Sitting of 19 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILI
    Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL INDUSTRY

    U.S.A. Coal (Imports)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in connection with the distribution of coal which is to be imported from the U.S.A., it is the Government's intention to continue the recent practice of allowing the arrangements to be made by the National Coal Board; and if he will give favourable consideration to adding to the number of distributing firms as, at present, four such firms have been given a virtual monopoly.
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what were the reasons for the appointment by the National Coal Board of four firms only to import coal from U.S.A.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As announced in the Press some weeks ago, it has been decided in present circumstances to entrust the handling of coal imports to the National Coal Board, who are, of course, responsible for the distribution of coal in this country. In deciding to appoint four British firms as their agents, the National Coal Board have, no doubt, taken all
    2190
    relevant factors into consideration, including the volume of business to be handled.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this practice is continued it will amount to nothing more or less than a monopoly? Surely, the Government were pledged at the time of the General Election against monopoly and cartel arrangements. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a little more information with regard to this very unfortunate matter than he has given in the past?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no question of monopoly in the selection of these four firms. If coal imports continue it may be that some other firms would be appointed to undertake this job. In view of the volume of coal to be handled, it was thought that four firms were quite sufficient for the purpose.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that only about a dozen firms were normally engaged in this business, and these firms have been excluded by the decision of the National Coal Board, whereas one of the firms selected has had hardly any American business during the last 20 years?
    Mr. Shinwell: No firms are engaged in this business at all. This is the business of importing coal, and the firms to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers export coal.
    Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is this not the first time in the history of this country that it has been necessary to import coal and is it, therefore, surprising that the right hon. Gentleman is not familiar with distributive problems?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is not so; the hon. Member is misinformed. There have been occasions when coal has been imported.
    Mr. McAdam: Before agreeing to import coal from the U.S.A., will my right hon. Friend see that it is suitable for British industrial purposes, particularly having in mind our experiences during 1921 and 1926 of importing coal—an experience which cost the Glasgow Corporation £20,000 for renewal of its gas plant.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is precisely because we are anxious about the quality of the coal to be imported that the National Coal Board have sent over their marketing experts to deal with the matter.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I ask whether there is a doctor in the House?
    Dr. Stephen Taylor—
    Mr. De la Bère: I want a doctor, and perhaps he would be kind enough to advise the Government against the danger of monopoly.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is rather frivolous.
    Mr. Keenan: Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to get up and ask a question such as that asked by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), which is rather an abuse of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I rose at the time, and said that I thought it was rather frivolous.
    . Mr. De la Bère: May I express my regret, Mr. Speaker. It was frivolous. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly about it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he took to ensure that the price to be paid per ton of coal he has recently arranged to purchase from the U.S.A. is the lowest and that no other arrangements could have been made to avoid this loss to the Treasury.
    Mr. D. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is in a position to give details of the price of U.S. coal to be imported into this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: As I stated on 12th June in reply to the hon. Member for Maid-stone (Mr. Bossom), no contracts have yet been entered into regarding the supply of coal from the U.S. to this country. Negotiations with American authorities are continuing and I have no doubt that the National Coal Board, to whom the task has been entrusted, can be relied upon to make suitable arrangements.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is it not a fact that the Minister anticipates importing 600,000 tons of this coal at a price which is as much as £8 a ton? Is it not a regrettable thing that we have to import coal at this tremendous price when we have plenty of coal here waiting to be hewn?
    Mr. Shinwell: As regards the price of this imported coal, there is a question on the Order Paper which I shall answer later on, but as regards importing coal, I was under the impression that there was a demand from the Opposition that we should seek every means in our power to import coal.
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what grounds he anticipates paying £8 per ton for coal from the U.S.A.; what is the breakdown of this probable cost; and why he disclosed the high price he was prepared to pay before opening negotiations with the U.S.A.
    Mr. Shinwell: The negotiations for the purchase of U.S. coals are in the hands of a representative of the National Coal Board now in the U.S.A. and these negotiations have not yet been completed. The figure of £8 per ton was an estimate of the approximate cost of importing certain coals offered from the American West Coast ports and should not be taken either as typical or as indicating the price we were prepared to pay.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that foreigners may know him as "Mr. Paywell" if he continues to shout the odds about the inflated prices he is prepared to pay for foreign coal?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member's language, but if he means that a definite price was given he is quite wrong. It is quite impossible for anybody, even an expert, to know what the price is likely to be when the coal arrives in this country. It depends on many factors, including freight charges which are very variable.
    Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not fantastic that we should buy coal from America at £8 a ton at a time when we are introducing the 40-hour week?
    Colonel Lancaster: In view of the tact that the cost of producing soft coal in America averages 2.69 dollars a ton, wherein lies this very wide discrepancy between that figure and the general price of £8 a ton to which the Minister has referred?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry that I cannot oblige the hon. and gallant Member by giving him the details. I am in the hands of those who say that they know all about

    2193
    it—the exporters and the people who are engaged in the business, the marketing people mainly represented by hon. Members opposite. I have to rely on what they say and they tell me that the price varies according to a number of factors, a great many of which are unpredictable.
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the resentment felt by coal exporters in the U.S.A. by their virtual exclusion from business with the United Kingdom by the appointment of a cartel of four firms for the purchase of coal from the U.S.A.; and what steps he proposes to take to meet these objections.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have entrusted this matter to the National Coal Board and am sure that they will make appropriate arrangements for the purchase of U.S. coal for importation into this country.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that he may well not obtain all the coal he wants from America if he antagonises the American trade?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is not the slightest indication that the American trade has been antagonised. We have had no indication of it in the Department nor has the National Coal Board, and I must assume that the hon. and gallant Member is using his imagination.
    Wing-Comander Robinson: Has not the Minister seen the reports in both the American and British Press about this matter?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have seen them but one does not accept every one of them.

    Output Propaganda (Cost)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what has been the total cost to date of propaganda and entertainment to bring to the notice of miners the importance of maintaining output under the five-day week.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is quite impossible to give any such figure.
    Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House information as to the expense, and the result in increased output of the production-drive conducted under the auspices of Joe Baksi and his wife throughout the mining areas?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down that Question, I will do my best to give an answer.
    Major Lloyd: How can that be, when the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no knowledge whatever of the cost of these various curious forms of entertainment?
    Mr. Shinwell: I said that I would do my best to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an answer.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister satisfied that, whatever the amount expended, it was a good investment, seeing that we have in the industry greater harmony and increased output as a result of it?
    Mr. Shinwell: As regards the result of the propaganda under which this expense was to some extent incurred, we have succeeded in inducing a large number of men and boys to enter the industry since nationalisation.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the Minister agree that there is no section of the community who deserve a little entertainment more than the miner and his wife?

    Strikes (Compensation Payments)
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is intended to compensate merchants and workers who lost business and wages, on terms similar to the compensation to be paid to the miners who were recently thrown out of work by a strike, through no fault of their own.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir.
    Major Lloyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that answer contrasts strikingly with the attitude which he has adopted towards these miners who lose wages through no fault of their own? Why should they receive compensation any more than the unfortunate merchants who suffer equally with their employees? They have got no compensation whatever. Is that democratisation and a fair share for all?
    Mr. Shinwell: The miners referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are in the employ of the National Coal Board and the Coal Board are responsible for their own employees in the interests of

    2195
    efficient coal mining and production, but they are not responsible in respect of the merchants.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the merchants have also a responsibility towards their employees?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no doubt they have and that they will fulfil their responsibility.

    Disused Shafts
    Mr. Thomas Brownasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what number of coal-winding shafts have gone out of commission since 1st January, 1935, up to, and including, 30th June, 1945.
    Mr. Shinwell: Information is not available regarding the number of shafts used specifically for coal-winding. Since 1st January, 1935, and up to and including 30th June, 1945, it is known, however, that a total of 541 coal mines went out of commission.
    Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister set as his target the establishment of the same number of pits during the next ten years as were put out of commission during the past ten years?
    Mr. Shinwell: It does not follow that it is to the national, advantage to open pits. It is much more important to concentrate them and use them efficiently.

    New Mines
    Mr. T. Brownasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what number of new sinkings for deep-mined coal have been started since 1st July, 1945, up to, and including, 31st May, 1947; and in what' part of the British coalfields they are situated.
    Mr. Shinwell: The number of new coal mines opened between 1st July, 1945, and 31st May, 1947, was 103. Most of these are drifts or small mines. I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing the coalfields in which these new coal mines are situated.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister consider putting in the Library the plans of the new Rothes coal mines which would be interesting for the Members?
    Mr. Shinwell: I shall consider that but it is primarily a matter for the National Coal Board.
    Following is the list:

    NEW COAL MINES OPENED BETWEEN IST JULY 1945, AND 31ST MAY, 1947.

    District.

    Number.

    England and Wales.

    Northumberland

    …

    4

    Durham

    …

    11

    Cumberland and Westmorland

    …

    1

    Lancashire and Cheshire

    …

    6

    Yorkshire, South

    …

    2

    Yorkshire, West

    …

    3

    Nottinghamshire

    …

    —

    Derbyshire, North

    …

    3

    Derbyshire, South

    …

    —

    Staffordshire, North

    …

    22

    Cannock Chase

    …

    —

    South Staffs, and Worcs.

    …

    2

    Leicestershire

    …

    —

    Warwickshire

    …

    —

    Shropshire

    …

    3

    Forest of Dean

    …

    3

    Somerset

    …

    —

    Bristol

    …

    —

    Kent

    …

    —

    South Wales and Monmouth

    …

    11

    North Wales

    …

    —

    Scotland.

    …

    Fife and Clackmannans

    …

    2

    Lothians (Mid. and East)

    …

    —

    Lanarkshire, etc.

    …

    26

    Ayrshire, etc.

    …

    4

    GREAT BRITAIN

    …

    103

    Mr. T. Brownasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of new sinkings for deep-mined coal which are contemplated in the long-term programme of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Shinwell: The amount of investigation and planning required to formulate a comprehensive programme for the reorganisation of the coalmining 'industry is very great and it would be unreasonable to expect the National Coal Board yet to be in a position to give me details of such a programme.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that many of the seams in Lancashire lie at what we call the deep level, and it is absolutely essential that work should be proceeding now with a view to winning that coal, because it takes four or five years, with the best methods possible, to reach these seams of coal?
    Mr. Shinwell: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the National Coal Board are now preparing plans of re-organisation. They are in an advanced stage in certain areas, but they have to fit into the national programme.

    Domestic Allocations (Storage)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider enabling those householders or tenants who only have a small space for keeping coal to have their allocation of coal reserved on special dumps particularly when they are willing to pay for this in advance.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. During the summer merchants are required to put a proportion of their receipts into stock in their own yards to ensure the maintenance of supplies during the winter, particularly to small consumers with inadequate storage space. All merchants are asked to give preference in deliveries to those consumers during the winter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there are a large number of people with very small space for storage and that they are put at a disadvantage during the winter compared with those who have storage space? Will the Minister consider that?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid it would be inadvisable and indeed impracticable to set aside coal on order for the winter for certain consumers during the whole of the summer period. It seems to me much better to continue the existing practice of leaving the question of deliveries to be dealt with by the coal merchants and by the local fuel overseers.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that in the large industrial towns and cities there are thousands of these small houses where there is no accommodation whatever; and would it not be possible to make arrangements for the local fuel office to see that small merchants have an extra stock as compared with the merchants who supply people who have room to store their coal? We all know what happened last winter and in other winters in connection with these small people who have no storage space.
    Mr. Shinwell: I think, apart from the fiscal aspect of the question, that was the substance of my reply.

    Coke Allocation (College, Petersfield)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that a form was sent by the Coke Directorate of his Department to
    2198
    Churcher's College, Petersfield, Hampshire, informing them that their previous allocation of coke had been cancelled and that their basic allocation for the 12 months, 1st May, 1947, to 30th April, 1948, is nil tons; that it is possible only to allocate nil tons, divided as to nil tons per month in the summer and nil tons per month in the winter; that the name of the supplier is also indicated; and whether he will eliminate such unnecessary form filling and substitute a shorter form of intimation in cases where no allocation of coke is made.
    Mr. Shinwell: Requirements for Churcher's College, Petersfield, have been included in the allocation made to the Hampshire County Council. I regret that the notification that their previous allocation had accordingly been cancelled was sent out in the manner stated and steps have now been taken to see that this does not occur again.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements he has made will give considerable satisfaction to those affected, but will he consider the simplification, and possibly the elimination of some more of the forms issued by his Ministry?
    Mr. Shinwell: I must make a confession to hon. Members. I had not seen this form before and when I did see it for the first time I was appalled.

    Screening and Washing
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has now considered the resolution passed by the Chamber of Commerce, a copy of which has been sent to him, referring to the large proportion of stone and dust in the coal delivered in Teignmouth; what reply he has sent; and whether, in this connection, he will submit a monthly progress report with regard to the improvement of screening and washing facilities for coal in this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first part of the Question the Teignmouth Chamber of Commerce have been advised of the steps to be taken by a consumer who receives a delivery of coal containing an undue proportion of stone and dust. As regards the second part of the Question the answer is in the negative. As I explained in the House on 2nd April there is

    2199
    inevitably some deterioration in the quality of coal at the present time. The National Coal Board are giving the matter urgent consideration as part both of their long term policy, for the installation of additional cleaning plant, and of shorter term arrangements to reduce the quantity of dirt.
    Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the days when the industry was run by private enterprise coal sold as coal was really coal; and does he also realise that in those days I was not bombarded by letters from my constituents?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that in the days of private enterprise a lot of dirt was spread, and in many directions.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: In view of the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's original reply, will he state what he considers a due proportion of stone and dust?
    Mr. Shinwell: I did not say "a due proportion." I said "an undue proportion."
    Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, but what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that?
    Mr. Shinwell: More than is liked by the consumer.

    National Coal Board (House Purchase)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of houses purchased by the National Coal Board at prices in excess of £5,000.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no information about properties purchased by the National Coal Board other than what I have seen in the Press.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that characteristically helpful reply mean that the right hon. Gentleman is blissfully ignorant of the expenditure of large sums of money on the purchase of large and luxurious houses for senior officials, or does it mean that he does know but does not care two hoots?
    Mr. Shinwell: I could hardly be regarded as ignorant after reading the daily Press.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that if the officials are indeed accom-
    2200
    modated in luxurious premises, this will be the first time in the whole of my connection with the public service that that has been true.
    Mr. Shinwell: While this is primarly a matter for the National Coal Board, it should be made known to hon. Members, who are apparently unaware of the fact, that houses are provided—whether luxurious or otherwise I cannot say—for the higher salaried employees of the Board under contractual obligations which are imposed upon the Board by the terms of an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. Frank Byers: If that is so, is it not about time that Parliament had some control over this expenditure?
    Mr. Shinwell: Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman who has asked me this supplementary question, decided in its wisdom that this power should be conferred on the National Coal Board, and I have no authority to vary it.
    Mr. Awbery: Would my right hon. Friend ascertain the number of houses purchased and owned by the coalowners prior to nationalisation?
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Can the Minister say whether these are tied houses or not?
    Mr. Shinwell: They are just as much tied under the Coal Board as under private ownership.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: If the Minister does not know how many houses have been purchased, does he know how many have been burned down?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have read in the newspapers that one was burned down.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that he knows the terms on which the houses are held but does not know how many are in fact concerned?
    Mr. Shinwell: I know of the terms because I happen to know the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

    BRITISH OIL COMPANIES, RUMANIA (OUTPUT)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the current output of oil from the British oil com-

    2201
    panies in Rumania; what steps he is taking to facilitate any increase in their output; and what contribution they are making towards the fuel requirements of this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: The crude oil production in 1946 of the oil companies in Rumania in which there are British interests was 2,100,000 tons, out of a total Rumanian production of 4,200,000 tons. The current rate of production of the companies concerned is slightly below the 1946 level. There is little that I can do to facilitate any increase in the output of these companies. The main factor responsible for the recent decline in production is shortage of essential oil production equipment and other materials which are not procurable in Rumania and which cannot be purchased abroad owing to the lack of foreign currency. There can be no alleviation of this position until Rumanian oil exports to the West are resumed. The answer to the last part of the Question was given in my reply of 9th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid).
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does not the Minister of Fuel and Power agree that the difficulty of obtaining foreign currencies for these companies would be overcome it we were to buy oil fuel from them in order to supplement our reserves?
    Mr. Shinwell: At the moment we do not require to buy oil from these sources.
    Mr. Gammans: Would the Minister say how much of that oil came through to this country?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will if a Question is put upon the Paper.

  ALIENS

    Exit Permit, Germany
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reason for the continued delay in providing an exit permit for Anne M. Alpers, 22A, Krefeld-Traar, Kullpfad, 64, British zone, Germany, to come to this country to get married, in view of the fact that the consent of her parent has now been given and of the continued assurances that she would be permitted to come to this country.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): As I informed
    2202
    the hon. Member on 18th March an exit permit was issued before 18th February. On receipt of the parent's consent to the marriage a visa was granted on 6th May.
    Mr. Byers: In that case will the Minister explain why there has been this delay because I have heard only in the last week that this lady cannot come here; is there the proper co-ordination between his Department and others?
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty is overseas. I may say that I have had the same trouble with regard to constituents of my own and I am trying to make contact with the appropriate people—over whom no Department responsible to this House has any control—with a view to having these movements expedited.

    Volunteer, Greece (Application)
    Major Bruceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Herbert Schoen, 71 Claims Commission, Headquarters Land Forces, Greece, whose application for British nationality was rejected by his Department on 5th May, enlisted as a volunteer in His Majesty's forces at Sarafand on 21st February, 1941, was taken prisoner by the German forces at Kalamata on 29th April, escaped on 13th June, 1941, joined elements of the British Military Mission in Greece in 1943, served wth the mission until 1945, taking part in six operations against German troops, being awarded the British Empire Medal; that he was finally released from His Majesty's forces on 12th January; and, as this former Hungarian is now without nationality and wishes to continue in the service of the Crown if he will reconsider his decision.
    Mr. Ede: I am giving further consideration to Mr. Herbert Schoen's application for naturalisation and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    War Orphans (Adoption)
    Mr. Symondsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on humanitarian grounds, he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Adoption Acts to enable British subjects to adopt war orphans alien origin.
    Mr. Ede: As indicated in the reply I gave on 28th February, 1946, to my

    2203
    hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) this question has been noted for consideration when there is an opportunity for amending legislation, but I am not in a position to hold out hope of legislation in the near future.
    Mr. Symonds: In the meantime, what is the state of such children in this country? Will they remain stateless and parentless indefinitely?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. Their nationality will depend on the nationality of their parents in the normal case.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Could the same end not be achieved without legislation by allowing such children to be naturalised and get the British nationality of their intended adopted parents?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am quite willing to consider that matter, but the naturalisation of infants is a matter of some complication.

    REFRIGERATORS (SAFETY MEASURES)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths there have been in the past 10 years through persons accidentally being shut into refrigerators; and if he will give consideration to the introduction of a regulation compelling the fitting of interior handles.
    Mr. Ede: Figures as to deaths from this cause are not available, but I fully agree that the suggested precaution is most desirable. I have no power to make a regulation, but I hope that publicity given to a recent tragic accident and to this Question and answer may impress the importance of this matter on all makers and users of large refrigerators.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the horrible consequences which must result and, in fact, have resulted already from someone being enclosed in a space like this, is there no method by which the Minister or some other Department can give orders for some device to be fitted into the inside of the doors of these refrigerators?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir, no one has any power at the moment to deal with this. I have made inquiries, however, and I find that most of the firms who possess large
    2204
    refrigerators are in fact making arrangements whereby there shall be a handle which can be operated from the inside. I hope that other firms will follow their example.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider doing what is done in Scandinavia—that is to have a light outside the door which is on when the door is locked and someone is inside?
    Mr. Ede: As I have said, no Minister has power in this matter. I can only hope that the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be noted by those who possess these refrigerators.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister consult with his colleague at the Board of Trade to ensure that before permission is given or materials are authorised for the purpose of the manufacture of these commodities an undertaking shall be given that that kind of handle or a light shall be provided?
    Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that before one can attach conditions, one has to be quite sure that one has the power to do it; and I am advised that no one has such power.

    SOVIET EMBASSY PROPERTIES, LONDON (REPORTED BURGLARIES)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times cases of burglary or housebreaking into the Soviet Embassy or other properties in London belonging to the Soviet Embassy have been reported; and what answer he has made to the protest received from the Soviet Ambassador that the Metropolitan Police have not taken sufficient trouble to prevent such offences and to arrest the offenders.
    Mr. Ede: The only such reports are statements recently made by the Soviet Embassy that two flats, occupied respectively by a, First Secretary of the Embassy and by a member of the Soviet Naval Attaché's staff, had been broken into and property stolen, and that the Soviet Embassy School at Hampstead had been broken into. Only one of these incidents had been reported to the police at the time of its occurrence. As regards the second part of the Question, no such protest has been received.
    Mr. Gammans: Do I assume from that that the reports which have appeared in the Russian Press, including "Pravda," that there have been seven burglaries are incorrect, and will the Minister say if any special request has been made by the Soviet Embassy in London for the special protection of their premises?
    Mr. Ede: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, only three burglaries alleged to have occurred on premises occupied by Soviet officials or used for their purposes have been reported to my Department. It is alleged that a burglary occurred at one place on 23rd May, but that was not notified to the Police until 9th June. It is quite clear that any effort to trace a burglary which occurred on 23rd May is very difficult if it is not reported until 9th June. I do not want to go into the other two cases, but that is one of the difficulties that confront us in dealing with this matter.
    Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question? Has any special application been made by the Soviet Embassy in London for the extra protection of their premises?
    Mr. Ede: Not that I am aware of, but if the hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will see that he has an answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is correct that certain volumes of a publication called "Keep to the Left" were stolen?
    Mr. Ede: If they were, they will be replaced by Hatchard's.

    GREYHOUND RACING, NORWICH
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon he anticipates giving permission fat midweek racing to be resumed at Boundary Park greyhound track. Norwich.
    Mr. Ede: I do not anticipate giving such permission.
    Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that at a nearby speedway track mid-week fixtures have been taking place for the last month attracting many more spectators than greyhound racing does, and
    2206
    what is the justification for discrimination against the greyhound track?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Greyhound racing is a racket.
    Mr. Ede: I will have the speedway visitors tabulated and consider the statistics.

    AIR-RAID SHELTERS (DEMOLITION)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom owners of property should apply for the cost of demolishing air-raid shelters which were erected compulsorily, under statute, upon private land.
    Mr. Ede: Any question in connection with the demolition of shelters provided by local authorities for the protection of members of the public, whether upon private or public land, should be addressed to the local authority responsible for their erection.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that some of these shelters are rather large and were put up compulsorily, that the cost of demolition is rather heavy and that the space is required for factories and houses, would the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the cost is borne by someone else instead of it being on the shoulders of private employers?
    Mr. Ede: If the persons concerned make application to the local authority, they will then ascertain whether the local authority, as is the case in some instances, is responsible for the demolition.

    MISSING PERSONS
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of persons reported missing to his Department during 1946 who were not subsequently found.
    Mr. Ede: I regret that the figures are not available.

    FIRE SERVICE (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if administrative officers of the N.F.S. who are to be taken over by new county and county

    2207
    borough authorities will be guaranteed posts of at least equal salaries to those they now hold.
    Mr. Ede: Discussions are proceeding with a view to securing the best practicable arrangements, but I regret that it is not possible to give such a guarantee.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give an assurance that these men can face the future with confidence under the new set-up? Many of them are very concerned about what is likely to happen, and they have rendered very good service in the National Fire Service.
    Mr. Ede: I am in negotiation with individual county councils and county boroughs with a view to getting these men absorbed. I will do the very best I can for them.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Streptomycin (Supplies)
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that adequate supplies of streptomycin are reaching this country for the use of hospitals and general practitioners.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The merits of this drug have not yet been established and it is still under clinical trial by the Medical Research Council. The only supplies which have been obtained by the Government are for the purpose of these trials.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the increasing number of S.O.S. broadcast appeals for streptomycin, and in view of the fact that it is apparently readily obtainable from drug stores in the United States, is the shortage of supply here in any way due to our dollar difficulties, or is it through opposition in high medical quarters?
    Mr. Bevan: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is that there is no restriction on the dollar side to the purchase of whatever amount of streptomycin is necessary for the tests, but in view of the fact that this drug has not yet been proved, I am very glad to know that it cannot be obtained in drug stores in this country.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: As these appeals cause a great deal of alarm, cannot the Minister do something to stop them taking place?
    Mr. Bevan: I have made an announcement in this House deploring these appeals and deploring all appeals for drugs which are not properly tested beforehand. I regret very much that the B.B.C. is giving facilities for these appeals.
    Dr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that in the United States the sale of streptomycin is not through drug stores and that it is controlled by the National Control Council there as it is here?

    Mental Treatment
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Health if he will review, with a view to early amendment, the regulations regarding the certification of the insane.
    Mr. Bevan: As soon as opportunity permits, it is intended to undertake a restatement of the law relating to mental treatment.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give some satisfaction to the people who are feeling seriously concerned about this matter?
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is almost impossible for a person who has been certified to get release even when he has recovered from his sickness—
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question and has nothing to do with this one.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering this matter, will the Minister take into account not only the original certification, but also the duration of the sickness and recovery, for the purpose of release of the people concerned, because there have been several cases of abuse?
    Mr. Bevan: There is a large body of information and evidence on this subject and, of course, it will all be taken into account when the regulations are being prepared.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that a person who has been certified finds it almost impossible to get release even when he has recovered from his sickness, and that even after the visiting magistrates have recommended release, it takes six

    2209
    months before the patient is released from the institution, and then only with a six months' licence?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid I cannot accept what appears on the face of that supplementary question and I would warn hon. Members that this is a very difficult thing indeed and they ought not to take things at their face value, because there is such pressure on institutions for additional accommodation that I cannot believe that superintendents keep anybody there longer than is necessary.
    Mr. G. Wallaceasked the Minister of Health if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the conduct and administration of institutions and hospitals for the mentally deficient.
    Mr. Bevan: These institutions and hospitals (which for the most part will be taken over in the new Health Service) are subject to regular inspection, and I am not aware of the necessity for setting up a committee of inquiry. If, however, my hon. Friend has in mind any particular institution or hospital in regard to which he considers that inquiry is necessary, I will look into the matter.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the overcrowding now existing in a great many of these places, and the difficulty of building, whether he will have a survey made to show the bad effect which this overcrowding has on the patient?
    Mr. Bevan: I am well aware of that, and I think hon. Members will know that even if we had additional buildings, we would not be able to make use of them, because we have not enough staff. When the new Health Service is in operation, I hope we shall be able to make far better use of existing accommodation.
    Sir Ernest Graham-Little: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Board of Control on this matter before making any fresh arrangements??
    Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Gentleman can take it for granted that the Board of Control were consulted before this reply was drafted.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the general concern over this matter, may I ask the Minister if he can give an assurance to this House that the report he has received
    2210
    from his inspectors will not justify any serious cause for anxiety in regard to the conditions in the majority of these institutions?
    Mr. Bevan: I am well aware, as hon. Members are aware, that conditions in these institutions are not anything like as good as we would like them to be, and it is because of the overcrowding of accommodation and the lack of nursing and domestic staff. We are doing our utmost to build up the staffs, and we are having some success.

    Public Washing Facilities
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Health if, as a means of encouraging cleanliness and improving public health, he will arrange to make a reasonable grant to local authorities that provide, as a public service, the free use of lavatory and wash basin facilities with soap and towels in public conveniences for men and women.
    Mr. Bevan: I have no power to make such grants.
    Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries as to the number of deaths that are caused by diarrhoea and similar complaints, and is he aware that most local authorities and medical officers of health would desire the powers sought here and that it would save a great number of lives if they were given?
    Mr. Bevan: The local authorities have their powers and many of them exercise them, and it would be difficult for me to make an inquiry of the roving kind suggested. It would be very hard to prove that illness was due to a particular cause of infection received in a public convenience.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say what is the difference, if any, between lavatory facilities and wash basin facilities?
    Mr. Bevan: I think the distinction is fairly obvious.

    Flood Prevention, West Cornwall
    Mr. Beechmanasked the Minister of Health the steps he proposes to take to prevent the River Hayle in West Cornwall from flooding the districts of St. Erth and Relubbus in future.
    Mr. Bevan: I have no powers to take direct action. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has accepted respon-

    2211
    sibility for restoring the river near St. Erth as it was before the wartime operations for recovering tin. He has suggested that the West Penrith Rural District Council should carry out the work as his agent. I understand that the Council wish to include this in a larger scheme to prevent flooding along the whole length of the river and we await their proposals.
    Mr. Beechman: While appreciating the steps which the local authority and the Minister of Health have taken in this matter, may I ask the Minister to do his best to ensure that the steps are effected before next winter, as these are recurring floods and they occasioned particularly acute distress last winter?
    Mr. Bevan: I will certainly give all the help that my power and material permit but the floods have been happening for a long time.

    Proprietary Medicines
    Mr. Shawcrossasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report on the subject of proprietary medicines, submitted to him by [he Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; and what steps he proposes to take to implement the Society's recommendations.
    Mr. Bevan: I have given the report preliminary consideration. The Society's recommendation would involve legislation, for which I am afraid there is no early prospect.
    Mr. Shawcross: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, particularly in view of what was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary last night, that this is a matter of far-reaching importance, which becomes ever more urgent with the approach of a national medical service.
    Mr. Bevan: I agree that it is of the utmost importance, but there are very large numbers of matters of great importance that are awaiting legislation also, and it is a matter of priorities. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is always present in my mind.
    Mr. Solley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the interest of Members in this report, it could be made available in the Vote Office or in any other way? I understand that it is a private document which has been given to the Minister.
    Mr. Bevan: I believe that it is d private document. Therefore, I cannot promise to make it available.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the Minister in a position to say why it was left to the Parliamentary Secretary to make this interesting statement last night.
    Mr. Bevan: The Parliamentary Secretary is a very able and competent individual.
    Mr. Solley: Could not my right hon. Friend approach the Society to ascertain whether they would not object to the publication of this report, so that Members of the House could study it, in view of the national interests involved.
    Mr. Bevan: I will certainly make inquiries.
    Mr. Solley: I am much obliged.

    COMMUNITY CENTRE, IMMINGHAM (LAND)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Health why no reply has been sent from his Department to numerous letters from Immingham Parish Council requesting sanction to an agreement with the Grimsby Rural District Council to use 12 acres of land as a playing field and a community centre; and if he will give this sanction forthwith.
    Mr. Bevan: I have no trace of the receipt of any letter from the Immingham Parish Council. I am, however, in communication with the Grimsby Rural District Council, and consent will be given on the receipt of certain necessary documents.
    Mr. Osborne: But the communication was sent by the rural district council of Grimsby months ago. Because there has been no answer from the Minister's Department, the working class children of Immingham have been denied the use of these playing fields. Will the Minister expedite a decision in this matter?
    Mr. Bevan: I have answered that, as soon as the necessary documents can be obtained, the matter will be further considered.

  HOUSING

    Prescot
    Mr. Christopher Shawcrossasked the Minister of Health whether he will direct an inquiry into the circumstances under which as many as 60 permanent houses out of 90 for which he had approved tenders for the Prescot Urban District Council were completed within 12 months, in order that the methods employed may be applied to the housing schemes of the other local authorities in the parliamentary division of Widnes.
    Mr. Bevan: The Prescot Urban District Council are to be commended on the prompt start they made in housing, and this explains their good progress; the other local authorities referred to are in general making satisfactory progress now.
    Mr. Shawcross: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the performance is even better than these figures appear to indicate, having regard to the small size of the district, and is not that clue at least to the fact that there has been no excessive licensing of private speculative building by this authority?
    Mr. Bevan: I think that is certainly the case, and it quite often happens that many local authorities are now having difficulties with their housing programme because they were far too liberal with licences earlier.

    Rents, Leicestershire
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Health in how many cases of contracts for furnished lettings reported under the provisions of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, to the tribunals in Leicester and Leicestershire, respectively, have those tribunals reduced the rents payable by the tenants; by what approximate percentages; and in how many of these cases were the dwellinghouses concerned within the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, being dwelling-houses which were then let at the first rental which has been charged for them.
    Mr. Bevan: Up to 31st May, the Tribunal for the city and county of Leicester has reduced rents in 69 cases in the city by an average of 29 per cent. and in three cases in the county by an average of 14 per cent. I regret that the informa-
    2214
    tion asked for in the third part of the Question is not readily available.
    Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of the case which is before the courts at present, try to ascertain from the various tribunals how many houses in Leicester and Leicestershire and otherwise come within the last paragraph of the Question I asked, particularly in view of the far-reaching effect an adverse decision may have upon the position?
    Mr. Bevan: I am reluctant to ask for further statistics from these tribunals. They have long lists of applicants waiting to have their cases tried, and the officials are overworked. Hon. Members must realise that, if they press the Government to give all kinds of detailed information, it must add to the size of the Civil Service.

    Darwen
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of Health how many permanent local authority houses have been erected in the borough of Darwen since July. 1945.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix B of the Monthly Housing Return.
    Mr. Prescott: Is it not a fact that no houses whatsoever have been erected? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say so in public?
    Mr. Bevan: I have said it in public in many thousands of documents every month.
    Mr. Prescott: Why not say it now?

    Rural Houses (Reconditioning)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Health when he expects to make a statement on the reconditioning of rural houses.
    Mr. Bevan: I have undertaken to make a statement before the end of the Session.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that no material in short supply will be used for the modernising or reconditioning until the homeless have had their houses?
    Mr. Bevan: The homeless, of course, have priority on the amount of labour and materials available, and that certainly

    2215
    will be taken into account in the formulation of any policy.

    Streetly
    Major Cecil Pooleasked the Minister of Health when a firm decision may be expected regarding the proposed building of houses on the Hardwick Road site, Streetly, Staffordshire, on which representations have been made continuously to his Department for the past 12 months.
    Mr. Bevan: The builders have been asked to quote a price for the erection of houses to standard plans. The site originally offered to the Council was not acceptable and the alternative site, offered on 6th June, has been accepted subject to approval by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the District Valuer. When these points have been cleared, approval can be given.
    Major Poole: Is it not regrettable that a firm of builders who have been prepared to build houses to let or to sell to the local authority have been delayed now for 12 months by the local authority? Is it not time the Minister insisted that the local authority should face up to their responsibilities?
    Mr. Bevan: Local authorities as a whole are facing up to their responsibilities, and there is no evidence whatever to show that there is any unused building labour or building material in this district.

    Occupying Leaseholders (Protection)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps at an early date to introduce legislation to protect occupying leaseholders whose building leases, after having been in operation for many years, are terminating, from being ejected from their homes in the premises concerned; if, in the meanwhile, he will direct the appropriate authorities to requisition the respective premises for the leaseholders on the termination of the leases, in view of the large number of homes involved; and whether he will instruct the authorities to publicise widely their powers in this regard.
    Mr. Bevan: The Government are considering the general question of leasehold property but I can hold out no prospect of early legislation in the matter. While
    2216
    I do not feel that I could properly give a general authority to requisition premises for the protection of leaseholders, I should be prepared to consider applications from local authorities for such powers in any particular cases of hardship.
    Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend circulate particulars of requisitioning powers to local authorities in consequence of the fact that there are so many thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of houses, the leases of which are falling in, and in respect of which there is no protection under the Rent Acts for the tenants?
    Mr. Bevan: It would be entirely improper to use the powers of requisitioning unless it can be shown that there are cases of hardship. It would be trying to get round the Statute and I could not conceivably use such a method. It is for Parliament to legislate if it wants to alter the law, not for Ministers to circumvent the law.
    Mr. James Callaghan: While understanding that my right hon. Friend cannot introduce legislation because the Session is nearly over, will he keep his mind open for next Session?
    Mr. Bevan: My mind is always open.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Strike, Billingsgate
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement about the causes of the Billingsgate strike.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour(Mr. Ness Edwards): I understand that the primary cause of the stoppage was the objection on the part of certain employees of the Corporation of London to the promotion of a constable at Billingsgate Market to the rank of sergeant.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm or deny the report that the objection to the market sergeant was that he tried to stop the improper expansion of the fish porters' perquisite of free fish? Mr. Ness Edwards: No, I cannot confirm that. I can say that this incident was associated with a number of other

    2217
    alleged grievances. The matter is still the subject of negotiation. No general settlement has been arrived at in connection with any of the associated problems, and I would be obliged if I was not pressed to say any more about the matter.

    Industrial Recruitment and Training
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour if it is the policy of his Department to encourage the setting up of national joint recruitment and training councils for specific industries, similar to that in existence in respect of the boot and shoe manufacturing industries.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend welcomes this development, and hopes that other important industries which have not so far done so will institute systematic schemes for the recruiting and training of young workers.

    Mining Industry (Dispute)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an analysis of the causes of the 427 stoppages of work that took place in the mining industry in the period 1st January to 30th April, 1947.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Of the 427 stoppages of work through industrial disputes in the coal mining industry which were reported to our Department as having begun in the period 1st January to 30th April, 1947, 24 arose out of demands for advances in wages and 153 on other wage questions; nine on questions as to working hours; 32 on questions respecting the employment of particular classes or persons; 198 on other questions of working arrangements; and II on miscellaneous questions.
    Mr. Baker White: In view of the facts given in the right hon. Gentleman's reply and in view of the fact that out of 687 stoppages in this period, 427 were in the mining industry, is there not need for some special inquiry as to what can be done to improve the machinery for settling disputes?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have looked the number of days lost during that quarter, and I think I ought to give ii to the House; it is 126,000. Looking at the mining industry over a large number of years this figure compares very favour-
    2218
    ably. One has to have regard to the fact that there was a new regime, that new conditions were being introduced, and that there were many disputes settled without any stoppage. I do not think there is much need for any special inquiry.

    National Coal Board (Negotiating Machinery)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour if he will now state the result of the negotiations between the National Coal Board and the British Association of Colliery Officials and Staffs on the subject of recognition for negotiating purposes.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. This is a matter entirely for the parties.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these negotiations have been dragging on for months, and that a member of the Coal Board, Mr. Ebby Edwards, told the Association that the National Union of Mineworkers would not allow the Board to grant recognition to the Association? Is not conduct of that sort, affecting a public corporation, within the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. The employers' and employees' representatives have their negotiations. If there is any difficulty, and they would like to have our assistance, the request must come from them. We are keeping an eye on the matter, and as soon as we are asked by either of the parties to intervene, we shall do all we can to help them. It would be wrong for the Government to interfere in any dispute if the interference was not requested by either of the parties.
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons why the National Coal Board have so far refused to recognise any union except the National Union of Mineworkers.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is entirely a matter for the National Coal Board, but I am informed that it is not the case that the National Union of Mineworkers is the only one which has been recognised.
    Major Lloyd: While welcoming the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask him whether he is aware of the fact that many thousands of miners are becoming increasingly unhappy about

    2219
    the National Union of Mineworkers because of the growing control of it by Communism, and would like to be free to join another?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. The Question I was asked was whether this was the only union. My answer is that it is not the only union.

    Labour Supply Inspectors
    Mr. Medlandasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that labour supply inspectors, previously employed in his Department, are now unemployed and that vacancies exist in the National Insurance Department suitable for these men; and if he will instruct his officers to submit these men for consideration to the Ministry of National Insurance.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There are no vacancies at present in the Ministry of National Insurance suitable for these men. Their needs are being kept prominently in mind and they will certainly be submitted for posts that may arise later in that Department or elsewhere.

    CIVIL SERVICE (TRADE UNION OFFICIALS)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, since the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act, increased facilities have been given to members of the Civil Service who hold office in trade unions and professional and scientific organisations; and whether he will give particulars of the present position in that respect.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No further facilities have been granted since the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act. Up to 30 days special leave with pay, and further days without pay, may be granted each year to non-industrial staff for association purposes. Up to 52 days unpaid leave may be granted to industrial staff who are trade union officials.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Loans to Foreign Governments
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of His Majesty's Government
    2220
    to ensure that loans made by this country to foreign Governments shall not result in additional burden being placed on our dollar resources through convertibility under Article 8 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. This will be fully taken into account.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the importance of this matter, can the Financial Secretary say how the matter is to be taken into account.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It will be taken into account.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on his conversation with the Government of Brazil to liquify sterling balances by the sale of British utility assets in Brazil.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. Discussions on Brazilian sterling balances have not yet been concluded. They are not based upon the sale of British assets in Brazil.
    Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: Is the Financial Secretary aware that authoritative statements have been made in Brazil to the effect that these balances are to be made available as loans to British utilities; and as such procedure will give rise to unrequited exports, will he give an assurance that this will not be permitted by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and gallant Member must be referring to statements that have appeared, due to a wrong interpretation having been placed upon certain words. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that that matter has now been put right.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if His Majesty's Government will ensure that, after 15th July, 1947, sterling credits will not be granted to those countries who convert their sterling balances under the Anglo-American Financial Agreement.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, if carried out literally, would reduce our export trade to a cash and carry basis, which would not be in our interest.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Financial Secretary give any assurance that, since the moneys we have lent will be used to finance exports from this country whilst moneys received by the countries concerned from their imports will be convertible under the Anglo-American Agreement, no additional strain on our dollar resources will be incurred?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: All credit arrangements with countries outside the sterling area—and so far as the sterling area is concerned I gather that is not worrying the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: —are subject to the Exchange Control Act which was passed quite recently.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MORT:
    90. To ask the Minister of Supply, if he has any statement to make respecting the location of the cold reducing plant in West Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible when a Question is of great interest, such as is No. 90 on the Order Paper, which affects the whole of South Wales, for an answer to be given?
    Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait for the Business of the House to be stated and see what happens then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business we propose to take next week will be as follows:
On Monday, 23rd June, Tuesday, 24th June, and Wednesday, 25th June—Report stage of the Electricity Bill.
On Thursday, 26th June—Supply (7th Allotted Day); Committee. The Board of Trade vote will be considered with particular reference to shortages of civilian goods.
2222
On Friday, 27th June—Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill, and Probation Officers (Superannuation) Bill.
We hope also that it will be agreeable to the House to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Agriculture (Emergency Payments) Bill, which is down for Second Reading tomorrow; and the Second Reading of the Foreign Marriages Bill [Lords], and of the Wellington Museum Bill [Lords].
During the week we shall ask the House to consider new Ways and Means Resolutions relating to taxation upon motor cars, announced on Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Resolutions are required to implement the Chancellor's proposals before the new Clause can be considered at the next stage of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Eden: In respect of the Business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, is it a fact that there are still some new Clauses and Amendments which the Government desire to put down for Report stage and which have not yet appeared on the Order Paper?
Mr. Morrison: I understand that it is the case that the vast majority of the Government Amendments to the Electricity Bill had appeared on the Order Paper by 10th June. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, it is the case that there are some other Amendments to come in and I am advised that they will be tabled as early as possible. I am afraid that there are one or two new Clauses among them. I admit straight away that it is a fair point of complaint and I will do my very best with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to secure the maximum acceleration.
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman really look where we are going in this matter, if the House is to do its Business seriously at all? We are asked to take the Report stage on Monday and there are Government Amendments and new Clauses which the House has not yet seen and cannot see until tomorrow, when many hon. Members go to their constituencies. Even that is not all. The right hon. Gentleman, surely, knows that new Clauses have to be taken at the beginning immediately after recommittal, so on Monday we must discuss new Clauses which we have not yet seen. Finally,

2223
may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill concluded its Committee stage upstairs before Whitsuntide? Why in the world could not the Minister of Fuel and Power put these Amendments down in reasonable time?
Mr. Morrison: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I, can assure him the point will be taken up. I will do my very best to meet the convenience of the House as far as I can, but I am afraid we must start the Business on Monday with the Report stage. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I will make suitable representations in the proper quarter.
Mr. David Grenfell: I want to inquire about a matter of urgent public importance. My colleagues the hon. Members for East Swansea (Mr. Mort), West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) and Neath (Mr. D. Williams) and myself have tried to arrange a discussion on the critical situation which has arisen in the steel and tinplate industry as a result of a recent Government decision. We are informed that the Government are contemplating the abandonment of a cold strip site at Swansea which was selected long ago and which has been in course of construction for many months. Over £50,000 has already been spent and there were 380 persons employed there this week. Many more were to work on double shifts to complete the site. The site is admittedly one of the best in South Wales, both on technological and sociological grounds. All the Members for West Wales, with one exception; are agreed on this point. We have asked the Prime Minister for time to discuss the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Gentleman was asking a question on Business. That is why I called him. I understood there was a Welsh point to which he wished to draw attention.
Mr. Grenfell: I have explained, with some preliminary remarks, the point I wish to put. I am endeavouring to show how important the situation is. We are given no promise about the right of Members of Parliament to speak on matters concerning their constituencies. I ask the Leader of the House, or the Prime Minister, if he is present, to declare now whether such an opportunity will be given at an early date or whether
2224
some satisfactory method will be adopted of deciding the Ideation of this site on merits alone?
Mr. Morrison: I understand that there will be an answer to a Question which appears on the Order Paper on this subject. It will be a written answer.
Mr. Grenfell: There has been no answer.
Mr. Morrison: It so happens that the Question was not reached. Had it been reached, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply would have answered it. It was not reached and the answer will appear as a written reply in HANSARD. It would be difficult for us to set aside time to discuss the assignment of a particular site for a particular industrial undertaking. It may be that, arising out of the answer, my hon. Friend may wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Obviously, that is within his rights but I do not think that we could give special time in which to debate and decide the siting of a particular industry.
Mr. Grenfell: The site has been chosen. There have been operations on the site. Next Monday, unless some decision is taken by some one in authority, 100 men will be thrown out of work. What have the Government to say about it?
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is a little premature. When he sees the reply, he will see that a decision has been taken.
Mr. Callaghan: Could the Minister of Supply, with the leave of the House, give this reply now because the Government have changed their minds on this project in a period of three weeks?
Mr. Percy Morris: Will the Leader of the House, in view of the gravity of this situation, indicate that the matter will be remitted for the advice of an independent and competent adviser free from all bias.
Mr. Speaker: We are on the question of the Business for next week.
Mr. Callaghan: Can I have a reply to my question?
Mr. R. S. Hudson Mr. R. S. Hudson rose—
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of Order. Am I not correctly interpreting the wish

2225
of many hon. Members of this House when I say that the Minister of Supply should give us an answer now? If that is so, can we not have it, for this is a matter of grave importance?
Mr. Speaker: I thought the Minister had given some reply. I do not know whether he wishes to reply twice.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I ask for your guidance, Sir, about the Report stage of the Electricity Bill? From what the Leader of the House has said, I understand that it is not even certain when these two new Clauses will be ready. They may not be put in tonight and they may not appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning. Obviously that.gives an appallingly short time for hon. Members on this side of the House to consider them, and I imagine the same will apply to you, Sir. Will it be in Order, if this matter comes on first on Monday, to put in a manuscript Amendment which we may desire to offer as a result of cogitation over the weekend?
Mr. Morrison: The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations are quite correct, but I am sure that these new Clauses will be handed in today.
Mr. Speaker: I was asked to consider the point whether, if necessary, manuscript Amendments could be put in. I am prepared to consider manuscript Amendments.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am much obliged.
Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Leader of the House if, before the end of the Session, he can find part of a day on which to discuss the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of about 50 hon. Members and myself about dispossessed farmers?
[That this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire and to make recommendations concerning farmers and smallholders who have been dispossessed of their holdings since 1939.]
So many people are involved, interest is widespread over the country, and it is a matter of great principle. Cannot a day be found before the end of the Session?
Mr. Morrison: If I might make a respectful suggestion to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that, if he makes representa-
2226
tions through the appropriate quarter, it might be possible on a Supply Day, of which there are quite a number to come.
Sir R. Glyn: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter on which I am not clear? If a Question on an important matter has not been reached, and there is a general desire in the House to hear the answer to it, does the initiative lie with the Government to give that answer, or is it possible, with your permission, for the answer to be given at the request of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear what the hon. Baronet said. Will he put his question again?
Sir R. Glyn: All I want to know is whether, when a matter of public importance has been raised by Question on the Order Paper, and that Question has not been reached, and it is clear that there is a large body of opinion in the House which would like to hear the answer, the initiative for giving the answer lies in the hands of the Government, or is it open to the House, through you, Sir, to request the answer?
Mr. Speaker: The responsibility rests entirely with the Minister. It is for him to say that it is a matter of public importance and one on which he should give the answer, but it is entirely up to him.
Mr. Grenfell: Further to that point of Order. The Leader of the House said that the Minister had an answer to the Question which would convey a different sense from that which is already in possession of the House. Can we have that answer?
Mr. Morrison: My difficulty is that, if this point was to be raised, I should have thought that it ought to have been raised before. [Interruption.] We are discussing the Business for next week, and the Business for next week has nothing to do with whether a Question on the Order Paper should have been answered or not.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) whether he was talking on the Business for next week, and I gathered that he was asking the Leader of the House for time to discuss this situation, and not whether an answer should be given to a Question on the Order Paper.
Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of Order. I think it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, that I did rise before the Business for next week was announced and that you told me that I should wait until after the Business announcement had been disposed of. Since this matter is one on which there is very deep feeling, surely, if the Minister has the answer, he could give it now?
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Business for next week.
Mr. Callaghan: When the question of the Business for next week is finished, may I ask the Minister of Supply if he will be willing to give that answer?
Mr. Speaker: Question time has already been concluded. I am always having to refuse to allow hon. Members to press Ministers to give answers. The responsibility is that of the Minister concerned. If he chooses to do so, well and good; if he chooses not to do so, well and good, also.
Mr. Mort: Can I appeal to the Minister now?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lipson.
Mr. Lipson: May I ask a question on today's Business? May I ask the Leader of the House if he will agree to the Suspension of the Rule for one hour, as far as the Debate on Foreign Affairs is concerned, so as to enable many more hon. Members to take part?
Mr. Morrison: I would like to meet the convenience of hon. Members, but there is more Business today than the Debate on foreign affairs. We had a two days' Debate on foreign affairs fairly recently, and I should not think that it is a case for suspension.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the Leader of the House a question arising out of next week's Business? Will he see to it that the Ways and Means Resolutions to be taken some time next week come on at a reasonable hour and not in the early hours of the morning?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I think we can arrange that.
Mr. Henry Usborne: May I ask the Leader of the House my weekly question—whether he will give time for a Debate on the Motion on World Federation stand-
2228
ing in my name and the names of about 80 other hon. Members of this House?
[That in order to raise the standard of living of the peoples of the world and to maintain world peace, this House requests His Majesty's Government to affirm Britain's readiness to federate with any other nations willing to do so on the basis of a federal constitution to be agreed by a representative constituent assembly.]
We think it is very important and that it requires to be debated now.
Mr. Morrison: I admire the patience and persistence of my hon. Friend, but I am bound to tell him that the only hope for him is on some appropriate foreign affairs Debate in order to put his point of view.
Mr. Usborne: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he realises that we shall want to divide the House on this Motion?
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend cannot think that the prospect of a Division would incline me to fall in with that request.
Mr. Eden: I would like to put a short question on the Business for today. In view of what happened last night, and of the Business for today, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is generally unsatisfactory to take the Report stage and Committee stage on the same evening, because of the Amendments in Committee? Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he Mil not take the Report and Third Reading of the Public Offices Bill, if amended in Committee? If he can tell us that, I suggest that we will not divide on the Motion to Suspend the Rule.
Mr. Morrison: That is a reasonable request. I quite agree that this is exceptional, but we must do it now and again. In the circumstances, I am inclined to agree to that request.

