Sitting of 31 March 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Sugar (Domestic Jam Making)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Food if he will arrange for a higher supplementary ration of sugar for fruit preserving and jam making this summer than last year.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I propose to issue 1 lb. of sugar per ration book for domestic jam making during the four weeks beginning on 27th April, but I cannot say yet what we may be able to do later on.
    Mr. Macpherson: Will the Minister make certain that those who have fruit gardens will have some incentive this year to make use of their fruit and not let it rot on the trees?
    Mr. Strachey: Last year they received five extra rations in all, and as I have said, we begin our bonus issues on 27th April.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can the Minister say something in regard to the sugar position generally, and whether there is any chance of a better allocation for ordinary purposes?
    Mr. Strachey: Not on this occasion.

    British Cheese (Subsidy)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food what the subsidy on British cheese will be per pound now that the retail price is being reduced from 1s. 1d. to 10d.; and whether he intends to maintain
    1634
    a retail price which is only about one-third of the cost.
    Mr. Strachey: About 1s. 7¼d. per lb. The retail price will continue to be fixed in accordance with the Government's stabilisation policy.
    Mr. Keeling: Is not this enormous subsidy quite unnecessary? Could not the entire production of British cheese be sold at the full cost of production to members of the public, who, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, have acquired a taste for it, and also a distaste for imported mousetrap cheese?
    Mr. Strachey: All food subsidies are unnecessary, in the sense that if we raised food prices sufficiently, we would not have to pay subsidies; but it would be a dangerous thing to do.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the Minister say what particular reason there is for reducing the price at this particular moment by this particular figure; and what is the element in the Government policy which has caused this?
    Mr. Strachey: It is, as I have said, a part of the general policy of the Government, in so far as is possible, to keep down the price of foodstuffs.
    Mr. Hudson: Why is it necessary at this moment to make this particular reduction?
    Mr. Strachey: It is difficult to say. Any particular movement at any particular time has to be seen in relation to all the others. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about a reduction.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the reduction related in any way to a reduction of price for imported cheese?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.
    Mr. Molson: Is some other article of food being increased by a corresponding amount?
    Mr. Strachey: There have been some increases and some decreases. There have been a number of changes.

    Milk Supplies (Women's Institute Meetings)
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food whether he will authorise the

    1635
    provision of milk on the occasion of the regular monthly meetings of the local branches of the Women's Institute.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that milk supplies do not allow me to make allowances for meetings held for discussion or some social purpose. Milk is allowed if the meetings are held for the purpose of knitting or sewing for charity.
    Colonel Ropner: In view of the fact that a somewhat similar concession is made in the case of a number of youth organisations, does not the Minister think it even more important to allow tea to be consumed by the rather older members of the community?
    Mr. Strachey: I will look into it.

    Indonesian Foodstuffs
    Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Food whether any arrangements are being made to open trade relations with Indonesia, in view of the supplies of sugar, fats and rice which are available in that country.
    Mr. Strachey: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Dutch and Indonesian authorities signed the Linggadjati Agreement at Batavia on 25th March. This very welcome step should provide the necessary basis for the early resumption of full trade relations with Indonesia and, in particular, should make it possible to resume the free movement of any supplies of foodstuffs already available in Indonesia for export. Even if the quantities readily available prove to be small, an early resumption of trade should provide an incentive which will help towards the rehabilitation of production of foodstuffs. We shall keep in close touch with both the Indonesian and the Dutch authorities in the matter and if necessary make strong representations to them if there appears to be any avoidable delays.
    Mr. Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend say whether any steps have been taken to start negotiations for the movement of foodstuffs?
    Mr. Strachey: There have actually been attempts to move foodstuffs in both British and American vessels. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the Dutch authorities have objected, but that was previous to the signing of the Agreement,
    1636
    and we hope that the situation will now improve.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Can the Minister say what proportion of the foodstuffs which may be found in the country will be allocated to this country, in view of the special services rendered in Indonesia by the British Government?
    Mr. Strachey: In the case of sugar, for example, under the recent I.E.F.C. allocation, we should receive a considerable share of any sugar coming out of Indonesia this year. It would similarly benefit us in the case of fats and tea. There is no doubt whatever of the great importance to us of the early resumption of this trade.
    Mr. Thomas Reid: Will my right hon. Friend use the occasion to import tea from Java and Sumatra, particularly in view of the fact that Ceylon is levying an export duty of 7½d. per lb. on its tea?
    Mr. Strachey: The question of tea exports from Indonesia is probably the key to the whole world tea situation.

    Carrots
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food whether he will remove restrictions in respect of the movement of carrots between England and Scotland after 31st March of this year.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; but, as in previous seasons, my Department will ensure that a fair proportion of the supplies available in England is sent to Scotland.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Coatbridge was asked 2s. 3d. per pound for carrots in Scotland on Saturday, and does he not think that an extortionate figure to ask housewives to pay?
    Mr. Strachey: These restrictions are to secure the fair distribution of the available supply all over the United Kingdom, but the supply itself has, of course, been grievously affected by the climatic conditions in the last few weeks.
    Colonel Hutchison: As the purpose is to secure equal distribution, and the weather has made the growing of carrots utterly impossible in Scotland in the early months of this year, will the Minister relax the restrictions and allow those grown in England to pass into Scotland?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but not all of them. The growing of carrots has also been very adversely affected in many parts of England as well.

    U.S.A. Potato Crops
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Food if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the U.S. Government proposes to destroy, owing to glut, 20,000,000 bushels of potatoes in 1947 and a similar quantity in 1948 and 1949; and if he will represent to the U.S. Government that these potatoes, instead of being destroyed, could be used to remedy potato shortages in this and other countries.
    Mr. Strachey: This country cannot import potatoes from the United States because they are infected with bacterial ring rot. I understand that arrangements have already been made for about 150,000 tons of seed potatoes to be sent from the United States to Germany this year.

    Frozen Salmon (Prices)
    Mr. Scollanasked the Minister of Food why frozen salmon prices are fixed at 6s. 8d. per pound when pre-war it was sold at 1s. 2d. to 1s. 4d. per pound.
    Mr. Strachey: There is so little frozen salmon that prices are controlled at the same levels as for fresh salmon, for which prices are fixed after discussion with producers and the Fisheries Departments.
    Mr. Scollan: Are we not bringing this commodity from the dollar area, and is it worth while asking the dollar area to send salmon here at a price like that?
    Mr. Strachey: That is exactly the point we have in mind. We are importing minimum quantities of this commodity, which are really virtually negligible. We do not think it worth while to import this commodity in any large quantities at all.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Minister say what is a fresh salmon producer?
    Mr. Strachey: A man who produces fresh salmon.

    Meat Allocations
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Minister of Food what proportion of the weekly meat ration is composed of categories of meat which all butchers were not used to selling in prewar days; and when he hopes to be able
    1638
    to use such categories of meat only for manufacture.
    Mr. Strachey: None of the rationed meat is of types not sold by butchers for domestic use prewar. Butchers then sold what their customers could afford; some stocked only the cheaper sorts, and some only the better types of meat. Our aim at present is to distribute all quantities of meat as fairly as possible. When the supply improves, I shall certainly divert some of the plainer types of meat to manufacture, as was done for a time in 1946.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Why could not the right hon. Gentleman have notified the public that they were having to take third-grade meat from butchers, instead of leaving it to the butchers, who have to stand all the racket from dissatisfied customers?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Member is misinformed. Twice, at Press conferences, I made a statement to that effect.
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the quality of the meat distributed to butchers in some areas of East Dorsetshire has lately been of a low grade; and if he will take steps to see that this does not occur in future.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food on what system allocations of the various grades of meat are made to all parts of the country.
    Mr. Strachey: We try to give every district a share of all the various types of meat which go to make up the ration. This has not always been possible during the last few weeks, because of distribution difficulties resulting from the weather. These difficulties have now largely ceased.
    Colonel Wheatley: Is the Minister aware that this meat is only fit for manufacture, and that the issue of low quality meat puts retail butchers, especially in the rural areas, in a very difficult position?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. There is no meat which has been issued of a kind which has not been issued before the war, and during the war, at one time or another, on the ration.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister say why we cannot keep our own meat in Aberdeen.

    1639
    If the problem is one of transport, why cannot we keep our own grown beef at home? We do not ask for privilege, but for our share, and we are not getting it.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member would be the first to say that Aberdeenshire would have a privilege if it had nothing but its own meat, compared with the rest of the country.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that Danish and Dutch carcase meat, during the past three weeks, has been bony and lean, and the average retailer cannot make up the ration by reason of the type of carcase, to which we have not been accustomed in the prewar years, and will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Strachey indicated assent.
    Colonel Wheatley: Is the Minister aware that housewives will not eat this meat?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree.

    Food Seizures (Compensation)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food if he will state with regard to each of the 10 cases during 1946, in which the defendants were acquitted after their goods had been seized under the Seizure of Food Orders, 1942 or 1946, the value of the goods before seizure and when returned to the owner or, if sold by the Minister, the gross proceeds of

    In none of these cases were the goods returned to the owner. Their value at the time of seizure could only be the price at which they could be legally sold. The following statement shows the gross proceeds, deductions and payments made in each of the ten cases where goods were seized under the Seizure of Food Order, 1942, and the defendants were acquitted:

    Case.

    Gross Proceeds.

    Deductions.

    Net Proceeds.

    Date of Payment to Owner.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    1

    2

    4

    2

    2

    1

    0

    2

    18.10.46

    2

    2

    12

    3

    4

    3

    11

    Nil

    Nil

    3

    9

    11

    0

    12

    3

    8

    18

    9

    20.11.46

    4

    4

    6

    Nil

    Nil

    5

    13

    13

    4

    1

    5

    8

    12

    7

    8

    26.6.46

    6

    6

    4

    0

    Nil

    6

    4

    0

    25.10.46

    7

    2

    9

    8

    Nil

    2

    9

    8

    Indemnity Form not received and payment not made.

    8

    3

    4

    4

    Nil

    3

    4

    4

    Indemnity Form not received and payment not made.

    9

    12

    6

    Nil

    12

    6

    25.1.47

    10

    19

    11

    Nil

    19

    11

    Owner has disappeared leaving no address and proceeds are held to his account.

    Note: The deduction in all the above cases is the amount of ¾d. per lb. to wholesale meat supply associations for removal and sale of meat seized. No seizure, administrative or other expense has been deducted.

    sale, the amount paid to the owner and an account of any deductions; and whether full restoration or compensation has now been made in every case.
    Mr. Strachey: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir J. Mellor: As the Parliamentary Secretary admitted, on 26th November last, that injustice might have occurred in those cases, and promised to examine each case, will the Minister consider the last line of my Question?
    Mr. Strachey: When the hon. Member sees my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I deal with what happened in the final settlement with the owner in each particular case, which differs in each of the To cases. It is a little difficult for me, without taking up unduly the time of the House, to detail what happened in each case, but, in general, where the owner applied for repayment, he received it.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister say when the examination by the Parliamentary Secretary into these cases was completed?
    Mr. Strachey: It was completed, anyhow, in time for me to give the hon. Member particulars of each case in the written reply.
    Following is the answer:

    American Turkeys
    Mr. Stubbsasked the Minister of Food if he will make available some of the turkeys from the U.S.A. to butchers in the rural areas for cooking and selling in sandwiches and by so doing help the farmworkers' wives in their difficulties of providing packed meals.
    Mr. Strachey: If and when arrangements for the purchase of these turkeys are concluded, I will consider the possibility of adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is it true that these turkeys are so old and so tough that they are useless for sandwiches or anything else?
    Sir John Barlow: Is it true chat they have been in cold storage for about three years?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, there is not a word of truth in either of those two statements.

    Imported Fruits
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Food whether he will now stop the importing of luxury fruits such as pineapples, pomegranates, etc., which are beyond the reach of the working-class purse, with a view to greater concentration on the supply of fruit at commercial prices.
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there is much concern about the importing of expensive fruit, prices of which are beyond the reach of many people; and what steps he is taking to import cheaper fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Strachey: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising the matter. In the first place, I think we should make a mistake if we supposed that what they term expensive fruits always stay expensive. For example, when we first gave an open general licence for the import of tangerines they cost 10s. 6d. per lb., and I was severely criticised; but at the height of the season they could be bought for 8d. a lb.; in the same way, grapes started at very high prices, but when they were most plentiful came down to 1s. 6d. per lb. Secondly, it is quite wrong to think that these fruits are alternative to any other more important foodstuff. In the main they come from countries which owe
    1642
    us money—or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would not let me buy them: again we would never devote shipping space to them if there were cargoes of more important foods available. Naturally, nothing could be easier than to forbid their import; but we should get nothing whatever in their place. Would that not be a real instance of austerity for austerity's sake?
    Mr. Austin: That is most unsatisfactory. Is not my right hon. Friend pandering to the longest possible purse in this matter; and can he say why there should be this discrimination against the working class?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a matter of opinion. Does my hon. Friend think that the import of tangerines, for example, at 1s., and, in some cases, 8d. a pound, shows discrimination against the working class? Of £6½ million spent on these fruits to date, no less than £5 million has been spent on tangerines. That is the major item. I should have thought that, by and large, the import of these fruits was justified.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the Minister explain to the country that, in view of the low value of the £, imported vegetables are bound to be expensive?
    Mr. Molson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister entitled to end his reply to a Question by asking a question? "Would that not be a real instance of austerity for austerity's sake?"
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman can reply to any Question in any way he likes.
    Mr. Parkin: Does my right hon. Friend in fact buy them, or does he give a licence to other people?
    Mr. Strachey: These particular fruits are under open general licence. I should have said that my right hon. Friend would not allow me to allow them to be bought.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister say what is the price per pound of pineapples at the height of the season?
    Mr. Strachey: The price of a pineapple today is about 10s. I cannot give the price per pound. They started at about 25s. each, and have now come down to about 10s. each. I do not say that they will come down to the same price as tangerines.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get on to the next Question.

    Eggs (Allocations)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he will ensure that music-hall artistes and other holders of emergency travellers' ration books get the egg ration to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Strachey: Allocations of eggs cannot take place regularly, or simultaneously throughout the country, so I cannot guarantee that any particular retailer will be able to honour all temporary ration documents, especially if they are presented without notice. Local food offices can usually help in cases of difficulty.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister say how these hardworking people are to get their egg ration, if shops use, for other purposes, its 10 per cent. surplus they get for this class of consumer? Audiences no longer throw eggs about.
    Mr. Strachey: They should apply to the local food office.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: When eggs are thrown at these artists, is it not generally without notice?

    Fish Frying Fats
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Food if he will state the total quantity of edible oils and fats on the ration issued to fish fryers and caterers for the year ended December, 1946.
    Mr. Strachey: 125,150 tons, Sir.

    Investigations, Coatbridge
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of Food why officers of his Department are calling at houses in Greenend, Coatbridge, asking to see contents of cupboards and weighing jam found therein; and under what authority they are doing this.
    Mr. Strachey: None of my officers are so engaged. I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the National Food Survey investigations carried out on my Department's behalf by the London Press Exchange. These investigators are not authorised to demand information. All the information collected is obtained voluntarily, and larder stocks can only be weighed with the permission of the housewife.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is this not the thin end of the wedge; and is it not true that the Englishman's home is rapidly becoming no longer his castle?

    Bitter Oranges
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Food when East Dorset is likely to receive an allocation of bitter oranges; and if he will give an assurance that those parts of the county which get no allocation this season will be given preference next season, or be given some compensatory advantage.
    Mr. Strachey: As my hon. Friend explained on 19th March, in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), deliveries of Litter oranges have been poor because of frost and drought in the producing countries. Arrivals are in fact less than half of what we should have got. East Dorset, in common with other parts of the country, will, unfortunately, not receive a share this season. As regards supplies next season, I shall certainly bear the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion in mind.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food what estimated damage has been done by frost to potatoes stored in clamps in Scotland.
    Mr. Strachey: It is a little early to say, but the damage is not expected to be more than 5 per cent.
    Mr. Spence: is the Minister aware that in Scotland the frost came before the snow, and that the snow has gone some 2½ feet into the ground; and will he keep this matter urgently before him?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly.
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure a fair distribution of such potatoes as exist in the Falmouth area, and whether he is satisfied that a fair proportion is going to the poorer householder.
    Mr. Strachey: At this time of the year. Falmouth is mainly dependent on potatoes from Northern Ireland, and a ship from there was held up in the bad weather; she has now arrived. My Department allocates these potatoes to wholesalers in proportion to their requirements.

    1645
    All householders should be able to afford the present retail prices, which average 7½d. for 7 lb.
    Mr. King: Has the Minister no control over the methods of sales in shops, as between various types of people?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. It is impossible to have such control over unrationed commodities.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is not a reduction in the cross-channel services from Northern Ireland a contributory factor?
    Mr. Strachey: Not that I am aware of. The potatoes arrive in potato boats and not in mail boats.

    Dried Egg (Dollar Cost)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food if he will state the cost in dollars of dried eggs, and of shell eggs produced from foreign feeding stuffs.
    Mr. Strachey: Dried eggs from dollar countries have cost 41 cents f.o.b. per dozen during the twelve months ended 28th February, 1947. I cannot give the comparable cost of an equivalent quantity of poultry feeding stuffs as none was procurable during this period.
    Mr. Spence: Would the Minister agree that, from information which has been given by the Poultry Breeders' Association, the ratio is about three to one; and will he do his utmost to import more feeding stuffs when he can?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. There is no question that that is a far more economical method, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has just announced, it is the first fruits of our efforts to import more feedingstuffs.

  SOAP ALLOCATION (FLOODED AREAS)
  Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister of Food if he will make an immediate allocation of soap and any other urgent and necessary commodities to the local authorities in the flood areas for cleaning purposes necessitated by the effects of the floods on the houses, premises and goods affected.
  Mr. Strachey: Arrangements have already been made for a special issue of soap to local authorities for use in cleaning flooded houses and business premises.
  1646
  Other cleaning materials are not controlled by my Department.

  ROADS

    Headlight Dazzle
    Mr. William Shepherdasked Minister of Transport what progress been made towards the solution of headlight dazzle problem.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The investigation of headlamp dazzle has been given first priority by the Vehicles Committee of the Road Research Board. Their researches are not yet complete.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that this has been going on for many years now, and that the standard of safety on British roads is probably lower because of this factor?
    Mr. Barnes: I think that the hon. Member appreciates that this is a subject which cannot compel results.

    Safety Campaign (Broadcasts)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Transport to what extent he has called upon the B.B.C. to take part in the Safety-first Campaign; and how frequently has the B.B.C. made announcements on this question at his request.
    Mr. Barnes: The B.B.C. have from time to time been requested to make announcements on road safety and on each occasion have afforded me their generous cooperation. Apart from special features the monthly road accident figures are invariably broadcast in the news bulletins. Since the road safety campaign was begun in November, 1945, there have been 36 broadcast programmes and talks on road safety, including four broadcasts by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. Piratin: Is it possible for the Minister, in consultation with the B.B.C., to devise a more attractive way of making the announcements, such as by way of programme, etc.? For example, may I remind him of a certain programme which takes place in connection with different aspects of the law? Could not something of that kind be done?
    Mr. Barnes: We are always out for improvement, but, as my reply indicates, the B.B.C. have been co-operative in this respect so far.

    Snow Clearance
    Mr. Alpassasked the Minister of Transport if the cost of clearing snow off the roads of the country will rank for the same Government grant as the cost of maintenance and repair.
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, so far as it is necessary for traffic purposes.

  RAILWAYS

    Coal Board Staff, South Wales
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that two special trains for National Coal Board staff are running daily between Ebbw Vale and Six Bells; and, in view of the coal crisis, if he will stop this waste of fuel and insist that the National Coal Board staff travel in the ordinary train.
    Mr. Barnes: The first train is a miners' train which formerly ran empty from Beaufort to Aberbeeg Junction and now stops at Ebbw Vale; the second train is a single coach which is hauled about one mile from the junction to Six Bells Halt by an engine which would otherwise be standing in steam. The extra fuel used is negligible, and I consider that the arrangements, which were in force before the National Coal Board took over, are justified.
    Sir W. Smithers: Why cannot the timetable be slightly altered to avoid this extra run in view of the fact that we are faced with catastrophe owing to the policy of the Government? Why should the servants of the public have priority treatment over paying passengers?
    Mr. Barnes: I have just explained that this arrangement was in operation before the National Coal Board took over.
    Sir W. Smithers: That does not make it any better.

    Restricted Services (Staggered Holidays)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the recent announcement that restricted summer services will operate upon the four main line railways, what arrangements he proposes to cope with the holiday traffic which promises to be greater this year than last year.
    Mr. Barnes: The summer timetables are now being worked out. The reduction of services that will be necessary is bound to result in inconvenience to the travelling public, and will make it more important than ever for workers and employers to co-operate to secure the fullest possible staggering of holidays. All who can do so should avoid travelling at weekends.
    Mr. Sparks: Will the Minister take steps to make this widely known throughout industry, because the congestion on the railways last year was very serious and it will be very much worse this summer? Will my right hon. Friend see that this is given the widest publicity?
    Mr. Barnes: My Department is always stressing the need for staggering, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Walkden: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the so-called 10 per cent. cut as far as the railway companies are concerned means a cut of 40, 50 and 60 per cent. in the services to certain seaside resorts in different parts of Britain; and will he have a look at that matter?
    Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, I do not accept those percentages.
    Mr. Walkden: The figures have been sent to my right hon. Friend already.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in reply to a Question of mine the other day, said it was impossible to get an agreement between the work people and managements on the arranging of mid—week to mid-week holidays during the holiday period, and that the weekend period was the one generally accepted in industry because of the dislocation that would otherwise arise; and, in view of those facts, could he not persuade the Minister of Labour to reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the position, and that is why we are keeping up the pressure in the opposite direction.
    Mr. Beechmanasked the Minister of Transport what arrangements have been made to relieve Easter traffic to the West Country, in view of the fact that the Cornish Riviera express has been taken off; and whether this service, which has operated continuously from 1902 until

    1649
    17th March this year, will be restored so that the taking of holidays may not be unduly restricted.
    Mr. Barnes: Owing to the present coal position, services to the West Country during Easter will necessarily be on a restricted scale, and some overcrowding and inconvenience to passengers will, I am afraid, be inevitable. The restoration of the Cornish Riviera express in the summer timetable is now under consideration.
    Mr. Beechman: While I am glad to know there will be a relief train for Easter, which will, in effect, be the Cornish Riviera express—maybe "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"—will the Minister bear in mind that similar facilities are at any rate absolutely necessary during Whitsun, and during the summer period, which begins early as far as the West country is concerned?
    Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Gentleman examines the reply he will see that the restoration of this train is under consideration.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the Minister aware of the vital need of invisible exports to this country, and will he bear that in mind when considering the que-

    Railway.

    Number of engine miles run.

    Coaching.

    Freight.

    Departmental.

    Total.

    Great Western

    …

    3,399,370

    3,406,243

    187,003

    6,992,616

    London and North Eastern

    …

    5,423,183

    6,174,368

    465,205

    12,062,756

    London, Midland and Scottish

    …

    7,233,966

    7,573,438

    523,595

    15,330,999

    Southern

    …

    4,524,481

    1,180,705

    123,719

    5,828,905

    20,581,000

    18,334,754

    1,299,522

    40,215,276

    Oil Burning Locomotives
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Transport if he will give the cost per engine for the conversion from coal to oil burning; the length of time taken to carry out such conversion; and the comparative cost per engine mile of coal and oil-burning engines.
    Mr. Barnes: I am advised that the best estimate possible at present of the cost of conversion, including the cost of the
    stion of the restoration of the Cornish Riviera express, which I trust will be at the earliest opportunity?
    Commander Agnew: Will the Minister remember the very long distance of the Cornish holiday resorts from the industrial centres of the country, and that the workers from those centres need rapid means of transport to get there if the best use is to be made of the limited amount of coal which the Government are able to supply?

