition of every individual as an inviolable entity.
These two ideologies that are in conflict have two bases of morality. The one has the basis of respect for the individual personality, often more honoured in theory than in practice for the vast majority; the other has the basis of the good of the community. Both of these are true but they are only half truths, and it is because they are only half truths that they are in conflict. We used to have a dear old vicar in the village in which I lived who used to say that all heresies were part truths taken as whole. These two are part truths and it is because they are only part truths that they clash so violently. The respect for the individual under capitalism has become the license for the strong. The good of the community under Communism has become the good of the State and the well being and freedom of the individual has been sacrificed. In this country we take the two together as complementary to each other, and we are seeking to build a social order on the reconciliation of the whole truth, its two parts linked together. Success depends on the recognition of both those principles in the foundations of our social order by both Government and the people.
I believe that this reverence for the individual is absolutely an essential part of the teaching of Jesus, and I am opposed to this Bill because it is contrary to this reverence for the individual

67
in that it compels him to train to kill, which is a grave moral decision which every man should be free to decide for himself. I believe there is a spark of Divine life in every man. I believe that that is the most sacred thing in life. The very purpose of life is the growth and nurture of that spark of Divine life, and that society is great which encourages that growth. I believe that compulsion in an issue of this moral seriousness is a violation of that Divine spark within every individual. I believe that that Divine spark grows by sacrifice and service.
Therefore, I do not say that all military service and all military life is inimical to it. I clearly recognize that there is much that is noble in military life. It is a shame upon us that there is more comradeship, more devotion to a cause, often more sacrifice in war, than there is in civil life. That must be recognized, but it must also be recognized that there are many men to whom this compulsion to kill others is a violation of all that is best within them. I do not think for a minute that the clauses exempting conscientious objectors cover the difficulties at all. For every man who stands out as a conscientious objector because he has a clear religious faith, or because of his family upbringing, or because he happens to have a clear mind—
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Might it not be because he is afraid of being killed or hurt?
LORD DARWEN: For every single man of that kind there are many who have not been able to form their views, their faith, or their philosophy, who are too young to have formed them as yet, and yet to whom it is a terrible tragedy to have to train to kill other men. I am, therefore, opposed to this Bill because I believe it will weaken both parts of the double foundation of our Socialist commonwealth: the common good and the respect for the individual. The common good depends upon peace—and this Bill will make peace difficult; and it denies respect for the individual in applying compulsion on a grave moral isue.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, as one who, in the years immediately before this last war, repeatedly pressed
68
for the introduction of compulsory military service and, indeed, on whom was conferred the privilege of asking your Lordships the formal question to which "Conscription" was given as the answer, I feel compelled to take some part in this debate. I can assure your Lordships, however, that I shall not speak without my eye upon the clock. It is not easy, when one feels strongly about a matter, to assess the strength and sincerity of the arguments of those who are opposed to it, nor, indeed, have I found it easy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, who has just spoken, when he says that the task of the Foreign Secretary is made harder by this Bill. Has the noble Lord asked him? He does not answer me. I wonder what the Foreign Secretary's answer would be. The noble Lord suggested that the totalitarian Powers owed their strength to conscription. Would he be sitting here to-night if we had not had compulsory military service in the First World War and the last war?
I endeavoured to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who, unfortunately, is not now present. In so far as I appreciated it, I gathered that the noble Lord supported the theory that the voluntary principle would give us the men we need. Is that the case? What is happening? We now have inducements to serve which, as noble Lords here with wide military experience will tell us, have never before been offered, never equalled, and certainly never excelled. What is the result? A mere thin trickle of recruits, barely enough to give us the equivalent to our scanty pre-war forces, and by no means enough to carry out the obligations to which we are committed overseas, or to provide trained reserves for home defence.
In this connexion I am indeed sorry that His Majesty's Government have reduced the period of training from eighteen months to twelve. I will not pursue that argument so skilfully developed by my noble friend, Viscount Bridgeman, and other noble Lords. All I would say is this: that in my view this Bill, as far as trained reserves are concerned, gives the bare irreducible minimum of what we need. Nor without it can we carry out the duties abroad to which we are both in honour and by treaty bound. Without a measure of this sort our words will carry no weight in the councils of the world.

69
I have sought to examine the other objections to conscription. There are those who suggest that conscription—I see no reason to call it by any other name—is a denial of the democratic principle. But does the democratic principle imply that one is ever to receive and never to give anything in return? What is there contrary to democracy in suggesting that each man, without regard to rank or station, should be obliged to give something in the way of service to the State? Rather would I have thought that that was a lofty purpose, a noble ideal, in which every man should be proud to share. But conscription is not merely some altruistic concept—it is the only policy which common honesty and common sense allow us to adopt. Without it we should be for ever taunted with the reproach that we fought to the last drop of an alien soldier's blood. We should be for ever haunted—those of us who reflect—with the reproach that we have survived as a result of the sacrifice of those who freely laid down their lives in service to the State.
There are others who say they support the principle of conscription in the hour of need but are opposed to it at all other times. I find that, if I may say so, an argument that is both difficult to support and dangerous in practice. To be logical one must, if one adopts that argument, say that one remedy. and one alone, has been proved by experience to be effective. One must indeed go further and say that if the crisis should be repeated again, the same remedy shall be again applied. Then one turns round and makes one addition—the remedy is only to be applied when it is almost certainly too late. If we adopt that argument, then we have to remain idle and inert till the enemy is at our gates, and then struggle swiftly to repair our defences, relying on the sacrifice of our bravest while we strive to hold the enemy at bay. I am reluctant to introduce a personal note, but in order to see if my views have changed over the years, I looked at some letters I wrote as an officer of no very exalted rank at the time of the Battle of Loos. The first letter I picked up said:
"After the battle the General said: 'If only we had had the men we might have advanced.'"
I wonder how often these words, poignant in their pathos, have been uttered. Who can calculate what countless numbers of lives might have been saved,
70
or what course the history of Europe might have run if, in the years before this World War and the First our right arm had been strong and the nations of the world had been conscious of its strength? I have no desire to strike a note of exalted sentiment, nor have I any wish to utter words which may cause others pain, but I think most of us would feel that we owe something to those who have laid down their lives in these two Great Wars. If we owe them anything. it is, surely this: that never again should we allow their country to be so shamefully betrayed.
6.10 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I do not wish to keep you very long because there are a great many speakers and it is getting late. I should like to make a few criticisms, not in any way from a Party point of view, but from a general point of view. As many of your Lordships know, I have always advocated that, so far as possible, defence should be a non-Party matter. That is why I myself always, speak from the cross Benches.
If before this very important national. step had been taken—it is not a political question and it affects everybody of all Parties—the Government had taken the Leaders of the other Parties into consultation, I do not think we should have had the rather unedifying debates and arguments in the Press about a Bill for the safety of this country, because the Government would have been stronger, just as they are stronger to-day in their foreign policy because the Foreign Secretary has the nation as a whole behind him. But defence not being a Party matter, we have to look at it from a different point of view. Governments of all Parties are suspect, and have been suspect, on guarding the safety of the country. We have a murky past, and there is no Government which have ever led the country into war without prejudicing our young men in their chance of victory by lack of preparedness. So it is right to-day, in the present political circumstances, that the Government's Bill and all Defence Bills that any Government may produce should be looked into and carefully criticized so as to safeguard the country and give the people confidence that they will not again be let down.
On the whole I think the Bill is a good one. I do not hold the views we have just

71
heard from the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, although I am sure we all respect the noble Lord; he holds those views and it is right that he should voice them. I think the noble Lord makes the mistake of trying to get what he wants too soon. Because there is war in the world, there is fear. That is the reason why we have wars. If you disarm, you are not going to remove fear from the world; you are going to increase it. You will not remove the fear of burglary from London by removing the police; nor does the existence of the police encourage burglary. If you gradually remove fear, disarmament will follow; but you will not remove fear by disarming, but will increase it.
I want to confine my remarks to this question of the length of service of the conscript, not from the point of view from which so many noble Lords have spoken, as to whether the time now settled is too long or too short, but from the constitutional aspect, and the manner in which the change was carried out, which gives me some disquiet. Let us take, for instance, the position of the Chiefs of Staff, which is particularly interesting to myself, having been a Chief of Staff for many years. Did they agree to this change or not? Some noble Lords have said this afternoon that that is not a question we should ask. That depends on the circumstances. There is a great deal of difference in the Chiefs of Staff saying: "We wholly agree that it is quite safe to make this change," and their saying: "We consider this change may seriously affect the safety of the country." Has not Parliament the right to know broadly which attitude they took? In the interesting debate that took place in another place on May 7, we were told all the arguments in favour of reducing the period from eighteen months to twelve months—the economic, the financial, and the manpower arguments, and why we should benefit generally in the country if we reduced the time. But the balance was not fairly struck, because the arguments as to why we should not reduce the time were not stated. That, I feel, was wrong.
I know very well what is the position constitutionally of the Chiefs of Staff—they are merely advisers. Their position has been weakened recently, because they are now only advisers on the Defence Committee, whereas when it was originally started they used to be members of it,
72
as they were also members of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That, of course, throws an enormously increased responsibility on the Minister of Defence to represent them accurately in what they say and what they do. If the Chiefs of Staff give advice on important matters, as they do every week, or they used to, and if the Government reject their view —which they have every right to do—and if the decision consequently rests with the Cabinet, then it is quite right that nothing more should be heard of it. The problem has been properly considered from the military, political and financial standpoints, and the Cabinet have made a decision. But it is not the same thing if the Cabinet do not make the decision. The Cabinet had to go to another place, put their views before the Members of that place, and ask them to support them. How could the other place consider the question properly if they were told only one side of the question, as they were? I have read the debate, word for word, most carefully, and the speeches which were made by Mr. Alexander, the Minister of Defence. There was not a sentence to say what were the military risks in not maintaining the period at eighteen months. Indeed, the Minister said that we are taking risks.
I feel that to bring a Bill before Parliament, not giving all the facts, and to pass that Bill through the House, is fair neither to the country, to Parliament nor to the Chiefs of Staff. Those noble Lords who have read the debate which took place in another place may remember that the Government spokesman said: "We are influenced, and rightly influenced, by Parliamentary opinion". I have not noticed in the debates I have listened to in your Lordships' House that that principle has always been strictly applied. Anyhow, if the Government are to be affected by Parliamentary opinions, then surely it is necessary that those opinions should be good opinions. It is not the quantity but the quality of opinion which counts, and it is impossible for Parliament to give a properly qualified opinion if the facts on which it must judge are kept in the cupboard.
There were two arguments I would refer to, which have been used before, as to why the period should be reduced. One was that we shall save a lot of money —that was used by the Minister of