STEEL AND TINPLATE INDUSTRY, SOUTH WALES
Mr. Callaghan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the decision of the Government to site the cold reduction plant at Llanelly instead of Swansea, which involves the expenditure of £50,000 of public money.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked permission to move the Adjournment of the House because of the decision of the Government to site the cold reduction plant at Llanelly instead of Swansea. I am afraid I cannot accept that Motion as a definite matter of urgent public importance. I admit that it has local importance, but I regret that I cannot say that it has urgent public importance, and, therefore, I must refuse to accept the Motion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Public Offices (Site) (recommitted) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  6TH ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee.
  [MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1947–48
  CLASS II

    FOREIGN OFFICE
    Motion made and Question proposed.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,060,864, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the salary of a Minister of State." [Note.—£1,000,000 has been voted on account.] [Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

FOREIGN POLICY IN EUROPE
3.51 p.m.
Mr. Eden: Every Member of this Committee who has been studying recent developments in the international sphere, whether here in Europe or in the Far East, must have felt increasingly concerned at the trend of events. We in this country have consistently felt that the only wholly satisfactory basis for international peace was close friendship and collaboration between the great Powers whose joint action brought victory on the battlefield. On that issue there is, I think, no dispute anywhere in the Committee. That policy was pursued by the Coalition Government and by the so-called Caretaker Government, and I have no doubt it is being pursued with equal sincerity by the present Government. That was our objective; I think I could say it was our national objective. To an increasing extent we have failed to realise it, and that failure to reach constructive Allied agreement has paralysed European recovery.

2231
The Yalta decision, the Potsdam Declaration, the Charter of the United Nations, the Armistice terms and the Peace Treaties so recently concluded, are all based upon that assumption that the victorious Powers would work together and that they would pursue a common policy towards the smaller nations whether those smaller nations were liberated Allied states or former adversary satellites. For instance, the Yalta Declaration pledged the signatories, all of us, to promote free elections and to allow the nations to choose their own forms of Government. We undertook to help the liberated nations and former Axis satellites—if I may quote—
"to solve by democratic means their political and economic problems."
The Armistice terms signed with the defeated satellite Powers set up Allied Control Commissions, and by the terms of those various agreements the Allies have obligations to keep each other informed of events in the respective enemy countries. For example, when the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary asked the Soviet Government the other day for information in respect of recent events in Hungary, he was not merely exercising his own undoubted right under the Armistice terms, but he was also reminding the Soviet Government of what it was that Government's duty to do without being asked. Those facts need to be borne in mind.
I would ask the Committee to look for a moment at the contrasting position in Italy, where the forces of occupation are Anglo-American—whereas in Hungary they are, of course, Russian—and we have always sought to keep the Soviet representatives informed. So far as I know, that has been successfully accomplished. Certainly, I cannot recall any single occasion when the Soviet Government asked for information and were not given it. As I have mentioned the example of Italy, perhaps I might refer to the great pleasure with which I think all Members of the Committee have seen the final conclusion of agreement for the withdrawal of British troops from Italy after the entry into force of the treaty. I think that step is a real contribution not only to Anglo-Italian friendship which we all wish to see restored, but to the recovery and stability of Europe as a whole.
2232
In contrast to those events, I must ask the Committee to look for a moment at what is happening, as far as we are able to judge, in Eastern Europe—in Bulgaria, for instance, Where, as the Committee knows, the population is essentially Russophil. The leader of the Agrarian Party, M. Petkov, has been arrested, and I understand he has been charged with preparing an attempt to seize power by force of arms, while the small number of opposition deputies—I think there are 23 of them altogether—who belong to that party have all been expelled from Parliament. I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman had occasion some time ago to protest at the way in which these Bulgarian elections were carried out. But it is even more disturbing to find that the few opposition members who were none the less elected, who got through the net, if I may so describe it, are now prevented from carrying out their parliamentary duties. How can anyone pretend that treatment of that description gives to the people the right to choose the form of Government under which they will live?
I turn to Rumania. During the year which passed before the elections, the Committee will remember that over and over again His Majesty's Government sent a series of notes protesting against the delay and the lack of political freedom accorded to the opposition parties in the immediate pre-election period. What happened to those representations? They were all rejected on the grounds that they were direct interference with Rumania's internal affairs. What has happened since last November? His Majesty's Government said that the elections had neither been free nor fair, but involved
"wholesale falsification of the results by the Government authorities"
Meanwhile, since then, there have been political arrests, and I understand that the British representative at Bucharest has approached the Rumanian Government regarding the conditions under which political prisoners are held at the Hain Prison at Pitesti. Nor have we any information, that I know of, concerning the charges against these prisoners. They are imprisoned without having been tried and without any specific charges of any kind having been brought against them. That again is contrary to the undertakings which we all gave each other on the various occasions to which I have referred.

2233
The right hon. Gentleman had to complain about elections in Poland. The Under-Secretary of State said:
"His Majesty's Government… cannot … regard the results as a true expression of the will of the Polish people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1947; Vol. 432, c.1376.]
Now we have the news that early in this month six prominent Socialists have been arrested. No details have yet been made available concerning their trial but, so far as I can make out, the inference seems to be that these particular Socialists are not in favour of the fusion of the Socialists and Communist parties in Poland. I hope that is not a precedent for anything in this country later on. The same methods are being employed elsewhere in Europe. I would draw the Committee's attention to what has happened in Greece. The Communist Party there have issued a public warning that they intend to fight the American aid programme to Greece, to the utmost of their strength, including the help of guerilla war. Now, there were free elections which, I do not think anybody will deny, were well conducted in all the circumstances—certainly, elections which compared very favourably with those held in Bulgaria or Rumania or Poland.
Mr. Cocks: It all depends on who wins.
Mr. Eden: It is not a question of who wins. That is not our business. The point is that the Allied Commission that supervised those elections, the three Governments, our own, the American and the French, all reported those elections to have been fairly held; and I do ask the Committee to note that, despite that fact, the Communist Party, which took no part in those elections at all, is now seeking by guerilla warfare to wreck the American aid programme. I note also that that announcement was made within 48 hours of the arrest of the Bulgarian Opposition leader, M. Petkov, and I wonder if there was not some connection between those two events. I say that the Greek record in that respect is favourable, compared with what has happened elsewhere in Eastern Europe.
Now a word about Austria. There we saw an ugly political crisis flare up suddenly on the report that the Communist leader. Herr Fischer, had been holding meetings with the leading mem-
2234
bers of the People's Party—the People's Party which headed the poll in the general election of 1945. Here we are dealing with an ex-enemy country under Four-Power occupation, and so, of course, a different technique is involved, a technique using internal rather than external pressure. But we see this result. It appears that the Chancellor, Dr. Figl, was pressed to reshuffle his cabinet on a basis more favourable to the Communists, who at present, I think, hold only four out of the 165 seats in the Austrian Chamber.
Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what evidence he has that the initiative in that case did not come from the People's Party?
Mr. Eden: I am just giving my interpretation of the events so far as I am able to judge them. If the Foreign Secretary has any different information I shall be glad to have it. If I assume that the pressure comes from the quarter I named it is because it has done so in every country in Eastern Europe. Is that an unnecessarily rash assumption? I leave the Committee to judge. But wherever it came from, the point that I am making is that the Communist Party, which, as I say, holds only four out of 165 seats, is, in fact, in Austria a fragmentary one—not unlike the Communist Party, in point of fact, in this country. The pressure there is for enlargements of the Communist membership, apparently—here again I am only estimating—but apparently in return for some prospective Soviet concessions in regard to reparations and the signature of the treaty. That is what I think is happening.
Professor Savory: That is true.
Mr. Eden: For the moment the situation appears to be held. But coming so soon after the Hungarian coup, these events can hardly fail to cause further apprehension, and I ask the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), who interrupted me just now, and anyone else who has similar feelings in this matter, where is the next move to be? Will it be Finland, hitherto comparatively free from external pressure, but where already there are rumours of threats against the Right Wing Agrarians and, to a lesser degree, against the Social Democrats? Or will it be in Italy, where the present Christian Democratic Government is wrestling valiantly with a severe financial crisis and a heavy burden of

2235
unemployment? We do not know. We cannot say. Hon. Gentlemen may retort to me, "If you have not certain knowledge you should not throw out these dangerous suppositions." I would reply that, by making it clear that we are under no illusions that such attempts may be made, His Majesty's Government can best contribute to forestalling them.
Finally, in this brief review, I must come to Hungary, which appears to be, on the information available to us so far, the most flagrant example of all. There, as the Committee knows, M. Kovac, the Secretary-General of the Smallholders' Party, was arrested by the Soviet military authorities on a charge of espionage against the Red Army—after, the Committee will note, the Communist Party had made a vain attempt to deprive him of his parliamentary immunity. All the attempts made by the British and American Governments to obtain information about that have been rejected. Now here, let me say this. I am not asserting that everyone in the Smallholders' Party has necessarily behaved impeccably. I am not asserting that. I do not know. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Luton laughs, but the point lies here. If there was any evidence of wrongdoing that evidence ought at once to have been made fully available to the allied Governments who share responsibility for what was done. Contrary to the statute which governs the Control Commission, General Sviridov's note to the Hungarian Government and the information which it contains were withheld from the British and American members of the Commission. That was a refusal of a right which is absolutely clear under the terms of the statute. I will quote it. It is a right—and I recall it very well—
"to receive copies of all communications, reports, and other documents which might interest His Majesty's Government."
That is the obligation. To justify the refusal to fulfil that, M. Molotov says it is the British and not the Russians who are interfering in Hungary's internal affairs. How utterly fantastic that is. Here, again, I need hardly say, no evidence is forthcoming.
What I have said in respect of M. Kovac applies with equal force to, the Prime Minister, M. Nagy, and his treatment. I say with regret, but quite definitely, that the refusal of the repeated Allied requests
2236
for information must inevitably increase doubt as to the validity of the charges that are brought. If these charges are genuine, why cannot we be told about them, and told of the evidence? If we are not told, we are bound to suspect the genuineness of the charges. The result of all this has been in Hungary to increase the Communist Party's strength—
Mr. Pritt: Where?
Mr. Eden:—I fear so. Has not the hon. and learned Gentleman observed what has been happening? Has he not observed—
Mr. Pritt: I have observed it so closely that I note that the Communist Party has gained no seat in the Government and no new seats in the Chamber. It is exactly as it was.
Mr. Eden: I cannot believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite so simple as that. He knows perfectly well that these matters move by stages; he knows how much the Communist Party's power has increased over the police; and he knows that the Communist Party is only 17 per cent. of the Hungarian electorate. It is certainly infinitely stronger in authority than it was before these events took place. I do not think anybody for a moment is going to dispute that.
Mr. Tiffany: But surely they should also increase the strength of the other parties similarly?
Mr. Eden: It is not part of my business to explain to hon. Gentlemen the mental processes by which they should arrive at these particular conclusions. If there is really anybody who thinks that the recent events in Hungary—the arrest of M. Kovac, the dismissal of the Prime Minister—were not particularly convenient for the Communist Party, he has a wonderful view of European affairs. If these things really took place despite the Kremlin, I should be indeed surprised.
Let me now turn to another aspect of the matter. I do not like to say these things, but I think it is our duty to say them. I, of course, have not the same responsibility as the right hon. Gentleman. In response to the interruption made just now, I say that I believe—this;is my forecast—that we now see in Hungary all the usual Communist preparations for rigged elections. I hope I may be proved wrong. If I am proved wrong, nobody

2237
will rejoice more than I shall. But the realities have to be faced, and I believe that in the long run we do not do any good to Anglo-Soviet relations if we pretend to accept replies which, in our heart of hearts, we find it impossible to believe. We have to face this fact, that ratification of the peace treaties with which the right hon. Gentleman struggled for so long a period, is taking place in conditions of considerable cynicism, and the concessions for which he fought hardest—and all honour to him for doing so—such as the human rights clauses, with their safeguards of such very simple things as the right of free speech, are being flouted in many lands before the ink on the document is dry.
Wherever we turn we see, too, delay in reaching vital agreements. Six months ago I was happy to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman—and rightly so—on the Trieste solution, yet what is happening there? Today there appears to be deadlock over the choice of governor. I must say—and I choose my words—that the effect of all this is, unhappily, to undermine confidence between the victors in the late war. That is deplorable, and there is no one in this Committee who does not regret it. But for those of us who do really want to see Anglo-American-Soviet friendship, it would be hypocritical to pretend that confidence is unshaken, or that good relations are unimpaired. I must add one personal word on this. I do not forget that a little more than 12 years ago I was the first British Minister to go to the Soviet Union after the revolution; I do not forget that in the war years I saw, as did some of my colleagues, the Russian battlefields. I know something of the terrible price Russia paid in life for the Allied victory, and there is in our minds always—and it is true today that there is still—an immense fund of good will in this country towards the Soviet Union, but that good will can now he evoked only on the basis of sincere partnership and mutual respect. There is really no other way.
If that was all I had to say to the Committee this afternoon, I should feel that the outlook would even justify Dr. Johnson's "inspissated gloom." Happily that is not so, and for a very few moments more I want to refer to Mr. Marshall's recent initiative. That momentous offer by
2238
the United States Secretary of State, made in his Harvard speech, has brought new hope to Europe and to the world. It is, indeed, a generous action, and one which deserves to rank with "the most unsordid act in history." The offer is not only important in so far as it affects the economies of both Europe and the United States; it is not merely that dollars may be made available to countries whose economies are now dying for lack of dollars or what dollars can buy, although that is important enough. This offer can mean much more than that. It can mean that European countries are going to be stimulated to agree upon common economic measures for their joint salvation. Such, indeed, is the first step towards that united Europe which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has so much at heart.
In the Foreign Affairs Debate in this Committee in November, 1945, I made a plea for a transformation of relations between nations, and for the consequent modification of some of our conceptions of sovereignty. Since then, I have on several occasions, both in this Committee and outside, urged the Government, so far as I could, to take steps to secure closer co-operation in economic matters with our Western neighbours, and particularly with France. All this is, of course, wholly compatible with the progressive development of trade which we all want to see, within the Empire, both with the Dominions and with the Colonies. If the Committee want all example of that they have only to look at what has been done, on a smaller scale, in this sphere in the Benelux Agreement between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. By the end of this year, in spite of all the difficulties which had to be overcome—and they have been formidable—these countries will have established a complete customs union between them. I think that one of the results of that will be that this group of small countries will then become probably the third trading Power of the world; that is, with their overseas partners, of course. Admittedly, such negotiations take time, and I am not saying that here is a solution of Europe's difficulties, because time is just what we cannot afford. We, the countries of Europe, as I see it, have to meet an economic crisis which will reach its peak in the next 12 months —perhaps in the next six months.

2239
Mr. Marshall, in putting forward this offer, has, quite rightly, made it clear that while the United States Government are prepared to help, it is for the European countries themselves to agree as to their requirements, and as to the part which they can and will play in making the best possible use of America's assistance. Mr. Marshall, I have no doubt, has memories—as have the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister—of the Combined Chiefs of Staff and the Combined Food Boards in Washington during the war. It would seem perhaps that, according to his experience then, he now wishes to know what Europe's requirements are. He will wish to satisfy himself, and the American people will wish to satisfy themselves, that those requirements have been properly examined, analysed and pruned, so that the American help, whether in dollars or in commodities, can be made available in the right place and in the proper quantity. There may be some hon. Members who say—and it has been said to me already by others not in this Committee—"But are you sure that our American, friends are really going to go through with this plan?" Well, I would reply, that the best contribution we can make to winning a favourable answer to that question is to prepare a plan with which they can go ahead.
I will mention one other aspect of this question which has to be remembered. The importance to a creditor nation, and especially a creditor nation on the scale of the United States, of restoring the prosperity of Europe hardly needs any argument. I think I am right in saying that last year the United States had a favourable balance of trade at the rate of more than 5,000 million dollars a year. I understand that that figure is now probably much larger. If the United States is to continue as a great exporting nation, then clearly it is of the first importance to her to try to build up European prosperity, and that cannot be done quickly. Perhaps it could never be done at all if the shortage—indeed, the famine—in dollars is not relieved.
So I come to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and I leave it to him whether he feels he can answer now or on some later occasion. What organisation, what machinery, will have to be set up to enable Europe to put forward her requirements? Is it possible to
2240
adapt any existing machinery for this purpose? Can we make use, for instance, of the Economic Commission for Europe, or do we require some special organisation for this immediate purpose? On these points I am not prepared to be dogmatic, but I should think it likely that the urgency of the present task might well call for special handling. In any event, it is important, and I should have thought desirable, that the Economic Commission for Europe, set up by the United Nations, where decisions are taken by a majority vote, should be associated with this work in some way.
In my view it was correct that the right hon. Gentleman should make the first approach to our neighbour, France. Here, our relations are always close and intimate. At the same time, I was glad to note that he made a similar approach to the Soviet Union. In any plan, the needs of Germany must, of course, be taken into account, but whatever machinery may be employed, it is essential that the work shall be done with speed. We hope that all will join to help in this work, but if, unhappily, some countries should not wish to participate, it is still our duty to go on with those who will. I believe—and I say this in all sincerity to the right hon. Gentleman—that in this way we shall not only best serve those countries who do join, but also any countries, if there be any, who do not join, for by creating a prosperous and integrated association of countries in Europe, we shall provide not only a message of hope, but a magnetic attraction for all. In any event, the door will always be open, and if any will not come in now, they may do so later.
In convincing all concerned that the European system is strong, that it is not going to fall apart, lies the best argument against the continuation of the present deadlock in European political affairs. No one will seek to minimise the difficulties which confront the right hon. Gentleman in reaching agreement on these issues, but at the same time the opportunities are immense, and, indeed, unparalleled. We must not let them slip. We have, here in our hands, the possibility of creating a new era for our tortured Continent. Here is an absolutely free choice for East as well as for West. Here is that second chance that so rarely comes, and when it does come, has the nature of a miracle.
4.24 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, at this stage, I make a very short statement—I shall, of course, be replying to the Debate later on. As the Committee will be aware, the French Foreign Minister and I have had preliminary contact on the subject of European reconstruction and the offer of the United States Government, set forth in the speech of the American Secretary of State at Harvard on 5th June. We decided last night in Paris to propose to the Soviet Government that a meeting of the British, French and Soviet Foreign Ministers should be held during the week beginning 23rd June, in order to discuss these problems as a whole. The reply of the Soviet Government is awaited, and the Committee will understand that until it is received there is nothing I can usefully say on the subject today. I know the great interest of the Committee in the United States' proposal, and wish very much that it were possible to say more about the position. All I can do now is to repeat that we regard Mr. Marshall's offer as a great opportunity for Europe. It is a chance that His Majesty's Government will not miss. I have promised that we, for our part, will seize this opportunity and try to turn it to the greatest possible account. I think that so far we have lost no time in getting things started. We shall continue pushing ahead with all possible energy.
4.26 p.m.
Sir Arthur Salter: We have all been awaiting the Foreign Secretary's statement, but we all understand the reasons why he has not been able at this stage to give a fuller report. For the same reasons, many of us will feel that we have to be specially careful in what comments we now make on the situation. There are, however, a few comments I should like to make, arising partly out of what was said by the Foreign Secretary, and partly out of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I propose to confine myself entirely to the question of Mr. Marshall's proposal, and not to cover the wider ground which has been touched upon this afternoon. The point I want to urge is that the extreme urgency must be the dominating factor
2242
in determining the procedure, machinery and agenda for the forthcoming negotiations.
Let us, for a moment, look at what this urgency is. My right hon. Friend stated that last year there was a surplus in the American balance of payments of something like 5,000 million dollars. This year it is 8,000 million dollars, according to the recent official estimates of the United States Department of Commerce. Europe and ourselves are now importing the vital supplies we need from America only by the aid of gifts and credits, and loans of one kind and another, which must come to an end within a year, and are obviously not going to be renewed in the same form and on the same scale. If they are not replaced, there must be impoverishment in this country and in Europe on a vast scale. We have just had a slight but dramatic reminder of what it would mean to us if we really had to bridge the gap by sacrificing imports. The increase in the Tobacco Duty will mean a dollar saving of only £7½ million, which is less than one-sixtieth part of the dollar saving needed to bridge the gap. What is true of us is true in varying degrees of the greater part of Europe.
The first consideration should be that the procedure, machinery and agenda chosen should be such as will enable a sufficiently substantial scheme, for Congress to take action upon, to be prepared and presented by the end, and if possible by the autumn, of this year. Next year is the year of the Presidential election, and every day that passes will make it more difficult for Congress to take action. I think we shall greatly endanger the future unless we can present a plan by the autumn of this year. What does that mean? My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington suggested that in some way or another the new United Nations Organisation, the European Economic Commission, should be brought into the picture. I seriously suggest that it is of the utmost importance that the Foreign. Secretary should not so commit himself to it, or to any organ of a permanent world institution, that if there is delay or deadlock within that organisation, the whole of his progress is held up. He must keep his feet clear of any such very real and very obvious danger.

2243
I was associated with many of the efforts, through international negotiations, to restore Europe after the last war. There came a time when the permanent world organisation of that time, the League of Nations, was able to take a great and successful part. But that time only came after some years. The first efforts in relief and reconstruction had to be undertaken by the victorious belligerents of that war, associated with some of the neutrals, by improvised machinery outside the League of Nations itself. It was only at a later stage that they banded over the task to the League of Nations. Even then, this world institution proved to be much better able to deal with specific and concrete problems, like that of the reconstruction of Austria, than to deal with any problem as wide as Europe itself.
That is my first suggestion. My second is this: that the agenda of the conference should be so drawn as to cover what is essential for Congress to act upon and no more. That does not mean that we should attempt to ask for dollars in instalments. Anyone who knows anything about negotiations in America, as some Members here do, know that you have a much better chance if you present a bold and comprehensive scheme to cover the whole of what you anticipate you will ultimately want, instead of asking for half of what you require this year and the other half next year. But it is, in my view, completely impossible that within the space of a few months we shall be able to agree with the whole of Europe, or even such part of it as comes into this scheme, both on the total and on the precise allocation of every block of dollars for every kind of purpose to each country.
I suggest that the projected conference should aim, first of all, at making a global estimate of the total that will be required, but without precise allocation as between country and country and purpose and purpose. I think the conference can make this task relatively easier by taking as its basis the actual deficit in the European balance of payments, which is much the same thing as the actual surplus in the American balance of payments. I think it would to us be possible on this basis to give Congress a rather close global estimate of what is wanted. Next, the conference should I suggest aim, in this first stage, not at a precise allocation of the whole of this total, but at
2244
picking out certain productive requirements, let us say, coalmining machinery for specified areas in Europe, and machinery to assist food production or transport, and at securing safeguards that the money provided for these purposes will not be wasted or diverted to political uses. That, I suggest, would be a simplified but, at the same time, sufficiently comprehensive agenda sufficient for the first scheme.
The Foreign Secretary has told us that a communication has been made to Russia. He is attempting, as Mr. Marshall is attempting, to make this proposal a bridge between West and East. We should all like to see that bridge. But I think we shall do well, from the beginning and throughout, to make it quite clear that if this fails, not by our wish, decision, or default, the proposed aid shall be a bulwark and a buttress for those who do come into the scheme. Suppose it is impossible to combine in one scheme ourselves in the West with Russia and the countries in East Europe which are under her influence. Supposing that that, unhappily, proves to be the case. Is it not clear that, on balance, our relations with that part of the world will be better and not worse, if it is clear both to them, and to ourselves, that in the West at least we are replacing impoverishment and chaos by prosperity and order. I think we should make clear to the whole world, including Russia, that if, again not by our wish, decision, or default, there should be a continuing unfriendly competition between East and West there is no doubt on which side of the line we ourselves shall be. I am sure that by making this clear we shall increase our chances of achieving the best, and if we fail in that of at least mitigating the danger of the worst.
I would like to say a few words on another subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the very notable effort that Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg are now making to form a customs union. I hope they will succeed, but I think we shall make a mistake if we think that in the next few years that can be a model that will be successfully adopted for the greater part of Europe. We shall make a mistake if we think that a model of that kind must be included, or should even be attempted, in what I would call Chapter I of the scheme required in response to Mr. Marshall's initiative. I do not think it is

2245
always realised what is implied by a full customs union of the kind that now secures exemptions from the most-favoured-nation clause obligations. A customs union implies the creation of a new political authority which has to decide both the height and character of the common tariff of all the constituent States. But customs receipts are now so important a part of the total revenues of every country, and so largely determine its domestic policy, that such a political authority becomes the main governing authority of the whole union. The Governments of the constituent units are almost reduced to a status of State Governments in a Federal Union. That is a very difficult thing to achieve quickly.
My view is that if there is to be a system of regional economic associations in Europe this can only be achieved by extending the exceptions to the most-favoured-nation clause. There have been precedents for such exceptions in the case of the Scandinavian countries and some other countries. For hon. Members who are interested in this subject. I would refer them to the interesting series of rules drawn up in 1933 at Montevideo, with the United States participating, defining the conditions under which the most-favoured-nation exceptions system might be enlarged. I mention that now because I think it is desirable that we should not think that a complete customs union is at all a likely achievement within a measurable period of years. Still more should we make a mistake if we attempted to include any such plan in the first scheme.
Those are really the two points I wished to make. I would like to emphasise the extreme importance of urgency and its relevance to the machinery and agenda of the negotiations. It is commonly said that those who buy must also sell, and that those who sell must buy. That formula, however, is not precise enough, and is only true with qualifications and in the long run. It is not concrete enough to lead to definite conclusions. What is true, however, exactly to a pound and a dollar, is that every person, every group and every country must, not only in the long run but at every moment, buy and lend as much as they sell—or sell and borrow as much as they buy. If with that in mind we look at the European deficit and the American surplus, we see that we have looming over
2246
us a terrible and urgent danger of widespread impoverishment and chaos on this side of the Atlantic and a great economic depression due to an export slump on the other side—if that gap is not bridged and bridged quickly and this means, I suggest, action by Congress before the winter is over and action by Europe before this year is over.
The response to Mr. Marshall's initiative must be made to succeed; the alternative is the impoverishment of the whole of Europe including ourselves, a great economic depression in America, a grave threat to the whole of the free democracies, to their standards of life and their prospects for the future. I congratulate the Foreign Minister on the speed with which he has acted in this first stage. I trust he will do his best to see that the procedure adopted in the forthcoming negotiations is based upon the urgency of the time table I have described.
4.44 p.m.
Mr. Pritt: One is tempted to deal with many subjects today, but I want to confine myself almost entirely to the Hungarian question, and even in doing that, I fear I may take a little longer time than I usually like to take in this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that Hungary was the most flagrant example; I think it was the most flagrant example of the bees in the bonnet of the right hon. Gentleman. Let us see what happened there. There are, of course, two main accusations against the Soviet Union in this matter. One is that the whole thing is a scheme to put power into Communist hands before the Soviet Army leaves, and the other specific offence is a refusal to communicate documents to their Allies. The general impression given to the public that this is a thing which has flared up rapidly has no foundation. It is well to keep in mind that the situation has existed for the last six months.
Major Cecil Poole: Eighteen months.
Mr. Pritt: Eighteen months in a way, but six in regard to the immediate matter. The way to begin to examine it is this. The important point of the matter is that it is said that the duty to make cornmunications—to the British Government in particular—has been broken, so we

2247
need to see on what topics the Soviet.Union ought to have given information and is under the obligation to give information.
The obligation is that there is a right to receive—and that of course implies a right on the other side to deliver—copies of all communications, reports and other documents which might interest His Majesty's Government. In the language of diplomatic documents, which are very well drawn in this country because they are drawn in the Foreign Office by pupils of mine, that is a pretty tenuous obligation. What might interest His Majesty's Government? Some things would and some things would not, but who is to decide what will? Not His Majesty's Government, because they have not got the documents. It is, in fact, about the most tenuous diplomatic obligation that could be undertaken—but still, let it be fulfilled. It is not a right to have information about everything the office boy is doing, but to receive copies of communications, reports and other documents of interest. Of course when you come to apply it, a very great deal depends on what is going on, on what the facts and events are and what documents they are likely to create, because only in that light is it possible to decide what ought to be told. It has been suggested that there has been some great coup which is necessarily accompanied by documents—naturally, when you are arranging a coup, you always put it all down in writing—and that these documents ought to be delivered up.
I have collected various descriptions of the matter from various more or less responsible people. It has been called "a Communist seizure of power." It has been called, "making sure of Communist power before the Soviet Army goes." It has been called "imposing a new Prime Minister." It has been called, of course, a police state,"—everything is a police state nowadays. And by one particularly flowery gentleman it has been called a gradual, ruthless campaign to destroy an anti-Communist majority." It will be interesting to compare those descriptions with the facts when we get them. It is a story I have listened to hundreds of times. It used to come 'most often from the Right Wing in this country and from the-Fascists, but now it comes much more from the United States. I think, if I
2248
may say so, that I have never known it to be more than 30 per cent, true but, at any rate, let us get the facts and have a look at them.
It is said there was a conspiracy. It is at once assumed that, if it is said by someone somewhere east of Paris that there was a conspiracy, of course there was not one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has, I imagine, passed a happy life—and a strenuous and important one—free both of the impact of the law and of any detailed study or knowledge of it, but he will know that there have arisen occasions in many countries where persons accused of a crime have been proved to be guilty. It may be that there really was a conspiracy, and if so there is something to be dealt with. What is the evidence for a conspiracy? Of course I cannot go into great masses of detail, although all this has been published in the Press for weeks and for months. I should have thought that a start could have been made by the express declaration at a public meeting by Mr. Nagy himself that there was a conspiracy. That is four months old. Perhaps, too, other declarations could be considered, one by the political bureau—I am sorry to use such an unhappy phrase—of that rather Right Wing party, the Smallholders' Party, that there was a conspiracy, and that the evidence of it was crushing; and a similar statement by a somewhat wider organ of the same party.
Finally, perhaps, some gentlemen who would not accept anything from east of Deal, would like to hear what was said by the United States. The American gentleman who is in charge of matters there made a protest three months ago against the implication of certain persons in what he called "the recently revealed plot." I think, if the representative of the United States referred to the "recently revealed plot" in the language which is so nearly common to him and to us, he probably meant that a plot had been recently revealed. So there is no doubt that there is a conspiracy, but it is not a Soviet conspiracy. It is a conspiracy coming from places where one would expect a conspiracy in a country which is becoming more progressive, namely, from the most reactionary sections.
When that was discovered, ought the Soviet Union to have said, "The British

2249
cannot read the newspapers; it is our duty to tell them"? I need not deal with that point, because no one has suggested that the Soviet Union should have told us about it. One open trial in a Hungarian court of Hungarian citizens before Hungarian judges took place in February, and it was fully reported. Another took place in May, which was also fully reported. Another trial is taking place at the present moment—I think it started last Monday—and that is being fully reported. It is quite possible that the first two courts have arrived at a right decision by agreeing with those other authorities I have mentioned that there is a conspiracy. I must not anticipate what will happen on the third trial.
Then there comes a crisis. Everybody agrees that there was a crisis, but few trouble to ascertain exactly what it was about. I have studied the matter a little, and there seem to have been two or three possible causes of the crisis. One was a refusal by the Soviet authorities in Hungary to hand over to the Hungarian Government M. Kovacs whom the Hungarians wanted to prosecute, and whom the Soviet authorities also wanted to prosecute. Any lawyer, and a good many laymen, will know that when a proper investigating authority of a sovereign State is dealing with someone they wish to try, they cannot be persuaded to stop in the middle and to hand the man over to another sovereign State. Therefore, the Soviet Union could hardly be expected to hand over M. Kovacs.
Major Poole: Would my hon. and learned Friend allow me—
Mr. Pritt: No, not at the moment. It has been suggested that the next possible cause of the crisis was that the Soviet authorities delivered certain documents to the Hungarian Government. If we look at that, we shall probably find that that was the real cause of the crisis, because the documents in question were part of the depositions of M. Kovacs. Not for the first time in history, someone accused of a crime of which he might be guilty has proceeded to give the names of other people who might also be guilty. After all, when a prime minister is discovered to be a traitor, it causes a little disturbance, and that may have been the cause of the crisis. As I understand it, one of the suggestions is —I think the right hon. Gentleman him-
2250
self put it that way, and the Foreign Secretary is reported in "The Times" of 6th June to have put it in the same way to the Soviet authorities—that they ought to have treated the documents in the dossier against M. Kovacs as documents which might interest His Majesty's Government.
It may be a question of argument, discussion or consideration whether His Majesty's Government can really claim to be "interested" in the prosecution of everybody prosecuted in Hungarian courts, but they may well be interested in those prosecuted, or even likely to be prosecuted if they do not run away, for very serious offences indeed. But has anybody ever heard of any investigating authorities in any country, however far West one goes in search of civilisation, as it is called, who are prepared to hand over to another sovereign State, over which they have no control, the whole of their dossier of a criminal case in the middle of the proceedings? What would have happened if we had been prosecuting some dangerous Nazi in the British zone and the Soviet authorities had asked to see the documents? The very least we would have said was that they were documents being used in the middle of an investigation, and that we were not going to have them made public until the case was completed and the man was brought to trial. If that sort of accusation is to be made against the Soviet authorities in, Hungary or the Soviet authorities in Moscow, I am very sorry.
The third suggested reason for the crisis was a move to purge the Smallholders' Party. I notice that everybody who sticks up for the Smallholders' Party says that there are a lot of bad people as well as a lot of good people in it. I say that there are some bad in it, and, quite frankly, very many good people too. I do not like the Right Wing, and I do not believe that the Soviet Union likes the Right Wing. But there was a strong Smallholders' Party in Hungary when elections were held under Soviet control. The elections were perfectly fair. Everybody knew that about 30 per cent. of the members of the Smallholders' Party were either Fascists or semi-Fascists who were hiding in the party. Very often they could claim a very good anti-German record, because there were plenty of anti German Fascists in Hungary. It was a' Fascist State for a long time. But it

2251
Fascists are proscribed, they do not sit at home and grieve; they put on a different hat and get into the Right Wing party if they can manage it. And they do manage it.
I think that everybody will agree that there are bad elements in the Smallholders' Party. There have been moves by the centre and left of the Smallholders' Party to get rid of them. It may be that the Americans hoped that would not happen, and that that provoked the crisis. At any rate, there was a crisis, although it is not easy to say exactly what caused it. The first point about it is that it was over by 3rd June. The Minister of State agrees with that. It was a most unhappy observation of his to compare the rapidity with which the crisis had been settled with the activities of the late Adolf Hitler. By 2nd or 3rd June it was all over, and the new Prime Minister was at work. There was no disorder, and, to quote the old classical phrase, all the trams continued to run. It is worth remembering that there was not even a prohibition of the repeated violent anti-Coalition meetings that were being held all over the country; and a semi-Fascist made a violent speech for half an hour in the Parliament. It is creditable that, in a country which has but lately emerged from great difficulties, even in a period of crisis, they do not find it necessary or useful to prohibit violent anti-Government propaganda all over the provinces. That is very significant indeed.
Major Poole: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that M. Sulyok has been very plainly informed that, if he has any respect for his own safety, that will be the last speech of that sort which he will make?
Mr. Pritt: I have no evidence whatever to that effect, and I have not the remotest idea where the hon. and gallant Member gets his gossip from. But I have managed to discover with some difficulty where the right hon. Member gets it from. He gets it from a comic little weekly sheet, the name of which we are not supposed to disclose. I can never make up my mind whether I am reading it or "Punch."
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Does my hon. and learned Friend attach any importance to the fact that M. Sulyok's speech was not reported in the Hungarian Press?
Mr. Pritt: My information is that it was. Mr. Nagy on hearing the news duly goes to America. That is not surprising. America is rather fond of people who are very anti-Soviet and of people who are very anti-progressive, unfortunately at the moment—some Americans, not all. It is significant that we keep talking here about Communists, but there is a large Socialist Party in Hungary who count for something, and they agreed with the Communists that Mr. Nagy should come back, and resign. On this point it is rather interesting to note that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington drew a parallel between ourselves and Italy. It strikes me that there is an interesting parallel between ourselves and Italy. Here we are clamouring violently against the Soviet authorities that they ought to give us documents about Hungary when there has been no change at all except for two Ministers. But in Italy, where it is obvious to the simplest intelligence that the U.S.A. have been able by force of dollars to make the Government of Italy clear out all the Communists, the Soviet Union does not even protest, so tolerant is it. It is interesting to quote on this topic a declaration by Count Michael Karolyi, who is not a Socialist. He was the leader of the Hungarian Parliamentary Delegation in Cairo at Easter and he made a speech in which he said:
"We Hungarians do not want to be American vassals, and we do not want to be vassals of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not trying to make us vassals, but the U.S.A. is trying to isolate us from all our neigh bours."
There we get a fairly liberal point of view. But let me get back to the crisis. This is supposed to be a tremendous Communist coup by the great, ruthless, Communist Soviet Union to plant Communism in Hungary. If they really wanted to do that, it would take about 24 hours—if they were foolish enough to want to do it. When the Prime Minister under charge of treason bolted to America and discredited to some extent the great party of which he was a member, that was the moment, if there was any truth in the story, for disorders and for crowds and perhaps for machine guns. That was the moment for putting thousands of people in prison and for the Soviet authorities to arrest all the various people whom the Hungarians are trying; but what happened? No one raised his voice, no trams stopped running, the

2253
whole thing was peaceful. No one suggested that anyone should be the new Prime Minister except someone nominated by the Smallholders' Party. He was nominated and he gets on with his work. Mr. Nagy was a Smallholders' nominee. He is replaced by another Smallholders' nominee. That is all that has happened on the surface, and indeed under the ground, so far as one can see. The whole thing goes on exactly as in the past.
The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has spoken about elections, but the view in Hungary is that there are not going to be elections at all. [Interruption.] The general view is that there are not going to be elections at all at the moment, and as a result this leaves the majority position of the Smallholders' Party intact, although it is somewhat discredited. Everything will remain exactly as it was—the same Government, the same Parliament, the same Coalition, the same balance of forces, Communist and Socialist together, one of whom deserves very great credit for carrying through an excellent measure of land reform, and for getting the currency back on to the ground instead of in the skies. All I can say is that if that is the best the Communists can do by way of carrying out a coup, when I want anything of the sort done I will apply to the Primrose League.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that this was a one-man revolution? According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, everybody there is happy and nothing has happened.
Mr. Pritt: I presume that the hon. Gentleman was not in the Committee when I gave a fairly full account of the trials of many persons for conspiracy, which have been going on for six months.
Mr. Blackburn: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that Kovacs was held incomunicado for four months during his investigation and also that "The Times" today refers to the sworn evidence of a Hungarian Member of Parliament now on trial, to the effect that he has been tortured for a week for the purpose of extracting a confession from him?
Mr. Pritt: I have heard such allegations hundreds of times and I have investigated them when I have been able to. I remember attending one of the most famous of such cases in which such allegations were widely made all over the place. I saw the prisoners from close to, and it was obvious that not one of them had had anything done to him at all, and they themselves did not even allege it. Of course, a traitor when he is trying to explain away why he has "shopped" his comrades and admitted his own guilt says that he has been tortured. That is the sort of thing that is said every day in courts all over the world, and even at times in our British police courts.
Mr. Henry Strauss Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities) rose—
Mr. Pritt: I will not give way. The hon. Member in front of him talked such nonsense; how do I know that the hon. and learned Member will not do the same?
Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. and learned Member afraid of competition on that ground?
Mr. Pritt: There remains the demand by the British Government which asks Mr. Molotov to give documents. What do they ask for? If this is a genuine conspiracy, do they want Mr. Molotov to give them the prosecution's brief? If it were a fake, I suppose they would hardly expect Mr. Molotov to give them the documents in which the fake is arranged. Surely, Mr. Molotov was right when he said that this is an internal Hungarian matter. Every one of these people is being brought to trial in Hungarian courts and only one major and one or two minor ones have been arrested by the Soviet authorities. That one will presumably be brought to trial. We have been told that he has been waiting for a long time, but in my experience he has only waited half the time which my clients wait for a court martial.
I notice in "The Times" today that their correspondent in Vienna, which is a fairish way from Budapest, reports that certain people have been turned out of the Smallholders' Party. But some people were turned out of the Labour Party in 1931, and I can quite understand these things happening. The party itself has declared that there has been no alteration to its disadvantage

2255
from the events of the last three weeks. I think it would have been lucky if only minor disadvantages had happened to it in the circumstances. But I wish it well. It is still an important part of the coalition Government of the country which is doing its best with some success to get the country on its feet. I do not want to call three-quarters of the Smallholders' Party dishonest. "The Times" correspondent went on to suggest that the people turned out had been replaced by two persons who enjoyed more confidence among the two other parties of the Left. Traitors usually came from the extreme Right Wing and when they are turned out we do not expect to see them replaced by people of exactly the same colour. Perhaps hon. Members on the other side of the House do but we on this side of the House do not. The two men named in "The Times" held important positions to which they were appointed by Nagy and they are people who are thoroughly respectable.
I have taken much longer than I intended. I am sorely tempted to say something about Mr. Marshall's proposals, but that would take up too much time of the House. I want to say this, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington claimed an honourable record in the matter of relations with the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly he stood loyally by British-Soviet friendship not merely during the war but before the war, and quite rightly and properly he took credit for that but, he did really swallow the old Red scare in regard to this Hungarian business. He trotted out serious allegations against the Soviet Union in relation to several of the countries in Eastern Europe, and when be was asked by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warby) why he said that something or other had Communist initiative in Austria he said it was because the same Communist initiative was found in every other country. He had no evidence. And I suppose if he had been asked about each of the other countries he would have said the same, thus gradually working himself round to the position where he was not hoisting himself by his own boot straps but drowning himself with them.
Mr. Gallacher: Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that the
2256
right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was very carefully coached by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).
Mr. Pritt: I am sorry to have an apparent quarrel with my old and hon. Friend, but the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington briefed himself, to some extent by imagination. I fear he did irreparable harm by his speech, though I acknowledge that throughout he was sincere in what he said. However, he was a really bad boy to swallow and repeat the old Red scare story in the way he did. I do not suppose he will take advice from me, young as he is, but I do suggest that he should not do it again.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I will not spend a great deal of my time replying to the detailed defence of Russia over the Hungarian incident, which has been given to the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). Whatever may happen in the Hungarian Parliament in the future, all sides of the case ought to be put in the House of Commons, and I think it is right that the hon. and learned Member should be able to put the case which he did. He put it in the best manner in which lawyers—and I myself am one—conduct the defence at assizes, for he told us there was no coup or if there was a coup it was, not prepared in writing; and if it was in writing it was in such writing as would not interest the British Government. I do not think I need spend much time in demolishing his case, because he so obviously fails to carry any sort of conviction to hon. Members who sit behind him, and I think that I will now leave the answer to them.
For my part I want to deal with the rather wider issue of Europe. Europe is the key to foreign policy at the present time, and for two reasons. The first is because European economy today is very nearly in ruins and that presents us—and I think it ought to be emphasised—with an immediate and short-term problem. Some answer has got to be found to the European economic situation, not so much in a matter of months as in a matter of weeks. There is also the long-term problem, for Europe is the meeting ground, and unless we can be successful in this matter, might one day become the battleground between East and West.