    Engine Mileage
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport the number of engine miles run on passenger trains, merchandise trains and coal class trains by the four main line railway companies for each week in 1947 to the nearest convenient date; and the number of assisting, not required, and light engine miles run in each week for the same period
    Mr. Barnes: The latest figures of engine miles run are those for the four weeks ended 28th December, 1946, which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The other particulars desired by my hon. Friend are not available.
    Following are the figures:
    installations at storage depots, is about £1,850 per locomotive converted. The actual work of conversion of an engine occupies about 10 days, but engines cannot be converted until the necessary storage depots are available. It is not possible to give the comparative cost per engine mile of coal and oil burning respectively until actual experience has been gained of the running on oil fuel in the various classes of service upon which the engines will be engaged.

  SHIPPING

    River Thames Pilots (Negotiating Machinery)
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Minister of Transport what machinery his Department employs to enable River Thames pilots to present their grievances to the Elder Brethren of Trinity House; and whether he is satisfied that such machinery is adequate.
    Mr. Barnes: The pilots make their representations to Trinity House through the Ruler of Pilots or through the Pilotage Committee which meets weekly, and on which there is an elected representative of the pilots. These arrangements seem to me adequate.
    Mr. Allighan: Is the Minister aware that the pilots of Gravesend are suffering under severe grievances which they cannot call to the attention of the Elder Brethren because they have to go through the medium of the local ruler of pilots, who interprets the title very literally and suppresses grievances so that the men are never heard? Could the Minister call for a report on local conditions?
    Mr. Barnes: If my hon. Friend will give me any evidence on this point I will look into the matter, but usually the best way of dealing with these problems is through the representative of the body of persons affected.

    Life Saving Appliances
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Transport if he has considered the report of his officers on the Schermuly life saving distress signal; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barnes: I assume my hon. Friend refers to the carriage of parachute distress signals in lifeboats. This question was considered in 1945, but is now being reconsidered by a Working Party on the lifesaving appliances to be carried on board ship and in ships' lifeboats. I hope to receive their report very shortly.

    Imported Coal (Port Facilities)
    Mr. D. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that, if coal has to be imported this year, the necessary facilities are available at the ports for unloading and handling it.
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that with facilities that are available and with arrangements that can be made it would be practicable to unload and handle substantial quantities of imported coal.
    Mr. Williams: If coal is to be imported amounting to five million or 10 million tons, or whatever the figure may be, will the Minister bear in mind the serious situation in the South Wales ports which were built up on the export trade?
    Mr. Barnes: That is hardly a matter into which I can go at the moment. The hon. Member asked me whether this coal could be handled and I said it could be.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister be a little more definite and say what he means by "substantial" in view of the fact that it has been suggested by another Minister that it would be illogical.
    Mr. Barnes: That is just what I am not disposed to encourage in an answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Surely, the House is entitled to know the facts. Only last week the Minister of Fuel and Power, in reply to a suggestion by one of my hon. Friends on the Motion for the Adjournment, said that the facilities were not available at the ports for the importation of coal. Now the right hon. Gentleman says it can be handled. Which is true?
    Mr. Barnes: The only point with which I am concerned is my own reply and the use of the word "substantial." I can answer that question but I am not disposed to answer any further question.
    Mr. Lipson: When the Minister used the word "substantial" he must have had some figure in mind. What is that figure?
    Mr. Barnes: It means from a quarter of a million to about 400,000 tons a month. That probably is the maximum.
    Mr. Rankin: Assuming that the coal was coming in, could it be handled with the existing labour force? Would there need to be an increase in the number?
    Mr. Barnes: That is one of the problems, as I have indicated, which will have to receive further consideration and examination.

  INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORT
  Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the statement sent from the Liaison Committee of Transport and Industry, representing a large proportion of trade and industry of the United Kingdom, in response to the invitation for criticism contained in White Paper, Cmd. 7046; whether he has noted the opinion expressed therein; and what course he intends to follow, in view of that opinion.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, there has been no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government as announced in The King's Speech.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that this report by experts who were specially appointed by the Government says that nothing but chaos and dislocation can result from these measures?

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON PRESS (MEMBERSHIP)
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Prime Minister if he will state to which political parties the members of the recently appointed Commission to inquire into the Press belong.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Sir W. Smithers: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us felt that he would not find it convenient to give an answer to this Question, and is it not further evidence of the Communist technique among the Press?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is, as usual, quite mistaken.
  Mr. Marloweasked the Prime Minister which of the members of the Royal Commission for an inquiry into the Press are known to have been members of, or been associated with, political parties; and where this information is available, with which political party each member of the Commission is, or has been, associated.
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the exact political associations of all the Members of the Commission.
  Mr. Marlowe: May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? While I do not
  1654
  for a moment suggest that any of these members will act other than impartially, does he not think it unwise to have appointed the chairman of a political party; and also is it not a fact that, while most of the members have some strong political association, none is in such a position in regard to the Conservative Party?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the convictions of a number of the members: I know of some, but not of all.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the members of the Press Commission—
  Hon. Members: Reading.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very grateful for the solicitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am actually looking at HANSARD. Is the Prime Minister aware that of the members of the Press Commission, there are a Socialist alderman and a Socialist barrister, and would it not have been a pleasing coincidence if there might also have been a Conservative alderman and a Conservative barrister?
  The Prime Minister: It might have been, but we have taken rather a cross section of the community and I do not think that we necessarily want a spate either of aldermen or of barristers.
  Mr. H. Strauss: Is it not a fact that a very large proportion of the members of this Commission have failed to secure election to this House, and is that a qualification?

  WELSH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (INFORMATION)
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Prime Minister if he will end the unconstitutional practice of certain Ministers in refusing informaton to Welsh Members of Parliament on issues of great importance to the people of Wales when such information is frequently given to the Press by individuals who are not responsible to Parliament; and if he will take steps to control these officers.
  The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to a Press conference held recently by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, on the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

  1655
  War, to correct erroneous and very exaggerated reports of the Army's actions and intentions in Wales which had resulted in a protest meeting in Wales on 22nd March. I am informed by my right hon. Friend that there was nothing in the communication made to the Press which he was not ready and anxious to give to Welsh Members of Parliament, and the substance of the information was in fact given beforehand to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I do not think any action on my part is called for.
  Mr. Davies: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that as late as last Monday a long statement appeared in the Press by the officer commanding the Western Command giving information that Welsh Members of Parliament have not yet been able to elicit from any one of the Service Ministers; and may I ask him if he is not really better informed—in view of the repeated representations Welsh Members have made to him—than the answer he has just given would appear to indicate?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My information is that the information was communicated to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and I should have thought that hon. Members in Wales would be better informed than I gather is the case from the rather vague impressions they had that an enormous area was being taken, which is not the case.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the G.O.C. Western Command gave a Press Conference last week dealing with matters of high policy about which hon. Members for Wales who have been in correspondence with the Government were unable to obtain information, and will he say whether that further conference met with the Government's approval?
  The Prime Minister: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. De la Bère: Cannot all hon. Members know about this?
  Mr. Watkins: Is the Prime Minister willing to look at the information I have received from the War Office and consider it in conjunction with the Press statement issued at Chester last Monday, and will he inform the House why the Welsh news
  1656
  yesterday gave information with regard to the county of Brecon which was not made known to any one except the B.B.C.?
  The Prime Minister: I will, of course, look at anything which the hon. Member cares to send me on this matter, but I am afraid I have not seen the report to which he refers.

  SCIENTIFIC CIVIL SERVANTS (SECURITY MEASURES)
  Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the dismissal and transfer of scientific civil servants as a result of inquiries by M.I.5; and if he will issue a statement upon the whole incident so that the public shall not form any exaggerated ideas as to the unreliability of members of the scientific Civil Service generally.
  The Prime Minister: I have seen reports in the Press on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. The responsibility for dismissal of civil servants is a matter for the Minister of the Department in which the civil servant is employed. My information is that the number of cases in which any question has arisen on security grounds as to the suitability of civil servants for employment is extremely small, and I am glad of the opportunity of paying a tribute to the integrity of the staff employed in the scientific and other branches of the Civil Service.
  Mr. Smith: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that this is an altogether unprecedented action in this country in peacetime and ought not the public to be told the whole story?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the stories have been vastly exaggerated. It is not unprecedented. It has been the practice, where occasion rendered it desirable for the Department to make inquiries and it is the duty of any Government, of whatever colour, to see that those who serve the State are loyal to the State.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister say which Minister in the Government is responsible to this House for the activities of this body, and does he not think that past procedure should be changed and explanations given to the public for the activities of this body in order to allay any misconception that it is acting as a secret police?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think so. There is no action here in the nature of a secret police.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Whether or not information can be given to the public, would my right hon. Friend undertake that nobody shall be dismissed from his office on a secret report on security grounds without being given the opportunity of knowing what is his alleged offence and of replying, if he can?
  The Prime Minister: The House will realise that this is a very difficult matter involving the security of the State. Every effort is being made to see that everyone is treated with the utmost fairness, and I hope that the House will support me in declining on grounds of public interest to deal with this or any similar matter in very general terms.

  INDONESIAN REPUBLIC (U.K. RECOGNITION)
  Mr. Bramallasked the Prime Minister what diplomatic or other contacts will be initiated with the Indonesian Republic now that the agreement between the Indonesian Republic and the Netherlands has been signed.
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have learned with satisfaction of the signature by Dutch and Indonesian representatives at Batavia on 25th March of the Linggadjati Agreement. It will be recalled that this agreement provides for certain constitutional changes in the Netherlands East Indies; in particular the de facto recognition of the Republic of Indonesia in Java, Madura and Sumatra, to be followed by the creation of a United States of Indonesia and eventually of a Netherlands-Indonesian Union, based on free association and collaboration between the Dutch and Indonesians in all fields. It is to be hoped that the agreement now reached will pave the way for a new era of peace and prosperity which will benefit not only Indonesia but the world in general. As to our relations with the Indonesian Republic, His Majesty's Government will extend to the Indonesian Republic the de facto recognition accorded by the Netherlands under Article I of the Agreement. Our contact with the Republic will, for the present, be maintained through His Majesty's Consul-General at Batavia.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister consider the suggestion of attaching, as soon as possible, specialist officers with knowledge of the economic situation to the Consul-General and the Minister, in order that the flow of goods to and from Sumatra and Java might be got going again as quickly as possible, because there is a great lack of them at the present moment, and I know from personal experience that officers of that sort would be most welcome?
  The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to consider the hon. Member's suggestion. I hope we all recognise the economic importance of these countries.

  AGRICULTURE

    Prisoner-of-war Labour
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) what arrangements he is making to find out which farmers are prepared to accommodate and employ prisoners of war; and what response he has so far had to the Government's decision to make this possible;
    (2) what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to ascertain the number of prisoners of war willing to remain as free workers in agriculture; and whether he is prepared, if necessary, to establish a pool of labour from which farmers, who are losing their own men through repatriation, may draw.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are examining the details of the arrangements envisaged in the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on 18th March, and a further statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the report in the Press this morning, and whether there is any truth in it, that the Government have decided to go back on the proposals made by the Minister of Labour for allowing these men to remain as employed labour?
    Mr. Williams: I know of no such decision.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether agriculture, in this case, includes forestry, as many of the men are skilled foresters?
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps that is a question which my hon. Friend will put down, when I will give it consideration.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: When finding out which farmers can give accommodation to prisoners, will my right hon. Friend also find out whether any can give accommodation to prisoners' families, and, if so, would it be in order to bring their families over here?
    Mr. Williams: I think my hon. Friend might very well wait until the next statement is made.

    Spring Wheat Acreage
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information on the acreage of spring wheat planted up to the present; how far this falls short of the target; and whether he proposes to issue directions to ensure maximum sowing.
    Mr. T. Williams: No information is available of the acreage planted with spring wheat, but having regard to the recent severe weather it cannot be large. Special targets for spring wheat, as distinct from targets for all wheat, have not been issued. Directions for the growing of wheat for the 1947 harvest have already been served, but under existing conditions I should not he justified in serving additional directions for the sowing of spring wheat.

    Potatoes (Gardens and Allotments)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the unavoidable shortfall in the 1947 potato acreage, he will initiate a Press campaign to secure the maximum planting of potatoes in gardens and allotments.
    Mr. T. Williams: I intend to use all the publicity resources at my disposal to emphasize that it is more essential even than in the war years to secure the maximum contribution to our food supplies next winter from allotments and gardens. This applies equally to potatoes and other vegetables, and I consider that a proper balance between these two classes of crops should be preserved on the lines set out
    1660
    in the cropping plans issued by my Department.

    Snow and Flood Damage (Assistance)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will investigate the possibility of providing short-term loans, free of interest, to farmers who have suffered stock and crop losses in the recent blizzards and floods.
    Mr. T. Williams: The question of assistance to farmers who have suffered loss from snow or flood is receiving urgent consideration.
    Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in some areas, particularly hill farming areas, the losses have been very severe—from 20 to 60per cent. of sheep lost—and that one of my constituents lost 950 out of a flock of 1,200 sheep? Will he deal with that as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have had representations from all districts, including Devon.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister also bear in mind the damage done in horticultural areas by flooding, and would he give equal attention to that?

    Machinery (Steel Allocation)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture what reductions have been made since 1st January, 1947, in allocations of steel to agricultural machinery manufacturers.
    Mr. T. Williams: The allocations of steel to agricultural machinery manufacturers during the first quarter of 1947 were the same proportion of their requirements as those for the fourth quarter of 1946. Allocations for the second quarter of 1947 have not yet been finally determined.
    Mr. Baldwin: In view of the recent gale, is the Minister aware that the allocations, which might have been necessary previously, are now increased to such an extent that agricultural engineers are not able to repair the damage done without stopping the exportation of this steel, which is badly wanted in this country?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. I think the gale caused universal damage throughout the country.

    Foot-and-mouth Disease
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the evidence recently given by one of his officials at Coalville, Leicestershire, to the effect that foot-and-mouth disease might have been caused by tinned meat from the Argentine; and whether he will make a further statement on this subject.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. Reports of the evidence given by one of my officers in the case referred to may have conveyed a misleading impression. It is known that infection may be carried in frozen and chilled carcases from South America, but I am advised that no apprehension need be felt as regards tinned meat since the process of manufacture would destroy any virus the meat might contain.
    Mr. House: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable opinion that foot-and-mouth disease is largely attributable to cattle grazing on land which has been doped with chemical fertilizers?
    Mr. Williams: That is utterly contrary to all our expert advice.

    Poultry Rations
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture, whether, in order to encourage egg production he will grant a ration of one cwt. of poultry food for every case of 360 eggs delivered to a registered packing station.
    Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. the idea of basing rations on eggs sent to packing stations has been fully explored and rejected as impracticable, largely because of the difficulty of dealing with eggs for hatching and rations for breeding stock.

    Golf Club Groundsmen
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the inadequate agricultural labour available to meet the exceptional conditions created by the recent floods and blizzards and the vital and urgent need to restore and develop cultivation at the earliest possible moment, he will consider utilising temporarily the services of some 20,000 groundsmen and green keepers at present employed by golf clubs throughout the country, since most of these men have had wide experience of working on the land.
    Mr. T. Williams: All practicable steps are being taken to supply enough labour for flood relief and cultivation work. I have no power to require groundsmen or green-keepers to take up agricultural work.
    Mr. De la Bère: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make a request? Surely, these golfers have some sense of proportion, in view of the acute food shortage it, this country, and, no doubt, a request would produce some of these men to help in this very grave emergency?
    Mr. Williams: I am sure that all these gentlemen will have noted the appeal made by the hon. Member.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Minister to give it full publicity?

    1947 Wool Clip
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement regarding the arrangements he has made for the disposal of the 1947 wool clip; and whether the producer will have the right to send his wool to an authorised merchant of his own choice.
    Mr. T. Williams: I expect to make an announcement on this subject in the very near future. The point to which the noble Lord refers in the second part of his Question will be borne in mind, but I cannot promise to satisfy him this year.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Could the Minister say whether wool growers' associations will soon be allowed to accept new members?
    Mr. Williams: That is perhaps another question.

    Sugar Beet Harvesters (Importation)
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brownasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken by his Department to increase the importation of John Deere sugar beet harvesters, which have proved quite satisfactory, and which would be of assistance in the coming sugar beet harvest.
    Mr. T. Williams: Every endeavour is being made to increase the importation of John Deere sugar beet harvesters for the coming harvest, but I am afraid that, owing to manufacturing difficulties at the plant in U.S.A., very few machines are likely to be available this season.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister make representations to see if he can import a few more than he is doing, as these are most valuable machines and will be badly needed at the next harvest?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that our programme included no fewer than 200 machines. Later, we were informed that, perhaps, 44 might be the maximum. Since then, owing to further manufacturing difficulties, I fear that even this latter number will be reduced.

    Production Plans
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture what action he is taking on the recommendation of his Agricultural Emergency Advisory Committee to overcome the handicap to full food production this season.
    Mr. T. Williams: Special measures have been taken to drain flooded land as early as possible, to feed evacuated livestock, and to mobilise cultivating machinery and implements. Various suggestions made by the Emergency Advisory Committee are under active examination, including the preparation of plans for alternative cropping, and I hope to make a further statement on the subject in the near future.
    Mr. Hurd: Could the Minister tell us if his Advisory Committee has made any recommendations about the switching over of cropping? I am thinking particularly of the potato crop in large areas which have been flooded. Could they not be switched to some other county?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. I think I referred in my reply to alternative cropping proposals, which are being carefully dealt with.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Could the Minister say whether alternative arrangements are being made? Would it not be of advantage to the farmer to know what sort of crops he was to switch over to? Surely, there should be no delay, because the time is running out?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that a thoroughly expert committee has been working on this matter for several days past and that all forms of publicity will be utilised for the purpose
    1664
    of advising and guiding farmers, not only as to alternative cropping but alternative seeds and periods of time when they should be sown or set.
    Mr. Nicholson: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. What I was suggesting was that the farmers should be told as soon as possible.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister basing his assumptions on the statement of the representative from his Ministry in a broadcast last Friday, in which it was stated that the floods would be off the Fens in three weeks, and that, probably, they would be fit for crops three weeks after that?

    Farm Buildings (Steel Components)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the shortage of steel joists available to agricultural engineers in Herefordshire is holding up the erection of farm buildings, including a co-operative grass-drying plant; that, although constructional engineers have secured licences and forms M have been issued, manufacturers cannot supply; and what steps he is taking to make supplies available.
    Mr. T. Williams:: I am aware that delays occur in the supply of steel components for farm and other buildings, owing to the shortage of steel and to great demands on the rolling mills. I am not, however, aware of any special difficulties in Herefordshire, and if the hon. Member will send me particulars of such cases, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that I took up this matter with the Ministry of Supply on two or three previous occasions, and that they handed it over to the Ministry of Agriculture to be dealt with; and, further, that this is one example of the lack of co-operation between Government Departments, which is resulting in the exportation of steel needed for production at home, owing to the fetish of the export drive being considered as the only thing that matters?
    Mr. Williams: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. De la Bère: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman soon will be.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the acting Leader of the House whether he will tell us about the rearrangement of Business for this week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): In view of the representations which have been made the Government propose to make arrangements for a Debate on the fuel situation on Wednesday and the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill announced for that day will be postponed until after Easter.
We hope that there will be agreement to conclude the Debate on the fuel situation, which will arise on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, at about 9 o'clock and then proceed with the following Business:
Motion to approve the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued by the Governor of Burma on 17th October, 1945; Committee and remaining stages of the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Bill and of the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill.
Mr. Eden: While I have no complaint to make about the rearrangement, which I hope will be convenient to hon. Members in all parts of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with the later Business which he wants to take on Wednesday, whether he will bear in mind that it may be desired to move one or two Amendments in the Committee and remaining stages of the Peace Treaties Bill? I do not think these will take long, but I thought it well to mention the matter, in view of the change in Business, as I do not think that the Government will have as long to consider these Amendments as we in the Opposition like people to have.
Mr. Greenwood: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last statement, I think it would be to the advantage of the Government and the House, that if there are any Amendments, they should be put to the House as early as possible. I should hope, with the right hon. Gentleman, that the Debate need not be too long.
Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman said last week that if I raised the question of a Debate on the flooding situation, he might be able to give me an answer this week. Could he say whether
1666
it is proposed to give any time to the Motion standing in my name and that of 150 other hon. Members?
[That this House cannot but recognise the recent widespread flooding especially in the Fens as a national disaster and urges His Majesty's Government to treat it as such.]
Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid we cannot do it this week if the House wishes to rise before Good Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (OFFICIAL REPORTS)
Mr. Eden: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are yet in a position to make any statement in regard to the difficulties in connection with the printing of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the House and of Standing Committees? You will recollect that the matter was raised by me and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and also by hon. Members in other parts of the House, on 27th March, and that you then said:
"I shall be glad to look at this matter between now and Monday."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1412.]
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have only a very short statement to make. Since Thursday last, when questions were asked about the availability of HANSARD Reports of certain Standing Committees and of Debates in the House late at night, I have had the opportunity of looking into the matter more closely. The trouble appears to be due mainly to the shortage of reporters—which is not confined to the HANSARD staff, but is general throughout the shorthand-writing profession—and, in part, to the unusual weight of work which has had to be covered. A little over a year ago the HANSARD staff was increased to an extent which was deemed to be adequate, but, because of the experience of the past few weeks, when as many as 20 Sittings of Standing Committees within the space of three days have had to be reported, in addition to late Sittings of the House, the whole position has had to be reviewed, and proposals are now being examined which, when worked out, will, it is hoped, meet the present situation satisfactorily.
Perhaps I should add that the actual question raised by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has not been

1667
before the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports, and that I propose to refer it to them, that is to say, the point about the reports of certain Standing Committees not appearing until 48 hours after the Committees have sat. I should add further that I have found out that one of the reasons for that is that we are so short of reporters that we are using the reporters of another place. They report Committees here in the morning, and they then have to go back to another place to report the Debates there in the afternoon, and they have no time to transcribe into longhand the notes taken in the morning. That is why the Committee reports cannot be printed the same night, and are not available until 24 hours later. I am sorry that I cannot give a better answer.
Mr. Eden: I am sure, Sir, that the House is much obliged to you for your reply. May I ask the acting Leader of the House whether, during the period of the Recess, he will give this matter further consideration and see whether he cannot either give assistance to you, Sir, to increase the staff, or reduce the pressure on the Standing Committees?
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, that is primarily a matter for the authorities of the House, and not for me. Anything that we can do to assist the authorities of the House in increasing their staff, we will certainly do. If, as I said before—which met with the disapproval of the Opposition—hon. Members opposite would agree to curtail their speeches, that might obviate the difficulty. But I should hope that the pressure of work in Standing Committees would be very considerably eased between Easter and Whitsuntide.
Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his appeal to hon. Members on this side not to speak so much? Surely he knows that we are guillotined anyway, and that the guillotine victim may speak for the length of the period which elapses until the knife falls?
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this House is proving itself a very bad em-
1668
ployer of labour, and is in danger of overworking its reporters?
Mr. Greenwood: I have been aware of the over-employment of people in this House for longer years than has the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholson: That, I suggest, is treating flippantly quite a serious reproach. I say that when we get reporters working up to 60 hours in a five-day week, it is dangerous, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will treat the matter with the seriousness which it deserves.
Colonel Sir Charles MaeAndrew: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that the matter is even more serious than has been suggested, and that a Committee which proposed to sit this afternoon could not sit because the reporters were not available?
Mr. Bowles: I did not understand the point about the shortage of reporters, Mr. Speaker, until you said that they also reported the proceedings in another place. Supposing that Standing Committees meet three mornings and two afternoons a week, and that they still have to do the reporting in another place, how do they catch up with the work? Is there not a bottleneck also in the printing of the HANSARD reports?
Mr. Speaker: I think not. I think it is the inability of the reporters to transcribe their reports into longhand, and to deliver them to the printers. The other day I thought that, perhaps, the printers were partly responsible, but now I think that that was a mistaken idea, and that the difficulty is that the reports do not get to them in time.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: Is it not a fact that the reason for the shortage of reporters is because they are so miserably paid?
Mr. Austin: As one of the main difficulties is the transcription into longhand, could not something be done to obtain dictaphones to bring the reporting up to date?
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must realise that not any reporter can report this House. It is a very highly technical job, and the reporters are very hard to find.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Civic Restaurants Bill and in Committee on Fire
Services [Money] be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)."—[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.]
The House divided: Ayes 234; Noes, 97.