73
Defence, and I think he said "millions." I suspect all such arguments, especially when made by my friend Mr. Alexander. They are the old arguments which were given continuously from 1920 to 1938. Even in that late year the Chiefs of Staff were told that the financial dangers of the country were greater than the military. To the layman, the financial dangers will always seem greater than the military, because he is able to understand the financial dangers but he is not educated to appreciate the military ones.
The other arguments which were used were the technical arguments. It was said, for instance, that you can train men in war in a very short time. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred to this point this afternoon. It was said: "If you can train men so quickly in war, why all this fuss about reducing the time to 12 months in peace?" In war you can take a man from the plough, take him, to an anti-aircraft battery, show him a shell, and say, "Pick up that shell and put it into that gun." He does so, and you say, "Do it again." He does it again, you make him do it twenty or thirty times, and you make him go on doing it for a week or a month, when at last he becomes a really good man to put a shell into a gun. But you cannot do that in peace, because you do not know whether the gun to which he goes will be the same, or whether he will be able to be drafted at all as a gun number—although it was stated by the Government in another place that steps would be taken to enable the men who have been trained in a certain way to be sent to a corresponding unit in war. I would say that it would be absolutely impossible to fit that into the mobilization pattern.
I do not wish to try arid tell your Lordships whether the 12 months period is a good one, or whether it is a dangerous one, because I have not the knowledge to do so. There are very few people in this country who have the knowledge to judge how long that: time should be. To begin with, generally speaking, they must know how we are going to make war next time—and who knows that? They must know what weapons we are to have in our three Services, how much will be done by a scientific technique and how much by manual labour. We do not know that, and I do not think we can judge. Anyhow, I certainly would not
74
presume to try and tell your Lordships whether it is right for it to be 12 months or not. Training in peace is always difficult. I should have liked to ask the First Lord himself if he could tell me—although I am afraid he is not going to reply to the debate— whether the conscript Reserve will be relied upon to man the fleet units, or whether they will be used only wholly or partly to supplant the admirable Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in our gunboats, minesweepers and patrol vessels. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me that, but this question of training makes a lot of difference as to how the conscript is to be used and what responsibility is to be placed upon his shoulders.
I said just now that it was the duty of the Minister of Defence to stand up for the Service Ministers and also for the Chiefs of Staff. I must confess, reading the speeches which were made, that I did not feel it was satisfactory that he should have ignored the military standpoint. When I was Minister of Defence I was asked whether I would back up the Treasury; whether I would stand by the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in their conflicts with the Services. I said that that was not my view of the duty of the Minister of Defence. If he is any good at all the duty of the Minister of Defence is to stand up for the Services; unless he does that he is useless and had better be abolished.
We all realize that the financial and economic position of the country to-day does affect matters. We are poorer to-day— gloriously poorer—than we have ever been. If you have the income of a Balkan State then, unless you make great sacrifices, you must have the normal armed strength of a Balkan State. You have to make greater sacrifices, if you want to be strong when you are poor. We are all happy when Mr. Bevin goes to the United Nations debates and speaks as the British Lion should speak, but one must remember that if the British Lion roars, then the people at whom he is roaring are apt to look at his claws to see whether they are still as sharp as they remember them in the old days. To-clay there is no immediate need, in my opinion, for great military strength, so long as we are sure that we shall not be forced to quarrel with our old Allies, and so long as we remember that it takes years to

75
alter defence policy. You cannot change your strength rapidly.
There is another corollary to weakening your first line of defence, and that is that it makes the reserves far more important, both in their training and in their numbers. I feel that not only is it the personnel reserves, but also the material reserves. The material reserves in this country are shrouded in an impenetrable mystery. No one knows what our first-line strength is. We have no idea how many ships we have, how many aircraft we have, or what we have in reserve. We do not know whether steps have been taken to maintain our factories and dockyards, so that we can recover our strength in a certain period. We know nothing about this at all. Now we have doubt cast on the efficiency of our reserve personnel, and I think it is right that the Government should be cross-questioned.
The Minister of Defence said—I quote from Hansard—on May 7:
"If the international position worsens in the next two years, and we were again threatened by imminent war, the Government of this country would have to consider whether the plans they had made for building up the Forces were adequate for a new and changed defence situation."
That is a most extraordinary statement: that when war is imminent, you are then going to consider whether you must take some different steps. You cannot defend the country in that way. It is impossible.
All I would say in conclusion is this. I think that the cause of the trouble that has arisen over this conscript question is due to a lack of education on the part of the ordinary citizen and of the Parliamentarian too. So long as the public remain ignorant of their responsibilities or the responsibilities of this country, and of the dangers that this Empire has to face continuously, then they will clamour against defence. It is always a trial of modern government that it is struggling against the ignorance of the people on defence matters; and the ignorant are always the most strident, the most self-confident, and the most equivocal of arguers. So we see, or seem to see, a democratic Government reverting to type and giving way to the popular vote. They give way, they start on the downhill road; and once you start on that road you almost always go on along it, and even-
76
tually it leads, as it has led before, to the precipice and disaster.
6.33 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord and great sailor who has just spoken, I shall not indulge in criticisms but merely state facts. When in May, 1940, to use the words of the former Prime Minister, this little island "stood in the gap alone," I was employed by Lord. Beaverbrook to arm aircraft factories in Great Britain. We had at that time only 1,000,000 rounds of.303 small arm ammunition in the country. We had an Army largely untrained, inexperienced, and from the modern soldier's viewpoint, armed as it were with bows and arrows. With invasion imminent the L.D.V., or Home Guard as they became, were rapidly organized, and in the factory defence sections we formed an L.D.V. specially tied to the factories who could not be called out at his own sweet will by any Colonel Blimp.
A NOBLE LORD: Until better tactical ideas prevailed.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: Until, as the noble Lord says, better tactical ideas prevailed. There were plenty of years ahead for them to do it and plenty of younger leaders forthcoming in the Home Guard. But the shortage of ammunition was so dreadful that we had to arm the factory defence sections with shot guns and Page-Croft pikes (which I myself have used with good effect), Molotov bombs and such automatic weapons as we could get flown over from America and spared from the dumps where they were cast to be repaired.
These factory defence sections, like the Home Guard, were amazingly efficient because they believed so thoroughly in that democratic freedom which had been our right, and is still our right. Those people do not really believe in conscription except in time of emergency. They realized that we must have conscription for some years after we had won—they never imagined defeat. They thought of conscription in a dwindling form until we were able to look round and take stock; and that is exactly what the Government are doing to-day, taking stock. That stocktaking has revealed that there is a great shortage in manpower. Our productive manpower is woefully short. What every one of us knows and what none of

77
us is able to alter is this. We know that perhaps 20 per cent, of the Armed Forces are in what is called the white collar brigade; if you add, say, to the 1,250,000 we now have mobilized, the army of clerks, typists, civil servants, temporary and permanent, and inactive Polish uniformed Service men and women, you will probably find that 400,000 people are an inactive white collar brigade attached to the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I suppose it may seem somewhat hateful to put the Armed Forces in the category of "white collar brigade," but one has to do so if one faces facts. Having listened to all the arguments this afternoon, I feel that the reduction in the term of conscription from 18 months to one year, though most regrettable from the Service point of view, is really justified when one considers the low figure to which the nation's productive manpower has fallen. The shorter period of conscription is certainly advantageous to the young men who have chosen industry for their life's calling. Much as I dislike saying it—though those of your Lordships who served in one of the three Fighting Services know that it is true—there is a great deal of enforced idleness in the three Services and a great deal of time wasted.
LORD STRABOLGI: Not in ships at sea.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: Ships are not always at sea; they are sometimes in harbour, especially when there is a fuel shortage as to-day. However, what we want to-day is industry, not idleness. We are with our backs to the wall in industry. So far as this reduction in conscription time is concerned, our foreign policy, after all, is based on the United Nations organization. If U.N.O. fails—U.N.O. which is humanity's greatest hope to-day —it may be the end of civilization. We have taken a great deal of trouble over U.N.O., and if U.N.O. were to cry out and say that its success would be jeopardized by the reduction of conscript service to 12 months instead of 18 months, or to say that the Armed Forces of 1,100,000, that we shall have in March next year were considered inadequate to support U.N.O., then there would be a clear case for re-examination and reconsideration.
LORD CROFT: Would the noble Lord say how U.N.O. can express such an
78
opinion with regard to the British Forces in particular?
LORD MOUNTEVANS: Yes, Mr. Trygve Lie, the Secretary-General of U.N.O., could write to all those he knows—and believe me they are many—in this country. I think if he wrote to the Minister of Defence and said that the success of U.N.O. was being jeopardized by our reduction in Forces, we would certainly listen to him. Recently in your Lordships' House my friend Lord Strabolgi called attention to conditions in Russia. He told us how terribly apprehensive and almost timid Russia had grown because of her great losses through the invasion. Actually he did not tell you this: that the Russian losses amounted to 20,000,000 civilian population. Due to the German invasion, 20,000,000 wore killed—I have that on the highest Russian authority which I can give you if you wish.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Might I interrupt the noble Lord? I understand that 8,000,000 Service people were killed and the remainder were civilians. Has he a different figure from that?
LORD MOUNTEVAN: My figure was given me shortly after invasion by Mr. Maisky, who was then Ambassador. It may be different since. We do not always disclose our losses or our gains in war time. However, the dissidents in another place emphasized the Russian losses very strongly, and we might emphasize here that Russia can well be suspicious when certain noble Lords have tried to secure the adoption of a Motion to bring over 20,000 German children to this land, to clothe and feed and educate. I cannot understand the logic of the dissidents who want to do away with all conscription, when Russia has at least four times as many men under arms as we have. Generally, we do not intend to be a conscript nation if we can possibly avoid it, and we do not intend our productive manpower to be handicapped more than is absolutely necessary.
I ask your Lordships, if you have the opportunity, to consult those from overseas who have visited the recent British Industries Fairs in London and Birmingham, and hear how amazed they are at what Britain can produce; but afterwards listen to how sad they are that there will be such a delay in delivering the goods that we have exhibited. I do not ofte,