2257
I would approach the matter in this way. First, it behoves all of us who speak in the Debate to remember that the answer from Moscow has not yet formally been delivered. The second thing is that I do not think that discussions upon foreign policy are suitable occasions for party dialectics either in the House of Commons or on the hustings. It is no part of my plan tonight to launch any attack whatever upon the Foreign Secretary. No one is more conscious than I am of the very serious difficulties which confront him and I assure him that I share these remarks in "Cards on the Table"—
"We often forget that world affairs are not settled by the British Government alone, but by all Governments working together or in conflict, subject continually to the necessity of compromising to avoid breakdown."
That is a perfectly fair statement of the situation. I might add that I wish the same view had been taken by some hon. Members at the General Election in 1945.
Major Poole: Who is on party dialectics now?
Mr. Thorneycroft: They might have avoided some of the bitter onslaughts which they launched upon the record of Tory administrations in the past. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Medland: The hon. Member is having it.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Hon. Members cannot hide behind the vast sweep of world events and their effect on foreign policy and at the same time ignore the influence of these things upon Tory administrations when they were in power. I think that is a perfectly fair argument. I will go somewhat further, and if hon. Members do not like it I cannot help it, but I must say it. I would exclude party politics a great deal more than they have been excluded in the past. I remember the line that has been put over so often in the country.
Mr. Warbey: Would it not be better to exclude discussions on foreign policy altogether, and then we would not have any bother about it?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no doubt whatever that if the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) had his way, a great many discussions on many subjects would
2258
not be allowed at all. The point I was making was that we should not fall under the illusion, which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith is under, that our relations with foreign Powers are going to differ according to the political party which happens to be in power for the moment in this country. There is a Socialist Government in power at the present time. It was often said, and is still sometimes said; that because there is a Socialist Government in power here, they will the more rapidly come to an accommodation with the Russians. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith has now gone, but I have no doubt my remarks will be reported to him. There is nothing in common that I can see between the outlook in foreign affairs of the Communist Party in Russia and the outlook of the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party in this country, and I hope there will never be anything in common between the two.
The corollary to that argument is that it would be wholly wrong to think that if a Conservative administration were in power in this country it would get very much better and more satisfactory arrangements with the United States of America than a Labour administration. We should elect and remove Governments in this country for our own purposes. The day we start electing them to please or satisfy some foreign Power, whether it be the United States or the Soviet Union, on that day we shall cease to be a great nation and an Empire, and what is true of us is equally true of other countries. If we expect other countries to look upon us according to our own merits, and to judge us, not according to our political labels, but according to whether we honour our forign commitments abroad and make genuine efforts to put our own house in order, they can demand that of us, too.
Our approach to Russia should not be on the question of whether she is Communist, democratic, autocratic, monarchic, or anything else. What we should ask is, "What is her attitude with regard to her external policy?" It is the external policies of foreign Powers which should be the principal test and not their internal policies. The test should be: do they show a respect for the

2259
independence of their neighbours or do they not: do they submit to those rules of international law and conduct which were laid down and agreed by all the Allies towards the concluding stages of the last war?
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Does not the whole history of the period from 1935 to 1939 prove that it was difficult not to see a very clear relation between the internal policy of a country—Germany, for example—and its external policy? How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at the difference.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I think I might illustrate it in this way. I understand that a well-known lady from the Argentine is to visit this country shortly, and I see attacks launched against her in the Press. It is quite immaterial to me whether her husband happens to salute with his arm extended or with his fist clenched. What I am concerned about is what is the external policy of a particular foreign Power. If they submit to the two tests I have given—one, that they respect the independence of their neighbours, and the other that they submit to the rules of international law and conduct—those are the things which count. I do not say that there may not arise occasions where concentration camps or some other particular situation in a country demands action by all Powers, but the principal tests should he the two I have stated.
Mr. Henry Usborne (Birmingham, Acocks Green)Mr. Henry Usborne (Birmingham, Acocks Green) rose—
Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already given way several times to answer a number of questions, and I am not prepared to do so now. What, then, should be our attitude to Russia? In the Far East the shooting war is actually going on. This Debate is limited to Europe, but it is important to see what is happening in the Far East, and as I say, the shooting war there is actually starting—
Mr. Warbey: It has never stopped.
Mr. Thorneycroft: It may be that it has never stopped, but in any case troops supported by aircraft are actually at war in China, and Communist troops are coming down from Russian-controlled Mongolia. It is true that there are only six aircraft and that China is a large country, but
2260
supposing one aircraft appeared over London with Red stars upon it. We should not say, "It is only one aircraft—a slight indiscretion—and London is a large town." It is right to remember that these things are going on in the Far East.
Mr. Zilliacus (Gateshead): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Soviet Government have denied the reports of the Chinese Government on this matter, and on what grounds does he prefer the version of the Chinese Government, who are notoriously inaccurate in their communiqués?
Mr. Thorneycroft: There are always varying reports on these matters, and as was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, we obtain our information from different sources, but it is reported widely, and not only from the Chinese Government, that actual shooting is going on in the Far East. I think that is a relevant matter for us to consider.
Mr. Pritt Mr. Pritt rose—
Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not intend to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith now. In the West the ideological weapon is being used by every means—the fifth column, infiltration, and by putting chosen persons in charge of the Home Offices of those countries around the borders of Russia. Communist infiltration is going on by every means in Europe, and Europe today is torn in twain by the struggle between the Communist forces on the one side and the democratic forces on the other. That is a fact which we have to face, and whatever belief one holds I do not see how one can remain completely neutral in that struggle. What, therefore, should be the policy of His Majesty's Government? The Hungarian incident occurred the other day. I do not accept the view which was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, and even on his own evidence which he put forward I regard the Russian attitude in that incident as a cynical disregard of all the obligations not only of statutes but of the spirit of all the agreements entered into. I have no doubt about that whatever. When the matter was first raised in the House, the Minister of State made the following reply which I am sure he will not mind my quoting:

2261
"I can only say that we shall judge the new Government by its actions, and that His Majesty's Government hope that these changes in the structure of the Hungarian Government will not lead to any departure from the principles of parliamentary democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 68.]
Mr. Blackburn: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on this? That was not said in the House, but was produced in a written answer on the Monday. Many hon. Members will have noticed that there was a much stronger answer given on the Wednesday.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I am quoting from HANSARD, whether or not it was a written answer. I do not want to put it stronger than this, but I think that it showed a gross under-appreciation of the true nature of events in Hungary at the present time. I think we must face up to what is happening in those countries and not shelter behind vague hopes that although a coup takes place parliamentary democracy will not be too much damaged. What are the choices open to His Majesty's Government in this matter? It seems to me that there are three courses which they can follow. The first course is one which is argued by Mr. Henry Wallace—to adopt the belief that we can live in one world. Mr. Wallace and, in this country, the Secretary of State for Air are the great proponents of that particular line.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said, all of us would like to see that sort of situation develop, but I think that the vast majority of us in Parliament know perfectly well that the chances of getting the kind of agreement which would be required between Russia, ourselves and the U.S.A. are very, very far away indeed. I think we have to face up to the history of the Russian situation and what is, in fact, going on at the present time. If we look at their record over the Baltic States, over Finland, and over what happened in Azerbaijan, and their record with regard to the Lublin Government and the elections which followed, with regard to Bulgaria, Hungary, the use of the veto, the recent statements which have appeared in "Pravda" with regard to the Marshall offer, and the interview of the British Ambassador in Moscow
2262
yesterday—it we follow those incidents it is a very faint hope indeed to think that any kind of agreement could be reached which would realise the kind of one-world system for which Mr. Henry Wallace genuinely and openly argues. But never let it be criticised that the B.B.C. permitted Mr. Wallace to make that case. It was a case which wanted putting, although I disagree with it and think that at the present time it is hopeless.
The second policy, which His Majesty's Government appear to me to be following, is this. They believe in what I might call "a three-world system." In their published statements they wish to hold a position somewhere midway between the East and the West. They want to be a kind of half-way house between what they regard as the rabid capitalism of the United States of America and the Communism of Soviet Russia. The argument is put forward that if there is a war these two great forces will eventually come together and we will stand back and assume an air of rather pained neutrality. I believe that such a policy of holding a halfway house between America on the one side and Soviet Russia on the other is doomed to failure. If we attempt it we shall inevitably become a weak outpost position of one or other of those Powers, and weak outpost positions always invite attack. We might start off by being an outpost position but end up by being a battleground. I reject it on that ground and also on another ground.
I reject it upon the economic ground. I maintain, looking at the situation of Europe's economy at the present time, that Great Britain alone is utterly incapable of assisting Europe back on to her feet. After all, there is nothing to be ashamed of in confessing that. We have ourselves spent a good deal in some noble causes. We are in great difficulties ourselves. We shall have great difficulties in carrying out the schemes of Colonial development which we desire to see. But the idea of Europe and Great Britain somehow or another acting as an economic entity and carrying out a policy independent of Russia and the United States of America is quite impracticable. I, therefore, reject the policy of the half-way house between the two. I hope, that His Majesty's Government will reject it, too, but if they do so they will have to say so pretty explicitly, because many

2263
of their statements over recent months seem to have tended towards that line.
That brings me to the third policy which lies open. It may be that we cannot live in one world, but that is no reason why we should not live at all. After all, outside Soviet Russia there are great areas of the world which really do want to co-operate. There is the idea of an Atlantic union propounded by many Americans. There is the idea of a united Europe. The idea is writ small in the customs union known as "Benelux" and writ large in the idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Three-quarters of the world really wants to co-operate more than they ever wanted to co-operate before. For a century or more—this line of thought has gone on longer than many people imagine—men of this and other countries have been trying to find some way whereby the nations of the world might live together and order their affairs more sensibly than they have done in the past. A large number of nations are prepared to do that at the present time. Only one thing stands between us and that conception, and that is the unwillingness at this moment in our history of the Russians to co-operate. That is the principal thing standing in the way.
In my view, we cannot wait longer upon Russian agreement in this matter. We have perhaps waited too long already. It was probably right to have waited—I am not criticising it. What I say is that we cannot wait longer for the sake of Europe and because of the general situation which is developing. We cannot go on arguing round the table when we know from the start that we are not going to reach any conclusion. If we get an unfavourable answer from Moscow, do not let us despond too much, because time is an important factor in foreign policy and it may be that in ten or 15 years from now other views will prevail. But, above all, do not let us be deterred from going on in our own way to build up as much of a free world as we possibly can.
We are not going.to defeat Communism in Europe just by dollars and preaching anti-Communism. Communism is an idea with the force of a religion. Men die for it, commit treason for it and sacrifice even their honour for it. If we are to defeat Communism, we have to provide an idea which is as powerful in its appeal.
2264
I think that can be found in the conception of the free nations of the world living together and ordering their affairs and building up a great area of prosperity. I think that can be found, but I do not underestimate what we have to face up to in the process. It is easy enough to talk about it, but it is much harder to put it into practice. Hard choices have to be made, and the sooner we realise how hard they are, the better. For a century Europe has given more of civilisation and culture to the world than perhaps anyone else. She has to choose today whether she shall become incapable of playing that role or sacrifice something of her individual sovereignty. If some sovereignty is not sacrificed, I do not see how Europe will be able to, recover.
The United States of America have some hard choices to make, too. Many there preach the value of a new world order, but that is not altogether in line with those who wish to depend for the protection of their economy upon such weapons as an increased wool tax. We have to say which way we are going in a matter of that kind. Britain herself has to choose. Quite frankly, I do not see how one can fit into this international framework a picture of Empire conceived in a context which is now out of date. We have to look somewhat wider than Imperial Preference and the Ottawa Agreement and think on somewhat bolder and bigger lines if we are to fit the future of the British Empire into the conception of a free world as I understand it. I am not saying that in such a process, the Empire has not, in the future, a role as important and as great as it had in the past, but we cannot stick to all the old shibboleths. We cannot be isolationists and internationalists at the same time. That lesson has to be learnt whether we live in Britain, Europe or the United States of America.
I have, therefore, outlined the policy which I hope His Majesty's Government will adopt in broad outline. I would only say, in conclusion, that the decisions which are going to be made should be made very quickly now. There is always quite a good case for not making too many decisions in foreign policy. Tally-rand once said that laziness was the principal qualification for a Foreign Secretary, but there are moments when decisions have to be taken. We are approaching such a moment now. So far as I am concerned, I wish the Foreign Secretary and

2265
the Minister of State good luck in the negotiations in which they are engaged. I want them to come to those decisions, but I want them not to delay and not to wait always for Russian agreement in this matter and not to argue from now on for months and months while no firm decision is reached, because, looking at Europe's economy as it is today, time is an enemy and not a friend.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. S. N. Evans: One thing I have learned since I came to this House is to envy the lawyers. Words trip off their tongues like water off Niagara Falls, and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) is no exception. It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) made one extraordinary statement. I do not quote him exactly but roughly. He said that the rights of the Allied Control do not include a right to hear about everything the office boy does. That seemed to me to be a triumph of understatement. We are not anxious to know what the office boy does; what we are anxious to know is what has happened to the Secretary of the Smallholders' Party who was whisked away in February last six hours from London—not in the wilds of Asia—and nobody knows where he is at this moment. That is the kind of thing about which we would like some information.
The right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) gave the impression, to me at any rate, that he thought we ought to conduct this Debate on the basis of shadow boxing with eight ounce gloves. I could not disagree more. I think it is most important that we should all speak objectively, and that we should say precisely what we mean. It now becomes clear that the governing element in the Soviet hierarchy have no faith in permanent peace, no faith even in a prolonged peace and, as a consequence, of course they are basing their policies on textbooks which might have been dug from the tomb of Genghis Khan. Under the illusion that security can be found in a 20th century political and intellectual Wall of China running from Stettin to Trieste and manned by "stooge" regimes, the Politbureau rudely and crudely goes from one diplomatic gaffe to another. The old saying about a bull in a china shop has quite lost its potency.
2266
I want to say that these hermits of the Kremlin are ill-served by their genuflecting sycophants outside who happily tell them not what they ought to hear but what it is thought they want to hear. That seems to me to be most unfortunate. Nevertheless, some of the causes which have produced this terrible inferiority complex, out of which arises this truculence, can be guessed at. The Russian hierarchy are not completely unintelligent; for example, they know that there are not two great Powers in the world, there is only one. The largest air-force in the world, the biggest navy afloat, £9,000,000,000 of gold, the atom bomb, the largest productive capacity in the world concentrate in the United States, the greatest financial, military and economic power that has ever resided in one country. Of course this has to be said, and happily can be said, that of all people the Americans are the least warlike. Nobody in this country sleeps one whit the worse because of this ever-growing stock-pile of atom bombs. Let us face up to it. And as my Black Country constituents work very hard and need a lot of sleep, that is rather important. The gentleman of the Politbureau are also very conscious of the fact that without the £3,500 million worth of Lend-lease aid supplied by the Anglo-Americans, the Red Army could never have held out until the Anglo-American Armies brought them much needed aid. And, of course, the Soviet hierarchy will never forget that for every German soldier killed, the Red Army lost five.
In addition to the psychological effect of these weighty items from the international balance sheet, there is of course an internal problem. Speaking to two visiting European statesmen early last year, Molotov, in the presence of Stalin, said that millions of Russian soldiers had been into Europe for the first time and there they had seen a standard of life that they had never dreamed of; every agricultural worker's cottage with a table and a couple of chairs was to them a palace; now they were coming home, and Russian living standards had to be substantially and quickly improved, otherwise there would be serious political repercussions. I think we ought to take all these things into consideration.
Mr. John E. Haire: Is that an actual quotation?
Mr. Evans: That was told to me by one of the two European statesmen to whom I referred.
Mr. J. Haire: In fact, it is second-hand.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Member's peculiar interest in this matter is understood.
Mr. Haire: I am only seeking the truth.
Mr. Evans: The House always gets the truth from me. I may have serious faults, but lying is not one of them. It is quite true that these 13 men of the Politbureau are seriously apprehensive about the atom bomb, and it is understandable, but they are more apprehensive about the 250 million Europeans peering into this country who are hoping and praying that the great social and economic experiment upon which we are engaged shall succeed—the attempt to marry freedom from want to the rights of the individual. This is a concept which the Russians have, over and over again, proved they cannot accept. Bread, yes; civil liberty, no. However, even the Russian Foreign Secretary should be aware of the danger of creating conditions in which men high, honoured and influential in the affairs of their country are compelled to flee its frontiers or to remain behind those frontiers. They are, in embryo, a formidable resistance movement. It seems to me common sense that the Russian Foreign Secretary should have regard to this.
I want to say, from my own observation of and contact with M. Nagy, that he is a good man and a fine patriot. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith said that this affair had gone through with the trams still running—a most extraordinary observation. What does he expect with hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers still in the country. What is true of M. Nagy is even more valid when applied to Bela Varga, the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament, and indeed of the whole of the Parliamentary delegation to Hungary would I am sure agree Varga is a grand man, a man of high intellectual and political capacity and integrity. He has had to go. I will not accept for one moment that men like that would be traitors to their country today. Varga was imprisoned by the Germans. He has
2268
always been a foremost advocate of drastic land reform in Hungary. He was a Hungarian progressive of progressives. It is nonsensical, and it is worse than that, to describe such a man as a traitor.
Mr. Cocks: Would my hon. Friend tell the House what the Prince Primate Cardinal of Hungary said to him?
Mr. Evans: I do not want to talk about the Prince Primate Cardinal Archbishop of Hungary. He is a great and courageous man, doing a job in conditions of great difficulty, and I hope that if the time came when I was ever in such circumstances I would acquit myself with equal courage and capacity.
Mr. Cocks: My hon. Friend has told me what the Prince Cardinal said to him a year ago. Will he repeat that to the Committee?
Mr. Evans: I understand that it is the custom of this House not to discuss in the Chamber matters that are discussed in the Smoke Room. That is an excellent custom, and I have no intention of departing from it.
The hypocrisy of all that is going on is nauseating at a time when Europeans are being lifted from their beds at night, and subjected to months of mental torture and nights of interrogation with the are lamp technique out of which comes mental collapse and phoney confessions. Fifty per cent. of the teachers in the Soviet zone of Germany are ex-members of the Nazi Party, and Social Democrats who refused to support unity in the Soviet zone of Germany have been put in concentration camps by the N.K.V.D.
Mr. Zilliacus: There have been several inaccuracies in my hon. Friend's remarks. First, the teachers' corps in the Soviet zone has been entirely renovated and formed out of people loyal to the present régime, not to Fascism. It is not true to say that the Soviet Union rejects the principles of civil liberty. I agree heartily that they have not got there yet, but those principles are in their Constitution, and they are trying to—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I thought the hon. Gentleman had intervened to ask a question.
Mr. Evans: I can well understand anyone in the Soviet zone of Germany being

2269
very amenable to suggestions from the Soviet authorities. Fifty per cent. of the security police in Hungary at this moment are ex-members of the Arrow Cross Fascist organisation.
Mr. Haire: Where does my hon. Friend get his information?
Mr. Evans: From the same place where I got the other information. There are so many travellers along here that it begins to look like a train. If, in the circumstances I have indicated, the Politbureau can be described as Socialist, then truly the Spanish Inquisition was Christianity. The return of Europe to the Dark Ages finds its roots in Stalin's claim to a special right to ensure governments loyal to Russia in the countries upon her borders. This right is claimed on the grounds that these countries were the high road of the Nazi invasion. The claim goes further than that. In fact, we are required to call another Munich, this time with the Turks as the thirty pieces of silver instead of the Czechs. Here is not an attempt to reconstruct Europe on the basis of peace and prosperity for all. Here is a fatalistic preparation for the next great struggle. Here, once more, is recourse to the out-moded power politics of 1914–1939. If this is the level at which international relationships are to be determined, Britain should demand governments loyal to us in Holland, Belgium and France, because this was the road that the Nazis followed when they came within sight of the cliffs of Dover.
But the world has heard all this before. It is the very argument that Napoleon used. When he marched into Spain and Austria and Italy, he said that he wanted governments loyal to him. There is the more recent example of Hitler. When he went into Vienna, Prague and Warsaw he wanted governments loyal to him. Admittedly, these gentlemen of the Politbureau are an enigma. I find it hard completely to make my mind up about them. The great French Revolution of 1789 started with Danton, Marat and Robespierre, and ended with Napoleon. History may be repeating itself; I do not know. Perhaps we shall know within another month. I said recently that the lamplighters were at work in Europe, and it is true, but the lights are not coming on; they are going out. It now becomes apparent that what Russia
2270
wants in Europe is not order but chaos, not happiness but misery, not prosperity but poverty, and out of these mountains of misery she hopes to secure for her political marionettes in all the countries, the keys of power. That is the tactic. It now becomes quite clear.
The people of Europe for far too long have been plagued by the -political whimsies of kings, princes and power-drunk political ideologists. The time has come for something quite different. The Committee will recall that in the early days of the 17th century Richelieu's Father Joseph kept Europe in ferment, poverty and degradation for 30 years, and what the Politbureau is trying to do today is to make of Europe a moral, economic and political desert in order that their police state concepts may have greater opportunity. I would say of Molotov that his crassness and malevolence have created more anti-Communists in 18 months than the Vatican has created in 30 years.
I wish to say something about this incredible and stupid belief that a man who was buried in Highgate Cemetery in 1883 could write a set of blue prints applicable to a period 100 years after the Communist manifesto was issued. It seems to me to be monstrously absurd. Yet it is upon this concept that there has some time got to be a clash between the policies which spring from this blue print, and the laissez faire capitalism of America. It is on this hypothesis that there is to be one great show-down—a sort of English Cup final. I hope they do not have it at Wembley. It is on this concept that the Politbureau is building its policy. I never knew such lunacy in the world.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) spoke about the half-way position. He said he did not think we could occupy that position. I will be quite frank. I had been hoping that we could. I fully accept that it would have to be with the consent of the other two contracting parties, but I thought perhaps we were evolving a system which would indeed bridge the gap. As we remember, William the Silent held the balance between the Calvinists and the Roman Catholics for many years. Gradually the extremists on both sides were liquidated or converted, and there emerged Holland as we know it today. I thought that Britain's historic role in the next few years would be akin to that of William the Silent, but it now

2271
seems clear that the Politbureau is determined to push us into the arms of America. This is a tragedy. It is nothing to snigger about.
I do not accept this silly suggestion that we have become a political satellite of the United States. The British are fine people with the highest political sagacity in the world; they are kindly, tolerant people with a thousand years of history behind them. They are unfitted to act the role of political ventriloquists' dummies and they are not likely to accept that role. We ought to remember that in days gone by, in the days of our affluence, British Foreign Secretaries were able to approach the problem of foreign affairs with an air of detached benevolence. But times have changed and, in addition to the substantial material changes which have taken place, the present Foreign Secretary has the handicap of taking to the conference chamber—and this is a handicap common to all democracies—the conscience of a politically educated, kindly, tolerant people to whom he is answerable on call. It is important that we should remember that at all times.
The points of disagreement between Britain, the United States and France, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, on the other, provide a formidable and dismal picture. Months before the Moscow Conference, the Politbureau had refused to attend the United Nations London conference on devastated areas. They fought the idea of an economic agreement for Europe and the allocation of European coal supplies. They shunned the World Food Conference and the conferences on world trade organisation. There can be no doubt that this series of deliberate refusals to co-operate internationally is due to the fact that the Politbureau wants America out of Europe. But I do not. In any case, it is nonsensical to think that the Americans, having lost much blood and treasure as the result of two wars emanating in Europe, are now going to dissociate themselves from the affairs of Europe, with all the risks of a third conflagration. That seems to me to be monstrously absurd. I waist to see the Yankees spreading themselves far and wide. Someone once said to me, "You are an awfully crude man." If I have that reputation, I might as well live up to it and say that I regard as much the most valuable muck
2272
in the world the £9,000 million of gold at Fort Knox, Kentucky. As money, like muck, is no good unless it is well spread, I want to see this gold liberally spread throughout devastated Europe. I do not mind telling the House that the Americans can pour dollars into this country until they run out of my constituents' ears.
We are now at the parting of the ways. As we have heard this afternoon, the invitation has gone to Moscow for a meeting between Molotov, Bidault and that oakiest of oaks, the present British Foreign Secretary. I hope, none more fervently, that out of this there will come agreement, but we cannot wait any longer. The Yalta and Potsdam Agreements have been ignored consistently, and Russia today is rapidly reducing countries like Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary to mere satellites of the Kremlin. Russia is obstructing all measures for a sane policy of reconstruction in Europe. The time has come to ask the hermits of the Kremlin where they stand. If Russia wants an economic reconstruction of Europe, she can get together with the rest of Europe to seize this economic lifebelt—for it is an economic lifebelt—which is offered us by Mr. Marshall of the United States. Procrastination is the thief of opportunity.
Although we British would prefer to work through the United States Economic Commission for Europe, as every attempt at European co-operation has been sabotaged by Russia, economic revival may best be served by the setting up of another body which cannot be affected by delaying tactics. The Soviet Machiavellian tactics of impeding progress in the interests of disintegration, chaos and anarchy thus could be frustrated. We want no quarrel with Russia, but we do not intend to let the common people of Europe become permanent pawns in a permanent game of power politics. To appease, to blink at the truth, to let Western civilisation perish and our people, the British people, starve because 13 men in the Kremlin disapprove, is the same madness as that which led to the, tragedy of 1939.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I do not propose to follow the last speaker, the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) in the very cheerful prophecy of disaster which he

2273
gave us in a very British speech, partly because I do not want to take very long, and partly because I think that the discussion of our relations with the Soviet Union, the status of the Soviet Union and the crimes they are committing in Hungary and everywhere else, is a barren subject about which we can all express our views without taking the matter any further whatever. The only position into which it might possibly lead us eventually is the one about which people are increasingly talking—a war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and that, I hope, may be avoided at every possible cost. I want to talk about something which I think is a little more cheerful, and about another main subject of this Debate which also involves the Soviet Union. It seems to me to be a subject the importance of which it is impossible to over-estimate, namely the Marshall plan. I think it is the most constructive and valuable suggestion that has come out of America since the war, and I would like to add a word of congratulation to the Foreign Minister on going so quickly to France. I am quite sure that that was the right thing to do, and I think it was also right to issue the joint invitation to Mr. Molotov. I hope that that invitation will be accepted, but I would like to say more about that later.
It is encouraging to think, not in terms of these political differences which have prevented any settlement up to now, but in terms of the things we really do need, to think in terms of the economic reconstruction of Europe, the 45 million tons of coal which America is sending at the present time, and the food which we shall not get unless some arrangement is made for the possibility of reconstructing our industries and agriculture with American assistance. I think it is encouraging to think in these terms, and to try to get away, for a moment, from the other frustrating political differences which have prevented progress up to now. The war, of course, was a most unequal leveller, and, if we think of Europe in terms of need, there is no doubt that the East of Europe suffered most in physical destruction and in loss of life, but we in this country suffered more in a different way, and in a way which, as Mr. Marshall pointed out in his speech, was perhaps more serious than the physical damage done elsewhere. We suffered the dislocation of our whole economic system, which might very well
2274
have plunged us into a deadly state of poverty from which we would have had the greatest difficulty in extricating ourselves. Our position in the next few years, dependent as we are on dollars, is indeed precarious.
At the other end of the scale, he United States came out of the war d much more prosperous Power than when she entered it, much more powerful, with a vast armament and industrial capacity, and a higher standard of living. I think it is worth noting that the United States has not been ungenerous with what she has had, and in the fortunate position in which she found herself at the end of the war. Mr. Dean Acheson, speaking recently in the United States, summed up what the Americans have done for Europe and other parts of the world since the war ended, and it amount's to the enormous figure of 18 billion dollars, not all of which has been spent. It includes the British loan, of which there is still some left, and includes allocations to the International Bank and other organisations which have not used it all. The figure of 18 billion dollars, of course, seems to me an almost meaningless one, and I only mention it because it compares with what Mr. Marshall is now proposing should be made available to Europe in the shape of 6 billion dollars a year in the next three or four years. Considering that a good deal of the 18 billion dollars which has already been allocated has not yet been spent, one might say that the Marshall proposal means that American aid to Europe will continue on about the same level as it has done since the war ended. The help of U.N.R.R.A., which depended very largely, though not exclusively, upon America, has been of invaluable use to many European countries and to the world generally, and the Marshall proposals, therefore, seem to me to mean that that help will go on for the next three or four years on about the same scale as it has done in the past.
Earlier, I used the word "generous, but I am not quite sure whether it is the right word to use. I think the Americans are a generous people, but I think we ought to recognise the fact that this proposal of Mr. Marshall is one which, like all good bargains and proposals, benefits both the United States and Europe. The Americans, according to Mr. Dean

2275
Acheson, are having this year an excess of exports over imports into the United States, and the excess this year is likely to be about 8,000 million dollars. If we compare that figure with what Mr. Marshall proposes to lend Europe, it means that the most part of that excess of exports over imports is going to be lent to Europe. The dollars are going to be provided to Europe under the Marshall plan. Therefore, the danger of Europe being unable to buy American exports, and therefore of drying up the American export trade and causing a slump in America, will be avoided by the Marshall suggestion.
That seems to me to be very sound. We in Europe have not the goods to export to America, and America's export trade has developed so fast that now the Americans are exporting four times as much as they did before the war. I will have a word to say in a moment on the question of what is ultimately to happen. The one thing which must happen is that America should make it possible for us to pay for exports in the future by lowering her tariffs and in other ways being more willing to accept imports into the United States.
Mr. Boothby: May I ask what indication there is at the moment of American inclination to lower her tariffs?
Mr. Roberts: The most spectacular evidence of which I am aware is in the opposite direction. That is another reason why we should point out the plain fact that if America has an export trade of double her import trade, she must either lend money or make it possible for us to repay her by reducing the obstacles to our selling goods to America.
Mr. Crossman: Or have a slump.
Mr. Roberts: Yes, or have a slump. I return to the question of whether the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe will play their part in connection with these proposals. I hope they will come in, but we must make it perfectly clear—and I have no doubt the Foreign Secretary will do so—that in this organisation there must be no veto and that if the Soviet Union is in she must be in on the basis of making
2276
the arrangement work. If she does not come in, I entirely agree with those who say that we must go ahead without her. We must make it clear now that the invitation has been sent to her, that if the rest of Europe are forced to co-operate more closely, it will be because the Soviet Union are unwilling to join with us. I hope they will come in. The need of the Soviet Union is very great. No country suffered more during the war in actual devastation than she did in the Ukraine. In his Harvard speech, Mr. Marshall said that the policy was directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. I believe that in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union poverty, desperation and hunger lead to dictatorship, to the loss of civil liberties and to an attempt to establish economic self-sufficiency. If the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe come in, there may be a possibility of breaking the present deadlock on the political level. It may be that through economic co-operation, it will be possible to find the means of re-establishing better relations between the East and the West.
Another reason why I hope Eastern Europe may come in is because the present accepted demarcation between Eastern and Western Europe—the line that runs through Germany, Austria and down to Trieste—leaves neither on the one side nor on the other side a reasonable economic unit. I hope that through the Marshall plan and European co-operation, we shall be able to begin to solve the German problem. The German economic problem cannot be solved without taking into account Eastern as well as Western Europe. We may fairly point out to the friends of the Soviet Union in all countries, and to the Soviet Union herself, that we shall suffer certain disadvantages if Russia comes in. We run the risk of delays due to the Soviet Union's difficulty on all occasions in making her mind up quickly and, what is more, the resources of America are not unlimited. If Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are included in the arrangement, we shall have to spread the jam much more thinly for the whole of Europe. We in England stand to get less from this arrangement, the wider the participation there is in it. In spite of that, if the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, under her influence, were to come in, it would benefit Europe as a whole.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: If the Soviet Union does come an, will the hon. Gentleman state whether or not that will lessen the influence and power which the Soviet Union has over the whole of Eastern Europe at present?
Mr. Roberts: I do not feel able to answer that question. It might increase the Soviet Union's influence; on the other hand, it might increase the influence of other countries, too.
Mr. Usborne: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if the Soviet Union were included, the Americans would be more or less likely to grant any aid?
Mr. Roberts: I think if the Soviet Union is in, there is a greater danger that Congress will turn down this proposal, and I think that is also a factor to be taken into consideration. But economically, and cutting out politics, the right thing to do is to have the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in. Political difficulties might retard progress, and I agree with those who have stated that it is vital to get on; but purely from the economic point of view, in order to re-establish Europe, and with the hope that through this economic co-operation eve may avoid the worst consequences to which some speakers have referred today, I hope the Soviet Union will be included. Whether they are or not, will, I suppose, depend largely on whether the European Economic Conference is used as a means of carrying out the scheme. One would hope that it would be so used, but if it were not we should go ahead with some other ad hoc organisation because I recognise the importance of speed.
We should not regard the organisation which is created in response to Mr. Marshall's suggestion as merely a sort of sharing-out club for surplus American production. If it were, it would fail completely to grasp the opportunity which is presented. The example of "Benelux," the Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg agreement, shows that once economic cooperation begins it very naturally develops. Starting as a customs union it has now, I understand, become an attempt really to integrate the economic life of those three countries. No doubt, on a small scale it is possible to go further than it is on a large scale. But, as I see it, we can use this opportunity of help
2278
from America to attempt to integrate the national plans of European countries.
We hear a great deal about the danger of Russia today. But the danger which beset Europe after the first World War was quite irrespective of the Russian or any other dictatorship at that time. It was that, by failure to co-operate, we developed national States, each attempting to create self-sufficiency, and failing to do it, and by tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions leading us on into the slump of 1929 and 1930, from which many other disasters followed. It had nothing to do with the danger of Communism, or of Stalin or of anyone else. I forsee that, unless we grasp this opportunity now, we may again take that bad and fatal road that we took after the first World War. Therefore, apart from any political considerations, this seems to me a very great opportunity, and I hope we shall have enough statesmanship in Europe to grasp if successfully.
6.32 p.m.
Major Cecil Poole: In view of the need for economy of time I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) will understand if I do not follow him in the economic aspect of this foreign affairs Debate that he developed in his speech. I am more concerned with the political side of the question. I must confess that, in the nine and a half years that I have been in this House, this is the first time that I have ever ventured to intervene in a foreign affairs Debate. I have on all previous occasions felt inadequately armed with material which would justify any intervention on my part. If I say that of the past I do not want it to be assumed that I speak today because I feel I know all that there is to know, or even a part of what there is to know about the situation which is developing in South Eastern Europe.
But I do hope the Committee will believe me when I say that I really think I am not quite as gullible as the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was in that delightful new edition of "Grimm's Fairy Tales" he presented to the Committee. I wonder if he really believes the things he said. Because if he does, he must be even more gullible than I imagined him to be, and his system of communications between North Hammersmith and Budapest must

2279
be the system of communications par excellence. One noticed that he was inclined to disregard and to disagree with "The Times" correspondent stationed in Vienna. He would not accept what "The Times" correspondent said about the situation in Budapest. Quite frankly, I should be prepared to agree with him; but if we cannot accept "The Times" correspondent in Vienna, we cannot also be expected to believe the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith in North Hammersmith.
I do not believe that any of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee or of any other party can accuse me of having an anti-Russian bias. If I ever had any bias it was very much to the Left. Like so many of my colleagues on these benches, I have spent many days, when it was a very unpopular thing to do, defending the Soviet Union—in the twenties, when it was a courageous thing to defend that country. It is to us a profound sorrow today that we have tailed to achieve a larger measure of understanding with the Soviet Union. I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary that we should achieve understanding with the Soviet Union. I think that that is a fundamental necessity, and that there is no hope of lasting peace in Europe until we have reached a measure of understanding with the Soviet Union. But it will not be a policy of retrenchment and retreat and appeasement that will give us understanding with the Soviet. Therefore, I hope that from this Committee we shall send a very definite and positive message to the Soviet Union, that we in this British Parliament view with the very greatest possible concern the operations of the Soviet in South Eastern Europe. We have to go on endeavouring to achieve that understanding.
Here, if I may digress for a moment, I would pay my humble tribute, as most hon. Members would like to pay a tribute, I know, to the patient endeavours of our Foreign Secretary in this connection. It is always a matter of very great regret to me when some of those people who sit on these benches find it is their duty to indulge in criticism of him which is so ill-founded. If they only knew the great harm which they do to the cause of international peace by some of their complete irresponsibilities in the House.
2280
magnified and reported in distorted form, as they are, in the Press of South Eastern Europe, where these things assume enormous importance in the eyes of those people who desire them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) will not mind my saying—perhaps, he will be honoured—that the question addressed to me most often in Budapest when I was there last month was the question from the Communist Party. "How large is the Zilliacus Party?" I was able to tell those who asked me that question, that the Zilliacus Party in Parliament was exactly one half as large as the Communist Party. But amongst many of those people there, who were hoping for and supporting Communist ideals in South Eastern Europe, there was a conviction that the hon. Member for Gateshead was leading some great movement in this Parliament, that sooner or later was going completely to overthrow this Government and the Foreign Secretary. Their hopes, their aspirations, their desires are fixed, nurtured and fed by the follies of some hon. Members who sit on these benches. I wonder if some hon. Members have any conception of what would happen to them if they indulged in the saline measures of criticism if they were domiciled in the country for which they have so much respect.
We have to go on with this job of trying to achieve an understanding with the Soviet Union. But you cannot build a house if, as fast as you build the front wall, some one comes round and knocks down the back wall. So you cannot reach international understanding if the undertakings and guarantees which are made are not observed. I left Hungary only a few days before the present situation developed. There are other hon. Members who have been there since. I did honestly endeavour to get a correct appraisal of the situation. I left full of fear and foreboding. I left that country also deeply impressed by the desire of the Hungarian people for the largest possible measure of friendship with Great Britain, the largest possible measure of friendship with the English, but also with this impression, that they had great fear lest it should be known that they were friends of the English. That is something this Committee ought to appreciate. If there are any hon Friends of mine who would dispute and challenge this statement—I am sorry that neither the hon. and learned Member for North

2281
Hammersmith nor either of the Communist Members of the House is here to challenge this statement—I would ask: do they not know that almost every Hungarian girl employed in the British Consulate in Budapest has been called for interrogation because she works for the British?
Mr. Stokes: Shame.
Major Poole: I ask hon. Members to believe this. These are not fairy tales. This was told me by the British Council representative in Budapest. I ask: Is this the act of an Ally? Is this the act of a friend? Is this conducive to an improvement in the relations between our two countries?
May I now he permitted a brief review of the political situation as it has developed in that unhappy country since its liberation? Tribute has already been paid by a number of hon. and right hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), to the magnificence of the Soviet feats of arms, and join in that tribute; though, I must say, it is a trifle disconcerting to read that apparently we played very little part in the victory, and that our efforts did not really count for very much. Nor can we deny that Russia, had she so chosen, after she had liberated Hungary, could have imposed and fastened upon that country a Communist dictatorship; for her troops alone were in the country, she alone was in complete possession, and she had been followed into the country by Moscow-trained political emigrés who had been driven out of Hungary since 1919. They came in, in the wake of the Army, and Russia had with her enough people to have started a Communist dictatorship in that country. This she did not do. I could advance many reasons why it was not done, but I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in so doing.
Russia governed the country in association with the Social Democrats and the Smallholders who were there, and had been there throughout the whole of the German occupation. And here let us remember this, that the resistance movement in Hungary during the war was a resistance movement of the Social Democrats and the Smallholders. It was no one else. On 4th November, 1945, it was decided to hold the elections. There is
2282
no one who will deny—it has already been said in this Committee—that they were the freest elections that had ever been held in that country, and most certainly the freest elections that had been held in South Eastern Europe. Nor can our Soviet or Communist friends grumble about the conduct of the elections, because they were conducted while the Soviet occupying troops were in the country. Nor was there any restriction in suffrage; suffrage was extended to everyone, to all persons over 20, including members of the Armed Forces, and to all citizens over 18 years of age who had fought against the Germans. The only people disfranchised in those elections were all war and political criminals. Each of the parties—the Smallholders, the Social Democrats, the Communists, the National Peasant Party and the other fractional parties—ran its own list of candidates.
The result of the elections was a surprise and a shock. We must get that result very clearly in our minds if we are correctly to appraise the situation. The result of the elections—conducted, as I say, in the freest possible manner, on the widest possible franchise—gave the Smallholders' Party 57 per cent. of the votes, the Social Democrats 17.6 per cent., the Communists 16.9 per cent., and the National Peasant Party 6.8 per cent. Therefore, the Smallholders' Party, the only anti-Communist party in the country, polled 57 per cent. of the votes. It polled those votes because it was the only anti-Communist party. That is the reason, and the only reason. It was not by virtue of its programme, nor by virtue of the sterling worth of the men that it has as its leaders. In fact, the Small-holders' Members of Parliament are—
Mr. Zilliacus Mr. Zilliacus rose—
Major Poole: Just one moment. Let me finish. The Smallholder Members of Parliament are political babes when compared with the highly trained Muscovites who have come into the Communist Party.
Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that his own statement condemns the Smallholders' Party, because it got all the votes of the former adherents of the Horthy régime and the Fascists?
Major Poole: No, it most certainly could not have got all those votes, because many adherents of the Horthy régime had, by then, signed the necessary document in prison, and had secured posts in the Communist political police. If the hon. Member would like proof of that, no doubt we can furnish him with it after the Debate is finished. I am going to deal with the Smallholders' Party frankly and, I hope, fairly. It is the only anti-Communist party in the country and, therefore, of necessity, they have attracted to themselves all classes and sections of society, all sorts of people who are anti-Communist, from the Left right over to the extreme Right. Of course, they have, if there are any left, some Fascists; although I imagine most of them are members of the so-called Freedom Party now. The Smallholders' Party was the only political party they could be in at the time of the election.
It was a great tragedy that there was no official opposition in the election. Had there been, the Smallholders' vote would have been very much smaller perhaps. But there being no official opposition, this was the only party to which the people could go. Therefore, we have no right to condemn the whole of this political party, because certain people who desire to be anti-Communists sought refuge in it during the election. It is, nevertheless, the fact that prior to the election all political parties had agreed that a Coalition Government should follow, and that there should be equal party ministerial representation in that Coalition Government. What was the ultimate result? I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, who will disagree with me on most of my premises, will agree with me on this. What was the result? We find that the Communist Party then had three ministerial appointments; the Social Democrats—who, I am sorry to say, are tied by their leader to the Communist party—also had three ministerial appointments; the National Peasant Party also had three; and the Smallholders Party, with 57 per cent. of the votes, also had three. So, in the Government which had charge of the affairs of the nation the party which polled 57 per cent. of the votes at the election had three representatives, against nine representatives of those who were supporting the Communist bloc in the
2284
country. If the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith wants to know how the Communists secured domination, political and economical, in the country, there is the answer in a nutshell.
Mr. Tiffany: To what date is the hon. and gallant Member referring now?
Major Poole: I am referring to the date of the election, 4th November, 1945. The agreement was made before that, of course, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany), who came from Hungary only last night I believe, ought to be fully appraised of that situation.
Mr. Tiffany: Is it not a fact, however, that the representation in the Government just prior to the crisis was not on the basis mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
Major Poole: The representation in the Council of Ministers responsible—for, of course, Parliament is, to some extent, a rubber stamp in Hungary at the present time—was on the basis I declared. It was at the time I left the country and is today; at least, it was in the last newspaper which reached me, which was only yesterday. I hope I shall not be interrupted again because, although I welcome interruptions. I do want to get on with my speech.
Up to this point very little fault can be found. The elections have been free and unfettered, and have given the wrong answer, unfortunately, from the Communist point of view. Now, what line of conduct began this crisis? It is a fallacy to suggest that this crisis is something which blew up a few weeks ago, or six months ago as someone suggested. I put it at 18 months ago. I was dating it from 4th November, 1945, the date of the election. The election having given the wrong answer, the crisis began. From that date began the Communist pressure to destroy the Smallholders' majority, and to achieve political and economic control in the country. Economic control has been easy to achieve. It is completely and fully achieved in Hungary at the present time, through the colossal folly—and I am afraid I have not time to go into it in detail—of Potsdam At the door of the Potsdam Agreement lies responsibility for the facilities given to Russia to achieve

2285
complete economic domination of Hungary, and she has done it wholly and completely.
The controlling interest in the affairs of the National Bank of Hungary is now in the hands of the Soviet Union, by their taking over of all German assets; and a Soviet representative now sits upon the board of the National Bank of Hungary. Anyone who knows the financial ramifications of the National Bank of Hungary knows that that gives complete and absolute control over the economic life of the country. Economic control was easy, but political control cannot be so easily accomplished if it is to appear respectable when there is an opposing party which has polled 57 per cent. of the votes at the election; there must be at any rate the appearance of respectability if confidence is not to he destroyed and undermined. Therefore, there has followed a quick succession of crises in an attempt to discredit the Smallholders' Party.
I have already spoken about the Smallholder's Party. I hold no brief for them—no brief at all. The only thing for which I hold a brief is fair play and honesty in these matters. This party has its Left wing, some of whose members are more progressive than those of us who sit on these benches, its Centre, and its Right wing, which is probably more Right than hon. Members opposite. It attracted to itself all those people who had no other party. The election results had given the Communists only 16 per cent. representation. The Social Democrats obtained 17 per cent., and the Peasant Party 6 per cent. The whole Communist bloc had achieved, therefore, only a 40 per cent. representation, and something had to be done about it. First of all, we find the original plot allegations. What happened first was that charges were made against members of the Smallholders' Party. Immediately the Smallholders' Party threw open its doors, and said: "If these people are guilty, and if you can produce any evidence, out they will go." They forthwith expelled every member who was implicated in the plot, but that was not sufficient, although it kept peace for a little while. I am not disputing the existence of a plot. I would be foolish to do so, because I have no evidence for or against it I can produce as much evidence against its existence, as any hon. Member can produce for it. I am pre-
2286
pared to accept that there were some foolish people—extreme Right Wing reactionaries—who were doing something which could be classified as subversive, but whatever they were doing, it was so ridiculously small that it could never have hoped to achieve any success. If they were guilty of anything like that, then they should, of course, be subject to arrest, to which the party made no objection.
Let us say that there was a plot. Then, surely, this was something which ought to have been brought to the notice of the Allied Control Commission. Surely, this was something in which we ought to have been taken into confidence. The Smallholders' Party, on every occasion when any charge was made against any of its people, has placed them unreservedly at the disposal of the courts of the country. When we come to the case of Bela Kovacs, the Secretary-General to the Party, the position assumes rather (Efferent proportions. His fellow members in the House refused to remove his immunity to arrest, because no case was made out and no evidence had been produced. The result was that the Russian commander promptly arrested Kovacs on a charge of espionage for Great Britain. If any hon. Member has heard of any other charge, I shall be happy to know about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith was at pains to tell us that in asking for the papers on Kovacs, it was as if we were asking for particulars about something which had been done by the office boy. There is much more in it than that. What does the Yalta Agreement, signed by the Soviet Union, this country and the United States, say? Section 5 states:
"The three Governments will consult the other United Nations and provisional authorities or other Governments in Europe when matters of direct interest to them are under consideration.
"When, in the opinion of the three Governments, conditions in any European liberated State or any former Axis satellite State in Europe make such action necessary, they will immediately consult together on the measures necessary to discharge the joint responsibilities set forth in this declaration."
Here, apparently, was a plot to destroy the Government and the country. Is not that a condition in a European state which makes action necessary? Is that not such a situation? Either there was a plot, and the papers should have been laid, or there

2287
was no plot, and there was no need to place any papers. The Communist Party cannot have it both ways. What happened in the case of Kovacs, who was arrested last February? No one knew where he was imprisoned. I asked the President, and he did not know. I asked the leader of the Social Democrats, and he did not know. I asked the Speaker of the House, and he said: "I do not know." There was a refusal to disclose his whereabouts to the British Minister. He was never tried, he was never charged, and there was no access to him for Allied representatives. There were no facilities for his defence, and no communication of papers with the British or the United States. If there were a good case against him, why hide him away? Why refuse to allow anyone to see him? Why disallow him any facilities for his defence, and why keep him for three months without bringing him to trial. It is indefensible.
In June, after three months, he makes his confession which implicates the Prime Minister and Varga, the Speaker. How strange it is that it took Kovacs over three months to remember this. I wonder what aides-memoires he was subjected to. I wish to God we knew the life of that man during those three months. How strange that he should remember that Nagy was guilty of a plot as soon as he had gone into Switzerland for a holiday. The day before he went on holiday, Nagy told me that the leaders of the other parties, the Social Democrats and the Communists, had pledged themselves that while he was away on holiday there would be no monkey tricks in the political field. How strange it was that M. Kovacs remembered all this about his former chief at this time. If anything was known against Nagy, then why was he allowed to leave the country? Why was he not arrested and brought to trial? He is a man for whom I have great admiration, and I shall be most surprised if anything is proved against him.
I have no desire to be dramatic in this Debate. I am satisfied that there exists in Hungary today, ways and means of making people say the things their opponents would wish them to say and I base that assertion not on anything anybody else has told me, but on personal conversation with those who have spent weeks in the dark dungeons of Andrassy
2288
Ut 60. Andrassy Ut 60 was the headquarters of the Fascist Arrow Cross Party and is now the headquarters of the Communist political police.
If there are some who scoff or would wish to prove me wrong perhaps they will tell me this: Where is M. Szente of Szekszard? This man was the headmaster of the local county school; he was also the lord lieutenant of the county. At the beginning of April he was called before the Home Secretary, and no one knows where he has gone since then. He has disappeared, leaving behind him a wife and three children. There is no one who can tell them where he is. I said that I would put a Question on the Order Paper in the British House of Commons, to see if we could not find out from our Russian friends where he was. The night before I left I received urgent representations to do no such thing, because the wife was afraid of what might happen to him, herself and her three children. This is the greatest blow at Parliamentary democracy. Every member of the Smallholders' Party has been requested to refrain from asking any questions on the fate of these people because it would embarass the coalition in Hungary.
Let those who will, deny these things. This is something which, to me, is unforgiveable. To me, in life the most precious thing is human freedom. Standards of living, more houses, do not matter if you take from human beings their freedom. My charge against the Communist Party, and the Soviet Union, is that they are taking freedom away. They are seeking to achieve by coercion what they are completely unable to accomplish by conviction. They seek to impose on these people a form of government which is alien to their desires. It is not our business to determine what form of government shall operate in any country, so long as that government is not a menace to the peace of the world, but we do ask that the government elected in any country shall be the freely elected government of a free people. We fought a long and costly war to prevent ourselves and others from being engulfed in the totalitarianism of Adolf Hitler, and we did not do that in order that we, or others, should be submerged by the new totalitarianism of the Kremlin.
Now we are to have new elections. There were free elections 18 months ago.