Division No. 116.

AYES

[3.42 p.m

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Gilzean, A.

Paget, R. T.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Parker, J.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Parkin, B T

Allighan, Garry

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Alpass, J H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Paton, J (Norwich)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Grenfell, D. R.

Pearson, A.

Austin, H Lewis

Grey, C. F.

Peart, Capt. T. F

Ayles, W. H.

Grierson, E.

Piratin, P.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Perter, E (Warrington)

Bacon, Miss A

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Balfour, A.

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Pritt, D. N.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Ranger, J.

Barstow, P. G

Gunter, R. J

Rankin, J.

Barton, C

Guy, W. H.

Reid, T (Swindon)

Battley, J. R.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Rhodes, H.

Bechervaise, A. E

Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Belcher, J. W

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Robens, A.

Benson, G.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Berry, H.

Haworth, J.

Roberts, Geronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Beswick, F.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Hicks, G.

Rogers, G, H. R

Boardman, H

Hobson, C R.

Royle, C.

Bottomley, A G.

Holmes, H. E (Hamsworth)

Sargood, R

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

House, G.

Scollan, T.

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

Hoy, J.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Bramall, Major E. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Sharp, Granville

Brook, D (Halifax)

Hughes, H D. (W'lverh'pton, W)

Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

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

Burden, T. W.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C)

Silverman, J (Erdington)

Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Byers, Frank

Janner, B.

Skeffington, A. M.

Carmichael, James

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Skeffington-Lodge, T.

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Keenan, W.

Skinnard, F. W

Chamberlain, R. A.

Kenyon, C.

Solley, L. J.

Champion, A J.

Kine, E. M.

Sorensen, R. W

Chetwynd, G. R

Kinley, J.

Sparks, J. A

Cobb, F A.

Kirby, B. V

Stamford, W

Cooks, F S.

Lang, G.

Stephen, C

Collick, P

Leslie, J. R.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Collindridge, F

Lever, N. H.

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

Collins, V. J.

Levy, B. W.

Stubbs, A. E.

Colman, Miss G. M

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Comyns, Dr. L.

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

Swingler, S.

Cooper, Wing-Cmdr G.

Lipson, D. L

Sylvester, G. O

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

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Symonds, A. L.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Longden, F.

Taylor, Ft J. (Morpeth)

Corvedale, Viscount

McGhee, H. G

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Cove, W. G

Mack, J. D

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Crawley, A.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Crossman, R. H. S.

McLeavy, F

Thurtle, E.

Cunningham, P

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Tiffany, S.

Daggar, G

Mainwaring, W. H

Titterington, M H

Daines, P

Mann, Mrs. J.

Tolley, L

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Mellish, R. J.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

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

Middleton, Mrs L.

Usborne, Henry

Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Davies, S O (Merthyr)

Monslow, W

Viant, S. P.

Deer, G.

Montague, F

Walkden, E

Diamond, J

Morley, R.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Dobbie, W.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

Dumpleton, C W

Moyle, A.

Warbey, W N.

Dye, S

Mulvey, A

Watkins, T. E.

Edelman, M

Nally, W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Edwards, N. (Caerphllly)

Naylor, T. E.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

Neal, H (Claycross)

West, D. G

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

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

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)

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

Follick, M

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Foot, M M

O'Brien, T

Wigg, Col. G E.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Oldfield, W H

Wilkes, L.

Gibson, C W

Oliver G. H.

Wilkins, W. A

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Willie, E.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon J.

Zilliacus, K.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Wilson, J. H.

William, Rt. Hon. T.(Don Valley)

Wyatt, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Williams, W. R (Heston)

Vates, V F

Mr. Simmons and

Mr. Popplewell.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Pickthorn, K.

Amory, O. Heathcoat

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

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pools, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Baldwin, A. E.

Hollis, M C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Barlow, Sir J.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Baxter, A. B.

Howard, Hon. A.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Beechman, N. A.

Hudson, Rt Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

Birch, Nigel

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.

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

Bower, N.

Hurd, A.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Keeling, E. H.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

Butcher, H. W.

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

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Challen, C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Spence, H. R.

Cooper-Key, E M.

Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Darling, Sir W. Y

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

De la Bère, R

McKie, J H. (Galloway)

Sutcliffe, H.

Digby, S. W.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

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

Drayton, G. B.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

Marlowe, A. A H.

Touche, G. C

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Walker-Smith, D.

Eden, Rt Hon. A.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mellor, Sir J.

Wheatley, Colonel M J.

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Molson, A. H. E.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gage, C

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Patrick)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Grimston, R. V.

Neven-Spenee, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nicholson, G.

Major Conant and

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

Harris, H. Wilson

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I propose, briefly, to explain the need for it, and then to go, in a little more detail, into the methods and conditions set out in the Bill itself. Primarily, the need for the Bill arises from the fact that the regular components of our Forces have seriously run down, owing to the fact that there has been no regular recruitment during the war. At the moment we are faced with the position that the number of men in the Army, serving under a regular term of enlistment, is something a little over 100,000—probably 110,000, or somewhere in the region of that figure. In the regular Air Force the number of regular Servicemen is now down below 70,000. In both cases,
  1672
  those figures contain a large number of men who will shortly be coming to the end of their engagement, and unless some steps are taken to fill up those gaps. we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position. In the Royal Navy the position is, admittedly, much better; but even so, it is not satisfactory. In the Navy there were regular Service intakes during the war, and voluntary recruiting has been a little more successful.
  Some time back the Government realised that there would be this probable shortage, and they embarked upon an extensive recruiting campaign, by a periodical Press campaign, by advertisements in the Press, and, in many cases, by the support of hon. Members of this House in making appeals to their constituents. Results in recent months have shown an improvement, but they have been by no means all that we should desire. For example, in the three months to January of this year the volunteer intake into the Forces was 22,349, compared with 13,298 which we had in the three months up to June. But even that improvement, welcome as it is, is in-

  1673
  sufficient to meet the need, and to build our Forces up even to their prewar strength. The position which confronts the Government is, that unless we can continue the present arrangements for the call-up of men, the regular element in the Services is likely to be insufficient to meet even a fraction of our minimum defence requirements. Therefore, if the defence Forces are to be maintained in a sufficient state to enable the defence of the country to be undertaken, should it be necessary, we must have a Bill of this kind. It is the view of the Government, quite definitely, that that gap can only be met by a scheme of National Service. The voluntary scheme has not proved sufficiently effective, despite the attractions of improved conditions, and the prospects of advancement that are open to the voluntary Serviceman now as compared with before the war. That is not sufficient to encourage the enlistment of the number of men that are required.
  There is, however, a second reason, and that is the need for the nation to build up efficient, well-trained reserve and auxiliary Forces. We must maintain a reasonable state of preparedness in case we should be engaged in a future war. I am sure it is the very sincere and earnest hope of every one of our people that we may not be faced with a future war. There is no idea and no intention in the mind of any of our folk to engage in a fight with anybody. On the other hand, somebody may want to have a fight with us—we do not know. For that reason we have to be prepared to stand our ground, and to defend our country and the principles in which we believe. If our Armed Forces are to be capable of operating efficiently at the beginning of an emergency they must be backed up with efficient and adequate reserve Forces; otherwise, all that we shall be doing will be saying to the volunteer force, which is inadequate to meet the strain: "You go into battle. We will sacrifice you, and will wait a few more months while we train the others that are to come on." We think it is absolutely essential that we should have efficient and well-trained reserves to enable those necessary requirements to be faced. We do not think it is possible to get that reserve by purely voluntary service. Now, before the war the Territorial Forces were staffed with a number of enthusiastic men, who were willing to give their spare time to train for the defence of
  1674
  the country. But the training that can be given under those circumstances does not produce a sufficiently efficient individual to take full part in the defence of his country, and, in all probability, not sufficiently well trained to look after his own personal defence.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Battle of Britain pilots, who trained in the Auxiliary Air Force, did not play their part when the war came?
  Mr. Isaacs: It is most unreasonable for the hon. and gallant Member to try to put into my mind any such thought or suggestion. I think that everyone of our people, who so willingly responded in the war when they had the clarion call from the then Prime Minister, deserves credit for the way they devoted themselves to the job. To pick out any one as against another, and to try to draw a distinction between them, is not reasonable or fair. Even the "footslogger" did his bit, with the training he had—[HON. MEMBERS: "'Even'?"]—Some hon. Members opposite seem to be anxious to pick up a word here and there, and to make something out of it. Perhaps I might go back to what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that everyone of those people who volunteered for any kind of service did his best. But those people could not do as well as they might have done, because they did not have the facilities for full and complete training, which we hope they will get under this Bill. This is no time to draw distinctions between one and the other. We have to bear in mind that the training required for our Forces today is a much different training from which was required before the outbreak of the war which has just closed: there are new weapons; scientific weapons of different kinds; technical developments of all sorts, which require a very complete training to enable a man to be efficient at his particular job, and we cannot rely upon that kind of training being given after an emergency has arisen. On that matter, in relation to emergency and the need for speed in action I will, if I may, quote to the House, if they will be considerate enough to listen, a passage from the Prime Minister's speech on the Loyal Address on 12th November last, which I think clearly sets out the Government's point of view. My right hon. Friend then said:
  "First of all, the development of modern warfare has made this country more vulner-

  1675
  able. We are now part of the Continent. We can be reached by attack from the Continent. While in the past we always had a long breathing space on which we could depend, that breathing space is most unlikely to be available should any war arise in the future. The logic of that is that while we keep our front line forces as low as we can consonant with efficiency and the jobs they have to do, we must have trained reserves who can take their part right away without waiting for six months' training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, C. 40.]
  We consider that compulsory National Service is not only necessary to ensure speed, but is also the most democratic way of providing the Forces required. In the old days, between the wars and before the wars, recruiting statistics show that we had a greater intake into the Army in days of serious unemployment, when men turned to that kind of opportunity of getting their livelihood, when no other means were open to them. We think today, that the responsibility, the duty—I think one might almost say the privilege—of taking part in the defence of our country should be spread over the whole of our young men, irrespective of their class or their occupation; they should all come along and play their part in this service. We consider it is a national duty that everyone, when required, should come to the defence of their country, and individuals should give sufficient time to making themselves competent to undertake that duty.
  This Bill provides a method for carrying out that duty. It amends the existing National Service laws. It is an amending Bill. It provides for continuous compulsory military service from 1st January, 1949. I will explain the detailed changes as between the existing laws and this Bill a little later. I want to emphasise, first of all, that all the existing safeguards for personal hardship cases, for conscientious objectors and all the other reasonable requirements for postponement and deferment, have been maintained, and in some cases have been slightly extended. These arrangements worked exceedingly well during the war. There may, of course, have been cases where somebody did not get a postponement, who thought he should have got it, but in general their work gave satisfaction as fair and reasonable and we consider that the hardship committees and conscientious objectors' tribunals and other similar bodies for dealing with these cases
  1676
  should continue to take part in the administration of these provisions, as they have done in the past.
  Until 1st January, 1949, men will be called up under the existing arrangements set out in detail in Command Paper 6831 under the title, "Call up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948." Under these arrangements, young men called up during this year will serve for two years, and those called up from the beginning of next year will serve a gradually shorter period, the period of service being reduced, so that those called up at the end of the year will serve 18 months, thus bringing them into line with what the Bill provides. This Bill provides that the National Service Acts shall cease to have effect on 1st January, 1954, unless a later date is fixed by Order in Council. In other words, this new Bill means that military service for the nation will continue to exist for five years definitely, but can be extended by Orders in Council. Such Orders in Council must have the consent of both Houses of Parliament. That means that young men who have not reached the age of 18 by 1st January, 1954, or any later date, will not be liable to be called up, but that at that date, the liability at once disappears. But it must be clear that there must be some men called up just before that date, who will then be in the Services, who will have to continue their service, although the period of it will not end until after the date on which compulsory enrolment has expired. Parliament itself will have complete control over the extension or otherwise of this liability to service; it will be for Parliament to determine it, as it seems necessary in the light of the circumstances existing at that time.
  Now as to what we may call the field of the call-up. The Bill gives authority to call up young men between the ages of 18 and 26; but I must make it clear at once that the usual call-up age will be the age of 18, and that the extra age limit is put in—for the purpose that I will explain a little later on—so as to give facilities to the Ministry for making deferments and postponements. The total period of service is seven years, 18 months' full time service with the Forces, and five and a half years with the Reserve Services. Under the present Acts, men up to the age of 46 are liable; and their liability to serve, when called up, is until the end of the present emergency; and that is to be fixed by some date. But under

  1677
  the Bill men will be called up definitely for the stated period of 18 months. Therefore, they will know, once they leave their civil employments or student courses, that they are going in for a fixed and definite period.
  Primarily, the reason for the 18 months' full-time service is determined by two factors. First, there must be an adequate period of initial training. That is not to say that the full 18 months will be taken up by training. Many of the Forces, or sections of the Forces, may be able to complete sufficient training by the end of 12 months, and the young men may then do a bit of soldiering Men may finish training, and then go to do garrison duty or some other work to take the place of some of the men coming out at the end of their normal time of service. Whilst the period of 18 months may not be required for complete training, it is required for service. Secondly, it is necessary to have a marginal period so that extensive training may be given and the fullest opportunity taken of the time in which the Services have the young men at their disposal. But it has to be borne in mind that this, in itself, will bring about an added demand upon the normal full-time soldier because it will be regular components of the Forces who will have to undertake the training of the young men coming in; and, therefore, there will be less men available in the active lines should any requirements arise for their services.
  I should like to mention here that the Government are not using the word "conscript" in this Bill. We are referring to these young men as "national service men." There are many who prefer to think they will be coming in to do their service willingly, although called upon, and who do not like the connotation of the word "conscript" and its reference, not to circumstances in this country, but to circumstances in which others have used it, and which have become associated with the word. I make that point for what it may be worth.
  I want to refer to one or two other factors. We hope that it may be possible—as I shall explain, there is power in the Bill—to shorten the period of service. There are two ways in which that may be achieved. First, we may find that the campaign to attract young men
  1678
  will be more successful than it has beep. Many of the young men called up to do their 18 months' service may find the Services so attractive to them that they may desire to continue in them, and to continue for a fixed period longer than their 18 months. Secondly, our overseas defence commitments may be so changed that to make it unnecessary for us to have the Forces which we now think are going to be necessary; but this is too indefinite for the Government to assume for the purposes of national planning. Therefore, there is power in the Bill, in Clause 1 (1, a), for the Government, by Order in Council, to reduce the initial period of the 18 months' whole time service; and I have authority to say, that at the earliest opportunity at which this is found to be practicable it will be done. It must be borne in mind that there may be cases in which a man may find himself called upon to serve more than the 18 months period. It will be entirely his own fault if he does; if a man deserts, or is absent without leave any time, he will be called upon to make good that time of absence by continuing his service after the 18 months have passed.
  There is also power in the Bill to reduce the period of 18 months in certain cases. It will be used for exceptional purposes. For example, we are informed by the Royal Air Force that a man being trained as one of an air-crew, may reach a certain part of his training at the end of 12 months, and that the time left to him is not sufficient for him to go right through the next stage; and that it might be better to release him, and to carry on with his part-time training, at the end of 12 months. We have taken power in the Bill to allow that, should it be necessary; but if a national service man is released for any of these reasons from full time service before the 18 months expire, he will be expected to make good that time by a little extra time in the part time service training programme, and so to make up, to some extent, the full time lost.
  The age for calling up is 18 years, but there is provision to allow young men who apply to be called up earlier, but not earlier than the age of 17 years and six months. The provision is made quite deliberately, so that young men going up to a university, or to some other training course, may choose to be called up a little earlier, enabling them to come out of the

  1679
  Forces a little earlier in time than if they had waited until they were 18 to be called up; and in time to start their university or other scholastic careers. It may be a very hard thing indeed for a young fellow in certain circumstances to be called up one year after starting his scholastic work, and finds himself pushed back and he may prefer to do his service first. There is a similar slight variation with regard to doctors and dentists. In normal circumstances, doctors and dentists will find themselves called up round about the age of 25; but there will be many in the field of call-up, who are taking specialist courses and want to become specialists in one branch of their profession; and when an individual requests that it should be done, his call-up may be postponed, and he will be liable to be called up, up to the age of 29. That has been done to meet the needs of the professions, so that men will get their additional training. At the same time, it is an advantage to the Services, because they will have within their ranks men with higher qualifications to assist in the professional work of the doctors and dentists in the Forces.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Has the Minister any idea of the spread as between the ages of 17½ and 26? For instance, does he imagine that 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. will opt at 17½?
  Mr. Isaacs: I could not say without notice, but I will endeavour to get the information for the hon. Gentleman if he wants to use it in the Debate. We think that a young man of 17½ is physically not so different from the young man of 18. I should like to mention the question of deferment. By having the field of call-up ranging from the age of 18 to that of 26, with the normal intention of calling up at 18, we have a long field in which to plan deferments. But this must be said right at the outset, that it is the intention of the Government under this Bill that all young men liable and medically fit shall serve their time in the Forces—all of them, with the exception which I shall explain and of which the House has already been informed. We are anxious not to interrupt training, whether for the professions or for the arts or for industry, or whatever it may be, and, therefore, the option is given to the young man to defer being called up until his apprenticeship or
  1680
  training has been completed. Therefore, a student going to the university, or a young man going to an apprenticeship in industry, can decide whether he will do his service, and get it over and done with, or whether he will continue his training and do his service afterwards.
  That will be his option, but this is being tied up with one or two very stringent provisions. First, a young man will have to satisfy the district manpower boards or the recruitment committees that there is a genuine and satisfactory learnership, studentship or apprenticeship in operation. It must be genuine. It is not going to be allowed, that a firm finding that their young men are to be called up, suddenly rushes to get indenture forms for them. The apprenticeship must be in existence at or before the time of call-up, and must be a satisfactory apprenticeship. I can speak only of experience in my own industry. I have known of a case of a printer in South London with six young lads as apprentice compositors. He had drawn a premium of £25 from each of them, yet after their apprenticeships, they did not know enough even to print a winkle bag, let alone get a job in the trade. That is going to stop. The manpower board has to be satisfied that the apprenticeship is a genuine apprenticeship.
  I ask the House to see the great advantage in this, in that it should, in fact, encourage genuine systems of apprenticeship to be developed throughout the country, and end the haphazard methods of teaching that have developed. There must be a genuine and satisfactory studentship, apprenticeship, or learner-ship in existence. With the exception of underground miners, no deferment will be allowed on industrial grounds—deferments will be allowed on other grounds, as I have explained—but the Government have recently announced that underground coalminers will not be called up to the Forces for the next five years. Young men already engaged as underground coalminers, when they become due for call-up, will have their call-up deferred as long as they remain underground coal-miners. By this means we are protecting that very important industry at the moment from the loss of its manpower. It is not intended that there shall be industrial deferment in any other industry.
  There is, then, the question of postponement of liability to serve in the

  1681
  Forces. Postponement has existed under the Acts now in force. It rested on exceptional hardship, and so on. I think the Hardship Committees, in the main, have done their work exceedingly well. There is every reason to believe that they will do just as well under this Bill, when it becomes an Act. Unless a certificate of postponement is granted by the Minister, the matter will be referred to a Military Service Hardship Committee, and there will be a right of appeal allowed from the decision of that committee. The appeal can be made either by the Minister or by the applicant against the decision of the committee, and the matter can be taken to an umpire. I must point out that, where a postponement has been given in that way, that postponement does not itself automatically exempt the person from serving, or allow him to pass out of the field of service, because should he reach the age of 25, when he would normally pass out of the field of call-up, and the hardship qualification should disappear, as it might easily do, he would still be liable to do his service. In other words, opportunities will not be made so easy that some form of postponement can be continued from month to month, enabling complete evasion, unless there is absolute need for it.
  Mr. Stephen: Up to what age?
  Mr. Isaacs: The age of call-up, 18 to 26.
  Mr. Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman said that if a person received a postponement right up to the age of 26, he might be called on after 26 for service. Up to what age? Might it be 30?
  Mr. Isaacs: It is difficult for me to give specific answers on detailed points at this stage. If, when he reaches the age of 26, and the condition justifying postponement still exists, it seems to me that further postponement will be granted, and he will not be called up immediately. From what we have seen of these cases, they are most likely to be cases of students at universities who, because of failure to pass an examination, have had to continue on a little longer and have not come out until they reached the age at which they would pass out. This is only a safeguard to make sure that nobody will manoeuvre the postponement opportunites in such a way as to evade the service which it is felt should be given.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I would like to put one question about universities. Is deferment optional for any undergraduate, or only for scholarship holders or persons of a certain standard?
  Mr. Isaacs: The option will be for any person. Any person going through any kind of tuition—university, industry, law, and so on, where there is a genuine contract of training of some sort—has a right to ask for the deferment of his call-up. It is made as wide as possible so as not to interfere with training. I would like now to say something about part-time service. At the end of 18 months, the men who have served will go into a Reserve. In the Royal Navy they will go into the Royal Naval Special Reserve, which is being created for this purpose. If they serve in the Army, they will go into the Territorial Army, or the Army Reserve. If they are in the Royal Air Force, they will go into the Air Force Reserve. Power has been taken in the Bill to transfer men from one of those Reserves to another, and there are four main reasons why that is done. It can be done either by the Forces themselves or at the man's request. The main reasons are as follow:
  First, a man may have obtained during his part-time service knowledge, capacity and efficiency that would make him more useful in another branch of the Services. May I give as an example a man who may have served in the Army and who, on coming out of the service in the Army, has worked in an aircraft factory and become an expert aircraft fitter; it might be of advantage, therefore, to transfer him from the Army Reserve to the Air Force Reserve. It is that sort of thing which makes it desirable for this power to exist. Secondly, there may reasonably be a change in the balance of the various Forces. One might find that one Force had far more men than might be needed, and another Force fewer men. In that case, it would be desirable to have powers to make transfers. Thirdly, a man may live in another area. He may have been living on the sea coast and have been in the Royal Naval Reserve. He might then go far inland where there were apportunities for him to have training in some other branch of the Reserve. Fourthly, a man might, for personal reasons, wish to change from one Reserve to another; it might suit his convenience to do so because of the location of his residence, his