79
speak in your Lordships' House, but I listen, and I have found that there is a great danger in our debates of discouraging youth—our youth which is looking for leadership in a land which is crying for freedom, for order, and for peaceful prosperity. There are many people, inside and outside this House, who are driving youth into joining what I call the "Let's all be gloomy Brigade." It would be far better if we united and taught them from our great history that a butter motto would be: "Hats off to the past, and coats off to the future. We are not dead yet."
6.50 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I want to ask one brief specific question which is susceptible of a brief and specific answer. I notice that the noble Lord who is answering the debate is absent from his place, and I trust somebody will draw his attention to the point. This Bill lays down that every British subject who is ordinarily resident in this country and is between the ages of 18 and 20 is liable to call-up for military service. What then is the position of those tens of thousands of people who are planning now, or in the next few years, to emigrate to the countries of the British Empire? As your Lordships all know, there is an assisted scheme of emigration to Australia now, and no doubt other such schemes are being worked out at the moment. If a man plans to spend the whole of the rest of his life in Australia, is he to be restrained from going by carrying out his military service in this country?
This same question was raised last April on a debate that we conducted in this House on emigration. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in answering, said that he could go no further at that moment than to say that the Commonwealth countries had agreed not to receive as emigrants those who were liable for military service in Britain. He laid that down as a general working measure. This measure was then being discussed in another place, and he promised to elucidate the point later. There has as yet, to my knowledge, been no elucidation of it. I would be very grateful, therefore, if the noble Lord who answers this debate would give us a clear ruling on this point under these headings. First, is an intending emigrant who
80
falls within that age group to be made to do his conscript service, either the one year full time or the further period of part time as well; secondly, as I imagine that the call-up notice arrives at a respectable period before he reaches the age of 18, is he to be restrained in his going by the fact that he is one week from being 18, or six months, a year, two years or five years? I would be very grateful if the noble Lord could answer that specifically, because, as His Majesty's Government know very well, there are tens of thousands of families who would be grateful for an answer on this point. Moreover, the Commonwealth Government themselves I would imagine would like to know exactly how the matter stands.
6.50 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this is a very unhappy day for some of us. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, will sympathise with me when I say that to speak for the first time in my political history in opposition to the Party of which I have been always an extremely happy member, is something which I never thought would fall to my lot. And it is something which I regret with a depth of feeling that I cannot describe to your Lordships. This Bill is one which seems to me to be utterly and completely contrary to everything that I have believed in. I could not have believed that the Labour Party would ever sponsor the imposition of conscription in peace time. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, if I understood him rightly, on behalf of the Liberal Party, accepted this Bill as a temporary measure. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, comes to sum up at the end of this debate he will assure us that it is the Government's policy to treat this imposition of conscription—I prefer to use a word which is in common use in describing the imposition of military service—as a temporary measure. But I cannot feel certain that it is a temporary measure, for, if it were, I do not see why His Majesty's Government should have found it necessary to introduce this Bill at all. Under the Bill which your Lordships passed last year, they already have the power to impose conscription until 1949, and they have also powers by which they could have extended that period had they deemed it to be necessary.

81
A certain point of view has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, and, if I may say so, I did very much regret the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I think that he, too, if he had thought it over, might have felt he had reason to regret it. He suggested that conscientious objectors were people who were just cowards. I think that if the noble Earl will think it over for one minute he will agree with me that it would probably be easier for him to speak in your Lordships' House with the certainty of support from all sides of the House than it is for Lord Darwen or myself to speak in a House where one knows there is very little sympathy for our point of view. Similarly, I would say that it is far easier to be a conformist in life than to refuse to accede to the dictates of society as a whole.
I myself have not had a very extensive experience, but in the Service of which I am a member I had personal contact with a certain number of conscientious objectors who were prepared to give their services to the country, not in the military forces but in the Fire Service. I can assure your Lordships that amongst them were some of the bravest men I have ever known, and, believe me, one was thankful to have had such men at one's side when the bombs were falling. I can assure the noble Earl that, although cases of the kind of which he speaks undoubtedly do exist, it must require a cowardice which is a kind of inverted courage to withstand the general trend of the society in which one lives.
If I have understood the arguments of the noble Viscount who opened the debate correctly, they are based fundamentally on two things—security and the need to fulfil our commitments. So far as security is concerned I feel that my case—the case against the Government—has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. It seemed tip me that when he described the probable outbreak of the next war, with atomic bombs falling without warning, it became clear that the reserves, to build up which it is suggested this Bill is being introduced, would be completely useless. What use would be reserves of any size? You might have reserves of millions but would they be able to arrest the atom bombing rocket? It seems to me that this Bill is envisaging not the next war—indeed, hardly the last war—but the war before the last war. And in the circumstances I cannot find,
82
that the need for security will be met by the introduction of conscription, and the building up of great Armies.
Again, we have begin told that we require large Forces in order to fulfil our commitments. One of the speakers this afternoon—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord. Moran—has already mentioned that the Prime Minister said that at the present time we are reducing our commitments so that in a fairly short time they will be less than they were before the beginning of this war. That seems to me to be patently true. We are drawing out of Burma and out of India. We have nearly withdrawn from Greece, and we are leaving the Middle East. We are to withdraw, as soon as treaties are signed, from Austria. We have in Germany very large Forces, but the size of those Forces is not, I suggest, related to the needs of garrisoning Germany. For that purpose a mere fraction of the Forces we have there at the present time would be adequate.
I believe that His Majesty's Government's policy is explicable only on one of two premises. Either they are anticipating another war within a comparatively short period, or they believe that it is only if the Foreign Secretary is backed up with larged Armed Forces that he will carry the weight which we should all desire him to carry at international conferences. I do not believe that the first possibility is indeed a possibility at all. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government are, in fact, planning for a war this year, next year, in five years' time, or even in ten years' time. If they were, then, as I have already said, I do not believe the type of Forces we are intending to build up by means of conscription would be of the very least use to them. I think the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was right when he said that to obtain security what we need is scientific research, so that we might have better and more fearsome weapons of the most modern type.
I am forced to conclude that the basic reason is the same. There is here, I feel, a really serious fallacy in maintaining Armed Forces of this size. We are, in fact, crippling our economic system to withdraw 200,000 men annually from industry. That represents a loss of something in the neighbourhood of 60,000,000 working days every year. When the Act is in full operation the period of training

83
that every man will undergo will represent on the average something like 10,000,000 additional working days lost. This is a truly fearsome prospect to a country like our own, which is at the present moment crying out for manpower in its essential industries, especially, and above all, in order to build up our exports. It is a curious reflection that the cost of the maintenance of our overseas forces at the present time is almost exactly the same as the adverse import-export balance. I believe that in this matter the Government have pursued a mistaken policy. They have gone to the Chiefs of Staff and have said to them: "This is our policy; these are our commitments. How many men do you require; what forces do you need in order to sustain these commitments?" Naturally the Service Chiefs have placed their estimate high. They would naturally and quite properly calculate on the widest possible margin for security.
I believe that that was fundamentally the wrong approach. What I suggest should have been done by the Government was to draw up a manpower budget to decide what we need for production—and in passing let me say that in modern warfare the industrial efficiency and equipment of a nation is far more important than the size of its military forces. They should have decided the maximum military forces we could afford. They should then have said to the Military Chiefs: "This is the maximum we can withdraw from productive labour; this is the number with which you must do the work entrusted to you." The Military Chiefs might well have replied: "In that case you must cut your coat according to your cloth, and you will have to reduce your commitments."
I am doubtful if that would have been true. It seems to me we shall have military forces far greater than we are able economically to stand. We are at the present time living on our American Loan, which is running out with terrifying rapidity. I have seen it stated publicly by those who should know that by this time next year the Loan will be finished. What then will be our position, for clearly it is only that Loan at the present time which has enabled us to continue to exist with our present adverse trade balance? The answer, surely, will be that we shall have to cut our military commitments or
84
find support for them from other sources. In other words, we shall have to ask for yet another Loan. I do not believe that the people of this country will desire to ask for a Loan in order to maintain swollen Armed Forces. Moreover, what will be the reaction of foreign Powers to our position at the conference table? They will know, as well as we know, that we are unable to maintain those Forces with our own resources. As the Americans can see there are clearly no other sources from which we can obtain the necessary equipment and support, they will ignore completely this armed might which is behind us.
What will be the Russian attitude? Their attitude, it seems to me, will be different. They will say to themselves, "Great Britain clearly cannot maintain these forces herself. They can only be maintained with American support." They will therefore conclude that British policy is, in fact, American policy. It is only by supporting American policy that we shall be able to maintain our Armed Forces and our position in the world. We shall, therefore, not increase our influence at the conference table but, owing to the fact that we have these vastly swollen Armed Forces, we shall tie ourselves to a policy with which we may not agree.
I do not wish to be misunderstood on this matter. I am not criticizing American policy or the policy of the Government, in so far as it has an American flavour, shall I say, because it is perfectly clear that not only have we emotional reasons, because they are our kith and kin and speak the same language, but we are also closely tied by economic reasons to the great nation across the water. It is inconceivable that in any dispute this country should ever find herself on the side opposed to the United States of America. This seems to me to be a perfectly sound policy, and it is not one I shall criticize. What I will criticize is that owing to the fact that we shall have to depend on the American Loan in order to make our Armed Forces efficient we are tied to American policy, right or wrong. There is between the Americans and ourselves, as members of one family, a depth of blood friendship, that, however, does not preclude differences which are argued out more or less amicably within the family circle. My protest in this matter is that by tying ourselves in the way we