2289
The trouble is that at that time the people gave the wrong answer. Somebody challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) on the point that it was to be on a rigged register. I asked responsible political leaders, whom I will not name, as they may be subject to repercussions, whether the elections would be conducted on the same register as the last. They said, "No, we shall remove all the Fascists and reactionaries." If His Majesty's Government, when it goes to the country, at the next Election, were to remove from the register all reactionaries, there would be no representative Members on the other side of the Committee on that register. If we were minded to interpret reactionaries in the broadest sense that would suit our own political needs. That is true Communist philosophy. I asked a supplementary question the other day, when the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) turned round and called me a "crypto-Tory." Well, we have had "cypto-Communists," and I did not mind that, although I did think it was not very complimentary to the Tory Party. That is Communism. If you disagree with them you are a Fascist reactionary.
Mr. Thomas Reid: A Fascist beast.
Major Poole: I have been charged with being a reactionary by those who are sitting around me, but I am losing no sleep about that. I hope my words will go to Budapest. I make a fervent appeal to my comrades of the Social Democratic Party in Hungary, because I believe that they can save Hungary. But they will never save Hungary so long as they allow themselves to be tied to the apron strings of Rakosi and his Communists. I urge the rank and file to put before their leaders the realisation that that break must come. I urge them to throw over leaders such as Szakasits and his like, who are currying favour because they have sold their souls into bondage. Let them ally themselves with those of any party or no party who are prepared to fight for freedom. I ask the Communists to realise that political trickery, police domination, and terror can never form half so firm a basis of government as the free choice of a free people, freely expressed through the ballot box.
The Chairman: May I appeal to hon. Members to keep their speeches short? So far, we have not had one speech of less than 20 minutes' duration, and that has meant that some Members whom I hoped to call cannot be called.
7.5 P.m.
Mr. Linstead: I will certainly do my best, Major Milner, to fall into line with the request you have made. We have been discussing today the problems of a number of the smaller countries in Europe, but the background of most of the speeches we have heard so far has been the relationship between this country arid America and the Soviet Union. Whenever the relations between the great Powers become strained, we find that it is the small Powers, particularly those in the Balkans, which suffer. I have heard time after time from statesmen in those countries that it is only when the big Powers adjust their differences that there is a chance of the small Powers being able to lead something like a life of their own.
In the most moving speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole), to which we have just listened, he referred to the leader of the Communist Party, Mr. Rakosi. I had several conversations with Mr. Rakosi last year, and in one of them he said something which, I think, provides a key to the difficulties in the relations between Russia, the United States, and ourselves. He was talking about the difference between our conception of democracy and Russia's conception of it, and he said, "You in the West regard democracy as a decision by counting heads; we, on the other hand, regard a democrat as somebody who accepts certain democratic principles and who, once he has accepted those principles, is entitled to use any means he likes to get them adopted. Then the question of counting heads does not come into the picture at all." That is the fundamental distinction between democracy as it is understood by the Russians and as it is understood by us. It is largely because of the misuse of that word, by its being given two separate meanings, that so many divergencies appear. We have to realise that Hungary to Russian eyes has appeared as a Fascist country, run by great landowners and industrialists, a country which collaborated with the Germans and,

2291
finally, fought beside the Germans. Through Russian eyes, anything that savours of Fascism in Hungary should be rooted out on the principle that to be a Fascist is to be anti-democratic, any means being justified.
Hungary tried to reach a compromise between the American and Russian points of view of democracy in the elections of 1945 and she failed. The elections which the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield referred to revealed the impossible situation which arises when a country tries to adopt both the Western and Eastern democratic points of view. What Hungary did was to fix the composition of the Cabinet to please the Russians, and then have free elections afterwards to please Great Britain and the United States. The result was a Communist-dominated Cabinet, with a House of Commons having a substantial Conservative majority. That was the result of the attempt to marry two things which are fundamentally divergent.
As the hon. and gallant Member has rightly said, from that time onwards it became the clear policy of the Russian authorities to see that the House of Commons in Budapest was gradually brought under Communist control. There was an alleged plot against the State in 1946. Then came the allegation of the more recent plot involving at least two of the senior members of the Smallholders' Party. Like him, I have met some of these men, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the Secretary of the Party and the late Prime Minister of Hungary are two Hungarian patriots whose only offence has been that they put their own country first. They have tried, in an impossible situation, to satisfy both the Western Powers and the Eastern Powers, and the penalty that they are paying is the penalty for being patriots.
The Russians have gone so far in their reply to the note recently sent to them as to say that any appointment of a committee of inquiry into the situation in Hungary at the present time would be "a gross interference in Hungarian domestic affairs which is impermissible." They choose to forget what they themselves did in 1945. At the time of the 1945 elections an attempt was made by the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party to agree on a joint list of
2292
candidates. The chairman of the committee which attempted to draw up a joint list of Left Wing candidates was Marshal Voroshilov, at that time chairman of the Allied Commission and Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army. So it is the country whose chairman presided over an attempt to draw up a joint list of Left Wing candidates which now says that a committee of inquiry by the countries responsible for Hungary as a whole is an interference with Hungarian internal affairs.
What does Russia want in Hungary? I think this question can be answered very simply. Russia wants two things, two things she has not got over the whole of her country—sunshine and warm water, or, if you put it in a more practical form, she wants access to Africa and to the Mediterranean. If Russia were seeking to justify the moves she is now making, she would say, and we must bear it m mind, that Great Britain herself in the past has wanted sunshine and warm water, and has gone to Africa and further a field to get them. But the background to all these problems is the same. The difficulty that we are faced with is that those two conceptions of democracy result in two teams playing the same game on the same field according to different rules. Fundamentally that seems to me to be the problem of European politics at the present time.
There appear to be only three roads along which the relations between Russia and the Western Powers can develop. They can be allowed to develop as they are developing now, and that means that the two teams will continue to play the game according to two separate sets of rules. If that happens we are heading for chaos, because when two great nations go blundering along sooner or later some-body puts his foot in the wrong place and the avalanche is precipitated. The next possibility is to play the game according to Western democratic rules. Our problem of statesmanship is to persuade Russia that she can get what she legitimately requires, let us say access to the raw materials of Africa, round the conference table by playing the international political game according to Western democratic rules. The third possibility is to play the game according to the Russian rules. It is quite clear that that is the way along which we are now

2293
moving—that is, to a regime of power politics, which Russia has asked for and which she will inevitably get from those who have to do business with her.
There is only one other thing I would say. This is a miserable future for the people of the world to face at the conclusion of a great world war for the freedom of individual peoples to lead their own lives in their own way. I am one of those who believe that the solution to this problem is not to be found by way of power politics or even by way of the conference table, but that ultimately it will only he found by bringing the ordinary folk of one country into relation with the ordinary folk of other countries. It has been said that the Kremlin made the mistake of showing the West to the Red Army. I am not at all sure that that really was a mistake. Let us hope that when the conditions of life in Russia improve, the iron curtain will be lifted. I believe they are afraid at the moment to let people outside see the conditions in Russia, just as they are afraid to let the people of Russia see conditions outside. Once conditions of life in Russia improve, let us hope that the iron curtain can be lifted, and that ordinary men of goodwill of the various countries can then come together. Then I believe we shall be able to look for understanding between West and East. Without that, Europe is faced with a gloomy and miserable future.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. John E. Haire: I am particularly happy to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) because he and I had a most happy trip to Hungary together almost exactly a year ago. I find myself in more agreement with him than I am with a number of other hon. Members on my own side of the Committee. I regard him as a man who went over there, like myself, genuinely seeking the truth. We did manage to break down the iron curtain so far as it surrounded Hungary, and we did see there as much as we could, and we were given every freedom. It would be quite wrong for me to say, nevertheless, that I do not share the anxiety felt and expressed by so many hon. Members today with regard to the things that have occurred in Hungary during the last few months, and in the absence of all the facts—and I sincerely
2294
hope that all hon. Members are genuinely seeking the truth—I myself have deferred judgment, and I believe that the same attitude has been adopted by my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary. I sincerely hope that we can get at those facts, and then all of us will be able to form a judgment on the Hungarian situation.
I regret to say that such a degree of restraint has not been shown by some hon. Members on this side of the Committee today. I believe I have never heard in this Chamber a more right-wing speech than that which we heard today from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), and that at a time when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has invited Mr. Molotov to join with him in a second chance to recreate Europe. When the hon. Member for Wednesbury made that speech, every single Member of this House left of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) became a fellow traveller. It seemed to me that he looked around for a good line to follow, that he thought he had got a popular one. He then trumpeted it out to the full. Having got hold of this opinion, he then looked round for a few facts and figures to fit it. Hon. Members will remember that when I interrupted him to ask for some of his sources of information, he brushed me aside and said, "I got that fact where I got the rest." I asked him about the "Arrow Cross" representation in the Hungarian political police. I believe it is quite high. He quoted the round figure of 50 per cent. We are asking for the truth, and we are entitled to know these things. What is the use of the hon. Member for Wednesbury standing up in this Committee today and giving figures if he is not prepared to give any information as to their source? Are we not in fact asking, rightly in my opinion, the Russian authorities in Hungary for their documentary evidence and is the hon. Member for Wednesbury not, in fact, refusing us his documentary evidence?
The hon. Member for Wednesbury was one of our delegation to Hungary last year. I remember that he came with a number of very grave doubts in his mind. I sympathise with him because the first time that I went to Hungary—six months after the end of the war—I went with

2295
exactly the same sort of doubts. I was doubtful about the political police. My last visit to Hungary was in November last year. On all the three visits I have paid to Hungary, I have endeavoured to be scrupulously fair on these matters by seeking information from all sides. My impression was that conditions there were improving, and that the Hungarian authorities realised that mistakes had been made in connection with the political police in the early days. But the hon. Member for Wednesbury came with us with these doubts in his mind and was free to ask all the questions he wished, which he did. He signed this document, the unanimous report of the Parliamentary delegation which, in fact, confutes a great deal of what he said today. What has happened in the meantime?
Mr. Linstead: A hell of a lot.
Mr. Haire: A good deal indeed. But the hon. Member for Putney will surely agree that the situation has not so materially changed as to warrant the right-wing speech which we have had from the hon. Member for Wednesbury today?
Mr. Linstead: I join with the hon. Member in the second part of what he said. With regard to the first part, obviously very great events have happened in the last few weeks which, in my opinion, throw our report of a year ago very much out of gear.
Mr. Haire: I share the anxiety of the Committee in respect to the reception given to the British Ambassador in Moscow when he asked for this information. I think that courtesy and diplomacy demand that he should have been told that the document would be made available. But I cannot agree that he should be told that this was an unwarrantable interference in Hungarian affairs. I believe, as do other hon. Members, that His Majesty's Government, as members of the Allied Control Commission in Hungary, are entitled to that information. It was a breach of the Yalta Agreement not to give it to us.
Let us examine this charge of British interference in Hungary I have tried to encourage some interference in Hungary. Out of our strained resources, we gave Hungary a credit of £500,000. Only a few months
2296
ago, the House voted Hungary £200,000 worth of machine tools free of charge, and, subsequently, made a further offer of £200,000 worth at a very reduced price. We entered into a trade agreement with Hungary. Their food is very essential to us, and our raw materials are very essential to their industries. There are a number of British firms in Hungary, like Coates and Dunlop, which are essential to the Hungarian economy. Is that interference? Through U.N.R.R.A., we have given Hungary £1,000,000 worth of aid. Is that interference? And the British Council, in my opinion, is doing a magnificent job there.
There have been as well, two notes. Hon. Members will remember that in October, 1945, we sent a note to the Soviet Union at the time of the Soviet economic pact with Hungary, whereby four joint companies were set up. I happened to be in Hungary at that time, and I remember the concern that was felt there. I shared it at the time, but, subsequently, I realised that it was not so bad as we had thought. When I was in Hungary a year later, I asked the President whether he considered that the economic pact had been disturbing to the Hungarian economy. He said that without it he did not think Hungarian recovery would have been so rapid. That was his opinion. In retrospect, I saw that the agreement was not so bad as I had at first thought. I had thought that some of the Hungarian oil resources were falling into Russian hands. The American oil interests in Hungary amounted to 75 per cent., and the joint company which has been set up to control the remaining oil resources share 25 per cent. Therefore, the Russians, in fact, have 12½ per cent, of the oil resources in Hungary. I was very happy to discover that, and it set my mind at ease, in view of my earlier doubts in this connection.
We sent a second note last February to the Russian authorities on the occasion of Bela Kovac's arrest, about which the Committee has heard so much this afternoon. I think that note was justified, and that we have a right to information of that kind. My anxiety with regard to Hungarian affairs of the last few weeks has been increased because I, personally, knew the people in question. Last June, I had the honour to preside at a luncheon given in the House of Commons to the visiting Hungarian Cabinet Mission led

2297
by M. Nagy at which some of my hon Friends, including some of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were present.. I had a high regard for M. Nagy the ex-Prime Minister, whom I regarded as a moderate progressive, and who was very popular among the peasants in Hungary. He had been their organiser, and had been through the dark days of the earlier régimes before the war with them. I thought that he was a shrewd man. Nevertheless, I also thought that he was politically weak. It was obvious that in Hungary he was being torn one way and then the other, and it was said in Hungary by someone who did not belong to the Left Wing that the Prime Minister was strong enough to hold his own party together and weak enough to hold the Coalition. That is a profound remark. I believe that his failing in recent weeks was that he became a victim of the dollar myth, and was prepared to play American power politics. In this respect, he was indeed involved in a double game.
With regard to the other person in question, Varga Bela, I liked him also. He was a priest and an intellectual. When I last saw him in his office in Budapest, he had just come from burying his mother. In sympathising with him, he said to me, "My other mother, Hungary, is dying too." I think that he believed that. I believe he saw that there were forces at work which were attempting to overthrow the Coalition.
Mr. Blackburn: I hope that the hon. Member will remember—I do not want to raise this as a point of Order—that statements made in the Committee today may well be used in the trial of this man, and, therefore, we ought to observe the very greatest care in any utterances made; and, above all, no statement made in private conversation should be quoted.
Mr. Haire: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. But this particular man is out of Hungary. I want to come back to the question of Russian interference. I think that hon. Gentlemen, in trying to assess Russian interference in Hungary, should try to do so with complete fairness. I have inquired into this in Hungary, and have tried to determine the number of occasions when there was direct interference with the Hungarian Government. In our report last year, we came to the conclusion that we did not consider that
2298
there was day-to-day interference in Hungarian affairs. What are the examples of Russian interference? It is wrong to assume that there is much direct pressure exercised on Hungarian political life, because Russian influence is exercised through economic influence and through the Communist Party.
Let me give some examples of Russian interference. Soon after Russia entered Hungary as a liberating Army they set up a provisional Government. Did they select a Communist to be Prime Minister? No, they selected an Independent, General Miklos. Did they select a Communist Minister of the Interior? No, they selected Mr. Erdli, a member of the National Peasant Party. They attempted, at that time, to set up a Government which was fairly representative of the people of the country. After this Government came to Budapest there was very little direct interference. The land reform had been put through. The Russians wanted that carried out as quickly as possible because many of the feudal landlords had gone, the farms were not being cultivated, so the estates were carved up. It was a long-overdue reform, and it has been the whole basis of the social evolution of Hungary since.
What was the second example of interference. The hon. Member for Putney has already referred to it. It was just before the November, 1945, elections. On that occasion Marshal Voroshilov asked that the elections should be fought on a common list. He did not confine it to Communists or Socialists. He asked all parties to fight the election on a common list. The parties objected and at M. Tildy's suggestion—he was the then leader of the Smallholders Party—it was agreed to form a Coalition, whatever the result of the election. I personally believe that it was an extremely wise decision taken before the elections to form a coalition of the progressive parties in Hungary. The elections took place, and there were many hon. Members in the House, and many British people in Hungary, who believed that the elections would be "rigged."
These elections were free and fair. I spent a great deal of time studying them, and I believe that they were fought on a wider franchise than we have even in this country. In a country at that time occupied by a million Russians, no one thought that such a wide franchise as

2299
enabled men and women over the age of 20 to take part in the elections would be allowed with few political tests. The only political test at the time was whether a person had been an executive member of the Nazi organisation. In fact, those who could prove that they had fought against the Nazis in the Underground Movement got the vote at i8. Let us try to find all these facts and assess this matter with scrupulous fairness. The next bit of interference is the question of Press censorship. Some hon. Members think that there is a rigid Press censorship. There is no Press censorship in Hungary, but the Russians laid down that newspapers must not refer to occupation forces—our own, the Americans and the Russians.
Mr. Linstead: When the hon. Gentleman says that there is no Press censor- ship, I think that he will agree with me that an editor who slips up will find his paper is suppressed for a certain length of time. There is no official censorship, but every editor in Hungary is, in fact, acting as censor on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Haire: That is so, but no post-pub-lication suspension takes place. Not if he follows the conditions laid down by the Russians, which I have mentioned. I cannot believe that it would engender good relations between the Allies if every editor were allowed to play off the Allies one against the other. If hon. Gentlemen read the Hungarian newspapers, they would see that they are extremely critical of other things, and also of personalities, in a much more lively way than we are in this country.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: On this question of the Hungarian Press, I do not know if the hon. Member has seen the Hungarian Press during the last few days, but is he aware that there has been very little reference in the Hungarian Press to the speeches by His Majesty's Government on the coup we have been debating to- night? On the other hand, the widest publicity has been given to the questions of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), indicating that the House sup- ported the steps that have been taken.
Mr. Haire: In the Hungarian papers a full statement was given, (a) of the American protest; (b) of the Russian reply. I think that it was most unfair of my hon. Friend to make a remark of a
2300
personal nature because, in fact, if he has free access to these Hungarian papers he would see many references made to questions in the House by other hon. Gentlemen. I do not propose to detail the events which led up to this crisis. There are, however, two points which have not emerged in today's Debate. The crisis which arose in Hungarian affairs was not just a crisis based on the resignation of M. Nagy. The crisis developed on the question of whether to nationalise or not nationalise the banks. I can imagine that if some hon. Members opposite were in the Cabinet with some of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, it would be very difficult to come to an agreement on that matter. There was considerable difficulty.
On top of that, there has been the external pressure, and that is a point not brought out by any hon. Gentleman today. When President Truman made his speech in which he granted financial aid to Greece and Turkey, lion. Members will remember that he clothed his offer in a good deal of anti-Communist language. What do Communist Parties in other countries do when they hear, in fact, that dollar pressure is to be applied? President Truman said that after Greece and Turkey they proposed to give dollars to Hungary. Does anyone think that the Communist Party in Hungary are likely to react favourably to that suggestion? If they are politically acute, are they not likely to try and bar the way against that sort of thing? When President Truman offered dollars to Hungary he was creating a situation which inadvertently made difficulties in the Hungarian Coalition. These men have long memories. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) may not remember that after the first world war when there was a progressive Government in power in 1919, the Allies applied a food blockade. As a result the progressive Government was starved out and the way prepared for Admiral Horthy to enter the country and set up a counter-revolutionary Government, which was the first counterrevolutionary Government in Europe and which created the first political police force in that country. That was done because of the food blockade established by the Allies.
Mr. Blackburn: I suggest to my hon. Friend—and this is the last point I will

2301
put to him—that it is very unfair to compare the American dollar policy with the Russian policy because it is friendly to offer a man the loan of money and the contrary to throw him into a concentration camp.
Mr. Haire: I do not see how that reference arises out of what I have been saying about what happened to Hungary after the first world war. Some of the Smallholders were keen to accept this dollar loan, especially the Right Wing section. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has pointed to the fact that there are a certain number of doubtful elements in the Smallholders' Party, and I agree. Many of these would have been only too glad to welcome, this dollar aid. It was at that stage that it appears that M. Nagy went over to the side of those who were supporting American aid for Hungary, whereas the Communists at that stage were anti-American aid. Then the crisis in the Cabinet became intense. How much Nagy's resignation was due to Communist pressure and how much to the knowledge of his own culpability regarding the overthrow of the Coalition I am not going to speculate. Time and facts will supply the answer. Those Members of the Committee who believe that a Communist coup took place must see the situation in this perspective. There is in Hungary a Right Wing and a Left Wing which hate each other. Each believes the other would deprive them of complete freedom if they got to power. The Communist Party, of course, enjoys at the moment the support of the Russian Army, and, therefore, its influence is very much felt.
Mr. Linstead: On a point of Order. An appeal was made to us to cut our speeches to 10 minutes. I did that with very great disruptive effect. The result was that the speech which I might have made would have taken a very different point of view from that put forward by the hon. Member for High Wycombe (Mr. Haire), but, in fact, it was not made. On the other hand, he, in succeeding me, speaks for nearly half an hour, and gives a point of view which demands a reply. I feel one is entitled to draw your attention, Major Milner, to the length of this speech.
Mr. Haire: It is not my intention to speak for much longer.
The Chairman: That is not strictly a point of Order, but I rather agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). It is up to hon. Members themselves to control the length of their speeches. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have to listen to them whether they are short or long, but it is important, I think, in the interests of the general body of Members that the speeches today should be short, because of the great many hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Haire: I certainly accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and I will make the rest of my speech as short as I can. I am trying to make a point to the Committee which I believe is valid. Because of the balance of political forces in Hungary it is impossible, in my opinion, for a Communist party coup to take place. The Communists could not run the country without the support of the peasants, and the peasants do not, in fact, belong to the Communist party.
Mr. Stokes: Who has the machine guns?
Mr. Haire: In reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), if the Communists used armed force the peasants could immediately reply by refusing to-deliver produce and by setting up an internal food blockade. It has been done before. On the other hand, the Smallholders cannot form a Government of their own, because they do not have much working class support. They have very few workers in their ranks, and for that reason I believe that in Hungary—and all the political parties there agree—must be a continuation of Coalition Government.
What should Great Britain do in the present critical position? Might I suggest to the Foreign Secretary, arising out of the situation in Hungary and South Eastern Europe, that we must not allow Europe to split into East and West. I believe that spells war. Hungary, in my opinion, genuinely wants to be a bridge between East and West, not a battlefield. I believe we should support Hungary's application for admission to the United Nations Organisation. She is the first of the ex-satellites to apply. We should recognise that the present Hungarian Government is genuinely trying to raise the standard of life of the workers and the peasants by social reform, and I believe my right hon. Friend should encourage such a Government to participate in

2303
the Marshall plan with our guarantee that there will be no political conditions. Our prestige is still high in Hungary and most Hungarians regard us as the arbiter of their fate.
7.47 P.m.
Mr. Henry Strauss: I want to be very brief, though there are many things I want to say. In the long speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) to which we have just listened, the most remarkable fact that has to be noted is that nobody on either side of the Committee knows at this moment whether the hon. Member believes or does not believe that there has been a Communist coup d'etat in Hungary. I believe, with many hon. Members who have spoken on each side of the Committee, that the position we have to face today is of the utmost urgency. I do not believe that it could be better summarised than it was by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who a year ago said:
"It is better to have a world united than a world divided; but it is also better to have a world divided than a world destroyed.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1946; Vol. 423, C. 2031.]
What we face now is the question of the survival of European civilisation and a great many other things. Two problems have been mentioned in many of the speeches today, the economic problem and the political problem. In both our survival depends on getting rid finally and forever of the attitude, "Let's pretend," and trying to face the facts. I believe the Foreign Secretary has every intention of doing that. I was distressed that the hon. Member for Wycombe spoke of one or two speeches made on his own side of the Committee in a manner which looked as though it was intended to be a condemnation of those speeches. He tried to show that one of them was a right wing speech. Everyone knows that the question he should ask is, Was what was said true? Let me repeat words of Bishop Butler in a famous passage in his Sermons:
"Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be; why then should we wish to be deceived?"
The most important fact which we have to face is the continuation of Russian and Communist aggression which has obliterated freedom in our sense in country after
2304
country. It does no good whatsoever blinding ourselves to those facts or pretending that they have not happened. On the contrary, our survival depends on realising that they have happened. There are two possible opinions about the Communist leaders of Russia. One is they are incompetent men somehow managing through their folly to annoy their would-be friends among Government supporters, while the opposite view is that they are extremely competent men achieving exactly what they wish to achieve. I take the latter view. I commend to the Committee the adoption of the perfectly simple rule of the English common law that men are presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. When we observe Russian actions and their effect in the insecurity, the chaos and the hunger of Europe, let us at least believe that that may be precisely the intention. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he made his speech at Fulton, was criticised by some for the remedy he suggested, and by others for having made the speech at that time and place. I can follow, without accepting, both those criticisms, but I think that the one thing that nobody was able to challenge was the truth of the facts he then portrayed regarding the decline and passing of freedom in country after country.
May I now tell the Committee what has given me some pleasure and comfort in this Debate? I do not believe that on these vital issues of foreign politics and the survival of our civilisation and its values there must inevitably be division between members of the great parties in this country, apart from the one exception of the Communist Party. I, therefore, listened with great pleasure to the speeches both of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. 'Evans) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole). The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield said that he had not previously intervened in discussions on foreign affairs. I think his speech today was of great value, and I hope that he will frequently intervene on matters which he has Obviously studied and on which he speaks with knowledge and courage. There need not be these great differences between men who face the facts and who believe—as I think we do believe on both sides, with a few exceptions—in the rule of law and not in tyranny. [Interrup-

2305
tion.] I do not know if the hon. Member who is making unintelligible noises disagrees, but I would prefer the articulate agreement of the hon. Member for Lichfield to the inarticulate noises of the hon. Member who is now interrupting.
I thought that it was noticeable that, while the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield was referring to the fact that in what were admittedly free elections in Hungary the party from whom power has now been progressively wrested were able to command 47 per cent. of the votes, he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) who suggested that he had thereby admitted the weaknesses and the wickedness of that party. It is incomprehensible to the hon. Member for Gateshead that it is not a criminal offence to win an election in a free country by a free vote, but let me say this to him. I congratulate Mr. Molotov on the speed and closeness with which he follows the lead of the hon. Member for Gateshead.
Mr. Zilliacus: Does the hon. Member mean that Hungary should be allowed to vote herself back to Fascism, because the Allies have said that she shall not be allowed to do so, a fact which was also stated by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Strauss: I do not think that it is any proof that Hungary or any other country is voting itself back to Fascism because it elects by a majority men of whom the hon. Member for Gateshead disapproves. In the few moments that are left to me I want to express my agreement with points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) and others on the great urgency of the task that faces the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. I think that in speeches he has made in the country, and in the short intervention that he has already made this afternoon, the Foreign Secretary has shown quite clearly that he 'realises that urgency and intends to make every effort—after all the patience he has shown in many matters—to take such chance as there now is. I do not think there is quite the separation between the political aspect and the economic aspect that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have suggested. I do not believe that there is or ought to be the least chance of the American Government extending aid to Europe or to
2306
any countries in Europe, in any way that would conflict with their declared aim of supporting freedom and resisting the forcible suppression of popular Governments by minorities.
I think the vitally important thing to recognise about what has happened in the last two years is this. There have been two main methods: one is to rig elections in the countries behind the iron curtain, and here I do not ask any hon. Member opposite to accept the Tory view. Let him accept the views given by his own representatives on the Government Front Bench of the nature of the last Polish election. That was one method—to rig the election. The other was the method practised in Hungary of risking a free election and then, if it does not produce the result you want, taking no notice of it and progressively overriding the party that have a majority until finally you have a communist tyranny. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) spoke as though communism were a religion that could be met only by a religion. I agree that it has to be met by a real belief in freedom, but the risk in Europe is not that the communists will anywhere obtain a majority. The Communists are not even trying to obtain a majority in most countries; they are content with a minority and the capture of key posts by guile or the force of arms of an external power. It is quite useless to blind ourselves to those facts because on the timely realisation of them our survival depends.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who has shown great patience for a long time—whatever charge may be brought against him he cannot be accused of impatience—will say at last, that we will not blind ourselves to the facts. We know that there has been a Russian and Communist coup d'etat in Hungary. In passing let me say of the ludicrous speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that if every word he said about the plot and conspiracy had been true that would not afford a single reason that would justify the Russian Government in refusing the demand to show the documents to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, there were absolute obligations under numerous agreements to show those documents even without being asked.
7.59 P.m.
Mr. Piratin: I understand that this Debate arises from a request by the Opposition who, of course, take advantage of their right to choose the subject of discussion on a Supply Day, but having listened to most of the speeches, and particularly to that of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), I have been wondering why the Opposition asked for this Debate at all. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for about half an hour and said nothing of any value. For three quarters of that time he made attacks on five or six European countries, telling us in all cases of the activity of the Communist Party who were carrying out machinations to undermine those countries. I did not rise merely to say this, but I had to say it because so many of the speeches to which I have listened have been completely destructive. At least we hear strains of optimism at times from the Foreign Secretary, both in the House and outside. He expresses optimism and sets about the job which he can see is right with energy. From most hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon there was not one constructive proposition and not one atom of optimism. That, I must say in the absence of the acting Leader of the Opposition, was unfortunately initiated by him. In the half hour in which he spoke he had nothing but mischief to speak of.
I want to address myself to one subject. Last week when the Leader of the House said that we should have a Debate on foreign affairs today, I thought that the matter I intend to speak on would be the main basis of discussion and not recriminations about the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington and others went back months and years ago to discover so-called Communist machinations. I thought we were going to discuss the Marshall plan. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many serious hon. Members, that that is probably the most important aspect of foreign affairs that we could now be discussing. I have listened carefully to those who have referred to the Hungarian problem, including the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire). In my opinion that matter would have blown over in a few months' time. In the past we have had vituperation against Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, and so on, but those problems passed.
2308
However, our problem remains. The crisis is ahead. It is also a European crisis.
Therefore, the Marshall plan—I use the word "plan" for want of a more correct one—is the subject we ought to be discussing. We all know that Europe needs help. The United States undoubtedly took her part in the war, but we know that the battlefield was Europe. It would be a very great thing in the very best Roosevelt tradition if the United States now really helped in the reconstruction of Europe, but I have my doubts. I would very much like to believe the expression used in "The Times" leader today which says:
"By emphasising that every part of Europe falls within the scope of his present scheme he"—
that is Marshall—
"has indicated that there is no longer any thought of exercising political pressure or of erecting barriers, even defensive barriers, against any one country or group of countries."
I would very much like to believe what "The Times" leader says in that sentence, but I have my doubts. I recall that in March, President Truman made a statement and introduced his conception of assistance to Governments opposing Communism. Later, on 5th June, Marshall made his statement to which I am now referring. I would remind the Committee that it was a week or so after he made his original statement that the rather picturesque expression was then introduced in order to elaborate what he had in mind—that his statement "applied to all countries West of Asia"—an expression I have never heard before, but the American geographical point of view may be a factor. But that was one week after his original statement. Why was that not done in the first place? Was it because of progressive American opinion?
I would further remind the Committee, and this side in particular, that we should not forget that the Government of the United States—I am not now speaking of the American people but the dominant section which governs the United States—the Government of the United States is a big business Government which hates not only Socialism but any form of progress. While Marshall was two weeks ago making the statement which was so speedily taken up by our statesmen, his Government was at the

2309
same time introducing legislation against American organised trade unionists, legislation such as hon. Members of this House were happy to see ended in this country last year after 20 years. We must be careful what we are doing and saying. We must know the people with whom we are dealing. I am prepared to be objective and to make criticisms on all sides, but let us at least make an assessment of what is involved here in this American offer.
The Foreign Secretary has acted very rapidly, and on that alone he is to be congratulated. I likewise believe in speed. Now, as he said, we are waiting for the reply from Mr. Molotov for Moscow. Several hon. and right hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), seem already to have made up their minds that the Soviet Union will refuse to participate. Why should the Soviet Union refuse? They need help; no one will deny that. They need help as much as anyone, if not more so.
Mr. Warbey: The hon. Member has been reading the "Daily Worker."
Mr. Piratin: That is where one reads the truth. The Soviet Union needs all the help it can get. The Board of Trade knows quite well what her dilemma is and why we cannot advance our trade arrangements with her more rapidly, as we should all like to do. The Soviet Union would only refuse this aid if there were political discriminations and economic provisos. In his statement Mr. Marshall distinctly included a remark to the effect that the United States would retain its right to decide who should be excluded—not the United Nations organisation or some such international body, but the United States. We already know from President Truman's statement in March on what basis such discrimination should take place. I would like the Foreign Secretary to say something on the matter, if he knows. If he does not, would he investigate? Are there to be tags attached to these proposals? Will there be any kind of political discrimination and economic provisos such as we have had, to our regret, in the loan we accepted a year or two ago?
Mr. H. Strauss: With the hon. Member's support.
Mr. Piratin: I voted for it and in the same circumstances I would vote for it again. I would elaborate that point if I were not trying to confine myself to a few minutes. I stand by what I have done, but I regret that we have allowed the thing to go as far as we have done. We are aware of the difficulties created for the French film and other industries which the American loan to France has made. Those industries are heading for calamity. These are the things of which we must be wary. If countries in Europe are compelled to seek the aid of the United States and to seek it by submitting to American Imperialist domination, that would be a calamity which would hold up progress and will not help us. There would be one Power dominant in the world and it would not be this country or the Soviet Union. Some hon. Members might like to see that dominant Power at work. My observations about such hon. Members had better be made outside the Committee.
I say to the Foreign Secretary that Great Britain can play a great part. The lead already taken by the Foreign Secretary in visiting France and in sending a message to Molotov can be furthered in order to ensure that aid is given on an unqualified basis and without any political discrimination. He knows, better than most of us no doubt, that the United States needs to export as much as we need to import from the United States. It is as much an economic problem for them to export as it is an economic need for us to import. Britain can say now—and the Foreign Secretary can say it this very evening—that so far as we are concerned there will be no political discrimination and no economic qualifications attached to these credits. The Foreign Secretary should stand firm on the point that existing organisations shall be used. There is the European Economic Commission of the United Nations, to which Mr. Marshall made no reference whatever. In fact it is hardly active. Only yesterday did we see some report of it. So far few have known of its activities. However, it is the kind of organisation by which these credits can be advanced. We believe—I hope I speak for all hon. Members here—that it is a more appropriate

2311
channel through which these credits can be advanced and a more appropriate organisation for deciding how the loans shall be allocated, than unilateral action or a restricted ad hoc body.
I believe the Foreign Secretary could make a gesture in the right direction by indicating that he will do his utmost to ensure that this organisation is used for the purpose for which it was established. I will conclude by saying that I hope the Foreign Secretary, in winding up, will disregard some of the destructive remarks made in the course of several speeches today, and devote his main attention—without, of course, treading on any of the delicate ground indicated in his few remarks earlier today—to solving this problem so that there shall be no split in Europe. That is what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wants to see—
Brigadier Mackeson: No.
Mr. Piratin: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman also sick? [An HON. MEMBER: "Does he want a doctor?"] That is what, unfortunately, many others appear to be wanting. We can take this lead, as the Foreign Secretary has already shown he is prepared to do, but this lead must be such that no European country shall be in political subservience or economic debt as a result of it. The United States has a responsibility to the world. It is a continuity of its wartime responsibility, for it is in a unique position. We can stand firm and see to it that this responsibility is carried out so that the whole world progresses, but not under the domination of American Imperialism.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: I would say at the outset that I have given no pledge whatever with regard to time, but I recognise once again the deplorable necessity of telescoping, cutting and mutilating what I had hoped would be rather a good speech. That seems to be the fate of all of us who are called late in a Debate. I have tried for the last two years to get in earlier—[Interruption.] We have had an interesting Debate today. I think the speeches of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield
2312
(Major Poole) greatly impressed the Committee. They spoke with authority, they spoke with knowledge; and I was particularly interested in the reaction of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield, to his contact with a thing that we had hoped had been done away with many years ago in Europe—the terror. The terror is a nasty thing. It was clear that the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield had come right up against the terror. He did not like it; and I think there are few hon. Members on either side who like it; but it is a fact in Europe today. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been there a long time."] There was one quite spontaneous remark, in an aside of the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), which absolutely fascinated me. He was defending the recent events in Hungary, and somebody made an interruption about some gentleman and said he had better be careful because what he said might be used in evidence against him. The hon. Member for Wycombe then said quite spontaneously, "He is out of Hungary now; he is safe."
Mr. Haire: The hon. Member will remember I did not deny that the political police existed in Hungary today.
Mr. Boothby: The speech that interested me more than any other was the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I must say that with every sentence that passed my sympathy with the Foreign Secretary grew, because this must be the sort of thing he has to hear from Vyshinsky day after day, night after night, at every conference that he has ever attended for the last two years. I suddenly realised the agony the right hon. Gentleman must have gone through; and I appreciated for the first time the enormous patience that he has displayed. That was the defence.
There is really no mystery about Russian objectives or the methods by which they intend to achieve them. I wish to lift the Debate a little above and beyond the specific case of Hungary. It was quite obvious to anyone who was at the San Francisco Conference, as I happened to be in the capacity of a journalist, what the Russian objectives were. They have not changed their mind since.
Their immediate objective was, and is, to cash in on victory by the widest prac-

2313
ticable extension of Russian power in regions which they believe to be essential to them. Their long-term objective was, and is, the establishment of totalitarian Communism, first in Europe, then in the world. I do not blame them for that; it is a legitimate objective. But we might as well face up to it. Much as I detest their political views, I have the greatest respect for the real Communists, for the genuine brand, "the real McKay" as we say in Scotland, the Kremlin boys, amongst whom I include the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), who does not disguise his views and feelings. I wanted them as allies in 1937, 1938 and 1939. I am on the record about that. I still think that if we had got them as allies then the second World War would never have broken out. I was one of the hon. Members of this House who was friends with them, and who went to the Soviet Embassy, when it was not at all a popular thing to do in this country, long before the outbreak of the last war. Nor do I under-estimate the magnitude of the effort they made in the Kremlin, with some assistance from the valiant Russian people, when they found themselves, with some reluctance, driven into a war upon our side.
All the same, it would be a great pity, in my submission, to have any illusions about them. Communism is not only a creed, it is not only a religion, it is a very well thought out plan of campaign. The first step is infiltration. The second is the capture of the key point, which is, in almost every case, the Ministry of the Interior. Then comes the third, the purge; and then there is what hon. Members have referred to, the "rigged" election. Finally, there emerges, in all its full glory, the police State. That is the method they have used, and by that method they have established a firm grip on all Europe east of the Stettin-Trieste line. We had better face up to that. It is no great condemnation; that is the Communist tactic; that is the Communist objective. If I was a Communist I should be all in, favour of it, and doing these things.
They are now counting upon two things. First, the continuation of disruption, disunity and poverty in Western Europe. Hence their refusal for the last two years to make peace. They know that sooner or later economic integration
2314
in Europe is absolutely essential, it Europe is to survive. They hope that it will come from Moscow, just as the Nazis hoped before the war that it would come from Berlin. I think it is not untrue to say that if they had relied upon Schacht instead of the German General Staff, it would have come from Berlin, right through the Continent of Europe, without the firing of a single shot. The economic integration of Europe will certainly come from Moscow unless the Western democracies make up their minds to get together within a very short time.
The second thing that the Communists hope for is an American slump. Unless the Americans can somehow get rid of their surplus production in the form of exports, either by means of investments, or loans, or both, a slump will come sooner or later. All that can be said is that, during the last two years we have done everything we can to make the Kremlin dreams come true. We have not integrated Western Europe; and we have not made use, as we could have done, of the capital of the greatest creditor nation in the world.
Germany is the crux. I hate to say this in the presence of the Foreign Secretary, but I think that our record in Germany during the last two years has been one of steady and disastrous failure. We have there a sullen, starving bankrupt community, a fertile breeding-ground for Communism, and an area of desolation and decay from which an infection could easily rise that would spread and bring all Europe to ruin. I think that the present Government are in some measure responsible for this because for too long—until, in fact, only the other day, the right hon. Gentleman averted his eyes from the German tragedy. I would remind the Committee that we have got a direct and inescapable responsibility for Germany; and that so far we have failed to discharge it, as I think everybody in this country, whatever their feelings about Germans as such may be, would have wished to see us discharge it.
Let us face the facts before it is too late. The diversity of the elements which have gone to build up Western European civilisation have resulted in a genius for compromise, which is the practical expression of toleration. I want to emphasise that word, "toleration," because

2315
the Communists are quite uncompromising, and they do not believe in toleration. That is the measure of the division between us. As Lord Vansittart has said, they are hard masters. Nothing less than 100 per cent. subservience will do, as some of our fellow travellers will find if they venture upon a 5 per cent. reservation.
I said just now that we should try to face the facts. Here is the first fact we must face. Totalitarianism is the precise antithesis of everything we mean in this country by democracy. Therefore, there can be no spiritual or intellectual compromise between the two, without hypocrisy or something worse. By a policy of shameless appeasement, by abandoning a great many people to their fate, and a great many principles, we could doubtless do a political deal with the Soviet Union at present. I say it would be a dirty deal, and a temporary deal. It would not do us any good. You really cannot do a deal with slavery and terror which, in the long run, pays any very good dividends.
The second fact is that the political division of Europe exists. It is not of our making. God knows we have struggled to avoid it. Nor is it wholly of Russian making. It is implicit in the circumstances and conditions of our time. We cannot avoid it. By adopting an entirely different technique we can, I think, one day collaborate with the Soviet Union in an atttempt to achieve the economic reconstruction of Europe; but not if we persist in wilfully blinding ourselves to the true facts of the situation. I have quoted before, and I quote again, a very practical and interesting observation by a Frenchman, Professor Saurat, in "The Times" some months ago. He said:
"Those who profess to try to avoid this division close their eyes to the fact that it is now in being. Our problem is to make the two camps collaborate. In order to collaborate both must exist. Western Europe must be created. We have the elements of the solution, if we have the will."
I myself am an unrepentant regionalist. So, in practice, are both the Americans and the Russians, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. They have built their own regions already—the Americans on the continent of North and South America by the Act of Chapultepec, even before the San Francisco Conference was summoned, and the Russians in Eastern
2316
Europe. Hitherto, both the Americans and the Russians have combined to prevent or hinder the regional economic organisation of Western Europe—the, Russians by uncompromising political hostility, such as has been expressed just now by the hon. Member for Mile End; and the Americans by a short-sighted insistence upon non-discrimination in trade, which I believe they are now rapidly abandoning. In the modern world there are two great forces at work. One is the force of economic nationalism, which is very strong indeed. At the same time, running parallel with it is the force—I should not say the force but the necessity—of economic integration.
There will not be any solution, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, along the lines of multilateral free trade between capitalist countries all over the world, with the Soviet Union as an eager participant. That is not likely. The Soviet Union is a closed economy; and the United States are not so wide open as all that. I believe that, on this economic aspect, perhaps the wisest thing of all has been said by a very senior politician in this country, who, I think, sees further on many subjects and issues than most of us in this House, and whose absence from this House I deplore. I refer to Mr. Amery; and I would like to quote this passage:
"The solution of the paradox lie5, not in flying in the face of the whole tendency of modern thought in order to restore a 19th century internationalism, nor in acquiescing in the stifling of progress by existing national boundaries. It lies in groups large enough to satisfy the technical requirements of modern production, and yet also sufficiently held together by some common ideal, some permanent co-operative purpose, to enlist the forces of economic nationalism on their behalf."
I believe that to be profoundly true; and I believe that it applies, above every other region, to Western Europe.
Two crises of unexampled magnitude are now coming rapidly upon us. The first is a political crisis, caused by the shock political tactics of the Russians in Central Europe; and the second is an economic crisis, caused by the continuing economic collapse of Western Europe and the shortage of dollars. If I am convinced of anything in this world, it is that the first crisis will not be solved by a policy of appeasement; and I think Mr. Marshall has now pointed a way to a solution of the second. I presume that he has n mind a revival of the combined planning mechan-

2317
ism which worked so well in the war, accompanied by a kind of Monnet plan for Western Europe.
I beg the Foreign Secretary to believe that there is no stronger case on earth than there is for the economic integration of Western Europe at the present time. All the countries of Europe are committed, to a greater or less degree, to a policy of planned economic expansion; and we are all dependent, to a high degree not only upon foreign trade, but upon trade with one another. It would be difficult to conceive of a stronger case for purposive economic integration.
Speed is the essence of this contract; and it is for this reason, amongst others, that I regret the invitation sent out, at this stage, to Mr. Molotov. Why do we want to put Mr. Molotov on the spot at the present time? He does not like being put on the spot; and he kicks when he is placed on the spot. If he refuses this invitation, it is bound to exacerbate feelings on both sides still more; and, if he accepts it, he is bound to resist what he must regard as the encroachment of dollar imperialism upon Western Europe, and indeed upon the whole of Europe. That is the real meaning of the observation of the hon. Member who spoke before me when he said that we must revive the European Economic Commission—that classic weapon of delay. There we have the whole bag of tricks; and if Mr. Molotov and Mr. Vyshinsky have the chance of using this instrument, we shall be no further on in June, 1948, than we are now. That is why I am afraid of it; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say something on this point when he replies. I believe this invitation is premature, because I believe passionately that we shall never come to terms with the Soviet Union until Western Europe has been created; the United States of Western Europe, and nothing less. As long as the Kremlin thinks the whole continent of Europe is about to fall into their grip like a ripe plum, the struggle for power between Communism and democracy in Europe will continue. Meanwhile the invitation has been issued, and we await the reply. Perhaps we shall get it from the right hon. Gentleman. I will content myself with making one appeal—that the chosen place of meeting shall not be Munich.
I do not believe that the emphasis that I have placed upon the desirability of the
2318
economic integration of Western Europe means that we should ever lose sight of the ultimate goal of European unity. Many sneers lately have been slung at the United Europe Committee; but I suggest that it has given to the peoples of Europe an ideal which will not fade with the passage of time, and that from the impetus given by the committee derives the Fulbright resolution in Congress and also the Marshall proposals. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has not been conspicuously wrong over the past decade in his diagnosis of the ills of Europe. Whatever we may think of him here, millions of people on the continent of Europe regard him as the man who, above all others, rescued them from slavery. He carries great influence. Many epithets have been applied to my right hon. Friend at different stages of his career, but there is one which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made to fit, and that is the word "collaborationist," intended in a derogatory sense. When at Margate the Chancellor of the Exchequer described those members of his own party who are members of the United Europe Committee as "collaborationists," he was guilty not merely of what, I think, is a narrow, partisan, prejudiced, political view; he was also guilty, if I may say so, of a piece of damned impertinence. Whatever we may say, neither my right hon. Friend nor the members of that committee are collaborationists or ever have been or ever will be.
I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, and, through him, the country have a chance, and perhaps the last chance, to take the lead in saving the whole of Europe from the abyss upon the brink of which she now trembles. We ought to have taken that lead before. I say to the Government: "Go forward with courage and determination, and prove, as you have proved in the case of India, that Britain can still dare to be Great."
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Henry Usborne: I am extremely grateful for having been given this opportunity of following the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I have been awaiting such an opportunity for a long time. Before I deal with the points which he has made, I would like first to make an apology to the Committee

2319
because I find myself very confused. It seems to me that I have approached these problems on an entirely different plane from that upon which all the other speakers in this Debate have approached them, and I cannot easily make contact. For example, almost every speech I have heard has contained a certain amount of what I believe to be accurate analysis, together with a substantial proportion of complete woolliness. The truth of the matter today is that we are already at war with Russia. It seems completely alb-surd to take the point of view that we ought, as it were, to address a diplomatic note indicating our grave concern at some action which may have taken place in Hungary. During the war, when Rommel was advancing in North Africa, I cannot conceive that any Member would have got up and, in the tone of voice which I have recently heard, expressed indignation and requested that a note be sent to Berlin expressing grave concern. The fact is that we are at war. Further, that war has continued ever since the beginning of recorded history. It is our job now to end that war and to make peace.
I believe the confusion arises out of the definition of the nature of peace and, by contrast, the recognition of the nature of war. It seems to me that most hon. Members speak of war or think of war as the incident where the shooting takes place. But one thing we should surely have learned is that war takes place in a great many different ways, that the shooting is only the last phase of it, and that all the preceding stages are designed to avoid that last phase, if possible. I believe that, at the present moment, we are witnessing in the world today several phases going on at the same time. One side may be playing the economic war; another side the political war; but the fact is that we are all playing the war game in one phase or another, precisely because there is no peace.
What is peace? Unless we know what is peace, I do not see how we can expect to get it. I believe that there has been a profound muddle in the minds of most people for very many years as to the nature of peace. It seems to me that the nature of peace is quite easy to define, and that if we know it, we shall know precisely what is to be done to
2320
attain it. Surely, peace, in fact, is that state of affairs which obtains in a community where law prevails. Where law prevails peace obtains. When law breaks down war breaks out. In the past, down the long years of history, the world has been such a large place that it has never been possible to have world law; but there has always been world anarchy. We have been so used to it for centuries that we believe that it must continue; but science, in the last 50 years, has now so shrunk the world out of all recognition, precisely for that reason, and because science has made the art of war so devastatingly horrible, we must now learn the lesson—the lesson that we have always known in a small way—and apply it without delay to the whole world. Always, in all communities, it has been proven, over and over again, that we can get peace only on the basis of keeping the peace, keeping law and order; and then there is peace. We can keep peace only on the basis of law and order. Without law, we cannot keep peace. There is no peace where there is no law. For that reason internationally today, there being no law, there can be no peace.
It is not the slightest bit of good pretending that we can come to an arrangement with Russia, or with America, or with any one else. No alliance in history has ever lasted; nor will one ever last. This time we cannot afford to make any alliance which fails, because the next failure, so far as we are concerned, must be the last failure. Therefore, it seems to me absolutely urgent that we discover now what must be done—there is only one thing that must be done—and then get around to finding the way by which it can be done. I want now to turn from that—the recognition that what must be done to get peace is to make law, the recognition that peace is not something that we can keep like a pet monkey, that it is not static, that it is the dynamic by-product of stable government—and having recognised that fact, which, I believe, is incontrovertible, I want to pass on to the argument for a United States of Europe.
It is proposed that we should get federal integration. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen wants the political integration of Western Europe. It would indeed be a great step, but would it then be possible,

2321
to use his words, to make a form of collaboration with Russia? I take him to mean by this, that we could then get peace. Because surely, what is in all our minds today is the finding of some method of keeping peace. Is that collaboration possible. I believe it was possible a little while ago. I do not believe it is possible any longer today. I believe there is now only one solution, namely, the global solution, and if we cannot take it we face complete annihilation and disaster. I do not think anything else than the whole step is possible. We face a chasm, and we have to jump right over it. We cannot put one foot forward, for that does not produce the answer.
Why is that? First, the actual war, the real basis of the war, is between the only two big sovereign States existing in the world today. There is the power complex, on the one side of the U.S.S.R., and upon the other side of the U.S.A. Those are the two centres of gravity, as it were, which produce the polarism which is now pulling the rest of the welted in half in their respective camps. They are the only two sovereignties that count, and unless we can resolve those two sovereignties into one single world sovereignty we will not find a solution to the problem of peace. That is what has to be done. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen has suggested that it is possible to place a large block, as it were, in between those two polarisms, and that that would be a step in the right direction. I deny that that is now possible; and I want to point out that I do not think it is even advisable for the following reason. Two big power complexes are now supreme in the world. If we could get a United States of Europe, for some years it would be dependent upon financial resources which must come from one or other of those two. As a result of the Marshall statement, it is evident that it would come from the United States of America. The fact is, the United States of Europe would be dependent economically upon an outside source. It would, therefore, be recognised in that United States of Europe that the people there were dependent upon an alien hegemony at least for a certain length of time.
Let hon. Members bear that in mind. Let them recollect that we should have a community which would recognise that it
2322
was dependent upon an alien hegemony. Social Democracy, or Socialism, all that we stand for, is incompatible with the recognition of an outside alien hegemony. For example, there is Greece. The British Foreign Secretary nobly tried to develop democracy in Greece; but the fact is, as every Greek knows, and knew then, that Greece was not independent; that its destiny was not in the hands of the Greeks. The net result is, that in those communities which recognise that they no longer have the freedom which we in this country still think we have, but which they know they have not, the social democrat who believes in democracy just pulls out of politics; the middle way ceases to exist, and the field is left in the hands of the extremists.
In Europe, again, if we get a United States of Europe the middle way politically will die out, and we will get politically two extremes: the one of the Right and the other of the Left in control of the field. Is that a price we are prepared to pay for the temporary revivement of the economic loan which may come? Secondly, the amount of money put into Europe by the Americans will always be, to a large extent, constantly siphoned off by the strategic fears which will be produced by the result. I deny, therefore, that it is politically possible to get a United States of Europe because of the polarisms of the two big Powers. I believe, also, that were it possible to get it, it would spell the death knell of Social Democracy and Socialism. I state that, not because I would not have liked to see a United States of Europe, economically and politically. I should have liked to see it; but I believe it is now too late to get, except at a price which I deny that mankind can now afford to pay.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I intend to make the shortest speech of the day, so that I shall not encroach on the time for the concluding speeches. Therefore, I feel, with some confidence, that the Committee will forgive me if I do not follow the very interesting but rather abstract speech delivered by the hon. Member for Acock's Green (Mr. Usborne). We have heard, of course, a great deal about the special problem of Hungary in today's Debate, but the problem of Hungary simply typifies the greater problem in the minds of people all over the world

2323
when they consider questions of foreign policy today. The question is this: is the world, after the sweat and agony of war, to reach a state of freedom, democracy and the politics of plenty? Or is it to lapse into a seige economy, leading to the inevitable and catastrophic conclusion of war? That, surely, is the problem with which foreign affairs is concerned today.
We can be quite clear that the problem is not one of liberty with scarcity, on the one hand, against tyranny with plenty, on the other. If that were so, it might, for some people, be a harder choice; but the history of this century has shown conclusively that the totalitarian or managerial state, though it may mean abundance in the short run for the Herrenvolk, inevitably means poverty as well as serfdom for both satellites and victims. The position is really this: you can, if you are unlucky or incompetent, have freedom and democracy without necessarily having prosperity, but you cannot, in the long run, have prosperity without a measure of freedom and democracy, and the initiative and enterprise to which they give rise. The issue, therefore, is a straight one; and the challenge to prosperity and to liberty is the same, and comes from the same quarter. We have been asked not to blink the facts, and it is clear that the challenge of these things today comes from Russia. If we look at the facts, it is clear that in the last two years there has been far greater Russian expansion than was achieved by Germany in the whole of the 1930's. The Baltic States, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania and now Hungary have all been drawn within the Russian zone of influence. Czechoslovakia is in the balance. Greece and Turkey are threatened; and even France and the Low Countries live rather precariously under the lengthening shadows of the descendants of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. The advance of German expansion before the war was called by the man who did most to overcome it a policy of "step by step": but this is surely expansion at the gallop.
It is not only in Hungary that we can see evidence of these things. In Bulgaria, for example, there is a steady increase in the number of the State police and of the army; and many officers are trained in Soviet establishments. Turkey,
2324
which is determined to retain its independence and integrity, is forced to keep an army on a war footing with a legal state of seige in the neighbourhood of the Straits. The pressure behind all these events is the Russian urge—for whatever reason—to expansion. We found, in the case of Napoleon and Hitler, that
"New Presbyter was old Priest writ large."
They followed the expansionist policy of their monarchical predecessors. We hope that history will not have to record, as now seems likely, that the Government of Stalin is following the policy of expansion of Peter the Great. I should like, in this connection, to refer to a passage from the January number of the "Quarterly Review," which says:
"Their policy of expansion is ever accompanied by an ennobling catchword which deceives even themselves. With Alexander I the idea was Messianic; it found expression in the famous Holy Alliance; but it carried the Dominion of Russia Westward and Eastward. The Tsars after him invoked the racial theory of Pan-slavism, which gave them an excellent reason for intervening most actively in the affairs of the Slav nations of the Balkans. The tenets of Communism and the championship of all the 'downtrodden' races today give the pretext for Russian agents to get to work both inside foreign nations and among the races dependent upon them. It need not be assumed that these reasons for interference in the affairs of other countries are all pretext and humbug."
Nevertheless, I think it is clear that the ideological influence of Communism in Russia is now irrelevant, though it gives them a very good advance base in other countries for the purposes of expansion or infiltration. I consider that at this juncture we must try and avoid the mistakes which we have made in the past. In particular, I think that it is wrong that we should attribute to a totalitarian regime—because it is totalitarian—an efficiency and, unanimity beyond that which we claim for democratic Governments. We made that mistake about Germany and Italy before the war, and we were quite wrong. We know now that beneath the smooth and glittering surface of totalitarian Governments there are cross-currents and sometimes violent maelstroms, none the less real for being unseen. I believe that in Russia, not only among the mass of the people, but in the Politibureau and the Orgbureau there are elements counselling prudence and moderation, as well perhaps as elements who claim that the