  1683
  employment, and so forth. We are taking power to permit that sort of thing.
  The period of overall service is seven years—18 months full service, and five and a half years part-time service. That part-time service also may be extended in the case of men who have deserted or failed to fulfil their obligations, and who will be expected to continue in service. Part-time service has been devised in a form which it is hoped will cause the least possible interference with industry. In the five and a half years a man will be required to do 60 days, and he cannot be compelled to do more than 21 days in any one year. It is also intended, although this may not be specifically mentioned in the Bill, that there will be conversations with industries with a view to arranging the best periods of the year in which the training can, take place so as to provide the very minimum of interference with industry. A man will have a call-up notice giving him 30 days' notice of being called up for his Reserve training. It is possible that, having come out of the Forces after 18 months, he may not be called upon to do any part-time service perhaps until a year or so has elapsed, but the maximum period of 60 days remains absolutely fixed. An attempt is being made to interfere as little as possible with industry and with the ordinary domestic conveniences of the Service man by allowing him to commute each day by a number of hours of evening attendance. Four periods of one hour's attendance, or two evenings of two hours, will be equal to a full day's training. In other words, it is the introduction of a four hour day for part-time trained men. The Services will make arrangements by regulations to cover that.
  It must be pointed out also that if a man wishes to do so, he can volunteer to do his part-time training in the Volunteer Reserve, but it is clear that if a man volunteers to do his Reserve service in the voluntary section, he does not escape the liability of being required to do 60 days' training, towards which he may not count more than 15 days in any one year. If that provision were not there, it would be possible for a man who volunteered under contract to give voluntary service for, say, for four years, to put in more than his 60 days in the first two years, to draw his gratuity, and then to stay away and avoid further service. The main purpose of the Reserve is not only to keep
  1684
  the men's training as far as possible up to pitch, but to have the men available should it be necessary. Therefore, voluntary service in the Volunteer Reserve does not allow a man to evade whole-time service as such in the ordinary Reserve.
  Mr. Christopher Shawcross: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of how many men will be in uniform when this scheme is in full operation, say, in five years' time? How many will be in uniform at any given time, allowing for those who are to be exempted, and so on?
  Mr. Isaacs: I could not give a figure at this moment, but I will get a figure. I would like to know what my hon. Friend means when he says "in uniform." Does he mean those who are serving 18 months, or men in the Reserve?
  Mr. Shawcross: Those who are in the Reserve and others, excluding those in regular service.
  Mr. Isaacs: I will see whether those figures can be obtained. I want now to speak about reinstatement in civilian employment. The Re-instatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944, when one considers that four million men and women have come out of the Forces, has worked with amazing satisfaction. It is true that there have been a number of difficult cases, but they have been a ridiculously small percentage of the whole. Therefore, we propose to continue those arrangements, but with the following slight change. Under the existing Act, however short the employment was, the employer has to reinstate the man for not less than 26 weeks. If he has been in employment for more than 52 weeks, the employer has to guarantee reinstatement for 52 weeks. Owing to the changes in the period of service, and so on, the following alterations are proposed—that if the employment was for less than 13 weeks, reinstatement should be guaranteed for 13 weeks; if employment was for more than 13 weeks, but less than 52 weeks, the reinstatement must be guaranteed for 26 weeks, and then, as before, if employment was for over 52 weeks, the reinstatement should go on for 52 weeks.
  Under the Act as at present, the employer has an obligation to reinstate a man only if such reinstatement is reasonable and practicable. This necessary safe-

  1685
  guard will continue. I know that some of my hon. Friends will wonder how a lawyer might interpret "reasonable and practicable," but it has given rise to little difficulty, for out of four million people who have come out of the Forces, the vast majority have been re-employed, and where the term "reasonable and practicable" has been referred to the various tribunals, in the main the matter has been settled satisfactorily. We propose to continue the machinery which has proved satisfactory.
  There is one other minor change. Under the existing Act, an employer is not under an obligation to reinstate a man after six months have elapsed after the end of the present emergency. Obviously, that condition will have to be changed. Therefore, the employer will not be under an obligation to reinstate a man after six months from the end of his whole-time service. In each particular case, the liability remains on the employer to reinstate the man for the six months after the man comes out of the Forces. Under the Reinstatement Act, volunteers who volunteered for the Forces have the same right of reinstatement as men called up and sent compulsorily into the Forces. This Bill preserves that right for the volunteers who joined under the old Act. Under the new Bill, as volunteers who volunteer for the Forces will probably serve five, seven or even more years, it is not felt reasonable to compel an employer to take back a man after he has been away for seven years, and who volunteered to go away, as against a man who was called up only for a limited period. There is that change in the Bill.
  There is a slight change in the period in which a man must apply for his reinstatement in civilian employment. Under the old Act, he had to make his application on the fifth Monday after his release and to be available for employment on the ninth Monday. Under this Bill, he has to make his application on the second Monday and to be available for employment on the fourth Monday. It is obvious that there is a reason for that. Under the old Act men have eight weeks' demobilisation leave; under the Bill a man will get from 18 to 24 days according to the length of their service. They will have the option of enjoying that leave without losing their right of reinstatement.
  1686
  Another slight change will be necessary for we have to pay attention to the reemployment of men who have been called up for part-time training. We do not wish to see growing up an opportunity for employers to say that they will not take men back because of the operation of the Bill. There will be sufficient safeguards against that happening. A man will have the right to go back to his job after his part-time training. If there is any question about a man not being reemployed, he can go to a reinstatement committee where the onus of proof will rest upon the employer. If I am asked about the penalty, it will be in some of the compensations to which the man will be entitled, according to the period involved.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can we have an example?
  Mr. Isaacs: It might be a month's salary.
  We are now entering a sphere in which other factors begin to operate. Tomorrow we shall have raised the school-leaving age, and we are coming into a field where more extensive educational facilities are open to the young people of our country. Therefore, it is intended that those who come into the Forces shall not lose the advantage of the extended education which they would have had, if they had been following their normal employment. The Services have made arrangements for such continued education and the Bill places a general duty upon them to do so. They will provide education, and the cost will be met out of the Service Estimates. Local education authorities will be asked to co-operate with them in carrying out the duty, but that authority will be relieved of the general obligation of finding facilities for the large number in the Forces who may happen to be in their area.
  Finally, I would refer to the conscientious objector Clauses. The arrangements under which conscientious objectors may now be registered are three. One is unconditional exemption. The second is conditional exemption, upon the applicant's undertaking to do civilian employment. The third is non-combatant service. Those three forms of exemption will remain, with slight changes. As regards conditional exemption, the Minister may direct the objector to undertake work of the kind

  1687
  specified by the tribunal. It may be necessary for the objector to submit himself to medical examination in order that we can ascertain that he is fit for the work.
  Professor Gruffydd: Can the Minister tell us whether any provision is made for objectors who refuse to submit themselves to medical examination?
  Mr. Isaacs: If a man is registered unconditionally he will be quite free, as he is now, and he will be out of the field of employment. There is one other condition. If a man had gone into the Army he would have served for 18 months and he would have been liable to serve 60 days in the reserve. As a conditionally registered objector, he will continue for 60 days beyond the 18 months, so that he will be called upon to give to the State exactly the same number of days as if he had gone into the Service.
  Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the question put to him just now by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). What is to happen in the case of objectors who refuse to submit themselves to medical examination?
  Mr. Isaacs: Exactly the same as has happened under the Acts which are in operation at the moment. The only changes that are being made in the conscientious objector arrangements are those which I have explained It is felt that they worked satisfactorily, generally speaking, during the war and they will continue now as then.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Acts now in force, a man who conscientiously felt that it was wrong to submit himself for medical examination was punished again and again for what was, in fact, only one offence? Do I understand that it is proposed that that shall continue?
  Mr. Isaacs: I want to make it clear, as I did try to do just now, that if that is the arrangement that operates now, the Bill does not make any charge in the arrangement. It may be that it is thought it ought to do so, and it may be that when the Committee stage comes these matters can be discussed and argued out. I want
  1688
  to make it clear to the House that there is no change in that arrangement.
  I have nothing further to explain to the House. I would finish by saying that the Government believe the Bill is necessary. Otherwise, they would not have introduced it. They believe that it is fair to all. They think it is fair to the State and to industry, and fair to the men who have borne the heat and burden of the day in the last four or five years, that we should now try to carry on the work for which they have struggled. We think the terms of the Bill are reasonable and can be carried out without hardship upon the community. The Government also believe that the period of service is fair in existing conditions and that the period for which the Bill is intended to operate is appropriate in all the circumstances. For those reasons, and because we believe that the Bill is required and is fair, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: I think the House is indebted to the Minister of Labour for his extremely lucid and careful description of the Bill, and particularly for the attention he has given to points which cause anxiety here or there. He has evidently carefully mastered the details of the Measure and was able compendiously to give to the House a very full account of it.
  On this occasion we support His Majesty's Government. We shall try to do so when they stand for national as apart from party interests and sectarian themes. We even go as far as to compliment them on the courage they have shown in resisting the subversive and de-generate elements in their midst—and elsewhere. Below the Gangway opposite, we see representatives of those conceptions and ideas which nearly brought us to ruin in the late war, and have gone far and are going further to pull us down after our victory. Therefore I congratulate the Government on standing up to them. It is always difficult for Ministers in contact with reality to resist those feckless and crack-pate elements to which they have pandered in their thirst for power, and on which they largely depend as a Government for their life and office. We shall vote with the Government on the Bill, on all occasions when they are challenged by the crypto-Communists and pacifists and other trends of Left-wing opinion,

  1689
  which they have exploited to the full in bygone days, and which they now very naturally and healthily resent.
  The Minister of Defence has not made things easier by his aggressive speech the other night, when he went out of his way to attack us on this side of the House. Old and experienced politicians will understand his difficulties. We realise that he was trying to gather up in advance a little credit for his own party, for the work which he had to do for the country by showing how well he could be rude to the Tories. After all, that cost him nothing. On an issue of this kind he can be sure that he will get our support any way and at any time when he is doing his duty. To my friends here who were angered the other night I would say that small petty episodes must not be allowed to deter convinced and determined men from their path of duty. I say also to the Minister of Defence—quite appreciating the state of mind he was in—that it is sometimes better, on the whole, to do things not quite so nakedly. Ars est celare artem. For the benefit of the Etonians on the other side I will translate that as "Art is to conceal art."
  We shall support the Bill in all its stages, but that does not mean that we shall not try to shape and modify it as well as we can, to fit it to what we conceive to be the national need. Here I may say that the Bill has evidently been very carefully shaped and considered. We shall do nothing to endanger its passage into law. We shall be careful to be present in good strength to support the Government. Moreover, we shall take no points off them in the constituencies, on the ground that they have gone forward and done this thing. We have quite enough to pick on without that. I will, however, permit myself to make some comments on the past.
  The Prime Minister is not here. I have no doubt he has many other things to do. But it is certainly an irony of fate that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence should be the men to bring a conscription Bill before the House now, after two years of peace, when all our enemies have surrendered unconditionally. Why, these were the very politicians who, four months before the outbreak of the war, led their followers into the Lobby against the principle of compulsory military service, and then had the face to accuse the Conservative Party of being "guilty men." I and
  1690
  a handful of others have a right to criticise and censor the lack of preparation for the late war, but the Prime Minister and his friends have no right to do so; the whole effort of their party was designed to make every preparation for defence of the country and resistance to Hitler so unpopular, that it was politically impossible. Now, in the long swing of events, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, who refused in May, 1939, to vote for conscription against Hitler and Nazism, when that was proposed by Mr. Hore-Belisha in Mr. Chamberlain's Government, come forward in a time of peace and victory, to ask us to support conscription against some other danger, some other dictatorship, which I do not propose this afternoon precisely to define. This performance this afternoon encourages me. I do not despair of the party opposite. It is never too late to mend; we all may live and learn, and they may live and learn, but the question is whether, when they have learned, we shall still be alive.
  I turn now to the Liberal Party. They, at least, are consistent, and they are united, but they have not the task of organising and disciplining such large forces as those which occupy the hourly attention of the Government Whips. I remember well the day when my right hon. Friend Sir Archibald Sinclair, who is not with us at the moment, marched his followers into the Lobby, with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Defence, to vote "No" to conscription against Hitler and Nazism in the spring of 1939. In this world of human error and constant variations, usually of an unexpected character, the Liberal Party can range themselves in party doctrine, few but impeccable. They have no need to recur for safety or vindication to that well-known maxim, or dictum, that "Consistency is the last resort of feeble and narrow minds." They are quite entitled to say that they have always been against compulsory service. They were against it before the first world war, and, in spite of some considerable pressure from Mr. Lloyd George, they were against it after the first world war. In the interval many things have changed, but here today the Liberal Party are ready to sacrifice themselves in the constituencies, and face any amount of unpopularity, fearless of by-elections, however they may come, and ready at this juncture to stand firm by the old theme and the old flag. It is no part

  1691
  of my policy to pick unnecessary quarrels with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) and those whom he leads, and I shall, therefore, content myself with paying this well-deserved tribute to their rigid and inflexible consistency.
  I shall venture to present to the House some of the reasons which lead the Conservative Party to give their support to this Socialist Government on the Second Reading of the National Service Bill. First, let me refer to one or two points of detail. Since the war stopped, the mismanagement of our Armed Forces has been remarkable. For a whole year, there were three Service Ministers who have since been dismissed or moved because they were either incompetent or absentees. One was promoted. He was not promoted because he was incompetent, but because he was an absentee. At any rate, the three great Service Departments have had to drift and flop along as they might. I criticised the demobilisation policy of the Government early in November, 1945, at the very beginning. I still think that it was not carried out with proper speed, down to the limits which were required by the public safety. We know that the Government were forced by a wave of public opinion to change the plans they had prepared, but still they kept hundreds of thousands of men and women waiting about needlessly doing nothing, when they were urgently needed in civil life. In these matters, time passes and draws a sponge across the past, but I should have been ashamed not to have demobilised down to the necessary figure at a very much greater speed than was attained. But the past is no more. I must register the point that perhaps a year was lost in the case of many men who could have been giving our country the necessary fillip at that time, in getting industry to work, but were retained in the Services doing what we now conceive to be perfectly useless tasks, not only abroad, but, in very large numbers, in England.
  Mr. James Glanville rose—
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member seems much disturbed about this matter today. He must not endeavour to direct on me any criticism which should rightly be attributed to his leader. We have next
  1692
  the White Paper by the Minister of Defence. I must again remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman used very hard language about the arguments of his political opponents, the other night, and about their style. No more barren, dismal, flatulent, platitudinous document than his White Paper—if you can call it "his" White Paper—has ever been laid before the House of Commons. His friends—and I am certainly a wartime friend—hope that it is to his credit that he had nothing to do with writing it. It was one of those rigmaroles and grimaces produced by the modern bureaucracy into whose hands we have fallen—a kind of vague palimpsest of jargon and officialese, with no breadth, no theme and, above all, no facts.
  I think I shall be speaking for everyone in all parts of the House when I say there is a broadly spread feeling that our manpower in the Forces is being wasted, muddled and mismanaged. There has been no administrative thrift, and there has been insufficient good housekeeping. This applies to all three Services. There never was a time when the effective fighting strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force bore a smaller proportion to the total number of men taken by compulsion. The Estimates, which have been presented to the House and debated fully in the recent weeks, gave us no clue to the fighting strength of our Armed Forces. The Navy Estimates, for instance, do not dare to specify the ships and fleets the Navy have in commission. That was invariably done before the war, and I see no reason why it should not be done at the present time. Nor have we the slightest idea from the Estimates of the numbers in the Navy afloat, and the numbers ashore.
  I believe that the Minister of Defence is to wind up this Debate, and perhaps he will be so good as to answer this particular question. The Navy have around 200,000 men today—maybe a little less—and according to the Estimate they are reducing the numbers to 182,000 by this time next year. Out of these 200,000 men, I want to ask how many are sleeping afloat tonight, and how many are sleeping ashore. I think we might be told that. I do not think it would endanger the safety of the country, although it may stir people up a little at the Admiralty. I should like to know the answer, because, after all, the Navy is a thing which is in various ways associated and often connected with the sea, and a

  1693
  sailor is always supposed to have something to do, at some time or other, with salt water. Perhaps I may have an answer to that question when the time comes. Nor do the Royal Air Force venture to state the number of fighting squadrons they have. Finally, the War Office give us no indication of the number of divisions or mobile brigades which are formed out of a total establishment of about 750,000.
  We are told by the Government, "Oh, we cannot do it, because foreign Powers will gain an advantage," but I thought that all our enemies had surrendered unconditionally, and the House may remember that we went in procession to St. Margaret's to return thanks for the victory. It appears now that we cannot do what we did in 1939, and in 1914, namely, state in broad terms what foreign Powers know perfectly well, the broad outline of our naval and military organisations. Apart from your war against the Jews in Palestine, I thought there was peace. At any rate, the House may be sure that the Soviet Government know perfectly well what we have got in the Navy and in the forces in Europe, and that they have got a lot of good friends moving freely about in this country, who will not hesitate to tell them about any little points on which they may be short.
  Perhaps in the air there may be a little more mystery, because the air is a "kittle cattle" kind of service. Whether a squadron is in the first line, or the second line, or in training or in preparation, and what is the exact grading of the various machines and pilots—all that affords an infinite field in which confusion may be created and statistics multiplied and spawned in vast quantities and varieties. Therefore, I am not pressing so much in regard to the air, but believe me, nothing is gained by refusing to tell the House what ships we have in commission, and how many broad organisations of troops we have in the field. What we have to keep secret is not that, but our mobilisation plans, and equipment, and the potential rate at which our Forces can be manned.
  I hope we shall not have this humbug of saying, "We cannot say how many ships there are in commission, because we do not want foreign nations to know." I have never heard such a pretence pre-
  1694
  sented to the House before. The reason why the facts are not disclosed in the Estimates is because the Government do not dare to expose themselves to criticism for the little they have to show, compared with the great numbers they have and the vast sums of money they are spending. We reserve to ourselves the fullest right to examine and criticise the policy and the Bill which is now brought before us, from the standpoint both of its quantitative and qualitative results. Nevertheless, when all is said add done, even if we do not get satisfactory answers, we shall unfailingly support the principle of national service for the Armed Forces of our country.
  Before I sit down I will, very briefly, give a few reasons, broad reasons—
  Mr. Scollan: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Churchill: —which have led us to this conclusion. I am explaining why I am going to support the Government, and perhaps find myself in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman. If I give way to him, perhaps he will bear that in mind, and mitigate his ferocity.
  Mr. Scollan: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House why conscription, by a Government which is responsible for the muddle in the Forces which the right hon. Gentleman has described, would alter the muddle or help the position?
  Mr. Churchill: That really is a question which should be addressed to the Front Bench opposite. As I say, I stand here confronted with this proposal to have a National Service Bill. I and my Friends, after careful thought, feel bound to give it loyal support. That does not at all deprive us of the full right to point out how very badly other things have been managed, and how much one is in agreement with the feeling the hon. Gentleman has just expressed. Compulsory military service is not necessarily a problem for a regular standing Army; but the only way of making us a nation of fighting men in time of war is by national service in time of peace. As all our habits in the past have been to live in a peaceful manner, we have entered all our wars unprepared or ill-prepared, and the delay before we are able to place an army in the field at the side of our Allies has been a very serious weakness, not only in the physical but in the moral sphere.

  1695
  There is nothing contrary to the spirit of democracy in the principle of compulsory national defence, provided it is universal, provided that rich and poor men of every class and party have to pay their due at the same time. On the contrary—
  Mr. Cove: All in the ranks, not in the officer class?
  Mr. Churchill: Certainly. I am much in favour of national service being on a basis of absolute equality. There used to be a period when it was possible to hire substitutes—it was so in the American Civil War—but these practices have long passed away. There is nothing contrary to the principles of democracy. On the contrary, it emphasises the principle of equality of sacrifice, and by mingling all classes together, in common duty and honourable service, it is a favourable agent for diminishing class differences which exist in a free and varied society. It has been defended and practised by all the most advanced democratic countries in Europe since the French Revolution. Reliance for the defence of the soil on national armies rather than on long service professionals, or mercenaries as they were called, was, in the 19th century, at any rate, a strong barrier against reaction in a rapidly changing and, upon the whole, advancing and progressing world.
  It is quite true that conscription for prolonged foreign service presents itself in a different light, and cannot be maintained as a permanency. The maintenance of garrisons abroad raises problems and requires qualities and conditions which are not reconcilable with the short-term service characteristic of national compulsory armies. That is found by every country where the army is raised by conscription and yet requires a certain proportion to be provided for foreign garrisons. Now, at this time, after a war in which the whole people took part has been waged and extraordinary confusion reigns in the world, it is necessary to have compulsion for service overseas—a hard thing for any Government to maintain. But that is not a basis on which our Army or any other army can indefinitely be maintained. The loss of India and Burma are lamentable and melancholy events, and they signalise, in striking manner, the rapid decline of British power and prestige. But living at a more humble level does, in fact,
  1696
  relieve us of some strain in this military sphere. The maintenance of an Army in India has been a great burden. To keep 50,000 or 60,000 men permanently in the Service entailed the maintenance of a professional Army, based upon long service. It is like holding the dumbbell at arm's length—quite tiring, very different from if it is held here. For several generations that has prevented the development of an effective national Army in this country, which for much the same expense could have been made far stronger than was possible.
  I do not intend to go into the Cardwell system. Every one knows that foreign service required seven years with the Colours, five with the Reserve, or even eight with the Colours and four with the Reserve, which leaves a very small reserve to be built up; whereas, if we had not had to maintain this large force abroad, we could have developed two years with the Colours and To with the Reserve, or 1½ years with the Colours and 1½ with the Reserve, or, as the Government are doing, 1½ with the Colours, and 5½ with the Reserve. Had such a system been possible before the war, we could have had, at the outset, three or four times as many divisions ready to go, with results that cannot be measured; because as we now know from the German figures, very different conditions prevailed at Munich time, and even at the outbreak of war, from those which prevailed in May, 1940, when Hitler had reached the moment when he could strike.
  Certainly, our power to keep the peace in the 20th century has been greatly hampered by the fact that we did not possess a national Army. We were in a position which laid us open to reproach from European countries, not only potential foes, but Allies and neutrals, that we would use everybody else's blood—every one has heard the taunt—to pursue our policy and gain our ends, and would content ourselves with implementing their efforts by sea power and money, and latterly, of course, by air power. It is arguable even that we tried to play too large a part in European affairs between the wars and before the first war, while not being able or willing to accept the same conditions of service, or put up the same manpower as our Allies or potential Allies were forced to do. We should have carried far more weight in the

  1697
  councils of peace if we had had national service.
  There is no doubt that the passage of this Bill now, in this hour of dark depression, will help to sustain our otherwise failing influence in world affairs, and particularly in the United Nations organisation. That influence is being steadily reduced by the policy of the Government, both at home and abroad. It is remarkable that this curious Administration should step aside from its broad downward path to take this single solitary step towards a more hopeful national policy. We welcome the step all the more because of the contrast in which it throws so much else they have done.
  "So shines a good deed in a naughty world."
  It has long been recognised in this and other countries that there is a great gulf fixed between national service for military purposes and what is called industrial conscription, or the direction of labour, in time of peace. There is a great gulf. In the war we leapt that gulf, but never before has it been, and we earnestly trust it will not be, dreamed of in time of peace. There is no need to confuse the two.
  Service to save the country has always from ancient times been considered the first duty of the citizen. It is however questionable, in my mind, whether any exemptions of young men from military service should be made in time of peace for particular industries. I was glad to hear the Minister of Labour say that it would be only for underground coalmining. Yes, away from the light of the sun, that is a different kind of sacrifice which is made. But even this seems, in a way, to reflect both upon the character of military service and the character of mining. It is one thing in wartime to stop miners from going to fight as soldiers, sailors and airmen, as they frequently wanted to do, and quite another to encourage a particular kind of young man to go into mining as a means of avoiding military service. It may be necessary in this crisis, but it is not a healthy basis for the State or society as a whole. Both services—the Armed Forces and mining—are honourable, and nothing should be done which seems to reflect upon either. It would certainly be a most unfortunate expedient to have, as a permanent matter, to try to increase the manpower in the mines by a class of youths who dislike military
  1698
  service. I should be sorry to see that develop over a long period of time.
  The fact that we support the Government on the broad principle of national service for the Armed Forces in no way weakens our intention to censure the waste of manpower by those Forces. On the contrary, it should strengthen us in our duty to do so. I say without hesitation that the present condition of all three Services, as a result of Ministerial incompetence since the war, is disgraceful I hope that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff is to be at his desk giving his whole mind to this matter, and that he will be able on all occasions to give the fullest possible assistance to the Minister of Defence, in order that the matter may be viewed from a central point of view. General Montgomery is a very gifted man, and I hope that he will be close to the Minister of Defence in all the months that are to come.
  I am very grateful to the House for giving me so much of their attention. [Interruption.] As we are all going to work and vote together, we may as well be on friendly terms, so that the House may be responsible for insisting on the proper use being made in the Forces of young men taken from so many important industries and walks of life, and upon a proper proportion of fighting strength being developed as a result of so much sacrifice and expense. It seems to me that all parties and sections of parties might join in this with equal earnestness. If Parliament did its duty, and if the Government allowed Parliament to do its duty, there would be set up a Parliamentary committee of all parties, similar to the National Expenditure Committee, which did such useful work during the war; or even a joint committee of both Houses to investigate, with full power to call for persons and papers, the use of manpower in the three Forces, and with power, by leave of the House, to sit in secret from time to time. Such a body would be of the greatest value, not only to the country as a whole, but to the Service Ministers, and to the Minister of Defence, none of whom is able, apparently, to cope with the problem himself.
  Mr. S. Silverman: On this matter of Parliamentary control, the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have noticed the proviso to Clause 24 which provides