85
are doing at the present time we are making it impossible to argue.
In the matter of Armed Forces we must look first to our manpower. Surely it is evident that far more dislocation in industry will be caused by a general call-up of men for a short period. I will not enter into the comparative merits of a long-service period or a conscript army; that is something which military opinion holds as already settled. But no system can possibly be as dislocating as calling up all and sundry for a short period. I have at various times lived in countries which have conscript armies. The expense of maintenance of conscript armies is not limited to immediate expenditure on training and equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, made a point which we have heard made by educationalists, that the young men who anticipate a fairly early call-up lose their interest in their education. They fail in that critical period to put their full energy into the requirements of the training which they will require in their future lives.
I have also observed that the end of expenditure on a man does not occur when he is discharged. No doubt his period of service does have an extremely unsettling effect, and again and again I have seen young men called up for foreign service who have done their term, returned home and been quite unable to settle down for quite considerable periods. It is, after all, an experience which we ourselves have had in this country since the end of the war, and, therefore, the loss to the community is an immeasurable one and one which is quite impossible for us to conceive at the present time. It is clear that, from that point of view, it will cause very much less dislocation to take the number of men wanted by voluntary methods than by the method of conscription.
This is a matter on which I feel very deeply. I believe that His Majesty's Government are making a serious mistake. We in the Labour Party consistently opposed conscription right up to the beginning of the war, and I cannot accept the argument that conscription is democratic. It is riot democratic to take two men of entirely different natures and different outlooks and thrust them into an army. Moreover, it is an argument which dismays me when I hear it on the lips of the Leaders of my Party because,
86
after all, if conscription is the democratic way of raising our Forces, then it is the way which we should adopt, and this Bill should not be a temporary but a permanent measure. I believe, and I hope, that that argument will not be repeated by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, or the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, because if it were true, then we should have to adopt conscription as a permanency in our institutions. As a matter of fact, I will confess that I found the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, similarly contradictory when he said that the Government had adopted this reluctantly. If it is reluctantly adopted and, at the same' time, a good thing, I do not quite see what the noble Viscount's argument really is.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I would like to make an appeal to members of my own Party who feel, as I do, that a grave error has been committed. I would like to appeal to them not to lose their faith in the Party. There have been many who have come to me and said, "This thing is so frightful, it is so contrary to our beliefs; can we remain in the Labour Party, can we believe any further in a Party which has denied our beliefs?" To them I would say: "You are part of a great movement. You are part of a revolutionary movement, a movement which is pointing a new way of life to the world in general. It is pointing the way in which the new, inevitable economic order can be combined with democracy. Stay in this great movement, and bring it back to the faith which inspired you, and inspires you still." To my noble friends on the Front Bench, I would say: "Do, I beg of you, conceive that you may be mistaken."
7.15 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, we have had a great many contributions to this debate, and there are more to come, so I will be as brief as possible. May I take the words which were uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, when he said he conceived the introduction of this measure was to prevent war? I agree with him, but I have always believed that the first duty of any Government, of whatever complexion, was to preserve the independence of their country, and I believe it is necessary on these grounds. After all, if we are to

87
accept the doctrine which was very eloquently and persuasively put by the noble Lord, Lord Darwin, that peace was more important, then we might have accepted that in 1939 and saved ourselves great bloodshed and expenditure. But, without any question at all, the nation at that time thought that peace at any price was not what they wanted.
LORD DARWIN: May I interrupt? I said "world peace." The argument you are using is, therefore, rather altered.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I may have misconceived the noble Lord's argument, but that is how I understood it, and I hope I have not misrepresented him. But I understood him to say that there was a conflict between world peace and the policy of security. I thought the noble Lord was going to say that we must take risks for peace. I remember that phrase very well in the 1930's, but that phrase was not used, though it came very much to the same thing. I do not believe that now, or at any time, the country will accept the doctrine of peace at almost any price. If it is, as I believe it is, the first duty of a Government to preserve the independence of its country, so that the people can, if we like, dispute among ourselves as to what is the best form of policy for our country, then we must all agree that we must take the necessary measures and assume the necessary burdens for that end.
I believe there are two convincing reasons why we should give a Second Reading to this Bill. I believe that to preserve the independence of this country and, I hope, to prevent war, it is necessary to have a higher state of readiness than we had before. I can speak with some personal experience, since I was a member of the British Expeditionary Force in 1939–1940, and I saw, at first hand, the consequence of the unpreparedness of this country. The second reason is the reason the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, gave. It is impossible, for political reasons, to introduce such a measure in a deteriorating international situation. You always shut the stable door after the horse has been stolen. I do not think His Majesty's Government will have any difficulty in persuading at least a majority of noble Lords in this House that it is right to agree to conscription in principle, even though
88
we may consider, as I think we ought to consider, that it should be regarded as entirely a temporary measure in the sense that if the situation alters and the question of atomic energy affects our, defence arrangements, then it ought to be reconsidered.
But we must not be led into giving a Second Reading to this Bill altogether uncritically, because the effectiveness of a Bill of this kind depends upon the details which are retained in it. It would be intolerable to impose what is acknowledged to be a very onerous obligation not only upon the nation but on one section of the nation, unless we got corresponding advantages from it. It is not by any means proved that merely by reducing the period of conscription the burden on the country is reduced. If the period is reduced below that which is practicable and which gives good results, then a burden may be placed upon the country without getting a corresponding advantage. I shall confine myself principally to one point which affects the Army, which is the Service in which I had the honour to serve, and I hope the noble Viscount will bring this to the attention of his colleagues in the War Office. May I say it is a matter of great regret to me that there is not a spokesman of the War Office on the Front Bench of this House. Certain noble Lords of all sections of the House have taken a keen interest in the welfare of the Army, and it would be to the advantage both of the Government and ourselves if there were someone who could answer, not for another Department, but for his own Department.
What I am frightened of at the moment, if the period of compulsory service is too short, is not only that we shall reduce the effectiveness of the trained man at the end of his training, and therefore have a Reserve which is not ready to be called up if the emergency occurs, but also that we may seriously tamper with the Regular Army. I will explain why I feel that. It is this point that I hope the noble Viscount will put to his colleagues. Noble Lords who have served in the Army will realize that in the course of training a Regular unit (if I speak of a battalion it is only because it is the arm with which I am most familiar) there is a well demarcated annual course of training, divided up, starting, let us say, in October

89
or November with the individual training, and working up gradually to the higher collective training which necessarily takes place in the autumn after the harvest.
The soldier in a Regular unit is trained in his company, or his platoon, or his section, throughout the year, His Commanding Officer, his company commander, his platoon commander and the non-commissioned officers, all become familiar with their men—their characteristics, their feelings, and so on—and by the time the higher collective training is reached you have team work; you have a unit, and the Commanding Officer receives his proper training in commanding that unit. If you turn the Regular units into training units, you will completely ruin the Regular Army. If we had 18 months' service, I conceive that it might have been possible to give a man six months' primary training—which is not too long—and then to put him through his annual training in a Regular unit through all the different stages. This will not be possible if for a short period of two or three months, or six months at the most, he is placed in a Regular unit.
Therefore, I suggest that even if the conscripts serve overseas, they should be put in training units and not in Regular units. I do know that the Regular officers are most apprehensive about the effect upon the Regular Army of this proposal. They see themselves turned into permanent instructors. No man of ambition, no man of military qualities, and no man who wants to become an efficient soldier, can contemplate with equanimity becoming a permanent instructor. I believe that now we have upset the balance—which we have done by reducing the period of compulsory service—we must contemplate whether we shall not have to reorganize our Regular Army as well, in order that the training units can be created, and, if necessary, cadres, outside the field force units.
We have at some time to consider this further, and I give fair warning to His Majesty's Government that I shall pester them about it on a later occasion, because I have the strongest conviction that nothing could be worse for our Army than to undermine the Regular field force. It has stood us in very good stead in two wars; it has stood between us and destruction. It has been the efficiency of
90
the Regular officer (l was not a Regular officer myself, so I can praise those who were), the efficiency of the Regular non-commissioned officer, and the Regular trained soldier, which has got us over those very awkward periods, such as the retreat from Mons and Dunkirk. We shall lose far more than we gain if we disturb that great tradition.
7.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at any great length, and before I come to the subject under discussion I must refer to the strictures passed upon me by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. The noble Lord will admit that I accepted them very meekly, and I did so because I was sorry that I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Darwen. If he were in his seat I should like to offer the noble Lord an apology for my discourtesy.
I rise with rather mixed feelings, because I want to congratulate the Government very much on having introduced this Bill, but also I want to express regret for certain shortcomings as they proceeded with it. I certainly feel that every citizen in this country should bless the Government for having at last faced up to realities and grasped this nettle, which should have been done many years ago. It is certainly long overdue. Three times in the lifetime of the majority of the members of this House have we seen the result of being ill-prepared and not having reserve forces to reinforce our Regular Army when hostilities broke out.
Remember South Africa, when we were forced, in the words of the poet of that day, to fall on the young of the nation who could shoot and ride. The young of the nation were sent to shoot and ride, but that was not enough. Then we sent out a lot of half-trained and ill-equipped youths, who were captured by the Boers, and thereby the war was prolonged. When Lord Roberts toured the country afterwards, and advocated some form of national service, he was frowned on by the Government of that day, and it was even hinted that his pension should be stopped. But he was right, and those who thought like him have been preaching the same thing ever since. If a fair history of the period is ever written, it will be that it was not the fault of the Services that the country was not prepared, but the fault of politicians, who would not