2325
irresolution of the democratic Powers is a justification for pressing on. We should so conduct ourselves as to strengthen the counsels and arguments of the moderate elements within the totalitarian Governments. We should do that by being resolute in matters of international politics, by making it clear beyond a peradventure that on the great questions of liberty, democracy, and self-determination of peoples we shall not palter. We should do it also by associating ourselves freely and fully in all the measures, of which Mr. Marshall's proposal is the latest and the most hopeful, which give a chance of raising the economic standards of Europe.
We are told that disease and revolution know no boundaries. That is true. But the converse of that is that prosperity also knows no boundaries. In no country will the common people be willing to accept an unnecessarily low standard of life if they see, over the border, a higher standard of life due to greater freedom and more liberal institutions. I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who said that Mr. Marshall's offer would act as a great magnet of attraction. I think it can do much to put Europe on the broad highway of prosperity and social harmony, and save it from plunging back into the dark and forbidding cul de sac of carnage and war.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Blackburn: I think the Debate today has been extremely good on the whole, and has been marked by two main factors. The first is that apart from one or two speeches made by Members who, in effect, were stating the point of view of the Soviet Union, almost all speakers have been wholly behind my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his attempts to achieve a pacification of the world. I am absolutely convinced that the Labour Party as a whole, as was proved at Margate, are even more behind the Foreign Secretary than Labour Members of Parliament, and that the country is more behind my right hon. Friend than members of the Labour Party proved at Margate. I do not believe that there was ever a Foreign Secretary who commanded such support from all sections of the people.
2326
I am glad that those Members who have been critical of my right hon. Friend, not at all from the purely Communist or semi-Communist angle, have been silent today. I hope they are thinking things over. The Foreign Secretary has said that he was stabbed in the back by some of his colleagues. I think there has been some stealthy treading in stockinged feet, and I was glad to note that when the Foreign Secretary half turned round they ran away. I am sure we shall all compose our differences, and I shall be very glad to hear them realise their great mistake, which has been to pursue a policy of anti-Americanism and advocate a policy of neutrality as between America and Russia. Our duty is to make up our own minds on the merits of the particular issue as it presents itself to us today.
Very shortly, there are three great dangers which threaten us today. In the last foreign affairs Debate I said two, and now I say three. The first is the economic collapse of Europe, the second is the advance of totalitarianism or the police State across Europe, and the third is the danger of the atomic rocket and other weapons of mass destruction. All those three dangers are inter-related one with the other. The Marshall initiative is, of course, an answer to all three, and here I would disagree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I believe that the Foreign Secretary is quite right to get Molotov to Paris, if he accepts our invitation, at the earliest possible moment. I believe urgency is the most important factor of all in relation to all this. Here may I say that I put a thought which is not out of my own mind but which must quite clearly be at the back of the mind of many close students of international affairs, and I believe it to be one of the great realities underlying the next two or three years—and I shall be proved right or wrong by events. It is this. If it be true that the police States threaten to envelop civilisation, certain people will ask themselves whether or no we can afford to wait until the police States themselves have developed atomic rockets and other weapons of mass destruction.
I am not drawing any inferences, but I am making the point that I believe it is vitally important during the next three years to get a final determination of those three dangers. We cannot afford to wait. The note of urgency must be struck again

2327
and again. Although I agree that on the face of it it looks a little odd, when Molotov has treated our Ambassador in the way he has, when events in Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and all the rest of Europe give evidence of the sickening technique of terror which appears to be just as bad as it ever was with Fascism, that we should be desperately anxious to get somebody to Paris in order to persuade our friends the Americans to lend him money. It looks as if we are appeasing. I do not take that view. I do not believe that the great reservoir of good will for Russia is in any way exhausted in this country. I believe we are all profoundly anxious to enter into terms of permanent friendship with the Russian people, and I take the point of view that I am pro-Russian and anti-Communist—just as I took the point of view that I was pro-German but anti-Fascist. I think that is the point of view of most people in this country. We are prepared to live at peace with Russia as a Communist country provided that Russia does not intend to dominate the world by fear.
Personally, I think the danger is not Russia. As I see it, it is the second of the dangers, the danger of the spirit of totalitarianism which is almost inherent, if the truth be told, in the very structure of the modern State. Modern scientific and technological advance puts more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. We have talked about a Western Union; well, the larger these regional groups get, the bigger the factories, the larger the cities and the greater the organisation, the more power in the hands of fewer and fewer men. Therefore, I say as a Socialist, as one who believes in a planned economy—and one or two absurd taunts have been levelled against me by some people on my own side, but I shall be with the Labour Party for the rest of my life; I say that quite sincerely, and I shall stay with the Labour Party when some of my hon. Friends who have made those taunts will have had to go their way, either towards Communism or somewhere else—that it is essential for those who believe in Socialism to recognise the dangers to freedom which are implicit in any planned economy. Just as we recognise that here at home, we must recognise it in foreign affairs. We must be prepared in foreign affairs, as no previous Government have been, to raise the
2328
standard of liberty, and to fight for liberty in every conceivable way we can. I am glad that the record of my right hon. Friend in relation to appeasement compares so favourably with that of Lord Halifax and indeed of other people in the party opposite. Therefore, I think it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) should have raised the issue of party politics.
I remember, in August or September, 1939, thinking what a tragic thing it was that we had become involved in yet another war which we could have stopped six years earlier. The main charge levelled in 1937 and 1938 was that the 1914–18 war came about because Germany did not really know that we meant business. This time it was said, we must let them know in advance just how far they can go. Mr. Chamberlain proudly said that we had done that to Germany, but had we? When one reads Ciano's diary, it becomes perfectly plain that Ribbentrop advised Hitler, and that Mussolini believed, that they could go into Poland, and that eventually it would not mean war with Britain. We must never make that mistake again. We must make it quite plain that it is impossible for us to allow the whole of Europe to be dominated by any ideology or by any Power. Therefore, we must place a clear-cut limit on such activities. As I said a year ago, our policy must be conciliatory and certain, instead of tough but vain. I have always advocated a policy of conciliation. We must be quite certain, and we must say exactly how far we regard matters as being legitimate. It is vitally important for us to be practical.
I have only time to deal with the spread of the police State. I read the sworn statement of Koev saying how he had been tortured for several months. How are we to deal with this matter? I say that the way to deal with it is to get the facts, to prove the facts, to let our own people and the people of France, Italy, Austria and others know the facts where their freedom is in danger. It has been said that we are now fighting a war. I do not like to refer to it as a war. I do not think the ordinary man asks for much. He only asks to toil from dawn to dusk on five and a half or six days a week. He is a decent patient chap, but he is entitled, at any rate, to know the truth. The more rapidly we get the facts, so that people may be warned in advance, the

2329
greater are the chances of our living up to what we believe has been our heritage, our standing for the principles of freedom and enabling the working man, the middle-class person, in any country to know that there is no fear of the policeman knocking on his door at five o'clock in the morning and his being hauled away to a concentration camp, with all its sickening terrors. I hope that in the conversations that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has, he will succeed in inaugurating that new era of co-operation which all sections of this Committee so ardently desire.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. Richard Law: I find myself in agreement with a very great deal that the hon. Member' for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has said. That, indeed, gives point to his remark that this Debate has been remarkable for the unanimity of opinion which it has evoked of all sides of the Committee, although I think that he put it in another way. He said that the unanimity for the support of the Foreign Secretary was remarkable. However, I will not quarrel with him over that. The fact remains that there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity on all sides, a greater degree of community of purpose and vision than I can remember in any other foreign affairs Debate. Indeed, in recent years we have not tended to quarrel very much as between one side and another on these matters.
The Debate, of course, has also been notable for the fact that so much of the attention of hon. Members has been devoted to the enigma of Russian policy—if indeed "enigma" is the right word, and if Russian policy is not, as some hon. Members have suggested, as clear as daylight. There was, first of all, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), a speech which, I think, the Committee will agree was careful, measured and fair-minded to an exceptional degree, and a speech which will carry the more weight not only in this Committee but in this country and throughout the world because it came from one who has specially devoted himself to the betterment of relations between Russia and this country.
I cannot understand what the acting leader of the Communist Party meant by describing my right hon. Friend's
2330
speech as destructive, but as he described it as that I looked to the Communist Party to provide something constructive itself; but all we got from the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) was a violent diatribe against the U.S.A. and an expression of violent suspicion against Mr. Marshall and the offer he made in his Harvard speech. Then there was the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I think that was fairly dealt with in the absolutely conclusive speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole). There is one comment I would like to make on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith. He told us, several times, that he was speaking as a lawyer. That was quite evident. There was something else that was evident, too, because one would have thought from the manner and substance of his speech that he was speaking as a lawyer who was arguing a bad case for an extremely disreputable client.
Then there was the fascinating speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). It was fascinating for its good-humour, wit and broad common sense which covered but did not conceal, if he will allow me to say so, the passionate devotion to those causes which, thank God, we still hold in common on both sides of the Committee. There has been a great deal in the speeches today about our relations with Russia. I must say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). He is not in his place—the Liberal Party is so often absent—[Interruption.] I was sympathising with the Liberal Party.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: The right hon. Member has no need to do so.
Mr. Law: I had some sympathy with the hon. Member when he said that we had paid too much attention to Russia. In one sense, I think he was right, because I believe that Russian policy is largely irrelevant to the problems that face us today. That must seem to be such an outrageous statement that perhaps I had better explain what I mean. It can be said of Russia that by her use or abuse of the veto she has paralysed the United Nations. I believe that to be true. It can be said of Russia that by her cynical

2331
disregard of the Potsdam Agreement she has made redemption of Germany, and the leading back of Germany into the main stream of European life, infinitely more difficult than it need have been. It can be said of Russia that she has flouted, or caused to be flouted, all those values which we fought for in the war, and which we believed she was fighting for, too.
Nevertheless, I would maintain that Russian policy is not as important as most of us believe it to be, and I feel that by concentrating too much upon Russia and by considering too much what is her attitude towards us and what should be cur attitude towards her, we are in danger of missing the real crux of the problem which faces us today throughout the world—the problem of chaos. If we get order out of the chaos, which was the aftermath of the war, and which has hideously deepened since the war ended, Russia and Russian policy will fall into the right perspective, a perspection which will be very different from that in which we see it today. If we cannot get order out of chaos, then we are doomed here in Europe, in the new world, and indeed all over the world. A future Gibbon, writing of the decline and fall of Western Christian civilisation, will not have to spend a dozen volumes on it. I think he will be able to do it in one, because the period hardly covers your life, Mr. Beaumont, or mine.
Throughout history we have overestimated the strength of Russia. She has always been the formidable menace on the Eastern frontiers of Europe, but when the event has come that menace has not, in fact, materialised. If it is true that Russia does exert an immense power for evil today—and I agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury that it is the case, that Russia does exert an immense power for evil—that power does not come through Russian strength; it comes through our weakness. I do not mean the weakness of His Majesty's Government or the weakness of this country, but the weakness of western civilisation and the fact that Europe is distracted and divided almost to the point of extinction. That seems to be the real importance of the speech which Mr. Marshall made at Harvard, because he did lay his finger on exactly that point.
2332
The question that concerns us today is not whether Mr. Marshall was wise in his diagnosis or not. I think he was infinitely wise and I think that most of the House agree. The question is how the Marshall statement can be made effective. There is an Economic Commission for Europe. The hon. Member for Mile End said that Mr. Marshall's proposals should be implemented through the Economic Commission for Europe. I must say frankly to the Committee that, coming from that source, it seems to me a very strong argument for not using the Economic Commission for Europe. Nevertheless, there may be something to be said for using it. It does have the advantages that, in the first place, it has already covered much of the ground which has to be covered, as hon. Members will realise if they read the brief statement in the newspapers today of the report of the secretary to the Commission. In the second place, it covers the whole of Europe and not only a part. Finally, the United States Government is a member of the Economic Commission. Those are the great advantages. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), in a very interesting speech earlier this afternoon warned us against the Foreign Secretary making use of the Economic Commission for a number of reasons which he gave and which no doubt are very sound.
Sir A. Salter: I did not say that we should not make any use of the Commission, but what I did say was that the Foreign Secretary should guard against committing himself to that or any other form of permanent world institution, for if there was deadlock and delay in that organisation he would be necessarily deadlocked, too.
Mr. Law: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for making that point clear to me, and I am glad that he has said so because he has saved me saying the same thing. With all the advantages that the European Economic Commission may have for this purpose, there is a great danger that it might be used by Russia, as she has used every other organ of the United Nations, in order to block progress. Therefore, I agree with my right hon. Friend and I hope that whatever policy is decided upon the Foreign Secretary will not commit himself so irrevocably to the Economic Commission for Europe that withdrawal becomes impos-

2333
sible even if progress in the Economic Commission should break down.
More than one hon. Member has said—and I am sure the Foreign Secretary realises it, judging from his actions in the past few days—that what we want now is not so much patience but decision. The Foreign Secretary has shown over the past two years the most exemplary, and, indeed, the most heroic patience. He has been, if I may use the simile, rather like the family doctor, a doctor whose bedside manner may be a little gruff and sometimes abrupt, but still content to rely upon the good sense and courage of his patient. Above all, I think it would be fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has done everything he possibly could to keep the surgeons at bay. He was determined, unless it could not be avoided, not to call in the surgeons for the amputation of a limb, which was apparently gangrenous. The right hon. Gentleman has been determined throughout his career as Foreign Secretary to do nothing that would detach the distant parts of Europe from the main body, and up to now that that has been a wise policy.
But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is possible to save a limb and lose a life, and there would be great danger of that if we went too far in trying to draw Russia into the Marshall plan, in trying to draw Russia into the economic reconstruction of Europe. By so doing we might only be achieving the death of Europe. All of us on this side of the Committee have sincerely hoped for the collaboration of Russia in the postwar world, and I still like to believe that we can get it. But if we cannot, I suggest that we need not be unduly disheartened. We must do the best we can without Russia. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether perhaps the best way to secure Russian collaboration and create a totally united Europe is to get to work as quickly as we can on that part of Europe which we can influence and which shares with us a common standard of values.
That is one of the remarkable things that has developed since Mr. Marshall made his statement at Harvard. A united Europe, if it has not become an accomplished fact, has become an accepted necessity. And it is not for the first time, I think, that one can say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has been right in his in-
2334
terpretation of the course of international affairs. Nor is it the first time that the Prime Minister has been wrong, if reports are true that he instructed the faithful at the Margate Conference to have nothing to do with the unholy thing. If it was not the Prime Minister, then it was one of his distinguished colleagues. Certainly, it is not the first time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been wrong on this, and on other matters.
The whole Committee is agreed now that Europe must unite. I do not believe that there is any difference between any hon. Member of the Committee on that. And I believe that there is general agreement—though not complete agreement—that if we cannot unite the whole of Europe, then we must do what we can to bring together the greater part of Europe. I believe that once again, as so often happens, the course which seems to be the longest way round might in the end be the shortest way home. A Western bloc, to put it at its least desirable, certainly will not disarm Russian suspicion. In fact, so far as there is any reality in Russian suspicions it would increase them. But a Western bloc which was effective not in a military sense but in an economic sense might disabuse the Soviet mind of that contempt for the Western world which I am sure is as great a factor in Soviet foreign policy as any fear of Western aggression that they may have. I am convinced that contempt of the West, contempt of freedom, is a far greater factor in Russian policy than fear of the West or fear of what is called "capitalist aggression."
There is one other point upon which I should like to touch. We must revive European economy, or Europe will perish. But it will not be sufficient just to revive European economy. We must revive the economy of Europe at a level infinitely higher than anything it has known in the past. If I had any criticism to make of the communique which was issued in Paris after the meeting of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and M. Bidault it is that it did not seem to me to lay enough stress on the long-term policy for Europe and the fact that if we get Europe going again, we have still to get it going on a very much higher level that anything we had even before the war. The necessity for that is shown by a consideration of the American export

2335
position and our own export position, to take only two examples. It is a fact that at the present time the American exports are running at a rate which, in terms of value, is five times that of American exports in 1938. We know what our own export position is, and how we have to raise our exports in terms of volume by 75 to 100 per cent. to maintain for us the standard of life we had before the war. If we have this enormously increased export trade on the part of the United States and if we have to increase our export trade, it is obvious that it can only be done through a tremendous expansion of international trade.
That brings me to the meeting of the Preparatory Commission on Trade Organisation at Geneva. I do not believe that the country is yet fully aware of the enormous importance of those conversations and that unless we get some kind of freeing of international trade it will be quite impossible—Marshall plan or no Marshall plan—for us to solve the long-term problem of European economic life. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who made, if he will allow me to say so, a most interesting and stimulating speech, seemed to me to be under some misapprehension, for he seemed to be under the impression—and I think he told the Committee as much—that it was impossible for us to get a European economy developed on the lines that I have been suggesting unless projects such as "Benelux," or conceptions such as Imperial Preference, were forthwith abandoned. I do not agree with him. I do not think that either "Benelux" or Imperial Preference will be enough to get the world out of its difficulties without a far greater expansion of trade, but I do not see that either of those projects —either the development of the economic life of the Commonwealth or the development of the economic life of Europe—are inconsistent with the development of a far wider range of international, and multilateral, trade than anything we have had before.
From what I have said, it is clear that I, at any rate, regard these problems that face us today as being of their nature far more economic than they are political. I would say this in conclusion: The problem is a moral problem even more than it is a political problem. Unless
2336
we can re-establish in international dealings respect for the word of governments, unless we can recover confidence in our own way of life, in our own purposes, a confidence which I think we have to some extent all over Western Europe lost in the past few years—unless we can do that—then I do not think any measures, either political or economic will be of great avail.
9.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I want to express my gratitude to the Committee for the very helpful Debate today. Anyone who is carrying the responsibility that rests on my shoulders at the moment welcomes criticism, suggestions and proposals. The matter which is evidently in the main occupying the minds of the Committee during this Debate, is the question of Mr. Marshall's proposals, or, shall I say, Mr. Marshall's speech, because it has not been reduced to actual plans or proposals but is rather in keeping with that historical expression of American views; it is an idea which translates the problem from one of individual countries to one of a continent, and only a country that is a continent could look at another continent in that way. On this matter I must confess that I am handicapped in replying to the Debate because of the invitation we have extended to Russia to join. We have ideas as to how to approach her, and there has been a good deal of mention of the United States of Europe, a European Federation, and European unity.
May I make this confession, which appears to be unknown, that, in 1927, at the Trade Union Congress, at Edinburgh, I carried a resolution for the United States of Europe, against ferocious opposition, which came, I may say to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), from the same source from which it comes today. Since then, I am not unmindful of the change in the world position. Then, I suppose, one's eyes only looked to Europe. Travel, communication and all the other things that have made the world look so much smaller than it did then, make one wonder now whether we can limit ourselves to the rather narrow conception which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) seems to have discovered later on in his life. I have to look at the

2337
situation from the rather wider viewpoint of whether one's policy has not got to take the whole world into consideration rather than the narrow limits of Europe.
I have also been asked today, particularly by the hon. Member for Mile End, about the division of Europe. Will there be political conditions, will there be economic conditions, will there be stipulations? May I remind the hon. Member with emphasis that the beginning of all that trouble was Russia. It was not Great Britain, it was not the United States. The proposal that special arrangements should be made for neighbouring countries in the discussion of the treaties was made by Soviet Russia. I pleaded with them, and urged them in the interests of the reconstruction of the world that that policy should not be followed. May I suggest, then, that before they lecture me on the division of Europe, they should ask their own friends why they have been dividing Europe?
No one can accuse me of taking one single step to divide Europe since I have been in office. In fact, I sat for six weeks in Moscow, trying to secure the economic unity of Germany, so that when it was produced, it could be woven into the economic unity of Europe. I proposed that the great industries of Germany, together with others, should become, in concept and direction, European industries, in order that the European conception should be developed, and not a narrow nationalistic conception of these great raw material or productive industries, and this subject only to one thing, that we should take all precautions that, in so doing, we did not endanger the future security of Europe, or create a war potential that would endanger peace or cause another war. I failed to get a satisfactory answer or agreement, and I have been asked whether or not we are going to pursue the same course again. My answer to the Committee and to the country is No. I feel that in the two years I have been in my present office I have done my best to try to understand. His Majesty's Government have proposed everything they could propose.
The principles which I laid on the table at Moscow on 31st March were carefully studied. They have been circulated to the House. If accepted they would produce the beginning of an agreed unity in Germany and in Europe itself. When
2338
the Marshall proposals were announced, I grabbed them with both hands. It has been said by some hon. Members that we ought to have organised this business before. But what did I have to organise it with? What could I offer? I had neither coal, goods, nor credit, I was not in the same position as my predecessors at the end of the Napoleonic wars, who devised the policy, for nearly 20 years, of spending our surplus exports to rehabilitate the world. It was a case of our exports then. I did not have them. Therefore, I cannot be accused now of not taking a line to help Western Europe. I have nothing with which to do it. I have not had one ton of spare coal to ship to Western Europe to help in rehabilitation. I have had nothing with which to negotiate.
When Mr. Marshall came along with his speech at Harvard and said he was willing to consider a European plan, I welcomed it for three reasons. First, I felt that it was the first chance that we had been given since the end of the war to look at European economy as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Woodford will, I think, give me credit that, in the Government in which I was very happy to serve—and I do not apologise for the Coalition Government; at least we saw the country through a difficult time—I inaugurated the Transport Advisory Organisation for the whole of Europe, as a result of my experience as a transport worker. I helped with my colleagues to inaugurate several other European organisations at that time. When we get down to the European problems today, they are not summarised in any political ideology. What are they? They are food, coal, transport, houses—opportunities for people to have a decent life. That is what they are. We do not need a political philosopher or ideologist to discover that. That is what the people want, and that is what we must give them.
Therefore, when Mr. Marshall came along and said, "Give me a European plan," I must confess to the House that I never asked him for particulars. I think it would have been foolish to do that. I said to myself at once—and the Cabinet agreed immediately—"It is up to us to tell them what we want; it is up to us to produce the plan." The offer has been made. I have accepted the offer and, therefore, accepting the offer, we apply our brains to set to work on

2339
our conceptions for the reorganisation and development of Europe. That is all I desire to say on that matter today. I have been asked questions about E.C.E. and other organisations. The guiding principle that I shall follow in any talks on this matter will be speed. I spent six weeks in Moscow trying to get a settlement. I shall not be a party to holding up the economic recovery of Europe by the finesse of procedure, or terms of reference, or all the paraphernalia which may go with it. There is too much involved.
This Debate arose largely on the events that happened before my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave the answers to Questions raised about Hungary. I do not know whether it is worth while going into great detail on this matter, but what I do say is this. If there is to be a conflict between ideologies, if shall regret it, but, if it is forced upon us, we must face it. I accept the position of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby); I do not believe the Western world in the long run will be the sufferers if it is fought. I have seen and have studied so many efforts of dictators to suppress liberty in the world, and, in the end, it is always the dictators who fall. I am quite certain that, if there is a desire to interfere with free expression and all the other indefinable things that go to make up the soul of man, that desire will fail again. I know all the theorists; I have read all of them. After I had read them and studied them, in the end, I relied on the awkward squad who did not obey.
In Hungary, I tried, honestly and earnestly to get the facts. I did not send a Note. I did not adopt an aggressive attitude. I did not even 'know whether Soviet Russia had been in it or not except for what I read in the Press. I think it was a perfectly proper thing, as the public are concerned, that, when Press information indicated that actual communications had passed from the Soviet Commander-in-Chief to the Hungarian Government, I should have asked to have a copy. Is there anything unreasonable in that? Suppose it had been in another country, where Britain had a major interest, and supposing, if we reversed the positions, the Soviet Government had said to me, "Will you give us a copy of these communications?" I should not have hesi-
2340
tated; I should have given them one. If you are doing right, no one worries you. Why should you not do things like that if your hands are clean? Therefore, it was a great regret to me that, when our Ambassador saw Mr. Molotov, he got very annoyed and countered—which I may say in passing I have grown very accustomed to—with charges against Great Britain. I have never, as the Foreign Secretary of this country, interfered with the Hungarian Government in a single matter. When their election took place and the Government was set up, I think that, as everyone who has been to Hungary will agree, we sent one of our best representatives in the Foreign Office to that post. Everyone will agree that Mr. Helm has carried out his duties in a perfectly proper manner. I have not met a single person who has been to Hungary and who has not paid tribute to Mr. Helm for the way in which they have been treated and for the work he is doing in that country.
I am a little concerned that some people should be anxious to defend this action. As the hon. Member for East Aberdeen said, we have lived through all this sort of thing—Poland, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria. Why blind our eyes to it? Why should we blind our eyes to it when we will not stand for it in the local Labour Party? We ought not to make excuses for it; it is better to be frank and honest. When people know that we understand what they are doing, they are less likely to do it next time. I have no delusion about it at all. The difficulty in negotiating with this kind of thing, however, is this: When I meet the representative of a State, no matter what State it may be, I assume that that ambassador has been sent on the instructions of his government; the same applies if I go to a conference to discuss a policy with the representative of that government. But when, at the same time, coupled with that, there is a kind of political ideology which that ambassador wants to pursue, agreement is almost impossible. It is extremely difficult to settle with that kind of mentality.
In the case of Bulgaria, when I was in Moscow about 18 months ago, dealing with the American proposal to try to settle the problem, we sent three ambassadors to Bulgaria. We arranged for the Opposition to take part in the government, we arranged the elections, we did everything we could to try to clear the

2341
matter up, and having done that, we had tremendous difficulties afterwards in dealing with the then Bulgarian Government in connection with the conduct of the elections. But I must confess that when the parliament was elected, I thought that at least the members of that parliament would enjoy immunity and that this kind of persecution would stop. It has not stopped. I am convinced, I am sorry to say, that there is a determination to wipe out every opposition in those countries. That is most unfortunate. As Bernard Shaw once said, if we all agreed, we should all be sane, but if we were all sane we should go mad. If there is no free expression given to difference of opinion and criticism, it is a very poor State indeed, and I am against a one-party State. I have always been against it. It is developing over a wide area of Eastern Europe. Not by desire—if it came about by desire, then I could say nothing about it—but by force; and that, I think, is a wrong approach to the whole problem. I cannot help feeling, with regard to Rumania, Bulgaria and all those Eastern European countries, that if this kind of thing were dropped we should make so much better progress.
And so, too, even in Greece, we all know—why disguise it?—that with a lift of the finger the civil war would stop tomorrow. The Communists are carrying on a policy there of disrupting that poor little country; and that, I think, is a tragedy. If the tip were given—if only the tip were given—that it had to stop, then Greece could settle down, and carry out her own political settlement without interference. I am as certain of it as I am of standing here. Why should the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), with his great legal ability, conjure up such a case as he did today? He knows better. He really knows better. He has I better, more humane outlook. Therefore, I do say that this attempt to defend—
Mr. Pritt: I never said a word about Greece from the beginning to the end of my speech.
Mr. Bevin: No, but the hon. and learned Gentleman said a great word in defence of these tactics. He made a great case in their defence. I do not believe that he believed one word of it.
Mr. Pritt: I do not preach what I do not believe. I have stood for what I believe in for years. I have stood by the Labour Party for 30 years. I have suffered for my opinions in every conceivable way. I have never been called a liar before.
Mr. Bevin: I did not call the hon. and learned Gentleman a liar. I used perfect court language—that I could not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman really believed, or, shall I say, rather, was firmly convinced of what he said today. Therefore, without going through all the cases of all those countries, I plead for the cessation—in the interests of the unity of Europe—of this kind of persecution. I am asked every day to intervene in Spain. I hate what is going on in Spain. I detest it. But political persecution is political persecution, and wherever it rears its head, whether on the one side or the other, I do feel it is the duty of democrats to stand by the persecuted. If people are expressing their views they ought not to be put into prison, and the expression and moulding of views ought not to be called conspiracy. If I had had to go into gaol fur such "conspiracy" I should never have been out of gaol, for I have been engaged in it all my life in some form or another.
I want to pay my tribute to, and express my gratitude for, the contributions of hon. Members—for instance, those of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire). It is right that in this Committee all these views should be aired. That is what I want everywhere. I do not mind criticisms at all; I have no objection to them; and people must not object when I answer them. For what does the world want? I must confess, that, in this Debate today, there has been one slightly disappointing feature. I have been a little disturbed to find a certain readiness to defend political persecution. This defence of political persecution comes strangely to my ears, because, after all, the party I represent at this Box today emerged from days of political oppression and persecution. We have had our Tolpuddle Martyrs, and they were victims of an unfair trial; they were

2343
victims of persecution; they were victims of torture; I know how the confessions were obtained. And why was it done? Not by the judge; not by the local magistrates; but by the interference of what was then the Minister of Interior in this country—the Home Secretary—who sent his orders to the local magistrates about what they should do. One of the great things in that business was that, illiterate as so many people were at that time—working men, the middle class and others —they expressed their resentment at that trial, and the persecution which followed it. I am glad that in this country we have long left behind the days when the Minister of Interior or the Home Secretary could interfere with the process of free trial. I want that principle to apply in every country of the world. That is what I mean by human rights; that is what I mean by bringing out these difficulties into the open. Popular indignation at that time—for example that which followed the Peterloo Massacre in Manchester, and many other great labour upheavals where our people suffered—has established for all time, I hope, the liberties of the individual in this country.
When you strip all these things which produce these same political ideologies, and get down to the masses, what do they want? They want to live. They want to be free, to have social justice; to have individual security; to be able to go home, turn the key in the lock, and not be troubled by a secret police. They want to have a good shelter in which to meditate. I find no differences in the hopes of the fathers or the loves of the mothers for their children. We used to use an old phrase: "Whatever country you are born in, they croon over the baby in the same old way." They have the same kind of dreams and aspirations. Why not let them live? Why set them at each other's throats? That is the basis of my approach to the problems of a war-scarred Europe and world.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Snow.]
Put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) (Re-committed) BILL
Considered in Committee (Bill amended in the Select Committee).
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAusE.—(Opinions of Royal Fine Art Commission to be published.)
"The Royal Fine Art Commission shall publish any opinions which it expresses in respect of the plans, designs and elevations of the said works."—[Mr. Keeling.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As has not yet been mentioned, but as I am sure every member of the Committee knows, this Bill refers to the proposal to erect a new Colonial Office on the site of the old Westminster Hospital immediately adjacent to Westminster Abbey. When the Bill was before the Select Committee, of which I was a member, the Minister resisted an Amendment requiring him to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission about the layout, design and elevations of the new Colonial Office. He gave assurances, however, that at all stages he would consult the Royal Fine Art Commission. I want to take this a little bit further, and require the Royal Fine Art Commission to publish the opinions which they give. There is great public interest in this new building, and it is no exaggeration to say that it is the most important building site in the whole of London, with the possible exception of the vicinity of Saint Pauls. Therefore, I think it is important that the public should know what the Royal Fine Art Commission says about the proposals of Mr. Tait, the architect selected by the Ministry of Works.
The Royal Fine Art Commission is a most eminent body. It has as its chairman Lord Crawford, who was well known in this House as David Balniel. Its members include the distinguished architects and town planners, Professor Abercrombie, Professor Holden, Professor Holford and Mr. Maxwell Fry, and the recent Director of the National Gallery, Sir Kenneth Clark. Other members are the Royal Academicians Professor Richardson, Mr. Edward Mange, Mr. Hubert

2345
Worthington, all of whom are also architects, and Mr. Charles Wheeler and Mr. John Wheatley. It is very desirable that we should know what they have to say about the proposals of the Ministry of Works in regard to this very important site. We have had the assurance that they will be consulted, but I am seeking in this Clause to ensure that we shall know what opinions they give.
Mr. Gammans: I beg to second the Motion.
10.5 p.m.
The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): As is obvious, this new Clause seeks to do a rather extraordinary thing for a Bill of this character. It seeks to impose on the Royal Fine Art Commission the obligation to publish whatever advice they give to my Department in regard to the building proposed on this site. There have been a number of cases in which the Commission's advice has, on their own volition, been published. Their Royal Warrant specifically empowers them to report their proceedings from time to time when they judge that it would be advisable and expedient so to do. But when advice is given by the Commission it is generally regarded as being confidential, and I think the Committee will appreciate that there are real reasons for that. The value of the advice they give would be seriously lessened if it had to be framed with the knowledge that publication of it would be a statutory obligation. There is an important difference between publication, by agreement with the Commission, of a report which has already been made, and the contents of which are known, and the imposing of an obligation on the Commission to publish their report and their advice before they have given it.
I would like to say a word about the relationship between the Ministry of Works and the Royal Fine Art Commission. It was the old Office of Works which was largely responsible for bringing the Commission into existence in 1924, and the Department have consistently supported them throughout. Our relations have always been of the friendliest, and nowhere is the value of the Commission's advice more keenly appreciated than in the Ministry of Works. In so far as the Motion seeks to ensure that I cannot ignore the Commission's advice without disclosing that I am
2346
so doing it seems to me to be guarding against a contingency which is very remote indeed. Moreover, this contingency is already provided for by the fact that the Commission are at liberty to publish their advice if they judge it to be expedient to do so. While I appreciate the sincere motives of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in bringing this new Clause forward, in order that it may, in his opinion, strengthen the position of the Commission, I do not feel that the Commission would welcome proposals that publication should be made compulsory in this way. For those reasons, I feel I cannot accept the Motion.
Mr. Gammans: Do I understand that while the Minister is opposed to any obligation on the part of the Commission to publish their report, the Commission may, if they wish, publish their report without any obstacle being put in their way?
Mr. Key: That is exactly the position. They have power to publish their report if they desire. If they feel that I have not followed their advice, they have the liberty and power to publish their report. I therefore think it is wrong to try to put a statutory obligation on them in this way.
Question put, and negatived.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Churchill discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. J. S. C. Reid added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

NORTH SEA (OVER-FISHING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Edward Evans: The subject I wish to bring before the House this evening is related in some measure to the important issues debated earlier in the day, for it concerns the accommodation by international agreement of interests which sometimes conflict and which have an over-all bearing on the

2347
economic life of this country and others. I want the House to consider the danger which seems to be approaching in regard to over-fishing in the North Sea, and although I wish to limit the scope of my remarks to that area, the considerations which I hope to put forward apply not only to the North Sea but to all waters in the vicinity of these islands; indeed, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) raised this matter at Question Time when he referred to the situation in regard to Southern Irish waters.
The Minister of Food has just launched a vigorous and, I hope, a successful campaign to increase the consumption of fish, a food I believe to be high in nutritive value. We are not, as a nation, a great fish-eating community; compared with such countries as Norway, Denmark, Holland and Portugal, fish takes a very much lower place in our national diet; but it must be conceded that the situation is improving and the consumption of fish is already 130 per cent. of what it was in the prewar period. The success of any campaign to increase fish consciousness and the desire of the community to eat more fish must depend on certain factors. It must depend, first of all, on the quantity of fish available for sale, secondly, upon the quality of the fish when it reaches the housewife, and, thirdly—and this is very important—on the variety in the types of fish offered to the public. The restriction of retail licences and the proposals envisaged for wholesalers ease the position as regards the distribution of fish once it becomes available at the ports; it is at the production end that I believe that difficulties will arise. I am not suggesting that there will ever be a famine in fish, but I do believe that unless resolute action is taken soon we shall suffer severely both in the matter of quality and in variety.
It is conceded that the best quality fish is caught in home waters, that is to say, in the North Sea and in adjacent waters round our coast. This is done by the smaller type of trawler and by the inshore fishermen, and if supplies in these waters are unduly depleted not only is the production of fish itself imperilled but the industry also is adversely affected, both on the side of the owners and on that of the working fishermen. Supplies in home waters and indeed in all waters
2348
for that matter can only be maintained if the fish are allowed to mature up to the age of spawning, that is to say, if they are caught before they reproduce—and their capacity to multiply themselves is immense—the supply will be cut off at the source. I suggest that the North Sea is already showing unmistakable signs of over-fishing. The demand for fish is so great, not only in this country, but in all European countries adjacent to the North Sea—particularly in view of the short supplies of other foods—in order to supplement their food supplies, that the intensity of fishing in the near waters is beyond the capacity to be borne.
Britain is only one of many countries which fish the North Sea. I do not think it is generally realised how the power of the large trawlers has grown. During recent years, not only has the size of the vessels increased, but there is an extension of the actual trawl apparatus itself. Already these vessels have to go farther and farther afield. The farther they go to get their catches, the more the quality of the fish deteriorates. The result may be that the taste for fish in this country will be spoiled in consequence, with the result that the industry will suffer in the long run through not providing sufficient quantities of high quality fish.
The huge modern trawler is probably not affected by these considerations. It is able to make long voyages to Bear Island and the Barents Sea, landing the coarser type of haddock, cod and plaice which oust the more delicate turbot, plaice and soles caught in nearer waters. Let us recall what happened after the first great war. The North Sea fishing ground had been rested for over four years, and, in spite of submarine warfare and mines, the fish bred without hindrance. The result was that these waters became well stocked with a good variety of fish. After that war, intensified, unrestricted fishing took place by all the neighbouring countries, and within about three years the bottom was knocked out of the North Sea fisheries. The same thing applied to other parts of the coast.
In 1920, the value of wet fish landed by British vessels was over £21 million; in 1924, it was £15 million, and in 1938, £12 million. At the same time, due to over-exploitation, there was a drop in tonnage caught in the North Sea of over

2349
30 per cent. between 1920 and 1935. Added to this—and this is a most disturbing element in the situation—the percentage of fish landed and recorded as "small," that is to say, fish caught before they reach maturity, increased between 1913 and 1935, in respect of cod 32 per cent., haddock 83 per cent., plaice 72 per cent., and sole 41 per cent. This meant that by the time the last war started the North Sea was in very poor condition as regards supplies of fish.
Again, history repeated itself. The seas were rested for six years. By the end of the last war there was an abundant supply. Indeed, it was confidently asserted that there was no danger of over-fishing the North Sea for over a decade. Estimates were given that there was so much fish there that we could fish to full capacity for over ten years. I want to make it clear that I am not referring to the herring. There is a school of opinion which holds that it is impossible to over-fish the herring. I hope they are right, because, properly prepared, there is not a more succulent or nutritive fish in the sea except, perhaps, the salmon, and certainly not at a comparable price. But there is a difference of opinion, and people high in the fishing world dispute the view that it is impossible to over-fish herring. That, however, is a different issue.
In the inter-war period, both the Government and the industry became seriously alarmed at the position. In 1936, the Report on White Fish recommended an international agreement with a view to the adoption of common regulations for vessels of all European countries fishing in waters frequented by British vessels. Then the regulations applied only to British fishermen while the vessels of other nationalities could fish without restriction in the same waters. An international Convention was agreed in March, 1937, and an international Sea Fishermen's Conference in 1938 attempted some measure of agreement.
Since the war, the Government, fully alive to the possible exhaustion of the fishing grounds in near waters last year, decided to take definite action. They called an International Overfishing Conference in London. This met from 25th March to 5th April, and was attended by representatives of 12 European countries and one observer from the U.S.A. The
2350
whole problem was thoroughly investigated, and the statistical material produced even a year ago made it evident that drastic and concerted action was necessary. Since then the position has deteriorated. I will give one example which serves to illustrate the general position. In January, 1946, 70,000 cwt. of. hake were landed from near waters. In January, 1947, the quantity had dropped to 30,000 cwt. It is extremely difficult to get unanimous agreement on matters affecting so many countries even on so obvious a measure as the preservation of their own fishing grounds. I willingly conceive that each has its own problems. The overriding situation has been the acute food shortage in Europe. Nevertheless, it is essential that the long view should not be lost. Agreements were reached that the size of mesh should be increased, and the size limit below which certain kinds of fish should not be landed was also approved. These, to my mind, if they are strictly enforced, will go a long way to conserve the grounds as it will make possible the growth of immature fish to the spawning size and thus ensure a renewal of the stock.
One very important consideration failed to get agreement. That was that the size of the fishing fleets should not be increased above the pre-war level. This would not injuriously affect us, as today I think we are fishing above 73 per cent. of our prewar fleet, but such countries as Denmark, which has increased its fleet to 153 per cent. of its prewar size, cannot be expected to reduce their own tonnage. Another proposal very strongly advocated in some quarters is for the compulsory closing of the fishing areas during certain periods each year. This will cause a certain amount of readjustment in the industry and would be difficult to enforce, but serious consideration should be given to every proposal to conserve the fishing in the North Sea.
We, in this country, have built up over a long time a highly organised and important fishing industry. We are encouraging our people to increase largely their consumption of fish. As far as possible, we should do all we can to provide this need from our own resources. Already, the importation of foreign caught fish has reached a high figure. In 1938 Iceland sent us 178,000 cwts. of fish. Last year, the figure had risen to 1,461,000 cwts., an increase of Boo per cent. Another danger

2351
that requires watching is the landing of foreign caught smalls, or under-sized fish. I believe that inspection of these landings should be effectively carried out in order that the existing regulations, which our own men obey, should not be flouted.
I do not wish to weary the House with more figures, but I want to stress that all the evidence indicates that we must be watchful in this matter. The position at the moment is such that while it is not probably as alarming as is pictured in some quarters, it is sufficiently serious to call for the utmost precaution on the part of the Government and the industry if we are to maintain our supplies in home waters. It would be helpful to know how many nations represented at last year's conference have ratified the Convention and whether the others have been stimulated to do so. Finally, may I say that I have not initiated this discussion in any critical spirit towards the Government or the fishing industry, for both of whom I have a very high regard. But I think it necessary that this very important matter should be brought to the attention of this House and discussed.
10.26 p.m.
Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: In the few moments in which I intend to speak I cannot hope to present facts and figures similar to those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), but as a member for a fishing constituency I must give my general support to his statement, and make a plea to the Minister to see if now or as soon as possible something cannot be done to avert the dangers with which the fishing industry is threatened and through which it had to go in a similar period after the last war. Those who take the slightest interest in the fishing industry know that after the last war the breeding grounds produced a great deal of fish in the fishing areas in the North Sea, of which the people living round that sea took full advantage. In due course Nature took its revenge, and the catchable fish in that sea began to drop in great proportion until we had the period before the war when they were extremely scarce.
The same story is being repeated today. We have plenty of fish at the moment. The experts in this country who know the central basic facts about the fish population of the sea round our shores have been
2352
consulted on this problem, and they have come to the conclusion that we cannot fish indefinitely at the present rate without doing the maximum injury to the fishing population. A few weeks ago a Polish ship berthed in my constituency with the biggest catch of white fish ever known in the history of the port. I have no doubt that the Minister of Food was pleased with that catch and many in Yarmouth took full advantage of it, but if that sort of thing is not avoided, especially by foreign ships, we will get a great shortage of catches in the near future and the yield will steadily diminish.
Therefore, I join with my hon. Friend in asking the Minister if there is any tangible result from the conference which took place last year. At that conference all the nations round the North Sea agreed to look at this problem from a scientific point of view, and decided to hold their hand for a short period in order that the fish in the North Sea, which are already diminishing, should have a chance to breed. If they have not signed the Convention, I should like to plead with the Minister that he should go in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture to these foreigners, who probably are fishing with the nets which the Board of Trade furnished them in the last 18 months and which our own fishermen cannot get, and use that position of leadership which this country has maintained throughout history in this part of the world to persuade these people to ratify this Convention. I am sure he can do it. In the last few weeks we have seen in this House something of the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman in agriculture; I hope he will be able in the near future to do the same for the fishing industry, which will bring such benefit to all the countries along the shores of the North Sea.
10.30 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Thomas Williams): I think that the facts concerning over-fishing are not disputed in any country. Were they in dispute, I think our experience between 1914–1918 and the years following, and what we have witnessed after five years of freedom, perhaps, in the North Sea and the near waters surrounding this coast would satisfy the most critical that over-fishing could become dangerous from the point of view of the fishermen and those who really like fish.