  1699
  that this Act shall remain in force for five years, but, thereafter, can be extended by Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman's party in this Parliament, whenever a Bill has been put forward with such an arrangement, have always opposed it in the interests of Parliamentary control. Do they intend to oppose it on this occasion?
  Mr. Churchill: I cannot possibly endeavour to look forward to so long as five years. For anyone who is so far advanced in age of life as I am, it would appear to be presumptuous. Even if this serious obstacle did not present itself, I should not be anxious to face more difficulties and troubles than those by which we are surrounded at the present time.
  Mr. Silverman: I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman is taking far too pessimistic a view. In any case, that has not prevented his party from opposing this provision in a number of other Bills introduced since the beginning of this Session.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody that Parliament is master. If there is a Parliament which is against the prolongation of such a Measure, no such Measure can be prolonged, whatever the provisions in the Bill. On the other hand, if there were a general feeling that it was in accordance with the national interest and not in disharmony with the characteristics of our British life, it might be that the House would be content to see it passed through without it being a great cause of dissension.
  I must return to the point, which is my last one, that I believe that there are many scores of millions which could be saved from the present immense total of f000 million demanded this year on the Estimates of the three Services. I would very much like to have had a chance to get loose upon them with my red pencil. I am perfectly certain that we could have had a very considerable saving, and I am perfectly certain that this could be achieved simultaneously with a positive increase iii the fighting power of the Services. Therefore, we shall support His Majesty's Government in the Lobby tomorrow night, and on other occasions, when necessary, throughout this Bill; but let no Minister imagine that we do not regard their wasteful, inefficient and in-
  1700
  competent administration of the fighting Services as a scandal of the first order.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has, in his matchless way, made great play with the position of those of us who sit on the Liberal Benches. In the name of consistency, we must stand by the same flag and the same view, and I think that that is the best tribute that can be paid. By what flag are we standing? We are not standing by any pacifist flag. That has never been our flag. We have favoured conscription in time of national emergency and in time of war, and I think that we are entitled to do that, because conscription in time of war is the best system. There are other coercions besides the coercion of law that can be brought to bear—there is the coercion of opinion. Anyone who remembers the state of this country at the beginning of the first world war, will remember that the issue of white banners and similar devices made the position of the young men in the country subject to far greater oppression than conscription. Conscription is the most free system in time of war, but equally it is the most oppressive in time of peace.
  The right hon. Member for Woodford is one of the great figures of the world. It is because of that, that I would draw his attention and the attention of his party to what happened during this last world war. In the first world war, the Government of which he was then a distinguished Member led the country into war and led it through successfully because they commanded the universal moral support of the country. Does that count for nothing? In the last war, which the right hon. Gentleman led, his broadcast speeches, when we were standing alone in 1940, were worth battalions of men in themselves. Why? Because, spoken with his power and eloquence, they commanded the full and universal support of this country. That was a moral factor in itself. So powerful was that moral factor that when one examines countries like Russia, France, Germany and Italy—every one of which had conscription—we find that every one of them, at one time or another in the two world wars, was defeated—the only country that came through two world wars undefeated, triumphantly, was this country. Today

  1701
  the Government are introducing a Bill of conscription in peace time, in 1947, when, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, all our enemies have surrendered unconditionally. That is a remarkable situation and would have been impossible but for the free spirit of this country. It is perfectly true that training counts, that arms matter. I am not disagreeing with that; but there is something far more important than arms; there is something far more important than training—and that is the spirit of the men behind the arms. That is the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman expressed and commanded; that is the spirit which was missing from those other countries.
  It is interesting to note how conscription came to be fastened on the neck of Europe. It was fastened on the neck of Europe by Napoleon out of ideas of the French Revolution, and under the dictatorship of Napoleon. It was Napoleon who lost Waterloo. France abolished conscription, and it came back again with Napoleon the Third. The Treaty of Versailles imposed a voluntary system upon Germany. That voluntary system, I suggest, was largely contributory to making the German Army, between the war periods, what it proved to be. If we examine the German forces more closely, the voluntary part of its forces, the S.S. men and the Air Force, they were the strong part of those forces, but the conscripted part of the forces was its source of weakness. France had conscription, and France was defeated. It would have been better for us in the last war if the Treaty of Versailles had provided for a voluntary system in France and conscription in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but he is the greatest witness of the march of events during that period. He himself knows that better than anyone else in the world, because he was the champion of the free spirit. I wonder if he had been leading this country in a world war of 20 years after conscription had been introduced whether this country would have gone down like France? Would he himself have commanded the free spirit of the country and have been the free leader that he is?
  I listened with amazement to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. He dealt, as the right hon. Gentleman said, lucidly and clearly with the provisions of the Bill, but he said not one word about the principles of the Bill;
  1702
  not one word why we should bring in a Bill of this sort in peace time—the greatest departure from the traditions of this country which one could imagine taking place in this House. I hope that the House will allow me to say what I have in my mind about this subject. I make it quite clear that I am speaking for myself. I have already indicated that I am not a pacifist, but we are very fond of talking of the civilisation of the West as being a Christian civilisation. What do I mean by that? Leaving aside all form of religion, merely interpreting it as a form of life in the West, if we examine the whole of ancient civilisation, so far as I am able to examine it, we find no trace of the doctrine of the person or the doctrine of free will anywhere. It is the doctrine of the gods ruling the man and using the State as an instrument. That is the whole doctrine of the ancient world in all its forms so far as I am aware.
  The modern Western world, exclusive of Russia, which I treat for all purposes as part of Asia, has grown up on the bases of the doctrine of free will and a free personality—a distinction between the man and the State. It has grown up on that separate doctrine. It has affected the views on education; it has affected the whole of the commercial arrangements of the commercial world. Instead of the law of status characteristic of the old world we have the law of contract of the modern world. Instead of the education of a class in the ancient world we have the education of man as man's right in the modern world. It was not by extending that development between the two wars but by negativing it that Germany and Italy reverted to the views of the old world by making the citizen a completely subservient being to the State with the State having complete control over the whole of life. That is reversion and that is what we are faced with at the present time. When I speak of this civilisation being in danger I mean by that the reversion to the old world form of slavery in one form or another. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are today taking their share and responsibility for that reversion. They may be doing this instead of providing for the safety of the country or the realm in time of war, because they may be imperilling this country in time of war. That is why we stand by the old flag. We stand by the old flag because we are

  1703
  interested in the maintenance of civilisation represented by this country and we stand by the safety of this realm in time of war.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but he should remember that Germany and Italy did not introduce national service by a vote of a free people, whereas Switzerland, Sweden and many other countries did consult the interests of the people by a free vote of the people. That is the difference between Parliamentary democracy and something else.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am not at pains to justify conscription on a democratic basis but I would point out that a democratic basis is not a sufficient justification, because democracy can be as great a form of tyranny as any other tyranny unless we ask the question, What is the form of democracy?
  Mr. Churchill: That in Switzerland?
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am not sure judging by the sign of the times in this country or in any other country where democracy is prevailing but democracy might become a tyranny.
  I do not propose to enter into details of this Bill, because I hope on the Committee stage to deal with them, but let me take one class in this Bill for whom I hold no brief at all—the conscientious objectors. The conscientious objectors are the touchstone of liberty in this Bill. That is why they are important. What are the provisions? The provisions in this Bill are precisely the provisions for exemption that were incorporated in the Acts during the war. They deal with conditional exemption, unconditional exemption, and provision for non-combatant service on the assumption apparently that conditions in war time and conditions in peace time are the same. That is an idle comparison. In war time we can easily distinguish between those entitled to conditional exemption and those entitled to unconditional exemption. Unconditional exemption means that the conscientious objector opposes war entirely. He says, in effect, "I will neither serve with the Armed Forces nor engage in any industry during the war which will further the war." Whether we agree with him or not, that is his position. In those beliefs he was
  1704
  entitled to unconditional exemption under the law.
  Conditional exemption—and here is the crux of the whole position—means that a man says, "I object to killing, I object to serving in the Armed Forces, but I do not object to doing any civilian work for the furtherance of the purposes of war in the interests of the safety of the State." Under those conditions we give him conditional exemption, but he engages so far as he can in accordance with his conscience to carry on the work of the State. In other words, in time of war the State can direct men in that way in the interests of its survival. Upon what principle are the Government now going to give conditional exemption to a man? What work are they going to say a man is to do? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that he hoped that this Bill would not be looked upon as leading to conscription of labour. Does not this Clause of conditional exemption provide the bridge for it and introduce conscription of labour by the back door? What is the answer to that?
  Take the case of the deferred people, the miners. There is nothing in this Bill to say what the liability of the miner is. He will be deferred while he remains working in the mines. If he remains there until he is 26 or over 26 or any age after 26 the liability for military service, whether he is called up or not, is not discharged. That remains. Is not that a veiled direction of labour? If not, what else is it? For the Minister of Defence I have a very great respect. I believe he is a conscientious man, and I have not bothered to look up the innumerable splendid speeches that he and others in the Government have made in other times, but every one of the arguments they used then are valid today.
  Mr. Yates: More so.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: Yes, more so. They opposed conscription in 1939, but in 1939 this country was in peril. That is a very different position from what it is in today. I have already said that in times of emergency and war conscription is a totally different proposition. I hope that the House will give very serious consideration to this Bill before they give away the greatest bulwark of the safety of the realm—the spirit of a free man.

  1705
  I hope that this Bill will be rejected, for I have never heard a Bill of this magnitude introduced into this House with lesser justification and merely with a lucid explanation of the provisions contained in it.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add, "upon this day six months."
  The Amendment which I am moving, and which I think is appropriate at this stage, is, in effect, that this Bill be rejected by the House of Commons. Before I come to that, however, I should like to turn for a moment or two to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will see that his support and that of the Conservative Party of this Measure, is the best condemnation of it. The mere fact that the Tory Party support a Conscription Bill presented to this House by a Labour Government ought to mean that the Bill should not be passed into law. The right hon. Gentleman taunted some of us on this side of the House for ruining the country by not supporting conscription previously. He then taunted the Government with changing their tune. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person in the world who should taunt anybody about changing their politics.
  Mr. Churchill: I would remind the House that only three weeks ago the Prime Minister reproached me for having the same views on India for 50 years.
  Mr. Davies: I remember the right hon. Gentleman contesting an Election many years ago; he was then the Liberal candidate for the Exchange Division of Manchester and he was being opposed by a Tory, the late Sir William Joynson-Hicks. The tune he was playing then was certainly different from the one he is playing here today. I know what the working classes think of the right hon. Gentleman, but I dare not quote in this place the language they employ in coal mines and factories about him. Nevertheless, he is a man whom I respect for his genius, but I say alto that he has brought more ruin upon this country and upon Europe than any other statesman of our time [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Well, he asked for our views.
  Mr. Churchill: It is only the truth that wounds.
  Mr. Davies: I cannot forget his escapade in Russia at the end of the first world war; the repercussions of that escapade by the way are being felt even now in the Moscow Conference.
  Having said all that, I will now come to the Bill. I am a sad man standing here tonight. This is the most tragic day for me during the quarter of a century that I have been in this House. I have worked for years with many of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to build this party and I know their personal views. I hardly think that their hearts are in this business at all. I believe that they would all say that they do not like this Bill; and if they do not like the Measure I should like to know who it is that does, and what compels them to bring it before the House. As I said, this is a very sad day for me. I was there when the Labour Party was formed; and having spoken at street corners and on platforms a thousand times preaching the exalted gospel of the Labour Party when we were a few, I never thought I would live to see the day when right hon. Friends of mine would stand up in this House to introduce military conscription in peacetime, especially when I have heard some of those same right hon. Gentlemen denounce conscription more fiercely than I will ever be able to do.
  Right hon. Gentlemen who are in the Government damage democracy, Parliament and Socialism in imposing conscription in peace-time. It is no use criticising a Government for doing this when we are in Opposition, if when we come over to this side of the House we do the same thing. The people will not be deceived by such somersaults. I have been here long enough to see—and I hope my Liberal Friends opposite will not mind me saying this—a party as strong as the present Labour party wiped clean out of public life except for a few who are the most intelligent of them. I have no illusions about what damage can be done to the cause of the common people by a few statesmen.
  The Bill imposes conscription for a minimum of 10 years after the end of the war. Incidentally, I cannot understand my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench always comparing the number of men in the Forces as between 1947 and 1944, as

  1707
  if that were a proper comparison. The real comparison, of course, is the strength of the Forces as between 1947 and 1937 when we were at peace. Let me say, therefore, that there must be some power behind somewhere that has induced the Government to introduce this Bill. I should like to know what those powers are; and I shall be forgiven if I am suspicious of secret powers behind Governments, especially after what happened at Yalta which was disclosed over a week ago in Moscow.
  I am terrified just now of the rise of a third party in this State; a party that is not elected, a military party to whom Ministers of State play marionettes as is manifest by the introduction of Bills of this kind. Some of our military generals have recently been announcing policy in public, but surely the right person to announce policy publicly are the right hon. Gentlemen who represent the Government. It would be well for the younger men in our party to realise that the Labour movement emerged into public life in this country to challenge the military mind—the mind that always thinks in the terms of its profession; and seeks to create fear among the people that there is constantly an enemy at the gates. The military chiefs have apparently convinced my right hon. Friends that there is even now an enemy at the gates, and they have introduced this Bill. I sometimes wonder—now that France cannot fight, America, I suppose, will not fight us, Italy cannot fight, Japan cannot fight and Germany cannot fight—who are we going to fight next. Who is now the enemy at the gate? There is only one country left that we could possibly intend to fight. Let me say with great sorrow that, having been recently in America, I was amazed and dismayed at the deep hatred and antagonism towards Russia in the United States. Let me express the hope that this little country of ours, these glorious islands, are not by some secret agreement, to be turned into a base for American operations in Europe. I would not like to think that that would happen to our native land.
  This Bill violates all our traditions, not only of the Labour Party but of all parties. May I make it clear that no Government—Liberal or Conservative—has at any time ever imposed conscription in peacetime on the people of these islands? This Bill is a
  1708
  challenge to the whole conception of international Socialism that a Labour Government should be the first in the history of the British people to impose military conscription in peacetime. I do not know whether the Government realise exactly the implications of what they are doing. We are told that the main reason for this Bill is our commitments. Before we pass this. Measure is it not a fair question to ask what are those commitments which have made it necessary? We are coming out of India, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that we have 60,000 troops there. We are leaving Burma, we are leaving Egypt, we have come out of Indonesia and we are coming out of Greece shortly. I suppose, too, that some day soon we shall come out of Austria and we cannot remain very much longer in Germany because Germany is sucking the whole of the economic life of Europe down into ruin. As an American statesman once said, "If you want to keep a fellow in the ditch, you must remain down in the ditch with him." That is exactly what is happening to our people in Germany now. Therefore, I ask," Where are these commitments that warrant the maintenance of all these Forces?"
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned Palestine.
  Mr. Davies: But surely we do not require all these troops in Palestine?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman did not mention Palestine.
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman wants a real quarrel on that issue perhaps we had better have it out now.
  Mr. Leslie: I merely pointed out that the hon. Gentleman had not included Palestine.
  Mr. Davies: The other stock argument in favour of this Bill is that we must have new recruits in order to relieve the boys who have been abroad for so many years. I admit that that is a very powerful argument, but to those who argue thus I would say, "Why on earth should any British soldier be stationed on foreign soil?" We can never police the world; we are too small a nation for that. I have had no education beyond that of an elementary school but I have learned that the first world war destroyed one-half of our coat industry which has never recovered, and one of the reasons for destroying it was

  1709
  to conscript 70,000 miners for the last war. That is what conscription does. Half the Lancashire textile industry was also destroyed by the first world war. That is what is wrong with this country. The economy of the nation has been damaged beyond repair by the heavy weight of military expenditure, and, apparently, our Government are going to add to that weight by this Bill.
  The strangest thing of all about this Measure seems to me to be this. Supposing—God forbid—that the Tory Party had won at the last Election and sat on this side of the House now, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and that they introduced this Bill, word for word, and we were all on the other side, all my Labour colleagues would then have talked exactly as I am talking now, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, with his deep Nonconformist conscience and his international co-operative sentiments, would stand and thump at the Box and denounce conscription as the vilest thing man had ever invented. That sort of somersault will not do if this party is to live. If a thing is wrong when the Tory Party is in power it cannot be right because it is done by a Labour Government. It is clear, of course, that if the Labour Government imposes conscription, although they say it will be for only ten years after the end of the war, it will nevertheless be fastened on this nation for good.
  I know that some of my younger friends think that the Labour Party has come to stay for good and that Socialism has come to rule the whole of Europe and nothing is going to change that. But there is no finality in politics; and if a Socialist Government in this country descends to militarising this nation, and shackles this free people, another movement will arise to clean the stable and bring the nation back to freedom once again. There is a new conception arising in this connection. It is argued by some that this is not tyranny because it is imposed by a Labour Government—and that slavery imposed by your own colleague is not so bad. A pair of handcuffs is not easier to wear even though it be shining with a Socialist solution. I object to tyranny whether imposed by the Tories, the Liberals, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Socialists, the Communists, or any other "ists." Tyranny imposed upon man is no more
  1710
  acceptable simply because the master has changed.
  It is argued that conscription provides equality of sacrifice. What humbug. I know three sons who were of military age during the last war when conscription came in. Not one of them was called up. One was a schoolmaster, another an accountant and the other a civil engineer. They were all exempted. If their father had been a coalminer, and had brought up his sons to be labourers or shop assistants, all three would have been in the Forces and might possibly have been killed. This Bill does not apply to daughters; it is only sons who are affected. There is no equality of service in this. The lame, the halt, the blind, the idiot, the imbecile, the lunatic, the minister of the Gospel and Member of Parliament—all are exempt, and I wonder sometimes which is which after hearing some of the speeches in favour of this Bill.
  I was very pleased to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) speaking of the rights of human personality. I am in favour of nationalising everything that is inanimate for the common good, but I do not believe in that form of Socialism which ties man and makes him a slave to the inanimate thing. Yet, that is what we are doing now. There are ex-miners on the 'Government Front Bench. As an ex-miner I would not have put my name to this Bill. "Ah," they say, "so long as you remain down in the pit you will not be called up." I have been a colliery worker myself and I came out of the pit as soon as I could. The Government now tell the underground worker, "The alternative for you is either the pit or the barracks." That is industrial conscription if you like, and it is a very slippery slope to something worse. The next thing the Government will say is that they will not call up farm workers, because they are essential for the community. Then they would say to the farm worker, "The turnip field or the barracks for you." So it goes on, and as one of the oldest trade union officials here—I have been over 40 years at the job—I protest against the fact that industrial conscription is deeply embedded in the provisions of this Bill. If you accept military conscription you cannot argue against direction of labour;

  1711
  and any trade union official who votes for this Bill will do so at his peril.
  I was in America when the recent election for Congress was on The Democratic Party were defeated, ignominiously. Why? I know one of the reasons why—the reason that was given to me. When the women of America went to the polls they remembered what the late Mr. Roosevelt had said at the beginning of the war that no mother's son would be sent out of the country to fight. Having been in this Labour movement when some of my colleagues in this Parliament today belonged to the Tory Party, let me tell them that there is political dynamite for the Labour Government in this Bill. This Measure will not frighten the Russians if a war with Russia is to ensue—and I am sorry to think that that may be at the back of the minds of some of the people who have advised my right hon. Friend. If we are going to fight Russia on a manpower basis, we are defeated before we start.
  Let me turn back for a while to a point made earlier in the Debate. On military grounds, conscription is of noavail. France invented it and Germany perfected the conscript military machine, and both came down to the dust. The two great nations, on the other hand, ourselves and America which relied on the voluntary system in peacetime came out on top. That is history. What annoys me, above all else, is that we have told the Germans and the Japanese that they cannot have conscription, while, at the same time, we are imposing it on ourselves. What hypocrisy ! People call me a pacifist. They do not know me, or they would not call me that and that alone. I am thinking of the welfare of my country. I am a patriot; I love these islands; I have tramped over them for many years. The best part of Britain, of course, is Wales. I like our institutions too. Here is an institution—Parliament—the one place in the world, I suppose, that would suffer a man like me in wartime. I am proud of that, but I am ashamed that Labour makes itself responsible for this Measure.
  Let us take the money side of this question; this may appeal to hon. Members. Next year, we shall spend £900 million on the fighting Services. Let us see what that means when reduced to actual figures. It means £20 per head for every man,
  1712
  woman and child in the country. For a man and his wife with three children, it means that they must find —100 a year, or£2 a week, for the fighting Services. Let us see all this in its proper perspective. It the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench do not mind my saying so, we in the Labour Party used to revel in this sort of statistical argument, and they might as well listen to some of it now. Next year, we shall spend on the fighting Services seven times as much as on education, 11 times as much as on health and housing and eight times as much as on old age pensions. Yet, is it not true that the nation is groaning under the weight of taxation while we are proposing to spend this £900 million? We shall spend next year on the fighting Services nearly as much as the total of the American Loan. By the way, they have altered part of the Lord's Prayer in America since we got the Loan. Hon. Members may be interested to know about it. They do not say now, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us"; they say, "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." I asked them to put in the word "British" in the appropriate sentence.
  Professor Gruffydd: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that we say that in Wales, too?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, but the Welsh people are not in debt to anybody. I was taught in my youth to believe the things that I am now saying; and, if hon. Gentlemen criticise and taunt me for what I am saying, let them understand that it was men like Keir Hardie and Bob Smillie were my teachers. When the Government say to us that we are embarrassing them by moving this Amendment, it is pertinent to ask why are they embarrassing us? We cling to the faith; they do not. If we had never preached this gospel which I am now preaching, there would have been no Labour Government; and when we depart from that faith, we must not imagine that the people do not understand what is happening. There is a judgment coming some day, for all that we are doing now.
  Let me now say a word about one of the wider implications of conscription. Foreign commitments? Yes. This Measure is being debated during the week in which Good Friday falls. The youth of Britain, under this Bill, will not be crucified

  1713
  between two thieves as of old; they will be crucified instead between three great Powers fighting for mastery over the petrol of the Middle East. That is what this Bill will do, and the right hon. Gentlemen proposing it, I suppose, will know that what I am saying is true.
  My last word is a quotation, and the Tory Party always pays due deference to its author—General Smuts—whom they regard as one of the great pillars of Empire. This is what he said about conscription, very much more eloquently and pertinently than anything I could say:
  "While the Great Powers are allowed to raise conscript armies without hindrance or protest, it will be vain to expect that we can preserve world peace. If the instrument is ready for use, the occasion will arise, and men will arise to use it. I look upon conscription as the taproot of militarism; unless that is cut, all our labours will eventually be in vain."
  Finally, in moving this Amendment, I would raise a slogan adopting words that became famous during first world war—" This Bill shall not pass.".
  6.7 p.m.
  Mrs. Florence Paton: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I feel no elation, but rather a sense of depression, because of the fact that I am doing this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Members of the Government must have known, when contemplating the imposition of conscription in peace time, that there would be some, at least, who could not violate the principles of a lifetime spent in the Labour movement and quickly attune their ideas and actions to the acceptance of a Measure so opposed to their deepest convictions. We would have challenged any who had dared to suggest that our Labour Government would ask for conscription immediately after a war had been won, in which this country fought against the worst tyranny and despotism that the world has known. We would have challenged any who asserted that, alone among the nations of the Commonwealth, a Labour Government would ask this country to bear the never-ending strain of seeing a large part of its youth forced year after year into the strait jacket of military conscription and the surrender of freedom of choice. We would have declared our faith that no Labour Government would so reverse the long tradition of personal freedom in matters of life and death, with-
  1714
  out, at least, first submitting such a break with the splendid past to the electorate. And we would have evidence to prove that our faith was justified.
  One of the arguments brought out by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Labour and by other hon. Members, to show the necessity for conscription, was the argument that, before the war, poverty and destitution were the recruiting agents, that it is now our purpose to maintain a policy of full employment, and, therefore, these factors could no longer he depended upon to provide the necessary recruits as in the bad old days. Everyone in this House, I am sure, is glad of that. There was an earlier occasion, when, in dealing with this aspect of the problem, the Prime Minister wrote something different. He wrote this about conscription:
  "The more nations advance in economic welfare, the less effective is hunger as chief recruiting sergeant, and the more do militarists find the resort to conscription."
  I can only conclude that, in this decision, the militarist minds in the Services and elsewhere have won a great victory.
  I want to say something now about industrial conscription. I was very pleased to see what my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in a speech at Bristol this weekend, in which he declared that the Labour Government had no intention of introducing industrial conscription, and that the Labour movement would not have it. I want to know what answer the Prime Minister can give to those of us who fear that military conscription in peace time is the prelude to industrial conscription. Indeed, as I see it, industrial conscription is the natural corollary to military conscription, although I am sure that the Members of the Government do not want that. We on this side of the House hope the Labour Government will be in for a long period of office in which to carry out its great programme of social reconstruction, but, in the event of any change of Government and a return of a Conservative Government, it is completely in line with Conservative philosophy and practice, not only to have military conscription, provided by a Labour Government, but the domination of the workers of this country whom they desire to see disciplined to fit into their industrial system. Here, I quote the Prime Minister again on this point:

  1715
  "Conscription is, in fact, an admirable machine for regimenting the workers; hence its popularity with reactionaries."
  I now want to refer to something which the Prime Minister said when he stated that we must have a conscript citizen army:
  "A few Socialists have at times "—
  as many of my hon. Friends are doing now—
  "pleaded for a democratic conscriptive citizen army, but armies and navies are almost necessarily autocratic, and experience has shown that the power of conscription is too dangerous to be entrusted to any man or any body of men."
  My right hon. Friend has his disciples. We learnt well of our teacher, so well, in fact, that we who are opposing this Bill today still believe that conscription is too dangerous to be entrusted to any man or body of men.
  As I understand conscription and what it implies, it violates the personality of immature people. Tomorrow, we celebrate the coming into force of the Education Act, 1944. We are going to raise the school-leaving age to 15, and we are also hoping that we shall develop an educational system far better than that which we have had in the past, in which young people shall have learnt how to think for themselves. As they grow older, by learning how to think for themselves they will surely know how to choose for themselves. When the time comes when they have learnt how to choose for themselves and are decided in their choice, having been helped by an education which is designed for the perfection of their physical, mental and spiritual powers, the State then comes along and says, "We have got something in which you can have no right of choice. We take away your right of choice. We take away your free will, and we say that, whether you like it or not, this State, with all its power, will compel you to do what it wishes you to do, and that is, to learn how to destroy life."
  I believe that I speak for the great majority of mothers when I say that it is not for this purpose that mothers bear and nurture their children. But all the military experts are not agreed about this. We are told that it establishes the principle of equality. The right hon. Gentles-man the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that this afternoon. I would quote here a military expert whom,
  1716
  I think, anyone would regard as a military expert of the first importance. He says:
  "There is no true equality in subjecting to the same service men who are temperamentally unequal—those who are instinctively fighters, and those who are too sensitive to make fighting material. The latter will be a danger to the Army. Yet they may be of much greater value to the nation's future. For they are the stuff of which artists and thinkers are made… Conscriptionists who cannot see this show themselves barbarians."
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Who is the expert?
  Mrs. Paton: Captain Liddell Hart.
  On the question of the survival of this country in the event of a future war, it is a generally accepted belief that there is no possibility of this nation surviving in the appalling event of another war. No national armaments. and no conscript army, however large, can prevent this country from becoming the cockpit of Europe, should humanity so lose its senses as to allow another war to break out. For us, as, indeed, for the rest of the world too, there is only one way of salvation from destruction, and this lies in the success of U.N.O. To suggest any other hope is to deceive ourselves and, what is more, criminally to deceive the innocent masses who rely on us.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: How does the hon. Lady know that U.N.O. would function efficiently unless we had a strong Army, Navy and Air Force?
  Mrs. Paton: I do not believe that the success of U.N.O. depends upon the adoption of conscription in this country. On the contrary, I believe that, by concentrating on the principle of conscription in this connection, we lose the dynamic force and power which the ideal of peace for the world through U.N.O. possesses. Here I come into line with the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). There is still a deep well of desire for a great service to the world, such as this, among many young folk. I do not believe that our young men are decadent, or that they do not want to respond to a great ideal. The true success of U.N.O. would spring from the voluntary service, freely offered, of young men and women who, as world citizens, are prepared to join up for the task of preserving world peace. Before such an inspiring appeal is properly launched, and while this

  1717
  nation is still war weary and tired after a horrible experience, our Labour Government have concluded that there is no possibility of an adequate response to such a grand appeal—hence this Bill.
  This, to me, is an indication of defeatism in the mind of the Government with regard to future peace. Whilst declaiming their faith in U.N.O., they vitiate this declaration by adopting a measure of rearmament, never previously accepted by this country except in the direst necessity. Where lies this dire necessity now? Where is the trouble coming from? Who are we opposing, and who is going to attack us? It also indicates a lack of faith in the power of an inspiring ideal to produce the volunteers necessary to fulfil any reasonable commitments.
  As to these commitments, I listened to practically the whole of the Defence Debate, and I was much struck, as most other hon. Members must have been, by the almost unanimously expressed opinion, from all sides of the House, that the size of the Armed Forces contemplated in the White Paper was too large. Surely, the world must be astonished that this small country, with less than one-third of the population of the United States of America, should necessarily have to provide Armed Forces as great as those of America. What on earth are we coming to when this little country has to bear such a burden in the defence of the world?
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: We have got the Empire, even though it is fast disappearing.
  Mrs. Paton: The hon. and gallant Gentleman lives in the 19th century, and cannot get away from it. What defence are a few conscripted men in a future war? When that dastardly crime of dropping the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima was committed, 80,000 people, including, no doubt, thousands of conscripts and potential conscripts, were wiped out. What good were the conscripts in the defence of their country? Here, again, I would quote the military expert:
  "It seems to me that, while there is little doubt whether the atomic bomb will end war or end the world or both, it should, at least, spell the end of conscription, for it makes nonsense of that military system."
  Mr. Stanley: Which expert is that?
  Mrs. Paton: The same military expert. This country has dedicated itself to peace
  1718
  and freedom, and peace with freedom. Military compulsion and industrial compulsion are denials of that freedom. I believe that peace can only come through the United Nations Organisation, and through international agreement for measures of disarmament. There is no other way. By passing this conscription Bill, we are doing something that is absolutely futile. We must make U.N.O. work, and we must use the power of a great ideal to secure the support necessary to make it work. That is our only way of salvation. Because I believe that conscription is socially, economically and morally wrong, I shall go into the Lobby tomorrow and vote against this Bill.
  6.25 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Many years ago my grandfather, who was a Liberal all his life, said to Mr Lloyd George, as he then was, that the trouble with him was that he spent too much time looking at the reflection of Snowdon upside down in the water. I cannot help feeling today that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who, if I may say so, somewhat resembles Mr. Lloyd George, is, perhaps, looking at the matter from a rather inverted point of view. The last two speeches were made with great sincerity, but with, I submit, a complete lack of conception of what the problems really are, and of what are the ways of meeting them. The hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) said that young men did not need conscription to make them respond to a great ideal. If that were so, I would agree with her. But it is not so. Were it so, I do not believe that His Majesty's Government would have presented this Bill to the House. If we could say that sufficient young men were coming forward to, man our Forces to an adequate extent and to keep our Army, Navy and Air Force as efficient as possible, I do not believe that we should have this Bill before the House today. But the hon. Lady made one remark which I must insist on taking up. She accused the Conservative Party of desiring industrial and military conscription.
  Mrs. Paton: I said that it was in line with Conservative practice in the past.
  Major Legge-Bourke: It seems to me that whichever way the hon. Lady said it, it means much the same thing. If that is the case, I would ask her to read the

  1719
  history of the Conservative Party, and to realise that one of the things in which it believes is that the British subject should have the right to refuse service in the Armed Forces. It is perfectly true today to say, as the hon. Lady and the mover of this Amendment have said, that the Government are guilty of political tergiversation. It is sometimes a question for this House to decide whether political tergiversation should be allowed to go by or not. It seems to me that on this occasion it is most important that we should decide to let it go by. I believe that both the hon. Lady and the mover of the Amendment have harped too much on the fact that the Government have not carried out the policy which they and their party have for many years proclaimed. But there have been other occasions in this Parliament when the Government have been guilty of political tergiversation, and when we on this side of the House have allowed it to go by. We intend to allow it to go by this time, because we believe that there are overriding factors which must be borne in mind.
  The hon. Lady said that she was speaking for the mothers of this country. May I also speak for the fathers of this country? [Laughter]. I am sure it must be quite clear to the whole House that the associations are quite clearly distinct. If I may, I should like to take a rather more serious line for a moment. My own father was killed in the first world war, and I have a son. I saw enough of the last war, and I do not wish to see another one. I would ask the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends to appreciate that, just because some hon. Members on this side of the House are supporting the Government on this Bill, we are not doing so merely because we have militaristic minds, and because, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton said, a militaristic mind instils fear. It is not for that reason at all.
  It is because we are trying to be realists and weigh up what our commitments are and what depends upon the action we take today and tomorrow. Surely, we have to appreciate from the very beginning that there can be no peace in the world unless there is justice, and who is there in this House who is rash enough to say that in Europe today there is justice? I do not believe that, in the long run, justice is best established by military
  1720
  force, but I do say that when there is in the world any Power which understands only the rule of force, that is the only way to meet it.
  Mr. Shurmer: Which is the Power?
  Major Legge-Bourke: I would have thought it was perfectly obvious which is the Power, and I have no objection to saying so.
  Mr. Shurmer: Tell us, then.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I consider Russia—
  Mr. Shurmer: We thought so.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I consider Russia understands force as the rule today, as other totalitarian States before her have understood it.
  Mr. Shurmer: Now the cat is out of the bag.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I should not have thought it was a very closely tied bag.
  Mr. Shurmer: We know what you will do at the next General Election. The hon. and gallant Member said it—Russia.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not carry on a sort of conversation across the Floor of the House. He should reserve his points until he makes a speech.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Today in Europe there are some people who are still frightened, and one of the things for which this last war was fought was to abolish fear. It is still a long way from being abolished, in my opinion. The hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe said she desired the success of U.N.O. So do I, but I believe there is no surer way of guaranteeing its disaster than by allowing this country, of all countries, to become weak in the eyes of those who believe in the rule of force. It is, therefore, with considerable regret that I find myself having to support this Bill.
  I have been a regular soldier all my working life before I came into this House, and I believe very strongly that the ideal form of Army is an Army which has a voluntary spirit predominant in it. But I cannot, in all conscience, come to this House and say that I do not approve of conscription today. I honestly and

  1721
  sincerely wish I could. The fact remains that today we are up against something which requires something more powerful than can be provided through voluntary effort. We as a country—I am not trying to make any party distinction here—have for many years believed that the citizens of this country should have the right to choose whether or not they should go into the Armed Forces. Let us hope that the days may return when we can do so again.
  I believe that it has not been a very easy decision for His Majesty's Government to make, to produce this Bill. They know quite well, I think, that this goes against all that their party has believed in in the past. I congratulate them for taking this courageous step, and I would ask hon. Members who have been very critical of them, and who intend to be critical of them during this Debate, to try to see these things in the light of reality, and to realise that there is no greater freedom in this world than the freedom to change one's mind when one feels one has to. I believe that all parties in this House—the Liberal Party in particular, in view of the Amendment they have on the Order Paper—must say to themselves, "We know what we want; we know what our ideals are, but we know, too, what we are confronted with; we know that that can only be met by taking a line which is understood by the least idealistic." I do not believe that in this world today any greater danger to peace could be produced than to let this country's defence forces sink to the state in which they were between the wars. I believe that the only hope for peace is for Great Britain, with her Commonwealth and Empire, to go to U.N.O. as a joint Power, not as one which intends to use force, but as one which those who intend to use force know would and could use force should it be necessary.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I have been in the House a long time, and I have opposed every conscription Measure that has been brought before the House during those years. Of all the previous Bills, there is none which has filled me with so much dismay and regret as the present Measure. One hon. Member has said that if this Bill had been, introduced by a Conservative Government, every Member of the Labour Party would have opposed it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. There might have been a few Mem-
  1722
  bers in the Labour Party who would have taken a different view, but, from my experience, I can say with truth that in the past there was no division in the Labour Party on this matter, and they went into the Division Lobby as a united party against conscription. It is entirely contrary to the traditions of the Labour Party. Let me quote Keir Hardie's words. I would put them to those hon. Members who are supporting this Bill. He said:
  "Compulsory military service is the negation of democracy. That is despotism, not democracy. No liberty loving people will tolerate having these old forms of servitude forced upon them. Conscription is the badge of the slave."
  That is the view of the founder of the party. Let me quote another eminent Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, who said:
  "Now compulsory military service is the most complete slavery known to civilised mankind. Why does mankind force itself to glory in it? "
  Certainly, conscription is contrary to the traditions of the Labour Party. I would like to make one more quotation to prove my case. I wish to quote a former Prime Minister, the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he introduced the conscription Measure in the last Parliament, and when he appealed to the Labour Party for support for that Measure. He said on 27th April, 1939:
  "I want to conclude by making an appeal to the party opposite…. I think we fully realise what this word compulsion ' connotes in their minds. They hate it. They have believed, and I dare say do believe now, that once you introduce compulsion it is difficult to stop it. It might spread until it affected every aspect of the national life…. It is a limited measure which is designed only to meet immediate and temporary needs. It will be framed specially to emphasise its temporary character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1939; Vol.346, C. 1315.]
  These words make it plain, even to the few Members of the Labour Party who support this Bill, that it is contrary to the traditions of the party. What happened when the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain intimated to the House that the Government were going to introduce conscription? He said:
  "… Despite the immense efforts this country has already made by way of rearmament, nothing would so impress the world with the determination of this country to offer a firm resistance to any attempt at general domination as its acceptance of the principle of compulsory military service …"

  1723
  Then the present Prime Minister rose to his feet, and put this question:
  "Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision will break the pledge solemnly given to this country and reaffirmed only four weeks ago, that compulsory military service would not be introduced in peacetime … and that this departure from the voluntary principle will meet with strenuous opposition."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 26th April, 1939; Vol. 346; c. 1151–1154.]
  It was the demand of the Labour Party that the Government should not introduce a conscription Measure without taking the opinion of the country, and I say to the Government today that they have no more right to put through a conscription Measure in peacetime without getting the consent of the country at a General Election. They have no mandate for the Bill which is before the House. When the General Election was taking place, there were two ideas, as I saw it, in the minds of most of the ordinary working people in the country. One of those ideas was expressed in a letter, handed to me by one of my constituents, from her husband pleading with her that she should do everything she could among her neighbours to get them to support a Labour candidate in order to get a Labour Government, because, he said:
  "If old Churchill gets back again we will never get out of the Army."
  There was that idea, that because of the internationalist viewpoint of the Labour Party in years gone by, a Labour Government would more speedily bring back the men from the war when peace was secured. Also based upon the internationalist viewpoint of the Labour Party was the belief that, in days to come, a Labour Government would make another war impossible by bringing the workers of the world together in true international relationship. Those were two ideas which helped to give the Labour Government its majority in the country.
  This Bill goes in the face of that opinion in the country which gave the Government their majority in this House. I want to consider this question. The Government came into power in the very difficult circumstances which succeed a great war. In those circumstances they find it difficult today to maintain the Services at the standard they believe necessary. Therefore, they say: "We are driven by the logic of events, in order to secure our Services on an efficient basis,
  1724
  to introduce this Measure." Well, I question the statement made by the Minister of Labour in the opening sentences of his speech today. I question the necessity for this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary in order to get the Forces that we need. I question that the Government need the Forces they say they consider they need today.
  I ask: Against what possible enemy have we to make provision, necessitating the passing of this Measure? The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was perfectly frank and pointed at Soviet Russia as the possible enemy. But he will note that when a Member of the Government replies neither he—nor, indeed, any other Member of the Government—will agree with such a contention for one minute. The Prime Minister himself has said that it would be utterly impossible for us to contemplate a war with Russia when our resources are compared with theirs. There is the other possibility, though the Government will not admit it, that we, as the ally of America, might be in a war with Russia. Everyone in the House knows that that is one of the ideas dominating the whole of our circumstances in this country today—the provision of forces. The Minister of Labour knows it. his Parliamentary Secretary knows it, the Minister of Pensions knows it—they all know it. But I do not believe that the people of this country will contemplate the possibility of our going to war with Soviet Russia as the ally of America. The people of this country intend that this country shall not be in another world war; they intend the war that has just finished to be the last, at least so far as we are concerned.
  No answer has yet been given to the speech made by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) the other week with regard to the impossibility of defending this country in face of the atomic bomb. All these armies, air forces, and navies provide no real defence, so far as this country is concerned, in the new age which we have now reached. If the military minds who are advising the Government do not see it, at least the people who have been trained in Socialism during the past years have, by this time, sufficient intelligence to know that we cannot provide a defence against the atomic bomb, with such a big population in so small an

  1725
  island. I. remember in the last Parliament, when the Conservative Party were in power, before the war came, when we were contemplating how, in this country, we were to get protection from bombing, hon. Members of the Opposition then pressed very strongly the view that people would have to be evacuated from the large centres of population. I say to the Government now, that if we enter another world war, even with America to help us, the people of this country must he evacuated from this island to another continent if they are to be given any chance of life at all.
  A force of a million is to be maintained, with another half million to provide them with the munitions of war. That makes a million and a half for whom we have to make provision. Yet the Government are faced with an economic crisis. Do the Government think that the people of this country will be content to produce the necessary increased effort in order to provide for a useless force, which will provide no protection to them in the event of another world war? The working people of this country may be fooled to some extent for a certain time, but at the last General Election they showed that they had learned the lesson of the first world war. I believe it is quite hopeless to expect the necessary increase in production if the Government proceed with a Measure like this.
  Who are the young people that the Government will take? Who are these 200,000 young people who are to be made conscripts? They are the sons of those men who are being asked for increased production. Do the Government think that those men are contemplating the taking of their sons into the Navy, the Army and the Air Force with equinimity? Do the Government think they agree with it? If the Government think they agree with it, then the Government should go to the country and ask them for their mandate. But the Government know that the workers hate the very thought of conscription in peacetime. The Government will ruin this country completely if they allow the Service chiefs to drive them on in this way. I do not believe the Cabinet have come to this decision without being strongly influenced by the Service chiefs. The Government have been afraid to face up to the Service chiefs, because they have been out of office for such a long time The Government have been easy
  1726
  prey to the Service chiefs, and I am confident that they will fail the people of this country completely by imposing conscription in peacetime. There is already conscription from the war to carry us on to the end of 1948. That is enough to be going on with; that is enough to have at our disposal.
  I say to the Government: Adopt a sound peace policy; appeal to the workers of the world at international conferences. The Government have given many instances of their new point of view. There is, for example, the way in which they indicated their willingness to give independence to India and to Burma, the way in which they are ready to hand over former Imperial policy. Go a little bit further; get rid of many of those Forces which will be absolutely useless as a means of defence. If the Government do that, I believe there will be a response throughout the world, and we shall be on the way towards achieving real peace. I do not believe that the workers here or elsewhere are willing to enter a third world war, even though a Labour Government in Great Britain and a Democratic Republican Government in America asks them to do so. The imposition of conscription in this country as a permanent feature of our life is the most shameful thing that a Labour Government could do. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will withdraw this Measure and give to the people of this country the opportunity of freedom that they should have.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I do not like conscription any more than the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I do not think any democrat likes conscription, and I am quite certain that no member of the Labour Party could like conscription. But I feel, because we have raised the standard of life, that conscription is the most democratic way of maintaining our Forces to the required standard in keeping the peace. I do not agree, necessarily, that we need forces of the size the Government are demanding. However, I do not wish to deal with that particular question today. The question I wish to deal with is the specific one, that if we are to have conscription, or national service, call it what you like—it will not smell any sweeter, whatever it is called—if we are bound to have it, and

  1727
  I accept that we are, as the most democratic method for the time being—and I remind the hon. Member for Camlachie that there is no suggestion, thank heaven, that it should be permanent; it is only for a period—if we are to have it at all, surely, it must be on the most economical basis possible. When I say "economical," I do not mean financially, but economical from the point of view of manpower.
  The Prime Minister, in his speech on the Address, said:
  "… whatever forces are allocated to defence is a deduction from our manpower which is available for maintaining and raising our standard of life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 38.]
  That is much more true today, since the grim times we have had during the last two months, than it was last November. Obviously, if there has to be training on as economical a scale as possible we must not leave out half the manpower—or, rather, the whole of the women power—of the country. I want to try to persuade the House that it is uneconomical, unrealistic and unfair to exempt the women power from national service, if there has to be national service. There is no need for me to expatiate on the wonderful things that women did during the war. In the Air Force alone—
  Mr. McKie: Will the hon. Lady make a little more clear what she means by compulsory service for the women of the country? Does she mean in the Women's Auxiliary Services, or for industrial purposes?
  Mrs. Gould: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has pulled me up on that. I mean specifically for the Services. The Women's Auxiliary Services should be expanded. I am glad that that has been brought out, because there has been a sort of suggestion that I am in favour of the direction of women. I am not in favour of the direction of anyone. Indeed, I wish we did not have to have conscription. But what I mean, particularly, is that, if there is to be the expansion in the Forces, women should be called up in the same way as men, for the same kind of training, as far as possible.
  It has been estimated, and by experts, that of all the things done in the Services during the war, three out of 10 could be done by women. Women did not only
  1728
  the jobs of doctoring and nursing, clerical work, and so on; but they did all sorts of technical, highly mechanical jobs. It was even said—I think it was admitted by the Secretary of State for Air—that in some of the precision jobs, particularly in radar, women were better than men. Women were parachuted behind the lines in other countries. They did all kinds of dangerous and courageous work. Young women are in favour of being treated in the same way as men, and of being called up in the same way. I have talked to a great number of them, and I have not found a young woman who has been in the Forces herself and been demobilised, or who comes into one of the age categories of those who could be called up, who was against national service for women, if we had to have it for men.
  The vital thing is that we have got to have trained Reserves. Is it for one single moment suggested that, if we have to have highly specialised, trained Reserves, as the Minister of Labour emphasised more than once today, it is not as essential to have the women highly trained, in their specialised occupations in the Forces, as it is to have the men highly trained? At the beginning of the war the Forces suffered as much from the lack of training of the women as they did from the lack of training of the men. Women have shown themselves as capable of being trained in the most highly technical and specialised work.
  Mr. Walkden: Does the hon. Lady mean—I am trying to follow her—that she believes in the conscription of women? Does she know the recognised fact that four out of five women marry, anyway? Does she believe in conscription of married women, too?
  Mrs. Gould: No. I am coming to that later on. One of the things that has been put up to me—and I have discussed this with Members of the Government—is that there would be too many women. The solution of that problem largely lies in the marriage wastage. I would not suggest that married women should be conscripted. I would move the call up for single women.
  Mr. Walkden: Only one out of five, then, under 25.
  Mrs. Gould: I do not know. My hon. Friend says there would be only one out of five under 25. But what I want to suggest