91
face up to reality. After the Second World War the issue was funked and we fell back on unilateral disarmament. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, spoke really in terms that might have been heard at Chatham House twenty years ago.
I am not going to enter into detail on the question of the length of service. I have always been interested in the training question, and I think a tremendous lot can be done with any young man if you give him 12 months' training. But it must be training, and not lounging about in barracks, shifting coal or doing any other duty that other people are not called upon to perform. And he must be sent away from his home. Do not let us have the local M.P. jumping up and asking why Tommy is not allowed to go to his sister's birthday party. With regard to training you can, if you have the right incentives, get a termendous amount out of a man in 12 months. Many of your Lordships may remember the Spectator Company that turned out in six months a very efficient company of men who started from scratch. But it is to be deplored if we give this training for six months, and then send these immature boys out to form part of our Army of Occupation abroad. The duty of an Army of Occupation is really police work, and it is not fair to young boys to put them in that position. It is not a duty for young boys, but for grown men, if you do not want unpleasant incidents to occur. You have only to compare a group of young soldiers in the streets to-day with a group of German prisoners to see the disadvantage they are at. They are men in one sense, but boys in another, and boys will never rule men.
Had the Government, in the first place, said that they had considered the question and, while they thought 18 months was enough, in view of the facts that had been put forward as to the financial situation and the manpower situation, they could not manage 18 months, but only 12 months; and had they appealed to the Services to train the men fully in that period, I am sure the Services would have accepted the position. It would have appealed to them on patriotic grounds and, as always on those grounds, they would have responded nobly. What are they to do now? Because a body of men in the Cabinet (who are really the only ones with all the information)
92
came to the conclusion that 12 months was necessary, are the Services now to believe that their Chiefs of Staff "ratted" in twenty-four hours? Why was the Minister of Defence put up to conduct this retreat? Surely, if the Ministers of the Service Departments are going to be overruled it should be done by the Prime Minister, or somebody else. They look to their Minister as a stalwart who, having agreed with his professional advisers on what the right policy should be, will stand up for it. They do not expect to see him treated in the way the Minister of Defence was treated on this occasion.
There also was an agitation by a political minority, many of whom are always wrong. Not only are they always wrong, but they are the men who have themselves spoken against conscription. They expressed different motives for it; they were not actuated by the same ideas at all, and they were contradictory. I think it was a fatal mistake to undermine the trust of the Services in their own Ministers. They ought to believe in them, as I do in the First Lord of the Admiralty, knowing that he will always stand up for the naval point of view and never give an inch if he can help it. They would then think that their Ministers had been overruled but they would say, "They are good chaps, and they put up a fight."
There are those whose views we have heard this afternoon who say, "What is the good of training along these pre-war lines? They will be wiped out by atomic bombs, rockets, or weapons of that description." If you get the men formed into units you can always transform them into anti-rocket corps, or anything you like, far quicker than you can train new recruits. It is everything to have a man at hand for a task and ready to do it. It has been done on so many occasions recently. Every member of your Lordships' House who takes an interest in these matters has seen the yeomanry turned into cavalry, infantry turned into anti-aircraft units and cavalry turned into tank men, and so you see how easily men can be changed from one Service to another. That is because they have the fundamental training upon which all the Services rest.
The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, has had long experience of this matter, and was a Chief of Staff, which I never was,

93
but I disagree with him about Chiefs of Staff. I do not think it right for the Minister to say what the Chiefs of Staff have said. The Chiefs of Staff cannot say what the Minister has said to them, but it would probably be far more interesting. The Chiefs of Staff should be allowed to express their views and opinions and, if overruled, they must do their best to implement the Government policy with the means placed at their disposal. I am not going into any further questions to-night. There are several upon which I should have liked to express an opinion, but I will do so on the Committee stage, and I will not detain your Lordships any longer.
7.34 P.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I do not think that there are many people in this country who really welcome a Bill which brings in conscription in peace time and thereby rends the great tradition of voluntary service which has never yet let us down, even if there may be groups of people who think that conscription is necessary. We have heard the different views Which people hold on conscription. There is the pacifist who will not tolerate it in any circumstances, and then there is the man who is diametrically opposed to him and wants it at all times. But the greatest number of people who definitely agree that conscription is necessary at some time or another, only differ as to when it is and when it is not necessary. My own view is that at the present time conscription is not necessary, and in saying that I am not coming down on the side of the pacifist who will never tolerate conscription, and it is in no defence of these people that I want to address your Lordships for a very few minutes this evening.
We have heard very many arguments raised both for and against the Bill. There are a considerable number of us who served in the recent war, and who saw war-time conscription, who are against this Bill for two practical reasons which may have a very serious consequence in the country. First of all, there is the unfortunate effect that this Bill will have on the outlook of the youth of the country between the age of leaving school and the age of being called up into the Forces. This unsettled feeling is already having its effect and becoming quite apparent. The nearer a young man gets to the age
94
of eighteen, the less interest he appears to have in the job he has got. When manpower is so urgently needed, it appears that a man does not ready start serious work until he reaches the age of nineteen. In fact, it really means that conscription is becoming a deterrent to work, when good work is so very urgently needed. The second reason is the effect that this Bill will have—and is in fact already having—upon the voluntary services, both Regular and Territorial, through the threat of its becoming law.
I do not think it is necessary to go into figures because the figures of the Army and Royal Air Force were quoted by the noble Viscount at the beginning of this afternoon's debate. I think that if the figures of the Territorial Army were disclosed, after this first month of our attempt to regain the numbers of the Territorial Army, we would have a very serious shock indeed, and I do not think anyone could possibly be satisfied. But this shortage of volunteers, temporarily caused by the automatic reaction after six years of war, has been given no chance whatsoever of a recovery, mainly because this Bill has been brought up now when it is not coming into force for over eighteen months. If the Government had devoted this year to a serious and honest attempt to get back to voluntary service, I believe that it cow I have beam done. I also believe that on will never get the number of volunteers you require while you have conscription.
We have come to a tin to now when, if we are going to have peace in the world we will have less and less military commitments abroad. I do nut want to go into that fully, because it has already been mentioned, but in India Palestine, Greece and even in Germany, we shall have far fewer liabilities than we have had recently, Surely that in itsel is a good opportunity of giving the vol ntary service a real chance. I do not think anyone would be prepared to compare a conscript with a volunteer, because ever. if the conscript works hard—and I am afraid I have very great doubts about that—a year is not long enough. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, referred to one of the few things about which I am in a position to argue with him, and that is a s to how long it takes to train a gun number in art antiaircraft battery. I should have thought that if there was one perfect example of

95
the impossibility of training anyone in a year, it is in that very technical side of the Army, the Anti-aircraft.
I think we are in danger of putting this country in the same position as was France in 1939, when their Army was utterly demoralized. That resulted in something of which I need not remind your Lordships. I, too, was in the Army in France in 1939. I saw these French soldiers and saw how useless they were. That was an example of a conscripted nation. Next time you will have the numbers, but will you have the spirit that will win you the war, and will you have the spirit that will teach these young people self-discipline, which is really the first thing you have to teach them when you get them in the Army? I fear that the mass of these troops will have quite an unpleasant memory of the years of compulsory service and very little memory of what it is to be a real soldier.
To sum up, if we have conscription now and if we have it for only twelve months, then I think you will be providing in this country a Force that is inefficient, unpopular, and a liability rather than an asset in any future war. Will you get those numbers at the cost of individual liberty? I still think and believe that given reasonable opportunity you will get enough volunteers both to serve you abroad and, mainly through the Territorial Army, to serve you in England. I am not an historian. A noble Lord earlier this afternoon put forward an argument about Napoleon. I am a little doubtful about this; but I believe it is true to say that no country that has practised conscription in peace time has ever yet won a major war. I think that by having conscription now you are killing that voluntary spirit which has carried us safely through two major wars.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the opportunity given by this Bill for posïtive and constructive training. We have, for the first time in times of peace, all the youth of the nation together at a very receptive age and at a time when they have no very fixed or set ideas. Let us therefore aim at making our Armed Forces a training ground for democratic citizenship and a moral element in the nation. This is, I believe fully realized by those in authority. The Secretary of State for War,
96
speaking in another place on the Army Estimates on March 13, 1947, said that the political head of the Army had a moral responsibility for the spiritual and moral welfare of the young men who were coming into the Army, and went on to say later:
"It is my duty and not only my duty but the duty of every member of this House … to see that it is borne in on all officers and men that they have … to increase their moral as well as their physical stature while in the Army."
I am profoundly grateful for that important and encouraging statement and believe that it is one on which noble Lords of all Parties in this House would be agreed.
The time in the Armed Forces could be well used, first as a training ground for the youth of the country in the meaning of democracy, its history and traditions, and in the application and value of moral standards and leadership in public and private life, in responsibility for communal, civic, national and international affairs, apart from Party politics, and to inculcate the necessity for absolute honesty and due care and respect for the property of the Forces and of the nation; secondly, to demonstrate team work (as has been mentioned), efficiency, and esprit de corps; thirdly, to make the men ambassadors for their country when abroad, a responsible uniting force carrying with them liberating ideas wherever they find themselves. This, it seems to me, is very important for the British Forces at the present time.
For this it is necessary to study the basis, standards and values of the ideology of true democracy, which is, I believe, Christian, as compared with that of other material ideologies. I believe that all this has to be caught quite as much as or even more than taught, and will depend on the personality, the tone and the example of those in the commissioned and non-commissioned ranks of the Forces. For myself, I am convinced that the qualities required can best come from a Higher Source. There are many in your Lordships' House and in the country, therefore, who will welcome this opportunity for a nation-wide scheme to make the Armed Forces such a training ground for democratic citizenship and a moral element in the nation; and I trust that those responsible will be convinced of the need, confident that it can be met and determined to meet it.
7.46 p.m.
EARL BEATTY: My Lords, after listening to the noble Lord opposite and those behind him, I cannot believe that this Bill can possibly be a real source of satisfaction to them. I feel that it will for ever remain on the Statute Book as a monument to the Government's unconditional surrender, about two years after the surrender of Nazi Germany—their unconditional surrender to their own irresponsible tail. With the noble Viscount the First Lord, I sat in the gallery of another place, and I think we were the only two members of your Lordships' House present at that time, listening to the noble Viscount's former chief at the Admiralty and my former chief in the Service proposing the Amendment to reduce the period of national service from 18 to 12 months. I am bound to say that I thought, surrounded as I was by naval tradition, that that was indeed an un-Nelsonic effort on the part of the former First Lord, and that if the long line of British Admirals could only have listened to and watched this event, they would have shaken their heads in bewilderment. There, down below us, was a man who had justly earned the unbounded admiration of the Navy in time of war, surrendering before their very eyes. I could almost hear them murmuring, "Will politicians in power in peace time never remember and never learn?"
When I read over the Minister of Labour's speech in introducing the Bill in another place I came across this sentence:
"We hope that it may be possible—and as I shall explain, there is power in the Bill—to shorten the period of service. There are two ways in which this may be achieved."
In the light of subsequent events it would surely have been much more appropriate if he had said: "There are just two days in which that may be achieved." It is incredible to me that, after the serious and well-marshalled arguments of the Government in support of the Bill in its Second Reading, arguments which went really outside the scope of the Bill itself—they referred to our commitments overseas and the international situation—the term of service under this Bill should have been so ruthlessly slashed.
The Minister of Defence stated that the Chiefs of Staff had been consulted. Quite rightly, he did not say whether they had
98
agreed or disagreed, and I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, when he says that should be stated. I think the Minister of Defence was quite correct: but there are many ways of consulting, and at this juncture, when the Bill had passed its Second Reading in another place by a large majority, the Chiefs of Staff must have been slightly bewildered to be asked not by the Opposition, but by the Government themselves, radically to change the scope of the Bill. If a question of such paramount importance to the safety of the nation can be altered in forty-eight hours, after many months of preparatory work to ascertain the numbers of men and the standard of training, the Chiefs of Staff can hardly be blamed if they did not object to the reduction. I suggest that after the precipitous retreat of the Government in the face of their own irregular forces, the Chiefs of Staff might well have considered themselves fortunate in stopping the retreat at twelve months.
If the truth were known perhaps they heaved a sigh of relief when the Third Reading was passed and the Bill was passed in another place without any other and further disastrous Government amendments. To turn to other points in the Bill, when I read the debate, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—and I do not agree with him in many things—was struck by the fact that, apart from pacific speeches, the argument largely turned on the difficulties that are to be faced with the Army, and that the Navy was left out in the discussion. As a Naval Officer who had a good deal to do with training at a certain period during this war, I should like to say that I did find that in that Service a man could be trained for one task reasonably; that I agree. He remained efficient in that job, once he was trained, but when he was taken to do another, and perhaps yet a third job, then the difficulties really commenced.
Therefore I think that, particularly in the Navy, by reducing the period of service from 18 months to 12 months—by a whole third—it will be necessary in that Service to keep men who are training under this Bill in water-tight compartments in order to obtain any efficiency whatsoever in that short time. But that is more than ever undesirable, and must inevitably lead to great administrative difficulties, if the Fleet were ever to be