2353
There has been an improvement owing to the short rest given to the North Sea during the war. I have figures to indicate the actual weight caught, for each day that a trawler was away from port in 1938, in 1946, and in the first four months of this year, and the figures are really startling. There has been a steady decline over the last twelve months. The real problem is to find the level at which fishing can be maintained, providing a reasonable remuneration for the fisherman, while maintaining the maximum supply of fish for the consumers.
When war broke out, fishing in the North Sea was virtually stopped and certainly little or no fishing went on. Stocks increased substantially in places. We know by catches of Danish fish that the size of plaice actually doubled during the course of the war. The same applies to hake caught on the southwest coast of Ireland but there are now signs of diminishing returns again to fishermen. The Government's interest was engaged in 1945, and was largely based on the 1914–1918 and subsequent years' experience. They decided to call an international conference to discuss the question of the depletion of fishing stocks in the North Sea and in all the waters adjacent to the British coast. In March, 1946, that conference met in London. It discussed over-fishing and the British proposals were rather dramatic. Our delegate suggested that there ought to be a reduction of 70 per cent. of the 1938 fishing fleet tonnage.
This proposal, however, was not acceptable to various countries because some of them had increased their fishing fleets since the war. They felt that they really had to catch more fish. The conference, however, agreed upon increasing the minimum size of fish that ought to be caught and also again increasing the size of the mesh. That agreement has been ratified by Denmark, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, but we are still awaiting ratification by Belgium, Eire, France, Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. But the conference also recommended that a standing committee be arranged to study and make proposals as to the most suitable ways of preventing over-fishing in the North Sea and the adjacent waters. When the advisory committee met in
2354
January and April of this year, they discussed first, a further increase in the minimum size of fish to be caught, and a further increase in the size of the mesh, and, secondly, a reduction in the fishing power of fleets, and, thirdly, either a reduction in catch; or the control of building fishing fleets, or control of fishing activity, or the adoption of a close season, or the closing of certain areas. At the final meeting of the advisory committee, Denmark was prepared to recommend to their country an increase in the size of the mesh and the minimum size of fish to be caught and to control the building of fishing vessels. Sweden was prepared to increase the size of the mesh and the minimum size of fish to be caught; the Netherlands were prepared to adopt quantitative regulations, while Norway were prepared to refrain from fishing with Danish seine and trawls in the North Sea from 15th December to 15th March annually.
Belgium and France already control fishing vessels by licence. The United Kingdom made a further proposal, namely, to limit fishing power to 85 per cent. of the prewar power. All these measures, together with the suggestion of the United Kingdom, are approximately equal contributions to this problem. They do not go quite so far as we ourselves would like to go, but I think they can be regarded as an important step in the right direction. They will certainly tend to preserve a satisfactory level of fish stocks and to stabilise fishing for a very prolonged period. It is true, of course, that we cannot guarantee that the various countries will adopt all the various measures suggested, but we feel that most of the countries concerned will, if they can, act together and adopt the wise, economic and good-neighbour policy.
There was a further recommendation that a standing advisory committee, consisting of one representative along with one scientist from each of the nations, should be constituted as an international commission to review annually the fishing activities in the North Sea and report to their Governments. This commission would have all the data at its disposal and it could, therefore, arrive at accurate conclusions regarding the effect of fishing on fish stocks. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, it is hoped that all the measures referred to earlier will

2355
be approved by the various Governments. We shall certainly keep in close touch with this very vital problem and exercise all the influence we can in the proper direction to preserve fish stocks, and to provide continuity and a reasonable livelihood for the fishermen of this country. It is a truism to say that if we take from the sea more than one year's growth of fish, from that moment we must start to suffer through diminishing returns. Therefore, to have plenty today and, perhaps, tomorrow, but a shortage for many years to come, would be an act of folly. I hope, therefore, that the advisory committee which has been recommended will be set up, and that the responsible Governments will play their various parts and will show a willingness to march forward so that we can have that perpetual supply of fish, and at the same time provide a reasonable existence for those who go out to sea to catch the fish.
Mr. Marples: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I say that there seems to be complete unanimity on the opposite side of the House on the control of fishing in the North Sea; but is it not a fact that there have been recent reports in the Press that fish have been thrown overboard and dumped in ports in this country, with consequent waste. If that is so, it seems to me to be difficult to reconcile the two facts.
2356
May I ask the Minister to reconcile these two facts?
Mr. Williams: I think that the hon. Member is referring to an incident which happened today at one of the North Sea ports, where it is alleged that a certain amount of fish was thrown back into the sea. Unfortunately, the facts are not yet available to me; therefore, I am unable to say what steps have been taken or are likely to be taken.
Mr. Marples: I am referring not only to today's reports, but to previous reports two and a half to three weeks ago.
Mr. Williams:. Is the hon. Member referring to white fish or herring?
Mr. Marples: I think it was a report about white fish.
Hon. Members: Herring.
Mr. Williams: I am afraid the hon. Member must be referring to a situation which developed in the herring industry in the ports of Scotland two or three weeks ago. That is obviously a question for the Herring Board, and not for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o' Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY
  Gas Supplies
  Gas Supplies
  Consumer's Registration
  Consumer's Registration
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Imports from South Africa
  Imports from South Africa
  POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL, WILTSHIRE
  POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL, WILTSHIRE
  FIRE STATION, DULWICH (CLOSING)
  FIRE STATION, DULWICH (CLOSING)
ALIENS
  Certificate of Identity
  Certificate of Identity
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
EMPLOYMENT
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  Dock Workers
  Dock Workers
  North Staffordshire
  North Staffordshire
  Darwen and Turton
  Darwen and Turton
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Savings Movement
  Savings Movement
  Pensions (Means Test)
  Pensions (Means Test)
  CIVIL SERVICE (STAFF REDUCTIONS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (STAFF REDUCTIONS)
  GIPSIES AND VAGRANTS (NATIONAL INSURANCE)
  GIPSIES AND VAGRANTS (NATIONAL INSURANCE)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INDUSTRIAL STAFF)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INDUSTRIAL STAFF)
  ESPIONAGE, CANADA (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  ESPIONAGE, CANADA (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
HOUSING
  Cumberland
  Cumberland
  Returns
  Returns
  Unoccupied Houses (Requisition)
  Unoccupied Houses (Requisition)
  Seaford
  Seaford
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Medical Practitioners (Call-Up)
  Medical Practitioners (Call-Up)
  Mental Deficiency
  Mental Deficiency
  Abattoir, Barry
  Abattoir, Barry
  Regional Hospital Board, Wales
  Regional Hospital Board, Wales
  Public Washing Facilities
  Public Washing Facilities
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT, LOANS)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT, LOANS)
  PLAYING FIELD, ULEY
  PLAYING FIELD, ULEY
EDUCATION
  Handicapped Pupils
  Handicapped Pupils
  Independent Boarding Schools (Grants)
  Independent Boarding Schools (Grants)
  Playing Fields
  Playing Fields
  Teachers' Training Grants
  Teachers' Training Grants
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factory Construction
  Factory Construction
  Loofahs (Imports)
  Loofahs (Imports)
  Natural Gas, Middle East
  Natural Gas, Middle East
  Vacuum Flasks
  Vacuum Flasks
  Light Industries, Midlothian and West Lothian
  Light Industries, Midlothian and West Lothian
  Men's Suits (Cloth Shortage)
  Men's Suits (Cloth Shortage)
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  STEEL AND TINPLATE INDUSTRY, SOUTH WALES
  STEEL AND TINPLATE INDUSTRY, SOUTH WALES
  JUBALAND (FUTURE)
  JUBALAND (FUTURE)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (BRANCHES B AND C)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (BRANCHES B AND C)
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DENNING REPORT)
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DENNING REPORT)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Ministry's Staff (Manpower Economies)
  Ministry's Staff (Manpower Economies)
  Fats (Cake and Biscuit Making)
  Fats (Cake and Biscuit Making)
  Slaughterhouses (Conditions)
  Slaughterhouses (Conditions)
  BRITISH ARMY (FAR EAST, HOME LEAVE)
  BRITISH ARMY (FAR EAST, HOME LEAVE)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
PENICILLIN BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

TRANSPORT BILL.
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 48:
Date and mode of payment of compensation.
(3) The amounts payable in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section by the Commission shall be satisfied, in the manner provided for by Part VI of this Act, by the issue of British transport stock:
Provided that where the amount payable to a person on any date is less than two thousand pounds, the person to whom it is to be paid may, by notice in writing to the Commission given within the prescribed time, require that the Commission shall pay the said sum in cash and it shall be paid in cash accordingly.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN)THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN) moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out "is less than two" and insert "does not exceed twenty." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, with the following Amendment, is designed to ameliorate the terms as regards the payment of compensation. It permits the sum of £2,000 to be paid in cash when the amount of compensa-
1054
tion does not exceed £20,000. The subsection as it stood was limited to those cases where compensation was not more than £2,000 in all. It was represented to the Government that hardship would be effected were this £2,000 limit maintained, so that limit has been increased to £20,000 in order to meet the representations made by the Road Haulage Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 32, leave out ("is less than two") and insert ("does not exceed twenty").—(Lord Nathan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is reasonable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out "pay the said sum in cash and it shall be paid in cash accordingly," and insert:
"satisfy the said amount or, if the said amount exceeds two thousand pounds, two thousand pounds thereof by a payment in cash, and the said amount shall, either wholly or to that extent, be satisfied."
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6i, line 35, leave out from the first ("shall") to ("accordingly") in line 36 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Duty of transferor as to carrying on undertaking until transfer.
50.—(1) Where notice of acquisition has been given with respect to an undertaking, the transferor shall, until the date of transfer or the date on which the notice is withdrawn or otherwise ceases to have effect, carry on the undertaking in the ordinary course of business and maintain it in as efficient condition as it was in before the giving of the notice, and shall not without the previous consent in writing of the Commission given either generally or specially (which he shall apply for if it is necessary for the purposes aforesaid)—

(a) sell, dispose of or let or hire out for more than six months any land or vehicles held for the purposes of the undertaking; or

(b) enter into a contract for the purposes of the undertaking extending for more than twelve months; or

(c) undertake any new works estimated to cost more than five hundred pounds in all:

Provided that where the activities of the undertaking in question consist partly of the operation of vehicles authorised to be used

1055
under A licences or B licences and partly of other activities this subsection shall not apply to transactions solely concerning such other activities.
LORD NATHAN: This Amendment is designed for the purpose of clarification. It is to meet the case where a part of the business is to be taken over and part not. Under the clause as drawn there will be an obligation on the transferor to maintain the whole of the undertaking until the transfer. It is proposed to change that and it will stand in the Bill as stated as regards what is to be taken over but with regard to the other activities that obligation will not exist. It is designed to help the transferor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 6, leave out from ("vehicles") to ("and") in line 7 and insert ("which are to vest in the Commission by virtue of the notice of acquisition").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill:
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I just raise a point op Clause 50? I do not think the Committee ought to part with this clause completely without appreciating one or two points about it, and I think that the question arises on an Amendment to an earlier clause. Clause 50, as your Lordships will see, has the effect that when a notice of acquisition has been served the owner of the undertaking is in a strait jacket. I only call the attention of your Lordships to this fact. That is the effect of the notice of acquisition. He has to carry on on behalf of the Commission. He is not allowed to sell, dispose of, let or hire for more than six months. He is not allowed to enter into contracts for the purposes of the undertaking, and he is not allowed to undertake any new work. I do not think it necessary to stress the fact, but that is hardly going to conduce either to business enterprise or economic recovery, which is important. I suggest that it is very important that the period for which this strait jacketing shall continue should be definitely limited. There is nothing in the Bill to limit it. The notice has to be served within a prescribed time. I think that is under Clause 44. Also the date of transfer must not be before a certain date. But the date of transfer can be as long after that date as the Commission specify.
1056
If you look at Clause 44 every notice of acquisition specifies a date for the transfer not earlier than the prescribed time. I suggest that something should be put in saying also that it should not be later than the prescribed time, because this may be a very long business. It is going to be a long business, anyway, getting the returns upon which you make the notice of acquisition, and decide whether you make a notice of acquisition; and then there may be a very long time during which the notice of acquisition is being disputed by the owner of the undertaking. But even if it is not disputed, as the Bill stands it would be possible for the Commission to send a large number of notices of acquisition six months or a year hence, or something of that sort. I suggest for consideration on the Report stage the question whether you should have a provision requiring them to act promptly. I am not opposing the clause, although I am sorry to see it in the Bill, but I suggest that it should be considered from that point of view.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have not had time to trace this through with certainty, but if the transferor in the clause to which the noble Lord has just referred means the person upon whom a notice has been served, he may, of course, turn out in the end not to be a person whose business is within the clause. That is a point which we discussed previously in a different connexion. It would be particularly unfortunate if the case were one where a notice had been served on such a man who, in fact, it turned out, was not within the scheme of the Bill, and he should be held up for an unnecessary time. This does not need elaborating; it is plain enough. It is not a very uncommon thing in large villages and country towns for a business which is exempted, to be carried on by someone who also does other work. For example, a funeral business may well be carried on by someone who also does the work of a joiner—the same man who carries out the funeral makes the coffin and so on. The question may arise in some cases whether such a man is within the exception or not. It would be unfortunate if a man who were not within the scheme of the Bill was tied under these restrictions for an unnecessary time. I am not sure about this, though. I see that

1057
the transferor is referred to some half a dozen clauses before this.
LORD NATHAN: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge and to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The matters to which they have directed attention shall certainly receive consideration.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
Clause 51:
Information, etc.
51.—(1) The licensing authority for goods vehicles for any area shall, on demand by the Commission, supply to the Commission any such information, obtained by the authority or any predecessor of his in his office either as such or as a Regional Transport Commissioner acting on behalf of the Minister, with respect to the nature of the business carried on by a person carrying on any undertaking as the Commission may reasonably require for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the undertaking is one with respect to which the Commission arc bound under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act to serve a notice of acquisition.
LORD NATHAN: The Amendment in subsection (1) is a drafting Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 35, leave out ("for goods vehicles").—(Lord Nathan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is it not a little more than drafting? If the Committee will look at Clause 51, at page 64, line 35, they will see that it says:
"The licensing authority for goods vehicles for any area shall, on demand by the Commission, supply to the Commission any such information.…"
If we leave out the words "for goods vehicles," as I understand it, "licensing authority" will mean both the licensing authority for goods vehicles and the licensing authority for passenger vehicles. Is that not so?
LORD NATHAN: I do not think so, because this Part of the Bill—Part III, which begins at Clause 30—refers to the transport of goods by road. That applies to the whole of this set of clauses in this Part.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If we mean licensing authority for goods vehicles, why not say so? As a matter of fact, the licensing authorities which were called Commissioners, are now rechristened,
1058
under the definition clause, into two sets of licensing authorities. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will look into this. I should have thought that "licensing authority," by itself whether it appears in this or another Part of the Bill, could stand for either of the authorities. The definition clause states:
"'licensing authority for goods vehicles' means a licensing authority within Part 1 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."
On the next page we find:
"'licensing authority for public service vehicles' means one of the bodies established under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and heretofore known as 'Traffic Commissioners.'"
"Licensing authority" by itself is not defined, and I would have thought that this is a general direction wherever it comes in the Bill that a licensing authority shall, on demand by the Commission, supply to the Commission such information as may be required. I should have thought that it was a matter of common sense that by this Amendment we are striking out words in a way which will have the effect of making the term "licensing authority" mean either of the authorities. I am not saying that this is wrong. If, as I think is quite reasonable, we are met on the next Amendment, which says that if you ask for information you ought to let the person concerned know, I feel that that will satisfy us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I have asked the draftsman about this and he has referred me to page 126. The first paragraph on that page which contains part of Clause 123, reads:
"Except in so far as the context otherwise requires expressions used in Part III of this Act have the same meaning as in the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933.…"
That being so, he thought the words which we are here proposing to leave out were unnecessary. I will look at this and see if it is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that the Commission shall, at the same time as they demand information under this section in respect to the business of any person, give notice to such person that such a demand is being made, and."
The noble Lord said: As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinton, speaking on a previous Amendment, as this clause

1059
is drawn the Commission may apply to the licensing authority for information concerning a business carried on by a road haulage undertaking. If this is done, when—and not until—the information has been supplied the operator is duly informed. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that a person carrying on an undertaking should be informed immediately the request is made by the Commission for information; otherwise, during the period that the information is being collected rumours are bound to arise as to whether a certain undertaking is to be taken over by the Commission or not. This, I believe, would be bound to cause a state of uncertainty among the employees of the business, and perhaps rather lead to disorganization of the business. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 45, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD NATHAN: It is, of course, already provided that information furnished by the licensing authorities to the Commission is to be transmitted to the person affected. I can scarcely see good reason for this Amendment. After all, it may be said, from one point of view that the owner of an undertaking will be in the best position to know whether or not his undertaking comes within the provisions of the Bill. It is quite right and proper, as it seems to me, that when any information about his concern is given by the licensing authority to the Commission, the undertaker should be informed so that he should know what has been put into the possession of the Commission. But the Commission may write all sorts of letters making inquiries about this and that, and it would be very onerous on the Commission if they were required to communicate copies of all these communications to the undertaker. I feel that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary and is not required for the purpose of ensuring fair play and justice.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is not very important, but on the other hand, it does seem to be exactly the kind of case where some give and take is called for to make things easier. The noble Lord has, I think, exaggerated. It is not suggested that the undertaker should be entitled to
1060
ask for copies of the communications sent out by the Commission. The noble Lord said it would be a very onerous duty if the Commission were required to give to some third party copies of all communications they made to these licensing authorities. That is not what is asked for. What is asked for is that when they start inquiries from the licensing authority, the object of which obviously must be to ascertain whether a man is within or without the taking-over clause, they should let the man know they are making that inquiry. The noble Lord says the man is the best person to know, but he is not the best person to know whether a claim is to be made against him. I should have thought it would make easier the working of this rather complicated procedure if, when they were making an inquiry, he was informed. I do not know if Government Departments use the telephone now, but it is an easy way of communication and often the information might be obtained by some agent representing a Department. Rumour is such a tiresome thing. Somebody says, "What have you been inquiring about me for?" and rumours get about. Would it not be best to say at the outset they were going to ask information about him?
LORD NATHAN: I have listened to what the noble Viscount says, and he will forgive me if I say I do not find it very convincing. Inquiries may be made by the Commission orally. No information will come to the Commission from licensing authorities without the person affected being informed. It seems to me that should be an adequate safeguard for persons owning an undertaking. I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not dividing the Committee about this, but the noble Lord makes things a little difficult. He says, "Of course the man will be informed about any communications," but he said in the breath before that, a lot of communications will be purely verbal. Is the man to be informed of the verbal communications?
LORD NATHAN: I said he would be informed of the outcome of the communications, not of the making of communications.
LORD TEYNHAM: I do not wish to press this. If the Government could

1061
accept the Amendment, it would make the Bill run a little more smoothly. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider something to meet the case on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
4.24 p.m.
Clause 52:
Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire and reward.
52.—(i) On and after the appointed day, it shall be a condition of every A licence and every B licence that, except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Commission, goods shall not be carried for hire or reward in any authorised vehicle if the vehicle, at any time while the goods are being so carried, is more than twenty-five miles from its operating centre, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the said condition were included among the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section eight of that Act:
Provided that the said condition shall not apply where—

(a) the goods carried are liquids carried in bulk in a tank permanently fixed to the vehicle, or in a tank not so fixed of which the capacity is not less than five hundred gallons, or the carriage is an ordinary furniture removal, or the goods carried are meat or livestock; or

(b) the vehicle is a vehicle specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads; Or

(c) a notice of acquisition has been served with respect to the undertaking for the purposes of which the vehicle is being used and has not been withdrawn or declared to be of no effect, and, if that notice has effect, the vehicle will, by virtue of the notice, be transferred to the Commission.

(2) The Commission shall have full power in their discretion either to grant or to refuse any such permit as aforesaid, and any such permit may be granted by them for such period and subject to such conditions as they think fit, and they may at any time, by notice in writing to the holder of the permit, revoke, suspend or vary the permit.
(3) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to every A or B licence whether granted before or after the passing of this Act, and whether or not the condition provided for by this section is expressed in the licence.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "fifty" for "twenty-five." The noble lord said: This Amendment is really consequential on the Amendment agreed to on Clause 39, which increases the limit of the distance within which road haulage operators will be allowed to conduct their business, and allows A and B licence
1062
holders to carry goods for hire or reward without a permit up to a distance of fifty miles instead of the twenty-five miles as set out in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 8, to leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not going to ask the Committee to divide on this matter, and I wish to make it plain why. May I say, with great respect, that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that this Amendment is consequential on the one which was agreed to on Clause 39? It is no such thing; it is a wholly different matter. On Clause 39 we considered the question as to the businesses which will be taken over, and we discussed at some length the criteria to be applied to determine which businesses will be taken over. Your Lordships carried an Amendment against the Government substituting the figure "fifty" for "twenty-five." But during the discussion on that clause, as I had occasion to point out several times, the arguments which were adduced were more appropriate to Clause 52 than to Clause 39, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that we should not have the discussion twice. I intend to fall in with that view, although it is not quite logical and this Amendment is not consequential. I should like your Lordships to understand what I am doing. It is not that I am sulking about Clause 39. I have a clue regard to the saving of time and I can estimate pretty accurately what the result of a Division would be, but I do not want anybody to say hereafter that because we have not divided we are in any way assenting to this Amendment. We are in exactly the same position as if we had come to a Division and been defeated on it.
There is also this element which I should point out. When discussing Clause 39, I told your Lordships that we estimated that 2o,000 out of 8o,000 odd A vehicles would be taken over. As the result of the Amendments we have made to Clause 39, and as the Bill stands at the present time, it is obvious that the number of vehicles to be taken over will be many fewer than the eo,000 I then anticipated. We passed an Amendment about the onus of proof. This is a case where the facts arc facts peculiarly within the

1063
knowledge of the owners of an undertaking, and as the Commission now have to prove affirmatively a case, the facts of which are primarily within the knowledge of the undertakers, there will obviously be a large number of cases that will escape the net. I anticipate roughly that the number of vehicles now being taken over will be nearer 2,000 than 20,000. I put it in that vague way but I do not think anybody can make a better guess. That being so, it is obvious, to my mind, that the Commission are going to have only a comparatively few vehicles.
That in itself is a reason why we should allow vehicles not to be taken over a greater latitude than they otherwise would have. For that reason, too, I shall not divide the Committee on this Amendment. What I have said will apply to all these other Amendments when we come to them. I am anxious not to waste time, but I am most anxious that none of your Lordships should think that because we are not dividing the Government are in any way assenting, or that they will not, in the future, do their best to get it altered again.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not dissent from the bulk of what the Lord Chancellor has said. Strictly speaking, of course, this is not consequential. On the other hand, I think you will agree it is equally true to say that if we left "forty" and "twenty-five" in here and passed "eighty" and "fifty" in Clause 39, we should be making nonsense of the whole Bill. We did agree to discuss the two things together. Obviously if we are to allow people to operate on a fifty-mile radius on an eighty-mile journey it would be absurd to take over the businesses of people who were operating, and then allow new people to come in in their places. It was, therefore, essential that we should discuss the two clauses together. I quite accept that the Government oppose this; that is perfectly clearly understood. I have never really been greatly concerned with numbers, and I only say this because of what the Lord Chancellor has said about 20,000 and 2,000. It did not seem to me that this case should be decided by whether there were many or few, and I argued that last time. What we had to decide it upon was what was right and reasonable to bring in, and what was reasonable to leave out-
1064
side. It does not seem to me that the argument is weighted particularly one way or the other by whether the numbers on one side or the other are more or less. The question is: What is right and what is reasonable?
I fully accept what the Lord Chancellor said. Equally on our side there were a number of proposals about special types of traffic which we proposed and argued strenuously and which were negatived. We do not propose to move any of these again; we accept the decision which the Committee took about this traffic on Clause 39, and we shall not attempt to move them in Clause 52. There were one or two cases held over for further consideration, such as ancillary vehicles, the special case of the crofting counties, and perishable goods, and I would suggest to the Committee that the convenient thing, as these subjects have to come up again for reconsideration, would be that we should not debate them at all now. But that is equally without prejudice to the consideration of these on Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall regard my undertaking to consult with the Minister as equally applicable to the same points in Clause 52.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I express the appreciation of noble Lords who sit on these Benches of the decision of the Government not to take up the time of the Committee in needless Divisions? And I would add that Clause 52 as a whole is just as unpopular with my noble friends who sit on these Benches as anything in the Amendment can be to the Government, but we also propose to save time by not dividing on that clause.
I would like to put two sentences about Clause 39 and Clause 52. As the noble and learned Viscount who has spoken for the Government knows, I have always stressed the difference between Clause 39 and Clause 52. Clause 39 is a clause which deals with the taking over of undertakings, and Clause 52 is a clause which states what shall be done by those undertakings that are not taken over. I want to stress this because I hope it will facilitate further discussion. That makes the Amendments to Clause 52 not merely consequential but gives them a much stronger case than the Amendments to Clause 39. The question of whether an undertaking is taken over or not is settled

1065
once and for all. It is taken over and it becomes a State undertaking; or it is left as a private undertaking. I do not regard it as an absolute disaster for anything to be taken over by the State. We on these Benches have never taken the line that anything the State does must necessarily he back On the other hand, Clause 52 does de something which, to us, is thoroughly wrong and most unfortunate. I can illustrate that by referring to the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount. The strongest case he put against this Amendment on Clause 39 was that the Government were being extremely moderate in that they were proposing to take over only 20,000 vehicles. May I suggest it is really 3o,000 vehicles, because there are also the I0,000 vehicles of the railway companies?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is 20,000 out of 80,000, or 30,000 out of 90,000.
LOUD BEVERIDGE: There were 140,000 A and B licences on January 1, 1946. Of these, under the Government's original proposal something like 30,000 would have been taken over, and they would have been free to do anything. Under Clause 52, the 110,000 which are left will not be able to do what they want; they will be restricted in all sorts of ways. Remember that when an undertaking has been taken over the man cannot go and begin another undertaking. Clause 39 is a temporary thing, but Clause 52 is a permanent thing in that a vehicle is not allowed to do more than 100 miles. The noble and learned Viscount asked me if I had driven a car. I have driven a car enough to know that there is no real difference between 100 miles and 50 miles. A vehicle can be driven for either distance.
The point I want to make is that the case for all these Amendments to Clause 52 is much stronger than the case for the corresponding Amendments to Clause 39. In fact, you could have taken over the undertakings on a quite different principle—you might have said that all undertakings of a certain size should be taken over—but as you have gone on this principle of doing sums (a principle we think to be bad) it is, on the whole, desirable that the sums to be done under Clause 39 and Clause 52 should be of the same character. But in so far as they are not of the same character, I hope that the
1066
Government, when they come to consider what line they are going to take on our Amendments, will say something on that, because Clause 52 is a continuing restriction by Act of Parliament on the most efficient use of the rare vehicles in this country.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I make one point in regard to this general question which has not been discussed? That is that to-day we are trying, in our replanning, to decongest our urban areas. That means to say that to facilitate an increase in the amount of movement which can take place in urban areas, this limitation of 25 miles, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has indicated, will tend to readjust our areas into smaller areas. That is an important point. We have seen the redevelopment of our towns, which are now planned very largely on the distance a motor car can run in a day. The distance in the Bill would, to a large extent, limit the suitable places in which factories and other buildings can be built. This is a most important point, and one which will affect the whole of our planning in this country, and it should be borne very carefully in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "where," to insert:
"(a) the goods carried are such supplies as are necessary to the practice of the registered pharmacist and to the maintenance of the National Health Service; or."
The noble Lord said: The spirit behind this Amendment is simply that we want to see every facility given in all circumstances for the delivery of the products of any pharmaceutical firm at as great a speed as possible. I am aware that the bulk of the pharmiceutical firms run under C licences, but a great number of them do not. It does appear that those firms who do not run under C licences will be detrimentally interfered with in their business. I will put this point before your Lordships. Suppose a firm is rung up by a medical office: of health 150 miles away, and he wants at once a particular drug that that firm prduces. When this matter was raised in another place, the Minister's answer was; "Yes, a permit would be given in a case of that sort." But we all know what a time it takes to get a permit. I want to see greater speed

1067
and flexibility in the transport of drugs of any sort from one part of the country to the other. I hope the Government will reconsider the decision arrived at in another place, and give the facilities for which I ask, because I regard them as very material to the health of our people. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teviot.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On Clause 39 we had a considerable discussion on dangerous drugs, and I resisted the Amendment then moved. I believe I am right in saying that it was not pressed to a Division.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It was negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was negatived. It is obvious that the argument with regard to these drugs would, a fortiori, apply to any supplies to a chemist's shop. I cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: With regard to the answer of the noble and learned Viscount, I would say that this Amendment does not necessarily apply to dangerous drugs. It applies to the ordinary drugs that might be required if an epidemic breaks out at a distance beyond which the firm are able to deliver by their contract. There might be delay in a very important delivery.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that that point will, in fact, be covered by the next Amendment which stands in my name. The point has already been carried on Clause 39, and I understand that the Government, while reserving a complete right to object later, will not resist in this case. The noble Lord might feel that his main point will be met in a wider form if that Amendment is carried.
LORD TEVIOT: Perhaps the best thing I can do, in the circumstances, is to withdraw my Amendment, and support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BEVERIDGEhad given notice of an Amendment to the proviso in subsection (1)—namely, to insert:
1068
"(a) the vehicle operates under an A licence subject to a contract limiting its use to the goods of a single undertaking; or."
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move this Amendment, with a change of wording, borrowing the much better wording provided by the Amendment of the noble Viscounts, Lord Simon, Lord Bridgeman, and Lord Long, at page 66, line 19; that is to say I would move the Amendment in this form. My Amendment begins: "the vehicle operates under," and then I would say: "a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933." I should like to move the Amendment in that form, as I think that is the correct form. I do not think I need say anything more; we all know what it is about. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 13, at end insert ("(a) the vehicle operates under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933").—(Lord Beveridge.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not going to resist this, as I indicated. I would, however, suggest to the noble Lord—I do not mind, in the least, if he does this or not—that in this case the place of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, because of these three provisos (a), (b), and (c). Paragraph (a) relates to goods, and (b) relates to vehicles, and this really comes in the vehicles class. I should have thought it was better there. If the noble Lord does not mind a further suggestion, I should have thought that to emphasize that it is a vehicle, and not goods, with which we are dealing, might have been put as an Amendment to Lord Simon's Amendment. Instead of the words, "or are carried in a vehicle authorised for use," in subsection (a), I would suggest the words, "or the vehicle is a vehicle authorised to be used." As I say, I do not mind at all what the noble Lord does. I have talked this over with the draftsman, and it seems to me that that is the better way of doing it.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I would cordially agree that that is better. I thought my Amendment ought to come earlier, because it was not mixed up with goods. I thought on Clause 39 mine was the right place. In this case, if I may say so, I am absolutely convinced by what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and I

1069
hope the rest of the Committee will accept his suggestion. I do not know whether it is clear what the suggestion is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would not the best thing be for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, move his Amendment, either in this form or in he form which he proposes?
LORD BEVERIDGE: I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), after "gallons," to insert "or are goods which may only be carried in vehicles specially constructed in accordance with the requirements of any enactment relating to the carriage of goods therein specified." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that legislation already exists which, in the case of certain substances, compels the use of specially constructed vehicles. The main substances are explosives and certain inflammable liquids—not only petroleum products, but also cellulose products of one kind and another. I believe regulations are being prepared which will increase the requirements to cover a large number of other products, such as acetates, alcohols, and corrosive acids. These specially constructed vehicles often have to go beyond the twenty-five mile limit. I suggest that it would be a waste of vehicles if you have to have duplicates because the existing vehicles are not allowed to go unrestricted outside the twenty-five mile limit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("gallons") insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To show the spirit of sweet reasonableness which is at present prevailing, I will accept this Amendment, if the noble Lord will not mind my considering the verbal part of it between now and Report stage. I may want to make some alteration in the language. However, I will accept the Amendment now.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is a consequential Amendment dealing with milk which we did discuss. I, therefore,
1070
beg to move this Amendment, and, in doing so, may I on behalf of all noble Lords, whether milk drinkers or not, wish the noble Viscount the Leader of the House many happy returns of the day?
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("milk").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONhad given notice that he would move, in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1), after "livestock," to insert "or are carried in a vehicle authorized for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933." The noble Viscount said: I think this is the Amendment about which a conversation has already taken place between my noble friend Lord Beveridge and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I understand that I shall be following the course suggested—of which I approve—if I move this alternative form—namely, to insert:
"or the vehicle is a vehicle authorized for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."
In agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("or the vehicle is a vehicle authorized for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.)—(Viscount Simon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment commends itself to the noble Viscount opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and I shall therefore not oppose it, under the usual conditions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an Amendment about which the noble and learned Viscount did not give us much information when it was moved at an earlier stage. It is just possible that some more information is now available; if it is not, perhaps we could wait until the Report stage; but if the noble and learned Viscount has further information I should be very glad to hear it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("or the goods are sand, ballast, concrete, tarmac and other road-making

1071
aggregates and materials, rubbish, hard-core coal, coke and cinders carried in bulk in a vehicle fitted with tipping gear").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I promised to consult the Minister about this, because I did not know very much about it myself, and I intend to carry out that promise. I think offhand that there may be a distinction between various classes of goods which the noble Earl mentions. I am by no means certain that I should be able to apply the same test to hard-core coal as I should, for instance, to sand and ballast. But the matter is under discussion, and I am not in a position to say more at the present time.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK
moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), at the end to insert:
"(d) In such areas of the seven crofting counties as the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State may designate, and in such areas it shall be a condition of every "A" and "B" Licence that except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Commission, goods shall not be carried for hire and reward in any authorized vehicle a greater distance than one hundred miles."
The noble Earl said: I do not think I need say very much upon this Amendment, because some of the points were undoubtedly discussed at an earlier date. I should point out, however, that this Amendment was moved when the limit was 25 miles. As the noble and learned Viscount has declined to make any alteration in that, I propose to make one or two remarks on the basis of twentyfive miles. I think I am entitled to do that, and I think he is personally barred from taking any other attitude.
The first point I wish to make, which I think is important, is that a circle in the crofting areas is no use at all. It is for that reason that this Amendment is designed in a different direction, because a circle, whenever there is only one road over a considerable area, is clearly not the way to define anything. It is for that reason that I have suggested this Amendment and that it should be "goods carried for 100 miles" instead of having a circle of 25 miles. It is clear that in many remote parts you can do very much
1072
less on a single road, or perhaps two roads, every 100 miles, than you could do in a congested area within a circle of 25 miles. I want to emphasize, further, that the 25 miles is a perfectly ludicrous limit. For instance, in the case of Shetland, one cannot get from Lerwick to the end of the island, and in the case of Stornoway, one cannot reach the southern point of Harris. It is quite absurd to have a 25-mile radius, and I do not believe that the Government really wish that that should be the case. I will not make any further points, although I could make a good many more, because I think the noble and learned Viscount entirely understands the situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 27, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only thing I would comment upon to the noble Earl is that this refers to a figure of 25 miles, and there is no figure of 25 miles in the Bill—it is now 5o miles. He is thinking of past history. But of course I agree with him that it is difficult to apply exactly the same criterion in the crofting counties as you do to industrial England. I have an Amendment down—the next one on the Order Paper— which was designed to meet this case. If I may read it to your Lordships, it is to add the words:
"Provided that the Commission shall in exercising their discretion,"—
that is, whether or not they will vary the licences for a longer period—.
"take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate."
It is quite true that I leave it to the Commission, but what I had in mind was pointedly to draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that if the operating centre is in some such area as, for instance, the crofting counties, you should apply a different criterion from that which you would apply if the operating centre is in some busy industrial part of England. I rather hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with that, and will see that the provision is directed to this very point. I think it is better to have it in that way than to refer to any particular area. There must be all sorts of cases betwixt and between the extreme case he mentioned.

1073
There will be, for instance, Westmorland and Cumberland, where you do not want such latitude as you do in the Shetlands, but where it is fair to have rather a greater latitude than the area allowed elsewhere. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a matter of discretion, and I think we had better leave it to the Commission. I suggest that all we can do here is to point out to the Commission that this is the factor to which they should have regard in making up their minds. I have tried to meet the noble Earl by doing that, arid I hope he will be satisfied with what I have said. What I propose to do is not accept his Amendment, but to move my Amendment which is designed to cover the point he has in mind.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks, but it is indeed, if I may say so, an eleventh hour repentance. This Bill has already been through another place and we are now in about the second week of Committee. Now at last we find that some special provision is to be made for something which is of great importance to this particular part of the country arid to other parts. I emphasize again that I think it is a very heavy responsibility for the Commission to accept for areas which are so far away. For instance, in the course of the discussion on this Bill—and it has now lasted for six months—this Amendment has only just come up. If I may say so, it shows how long it takes for the requirements of far distant places to be felt in Westminster. That is an important point to remember. The normal sanctions of letters to Parliament, and things of that sort, come much more slowly, and are much more difficult to develop from a very long distance. In the circumstances, I will withdraw my Amendment, remembering that in regard to the other Amendment the noble and learned Viscount is making special representations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that the Commission shall, in exercising their discretion, take into consideration the needs of, and any special circumstances affecting, the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which the permit would relate."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment which I have been discussing. I told your Lordships what its
1074
object was, and I need not say more, except formally to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT EUBANK: All I wish to say is that I hope this is an indication of better things to come as far as these out-of-the-way places are concerned.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: While thanking the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment, may I just ask him to explain how this will work in connexion with Clause 39? I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but this leaves it to the Corn-mission to decide whether a man shall be allowed to go outside his radius or not, and you have to have consideration to the locality. It may be the kind of locality where there is a loch a few miles across, but in order to get round it by road you have to go sixty miles. That is all very well, but who are the persons who are to be considered when undertakings are to be taken over? I do not see how that benefit is to be conferred on a man who would automatically be taken over because he is outside the fifty and eighty-mile limits. He will have been taken over, unless, so to speak, he is disclaimed in advance. It will be toe late when the Commission say: "He ought to be able to go across or round the loch" because under Clause 39 he will already have been taken over, and he will not have anything with which to go round the loch.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount is making the same mistake as I did. When the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, moved Amendment to Clause 39, I answered by this sort of point, which was appropriate to Clause 52, and pointed out that that did not help him. I consider that this does not deal with the "3" difficulty. You must have another Amendment, and the Minister is looking into that.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think it is clear that this would not apply only to Scotland. Would it apply in the case of a large part of the north of England where the farms, villages and towns are scattered, and the local service of goods carriage has to cover a long distance to be effective?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not seen it in any discussion with the Minister or his officials. I am afraid,

1075
therefore, that I cannot answer the noble Viscount's point. I do not myself see why it should be confined to Scotland, but, as I say, I have not seen the proposed Amendment, or discussed it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I was merely referring to the present Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This does not apply only to Scotland. It is general.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 P.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) The Commission shall have power to grant and shall not refuse to grant a permit entitling the holder of an A or B licence for a vehicle used for the carriage of goods under the foregoing provisions (a), (b) or (c) of this section to carry goods for which the vehicle is suitable on a return journey to its operating centre, after having delivered the original load carried in the vehicle on its outward journey."
The noble Viscount said: I hope I shall persuade the Government that this is a fair and reasonable Amendment. What it seeks to do is this. As your Lordships will appreciate, we have exempted certain kinds of traffic, and I take as an example a class of traffic originally exempted in the Bill, even under the Government dispensation—namely, that of the furniture remover. The Government have recognized that he, for example, should not be taken over but should be allowed to ply his trade and take the furniture, whatever the distance may be. All this Amendment of mine seeks to do is to say that where, under the Bill, there is an exempted vehicle, if he goes on a journey entirely authorized for his exempted purpose the furniture remover—carrying furniture, we will say, from London to Birmingham—may bring back a return load. I say that that is reasonable for two reasons. First, it is absurd for him to have to come back empty, and it is quite unlikely that he would be able to get a return load of furniture, because it does not always happen that when one person removes house to another place someone else in that place is moving back on the following day to where the first person came from. House movements do not take place like that. If, therefore, the furniture remover cannot bring back a return load of anything except furniture, he has to come back empty; that is a waste of money,
1076
manpower and everything. Therefore it seems to me common sense that he should be allowed to have a return load.
But there is another strong argument in favour of this, and that is fairness. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said quite reasonably, "I do want you to give the Commission a fair chance." We all want to give the Commission a fair chance—but we do not want to give them an undue preference. The Commission will be in this furniture removing business; they can enter it anyhow because the Commission are not confined to the activities they take over from other people. They can enter on any activity they please, passenger or goods, subject to whatever are the licensing regulations. They will certainly go into the furniture removing business, and on a large scale, because one of the businesses they take over, which vest in them automatically is Messrs. Carter Paterson, probably the largest furniture removers in the country. Observe what will happen if my Amendment is not accepted; the Commission will be able to remove furniture from London to Birmingham, say, and will be able to bring back in the van anything they please. Obviously, if you can have a full return load, you can quote a very different rate for removing furniture from that which would be possible if you have to take the furniture by itself and come back empty. I am sure that that was not really the intention of the Government. The Government desire that the Commission should have a fair chance; we desire that the Commission should compete on equal terms, and that will not he possible unless an Amendment in this form is put into the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 33, at end insert the said new suhsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT LONG: Before the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, replies, I should like to support my noble friend who moved this Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I drew your attention to the unfairness that existed under this Bill to furniture removers. They would be refused the right to bring back anything except furniture. In plain language this would be loading the dice against them. Any of your Lordships who have ever played poker dice will know that when

1077
you go abroad you take care to see that the dice are not loaded. In this country we do not expect them to be, but under the present Bill that is the situation. Therefore I hope the Government will favourably consider this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I have never played poker dice, but notwithstanding that, I have a strong view on this Amendment, and that is that we cannot accept it. The conception behind this Bill is not simply that we are setting up a Commission which are to be equal among equals competing for traffic. We are setting up a Commission which, for better or worse, are, broadly speaking, to have a monopoly of long distance traffic. That is the scheme of the Bill; it may be right or it may be wrong. To that, however, we have made exceptions in favour of certain special traffic, but to say now that wherever you carry one of those special traffics you can automatically have the right to carry a return load, whatever the nature of the traffic may be and whatever the nature of the load may be, would be something completely novel, and something which we are not prepared to do. That is traffic which normally would be carried by or offered to the Commission for their carriage. And it would have another effect which I would he very sorry to see.
It is possible—I do not say it will happen, but it has happened before—that people may try to find ways and means of getting through this Act of Parliament. That is quite possible, and it is a matter which should be considered. All you have to do for instance, is to carry a milk churn on your lorry anywhere you like and deliver it at its destination, and then you are entitled to bring back any sort of a load. That, obviously, is driving a coach and four through the whole thing. It is better to say "I simply disagree with the idea of this monoply "; then, quite logically, you will destroy the monopoly. But the effect of this Amendment is to try to destroy it in a roundabout way which, to my mind, is quite impracticable and unworkable. We have considered a series of Amendments to exempt special sorts of traffic, by reason of the nature of the traffic, and it is quite impossible for me to say that we can allow any sort of traffic to come back on the return journeys. That would be quite inconsistent with the underlying basis of this Bill.
VISCOUNT LONG: Will the Commission be allowed to do it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly; that is the whole point of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Now we really can see exactly what this Bill is. I was told I was unduly harsh a day or two ago when I said that what the Government were seeking was not a fair chance but an exclusive monopoly. There. is not the least doubt that that is what the Bill does. By the way, the firm I should have quoted was Pickford's, I understand, and not Carter Paterson's. The noble and learned Viscount's Commission are going to get both. So far as I can see it will strike out all these special traffics. If a man does not get a return load he cannot possibly quote the same rate that the Commission can quote; that is obvious. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount would deny that for a moment. He knows that the Commission, because they are going to get a return load, can under-quote the permitted exempted carrier every time; and yet the noble and learned Viscount pretends that he is giving equal and fair treatment to the exempted carrier. Why should the noble and learned Viscount do that? I cannot understand his putting up this defence. I have regarded him as a most fair-minded man, and as a most fair controversialist, but I have never heard a more unfair case put.
I would rather the Government came down and said what is the truth: "We mean to put everybody we can out of business. We are putting some of these exemptions in the Bill, but we know that they will not work. We know that we can give our Commission an undue preference and a special rate every time, and these people will gradually be put out of business. But it makes it easier to get the Bill through, and easier to represent to the country that we are not doing what, in fact, we are doing if we pretend to make these exemptions." I do not see why the Lord Chancellor should say, because a perfectly reasonable Amendment like this is proposed—the fairness of which he has not, for a moment challenged—that this would open the door to all sorts of corrupt practices. There are enough Government officials round about to snoop and prosecute offenders if there are indecent practices. I am perfectly content

1079
that if a man misuses it, if he is not carrying a return load but bringing something else, you should make it one of the many new offences. But do not accuse these decent people, in the furniture trade or in the milk trade—the Milk Board are employing to-day all these exempted carriers—perfectly respectable and decent people, who have never been prosecuted, who have not done these indecent things. Why should they be pilloried by the Front Bench as people who, if they are given the chance of doing an honest fair haul, will take advantage of it to commit a criminal offence? I really do think that is most unreasonable.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I have only to add that this Amendment has shown what is the object of this Bill, which is to get a Government monopoly based on unfair competition. I would develop that by pointing out that the Commission are not only going to have a monopoly of everything that is long distance transport as defined by Clause 52, but are going to have vehicles with which they can compete with the ordinary haulier on short distance journeys. This is really a case of a two-handed man fighting a man with one hand tied behind his back. That is the only basis upon which the Government think that a State organization can compete successfully with any other haulier. Remember, it is this fact that they can compete in the restricted area that is a great advantage to them, because very few people deal only within an area; they have some short distance and some long distance hauls. If you go to the Traffic Commissioner you can get your long distance and your short distance traffic dealt with together. If you go to the man with whom you have been dealing for years, who happens to have escaped the net of Clause 39, you will find that he cannot deal with both. This is playing with the dice loaded against private enterprise, and the Government say, in effect, that unless the dice are loaded they cannot play this game with success. That is really what they have said.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will not ask the House to divide on this now. There has been a full debate. I really hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider this matter. I know the limitations under which they
1080
act, but I think there ought to be a chance for reconsideration, because it seems so demonstrably fair: I will withdraw the Amendment now, but I will reserve the right to return to this subject at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53:
Protection for certain existing undertakings with A or B licences.
53.—(1) The provisions of this and the next succeeding section shall have effect for the protection of persons (in this section referred to as "persons to whom this section applies") who, on the twenty-eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-six, were carrying on undertakings the activities whereof consisted of or included the carrying of goods in goods vehicles for hire or reward and were in connection with those undertakings the holders of A licences or B licences.
5.19 p.m.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved in subsection (1) to leave out "next succeeding section" and insert "two next succeeding sections."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment to Clause 53 is linked with two other Government Amendments—the Amendment to Clause 54, at page 70, lines 23 and 24, and the new clause at page 71, line II, which appears at the bottom of page 4 of the Marshalled List. With your Lordships' permission I will deal with those three Amendments together.
These Amendments relate to the position of a haulier who is not compulsorily taken over but who, under Clause 39, is allowed to continue to carry on business on his own, subject to the restriction of 25 miles or 50 miles as the case may be, and subject to permit. If the withholding of a permit from the haulier or the imposition of certain conditions in the permit imposes substantial hardship on the haulier, he has, under Clause 54, the right to require the Commission to take over the whole of his haulage business. If the Commission do take over the whole of his haulage business, then he is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of Clause 47. He also has the right, instead of calling upon the Corn-mission to take over the whole of his haulage business, to limit the acquisition to A or B vehicles and other property or contracts relating to the operation of the A or B vehicles.
As matters stand at present, under the provisions of the clause as appearing in the Bill, when the acquisition is so limited no compensation is payable in respect of cessation of business. It has been represented to the Government that this would involve hardship. Negotiations have taken place between the Government and the Road Haulage Association, with the result that the new clause, Clause 55, which appears in the name of my noble friend, the Leader of the House, has emerged. This new clause provides—putting it shortly—for compensation for cessation of business and severance combined at the rate of £70 for each complete ton of the carrying capacity of the transferred vehicles. or trailers which were needed for long distance work. That is compensation for cessation of business and severance, and is, of course, in addition to the compensation which will be received under Clause 47 for the actual vehicles themselves. Now this new clause, Clause 55, is a rather formidable clause as it appears on the Order Paper, but I have given your Lordships briefly the purport of it, and I have informed your Lordships at the same time that this is the outcome of negotiations with the Road Haulage Association.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Has it been agreed with them?
LORD NATHAN: Yes, it has been agreed with them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 7, leave out ("next succeeding section") and insert ("two next succeeding section").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54:
Right to require notice of acquisition to be given.
(2) A person who serves a notice on the Commission under the preceding subsection may, if he thinks fit, by his notice require that the Commission's notice of acquisition shall be limited in terms to such goods vehicles, being vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences, as may be specified in his notice, to such hire purchase agreements, being agreements relating to goods vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences, as may be so specified, and to such other property and contracts, being property and contracts directly relating to the operation of vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences, as may be so specified; and where a notice of acquisition is so limited in pursuance of this subsection—
1082

(a) the notice of requisition shall not affect any other property or any other contracts; and

(b) no compensation shall be payable in respect of cessation of business.

LORD NATHAN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 37, after the first ("the") insert ("applicant for or").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN: This next Amend-men is one to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
"(b) the compensation payable in respect of cessation of business and severance shall, instead of being calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding section").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, after Clause 54, to insert the following new clause:
Measure of compensation for cessation of business and severance in certain cases.
55.—(1) Where a notice of acquisition served neuter subsection (1) of the last preceding section is limited in pursuance of subsection (2) of that section to specified goods vehicles, hire purchase agreements, property and contracts, the amount, if any, payable by way of compensation in respect of cessation of business and severance shall be ascertained in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section.
(2) No compensation shall be payable in respect of cessation of business or severance unless the transferor satisfies the Commission, or, in case of dispute, the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act, that one or more of the vehicles to which, or to hire purchase agreements relating to which, the notice of acquisition is limited were, during the twelve months immediately preceding the service of the notice of acquisition—

(a) used wholly or partly for the carriage of goods in such circumstances that a permit was necessary [or the carriage, or that a permit would have been necessary if the appointed day for the Purposes of section fifty-two of this Act had fallen before the beginning of the said twelve months (such carriage being hereafter in this section referred to as "long distance work "); and

(b) customarily selected for use on occasions during the said twelve months when vehicles were required for or in connection with long distance work.

A vehicle as to which the Commission or, as the case may be, the arbitration tribunal, are satisfied as aforesaid is hereafter in this section referred to as an "approved vehicle."
(3) The subsequent provisions of this section shall have effect in respect of each severally of such of the following classes of goods vehicles as include one or more approved vehicles (hereafter in this section severally referred to as "the relevant class") that is to say—

(a) trailers, other than superimposed trailers; and

(b) other goods vehicles,

being in each case all goods vehicles of the relevant class, whether vehicles to which, or to hire purchase agreements relating to which, the notice of acquisition is limited or not, authorised to be used under A licences or B licences and operated by the transferor during the said twelve months,
(4) There shall be estimated to the satisfaction of the Commission or, in case of dispute, the arbitration tribunal,—

(a) how much of the total work done by all vehicles of the relevant class during the said twelve months was, on a just apportionment, referable to long distance work; and

(b) the minimum total carrying capacity in tons which would have been employed on the work so found referable, if one or more vehicles of the relevant class had been used exclusively for such work during the said twelve months.

(5) The Commission shall pay to the transferor by way of combined compensation in respect of the cessation of business caused to him by the operation of the notice of acquisition and in respect of severance a sum calculated at the rate of seventy pounds for each complete ton of either—

(a) the carrying capacity in tons or, as the case may be, the combined carrying capacity in tons of the approved vehicle or approved vehicles of the relevant class; or

(b) the minimum total carrying capacity in tons estimated in relation to the relevant class under paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection,

whichever is the less.
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, carrying capacity', in relation to an approved vehicle, means—

(a) in the case of a trailer (other than a superimposed trailer), the gross permitted weight of the vehicle less the weight of the vehicle unladen; or

(b) in the case of any other vehicle, the gross permitted weight of the vehicle less the sum of the following weights, that is to say—

(i) the unladen weight of the vehicle, as defined in section twenty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and

(ii) the weight of any container which is normally carried on the vehicle but is not permanently fixed thereto, and

(iii) a weight of five hundred pounds.

Provided that a superimposed trailer and the vehicle that draws it shall, for the purpose of calculating the carrying capacity of approved vehicles, be deemed to be one vehicle.
(7) In the last preceding subsection, 'gross permitted weight means, in relation to any vehicle, the gross laden weight of the vehicle stated by the manufacturer as at the date when the vehicle was first sold by him.
Provided that

(i) where the gross laden weight stated by the manufacturer is variable according to the size of the tyres with which the vehicle may be equipped, the gross permitted weight shall be determined by reference to the size of the tyres with which the vehicle is equipped at the date of transfer, so, however, as not in any case to exceed the maximum gross laden weight of that vehicle stated by the manufacturer;

(ii) where, subsequent to sale by the manufacturer, alterations have been made to a vehicle, and the transferor claims that by reason of the alterations the carrying capacity of the vehicle has been increased, the gross permitted weight shall be taken as such weight as the Commission and the transferor may agree, or, in default of agreement, such weight as may be determined by a certifying officer appointed under section sixty-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or such other person as may be designated by the Minister in that behalf, after consultation with the manufacturer of the vehicle or, where for any reason the manufacturer is not available, after consultation with a person appointed for the purpose by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders;

(iii) where for any reason no statement by the manufacturer as to the gross laden weight of the vehicle has been or can be obtained, the gross permitted weight shall be taken as such weight as the Commission and the transferor may agree, or, in default of agreement, such weight as may be deter-mined by a certifying officer appointed under section sixty-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or such other person as may be designated by the Minister in that behalf, after consultation with a person appointed for the purpose by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders."