  1729
  to him and to the Government is that we should be realistic about this. I do not know what the numbers of the men under 25 will be who will be called up. I do not know the exact ratio. The Minister of Labour had not got the figures this afternoon. But it is clear that the number who will be called up under the age of 25 will be a very much larger number than that of those who will be called up over that age; so if we have a call up of the women we should probably get about the number of women that we want for training in the Reserves—which is what we have been definitely told is the vital thing to have.
  Another point I want very much to stress is this. If, in fact, there should be the need for heavy policing, or if there should be a war of any kind—I do not care whether it is in this country or in another part of the world: I do not propose to go into the possibilities of it—but, if, in fact. this Force, which we are told is needed, should be wanted anywhere, and if it should be necessary for it to exist, then we must have about four, or, at least, three people behind the lines doing the work of servicing, training, ordnance—all the various kinds of jobs that need to be done —in order to put each man into the front line. All of those jobs were jobs that were done, and done very efficiently, by women in the war, especially in the later years of the war when they had been trained. If, however, there should be the need for this Force—and I presume it is being called up for some need—if there should be the danger of the need of this Force, then, obviously, it is just as necessary to have trained women as it is to have trained men; and that is why I am suggesting that they should be called up in the same way.
  I wonder why the Government have not included women? The women were called up in the war. Of course, there was an outcry at first; but it was very soon accepted, and everybody was throwing bouquets to the women—and rightly so—for the magnificent job they were doing, and pointing out that the war could not have been won without them. Is it—I hate to think it—but is it that our Government are being thoroughly prejudiced and old fashioned?
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Gould: They are always accusing the Opposition of that. But when someone
  1730
  says, "I may be old fashioned, but I like to think of the girls at home," and when somebody else says, "Well, there would be too many of them," and so on, I do feel that that is all escapism from the realities. There is no need to have too many of them, if we expand the Forces properly, particularly if we take only the single women. It may be said that that is pushing women into marriage. [Laughter.] Well, there is a population problem, and it may go some way to solve that. There is another side and I think it is a vital one. The Prime Minister also said in his speech on the address that citizen's rights are being increased, and rights involve obligations. Those obligations are just as much on women as on men. Women do not wish to get out of their obligations. Women want their rights and opportunities—and I hope we shall have an opportunity here later on of discussing another sort of right—but they are prepared also to undertake their responsibilities.
  Who is against this, apart from what, I am afraid, may be prejudice on the part of some of our Cabinet Ministers? They are afraid it will be unpopular in the country, I presume. It is unpopular among some people. It is unpopular among pacifists, because to them all conscription is unpopular. It is unpopular also among a certain class of parents. But, at this time of need of the highest production, the greatest economy in the use of manpower and womanpower, are we, because there may be a little unpopularity, going to refuse to do the right thing, which is to have complete equality in the whole business of national service?
  I want to say to parents that if there is to be a call-up of the boys only, the girls will have an unwanted privilege. I speak of what I know is going on in my constituency, and, I have no doubt, in other places. Employers are taking the 17 year old girls and refusing the boys. In spite of full employment, there is quite a bit of unemployment around London—because the boys will be called up, and the employers do not want to take them on and then have them called away a little later, or to have the obligation to take them on again when their service is finished. The consequence is that the girls are being taken on instead of the boys.
  Finally, if there were this training for boys and girls in the age categories prescribed, I do not believe it would be

  1731
  necessary for it to last 18 months. Eighteen months is an extraordinarily awkward time for students and apprentices in all sorts of trades. I believe that if there were complete and adequate training, it would be possible to bring it down to a year all round, particularly if there were A.R.P. training, not in uniform but in civilian clothes, all over the country, after the people had come out of the Forces. I urge the Government to accept this. This is no time for us to be Rip Van Winkles. The time has gone when parents said, "Our girls must stay at home with us." Of course, parents are saying that their daughters are not what they were in their young days, as their grandmothers and great-grandmothers used to say before them. I urge that, at this time, when there is need for production and when there is need for complete and effective training of personnel for the Services, the thing should be done fairly and squarely, and that women should be included with men in the call-up.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Price-White: I hope the House will excuse me if I do not follow the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould), who was speaking very largely from the feminine point of view. I feel that, possibly, I have a great deal of temerity in speaking on this Bill tonight, particularly when I say at the outset that, not from any lack of loyalty, I have the temerity to disagree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and to correct him when he said that the whole of the Conservative Party are in support of this Bill. I may be in an unenviable and difficult minority, but it is not my intention to support the Bill. I feel that there are very many troubled consciences and minds on both sides of the House on this very major, very difficult and very delicate national question. It raises for individual Members almost a constitutional issue, one which no doubt the House has debated and settled before, but which I, as a comparatively anew and certainly junior Member, have never had the misfortune or the interest to meet. It is whether we are here to put forward the views of those whom we represent and whose majority vote sent us here, or whether we are to allow our votes to be
  1732
  dictated by our own personal consciences or the arguments that we hear in Debate.
  I wish to say, with every respect to my Whips, that I have thought long indeed on this matter, and I have come to my conclusion with great sincerity. I do not speak as a pacifist. I speak as one who was a part-time member of the Armed Forces for 12 years and a very full-time member for six and a half years. Therefore I cannot in any guise be accused of being a fanatical crank of one sort or another. On this subject, I gave an implied promise at the General Election. I have come to the view that it is my duty to vote in accordance with the views of the majority—the sane, and not the fanatical majority—of those whom I represent. The House will know that Welshmen have had a certain reputation for religious observance. I am not a judge of whether we are religious or not; certainly, I agree that the leaders of our religious bodies and organisations are very vociferous in their insistance that religion takes a major part in the life of Wales. I believe sincerely that this issue of conscription is, and has been for very many years, a major issue in my part of Wales. For months past, in my constituency, I have been receiving representations, not only from religious bodies, but from other bodies, which I am satisfied represent the voice of the majority opinion. I feel that the arguments they have put forward to me are Christian, democratic and, in very many directions, practical arguments. That is the view I have taken in my position as a Member of this House—that it is my duty to represent by my vote their views. I do not make any excuse for the Government in this matter. They have been congratulated upon their courage.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Did my hon. Friend, when he stood at the General Election, stand in accordance with Conservative policy? He is arguing that he has come here to represent what the majority of people in his constituency think, but when he stood, did he not put before them a certain policy, and does he not stand by it?
  Mr. Price-White: I certainly did stand as a Conservative candidate on a Conservative policy; indeed that is why I am here. A particular question was put to me—not once but on several occasions—whether, on an issue of conscription, I would follow the dictates of party policy

  1733
  or take an individual position. I am proud to be able to tell the House that on this subject I am still individualistic enough to be able to say what I like, as an individual. I am not holding any brief for a particular body of persons, in regard to the question of conscription in the last war. The Minister of Labour told us that there were three classes of conscientious objector. I respect the first class, who is the genuine conscientious objector. I "hae' ma doots," as the Scots would say about the second class.
  I have the utmost admiration for the third class of conscientious objector who came out to the desert and drove ambulances on non-combatant duty. One was forced, with admiration of their actions, to respect their opinions. But I may say that I did not like the type of religious leader who in Wales was actually advising young men, on the question of whether they had a conscience which allowed them to go to war or not in defence of their country and of the democracies of this world. That practice I deplored at the time and I expressed my disgust at what had taken place. I trust that it will never arise again, even at this stage. There was a type of conscientious objector in Wales who suddenly found that he was such a Welsh nationalist, that he could not fight the battles of England, although he could still eat the food which the people of other views brought for him from across the seas. For that type of conscientious objector I hold no brief either and I am glad to record that they were an extremely small minority in Wales. There was even a type of leader or so-called leader of religion who went to the widow of a young R.A.F. flight sergeant near my constituency—I can vouch for this fact—and told her, as words of comfort, that if the deceased husband had listened to him, he would not have been dead that day. That is not the section for whom I am speaking today.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to other aspects of the matter. Why are we debating this Measure? Is the memory of this House so short that hon. Members forget what now seem to be the pious and empty proceedings and votes of just over 12 months ago, when we laid our faith for the future, not only of our people but of all the peoples of the world, in a United Nations organisation? What has happened? Is it already true that the United Nations is doomed to
  1734
  failure as the League of Nations was at a similar period after the 1914–18 war? Have we no confidence in it? Is it necessary for this Government, of all Governments, to introduce measures of conscription, and impliedly admit that they have no faith in an international force to impose sanctions, if indeed force should become necessary? If we are consistent in our desire as a people, as a Government and as a House of Commons, to further true peace, I say that what is right for us to oppose in the first place and in every instance is the idea that this country and other countries should have their own individual armed forces. That is another aspect of my disagreement with this Bill.
  I agree entirely with what was a minor point in the very wonderful speech which we heard today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford. Unfortunately it is true that a certain type of person in this country takes advantage of the alternatives to conscripted service for the Forces, such as are offered in the Bill. It is no use denying that. I am pleased to acknowledge at once, that their number is small, but they are there, and the tendency will be for them to increase. The right hon. Gentleman cited the alternative of going into the mines as national service, rather than into the Armed Forces. That deplorable tendency would grow. It would produce a miner who would be of less use to the mines than he would be to the Armed Forces, and this very system of compulsion would bring that about.
  An hon. Member who spoke earlier mentioned the words of Keir Hardie on this very principle. It may sound strange, coming from these benches, when I say that one of my earliest childhood recollections was that of Keir Hardie having breakfast in my own home. I remember very vividly what he looked like and the discussion he was having with those present. I remember his words. The hon. Gentleman brought them back to me vividly. I remember Keir Hardie saying practically the same thing that the hon. Member read out tonight. Politics and party apart, I feel that he was quite right and that that view should be held by the majority of people today.
  We must, after all, be realist. Are we to tackle the problem alone? Are we accepting as a fact that for years we shall

  1735
  have to impose this compulsion so that we may police any part of the world? Are we, as has already been convincingly said, to accept the view that the Bill is nothing more than a strengthening of the hand of the Foreign Secreatry when he is playing a game, which now appears to be a kind of poker, in Moscow? Is that the purpose behind the Bill, or are we indeed forgetting and leaving behind the very idea of the United Nations organisation? What are the alternatives? From my little knowledge of military life, I doubt very much whether we can produce effective soldiers in one and a half or two years. We must let the soldier have his tour of foreign service, which is impossible in two years. He cannot get any upon his reserve service. Therefore, the mechanism of the Bill appears unwieldy and unworkable.
  I suggest an alternative. Let the Government make our existing Armed Forces so attractive that the true type of volunteer will come forward and make our Armed Forces into the finest industry or profession in this country. That has not been the case for all too long and as a country we have paid very dearly for it. There lies the answer to compulsion and the salve to many consciences inside and outside the House. Let the Government turn their hands to making service, in all ranks, in the three Services a matter of pride, a matter which is financially sound and which gives security both before and after service. If they did that, they would very shortly have no need to discuss or to consider compulsion because we should have the finest and the safest Armed Forces—if indeed Armed Forces are to be of any use when the next call may come upon us—which I pray it never will. The right type of Britisher would come forward who would be a better soldier and a better representative of our country than the half-baked type that compulsion will bring to the fore.
  All that is needed is leadership. In peace and in war there is no doubt that as a people we have something which we are too reticent to praise. We are always ready when the call comes and we must have a force with that spirit in it. The spirit is there and it was brought out during the years of our travail by leadership of the finest type. I say; Let us put aside the necessity of compulsion by bringing about a similar leadership. That
  1736
  is the answer for the Government-true leadership, like the leadership that we have had in the past. Let the Government emulate it. Then would go this horrible, un-British, undemocratic idea of national compulsion. Let the Government remember that what some of those who will vote against them sincerely ask for is the real volunteer spirit, a spirit such as was called forth by the leadership which we are seeking and which, I am sorry to say, the Government have not so far displayed.
  7.30 p.m.
  Colonel Wigg: Perhaps the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail. I wish to make one comment on his earlier argument, that at the General Election I made it clear in my constituency that I supported conscription. I say this because I want to make my position quite clear in the matter.
  I want to turn now to the wonderful knockabout performance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). It struck me as very extraordinary that it was not until this Debate that he found there was an inadequacy of information given by the Service Departments in their Estimates. As far as I remember, the right hon. Gentleman was not present at any time during any of the three Debates on the Estimates, and if he had done us the honour of reading the remarks made from this side of the House he would have seen that on the Army Estimates, for instance, we kept the House going until 3.30 in the morning pressing for the information which he now states is absolutely essential. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to exacerbate feelings on this side of the House, and in reference to those Members below the Gangway he said he would support us against what he called "crypto-Communists." We are not worried about the crypto-Communists on this side of the House—we can look after them ourselves—but we are worried about our crypto-Tories.
  The right hon. Gentleman was less than fair to the Prime Minister when he tried to prove that the issue of conscription now is the same as the issue between the two wars. I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and I was extremely

  1737
  amused and grateful to him for his performance. I was reminded of a book I read between the wars, called, I think, "1066 and all that." I think it was up to the standards of the Tory Party's historical criticism. In the book, everything was judged according to the standard of whether it was "a good thing" or not. The Tory Party decided 40 years ago that conscription was a good thing, and the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House today and has a wonderful time pointing out that in the light of events what the Tories decided was a good thing 40 years ago, this Government have had to put into operation. But they have to put conscription into operation for very different reasons. The mover of the Amendment quoted words of Keir Hardie, but Keir Hardie was discussing and considering the implications of conscription to the Forces being imposed on an unwilling people. I believe that conscription is a democratic and fair way of placing the burden on the whole community, and that it has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the country.
  Mr. Stokes: Rubbish.
  Colonel Wigg: The hon. Member, with characteristic courtesy, has described what I said as "rubbish."
  Mr. Frank Byers: If what the hon. and gallant Member has said is true, will he give us the evidence?
  Colonel Wigg: I give the evidence of what happened in my constituency. I registered my opinion on the matter, and the result showed that the overwhelming majority preferred to have conscription placed fairly and squarely on the whole of the community, rather than to have the kind of conscription we had before the war. Let us be clear about this. The Tory Party are not supporting conscription for the first time. The best recruiting sergeant before the war was the empty belly, and if one examines the figures it will be found that recruitment ran parallel with the incidence of unemployment. The best recruiting year up to 1939, was 1931.
  Brigadier Mackeson: Would the hon. and gallant Member say what Government was in power then?
  Colonel Wigg: The Tory Government were always in power—if they did not operate here, they operated in another place.
  Mr. Yates: If, as the hon. and gallant Member says, conscription is the fairest and most democratic method, would he suggest that it be used as a permanent basis of recruitment for our Armed Forces?
  Colonel Wigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me an opportunity to make my speech in my own way. I will endeavour to deal with that later. I am trying to show that the Tory Party are not entitled to the credit they claim but that events have caught up with them. Conscription is not a new thing; it was a method they used not only for recruitment into the Army, but into industry as well. I want to say a word now about the Liberal Party. During the Debates on the Estimates, they had a 100 per cent. record for absence.
  Mr. Byers: I thought, in this second year of this Parliament, we had got beyond the stage of making remarks against the Liberal Party and their reduced numbers—reduced through no fault of their own. After all, we did poll 2¼ million votes and returned 10 Members. Is it not time that we stopped this sort of thing?
  Colonel Wigg: The Liberal Party may have polled 2¼ million votes, but if they are not very careful their numbers will be even less in the future. This country does not like a gospel of political expediency preached by those who; when real issues are being discussed, and when we are trying to extract information from the Front Bench as to the composition of the Army, are completely absent. The first speaker from the Liberal Benches informed the House that they established their case on fundamental Christian principles. He showed, therefore, that this was a matter of first importance. But his party, and particularly the Chief Liberal Whip, must be careful because their role is extremely important. I do not think, however, their party has much future. The Chief Liberal Whip wants to be careful, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford is a very skilled body-snatcher, and the Chief Whip should keep a watchful eye on his party, otherwise some may disappear in front of his nose. [Interruption.] I am not very fond of watching political corpses, because after they have been dead for 20 years they are apt to smell badly.
  I find it somewhat difficult to make a constructive case in the face of continued interruptions, but I will now turn

  1739
  to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), who dwelt at great length upon the question of the rights of the individual and the liberty of the subject. It seemed to me that he approached the problem in the spirit and manner of some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Their approach is rather like that of the early Christians, who were able to live in a state of complete grace because in fact they were protected by the army of Rome. In England we have been free from the obligation of compulsory military service because there has always been an arm of the Service which has enabled us to buy time. But the power of the Navy to buy time for this country is no longer operative, and, therefore, we have so to organise our Armed Forces that they will be capable of undertaking at a moment's notice, any obligations which they may be called upon to shoulder.
  It is part of the case of some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who disagree with this Bill, that we can, if we will, recruit all the men we need by voluntary methods, by making conditions sufficiently attractive; that if, in fact, we raise the rates of pay, if we provide, à la Montgomery, bedside lamps, and what have you, ultimately we can attract sufficient men to make it unnecessary to conscript men. That I regard as an essentially undemocratic argument, and one fraught with great danger. The Nazi Party was organised precisely on those lines. After the collapse in 1918 there appeared, in German newspapers, advertisements for ex-officers and ex-n.c.os., who were subsequently enrolled in the Freikorps and subsequently in the Reichswehr. They became a military aristocracy.
  If there is one thing which any democratic society must not permit it is that the Armed Forces of the Crown shall be exalted to such a position that service within them becomes a privilege sought after by every young man. It is essentially more democratic that the aristocrat of democratic society shall be the miner and the agricultural worker, and those who are engaged in providing the basic needs of the whole community. Therefore, for hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House to argue that we can
  1740
  recruit the Armed Forces on the basis of giving conditions to attract sufficient numbers of young men is absolutely undemocratic.
  At the present time the total number serving in the Army is of the order of 110,000 to 120,000 men. We have been told by the Secretary of State for War that he has set his ceiling at 250,000, in my judgment a fantastically high figure. He has qualified it by saying that to replace wastage and to recruit up to 250,000 would take a period of six years, recruiting at the rate of 4,000 a month. I do not know the wastage figure on 100,000 to 120,000, but I do know that the figure for the Army now is less than it was six weeks ago, and that to have an Army of only 120,000 is worse than having no Army at all, because spread over the whole of the world—garrisons in this country, on the Rhine, in the Far East, etc.—it would be completely ineffective from a military point of view. Therefore, if the argument is accepted that there must be an Army, even if the ceiling is put as low as 300,000, it is obvious that we should have to accept conscription at least for some years, because the total annual manpower increment that is available for all the Armed Forces, so the Minister of Labour has informed the House, is of the order of 175,000. It is difficult to imagine how with recruiting figures as they are at present the regular Army this year can rise above 150,000, added to which a yearly increment of 150,000 would give a ceiling of 300,000.
  Mr. Byers: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us his reasons for supposing that voluntary recruiting cannot be increased?
  Colonel Wigg: My reasons are that it is commonly thought that the rates which have now been introduced are exceptionally high. As a matter of fact, when one breaks them down, they are about the rates of pay which were introduced by Army Order 325, of 1919. Although the rates then were very high indeed, they did not attract sufficient numbers of recruits, because recruitment under a voluntary system, as figures show, is directly related to unemployment. As long as the Government are following a policy of full employment, the inducements of home life, of living in a particular locality, perhaps even the inducement of meeting one's best girl regularly, are such that no financial

  1741
  inducement can be offered to overcome that resistance. I would say, on the figures themselves, that it is hopeless to think of recruiting the regular Forces in any foreseeable period of time, in a period of full employment.
  I am still worried about the make-up in the Army. There must inevitably be a hangover from the old days, in high places in the War Office, of-regarding conscription as a good thing in itself. I do not accept that. Neither do I accept the point of view of hon. Gentlemen who hold the view that conscription is necessarily a bad thing. If this House keeps a watchful eye on the Army, insists upon the Army being organised on democratic lines, and that the call-up shall be fairly operated, if there is no "jiggery-pokery" about the granting of commissions, if commissions are given on merit rather than on the position in life in which one happens to be born, if these and many other things are watched, it may be that the Army will become a real democratic organisation, which will enable young men to do their period of service of a year or 18 months and gain benefit for themselves as well as rendering service of great benefit to the nation thereby.
  I want to make quite clear that, in my experience, service in the Army is not necessarily the bad thing that it is sometimes thought to be. I am prepared to admit that there are many young men who because of their mental and emotional make-up will be unhappy, but they are a minority. I am one who has spent most of my adult life in the regular Army, not, as the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) suggested in a previous Debate, engaged continually in gallant actions but in just doing my job. My experience in actions has been of being shot at a few times by third-rate shots. But if all the potatoes I have peeled were placed in a heap, there would be no potato shortage; if all the floors I have scrubbed and all the windows I have cleaned were available for occupation, there would be no housing shortage. My time in the Army, most of it in the ranks before the war, convince me that it is not the degrading thing which the hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Measure believe it to be. The Army is rather what one makes it. One can make a great number of friends, and there is the opportunity, at the age of 18, of living the kind of life, which, I understand, the more
  1742
  fortunate members of the community live when they are at public schools; but from what I am told by my public school friends the feeding in the Army is much better. The barrack room and the rough-and-tumble of Army life give a young man a wider experience, and an opportunity to get away from his mother's apron strings. On the whole, it is not necessarily the bad thing which it is made out to be.
  If the country is to make its contribution to U.N.O., police those corners of the world still under the British flag, hon. Members, when they go into the Lobby tomorrow night, have to realise what the issue is. They are not voting on the size of the Armed Forces or how they are to be deployed, but whether the country ought to have an Army at all. That is the fundamental issue. If we are to have an Army, and make our contribution to U.N.O., we have to accept the Second Reading of this Bill. We should, however, during the Committee stage, see if we cannot do something to improve some of its provisions.
  In conclusion, I commend the Bill to the House and particularly to those Members of my party who have doubts in their minds. There is no escape from this issue. Hon. Members opposite made up their minds 40 years ago that conscription was a good thing, and I am wondering whether same of my hon. Friends, on the strength of the writings of 40 years ago, did not make up their minds that conscription was a bad thing, and have refused to change their opinion. But today they are not in the position of the Opposition; on this side of the House we have the responsibility on our shoulders and on our votes may rest the safety of the country and the happiness and wellbeing of all who dwell within it.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Yates: I am not sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken accepted military conscription as being a permanent Measure. If a thing is right, and if it is fair and equitable, I should have thought that there was nothing wrong in suggesting that it should be a permanent Measure; but no one seems to be willing to face up to that. With regard to the voluntary system, I was not at all convinced that he submitted any real case as to why the voluntary system could not be successful. I have not seen any great

  1743
  evidence that it has been tried in a proper manner. It is now little more than four months since I had the opportunity of moving the Address to the King's Speech, and on that occasion I submitted five logical objections to a permanent system of military conscription. I have not seen any evidence which would indicate that the reasons which I then submitted have been weakened in any way.
  Two of the reasons which I gave have, I think, been strengthened since that time. I refer to the developments in the realms of science and economic affairs. No one seems to have faced up to the question of science, although it has been mentioned, I think, by an hon. Member on the other side in relation to atomic energy. Since we last discussed that question, Professor Oliphant, of Birmingham University, in a lecture in Canberra, Australia, on 15th January made, according to the Press, this statement:
  "The atomic energy situation is one bomb for one city. The Hiroshima bomb was puny compared with what could be made. The present day bombs will be 600 times more powerful."
  I suggest to hon. Members on this side of the House who argue in favour of this Bill, that they have not faced up to the question as to whether or not conscription can really defend this country in the event of another war. As I said on a previous occasion, it would be much more logical to train our youth as scientists than try to force them into a large Army which will not protect the country.
  My second point is on the question of manpower. I do not believe that this Measure can have any other than the most serious effect upon the economic position of this country. We have been told through the White Paper of the necessity for a virile Army of expert workers—half a million—and I submit that the Service Departments alone can make the largest contribution to that manpower. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) talked about the necessity for conscription to obtain an Army; but what kind of an Army does he mean? Is it reasonable in time of peace that we should accept the view, as indicated in the White Paper that even by March, 1948, we should still have Armed Forces amounting to 1,087,000 with 450,000 to equip and maintain them, not taking into consideration the amount of labour involved to provide the neces-
  1744
  sary equipment? I wonder how many miners are involved in production for the Armed Forces?
  We are faced with a cost of £889 million, spent at the rate of £2⅛ million a day, or £1,713 a minute. We should have been shocked if, in earlier times, a Conservative Party had proposed such a thing. The Minister of Defence said in the last Debate that he, together with his colleagues in the Government, have not submitted to the Army chiefs, and that they have pruned all the Estimates. He told us that the Army chiefs came forward with Estimates which amounted to £1,064 million, and he said, in effect, "I have done very well. I have pruned this figure and brought it down by 15 per cent., or by £155 million." The Army Service chiefs said it was a minimum, and it proved to be a reducible minimum. I am going to suggest that this figure is a reducible minimum. We do not accept this figure as one which cannot be still further reduced.
  We cannot expect the Service chiefs to submit suggestions to us how the numbers in the Forces should be reduced. Surely that is asking too much from human nature. The larger the Army, the more the number of high grade appointments, and the greater the opportunity for promotion. I think it is quite easy to see that we cannot expect Service chiefs to come forward and submit reduced Estimates and to be anxious to reduce the Forces. We are asked to approve a Measure without having any evidence whatever of what our commitments are or what is the distribution of our Forces. How many men, for example, are there in Germany? It has been estimated by some that there are 250,000 men in Germany. Within 15 months of the end of the first world war, we only had an Army of Occupation amounting to 15,000. We are told that on that occasion we had not completely crushed Germany but that this time we have completely crushed her. Yet within 18 months we find ourselves with this huge Army of Occupation. It is there for an indefinite period; we have no idea of when this Army is to be brought back.
  This then is our problem. Here we have these huge Forces and we have a policy of peacetime secretiveness. We do not know where the Forces are or how many there are, for they are stationed all over the world. I understood in my early days in the Labour movement that we did not