99
mobilized. Unless that training for men is done in water-tight compartments I cannot see how on the outbreak of war there would be anything but chaos. Therefore (and the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, mentioned this point also) from a naval point of view, I feel this reduction of one-third in training may have disastrous consequences.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Earl would permit me I would agree to every word he has said, but would he be very much better off with 18 months?
EARL BEATTY: I was coming to that point in developing my argument. I cannot answer it immediately, but if he will excuse me I will follow it up in my argument.
As has been said before, figures are extremely difficult to obtain from the Government at this moment, but I believe that there are to-day about 200,000 men in the Royal Navy, of whom—and the noble Viscount said this in his opening speech to-day—90,000 are Regular components of the Navy. Therefore in those circumstances over half in the Navy to-day are what are commonly called "conscripts." Before the war it was thought that three years was barely sufficient time to train a man to be a seaman, and I see no reason why that time should be shortened now. Therefore when you consider the numbers of conscripts in the Services to-day you can imagine what will be the efficiency in the future.
I have spoken to several officers in seagoing ships who have told me of their difficulties, but they have also told me—I am coming to Lord Strabolgi's point, and it is common knowledge throughout the Fleet—that if once they could get men away for a commission, or even part of a commission, they made those men very much keener and more efficient. But surely by shortening the time of service you are very much limiting the possibility of getting those men to sea after their initial training, except in the Home Fleet and in their training squadrons at home. They will have little chance to become a component part of an active fighting ship on a foreign station, and that, I think, answers the point. The noble Lord has said that by this reduction you are limiting the possibilities of getting the men to sea and thereby of making them as efficient as they should be. Later on, per-
100
haps, as it is too early to ask now, with the end of the debate just coming, the First Lord will say during the passage of this Bill how long he expects these men to be at sea with only twelve months' service.
If these are the troubles of the Navy it does not take much imagination to see what the appalling difficulties would be in the other Services, because, as we know, the Navy has a far greater volunteer Service than the other two. In my humble opinion, therefore, this Bill contains a very potential danger for the future, because we shall be led to believe that we have efficiency where in fact no efficiency really exists; we shall be told in years to come that we have a great reserve of trained men only waiting to be called up. I can already hear the Minister of Defence, the First Lord and others, quoting large figures which will have very little relation to fact, because mere numbers to-day do not constitute defence.
In these days of complicated and highly specialized warfare, training will be the decisive factor, and so I feel that by this reduction of time this Bill has been altered in a most dangerous fashion. If we have any enemies, they cannot have done anything but gain comfort by the vacillating way in which the Government surrendered to a large number of their Party who were not even of one view. The First Lord concluded his introductory remarks by saying that this Bill was to prevent war. I should not describe it in that way; I should say that it was for our own preservation. But be that as it may, I have no doubt that, presented as it has been, it can have done very little to impress other nations of our earnest endeavours in this country, and may probably have done harm and weakened our strength in foreign affairs.
8.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships at any great length this evening. The time is getting late and we have had an extremely full debate. Moreover, I think it would be generally agreed that this is not a Bill the general purpose of which has caused any wide differences of opinion in your Lordships' House. There have been individual dissentients, but, broadly speaking, the principle has been accepted. Indeed, I thought that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his

101
opening speech, clearly showed the need for the Bill, and certainly, as my noble friend Lord Croft has already said, we on this side of the House will not oppose it. I do not say—and here I would agree with what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading—that the general principle of compulsory military service is one that is ever likely to arouse wild enthusiasm in any Party of the State in this country.
I say this with some little trepidation because I read the other day in the newspapers that when an eminent Admiral made a rather similar remark he was accused by his local Member of Parliament of being a neo-Fascist. Why, I was not quite clear. I have never regarded any passionate attachment to the voluntary principle as being a particular attribute of Fascism. On the contrary, I should have thought any dislike of compulsion was definitely anti-authoritarian. That is why it has always been an age-long characteristic of the British people. It is and always has been symbolic of our love of free institutions. I would prefer—as I should think all other noble Lords here would prefer—that a long-term professional Army, Navy and Air Force, based on the voluntary principle, should always remain the main core of our Armed Forces. I do not think that there would be any difference of opinion about that. But, of course, to any general principle there must be certain exceptions and modifications to meet exceptional circumstances, and this, I honestly believe, is one of those occasions.
If we are to preserve our liberties in the world as it exists to-day, we must be prepared to defend them; and if, in certain circumstances, that may involve certain temporary sacrifices, we must be prepared to face that hard fact. That, as I understand it, is the underlying principle of this Bill, and I should have thought that it was one with which no one could seriously quarrel. Indeed, if I may quote from my own personal experience at the Foreign Office, I would say that we must face the fact that in The world, as it is now, the maintenance of adequate Armed Forces is not merely necessary to secure the liberties and independence of this country, it is not even merely necessary to enable us to fulfil our obligations to the United Nations should an emergency arise. The maintenance of adequate Armed Forces is really necessary—
102
and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whose interesting and sincere speech I am sure we all enjoyed—if we are to have any foreign policy at all. Unless we can show that there is behind our policy some backing of armed strength, no one will pay the slightest attention to what we say. That is the hard fact which we ought to have learned by our own melancholy experiences in the years before the war.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, I think, who in a speech of patent sincerity said that the main aim of the Government must be to preserve peace. He seemed, I thought, doubtful whether the existence of Armed Forces in the hands of law-abiding nations would be of any assistance to that end. Would he and those who agree with him say that it would be the best method of preserving domestic peace to do away entirely with our police force? Surely he must know that the only result of that kind of action would be to encourage lawless persons to snap their fingers at the Law. The purpose of a police force—and this applies whether in the domestic or in the international sphere—is not merely to put down disorder once it has broken out but to make it absolutely clear to potential trouble-makers that they are bound to be defeated if they break the peace. The same is equally true in the international sphere as in the domestic sphere. The forces of order must be stronger than the forces of disorder.
While, therefore, I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Darwen and Lord Faring-don, with the respect which their sincerity deserved, I did so, I must confess, with a feeling of some despair. There they were, these two noble Lords, who have lived through the last twenty years, who have seen Hitler and Mussolini and all the events which led up to the last appalling conflict, and they remained just like the Bourbons; they had learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. They were just where they were in 1939—and that was not in the right place. These noble Lords, I think, both believe in collective security. But surely the lesson of those years before the war is that while collective security, backed by armaments, is a valuable contribution to peace, collective security without armaments just means nothing at all—it is a snare and a delusion. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, seemed to argue that the more Armed

103
Forces we have the weaker will be our international bargaining position. If he had had, as I have had in a small way, to negotiate with other countries, I am sure that he would very soon have altered that view.
We all hope that the time will come when the world will be so law-abiding that all armaments will be unnecessary. But I am afraid that that time is still very far off—rather further off, indeed, than we used to think when we were children. Look at Russia. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, spoke of Russia. Russia is a country which many of those who have opposed this Bill in another place profess to admire. But she has millions of men under arms. Look at the United States. She is maintaining armed power vastly above her pre-war standard. And we, who have far-flung territories and commitments all over the world, surely have greater need of Armed Forces than she has. If we could obtain these men we need by voluntary means, of course that would be better. There is no difference of opinion about that. But it appears that we cannot do so. In such circumstances, I am sure that any Government. whatever the Party to which it belonged, would have to take steps such as the present Government are taking in this Bill. To refrain from doing so would he to neglect their most vital responsibilities.
I think that most of us, this afternoon, indeed ail of us who heard it, listened with great interest to the powerful and thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. In that speech, as I understood it, he expressed doubt as to whether military manpower, in the sense I think of what General de Gaulle used to call La masse—manpower as a whole—was any longer of importance. Lord Moran said that we lived in a scientific age and that it would be scientific weapons which would dominate a future war. He scouted the idea that nations would not use these weapons, and pointed out, with great truth and force, that the most-civilized nations in the world, ourselves and the United States, did not hesitate to use the atomic bomb, even when the issue of the war against Japan was no longer in doubt.
I would suggest to the House, however, that there is one other factor which ought to be taken into account which I do not
104
think the noble Lord, Lord Moran, did take into account, in considering the probability of the use of these new scientific weapons. He was no doubt right in saying that moral considerations rarely prevent leaders from using any weapon when nations are fighting for their lives. The anxiety to save the lives of their soldiers overrides every other consideration. But what is equally true is this: that there is another more effective deterrent—that is the fear of reprisal. In the case of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima that deterrent did not exist. The other party had not got the bomb and could not retaliate. But take gas. It is almost certain the Germans would have used gas against the Russians in this war: but they were deterred by the very firm declaration made by President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill that Great Britain and the United States would certainly use it as a reprisal in Germany. As a result gas was not employed in the last war. It seems to me that the more formidable a weapon is the greater is the deterrent value of this fear of reprisals.
I do not say we can build too much on that argument. One cannot tell what human beings will do in the last moment of despair. But I do not personally feel certain that these weapons will be used. And if they are not used, the importance of manpower remains. It was manpower, in spite of all the new scientific weapons used in the late war, which brought about the final victory of the Allies: it was manpower that made possible the landing, in France on "D" Day; and we cannot even now assume that manpower has lost its importance. Your Lordships will forgive me for having ranged rather widely, but I have now said all I have to say on the broad general issues. I should, however, like to say one or two things on points of detail in the Bill.
One of them relates to obligations of service. As I read the provisions of the Bill—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the obligations of part-time service imposed on the compulsorily called-up men are less onerous than those imposed on the Territorial Force voluntarily enlisted. The period of part-time service for compulsorily enlisted men—I prefer that to the word "conscripts", because I feel it is less offensive—is sixty days over a period of six years. I understand these sixty days may be served in camps or on daily parades. The part-time ser-