The noble Lord said: This is the new clause to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55:
Appeals from decisions of licensing authorities.
55.—(1) Any person who, being the holder of a permit granted by the Commission, is aggrieved by the revocation or suspension thereof by the licensing authority may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the Transport Tribunal.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by the licensing authority". The noble Lord said: If the Committee will turn to Clause 52 (2), they will find that it is there stated that:
"The Commission shall have full power in their discretion either to grant or to refuse any such permit as aforesaid.…"—
that is, a permit for long distance haulage. The Commission are also given power to revoke, suspend or vary the permit. I suggest.hat it is very unfair to operators of road haulage that there should be no right of appeal in the event of a permit being revoked by the Commission. The Commission will, of course, be in direct competition with the permit holder, and when they wish to come to a decision as to whether or not a permit should be withdrawn they may be—I do not say they will be—influenced more by the desire to attract traffic to the vehicles of the Commission and not a competitor than by considerations of the efficiency of the service to the public.
This Amendment is designed to protect the public interest and ensure that a permit holder may, in fact, appeal to the Transport Tribunal, who will be able to decide whether the haulier operating under the permit, or the Commission, will be able to give the best service, judged purely on the merits of the case. I may tell the Committee that in another place an Amendment was moved to leave the decision as to revocation of a permit in the hands of the licensing authority, but it was resisted by the Government on the ground that it was essential for the Commission to have a monopoly of long distance haulage. This new Amendment, which I am now moving, concedes the Government's point of monopoly, but safeguards the hauliers operating under permit and also the general public interest against arbitrary or unreasonable decisions by the Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 14, leave out ("by the Licensing Authority").—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that this cuts right across the purpose of the Bill, and I could not possibly accept it. The Committee will see that Clause 53 (4) states that:
"An original permit may he revoked or suspended by the licensing authority for the area in which the operating centre in question is situate if, on an application made to him by the Commission, he is satisfied that
1086
the holder of the permit has been guilty of a serious breach of any condition attached to the permit. …"
Having enacted that, it seemed to us only right to give some sort of appeal, because, after all, that is founded on the allegation of a serious breach of a condition; and there is to that, as the Committee will remember, an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal which is set up under Section 15 of the Transport Act. What we are doing is taking that appeal over to the Transport Tribunal and that is the point of Clause 55 (1).
To say that we are to leave out the words "by the licensing authority" of course opens the door very wide indeed, because the effect of the Amendment would be to provide for an appeal against any withdrawal of any permit granted by the Commission. I cannot imagine anything less wise than that. The result of it would be that if the Commission realized that they had no power to withdraw a permit they would he very unlikely ever to give one. It would he, I suggest, very unwise in the interest of road hauliers themselves to do this. The whole theory is that these permits to go outside permitted limits are to be entirely in the discretion of the Commission, and they must have the right to withdraw those permits if they think it desirable to do so. It is entirely a matter for their discretion and it would be quite wrong to try to use Clause 55 () of this which is put in for the reasons I gave to your Lordships, to take a step which really fundamentally alters the whole purpose of the Bill and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I do not propose to press this Amendment, in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount. Later in Clause 58 we have another amendment down dealing with licences and no doubt we shall be able to argue the case further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
Clause 58:
Application of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to Commssion.
58. Section one of the Road and Rail Traffic. Act, 1933 (which prohibits the use of goods

1087
vehicles in certain cases without a licence) shall not apply to the Commission but, as respects the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section eight and in subsection (1) of Section sixteen of that Act (which relate to the condition of vehicles, their speeds and loads, intervals for rest and the keeping of records), the Commission shall have the same duties and be subject to the same liabilities, including liabilities to penalties, as they would be if the said Section one applied and they were the holders of A licences or B licences with respect to all goods vehicles owned by them or in their possession, and the provisions of Part 1 of that Act shall have effect accordingly:
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out "not," where that word first occurs. The noble Viscount said: What the Lord Chancellor has said in rejecting the last Amendment makes this series of Amendments all the more important. I must ask the indulgence of the Committee, because this Amendment is only intelligible if it is read with the Amendments to Clause 64 and with the new clause after Clause 80 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the Marquess of Salisbury. In order to explain this may I state shortly what the present position is? Under the Passenger Traffic Act, 1930, a Traffic Commission was set up as a licensing authority and Regional Traffic Commissioners were set up to deal with the number of services to be permitted, frequency and fares. Then under the Act of 1933 similar regional licensing authorities were set up for goods traffic. Traffic Commissioners for both passengers and goods were the same. In that way co-ordination was obtained and the public interest was served. The experience of these Commissioners proved that local knowledge is essential.
Let us see how these are altered by the Government plan under this Bill. The Commission will take over all long-distance haulage of goods and such road transport as they may decide to take over. That is the structure of the Bill and that, whatever we may think about it, we accept. The Commission are also charged with the duty of proposing to the Transport Tribunal, who are the successors of the Railway Rates Tribunal, a rates structure that will cover all rates and fares on the railways and, as I read the Bill, on the roads. That again is not challenged. The position under this Bill is that the local licensing authorities are re-christened; the Traffic Commissioners are re-christened; the licensing authority
1088
for public service vehicles and the regional authorities under the Act of 1933 are re-christened licensing authorities. I have no objection to these baptismal regenerations. What matters is not the name but the powers.
The powers of these two licensing authorities are either eliminated or restricted when they are dealing with the Commission but their power over other undertakings remains in full force. Observe once again the distinction which is drawn between the position of the permitted undertaking which is still allowed to go on under the Bill and the favoured position of the Government-created Corn-mission. In this, we have to consider what is the public interest and what is fair between the Commission and the other undertakers who are permitted to continue. When you establish a monopoly, as we are doing here, it is essential to protect both. The greater the monopoly, the greater the need to protect the public and preserve the powers of these licensing authorities. The Lord Chancellor appeals for a fair chance for the Commission. We concede that at once, but we say, let there be an equally fair chance for the competitors as well. To give that, both Commission and the other permitted operators should be subject similar conditions where regulations are imposed and should have the same freedom where freedom is still allowed.
It is true, as the Leader of the House has himself affirmed, that if this extremely complex transport. scheme is going to work at all, decisions have to be taken rapidly and there has to be a great deal of delegation. That is vital in the interests of the public and equally important whether dealing with goods or passengers. To whom can we better delegate those powers and duties than to the established regional authorities who have exercised them with considerable satisfaction, both to the general public and to operators, ever since they were established and with increasing satisfaction as they have accumulated experience over the last fifteen years? The effect of my Amendment to these three clauses would be to retain these licensing authorities with jurisdiction over licensing passenger and goods traffic in their regions. They would operate as they do to-day under the existing Acts of 1930 and 1933, and under this Bill in so far as this Bill applies.
As I have said, the Transport Tribunal will have jurisdiction over road rates and road fares as well as over railway rates, and these licensing bodies, in so far as they have powers—and it is clear that it is only when they are dealing with passenger traffic that they have the power and duty to fix fares—will have to fit in with the Transport Tribunal which give general direction. Obviously, they must work in with that, and we accept that. That is why the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and I have put down an Amendment to add a new clause after Clause 8o to see that, in exercising their licensing jurisdiction in so far as it is a fare-fixing jurisdiction, they shall operate subject to any decision which flows from a rates scheme approved by the Tribunal. Similarly, I think they must act in conformity with a scheme which is approved. As noble Lords are aware, there is a power upon the Commission to propose these schemes for passenger road trarfic in the different regions. These go through long inquiries and ultimately emerge as approved schemes. Where a scheme has been approved, then obviously the licensing bodies must have regard to that scheme and work in accordance with it. So far from this power to make a scheme being in conflict with the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities, or making their work unnecessary, I am perfectly certain it will become all the snore necessary for the licensing authorities to operate.
It is inconceivable, I would suppose, even to the most extreme bureaucrat, that a scheme could be devised for the whole of the passenger road transport of this country which laid down how many buses are to run on the different routes. Nobody in his senses would contend that any large company operating a number of road transport businesses in different areas would dream of so curtailing the discretion of its local managers. A great deal has to be left to local discretion. But observe, if you are going to deal with it by way of a scheme you cannot put more buses on the road unless the scheme is varied and subject always to the fact that the Commission will not be bound, or will be bound only to a very limited extent, by these licensin authorities. They will be free to put on any number of extra buses, while the other
1090
permitted operators will not have the chance of putting on more to meet the needs of the locality in an area where they are permitted to operate under the scheme. If that were the position, that would be the height of injustice. Even after what happened on a clause a little while ago, where fair treatment was refused to the exempted traffic, I cannot believe it is the intention of the Government that where there arc permitted operators as well as the Commission, and more transport is required (either for the carriage of passengers or of goods), the whole of the increase is to go to the Commission and nothing is to go to the other permitted undertakers. It is inconceivable that this monopoly is intended to go to that length. But if that is not the intention, then surely all a scheme can do is to give broad direction:, as a great army commander gives broad general directions, which have to be carried out upon the spot. There has to be some authority, as well as the body appointed to operate the scheme. To attempt to put these details into the scheme would be exactly as if an army commander tried to issue operation orders to every single platoon.
That is the purpose of these Amendments, I hope I have not been too long, but I thought I ought to make it quite plain what was the intention. I submit they give fair and equal treatment to all operators who are permitted to operate under this Bill. They give an effective delegation to authoritative, experienced, and independent regional authorities, and, subject to the overriding power of the Transport Tribunal and subject to whatever he the general directives laid down in any scheme, they will give you equal and informed decision on the spot to meet local needs. That is the only way in which the public can be satisfied and given what they require. Nobody can say that this is a wrecking Amendment, or that it goes in any way contrary to the principles of the Bill. It accepts all the principles of the Bill; it accepts that all long-distance haulage goes over to tie Commission; it accepts the whole power of the Commission and the Minister to make these schemes for passenger transport. It accepts the whole power. as laid down, of the Transport Tribunal to have this jurisdiction over rates and fares. What it does is to maintain equality between the permitted operators, be they the Commis-

1091
sion or be they the independents, under the jurisdiction which these bodies have exercised over the last fifteen or sixteen years. It gives a proper delegation, and it gives a fair chance to both types of operators. Above all, and this is most important, it gives a chance to the public to get quick decisions and to get that addition to transport which is required. I submit that this proposal is entirely in accordance with the principles of the Bill, and is essential in the national interest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 27, leave out ("not").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment, and I propose to confine my remarks to its effects on short-distance road haulage. At the same time, I entirely support the Amendments which will be moved by my noble friend Viscount Swinton to Clause 64 and after Clause 8o which tie up with the Amendment to Clause 58 which we arc now discussing. As this clause is at present drawn, it is not necessary for the Commission to hold licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933. I should like to point out again—it has already been stated by my noble friend—that we do not object to this arrangement in the case of the long-distance haulier, but we say the Commission should come under the licensing authority in the same manner as the private short-distance haulier does. I am sure your Lordships will realize that the Commission could embark on short-distance haulage to such an extent, and with as many vehicles as they chose, without reference to the licensing authority, and could drive the private short-distance haulier out of business. In addition, the Commission might also oppose the licence application of the private haulier, whereas the private haulier would have no reciprocal right against the Commission.
The Government have declared their intention to take over the long-distance services, and not to enter into short-distance work except so far as may be necessary for rail collection and delivery. We consider, therefore, that the Commission should have to apply to the licensing authority in the same manner as the private haulier in the free zone. In so doing they should produce the general proof of need for their service-that is,
1092
both the short-distance haulier and the Commission. If the right of objection to the Licensing authority is not conceded to the private short-distance haulier, we maintain that the Commission should not have the right of objection against the private haulier when he applies for a licence to operate in the free zone.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to support this Amendment, which I understand is really proposed to cover not only this clause, but also Clause 64, where there is in fact a similar Amendment proposed with reference to the 1930 Act. That is to say, it is proposed to discuss the licensing authority with reference not only to road haulage, but also to passenger traffic. The two fall together, authough there may be certain features which are different. My remarks will be devoted primarily to the question of passenger traffic. I am quite certain that there is no one here who really believes in monopoly, and when the noble Viscount admitted that this was in fact a monopoly, and that it was going to compete unfairly with the private operator, I think he did it with a sense of regret, as I am sure any one must do who faces up to this question. I believe noble Lords have come to the conclusion that the solution of the problem of co-ordination must be through monopoly only because an alternative method has not been considered sufficiently.
I believe there is a method by which you can gain at once co-ordination of public service and a freedom to exercise managerial efficiency, which does not necessarily involve concentration of power and financial control in one place. There are many examples of this. The most notable is the civil aeronautics authority in America. There you have an entirely controlled industry, with very limited competition, but with full liberty for managerial efficiency in each organization. There the authority in charge is responsible for licensing firms to run services. Firms arrive and ask to run services from A to B. They give full details of the manner in which they carry it out, and the aircraft and the machines with which they do so. They give also the fares and all details for passenger traffic. They are then licensed to run the service, and at the end of the year they have to supply the fullest possible report of their accounts and their operations. If it is necessary.

1093
a mild form of competition is allowed so that no one gains an exclusive monopoly. That system is working, and has shown itself to work very well, and there is no reason why a similar system should not work in this country.
If I may put it another way, the danger that confronts us appears to be entirely opposite to the cut-throat competition which many of us feel can be dangerous. I have here a quotation which I think describes exactly the danger with which we may be faced. It is form the Committee of Church and Nation of the Church Assembly:
"Large-scale organizations easily mistake their own interests for the interests of the community which they exist to serve. The issue arises not from the intentions of those who support such schemes; it develops rather from the logic of events."
It is not that those who are running these organizations intend that they should exist for their own purpose, but because in the logic of events one who is concerned in a monopoly must be more concerned with the monopoly than with the people whom it serves.
What is the advantage of this licensing authority? It is already true that the Commission have to go before the licensing authority. They have to go before it on certain specific matters—for the routes that are to be followed, and for the vehicles which have to be used. But for the essential things which affect the public interest they do not have to go before the licensing authority. That is to say, they do not have to go before the licensing authority to show whether the needs for the road are adequate, in the public interest, or to show that the fares charged are not unreasonable. Those are the things in which the public are most interested, and in regard to those matters the Commission do not have to go before the licensing authority.
I submit that the licensing authority provides the only decentralization which can effectively give results to local requirements. First, because it provides a redress against high fares—anyone is entitled to appear before the licensing authority at the present time—secondly, because the licensing authority meets locally, and anyone can make representation before it; and, thirdly, because bus fares vary throughout the country. In this respect they are entirely different from railway fares, and to bring them under the Tribunal is to bring them under
1094
something which will never operate. I feel that, certainly in the majority of cases of passenger traffic, the Tribunal will not and cannot decide the fares. Under Clause 71, the Tribunal will hand the right of charging fares to the Commission. I think that this is an opportunity of breaking away from absolutely centralized monopoly. I am certain that noble Lords do not wish the public to be in the hands of a monopoly, and this is one of the few opportunities left by which effective. control by a monopolistic structure can be checked.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, not because I agree that everybody ought to have to apply for A and B licences, but if a private short-distance haulier has to apply for licences, then the Commission should have to apply also in respect of its short-distance hauling. Anything else means introducing into this country the principle of one law for the State and another for the citizen. For that reason, and also because I believe that if you give a powerful body like the Commission an interest in getting freedom from what we regard on these Benches as the entirely restrictive provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, you will get a force for freedom. I very much hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and see that justice is done as between the Commission and the private haulier in the same field.
LORD GIFFORD: As it has been decided that this matter of the licensing authority and the Traffic Commission should he developed at this point, I would like, in support of this Amendment, to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I think the first thing is that, as regards passenger road transport, you have in the Traffic Commissioners an existing organization which operates and give satisfaction both to the operators and to the people—and particularly to the local people. There is a known office where they an go and make their complaints about the local service, and they can make representations in the district to a man who understands their local problems, which I am sure they would much prefer to do rather than have to go to some central place in London. There have been many cases where a new route has been setup, the local people have not been satisfied with the frequency of the

1095
service or with the fares, they have gone to the Traffic Commissioners, and the matter has been remedied quickly on the spot.
If you take the question of fares, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, fares vary infinitely all over the country. They must be dealt with locally; they cannot be dealt with globally like railway fares. And there is also the question of what services are to be provided on a certain route. No bus company would think of trying to organize the local services from its head office. All that sort of thing is left to the local manager who works it out with the Traffic Commissioners. They have a very close liaison, and the interests of the local people are definitely upheld in this way. We shall have more dangers of monopoly with this new transport organization being set up, but at the moment we are completely safeguarded from any dangers of monopoly by these Traffic Commissioners.
There was a case the other day of a large operating company in the North of England. A new service was required and they put up a case. They were a little slow and they were not prepared to provide exactly what the local people wanted. A local man, with his few local buses, submitted a scheme for that particular service and he got the job. The bus companies are compelled to operate a great number of their services at a loss in order to give satisfaction to the local people, but they run other services on more profitable lines. A very large percentage, about 40 per cent., are run at a loss although, of course, others are run at a profit. The thing is working well under this Traffic Commissioners system, and there are very few complaints. I think everybody is happy, so why alter it?
THE EARL OF ROTHES: May I say one very brief word in support of the system of over-all guidance by the Commission through Traffic Commissioners who have local experience and local knowledge of which use should be made? It seems to me quite incredible that anyone who had to sit down and decide what bus services should he run in the country should presume to do so from a single centre. The whole essence of running satisfactory and efficient bus services is delegation and flexibility on the spot. I suggest most earnestly that the scheme suggested by
1096
the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, should be given most sympathetic consideration. The Commission might outline a general scheme, but they might very well be cutting their own throats if they did not make the fullest use of local knowledge, local experience and the remarkably good record of the Traffic Commissioners in the past.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Many of the speeches to which we have listened have been dealing with passenger transport—indeed, I think most of them. Passenger traffic falls under Part IV of this Act, and not under Part III with which we are dealing—and Part III is the part with which I am concerned. My noble friend the Leader of the House has been here and he has listened with very great interest to the powerful observations which have been made with regard to Part IV, and no doubt he will say that he hopes the same observations will not be made again when we do come to Part IV.
If I may respectfully say so, I am going to confine myself entirely to Part III, because Part III deals with goods traffic and with nothing else. So far as goods traffic is concerned, I venture to think that this Amendment and the related Amendments are quite impossible, and for this simple reason. If your Lordships will turn back to Clause 3 of this Bill—which, after all, is the fundamental clause—it says this:
"It shall be the general duty of the Commission so to exercise their powers under this Act as to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport."
Now if Parliament is going to entrust that duty to the Commission, it is quite impossible that the Commission, in regard to road traffic, should have to go round to a licensing authority and say, "Please may we have permission to do this, that or the other?" It is to the Commission that Parliament looks. They have the duty of doing this thing, and if they are going to have the duty thrust upon them, they must have the right to do what they think necessary to carry out that duty. It is quite inconsistent to entrust a man with a duty and then impose upon him the obligations to get consent from somebody else to carry out the duty. You are then imposing the responsibility on that somebody else and not on the Commission. I say with the greatest respect to noble Lords that this Amendment is really quite inconsistent

1097
with the scheme of the Bi11. The duty is a duty on the Commission and on nobody else, and they must have the right to do what they think necessary to carry out that duty.
Let me add this. Their duty is to provide an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated service. Very well. If we find with regard to what I term "local goods traffic"—and your Lordships know what I mean by those words—that there is already in an area a perfectly efficient local service run by private people who are going to continue to run it, then surely there is no reason why the Commission should butt in and try to run those people off the roads. That is not any part of the duty, as I see it, of providing that economical and properly integrated system. It is definitely the reverse, and so long as the existing system is efficient there is no reason why the Commission should set out to destroy it. I do say this. It is their duty to see that there is an efficient system, and they must do what they think right to secure an efficient system. If this duty is to be thrust upon them they must be able to do that without anybody's "by your leave" or anything of the sort. Therefore I say—and I am dealing with Part III and the goods traffic, and not Part IV and the passenger traffic, where you have schemes and all that sort of thing—that so far as this part of the Bill is concerned it is quite inconsistent to impose the necessity for the Commission themselves to go and get licences either for long distance, short distance or any other goods traffic at all.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the Committee will have heard with amazement the speech which has just been delivered by the noble and learned Viscount. What is the object of permitting any of these permitted operators to operate at all if they can be driven out of business at the sole will of the Commission? Did anybody ever suppose that when Clause 3 was introduced and passed it meant that the Commission was to have the whole of the business, and nobody else was to have any? If that is so, why did we bother about 25 miles, 5o miles or short haul and long haul? The Commission alone is to have everything. It is the duty of the railways, under their Acts, to run efficiently, and the Railway Rates Tribunal has to find that they run efficiently. Can anybody suppose that a
1098
duty to see that the transport is efficient means a power to create an exclusive monopoly to run everybody else off the road?
We shall divide on this perfectly simple issue which governs—is does a similar Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and myself—the passenger Vehicles. The issue is a perfectly simple one. This Bill in its whole structure says long-distance haulage is to be the exclusive property. of the Commission. We do not interfere. with that at all, unreasonable as we may think it to be. The Bill says that short haulage is to be left in the hands of the people who are now operating it, or may in the future get their A or B licences, but with this added competition: that the Commission can come in and operate short-haulage as well as long. Under the Bill as it stands, an A or B licence holder has to go to these licensing authorities to get his A or B licence; if he says the public need requires that he shall have more, he has to go to the licensing authorities and possibly to the Commissioners who, under this system, are there to, co-ordinate.
We say that if under the structure of the Bill you lay down that there shall be these two sets of people, both the Commission and the A and B licensees, they should operate on equal and fair terms: neither or both should have to go to the licensing authority. Without that Amendment the Commission would be free to increase the service by 500 per cent., if they desire, in the name of efficiency, in order to run other people off the route. The man whom you permit to operate under this Bill, goes to the licensing authority and says: "The traffic is increasing in my district, and it is reasonable to put a few more lorries on the road." He cannot do it because the licensing authority would have to say: "The Commission have already put another fifty lorries on without our permission. We would have held an inquiry and decided which of you should do it, but they have queered the pitch in advance." As the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, and I will adopt his words, that is administrative law for the State and the common, law for the operator. I say there should be the same law for both. If there is one fundamental principle—not merely a principle in the structure of this

1099
Bill, but a principle which applies to everybody in this country, a principle which the Lord Chancellor himself has emphasized in the Bill he introduced when he said that with the increase in bureaucracy everyone should have an equal right before the law and as against the State—then I say it is the sound principle that there shall be the same law

CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Calverley, L.

Morrison, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Drogheda, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Quibell, L.

Russell, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Addison, V.

Kershaw, L.

Trefgarne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

NOT CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Harcourt, V.

Greville, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lambert, V.

Hacking, L.

Salisbury, M.

Long, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Maugham, V.

Hawke, L.

Abingdon, E.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Airlie, E.

Simon, V.

Jessel, L.

Craven, E.

Swinton, V.

Kenilworth, L.

De La Warr, E.

Llewellin, L.

Dundonald, E.

Addington, L.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Luke, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Beveridge, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Lucan, E.

Broughshane, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Palmer, L.

Munster, E.

Ravensworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Remnant, L.

Radnor, E.

Cawley, L.

Rochdale, L.

Rothes, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rossmore, L.

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Rotherwick, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Chaplin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teyhnam, L.

Elibank, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falmouth, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wardington, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gifford, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The next Amendment is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 27, leave out ("but") and insert ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The next Amendment also is Virtually Consequential. It really follows from What already has passed.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 4, at end, insert:
("(c) This section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of
for the State and for the citizen. We must obviously stick to this Amendment and divide upon it.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 7o.
any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 52").—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really agree that this is consequential. However, it must not be taken that we are in any way assenting to it. We dissociate ourselves from it altogether, but we do not want to have another Division.
On Question, Whether Clause 58, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:
VISCOUNT SIMON: I wonder if I might ask the noble and learned Viscount for a little information in order that I, at any rate, may better understand the way in which Clause 58 works. This is not intended to be a controversial question, but

1101
I have found a slight difficulty in following it. I see that Clause 58 provides that
"the Commission shall have the same duties and be subject to the same liabilities, including liabilities to penalties, as they would be if the said Section one applied and they were the holders of A licences or B licences."
I am reading from line 32 on page 73. What is not very clear to me is this reference to "liabilities to penalties". I apprehend that if you take an ordinary holder of an A or a B licence and if, for example, his vehicle is not maintained in a fit or serviceable condition—which is Clause 8 (1) (a) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933—he will be prosecuted by the licensing authority. It is a condition of the licence that the authorized vehicle should be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition. Who will see that that is carried out?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should think it would be the police.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It would be the police, would it? Is what is contemplated that the police would prosecute the Commission?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question in regard to a point that was raised in the discussion over the question of A contract licences? As I understand from the discussion, it is the desire of the Board to take over the A contract licences, and the noble and learned Viscount made it quite clear that they are going to do it. But he also made it clear that if the individual who had an A contract licensed vehicle was not satisfied with the way in which the Board operated that vehicle, then that individual could go and apply for a C licence. That is exactly what I understand the trader does not want to do. Many of the traders are perfectly satisfied with the operation of the A contract licence, and when this Bill comes into operation they would still like to go on under the A contract licence. They do not want to have to adopt a C licence. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any words could be inserted to include in the general duties of the Commission that of giving services comparable to those given in the past under A contract licences. It seems to me reasonable, and I hope that the noble and
1102
learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will consider it and see whether something can be done on the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider what the noble Viscount says, but he will realize that it does not bear on this clause at all. This clause which we are now considering deals with the application to the Commission of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I do not think that the point he mentions bears on that. We have had a good deal of discussion on this point. and the noble Viscount will recall that, as a result of Amendments which have been moved, contract A licences now do not count for purposes of ascertaining what is to be taken over. But we will look into what the noble Viscount says and consider it, though I do not think it arises here.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 62 agreed to.
EARL HOWE: I rise merely to point out that on the clauses of the Bill which will come before the Committee from new on there was not one word of discussion previously, owing to the procedure in another place. The clauses have not, in fact, been discussed at all.
6.32 p.m.
Clause 63:
Contents of area road transport schemes.
63. A scheme under the last preceding section may provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say—

(a) for constituting or specifying the body or bodies who are to provide passenger road transport services operating within or partly within the area, and the body or bodies who are to administer or take part in administering the scheme;

(c) for regulating the relations of the persons providing passenger transport services (whether by road or by rail) within or partly within the area and in particular for the pooling of receipts or expenses;

(d) for specifying th passenger road transport services which are to be provided within or partly within the area and for prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area of other passenger road transport services;

(f) for incorporating, with or without modifications, in relation to any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this

1103
section, being a body who are to provide passenger road transport services operating wholly or partly within the area—

(iii) any of the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of the next succeeding section;

(g) for incorporating, with or without modifications, in relation to any such transfer as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer of undertakings or parts of undertakings to the Commission, including provisions relating to compensation;

(i) for making such other consequential or incidental provision as appears necessary or expedient for the purposes of the scheme, including provision for repealing or amending any statutory provision of local application affecting any part of the area.

LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (a), at the end, to insert:
"and who shall include representatives appointed by the local authorities whose areas or any part of whose areas are within the area to which the scheme relates."
The noble Lord said: The latter part of paragraph (a) of Clause 63 concerns the body or bodies who are to administer or take part in administering a scheme for providing passenger road transport within a certain area. I am asking that those bodies should consist largely of elected representatives appointed by the local authorities of the areas concerned. Many of these local authorities are already passenger road transport undertakers, and all of them have a most vital interest in the services provided for those areas. They have been accustomed to make representations on behalf of their inhabitants to the operators providing those services. So they are the most suitable bodies, the bodies who know best and who have the best means of finding out the needs of ordinary travellers—the men and women in the street.
There is thus a large body of experience of the passenger road transport needs of the districts which is available to be drawn upon in constituting operators and administrators of schemes in the future. It is quite obvious that there must be representatives of other interested bodies, and the local authorities do not claim any exclusive membership of such bodies. It is also clear that even to include one representative of each local authority in the area would make the body concerned unwieldy and unduly large. The Amendment asks only that they shall be represented generally, and they will then be able to play a full part in the provision
1104
and administration of passenger road transport in the future as they have done in the past. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 28, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington.).
LORD MORRISON: I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is most unlikely that any of the bodies that are set up in any part of an area would not include at least one representative of a local authority. But the Amendment of the noble Lord goes further than that. It says: "Shall include representatives appointed by the local authorities whose areas or any part of whose areas arc within the area to which the scheme relates." The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, which, incidentally, I am advised, is, in any case, in the wrong place, would be that every county and county borough council affected by a scheme would be obliged to appoint representatives. The noble Lord's Amendment does not say how many or whether they should be appointed individually as representing each authority or collectively as representing all the authorities, irrespective of the extent to which they are individually affected and whether or not they are themselves passenger transport operators. The body administering the scheme might very well, therefore, assume somewhat unwieldy proportions.
I think that I can say that the body set up to administer a scheme is likely—indeed it is almost certain—to include local authority representatives, particularly where road passenger services are provided by local authority undertakings. But to put in the Bill that they shall be appointed to represent every area or any part of every area affected might, in the opinion of the Government, make the body unwieldy and interfere with its flexibility. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Surely the principle involved in this Amendment is rather an important one. I quite see the point of the objection which has been raised by Lord Morrison, and I wonder if Lord Addington would be able to see his way to reduce or to modify his Amendment so as to provide for one representative of

1105
the local authority or something of that kind. If he does so, what would be the view of the Government upon that?
LORD ADDINGTON: I do not think that Lord Morrison, in his reply, has really interpreted my Amendment correctly. It does not say "every local authority," and I have been careful to point that out. It does not follow from the wording of my Amendment, and in the speech with which I moved it I said it was clearly recognized that only certain authorities would appoint representatives. However, I am prepared to reconsider the Amendment and, perhaps, to move it with some modification at a later stage. No doubt the Minister and the Commission would have means of consulting with local authorities and judging for themselves what representatives should be appointed and hew many there should be. I think that if the noble Lord will read the report of what I said in moving the Amendment he will see that I did not imply, and the Amendment does not say, "every local authority." If the noble Lord will agree to consider this, I will withdraw the Amendment, and perhaps we may have some consultation on the matter. It may then be possible on the Report stage to arrange for the insertion of a provision that some representatives of some local authorities are included in these bodies.
LORD HACKING: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment may I say that I and other noble Lords who have a good deal of sympathy with him in this matter would like to know for our own guidance in the future where we can put down a similar Amendment? Lord Morrison said that this was not the right place. May I ask where we could put down an Amendment in somewhat similar terms?
LORD MORRISON: If I may be allowed to reply again to Lord Addington, I would suggest that his advisers who are, presumably, people connected with important local authorities might again hold consultation with him. I will certainly consult with my advisers with a view to seeing whether some suitable words could be put in at another stage to cover the point which we both have in mind.
LORD ADDINGTON: I agree with that. But I think that this is the right place to put an Amendment of this kind
1106
into the Bill. I admit that when this Amendment was first on the Order Paper it was put in the wrong line, but I think it is in the right place now. In the circumstances I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "or expenses." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a very simple one, to which the noble Lord opposite cannot possibly take exception. I do not think it is controversial and it is one which, if accepted, will make this paragraph of the Bill much more workable. I do not think it is very workable at present. The paragraph deals with the co-ordination of the different passenger transport services under a scheme made under Clause 62. I do not think there is any objection, indeed it is desirable, that the receipts should be pooled where two operators, either two independent operators or the Commission and an independent operator, operate in the same area, but I think the pooling of expenses is a very different thing and quite impracticable. That penalizes the efficient operator and subsidizes the inefficient operator.
I should like to give an instance which probably some of your Lordships will know. A ferry service has been operated for many years across Portsmouth Harbour. There are four ferries, two crossing and two alongside. Two have mauve funnels and belong to one company, and two with yellow funnels belong to another operator. Passengers take the same tickets from the ticket office. The receipts are pooled, but the cost of refitting and repainting the ferry boats and the wages and other expenses are paid by the separate companies concerned. One objection made in another place concerned the question of a garage used by both operators. Surely the way to get round that is that either the garage should be owned by one operator and the other should pay a certain rent for its use, or it should be jointly used and each operator pay a proportion of the expenses in accordance with the amount of use. To pool the whole of the expenses is going to be very complicated and probably unfair to each operator. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 38, leave out ("or expenses").—(Lord Gifford.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): In rising for the first time to-day, may I take the opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for his generous reference to myself, and for the way in which your Lordships received it. In regard to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have made some inquiry as to the statement that the clauses we are now on and those coming before us were not discussed. The whole sittings of Committee D were devoted to passenger road transport and harbours under Part IV. I only make that observation as an intimation, but I think it right that the Committee should be acquainted with that, because of the noble Lord's statement.
With regard to the present proposal, I do not think it is practicable. If you have a scheme, whatever it is to deal with, where there is pooling of receipts, you must also take account of the expenses. I cannot imagine it otherwise. Under the provisions of the Bill these schemes are to be advertised, and if there are objections they can be made. Finally, any scheme has to be approved by Parliament.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: By both Houses?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Speaking without notice, yes. There is abundant opportunity of objecting to a scheme. Frankly, I cannot imagine a scheme where they do not take account of both receipts and expenses.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry that in the first speech on his birthday, the noble Viscount should fall so much into error. It is a very common practice to have an arrangement under which you pool receipts and do not pool expenses.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Viscount must remember that I am not speaking of individual arrangements. This is to be a scheme dealing with a certain group of matters, and I do not think he would suggest that in these circumstances we should not take account of expenses.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, certainly I would not. Let me be concrete. As the
1108
noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will confirm, in the arrangement made about the Empire flying route for the whole of the Empire service, receipts were to be pooled in proportion to the number of services run and miles flown, but expenses were not pooled, except those expenses undertaken in common. A scheme might be arranged like this—indeed, that is the way in which the plan is to operate: an area is to be served by a large number of bus services, and there may be a large number of operators—unless we are to have an absolutely exclusive monopoly by the Commission, in which case we do not have any arrangement for the pooling of expenses—and some undertaker takes a lucrative route and another takes a less lucrative. There will be pooling of receipts, but why should there be a pooling of expenses? I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who conducts a good business to do with motor cars in keen competition with other agents, would he like it if all motor agents were taken in the area in which he operates so successfully, and he was told he had to pool—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must really ask the noble Viscount to address himself to the proposition. There is nothing compulsory about it. It says only that a scheme may provide; it is entirely optional.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I know, but what the noble Viscount said was that he could not conceive of a scheme which arranged for pooling receipts and did not arrange for pooling of expenses.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It would take account of expenses; it does not say to pool all receipts or all expenses. It is what you do in regard to either or both. It takes account of what you do.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It takes account of what you do—that is a very omnibus clause. But I could not let pass the idea that if you have a pooling of receipts you must have a pooling of expenses. It is quite fantastic, if I may say so, that that should be necessary, and I sincerely hope there will not be anything of the kind. The moment there is a pooling of expenses the whole incentive to initiative goes; the worst operator knows that it does not matter if his expenses are twice as much as the expenses of the other man, because the other man has to make up the

1109
difference. That is what happens with the pooling of expenses, and I hope that when this Commission are established, of the many things they may do, the one thing they will not do is to encourage inefficiency by the pooling of expenses.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope we shall have a Commission which, when they make schemes, will make sensible schemes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope so.
EARL HOWE: May I say, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has challenged me, that owing to misuse of Parliamentary procedure in another place by His Majesty's Government, not a word was spoken on Clauses 59, 61, 63, or 66. Clauses 71, 72, 73 and 74, were not discussed. I could give the figures with regard to all the other clauses in the Bill, but I do not want to weary your Lordships.
LORD GIFFORD: I am afraid I am not in the least convinced by the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I fail to see how it is practicable to pool expenses. If expenses are pooled, when the Commission are running certain passenger road transport services in an area and one or more operators are running services in the same area, they will rise. I can see that it is right and proper that on one route there might be alternate services by one of the Commission's vehicles and a private operator, and it is quite right and proper that receipts should be pooled. But the maintenance of the vehicles an operator is using in an area may be done outside that area altogether, and thus there are tremendous practical difficulties in pooling expenses. It seems to me to be quite nonsensical. I must also reiterate the point that I made before, and it was made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—that it is a premium on inefficiency, and that if expenses are pooled neither side will try to give the efficient service it ought to give. That is the weak point: it is a premium on inefficiency and penalizes the efficient operator. But it is a minor matter, and not one that I think should be pressed to a Division at this stage.
THE EARL or SELKIRK: I cannot see how any sensible scheme could pool both the receipts and the expenses of two organizations. By pooling the receipts and
1110
expenses you make. in fact, one central finance organization. In that event you cease to have two persons. The noble Viscount, I know, wants the schemes to be sensible, but he is leading them up a nonsensical channel. I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to do that.
LORD GEFFORD: I do not wish to press the noble Viscount any further at the present time, but perhaps, between now and Report stage, he could look into this further, with a view to seeing whether he cannot meet us on this very small matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is now five minutes to seven and I think it would be convenient if your Lordships now adjourned.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Gifford. We were previously discussing Clause 63—"Contents of area road transport schemes"—and this paragraph (d) which it is proposed to omit. If I may, I would like shortly to explain the general outline of this part of the Bill. The Commission are charged with the duty of providing a n adequate, suitable and efficient passenger road transport service. Why it is not to be an integrated service I cannot tell, but in that respect Clause 63 differs from Clause 3. In Clause 63 are outlined the powers under which the Commission will carry out the duties specified in subsection (1) of Clause 62. These powers include, first of all, constituting and specifying bodies which are to carry out road transport; secondly, transferring to such bodies any undertakings which are carrying out road transport at the present time; and, thirdly—under paragraph (c)—the regulation of the relations of persons providing passenger services.
In paragraph (e) the clause goes on to deal with borrowing and, eventually, with compensation. Paragraph (d), with which I am dealing, has no relation at all to what goes in front of it or what comes after it. I submit to your Lordships that

1111
this paragraph is entirely unnecessary. We all agree—and I know the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, does—that the instructions to the Commission in regard to this matter should be sensible. Therefore we should submit paragraph (d) to the test of whether or not it is sensible. The clause is permissive and it is permissive in a scheme which will be laid before Parliament and which will lay down the general lines on which the transport services are to be conducted. It is quite clear from this that there may be a great variety of ways of doing it. It is clear that there is no plan at all.
It is for the Executive to lay down the way in which the services are to be carried out, and the Executive are entirely free to carry them out in any Way they like. It is quite clear, also, that the bodies operating will not necessarily be publicly owned; they may, or they may not, be publicly owned. It is entirely free for the Executive to choose the relationship which exists. I submit that this paragraph is entirely unnecessary. It says, first of "for specifying the passenger road transport services." What does that mean? Does that mean to say that the services are to be specified in detail; that they arc to say that a bus is to run from, say, Stockton to West Hartlepool at a certain time? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? It is not a question of the bodies to run it, or how it is to run—it is the services themselves that are to be specified. Presumably it is a permanent scheme, or at least not one that has to be constantly altered. It is subject to Parliamentary procedure, and will presumably continue for some time. I should have said it was quite unnecessary to specify services.
The paragraph goes on to say that it may also contain services "for prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area of other passenger road transport services." What is the object of that? Why is it necessary to prohibit or restrict passenger transport services? These are the broad general instructions which are issued by the Commission. They are not within the discretion of the Executive, because they are in fact laid down for the Executive to carry out. I therefore submit that these powers are entirely unnecessary. Is it desirable to give powers which are unnecessary? Powers
1112
which are unnecessary are inevitably a temptation for misuse—they cannot be anything else. Can noble Lords claim that they want powers which are unnecessary? If what I have said is accepted, I suggest that it is an abuse of this Statute to put in powers which cannot be used by the Commission in the execution of their duty. I am, therefore, asking that this paragraph be deleted, and in doing so I am not in any way incommoding the Commission in carrying out the duties which are necessary for the provision of transport services. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 39, leave out paragraph (d).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must say I find it rather difficult to follow the reasoning of the noble Earl. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 62 he will see that
"The Commission may, at any time, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme as to the passenger road transport services … being a scheme devised for the purpose of promoting or facilitating … the passenger transport services serving the area."
That is to say, it is a scheme for an area. The governing words of Clause 63—to which we called attention before we adjourned—are that "A scheme, under the last preceding section may provide all or any of the following matters. …" I myself cannot imagine a scheme for road transport services that does not specify the passenger road transport services which are to be provided. I cannot imagine it being a scheme if it does not do that. It is the purpose of the scheme to provide a transport service, and if it does not specify them it is no use at all. One of the main functions of the Commission in preparing a scheme is to provide for passenger road services adequate to the needs of the area. It is impossible to imagine a scheme of passenger services which did not specify the services.
EARL HOWE: Suppose that the noble Viscount does not agree, and that the Committee do not agree, to delete paragraph (d). Suppose that a service is prohibited or restricted, and suppose that somebody feels aggrieved about it and does not agree; what is the procedure that should he adopted? What does the individual or the company who does not like it do? What is the best procedure in order to make representations to authority and to have it decided? I have read Clause 62, of course.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I reply to the noble Earl upon what is really the next Amendment on the Paper, an Amendment omitting the last two lines or so after the word "area" in line 41? That really is the Amendment to which the noble Lord addressed his question. The point of that is that clearly, if you are to have a scheme which is not a disorderly affair, you must say what services are, and what services are not, to be run; otherwise it would not be an understandable scheme.
In response to the last point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that someone might feel himself prejudiced by any prohibitions in the scheme, I may point out, that in the first place the scheme has to be published and it will be the subject of an inquiry at which anybody who feels himself prejudiced or likely to be prejudiced can of course state his objections; and they will be heard. That is provided for in the Bill. Finally if, after the hearing, the scheme is modified, it wi11 then be embodied in an order; that order will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, so that there is still opportunity for anyone who feels himself likely to be prejudiced to be heard or to have his case stated. I did make further inquiries as to cases where a person really might be prejudiced, or shall we say "damaged", by the operation of the scheme, and I am not altogether clear that the provisions for dealing with it are quite as satisfactory as we should like them to be. I am having that point looked into as regards that particular set of cases. I will report to the House later the result of these investigations, but with regard to the words themselves, they clearly are necessary for any comprehensive scheme.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Viscount very much.
VISCOUNT SIMON: There are one or two other matters about which we should like some information at this point. I quite understand the noble Viscount saying that he will look into this. The noble Viscount said that the scheme is to come before both Houses of Parliament and must have their approval before it operates.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Clause 62 (3) says "the order shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure." That procedure is set out in the Eighth Schedule.
VISCOUNT SIMON: One of the questions I wanted to ask was this—perhaps
1114
it is not in line with the matter which the noble Viscount is to inquire into. You have a scheme put forward and there is an opportunity for persons interested to take objection or to suggest alterations. Is there, in the Government's plan as it stands, any provision for this? There may be some enterprises which did not object to the scheme as it was originally published and put before them; there may be other critics who did object, as the result of which the scheme is altered. I do not see any provision in the Bill as to how the party that may have consented to the original scheme has any opportunity of raising objection because of the alterations that are made. He is not a party who objected to the original scheme; he is a party who was content with it. Then some other party comes in and persuades the Minister to alter the scheme. Is there any provision in the Bill which secures that the party who was ready to support the scheme as originally advertised may challenge the alteration which is made by the Minister in order to meet the objection of somebody else? it seems to me, in reading the Bill, that the only people who had a hearing, as it were, were people who objected to the scheme as put forward. If the scheme is altered, of course, that may adversely affect the people who, in the first instance, were willing to support the original scheme. Perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to, look into that point as well.
As regards the broad question which is raised by my noble friend behind me, the language is necessarily general. When we consider the nature of this Bill as a whole, however, is it not perfectly clear that paragraph (d), whether necessary or not, is intended to cover the case where a scheme for passenger road transport services is promoted for an area, which scheme will create a monopoly and will be accompanied by a positive prohibition or restriction on the provision within the area of other transport services? That is the real meaning of This clause, I think; at least it covers it. It seems such a curious way of improving the road transport services in an area to say: "I must be sure that I promote a scheme which restricts or prohibits the provision of any other road transport services except those that I approve in my scheme." This is only one other example of what is the inherent nature of a monopoly, which is, really, that it can endure no rival near

1115
the throne. In the Commission something is set up which is called a monopoly. They set up at once not something to improve or expand but to restrict or prohibit the ambitions of any rival, because they cannot hope to perform their work as a monopoly unless they succeed in cutting the throats of other people.
There are in the early part of the Bill, elaborate provisions for compensation; but here you have a general provision which provides for a passenger road transport service in an area—for example, one which says, "This is the authorized scheme," and which protects itself by restricting and prohibiting the other road transport services within the area, to make it impossible for any private enterprise even to run a service through the area.
That is the significance of this provision; and, while I admit that the words have to be general, we ought not to shut our eyes to the fact that that is the real contemplated policy which may well be followed under this clause. I quite agree that when it is done it comes, in the last resort, under special Parliamentary procedure; and no doubt that lends itself to the observation that members of each House have a right of veto. But in substance it really is a provision that you should authorize the provision of a monopoly in respect of passenger road transport in the area, and that you should buttress that by prohibiting and restricting even services which go through the area—not only those which are confined to the area—in order that the monopoly may reign supreme. That seems to be one of the fundamental objections to the Bill. We heard it fully exposed just now by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and I do not see how paragraph (d) can be read to have an independent meaning. My noble friend's challenge is unnecessary unless the paragraph is for that purpose.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If I may, without boring the House, I would like to intervene for one moment here in order to enter a protest against the noble Viscount's highly coloured description of this monstrous monopoly which he thinks will be set up. I suggest that there will not be anything of the kind. If you will read Clause 62 you will see that it speaks of a scheme "devised for the purpose of promoting or facilitating the promotion of the co-ordination of the passenger trans-
1116
port services serving the area." I can well imagine that any sensible body of people setting to work on that scheme, will naturally seek to co-ordinate the services already there, to see that they do not foolishly conflict and that they harmonize with the needs of the community, and so on. There is no suggestion of extinguishing them and replacing them with a monstrous, hard-hearted, unthinking monopoly. That does not arise at all. Their purpose is clearly set out in that clause.
8.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would like, if I may, to say a word or two here. I was not entirely convinced by the arguments of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. As he stated it, the position is absolutely unexceptionable. The co-ordination and harmonizing of services is just what we want. But that is not what the subsection provides. It speaks of "prohibiting or restricting the provision within or partly within the area of other passenger road transport services." Even if that is not the intention of the present Minister of Transport, who I am sure is extremely sensible, it does give him the power to use this Bill for the purpose of driving any competition out of existence. I must confess, having listened to debates on this Bill—though I am afraid that I have not been able to be here for discussions on every clause—that I am more and more driven to the conclusion that there is a real spirit of perhaps natural apprehension on the part of the Government, that the centralization of power in the hands of the State will not be the success that they hope.
After all, if the arguments which they have been developing up and down this country for a number of years are correct, State service should always be more efficient—I think that was the Lord President of the Council's own phrase—than the schemes of private enterprise or the operations of private enterprise. Automatically, therefore, private companies ought to be driven out of business by this vastly more efficient system which in the new era is being brought into existence. But I have a suspicion that in their heart of hearts the noble Lords opposite, and supporters of the Government throughout the country, are not quite so certain as they would like to appear; I believe they have an uneasy feeling that possibly private

1117
enterprise might win. Therefore in almost every Bill they bring in they put in this provision for creating a monopoly which, in the event of private enterprise turning out to be more efficient, can be used to drive it out of existence. That may be regarded in some quarters as unduly suspicious. No doubt it will be so regarded by noble Lords opposite; but it is not so regarded by very large numbers of people in this country.
I have heard, year after year, arguments used by the Government against the dangers of private monopoly. They are now creating a far greater monopoly than anything of that kind that has ever been known before. Power breeds power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noble Lords opposite shake their heads at the possibility of any danger. They are always shaking their heads but yet the danger is there. I have the highest respect for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—he was brought up in the strictest Liberal traditions and he has graduated into a moderate and mellow Socialist—but I believe he will find that the power which he is now supporting and of which he is the facade—because I do not think he is the heart and soul—will ultimately inflict a terrible injury on this country. This is not an Amendment on which we propose to divide. We ration ourselves, like everybody else, to issues which we regard as the most important. While this raises a considerable issue, it is not in itself, perhaps, a vital provision of the Bill. I do beg noble Lords opposite to consider the way in which the more extreme sections of their Party are leading them. I think there is a very real danger that these provisions in each of these Bills, meant by them to be used quite modestly, will become the means first of monopoly and then of dictatorship.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Feeling sufficiently admonished by the noble Viscount, I thank him for his exposition of Conservative doctrine. But while the present Government seek a monopoly they would rather have a public monopoly than a private one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Viscount is in favour of monopoly, one way or another?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say that at all. If we are to have a monopoly, we would rather have a public than a
1118
private monopoly. Bitter experience has convinced the people of this country that that is a wise decision. Perhaps I might inquire from noble Lords what is in their minds. What we have been discussing is the Amendment to leave out the lines at the end of paragraph (d). I hope that we can now consider discussion on that part concluded, and take all the Amendments together.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Marquess for what he has said. It seems to me that the Leader of the House has not begun to face the question I put to him. He says he cannot conceive a scheme being devised for specifying the passenger road transport unless it specified the services. If you specify the services you are laying down a Bradshaw, and I would like to ask whether he really intends to do that. I think that is a matter not for the Commission, a planning and policy-making body, but for the Executive. That is an instruction which is being given to the Executive, surely it does not include services.
The noble Viscount said there is ample provision in the previous clause for examination. This clause specifically talks of restriction, and there is no provision at all for representation. That means to say that it lies in the hands of the Commission, if we are passing this clause as it stands, to restrict any company to the degree to which it can be brought nearly to its knees, and then perhaps bought out. There is not much provision, as the Bill stands, for making representation. The special Parliamentary procedure does not take as far, because the scheme under this procedure does not have to be approved by either House. It simply lies on the Table for rather less than forty days, and it is only in the event of minor amendments being required than it is referred to Committee. If any major or general objections were raised, it would simply lie before the House, and if no Resolution were passed it would, in due course, become effective, without ever being considered, or without any representations of any kind being made.
I would refer the noble Viscount to the Eighth Schedule. I am aware there are pending Amendments to this Schedule, but if the noble Viscount would look at the Eighth Schedule, paragraph 4, he will

1119
see that the Minister may cause an inquiry to be carried out:
"by causing a person, appointed by the Minister for the purpose, to make such inquiries (including, so far as the said person considers necessary, the hearing of oral evidence) as the said person considers necessary …"
Does that mean a man sitting in an office and reading a couple of text books? The person carrying out the inquiry need not see anybody, and need not ask for any evidence. I submit, respectfully, that there is no adequate protection against the very wide and totally unnecessary powers which exist in this clause at the present time. I would ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he will consider this point before Report stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I assured the noble Earl as specifically as I could that the compensation point would be looked into.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not specifically mention the compensation clause. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice that he would move to leave out paragraph (g). The noble Viscount said: The Amendment on the Paper in my name is to omit paragraph (g) because I am not quite sure about the position. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has a number of very lengthy Amendments to the Eighth Schedule which purport to set out all the compensation arrangements. Some of my noble friends had parallel Amendments, and perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House appreciates the hard work to which they have been put. By a modification of his Amendments they have converted them into a much simpler set of Amendments. I would like to be advised whether the noble Viscount's Amendments which are down to the clause and to the schedule make it unnecessary for us to move this Amendment. If we have a full discussion on his Amendment to the clause and to the schedule, on everything that is purported to be dealt with by discretion in paragraph (g), I would be content not to move.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can give the noble Viscount that assurance. I think the long Amendment to Part II of the Eighth Schedule covers all the points, and unless this is incorporated we should be without power.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is it necessary to include paragraph (g); because the provisions of Part II are entirety different from those regarding the other forms of transport?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt, because I am sure the noble Earl does not want to be wrong. It is not Part II of the Eighth Schedule which I am going to move. It is a new provision altogether.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let us, without prejudice, pass paragraph (g) as it stands. Then we will deal in Committee with all the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and by others. If we then find we have left out something from these Amendments that we should like to have discussed under paragraph (g) we can quite well go back and modify paragraph (g) on the Report stage. So, without prejudice in that way, we could get on. Would that be agreeable to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I just clear up this point? The point I was making was on Part II of the Bill, not Part II of the Eighth Schedule. The point about Part II of the Bill is that the transfer takes place on the appointed day. It has nothing to do with Part IV.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Perhaps the noble Earl will read my Amendment, to add Part II to the Eighth Schedule. It is printed on the Paper.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I do not move my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ROTHEShad given notice to move to leave out paragraph (g) and insert:
"(g) for incorporating the proviso to subsection (3) of section forty-eight and the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act relating to compensation."
The noble Earl said: I would like to say a few words on paragraph (g), which I agree, as has been suggested, should be left to the Report stage. The Minister's

1121
powers for incorporating, for the purposes of transfer, any of the provisions of this Bill are causing considerable anxiety. For instance, if I read it correctly, for the purposes of transfer he could incorporate, under Clause 18 and Clause 23, the suspension of dividends by railways; or, under Clause 15, a disclaimer of contract with the railways. It is difficult to understand why he should have these very wide powers. I should have thought that any powers necessary were already supplied under paragraph (i). As has already been suggested by tie noble Viscount, I will leave those points to the Report stage.
There is, however, one point I would like to mention. The noble Viscount has an Amendment clown which deals with compensation, and I agree that that should be left until Schedule VIII. But if he is to move that Amendment, may I ask the noble Viscount to bear in mind the provision in subsection (3) of Clause 48—which I think is in the wording of my Amendment, but not in the wording of the Amendment of the noble Viscount—namely, the point that hauliers receiving compensation are allowed to draw cash—I think it was up to £2,000, and it has been increased—instead of being paid in British Transport stock. This would make a great deal of difference to the smaller operator, and if the noble Viscount would consider incorporating some suitable words, I should be grateful. I do not move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 24, after ("including") insert ("(subject to the provisions of Part II of the Eighth Schedule to this Act)").—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(2) (a) If a scheme under the last preceding section provides for the transfer of part (in this subsection referred to as "the original part") of an undertaking, the Transferor may by notice in writing to any body to whom such transfer is to be made require them within a reasonable time to accept a transfer of either—