105
vice for the Territorial Force is to be fifteen days in camp for four years: that is sixty in all. That, it may be said, is just about the same as the other if you add the periods together. But, in addition, the Territorial Force man has to attend training parades of forty hours a year, in the case of untrained soldiers, and thirty hours a year, in the case of trained soldiers, over the whole period of four years of their part-time service. I must confess that it seems entirely wrong that the volunteer should be penalized in this way. It will be only too liable to cause friction between the two types of soldier and will certain tend to impair the efficiency of the Armed Forces. I do not ask for an answer on this point this evening, but I hope the Government will examine it before the Committee stage.
Another point, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, concerns the position of minors who migrate to the Empire. We know from what the First Lord of the Admiralty said in his opening speech that miners are to be exempt from military service. I do not object; I state that as a fact. But what about those men going out to play their part in cementing the bonds of Empire? The present position might easily cause a great weakening of the desire to migrate and a great lessening of the desire of other Empire countries to receive these young migrants. It cannot be left as it is. My personal view is that it is so important that we should have an interchange of population of the Empire countries that I should like to see these people exempted from military service. It would be well worth our while. But whatever the position is to be, the Government ought to clear it up.
But our main regret on this side of the House, as has been emphasized often this afternoon, is that while they were about it the Government did not make the term of service of those being trained one which would be of greater value to their country. It is surely a classic example of spoiling a ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. In the Bill as originally drafted there was to be at least eighteen months training. Why has it been found desirable to shorten the period of service? The Minister of Defence, Mr. A. V. Alexander, has given two reasons. First, in a statement made, perhaps rather prematurely, directly after the
106
Second Reading, he indicated quite frankly that it was the result of the opposition of a powerful section of Government supporters. Then there was a rapid volte face, and he gave an entirely different reason, that it was the result of economic circumstances. Why was it necessary for the Government to go through these extremely painful gymnastics? I do not think their switch of reasons convinced anyone, either among their own supporters or among any other section of opinion in the country. In spite of the extremely tortuous arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, the Government case for twelve months was absolutely riddled to-day from every point of view by those best qualified to speak. Indeed, if the truth be sail, the Government riddled it themselves by their orginal arguments in the Second Reading in another place.
Possibly they have taken the general view that when one has a bad case two reasons for doing what one intends to do are always twice as effective as one! But there is nothing more dangerous than to give too many reasons for any course one decides to embark upon. They are only too apt to tumble over each other and discredit each other, and I am afraid this is what has happened in the present case. If the first explanation of the Minister of Defence sounded rather feeble, the second argument sounded definitely shifty, and did the Government no good. The Government would do much better to face the fact frankly, that they have allowed themselves to be blackmailed by an irresponsible minority of their own supporters who have acted, some from respectable if mistaken motives, but some from motives less respectable.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is the case of a Conservative Government having to give way to its own supporters. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Croft, forced the Government to give way before this.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that would be called a hypothetical question. To return to 1-he subject under debate, these gentlemen have now recognized their power, and I am afraid the Government are likely to have a good deal more trouble with them. That is only too commonly the case with black-mailers. But that is the Government's headache, not ours. So far as the Opposition are concerned, we regret this volte

107
face of the Government. We believe it was not in the interests of the country. We believe it will make the task of the Foreign Secretary infinitely more difficult. A crowd of raw or half trained troops will not be an impressive advertisement of our armed strength in Germany and other countries to which they are to be sent. Nor, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork, said, are young troops well fitted to perform the police duties which are the main function of an Army of Occupation. I still hope that, if not now, at any rate later, the Government will re-consider the period in the light of further experience. But, in the meantime, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said with all his authority, twelve months is better than nothing. That, I think, is generally agreed on this side of the House, and it is on that basis that we shall support the Bill to-night.
8.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, in the dining room of your Lordships' House I usually sit at a table opposite a portrait of Lord Roberts. I never do so without recalling a public school camp at Aldershot upwards of forty years ago, at which the little but famous Field-Marshal came on his famous white charger to address the boys from the various schools. This left an ineffaceable memory upon my mind, especially as the tears rolled down the famous soldlier's cheeks when he listened to the cheers of the youth of the day. Since that time, many who were in that company served in one war, and some survived to play their part in the Second World War. I think Lord Roberts would have been unfeignedly surprised had he been able to look forward forty years and to know that one of the survivors would be standing at this box in your Lordships' House to commend to your Lordships a National Service Bill on behalf of a Labour Government. For the sentiment generally animating the Labour Party in those days, as my noble friend the First Lord mentioned in his opening speech, was that exemplified in the speeches made to-day by the noble Lords, Lord Faring-don and Lord Darwen. However deeply I may dissent from them, I have the greatest respect for all opinions that are firmly and sincerely held, as I know theirs to be. But the world moves along at a pretty smart pace, and the sentiments of
108
the Labour Party have changed to the degree which brings me to this box to-day in support of this Bill.
In all the speeches to-day there has been a general unanimity of view that the Government were well advised to bring in some such Bill, and that national service is a requisite of the times in which we are living; and I, for my part, would adopt, in support of that view of the Government whose spokesman I am, much of what was said by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech just now. I do not think, with the feeling of the House on the broad aspects of the Bill being what it is, that it is necessary for me to dilate at any length upon them at this hour. I find myself very much in agreement with the speech made by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who has an entitlement to speak upon this subject with great authority, for he has commanded the Inns of Court Training Corps, and in the last war he was also engaged in the training of troops—I know that because I have seen him at it. He thus has an entitlement to make the points which he put so clearly and acceptably to your Lordships' House.
I was greatly moved by his peroration, in which he made clear the view he holds (and which I share, as I am sure do many of your Lordships) that citizenship carries high obligations—very heavy duties, but they are high obligations—and that we must appeal not merely to materialistic objectives but to idealistic objectives also. I feel sure we must direct our mind to that approach. As some of your Lordships know, I had some experience in recruiting for the Territorial Army, especially in the years immediately before the war, and I am sure that the appeal that was made by me then was one which appealed to men as involving the obligations of citizenship to which the noble Marquess referred, and the protection of the country on patriotic grounds in times of danger.
This is not quite so easy now. The emotional approach is more difficult, and the intellectual approach is not always simple to bring home, but I am sure that it is capable of being done. The Service Departments will certainly direct their minds and efforts to that end, for I wish to make it clear to your Lordships, on behalf of the Government, that we do not regard the National Service Bill as in any way exonerating the Government from the

109
responsibility of endeavouring to raise an adequate and highly trained Army by voluntary methods. We also look to the Territorial Army, reconstituted in its new shape, as the linch-pin of the whole business of national defence. So we shall do all we can, bearing in mind the advice we have received from your Lordships and which we have received and may receive from elsewhere, to ensure that there is an adequate in-coming both to the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. The voluntary system has much to provide for the welfare of the country and the wellbeing of the Forces.
Of course I agree, as I am bound to agree, that if one were to regard this whole difficult problem of defence or of the Services in a vacuum, it would be preferable to have a longer rather than a shorter term for a national service-man, for training and serving in the Forces after training. But we cannot deal with this matter as if all we had to contemplate was a vacuum. We have to look at this particular problem against the background of the facts as they are. My noble friend, Lord Mountevans, brought that out with great clarity when he indicated the fact, remarkable enough, I think, that while much has been said in your Lordships' House in the course of this debate as to the effect upon training of a shorter period of service, nothing has been said of the effect upon industry of a, longer period of service at a time when industry is shouting because of the shortage of manpower.
I listened with interest and respect, as I always do, to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the question of the reduction in the period—a matter which very naturally, and, indeed, inevitably, has been mentioned in most of the speeches of noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite, though I must say it was mentioned on the whole in a most friendly way. I am a little troubled, in view of what the noble Marquess said about a variety of reasons, as to whether I should attempt an explanation. But the noble Marquess and noble Lords will not overlook the fact that here is a Bill which affects the daily life of every family in the country, and of the young men in all families. It is of very great importance that in a new movement of this kind, affecting so many people so drastically, there should be a general volume of consent from those who are affected.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I take it that the noble Lord accepts the first explanation of the Minister of Defence, and not the second? I understood the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, took the same view when he interrupted. I understand he belongs to what may be called Codex "A."
LORD NATHAN: I was subtracting nothing; I was only attempting to add. The period of twelve months is one which will have to be used, of course, with much more concentration, if one is to get from it the same results as might have been expected from a period of eighteen months. Noble Lords will accept it as axiomatic that the Government had fairly in mind the problems which have been indicated by noble Lords in the course of this debate, in deciding what I will call this marginal question and, after making a full survey, they ultimately came to the conclusion indicated by my noble friend the First Lord to-day, that on balance of national advantage, as it emerged after discussion, this period of twelve months should be adopted rather than the earlier period be maintained. We shall see how it goes. I observed what the noble Earl, Lord Beatty, said as to training being the key. I was greatly interested to hear the speech of the noble Earl because I remember—I do not know if he does; I do not think we have spoken in this House in the same debate since we have both been members of it—that when he made his maiden speech in another place it fell to my lot to congratulate him upon it. I am glad to hear him here to-day.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked me a question very similar to one which had been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in regard to emigration. I think it is, as he justly said, a matter of importance, and although I do not propose this evening to detain your Lordships with detailed answers, I think I should deal with that question, so far as I am able just across the table. I was asked whether a man of military age will be allowed to emigrate to the Dominions before doing his whole-time and part-time service, and whether a man approaching 18 would be restrained from emigration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was put by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir.
LORD NATHAN: Those were questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, but a similar question was put by the noble Marquess. The answer is that no obstacle will be placed in the way of a man leaving the country before an enlistment notice is issued to him, in the normal course. If, however, he left the country after an enlistment notice had been issued, deeming him a member of the Forces, he would place himself in the position of an absentee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If he had not had his enlistment notice he would not receive one? He would be regarded as having migrated to another country, and he would thereupon be exempted from the scheme? If he had received the enlistment notice he ought to wait in this country until he had done his enlistment service.
LORD NATHAN: The noble Marquess understands that I am dealing with the question as best I can across the table. Subject to any correction that may have to be made, the noble Marquess's understanding of the position is also mine. I would add to that that an enlistment notice would not be issued if a man informs the issuing officer that he is on the point of departure. But the calling-up machinery would not he interfered with on account of a man's declared intention to leave the country at an unknown future date. It must be something imminent. I think it will be agreed that that is reasonable.
I was also asked a question as regards passages assisted from United Kingdom funds. The Dominion authorities have agreed not to accept a man who has reached the age of eighteen. It would be anomalous for the Government to assist a man to avoid his obligations under the National Service Acts by making a grant. But a man who has done twelve months' service, and has been placed on the Reserve, will not be prevented from going overseas. I would also add that no steps will be taken to prevent a man leaving the country before he is eighteen, even under a scheme of assisted passages paid for by the United Kingdom Government. I think that covers the point mentioned sufficiently for this evening's discussion.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think my noble friend has fallen into an ambiguity of language. He spoke about men leaving
112
the country. Surely, if a man was going to live in France that would not exempt him. Does it not mean in the Empire?
LORD NATHAN: I was discussing this matter in the context in which it was put to me.
LORD STRABOLGI: "Abroad" means to the Empire, surely, and not some foreign country.
LORD NATHAN: I am obliged to my noble friend. It was in that context that I was making the statement, and I should not like it to be interpreted as extending beyond that. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, then raised a question about the difference in obligation between a national service man and a member of the Territorial Army. There is the difference to which he refers. The part-time obligation of a national service man is for six years, with a maximum obligation of sixty days, of which a maximum of twenty-one days will be in any one year; whereas, as the noble Marquess has said, there are heavier obligations imposed upon a Territorial. But the Territorial has taken upon himself those obligations in a spirit of public service voluntarily, and if he fulfils those obligations he gets a money bonus, which is not attached to the national service man. If a question arises on that, we can no doubt discuss it at a later stage. That is really the short answer to the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me one or two questions arising out of the naval position. He asked how we are to train sailors in twelve months, and suggested that as much time as possible should be spent at sea. The noble Lord also suggested the revival of the old training squadrons. The best methods for training the naval ratings who will serve one year's whole-time service under the Bill is, of course, a question that is being studied at the present time with a view to achieving the most satisfactory outcome. It is certainly intended that they should spend as much time as possible at sea. With regard to the proposal to revive the old training squadrons, there are already sea-going ships in home waters entirely devoted to training, and the possibility of devoting further ships to this purpose is naturally one of the questions which is being investigated at the present time.

113
Another point raised by my noble friend I should perhaps reply to by saying that it is possible that the Navy could achieve the manning of the peace time Fleet on a voluntary basis, although this is perhaps doubtful. But it is not regarded as possible thus to achieve reserves of a sufficient size, or of adequate training, to take their part in manning the Fleet on mobilization. The pre-war voluntary reserves, such as the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, were of great value, but they were very small, and with the greater complexity of modern weapons achievement of the necessary technical skill can no longer be relied upon purely with part-time training alone. A period of full-time training is necessary for that purpose.
The most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, raised a question—which was also the subject of some observations from the noble Lord, Lord Moran—as to young men being sent to Germany, as an instance of occupied territory. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also raised wider questions of policy, to some of which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has referred. I will not detain your Lordships by dealing with the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, except to say that if they were accepted I think there could be no doubt that this country would be left naked and defenceless to the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, must have startled some of your Lordships—he certainly startled me—by some figures he gave as to venereal disease amongst British troops. Those of your Lordships who were in the Chamber at the time will recall that, without in any way raising an argument at that moment, I asked if he would be good enough to give me the authority for his statement. The answer, as if understood it, was that the information had come to him in his capacity as a member of the Medical Advisory Council of the Secretary of State for War, and that those were the figures which he was submitting to your Lordships. Whether figures issued in such a way are available for public use in such a manner is a matter with which I have no concern, and is no doubt one which the noble Lord will discuss with the Secretary of State for War. But I was staggered—I think that is the right word—by the figures, and let me remind your Lordships what they were.
114
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that in September of last year in our Army in Japan of every 1,000 men 228 had venereal disease and in a Command alongside 6oo out of a 1,000—more than half. In Germany at the same time the figure was put at 185 out of 1000, and for the Army at home 33 in every 1,000. The noble Lord was good enough to give notice that he was raising this question, and very careful figures had been prepared by the War Office for my information. in order that it the question were raised I might advise your Lordships' House as to what the facts are. I was taken aback by the figures used by the noble Lord, not merely because they were different from the figures which I had before me, but because they were of an entirely different order of magnitude. It did not seem to me possible they could relate to the same subject matter, and if they had not emanated from one so erudite as the noble Lord I should have said that: this was another case of those "damned dots" I can scarcely believe that, but I believe I have the explanation; and because the figures are so different they do need an explanation.
I have had the figures given to me this morning checked and counter-checked since the noble Lord made his statement. Not only that: I have had the figures prepared independently by different means, and they give the same results as those I am about to give to your Lordships. I believe that what has happened—I do not know, but I suspect it is so—is that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has taken the figures for the number of treatments, whereas the figures I am about to give to your Lordships are the figures of actual cases.
I am advised that I may, properly and deliberately, tell your Lordships that these are, without ambiguity, the correct figures for the quarterly rates per 1,000 strength from January, 1946, to March, 1947. I will not take all those periods because it would weary your Lordships, but if I may I will give you the highest and the lowest. The highest figure for the United Kingdom forces for the third quarter of 1946 was 9·6 per 1,000, and the lowest was for the latest quarter, 5·3 per 1,000. In the British Army on the Rhine, the highest figure was the third quarter of 1946, 44·6 per 1,000, and the lowest figure, the last quarter, 30 per 1,000. In the C.M.F. the largest figure was 39·5 per 1,000 in

115
the second quarter of 1946, and 22.8 per 1,000 is the lowest figure—being the figure for the first quarter of 1947, based upon January and February only. In the M.E.F. the highest figure is 9.4 per 1,000 for both the second and third quarters of 1946, and the lowest was 4.1 per 1,000 for the first quarter of 1946. In S.E.A.L.F. the highest figure was 37.6 per 1,000 for the first quarter of 1946, and the lowest figure 31.2 per 1,000 for the first quarter of 1947, based upon January and February only. Those are the figures which I am advised that I may properly and authoritatively give to your Lordships as being the correct figures.
LORD MORAN: May I interrupt the noble Lord to make clear what I think has happened. I was quoting from A.M.D. 5 Statistics, September, 1946, which is from the Army Medical Department Headquarters. I think the misunderstanding has arisen because I said 228 out of 1,000. It is nothing to do with treatments at all; it means, 228 on an annual rate. I said it was a fifth and that would mean on the annual rate and not a quarterly rate. That must be right, because otherwise it would mean that far more cases occurred than I,000. These figures were officially given by the Army Medical Department in September. They were annual rates, and I think that that should be made very clear, in case I did not make it clear before. I thought it was quite clear, because if it had been quarterly it could not have been a fifth, because it would have been far more than 1,000.
LORD NATHAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not desire to quarrel with him, but I do not want there to be a misleading impression on this important matter which affects the feelings of people. I may say that my figures have been checked this afternoon.
LORD MORAN: If the noble Lord is giving quarterly figures he will see that if he multiplies them by four he will get a figure, not the same, but not so very different. I was giving the yearly figures and he was giving the quarterly ones. Is that not so?
LORD NATHAN: I think that might be an error in statistics, if I may say so. I am giving the actual number of cases there are in any particular quarter. It may be only ten cases a month or thirty
116
cases in three months—I cannot tell you. I am giving you the statistical outcome as I have it. I would be very glad to discuss it in detail with the noble Lord, but I am not concerned to do it across the Table now, except to clear up what I think must have obviously been a misunderstanding.
On one question there is no misunderstanding, and that is that this question of venereal disease is a serious one which has to be dealt with properly and promptly. And I should wish that your Lordships' House and the public should know that this is a matter in which the Secretary of State for War takes a personal interest, as well as the Adjutant General (Sir Richard O'Connor), and General McCreery, who is Commander-in-Chief of the British Army on the Rhine, and who has devoted intense thought and labour to try to get this thing put right. It is not an easy question. Admirable work has been done, and will continue to be done, by the chaplains, the Educational Service, the Welfare Service, all commanding officers, and regimental officers in general; but on the whole we must rely upon the reflection in conduct abroad of what these young men learn at home. It is the correct upbringing of these youngsters to which we must look, in the final instance, as being the corrective to these unfortunate activities.
The noble Lord who opened this debate, and who has sat through it so assiduously must, with his long experience of the Army, be pleased to feel that some of the things he has urged and wanted are in some degree at least now about to be carried into effect. All that remains for me to say is that such matters as I have not dealt with here I shall be very willing to deal with in the further course of this Bill, which I now ask your Lordships to allow to be carried to its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
HAVANT AND WATERLOO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bill:
WELLINGTON MUSEUM. [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed: Read, and agreed to.
SWINDON GAS ORDER, 1947.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Swindon United Gas Company: Laid before the House (pursuant to the Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

City of Peterborough;

Borough of Kettering;

Borough of Pontefract;

Borough of Wokingham;

Borough of Yeovil;

Urban District of Market Harborough:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MAINTENANCE OF TRUNK ROADS.
  MAINTENANCE OF TRUNK ROADS.