(i) the whole of the undertaking

(ii) such part of the undertaking as may be specified it the notice (in this subsection
1122
referred to as "the additional part") in addition to the original part

as the Transferor may select, and the said body shall comply with the notice.
(b) In the event of any such notice being given, compensation shall be payable as if the scheme had provided for the transfer of the whole of the undertaking or of both the original part and the additional part as the cast may be."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which deals with compensation, but I am advised that this is the proper place for it to be raised.
Quite briefly, it is the case of an operator who has part of his undertaking taken over under this scheme, and is left with part of the undertaking which, for some perfectly good reason, he may find it impracticable to continue working. For example, he may find it impossible owing to the geographical situation of his workshops or his garages. We suggest, in those circumstances, that it would be reasonable to have the procedure set out in this Amendment—that he should apply to the Commission requesting them to take over within a period either the whole of the remainder, or part of the remainder, that he cannot work, and that the Commission should be bound to take it over. I think your Lordships will appreciate that there are many cases of undertakings being transferred in which only part of the undertaking would be transferred. It is a point of considerable importance to those concerned, and one on which I think the industry feel very strongly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. It is quite a straightforward Amendment, and I need not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. It seems a very reasonable thing, to which I feel there may be no objection. Suppose part of an undertaking in Lancashire were taken over, the operator could compel the Commission to take over either the remainder of his business in Lancashire or, if necessary, the whole of his undertaking if it appeared to him that he was unable economically to operate the part left to him. He may have had all the maintenance shops taken over, or all the

1123
garages, which may make it quite impracticable to operate the part of the undertaking which remains.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If the noble Earl will look at the effect of the Amendment as it stands, he will see that it would be a contradiction in spirit to what we have already undertaken to do. A man might insist on the Commission buying out part of his business which was dealing with the sale of second hand cars, or something of that kind, which the Commission might not wish to buy. I think the provisions for dealing with those cases are quite adequate, and if the noble Earl will look at Clause 62 (2) on page 77 he will see that before submitting any scheme,
"…the Commission shall consult every local authority whose area or any part of whose area is within the area to which the scheme relates, and any person providing passenger transport services …"
That would be this person in the area. I have already said that the cases of hardship are fairly covered under the provisions of this clause.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I must confess that I am a little disappointed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: You cannot expect the Commission to buy something forcibly which they do not want.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I quite appreciate that, but in Clause 54 somewhat similar facilities have been granted to road hauliers, and I was venturing to hope—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have promised that I will look into it and see that this is dealt with on the same lines. I will do my best.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, and in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(2) Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall be deemed to prevent the making of arrangements with any person otherwise than under a scheme for the carriage of a party of passengers and their baggage (if any) upon a journey organized as a tour for the common enjoyment of these passenegers."
The noble Viscount said: I am sure the Government will accept this Amendment,
1124
because they have already accepted it in another Bill. I can put it in two sentences. In the Civil Aviation Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will remember, there was a question of perfectly genuine charter—a man chartering an aeroplane to take a number of people upon a trip. That was universally agreed to, and we did not have to divide upon it. That is exactly the position of an independent operator wishing to run a genuine chartered bus. There cannot conceivably be anything to object to in it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am advised that this Amendment of the noble Lord is fully covered by the Bill as it stands; that contract carriages and that kind of thing will not be included in the scheme at all, and that they are not part of the passenger road service. They are exempted from inclusion in the scheme. For instance, I gather that if anybody—say a party of the Women's Institute, or a body of that sort—wants to charter a bus to take them all round England, that would be a contract carriage. If you look at the definitions given on page 124, you will see that it says:
"'passenger road transport service' means a service of express carriages, stage carriages, tramcars.…"
and so on. This is not a "service," and therefore contract coaches and such things as specially arranged tours are not included at all. I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary, but if, after further consultation, I find it is, I am quite agreeable to put it in.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am delighted to find that we are at one, and that the Amendment is not necessary. I am bound to say that, having been told earlier that a fair chance for the Commission meant an exclusive monopoly for the Commission, I was really a little anxious as to whether this Amendment ought not to be inserted. But of course if the noble Viscount tells me that we can take the Mothers' Union on a tour and no one will send us to prison, I am quite happy. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
9.16 p.m.
Clause 64:
Passenger road transport services of the commission.
(2) Sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relate to road service licences) shall not apply to any passenger road transport service provided, whether under a scheme under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act or otherwise, by the Commission or by any person acting as agent for the Commission, but neither the Commission nor any such person as aforesaid shall use any public service vehicle for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward at separate fares except—

(a) on a route approved, as respect so much thereof as falls within any traffic area, by the licensing authority for public service vehicles for that area; and

(b) in accordance with such restrictions as may be imposed by that authority as to the class or description of vehicles which may be used on the route and as to the portions of the route on which, and the points at which, passengers may be taken up or set down:

Provided that the Commission may appeal to the Minister against the refusal of any such authority to give their approval or against any restrictions imposed by them as to the matters aforesaid, and the decision of the Minister shall be final.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that it is unnecessary for me to make a speech on this Amendment, I dealt fully with passenger transport as well as road hauliers when I spoke on the Amendment to Clause 58, which the Committee passed, and deployed the whole sequence of arguments for the purpose. We have agreed that the licensing authorities shall retain their existing powers over road haulage operated both by the Commission and by independent Operators, subject, of course, to the overriding power of the Transport Tribunal. This Amendment is to make exactly the same provision with regard to passenger transport. It carries out exactly the same intention, and allows the licensing authority under the Act of 1930 to retain the powers they possess under that Act—subject again to the overriding powers of the Transport Tribunal, and subject also to the provisions of any scheme which may be duly approved and passed by Parliament. The Amendment is exactly on all fours with what we decided as regards road haulage, and I beg to move it really as a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 4o, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad that the noble Viscount agrees that we have had a long discussion on this main theme this afternoon and that it is not necessary to repeat it. But I would point out that there is a very important difference between this and the decision which we reached this afternoon on road haulage. This is a part of a scheme. The road haulage related to orders and actions by the Commission and its Executives; but this relates to what is to be done with regard to a comprehensive scheme. I would point out to the noble Viscount that he is pressing his case too far. There is a scheme which is to be subject to local inquiry and which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. and I think it is quite unreasonable to say that the operation of that scheme may be subject to the local licensing authority. I cannot see that this Amendment is parallel with the other case. I am afraid we must object to it. I do not want to prolong the debate, but it seems to me completely impossible to expect that a scheme approved by Parliament shall then be subject to the veto, if you like, of a local transport authority.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If we must differ we must; but do not let us differ on a misunderstanding as to what the position is. If the words are not quite appropriate, we can make them right afterwards; but let me make abundantly clear. what is the purpose of this, and what I am advised that the words are capable of meaning. Of course, I recognize that the scheme—and said that we accept: this completely—and whatever is laid down in the scheme, will be binding on the licensing authority. I do not want to go behind the scheme in the least, but I know that the scheme cannot lay down all these matters all the time. All I say is this: Let the scheme be made; let that scheme be absolutely binding in what it provides upon the Commission and on every other permitted operator under the scheme; and lot the scheme also be binding on the licensing authority. But when you have done that, there will be constant calls to put extra buses on the road, either for special purposes or generally, and I am perfectly certain that

1127
the scheme is more in the nature of a general directive than an operating order to—say—every bus in Yorkshire.
What we say is this. In so far as the licensing authority are to operate at all—and by this Bill they are made operative over the independent people—then, subject to the Bill, and subject to the scheme, and subject to any overriding decision of the Transport Tribunal, the licensing authority shall have authority over the Commission, and over the independent operators. This is the sole purpose of this Amendment, and I am advised on good legal authority that it is well drafted for the purpose. That is what is in our minds and what is our intention; no more and no less. If it does require amendment in words to make that effective—well, so be it; but do not let us have any difference of opinion. We are not seeking to let the licensing authority override Parliament or the scheme, or anything else; the Amendment is simply to give the licensing authority power of restriction over the other operators and over the Commission.
LORD GIFFORD: In subsection (2) it says that the Commission may operate under a scheme or otherwise. That is the only matter I want to point out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not see the words to which the noble Lord is referring.
LORD GIFFORD: They are at the foot of page 78.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That means the Passenger Transport Act. With regard to the point mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, there is clearly a misunderstanding. I am advised that the result of his Amendments, put together, would be what I described, and I am glad to hear from him explicit and definite assurances that that is not his wish. That being the case, perhaps it would not be difficult to arrive at an understanding. I am advised, with complete definiteness, however, that his Amendments go very much further than that. If the noble Viscount will look at the top of page 79, with regard to the modifications he has mentioned, he will see that the subsection goes on:
"But neither the Commission nor any such person"
—that will be the private person—
1128
"as aforesaid, shall use any public service vehicle for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward at separate fares except

(a) on a route approved, as respects so much thereof as falls within any traffic area, by the licensing authority for public service vehicles for that area; and

(b) in accordance with such restrictions as may be imposed by that authority"—

that is the Licensing Authority—
"as to the class or description of vehicles which may be used,"
and so on. Those are the very powers which the noble Viscount said he wanted the licensing authority to exercise, and here they are, stated in the Bill—that they shall exercise them, notwithstanding a scheme. I am sure there is a misunderstanding.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I leave it like this? I am not quoting my own legal authority—I have taken good legal authority on this side of the House—but I am sure that the Bill, as drafted, gives one law to the Commission and quite a different law to the independent permitted operators under the scheme. That is what we believe to be utterly and absolutely wrong. We want to do, qua both the Commission and the operators in passenger road 'transport, exactly what the Committee have done about hauliers. We do not want to do any more and, with respect, we will not be content to do any less. We do not want to override any scheme; we want both to be subject to the scheme, so far as the scheme governs them. I am not asking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to assent to that proposition. He wants a specially privileged position for the Commission and an inferior position for—I see he dissents from that. At any rate, I do not ask him to assent to the proposition. I do not wish to talk further on an Amendment which we may have to put into a different form. So I am willing to withdraw this now, on the understanding that between now and the Report stage, if our expert draughtsmen can mutually agree on a provision in a form which gives effect to what I want, I shall be quite content to move it in that form. If, as seems to be the case, there is doubt as to whether I have it in the right form, I agree that it had better go in on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite willing that our advisers should collaborate, so far as possible, with a view to finding some form of Amendment which would

1129
satisfy the noble Viscount. But he will, of course, understand that that does not pledge me to agree with what he has adduced.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Viscount on his side will get this put into the right legal form as he wants it, then we on our side will get it into the right legal form as we want it, and your Lordships can take a decision, knowing that you are taking a decision in the right legal form. On that understanding, I will withdraw this Amendment and put the whole chain down again in the right form on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65:
Schemes as to harbours.
(4) The Commission may be the body specified, or one of the bodies specified, in a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, and a part of the undertaking of the Commission may be the subject of a transfer under a provision included in a scheme by virtue of paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection.
(6) No provision of any scheme made under this section shall apply to any private dock undertaking, oil dock undertaking, coal dock undertaking or drydock undertaking, unless either the person carrying on the undertaking consents to the application thereof or the undertaking is carried on in pursuance of some private Act or some order having the effect of an Act.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) For the purpose of the exercise or performance of his powers and duties under the Eighth Schedule to this Act, the Minister shall not regard a scheme as making satisfactory provision with respect to the matters dealt with therein unless the scheme provides that the body who is to administer the scheme—

(a) is to be a body who does not carry on its undertaking with the object of making profits for, or distributing profit as dividend among, the members or proprietors of the body;

(b) is to be constituted so as to include among its members persons representing the respective interests of payers of dues for the facilities afforded in the harbour or group of harbours and of workers employed in the harbour or group of harbours; and

(c) is to administer the scheme from a place at or in the immediate vicinity of the harbour or one of the harbours within the group of harbours."

The noble Viscount said: Now we come to another matter of very great importance and that is how we are to deal with the docks of this country. Again, with your Lordships permission, I would like for a moment or two to examine the whole position, because without that I do not think that the purpose of this Amendment can be fully appreciated. I want to do it not only to make the position plain, but also because I think that when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has heard what I have to say he will agree that when we took a decision on an earlier clause he perhaps used rather exaggerated language as to its effect. I think I shall be able to show him that.
Let us see what the Bill, as it originally stood, and the Government plan, do, as compared with tire Amendments which the Leader of the Opposition and I propose here. Under the Bill, until the Committee determined otherwise, a Docks and Waterways Executive would have been set up, and this Executive would have had the duty of managing all the railway docks vested in the Commission. Under the Bill the Commission, and not the Executive, have the duty and power to review docks and harbours and make schemes. As the Lealer of the House said, it would be unthinkable that in making the scheme the Commission should abolish the very successful harbour trusts like the Clyde, London, Mersey, Newcastle, Leith, or any of the many smaller ones which are also extremely efficient. Under the Bill as it stands the Commission can make a scheme for all other ports, establishing similar port trusts if they wish, but until a scheme is proposed the status quo will be maintained for every port. As soon as the railway docks vest in them, the Commission will operate the railway docks in whatever way they think best. Other docks will remain operating as they are at the present time.
Let me point out what changes our Amendments make. Although important, they certainly do not alter the whole structure of the Bill, as the noble Viscount suggested. The railway docks will all vest in the Commission on the appointed day. It is true that there is an Amendment put down to Clause 68, requiring the Commission to transfer the railway docks within a period of four to five years. We can discuss that on its me6s when we come to it, but I would like to say at once that

1131
it is not necessary to effect the plan I am proposing, which is that where there is a change it should be by port trust. It is not in the least necessary that that Amendment should be mandatory or, indeed, that it should go in at all. I know that many people feel that the railways and the Commission should hand over the docks sooner or later to a public trust. But if I could establish the essential proposition that the right system of managing docks is by this independent public trust, I would be perfectly content to leave the railway docks to be run by the Commission by any Executive they please or in any way they please, until such time that they think they should transfer them to a port trust; because I am sure that sooner or later the Commission will feel that the right way is to deal with them through such a trust. I ask the noble Viscount not to consider the Amendment essential to the plan I am putting forward.
Under these Amendments the Commission is given the power and the duty to review all ports and make schemes exactly as the Government propose. The only difference is that under the Government plan any or all of the ports can be vested in this centralized administration in Whitehall, while we believe that to be fundamentally wrong. We say that if you want to make a change you ought to make it by establishing a port trust on the precedent of these non-profit-making public utility trusts. The arguments for that are very strong indeed. Ports are the links between land transport and sea transport. They ought to serve them both, but they should be controlled by neither. I would be as opposed to putting the ports under the shipping lines as I would be opposed to putting them under the railway lines. They are where the two meet, but they should be under neither, though they should serve both. Experience is in favour of this. The Royal Commission on Transport, from which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has quoted, said this:
"We are definitely of opinion that, in principle, it is undesirable that one form of transport should own docks and harbours to which access is essential by other forms of transport. We are further of opinion that the best kind of authority to own docks and harbours is a public trust, such as exists in London, Liverpool, and elsewhere."
That is strong evidence, but it goes much further than that. Many others who have
1132
no political interest in this whatsoever, but who are concerned only that the ports should run to the best advantage because it serves their trade, have taken the same view. The Traders Docks and Harbours Co-ordinating Committee unanimously endorsed this principle. This Committee represent everybody who uses the docks, and include the whole of the British Chambers of Shipping, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Mansion House Association of Transport, the National Farmers' Union, the Timber Federation of the United Kingdom, and a whole chain of organizations representing practically every user of the ports. The whole shipping industry, who do not claim to run the ports and upon whom we increasingly depend, not merely for our transport but for our export trade, not merely as carriers of exports but as invisible exports themselves, and who also represent the mind of foreign shipowners, unanimously take the same view. After all, if we run these ports properly we make a great deal of money out of foreign ships, and we make hard currency at the same time.
All experience proves the importance of local knowledge and local administration. These port trusts which have been so successful are administered locally by bodies representative of all the different kinds of users, of the local authorities of the port, and of labour, and they also include independent members. There can be no great political argument against this. I know the Government have a mandate, and they have always claimed they wanted to nationalize the railways. I am not going to say whether they are right or wrong, but I think they can prove they have a mandate to nationalize the railways. They have never claimed a mandate to nationalize the docks. I have caused a most exhaustive inquiry to be made into all the labour manifestoes and publications, but there is not one in which this has been claimed. I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to correct me if I am wrong, but I am advised that there is no publication of any sort or kind where the Labour Party have claimed to nationalize the ports of this country.
It has been claimed that they ought to be improved—although the last authoritative document I have been able to find from the Labour Party is singularly

1133
complimentary to the way the ports of this country are run. We all agree that the more they can be improved, the better, but I do not think the way to improve them is to nationalize them. There is no ideology at stake in this. Certainly the public interest will be served if the working models of these port trusts, who have served the country so well, are included. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
9.40 p.m.
LORD LEATHERS: Unlike my noble friend who has just sat down, I do not need to apologize for always being on my feet; rather do I apologize for putting in my first appearance to-night. I felt it necessary to come to this House to-night, because of this very clause and this Amendment which we are now considering. I want to tell the House that I am in full agreement with the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Viscount Swinton. I say that, first, because when this Bill was introduced into Parliament there was an Explanatory Memorandum which said:
"The purpose of the Bill is to set up in Great Britain a publicly owned system of inland transport and of port facilities."
In spite of many things that may have been said so far during the course of the discussions on the Bill, I think we must remember that that was the original intention—and it may still be the intention—in the minds of the Government. It has been my life experience to be associated with the docks and with shipping, and I feel that I can speak with some knowledge of the docks. I would also say that during my term of office in the Coalition Government, for some four arid a half years, I had occasion to have the ports within some jurisdiction because, although we did not take any active control, they naturally fell under a measure of control to ensure that the utmost war effort was secured from them. In that experience, I found that where the port trusts were operating they were a very competent dock authority. They have, indeed, come out of a trying experience with an enormous amount expected of them and delivered in a way that can never justify any suggestion that they are inefficient, or anything approaching it.
1134
We ought to have in mind, too, that the ports under public trusts are very important in the tonnage value in this country. In 1938 two-thirds of the total imports and exports of this country came through the ports that are under public trusts. That means that these eight ports were represented by two-thirds of the tonnage of the whole country, compared with 340 ports operating throughout the country. We have a vast amount of our imports and exports passing through the ports governed by these trusts. I think we should keep in mind that this Bill already throws an enormous burden of responsibility upon the Minister and it is not as though we have to go round scraping a little more, perchance, in order that the job may be worth while. I suggest that there is no occasion to seek that additional burden; and indeed, what is the use of putting that burden on to the Bill, overburdened as it must necessarily be, by going out of our way to place within its jurisdiction public trusts and ports which have so capably conducted their business over a period of years?
I would like to strengthen all that my noble friend Lord Swinton has said in support of the argument that he has made. I feel that we should be making a grave error to interfere with a system which has worked so well, even though we might hope that under such new jurisdiction something as good might be achieved. I think it would be wrong to do it, because under the present regime of port trusts there is an absolutely essential independence from any of those sides which matter so much; and the Commission will, for certain, be on one side. Those are the reasons which prompt me to say, and prompt me to urge, if I may, on the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that there is really essence, there is really importance in this suggestion which has been made from this side of the House, and I do beg of him to give it the utmost consideration.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment, the object of which has been so clearly explained by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. This clause is, of course, of profound importance to the shipping world, and it is for that reason that I feel I should emphasize certain points. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers,

1135
that in the Bill, as originally drafted, the whole of the trade harbours together with the ancillary services would have come under the control of the Transport Commission. By "ancillary services" I mean stevedoring, lighterage and warehousing. This executive control would have had the most far-reaching and detrimental effects upon the efficient handling of ships and the loading, discharging, and distribution of cargoes. An Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place whereby the powers of the Commission to bring under compulsion all the ancillary services by State ownership were removed, and the shipping interests are grateful for this concession. But the very fact that this important concession had to be made shows quite clearly how little this section of the Bill had been properly thought out and considered in its effect on the efficiency of our ports.
Again by Amendments agreed to in another place, the private docks, dry docks and oil undertakings are in general now excluded from the scheme that can be made by the Commission. For this further reason I cannot help thinking that it would have been far better to introduce this clause into the Bill only after thorough public inquiry into the best method of State and public control of harbours and ancillary services. The commercial harbours and ports of Great Britain are approximately 330 in number, and are in the hands of local or private authorities. They can be divided into four groups: those under trusts which are not run for profit, amounting to some no in number; the Municipal authority group, amounting to 70 in number; the railway group, amounting to 50 in number, and the remaining harbour companies, amounting to 100 in number. With the exception of the railway ports and the harbour companies, all the principal harbours are already under a form of public ownership. It is either the trust system or one of municipal ownership, like Manchester and Bristol.
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, if we take into consideration the municipal port of Bristol, the municipally controlled port of Manchester, and the railway docks, which in the Bill will come under the control of the Commission, the ports at present are operating under the trust system, and it will be
1136
found that 85 per cent. of the total exports and imports of the country were handled by these ports, which are already under a form of public ownership. The object of this Amendment is to leave undisturbed this efficient form of public control of our ports, and at the same time to allow the Commission to retain power of review of the ports which are not already under the public trust system, or publicly controlled. If they decide that under the scheme, as a result of this review, certain ports should come under public ownership and perhaps be grouped with other ports, the scheme must be largely that of a public trust system, similar to that already in force in London or Liverpool.
Perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract from the report of the Royal Commission on Transport issued in 1931. In paragraph 450 on page 126 it says:
"The efficiency of many of the undertakings controlled by these Public Trusts cannot be denied. The Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the Clyde Trust, to mention the three largest, are examples of statutory authorities which have done a very great deal to provide the most modern and convenient accommodation for shipping, both ocean and coastwise. The same remarks apply in no less degree to many of the municipally-owned and railway-owned undertakings, such as those of Bristol and Avonmouth …"
That Report certainly does not indicate that the ports under public control are inefficient, but on the contrary that they are run very well, and in the best interests of the country generally. I emphasize that there is a marked difference between the public trust in relation to harbour administration and public ownership, or such control as it implies, under the Bill. Under the trust system administration is conducted locally, which, of course, is very important, and it gives full scope to local initiative responsibility and civic pride. And all that would be lost if the ports came under State ownership and centralized control.
I am well aware that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport implied that it was the general intention of the Government to keep the trust port system, but as the Bill is drawn the Transport Commission would still have power to hand over the commercial harbours to State ownership and centralized control. I have had some personal experience of the control and management of the largest port in

1137
the world, and I have come to the conclusion that this centralized control really only worked successfully because the Government, in exercising their war-time emergency powers, left the harbours and ports to local trusts and municipally-owned systems. The nationalization of ports, as already mentioned, was no part of the Government's Election programme, and it is a very grave matter that no inquiry has been held to ascertain the effect on the country's industry and trade of such nationalization. No evidence has been produced to justify this scheme, and no evidence has been forthcoming from any responsible quarter in favour of the system proposed. I implore the Leader of the House to accept this very reasonable Amendment.
LORD REA: I should like to support the Amendment, not because it has any immediate application, but because it may set some check upon the megalomania that afflicts the present Government. This is a disease that is, I am told, apt to grow and is quite incurable. I should like to make quite sure that in spite of the undoubted powers which are given under this Bill for the Transport Commission to take over the extremely efficient ports which are now run under local and independent authorities, those ports will still be sure of that local supervision and care. Much depends upon that in those ports, which, by the way, as one of the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite has said, are commercial undertakings in competition with foreign ports and therefore must be run on a commercial basis. It is essential that they should be run by people on the spot and under the advice of those who actually use those ports.
May I be allowed to give a personal experience of one of the ports controlled by a local trust? Many years ago I applied in my business capacity for a berth, for something which all the members of that port thought was a wild speculation; but they were local people and I am happy to say that they had sufficient confidence in my family to accept it as right. We were able to set that berth up, and for the last fifty years it has been a very prosperous undertaking. It is something which would never have been set up if we had had to apply to someone in London to get permission. I had no experience of it during the last war, but during the First World War, when I was actively engaged
1138
in business, we thought that when a Government Department necessarily took control of that particular port the efficiency was very greatly reduced. It was infinitely more difficult. to secure decisions, which it was vitally necessary to secure promptly in war time, when there was a Government Department at the back to which the local ma n had to defer.
Therefore it is of the greatest importance to the export and transit business of this country that great organizations like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Port of London Authority, the Clyde Trustees, and so forth, should be run predominantly by local men who know all the circumstances and who should not be subject to the crippling control which, with the best will in the world, must ensue if decisions have to be referred to Whitehall. There I would differ, perhaps, from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who was prepared to leave the railway ports in the hands of the railway companies or of their successor, the Ministry of Transport. I am not at all sure—although it does not perhaps arise on this Amendment—that it would not be in the interests of this country. and in the interests of our competition with the foreign ports across the Channel, if such ports as Southampton and those in South Wales were to be put under local trusts, similar to those in London, Liverpool and elsewhere.
There is a further reason for that. I am very distrustful of those ports which are owned by the railway companies, in that the rates for the port and the railway rates are all one, and nobody knows how they are made up. I know from my own experience how it has been possible for a railway company, in the bad old days of competition in South Wales, to make its rates so that nobody could understand them. Suppose that this Government, from its own point of view, very properly chose to favour South Wales instead of somewhere else, because it is a depressed area. I want to be sure that something is done to see that they do not juggle with the combined rates of railway and dock dues so as to fa your unfairly one district over another. So I urge that though this Amendment has no immediate effect, it is a very real safeguard, not against the present Minister of Transport but against some successor who may be not so careful of his reputation and not quite so

1139
impartial. It is a safeguard to ensure that under some future Minister of Transport at any rate our great ports shall not be submitted to the deadening hand of control from Whitehall.
LORD ROTHERWICK: I would like to support the Amendment from the point of view of the shipping industry and indeed from the point of view of a great many manufacturers and traders in this country. The main purpose of this Bill is to nationalize road and rail transport. I have heard of no special mandate given to the Government to couple State ownership of ports and harbours with nationalization of inland transport, yet in this Bill we find that ports are linked up with transport. The noble Viscount told us, I think, that he had read the report of the Royal Commission, 1930–1932. That report did not advise nationalization; in fact, it favoured and actually advocated the public trust system as being the best. But we have a later report still than that, and that is from the Labour Party, who in 1944, reporting on "The Post-War Organization of British Transport," said: "Broadly speaking dock facilities and methods in this country have a high efficiency."
What more do you want? There is no question of inefficiency here. The efficiency of port trusts, in fact, has never been questioned. I do not wish to stress political considerations but I do wish to point to the seriousness of the situation to the shipping industry of this country if the public trust system is disturbed. Our principal ports are essentially international in character, and anything which hampers their efficiency will react upon the ability of our manufacturers and traders to hold their own with their foreign competitors. The progress and prosperity of our ports hale been built up on the basis of keen competition between one port and another. At present, as has already been stated, there are no ports administered by local commissions and trusts-these include the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, and the Clyde Trust. The constitution of the Port of London Authority provides that members shall be elected by shipowners and traders using the ports and paying clues, wharfingers and owners of river craft.
1140
The public trust system is non-profit making and is run voluntarily. I think we should mete out a great deal of praise to the men in all the various ports of this country who have devoted so much time to the work, and have clone so much to make them efficient and to bring them up to the state in which they are to-day. These ports are administered by the users of the ports; that is to say, by those people who are most capable of infusing energy and life into their management. Of course, the essential feature of the port trust system is that they are locally autonomous, and, as has been said, they provide full scope for local initiative. Local knowledge of conditions is of paramount importance. To be able to act promptly, to make quick decisions on the spot, is absolutely essential from a shipping point of view, where you may miss a tide if decisions are delayed.
Contrast that with State ownership and State control of these ports. To me that is fundamentally inconsistent with efficient management of the ports. Centralized port administration would arrest development. How can people in London quickly grasp conditions in Glasgow or Liverpool? They are out of touch with local conditions. They are not on the spot; they are unable to give quick decisions, and it would also mean a greatly increased cost to users of these ports. It would withdraw incentive to initiative, lead to inefficiency and waste time—especially in regard to ships. I am certain it would lead to inefficiency in the handling of ships, the loading and discharging of ships and the distribution of cargoes. It will inevitably be harmful to the trade of the country. The good points of the port trust system appear to me to be entirely lost if we adopt the Government's proposals.
The primary purpose of the docks is to provide facilities for shipping and, as the noble Viscount has said, they provide the link between inland transport and shipping, and it would be quite right to say they should be independent of both. He read out a great many firms who support this Amendment, and I need not go over them again, but practically all the principal national trading organizations in this country support it. They regard with utmost concern the sweeping powers given in the Bill to the Commission and the Minister to bring ports under State ownership and centralized control.

1141
I appreciate that the Government may say—I believe they do say—that it is not their intention to jettison the public trust system; but the Bill does give the power to bring any or all of the 330 ports under State ownership and centralized control. Two-thirds of the imports and exports in 1938 were handled by eight of these trust ports. They include all the big ports—London, Liverpool, Gasgow, Leeds and Newcastle. All function well and efficiently. Why not leave well alone? What is the case for disturbing the trust system of these eight ports, some of the biggest ports in the world, and the best managed, too? With the shortage of shipping which exists-to-day, a quick turn-round in port is of the utmost importance, not only to shipping but to every person in the country and the only way to ensure this is to leave the job to those who know about it and understand it. The import of our food and raw materials and the export of our manufactures depend an shipping. Every day lost in port affects the food of the people, as well as trade and industry.
It has been ascertained that just prior to the war, in the tramp shipping trade in the North Atlantic—Canada to the United Kingdom, and the Plate to the United Kingdom—about one-third of the voyage time was spent in port, and today that figure is much higher. Every day lost in port intensifies the scarcity of ships and increases the operating costs, and to-day these costs are very high indeed. Wages are two and a half times more than pre-war, bunkers are 150 per cent. up, shipbuilding is about two and a half times more than pre-war, and repairs are anything from 150 per cent. up—it is very hard to say what they are. To-day, more than ever, shipping requires an efficient port management. With Our shortage of ships, delays in building and delays in repairs, it appears to me hardly the time to pull down the whole structure of the port trusts, with the risk of destroying the efficiency of these ports, for the sake of adopting doctrinaire theories which may have far reaching and disastrous consequences in the administration of our ports. I beg to support the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I would like to say a word on this, because it is of vital importance to those of us who
1142
live and work in the Western Islands and the Highlands. We have come to realize that piers, which are included in the provisions of this Bill, are like water supplies and roads. They have got beyond the means of private individuals. Most of the piers in the Western Islands and the Highlands are owned by local authorities or private individuals, and for some years we have felt that the day has come when these piers, as harbour works, should be handed over to some public authority. There are two different kinds of piers. There is the pier owned by private individuals and the pier owned by a public authority. The piers owned by private individuals are in scattered places in the smaller islands such as the islands of Coll, Mull, Eigg, and Islay. These islands have a mainly agricultural background, with a few visitors, and the piers simply do not pay. There are twelve piers on the Clyde alone which are either closed because they failed to pay, or are awaiting serious repairs, and there are other piers in the Western Islands. But a pier that cost £6,000 twenty-five years ago will now cost £25,000 or £30,000.
The piers owned by local authorities, such as at Dunoon and Rothesay, have been built by local authorities as a source of revenue, and they cost enormous sums such as £40,000 or £50,000. But these authorities have rated the citizens of the boroughs to pay for these, so that they will be a source of revenue to the borough; and when we come to deal with compensation I would stress that the Government must not merely take over the structure but must pay compensation for the loss of anticipated revenue in the years to come. That would be only fair because the ratepayers have been taxed for them, and in a case like Rothesay they will lose about £4,000 to £;6,000 a year. That should be paid for. It is an excellent idea that these piers, when they are taken over by the Government, should be run without profit. I quite agree that charges should be made to maintain the piers, but I think it is a good idea, to encourage transport to the islands, that they should be run without profit.
Then the question arises: Who is to create a reserve for repairs? I presume that will come out of the general funds of the Transport Commission. When we come to deal with the public authority to run these piers, I rather like the idea of a trust—put forward by the noble Lord,

1143
Lord Rea. Ordinarily speaking, the county council would be the local authority—or perhaps the district council—but if it is to be a nominated authority of a local area, there will be a danger of jobbery going on by a trader or efforts to secure a representative on the local committee of the pier. I am not saying anything against co-operative societies, but they wish to get the piers because they wish to control the trade in the islands. This has certainly caused grave fears among the private traders. They have bought steamers, and have started on one or two of the islands, and if you are to have a local authority nominated or elected locally to run the piers there will be danger of jobbery by some private trader, or somebody else. I think these authorities should be elected by the people locally—not nominated, but elected.
I hope, when this goes further, that the Government will not terminate their control by dumping the passengers on the pier, and there leaving them. They should have buses to take passengers to their destinations. You cannot run buses on an island for forty miles—they might come under the "C" class. I think the Government put too much importance on distance. It is the distance that always makes the transfer difficult in transport. You can run eighty miles from Glasgow to Perth quite easily on a main road, but it is another thing to go over the "Rest and Be Thankful." It is the same with the islands. You have to run a short distance, but it is a bad road. Therefore, some arrangements should be made to control the transport at as low a level as possible, because the cheaper it is for the working man in the Western Islands to get from the centre to his home, the more you will do for trade and transport. It is the cost of transport that is ruining trade in the Highlands to-day. We must have better transport. Therefore, I do beseech the Government, not merely to dump passengers on the pier and leave them there in the pelting rain to find their own way home, very often at high cost, but to give them transport right through to their homes. I would like to support the Amendment, because this matter is of vital importance to the Highlands.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Unfortunately for myself I am the last to speak,
1144
but I have only a few words to say. We have in Glasgow the Clyde Navigation Trust, which for years has controlled the harbours of the estuary and of Glasgow itself. I should like to ask a straight question of the Government, and it is whether or not this efficient organization will, under this Bill, remain in control. They do not want to be placed under an Executive unless they themselves are the Executive. They want to remain as they are—a great trust which has the admiration and respect of all seafarers who frequent the Clyde. I myself once berthed a ship in the Clyde, and I was gratified and pleased with the celerity and efficiency with which we were secured alongside. The management of a large group of docks and harbours is a very different proposition from the management of road or rail transport. Sea lanes are very different from lanes used by buses and road transport. The Trust deals with ocean-going ships, which are often held up at sea, and do not always arrive on the date they are supposed to; even nowadays they spring a leak and come into the docks with a much greater draught than was expected. Again, the ship may be held up by storms. The point of this is that there are many sudden decisions to be made, and, therefore, you must have an efficient organization to make them. I hope that such a body as the Clyde Navigation Trust, with its great managerial experience, will remain the great Trust it now is, and will continue to carry on the difficult work it has so well carried on in the past.
LORD HACKING: I will not delay a decision being reached for more than a few moments, but although there have been many different aspects of this clause dealt with to-night, there has been no mention up to the present moment of the comfort and the welcome which can be given at our ports to visitors from overseas. I have felt for a long time that it is a very important thing that the facilities of all our ports should be such as will be appreciated by our visitors when first they land in this country. First impressions count for a good deal, and it is because I am terrified of the dead hand of Whitehall having a very bad effect upon the organization and general efficiency of our ports that I desire to support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to support this Amendment and to make just

1145
two points. The first is in connexion with the railway docks. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said that his Amendment, which is to come up later on, is not actually vital to the scheme which he is proposing, but it has some relation to it, remembering that the railway ownership of docks was mainly acquired with the object of attracting traffic to the railways and the docks. They were either acquired by the railways or developed by the railways, and very large sums of money have been spent from time to time by railways on docks, always with the object of securing an increase in traffic.
I think there is one argument which would suggest that they might as well be separated as to continue combined, and that is the fact that under this Bill there is to be a co-ordinated and combined system of the transport, which has its own means of persuading traffic to go either by road or rail, so that the direct ownership between the railways and docks no longer applies in the form in which it did. I think that is really material to this Amendment, although the railway-owned docks themselves do not come into it. Further, from the operational point of view, one's experience seems to show that the wide range of difficulties of operation do not seem to be any greater under one system than any other. I would like to support the general contention that the port trust is the best solution, particularly when you think of the port as part of the surrounding district.
I have been for some years a member of one of these port trusts—a small trust it is true, but one in which all parties interested in the working of the port are represented. There is a great deal of keenness and enthusiasm amongst all those who are working there, and I think a fairly good level of efficiency is achieved. I am quite certain that a distant control, worked from some larger group, whether from London or, more indirectly, through a docks representative, if there is to be one, would not produce the ease and flexibility in achieving what is required. However, I entirely agree with the proposition in this Bill for making schemes whereby local docks can be combined with others near them. They can help each other financially by the exchange, interchange and loan of plants, such as those used for dredging, and by achieving some kind of uniformity in their methods of charging—not specifically in their rates, but in
1146
their arrangements for negotiating with the labour employed, and so on. I hope very much that the final outcome of this will be that we shall have a system of port trusts, each independent, each self-governing, but perhaps combining some of the small ports.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We have had a long and exceedingly interesting discussion on this Amendment, and so far it has purported to be rather one-sided; but I confess that when I listened to some of the speeches the one-sidedness was not quite so manifest. For example, the noble Duke complained of the present system in the Highlands, and gave us a gruesome picture of people being left stranded on the pier in drenching rain, and so forth; and he demanded that the public—the State—should come in and rescue the citizen from this deplorable state of affairs. Yet he opposes the Bill. That is what puzzles me. I leave it at that. The noble Duke complained of these desolated piers and all the rest of it, and I think he wanted them to be taken over by the public; it was the public that was to come to the rescue because the present system was bankrupt—and yet he objects to changing the present system. It does not seem to fit. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, must have shivered in his shoes when me listened to him, because we know how magnificently Lord Leathers directed our transport during the war, and the immense debt the nation owes to him.
LORD REA: I specially covered myself—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am not having these post hoc explanations. We are all delighted to see Lord Leathers, whose administration was so admired by everybody. And yet the noble Lord below the gangway, Lord Rea, speaks of the paralysing hand of Whitehall. Then he extolled the system that had developed in Wales—I gather because Bristol Corporation has taken the docks over—and he suggested how much better it was than in the bad old days of competition "(I took the words down). I thought that competition was what the noble Lord believed in; and yet he says it was a deplorable state of affairs until the local authorities took the docks over.
With regard to some of the other criticisms, I really was tempted to ask,

1147
with complete deference, whether some of our critics have really read the Bill, because I cannot find anywhere in it these terrible proposals, or any suggestion of them. Here let me say that I would join with everything the noble Lords have said with regard to what we owe to some of these magnificent Harbour Trusts. Of course everybody recognizes that; and I cannot imagine anybody charged with this duty who would fail to recognize the value and importance of the excellent work, say, of the Port of London Authority and many others one could mention. Listen to this:
"The Commission may, with a view to securing the efficient and economical development, maintenance or management of any trade harbour, or group of harbours, prepare, in consultation with the persons theretofore carrying on harbour undertakings in or in connexion with the harbour or group of harbours and with such bodies or persons as the Commission may consider to be properly representative of shipping and traders actually using, and of workers actually employed in, the harbour or group of harbours …."
They have to prepare their scheme in that way, in consultation with the Port of London Authority. That is where we start from. But is it possible to imagine that anybody starting off with that statutory instruction is likely to draw up a scheme which will ignore all the magnificent work these bodies have done, and fail to make the best use of it? It is completely inconceivable; that is all. I have no doubt at all that the magnificent work of these trusts will not only be made full use of but, in all likelihood, will be very much extended. That is almost the inevitable outcome of this kind of thing.
What the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, says is that there are 340 ports. He told us about eight of the great ports under these trusts, but at any rate, with those great trusts, there are 340 ports. What about the other 332? Apparently there are more than 300 others. Is it not reasonable that we should take them into account? They may not be very big ones—in fact, many of them probably are not; but they ought to be taken into account. What is it we ask these gentlemen to do? We do not ask them to nationalize these ports—not at all; that is not the instruction in the Bill. We do not ask the Commission to put them under the "paralysing hand of Whitehall" —nothing so stupid. Now that the noble Lords have finished their applause
1148
I will give them two very good reasons for the soundness of my statement. First, under the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, Whitehall did not paralyse them, and we certainly should not put in the Bill anything which is inherently absurd. It is not paralysing, and nor was it in the war.
At all events, the point that I am making now is with regard to these 330 ports—or whatever number it is—that are not under this system. What about them? All we ask is that this Commission should make inquiries, in consultation with the persons carrying them on, and so on, and should prepare a scheme. That is on pages 80 and 81.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are not proposing to amend that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, but I am going to say something about that later on. The noble Viscount wants the good bits, but he wants to amend what they are really there for; in other words he wants this Commission to prepare the scheme and then he says: "Having prepared it we cannot allow you to have anything whatever to do with it." That is what it comes to, and I do not think it reasonable. If the Commission can be trusted to prepare a scheme, why veto them in advance from setting up any proposed scheme of working that they like? why say that they must, of necessity, adopt this particular pattern—because that is what the Amendment says. What the Amendment says is: "With regard to the other docks—300 or more of them—for which you are required to prepare a scheme, you must prepare a scheme on this pattern." That is what we object to. We say; "Let the Commission prepare a scheme to carry out the provisions set out in this clause on pages 80 and 81."
The noble Viscount still wants them to do that, because he does not propose to omit it. Let them prepare a scheme. But surely, if they are to be trusted to prepare a scheme, they must be trusted to prepare a scheme of management that goes with it. That is part of the scheme. Why should we in advance stereotype the type of management which they have to produce? We cannot accept that. We cannot possibly accept an Amendment which tells us in advance precisely what they have got to do. We just cannot accept it—I am sorry. In saying that I am not saying a word against these trusts,

1149
I extol them, as much as any noble Lord in this House, for the magnificent work which they are doing. But their particular pattern may not properly be applicable in all cases. You may have all kinds of devices for management; why should the Commission not be at liberty to make proposals with respect to the docks, all of which proposals can he open to local objection, and all of which will have to be approved by Parliament? Surely it would not be right to carry out a process of stereotyping in advance.
Hoping, as I do, that we shall not have to repeat this discussion at the next sitting, I might perhaps say a word now about the sequel Amendment of the noble Viscount which I was very glad to find that he did not necessarily press.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the principle is accepted on this Amendment I am perfectly prepared not to move that one.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Then I am afraid we must differ. I cannot accept the principle of this Amendment, for the reasons which I have been endeavouring to state earlier. With regard to the statement which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, may I say that since he spoke I have had put into my hands a document called the Cooper Report—I believe it is a Report made by Lord Cooper—on the Clyde estuary and the ports in that district? I am sure that the gentleman responsible for that Report was not appointed by this Government. I expect the noble Earl well knows who appointed this gentleman to make this Report, He does not agree with the noble Earl. Let me read from his Report the first recommendation. If you want anything to support the proposals in the Bill here it is.
"It is no longer compatible with the most efficient operation, or the best expansion and development, of the ports' navigational facilities on the Clyde that they should be administered, as in the past, as separate and unrelated undertakings."
That is from a Report made by Lord Cooper. If you want justification for our proposals, there it is.
I have only one further point to make. I hope, notwithstanding what he said, that the noble Viscount will not persist with what he proposes in a later Amendment. It is an Amendment to insert a new clause and it appears on pages 11 and 12 of to-day's Marshalled List of
1150
Amendments. What it comes to is this: although the Commission are to be trusted to frame a scheme, although the Commission are to take over one hundred or so clocks belonging to the railways at the beginning, they must of necessity divest themselves of them within four years. They are not to be trusted to keep them. Really, I am astonished at that suggestion. What is proposed is that the Commission shall prepare schemes; and there is one other thing, according to the noble Lord's proposals, that they will be able to do—they will be able to give out money. I do not know what the Public Accounts Department will say to that. At the end of the period I have mentioned the Commission have to divest themselves of authority with regard to the whole lot of the ports. I am sorry but we cannot possibly accept a proposal of that kind. It would knock the heart out of the whole of this part of the Bill. Frankly, it is not reasonable, and I think that I have proved that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is with very considerable diffidence that I intervene in this debate at all, because I cannot pretend to be an expert on docks, which is something that apparently every noble Lord who has spoken so far is. But I would like to say a word or two as to the broad issues that have been raised. After all there is a broad under-lying issue. That is why this Amendment was such an important one. I think we were all impressed by the noble Viscount's speech. It was most agreeable entertainment and an extremely skilful Parliamentary performance. The noble Viscount made considerable play with one or two remarks made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. He made admirable fun of one or two sentences picked at random out of speeches of other noble Lords. All this produced a most admirable red herring—if a red herring can be admirable—but it did not conceal the truth from the House that the Government are up against the difficulty they are always up against when it comes to a question of nationalization. They are always swaying between two motives. They are afflicted by a sort of schizophrenia which I am told is an extremely dangerous complaint and nearly always incurable. They cannot make up their minds whether the motive for their action is to be efficiency, or merely doctrinaire considerations.

1151
I think it is true to say that in politics there is nothing so dangerous as making a moral principle of something which has no moral principle at all. If we go back about forty years we can see that that is what happened to Tariff Reform and Free Trade in this country. The Tariff Reformers and Free Traders made it a question of moral principle. It was not a moral principle at all: it was a question of practical expediency, as we found out after suffering the consequences for many years. The same thing may happen on this question of public or private control. I am sceptical, naturally, holding the views I hold, of public centralized control. The noble Viscount and other Lords opposite are sceptical of private local control. But for both of us the real test must be efficiency, and that must be based on the experience of the past.
We have had some very notable contributions this afternoon by men well qualified to speak, not because they belong to any particular Party but because they have a knowledge of the industry. We have had speeches from Lord Rotherwick, from Lord Rea and, in particular, from Lord Leathers, who has unrivalled experience in the working of ports, and recently of ports during the period of the war. I imagine that Lord Leathers, if I may say so in his presence, had as much to do with the winning of the war as anybody in this country, and that was because he knew his job, understood the people with whom he had to work and made use of the organization that came to his hand. One knows from what he says that he found in existence an organization that could stand up to the severest test that could be put upon it. What an extraordinary movement this is, to try and alter that organization! The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, shakes his head, but he has heard Lord Leathers—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am not differing from it. We are not trying to alter what is there. That does not necessarily follow at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The present management has proved to be efficient. The reason was given by Lord Rotherwick—because it is locally autonomous. That is the universal view of the great experts who came down to speak to your Lordships to-night. It is their view that it is fatal to try and put such
1152
an organization as this, which is diverse in character, in various parts of the country, into the straitjacket of centralized control. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, shakes his head. The noble Viscount said in his speech that no Government in their senses would do that. Then why put powers in the Bill to enable them to do it? The noble Viscount says they are not there, but if he will look at Clause 65, subsection (4) he will find it states there that "The Commission may be the body specified." The Commission is a centralized control.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not necessarily. You said necessarily.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But it gives the power in the Bill. The noble Viscount says "not necessarily"; but how foolish to put a provision in the Bill when your main hope is that it will not be applied! I do not think it can be read any other way. The noble Viscount said, as I understood it, that any noble Lord who said the object of this Bill was to nationalize the port facilities and bring them under a central control could not have read the Bill. I am afraid the noble Viscount himself must have restricted his reading, because I have here the first lines of the Preamble. The noble Viscount can have read only the title, because the preamble says that the purpose of the Bill is to set up in Great Britain a publicly owned system of inland transport and of port facilities. That is doing away with the existing system.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not where a public trust is concerned—that is not privately owned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At present these trusts are local autonomous trusts, and the object of this Bill is to put all these activities of inland transport, whether they be by land or by water, under the control of a centralized Commission. That is the whole purpose of this Government scheme.
We do urge most strongly on the Government, in no controversial spirit, that the purpose of our Amendment is to preserve what is both efficient and one of the glories of our country. Why is it that the ports have succeeded? One of the main reasons is that throughout there has been a healthy competition between them. There has been competition between

1153
Glasgow and the Clyde and Liverpool, and competition between Liverpool and Southampton, and this competition has kept the various ports up to the mark. The management and the workers arid all the people concerned are proud of their own concern and keyed up to beat the other port. The Government scheme will do away with that entirely. They think they have smoothed it out into a neat scheme of co-ordinated control, but all they will do is to take out all the spirit which makes the ports what they are.
The noble Viscount asked what should be done about the small ports. I should not have thought it was beyond the wit of man to deal with small ports I should have thought it was possible to produce a system of joint trusts. I should have thought that these joint trusts over ports n a certain locality would be a far more e and living concern than central control under the Commission. I do urge the Government not to be carried away too much by doctrinaire considerations. We shall divide on this—we must divide on this—but I do hope that after the Division has taken place the Government will consider the matter further, and will not hand over control from those who have proved they know their job to those who are untried and who cannot know it so well. This is a big issue. It is an issue which involves whether we are going gradually to centralize more and more or whether we leave alive in this country an
institution which has succeeded and is succeeding. If the noble Lords say—as they do say constantly—that efficiency is their test, then let them prove it by allowing the existing dock system to continue.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have only this to say. I have seldom heard a case more misrepresented than this has been in this debate. There is no proposal here to hand this over to any stereotyped, central system. Powers arc taken to make the most varied kind of arrangements which sensible men may devise after consulting those on the spot. All I have to say is that if the noble Lords wish to eviscerate the Bill in this way, they will do it; but they must accept the responsibility for doing it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House cannot have it both ways. What he is saying in effect, is: We are making no alteration by this provision. Then, why do they put it in the Bill?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: You are proposing a fundamental alteration. You are compelling the Government to adopt one single stereotyped system, and we refuse.
On Question, Whether the proposed subsection be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 18.

NON-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Darwen, L.

Mountevans, L.

Addison, V.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Hall, V.

Holden, L.

Piercy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kershaw, L.

Quibell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Uvedale of North End, L.

Walkden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD TEYNHAM: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 28.—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: In moving that the House do now resume, I should inform your Lordships that we have made an alteration in the arrangements of business, and that this Bill will be taken again on Monday next.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

WARMINSTER AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1947.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, That no Petition has been presented against the Order: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.