  1745
  believe in secret diplomacy, or in secrecy at all. I do not see any reason for approving this Measure'. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was asking for information which is, of course, absolutely essential if the House is to make a sound decision on a matter of this kind. It means that my hon. Friends who argue in favour of this Bill apparently want a large Army, and if they want a large Army, it is difficult—
  Colonel Wigg: I did not argue that we wanted a large Army. What I argued was that we could not have an Army at all without conscription. That is quite different.
  Mr. Yates: My hon. and gallant Friend did not mention numbers, but it is a most extraordinary suggestion to make that we cannot have an Army at all without conscription. Of that there is no evidence whatever. We might as well say we cannot get the miners. We might as well say "What is the good of trying to make conditions in the mines more attractive, because we will not get the workers?" I do not accept that sort of defeatist attitude in regard to the Army.
  The economic position of this country is such that we are crying aloud for labour. We could employ another 500,000 men in agriculture; we could employ thousands more in the coalmines, in the engineering industry, in the textile industry, all of which are crying for labour, while we are advocating the maintenance of an Armed Force of more than a million men, we are inviting foreign labour to come to this island and do our job. Really it is a most ironical and a most extraordinary position to be in—that we, a Labour Government, with a Labour majority, should be just like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. We are blowing the pipe in order to attract labour from every corner of the globe, and at the same time we are wanting the youth of our country to be conscripted, and sent to all parts of the world. That export and an import policy is surely more like something to emanate from a madhouse.
  I venture to suggest that we in this country have produced the highest grade of craftsmanship in the world. I come from the city of Birmingham—the city of a thousand trades, where we are proud of the great craftsmanship of our people. Yet we are frittering away that advan-
  1746
  tage like the gambler staking all on his last throw.
  No case has been made out for this Measure. Apart from what I have said, it is not only a question of imposing conscription for 18 months upon a certain number of men; there is also this method of reserye, the effect of which is that for five years after their period of conscription young men have to perform certain services and are taken away from industry for periods in each year, creating uncertainty in the industrial sphere, which seems to me to absolutely ludicrous. Before I close I want to make one or two observations with regard to the voluntary system. It was very significant that the present Prime Minister on 27th April, 1939, when he was resisting a Motion on compulsory military training introduced by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, made this statement:
  "There is no question of the readiness of our people to make sacrifices for the cause of freedom and of democracy, but we are opposed to the introduction of conscription because we believe that, so far from strengthening this country, it will weaken and divide it, at a time when it should be strong and united."
  Those words apply today. He went on to say:
  "The voluntary principle is based on the readiness of the citizens to serve their country and its effectiveness depends on the people's confidence in their leaders and on the efficiency of governmental machinery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1939; Vol. 346, c. 1353–6.]
  Of course, he was talking to the Conservative leaders then and the country had no faith in them. If the country had had faith they would have got their volunteers.
  In regard to governmental machinery, I am, of course, an amateur Member of Parliament. I have only a very short experience of the governmental machine, but I do not think much about our Service machinery. It does not seem to me to be the sort of machinery that is capable of organising even the slightest kind of enterprise. What is the mentality behind our present War Office machinery which prefers men to be shovelled into the ranks, rather than taken in through the method of persuasion? It is the easier method and it is also the cheaper. I believe it was Lincoln who once said that keeping his generals supplied with men was like shovelling fleas into a barnyard. When I look at the present governmental

  1747
  machinery, I do not think very much of its prospects for attracting people to the ranks. Indeed, it may sound strange, but when I came to this House I never thought that I should be a kind of recruiting sergeant. Nevertheless, I have been trying for a long time to get some people into the Forces. I had the utmost difficulty, and had eventually to put down a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War because a man who had been in the Forces for 12 years and wanted to re-enlist had received a letter from the War Office asking him to give the name and address of a householder who would give him a reference.
  A constituent of mine came to me and said, "You are my M.P. and I want to go into the Army. I have already been in as a lieutenant and was discharged on medical grounds. I went before a medical board in June, 1946, and was pronounced tit I then wanted to rejoin His Majesty's Forces but I cannot get anything out of the War Office at all, so you had better try." I had a try, but although the man approached me in October he is still outside—vigorous, young and healthy. I believe he has had two medical examinations and that there is the possibility of a third, and I submit that if the Government are indeed serious about matters of this kind they should show that their organisation can produce better and more speedy results than this.
  There is one other thing that I should like to point out. What I think our conscriptionists fail to realise is that an unwilling soldier is a germ carrier of disaffection. There are still thousands of deserters walking the streets, which is not a very good advertisement. I do not accept the view that there is anything democratic about the system of compulsory military service. Quite apart from the important consideration as to whether or not the policy upon which we conscript the individual is right, there is nothing equal or democratic in trying to force people whose national attitude is totally opposed to that kind of pressure. In conclusion I should like to sum up by quoting the remarks made by the Lord Privy Seal when he was winding up the Debate in 1939 for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said then:
  "I am driven to ask, especially after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, is there something more
  1748
  behind this limited attempt to supplement voluntary service? Is this an organised attempt—and if it is organised it is a dishonest attempt—aided and abetted by full-blooded conscriptionists in this House of Commons, to enforce conscription on Britain for good? … British labour rejects the Government's policy of conscription with a full sense of its responsibilities … It would prefer a Government which had the courage to rely upon what is the real view of our people, that is, faith in freedom and a determination to keep it. You have chosen your way and the responsibility for that lies upon you and not upon us, and if dire consequence should befall, which heaven forbid, our consciences are clear, that we should stand for freedom without serfdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1939; Vol. 346, c. 1443–1444.]
  That was the Socialist interpretation. Conscription is the cancer of civilisation; it eats into the whole social fabric and as long as I have breath in my body I shall never support in any place whatsoever a system which means slavery. It will come as a boomerang upon the Government Front Bench for the action which they now take. My hon. Friends behind me will remember the books, "Your M.P." and "Guilty Men." We had a lot of propaganda about this. Do not forget it; there is no mistake, the people of this country do not expect people to betray their principles. They look for ideals to be upheld, and as long as I remain in this House I shall oppose the Government at any time they seek to enforce upon the youth of this country a system which is evil and pernicious. This is our Government, and as Socialists we have a duty to see that our Government follow the faith that is traditional and true, in the Socialist spirit.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: I hope the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) was not threatening his colleagues behind him and suggesting that if the Government brought in a Measure, and Members of the Labour Party supported it believing that it was necessary in the interests of the security of the country, they should not vote for it because they might lose their seats at the next election if they did. I hope that whatever view we may hold regarding this Bill we shall be influenced in our attitude towards it only by whether we think the safety and the security of the country demand this Measure, whatever effect it may have on our political futures.

  1749
  The hon. Member expressed surprise and, I think, pain that this National Service Bill should have been introduced by a Labour Government. I should have thought that that fact would have given him and his hon. Friends a reason to hesitate before they decided to oppose the Measure. The Government have not brought in this Bill because they are a militarist Government or because they believe in conscription for its own sake. They have brought it in with a proper sense of responsibility as a Government, and I think therefore that the fact that it has been brought in by a Labour Government is one that ought to give opponents of the Bill an additional reason to pause. I can well understand that if it had been brought in by a Conservative Government, who, in the past, have been much more sympathetic towards conscription, even in peace time than a Labour Government, they might have thought that there was good reason for opposing it. I quite recognise that this Bill is not only contrary to the practice and traditions of this country over a very long period, but that it is also contrary to everything the Labour Party have advocated in the past. I am quite sure, therefore, that for that reason they regret the necessity for this Bill as, I am sure, will a large number of those who support it.
  What we have to ask ourselves is whether this Bill is necessary or not. The hon. Member quoted Professor Oliphant, for whom we all have a very great respect, as saying that with atomic energy another war would mean one bomb one city. The hon. Member therefore asumed that because of that this Bill was unnecessary. The lesson I draw from what Professor Oliphant said is that we must redouble our efforts to try to prevent war, because if there is to be war obviously the destruction will be too terrible for contemplation. One of the reasons why I am supporting the Bill is that I think that to a small extent it will be a contribution towards the prevention of war because one of the lessons which, I think, many of us learned in the interval between the wars is that so long as this country is militarily weak it is a temptaton to would-be aggressors. I think, therefore, that one of the objects of this Bill is to be a measure of insurance against war.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White), whose courageous speech I respect but cannot
  1750
  agree with, argued that it was wrong to introduce conscription in this country because we must rely for our security, not on our own Armed Forces, but on the United Nations and the international police force I agree, but it does not rest with this country alone to create an international police force, and anybody who has read the proceedings in the Security Council knows that it is not this country which is holding up the establishment of that force. Yet, until that force has been established, we must continue to look to our own defences. At the same time, somewhat illogically, the hon. Member advocated making our Services more attractive by offering higher pay and better conditions of service. If there was anything in his argument at all, we ought rather to reduce our Armed Forces, whether they be conscript or voluntary, but the truth of the matter is that, to anybody who looks round the world today, this Bill is necessary.
  We are told by the hon. Member for Ladywood that there is urgent need in this country in all our industries for more manpower, and what folly it is, then, to take large numbers of men into the Forces. That is perfectly true, and we all regret that, but what we also realise is that our security must be the foundation on which all our trade and prosperity, and the continued well-being of our people, must depend. Unless we are militarily secure, we shall be undermining the pillars of our prosperity, and we regret that it is necessary, in these days, and after two world wars, still to continue for a time to maintain such large Armed Forces, but it would be folly to reduce them. It is very sad, because it shows that peace is by no means secure yet, and that the United Nations has not yet begun to function effectively.
  I assure my hon. Friends who oppose this Bill that the introduction of conscription into this country will not make this country into a militarist nation. The forces which we will then have will not be used for any aggressive purpose, but for what are generally called our commitments. We are told by some that we ought to reduce our commitments, but we are not given any definite information about which of them we should reduce. We have our obligations to the United Nations, and we have to keep open the seaways of the world to maintain our international commerce. Personally, I believe that it is

  1751
  necessary for this country to play as leading a part as she can in the councils of the nations. I am not one of those who are in any way antagonistic either to the United States or to Russia. I am not convinced that the one is pursuing a policy of dollar imperialism, or that the other is out to secure world domination, but I do believe that this country, with her experience in international relations, with her strong sense of justice and tolerance, and with the sane and balanced views of her people, has a very great part to play in the affairs of the world and in establishing peace upon a secure foundation.
  I want to see the influence of this country not only maintained but strengthened, and I think we have to recognise that those who speak for Britain in the councils of the nations will have their influence definitely weakened unless the nations know that Great Britain is prepared, if need be, to support in a practical fashion the policy for which she stands. We all saw the humiliation to which we had to submit in the years between the wars, and, in particular, in the years prior to 1939, when we not only allowed things to happen on the Continent of Europe that were utterly repugnant to us but when we also saw, in the Far East, our womenfolk humiliated by the Japanese because we were not sufficiently strong, militarily, to defend them. We in this country hate war, and we will not at any time lightly enter into war, but we do recognise that them is something in the world more hateful and loathsome than war itself, and against which we have to be prepared to fight. That is why we in this country have fought two world wars. We all pray to God that this may not happen again, but, for the time being, the whole world is still in an unsettled condition, and we cannot afford to say that we are not prepared to make the sacrifices which are considered essential and are required by this Bill to enable us to help maintain world peace.
  I know that there are a great many parents, and mothers in particular, to whom the idea of the conscription of their sons is hateful, and I would say two things to them. First, I would say that this, perhaps, is being done so that their sons, in the years that lie ahead, should not be sent to something even more terrible, and that they may not have to go through what their fathers endured, because many of
  1752
  their fathers found themselves thrust into war without any kind of preparation for it. I would also say this to them. The Services today provide opportunities for the men to do something besides military training. They give men a preparation for the life which they will lead when they leave the Forces, and there are educational and other facilities and opportunities offered to them, and that is something to which they ought to have regard.
  The argument has been raised whether national service is democratic or not. To me, it is certainly not undemocratic. If it is right that there should be for every citizen in this country equal rights of citizenship, then, surely, every citizen must accept an equal degree of responsibility. I cannot agree that, by means of this Bill, conscription is necessarily battened down upon this country as a permanent Measure. I pray that it may not be. It is provided, in the first instance, for only five years, and Parliament will have opportunities of reconsidering the matter—
  Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend says that Parliament may have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. It will be a very indirect opportunity, because what this Measure provides is that it can be extended beyond five years by Order in Council.
  Mr. Lipson: Yes, but surely, if my hon. Friend, who is a very skilled Parliamentarian, was in the House at the end of that time—and I hope he will be here—he and his hon. Friends will find some means whereby, if that Order ought to be challenged, it will be challenged. Anyhow, personally—
  Mr. Silverman: That argument was advanced with considerable force from the Front Bench on other Bills, and the Opposition never found it satisfactory.
  Mr. Lipson: But I must remind my hon. Friend that I do not speak for the Opposition. I speak as an Independent, and that is one of the reasons why I welcome so much the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs. I welcome independence, even when it comes from the most unexpected quarters. But this is not necessarily a permanent Measure. We all hope that, in the years that lie ahead, the United Nations organisation may provide that collective security which we all believe is

  1753
  the right solution to this problem. But until that happens, this country must have an armed force adequate to its responsibilities and commitments, and, for that reason, though regretfully, I have to recognise the necessity for this Bill, and will vote for its Second Reading.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: Although I only want to speak very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I caught your eye because hon. Members who have put down their names to Amendments to this Motion have done so on miscellaneous grounds, and I should like to make my position quite clear. Many of the arguments have already been put forward today. We have seen some remarkable disagreement between hon. Members on this side of the House, and I feel that I need do no more than summarise the position which I and some other hon. Members take up. In principle, I have no objection whatever to conscription, and I do not think that, in principle, I ever have had. Conscription is certainly not necessarily an anti-Socialist measure. I am one of those who, on the whole, prefer conscription to the method of attracting forces—although, of course, I want the Army to have thoroughly good conditions—because I agree with several other hon. Members that that is the best way to produce a democratic force.
  I am not a pacifist; otherwise, I would not be putting forward this argument. Nevertheless, I definitely associate myself with the Amendment on the Order Paper for two reasons, one of them more important than the other, but both, I believe, worth stating. I do not think that we can artificially limit the arguments for or against this Bill or the importance of the system of conscription by saying that we must not consider this or that. I rest upon the traditional right, and, therefore, the traditional duty of those who disapprove of a foreign policy, which a Measure of conscription or an Army Measure is designed to support, to show their disapproval by putting down an Amendment, and, if necessary, by voting against the method of recruiting the Army, or against the size of the Army because it is designed to support a particular policy. The reason for doing so becomes very much stronger when the policy appears to be one for recruiting an enormously increased Army. That is the reason which has weighed with me most of all.
  1754
  Another reason, which I think is a substantial one—perhaps some hon. Members will not agree—is that one has a similar duty to protest when the Army has a structure within which the authorities, the War Office and the high officers generally are attempting to continue to run it on lines which are, in, some ways, definitely bad. The other day I gave the House an account of incidents which occurred in the Middle East, and which, though they are not necessarily typical, are certainly not unusual. Throughout we find not a general trend, but an existing habit, of thinking that the men who are recruited into the Army are so many cattle to be ordered about by superior beings. If we are to conscript men, we should conscript them into a Force in which they may be treated as human beings, and in which they should have the democratic right of being commanded by people who are competent to command them.
  I do not see in the administration of the War Office, or, indeed, in the administration of the other two Services, any sign whatever of a proposal to abandon that method. Therefore, for this reason, though a minor one, I oppose conscription into that kind of Army. I oppose conscription into the Army for the purpose of supporting the foreign policy at present pursued by the Government.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lang: Although I am unable to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) in his speech, it was one which I was interested to hear, and which, like all the statements which he makes, was impressive. and about which one would want to think again.
  Before I state my views, I would like to make one or two things generally clear. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), who, I am glad to see, is still here, in one thing he said. I do not propose to make the slightest suggestion that any of my right hon. or hon. Friends, either on the Front Bench or elsewhere, who differ from me, are betraying their principles. I do not believe that they are. I believe that it is-possible for people to completely change-their minds. Indeed, I should be very

  1755
  sorry if I ever reached the position when I thought that because people changed their minds they had ceased to be either intelligent or honest. After all, in more ways than one, I am always advocating that people should change their minds in certain things. When they do, I do not regard them as retrograde. I do not think that because more people voted for me at the General Election than did at the previous by-election, that change of mind is necessarily a bad thing. It is not the integrity of the Front Bench that I doubt; it is their wisdom
  I should like to express my own personal thanks to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill in a quiet, effective speech, and who must have suffered great embarrassment because there were no accompanying cheers or rumbles of applause, and who did it without in any way making it awkward for those who he knew were going to oppose his policy. It was, I thought, an excellent example of a statesmanlike speech, reasonably delivered, and without bitterness. I am glad to be able to register my deep appreciation of it, and I hope that nothing I shall say will in any way detract from that spirit.
  I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), whom I am always pleased to hear, and who, territorially, is my near neighbour. I am not quite sure that this little Measure of conscription—little in the sense of what it would produce if we had had it then—would have enabled us to have taught the Japanese manners, and to have made Hitler afraid of us. I do not think that any conscript Army of this kind would have availed us then. When he spoke of talking to the nations, it reminded me of the Psalm which says:
  "Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. They shall not be ashamed, when they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."
  The idea was that if a man had a troop of youngsters at the gate he could frighten the man on the other side. I do not think that we can speak to other countries like that. I think that what matters is that we should speak as a great and powerful people who are free. And that is why the most intriguing speech today has been that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  1756
  What was it that made the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, when he was Prime Minister during the war, so effective, when he called upon us to undergo all kinds of hardships and to fight, if need be, in the streets and elsewhere when we had no weapons, much less any training? It was our freedom, democracy and our spiritual armament which echoed his appeals.
  Nothing can gainsay the fact that out of this war, terrible as it was, in which some of our friends, whose great help we have no desire to belittle, and, indeed, we are not likely to be allowed to forget, came to our aid rather late in the day, we, a free people, were victorious. It was this nation, with nothing but its courage and spiritual values, which stood all alone—a most magnificent thing—and, with great respect, if I may say so, to the United States and to the Soviet Union, it was this country which saved the world, and we saved it as a free people who had never in our experience in peacetime been a conscript slave people. That is why I should find it very difficult in the circumstances tomorrow night to follow my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friends who believe in conscription, into the Lobby. Some do believe in it, and they have a perfect right to do so. They think it is a very good thing. If that stood alone, the argument about democracy would not be all together ineffective.
  We shall presently hear a little more about how purely provisional this Bill is. Either provisional or permanent it must be. If it is merely provisional, I would have thought that the Government might have left it till later on, and that they might for the present continue the present system. I might be wrong, but I am frightened that once this Bill is put on the Statute Book it is not coming off, and it is that which makes hon. Members opposite so gleeful when they say that they will have no need to go to their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said they would not "cash in" on this question in their constituencies. But the constituents are not likely to forget it. I have heard no evidence that a sound voluntary system would not give us enough men for any purpose for which we may need them. It is all very well to pay lip service to collective security, but any course that we take in the way of a military nature of this kind is not

  1757
  likely to lead to permanent peace, and I would have thought that questions of a federal union of Europe and throughout the world were the only questions which mattered now. It must be upon a basis of federated government that peace is likely to come.
  I suppose I shall be regarded as being somewhat of a biased witness if I say something about religious organisations. They are not so popular as they used to be, in this place or elsewhere. That, I suppose, is because it is thought they have not the same powerful effect upon the public conscience, public opinion and public votes. But, at any rate, I do wish to say that in my experience, which is fairly long, of political life, there has been a greater awakening of religious feeling about this Measure than about any Measure which I have known. It is rather late in the day, but I am glad of it. I am an unrepentant Nonconformist, and I am thankful for the time when what was called the Nonconformist conscience used to frighten much more important things even than Cabinet Ministers. If I had no other reason for opposing this Bill, I would be very anxious to do it from the point of view of manpower and woman power. I am sorry the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) is not here, because any damage that this Bill has failed to do she has seen that it will be done. A more reactionary speech I have never heard. It was an advocacy of conscription for women, and of a continuation of A.R.P. training in the evening. Her only regret seemed to be that she could not reproduce all the most dreadful conditions of war. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was praying to be delivered from his friends. We all do from time to time, of course, and that is one of the prayers which sometimes are delayed in their answer, or else it is thought that a little chastening is good for one. That was a far more chastening speech than any that I should dream of saying or thinking about my right hon. Friend.
  I am a bit worried about this exemption business. No one has a greater respect for the miners than I have. I have much more than respect; I have affection. I believe them to be the finest body of men in the country, and the Welsh miner in particular, for he is the man who can discuss with me intelligently the latest issue of the "Hibbert Journal," which I
  1758
  do not think is to be found even in the Library of the House. I have great respect for the Welsh miner, and I am glad that he is exempted from the provisions of this Bill. But is that a matter of principle, or is it a matter of expediency? Is it because we believe that service in the coalmine, with all its danger, darkness and hardship, which I hope now will be relieved, is as fine a service as any man can render to the community, or is it that we are so short of coal that we must get the men by some means or other? If it is the latter, it is a dangerous bargain basement which the Government are setting up, for the textile workers may do the same and the cotton workers may also come along and ask for exemption. I am not so happy about the rate of our regimentation. There are some things which we are obliged to do because we believe them to be right, but I do not like this regimenting of everything and everybody.
  I believe in freedom. I believe that that is what has made this country great and keeps her great. I am not speaking as a pacifist. It may be quite wrong for men as a Minister of religion, but I am not a pacifist. I am not a good enough man to be a pacifist. There are occasions when I would fight, poorly equipped as I am, to the last ditch. If anyone asked me what I would do if anybody came for my sweetheart or my daughter, I know what I would do if I were allowed to do so, and there are other things I would fight for. I would fight, if need be die, for the religion in which I believe; it is the only thing for which I would willingly die, but I would. I am not a pacifist and, therefore, I do not object to the use of force. If I had a little power and force I would use it in the Lobby tomorrow evening. I do not object to the use of force, but I do believe in people having freedom and the right to exercise that freedom. How can we ever again sing that glorious hymn which was sung on every National Prayer day during the war, and which, if another war comes, the nation will sing again, which speaks about our native land and asks:
  "How shall we love another land so well?"
  We none of us could love another land so well; at least, I could not. I would not be an internationalist if I did pot love this nation better than any other that I know. I think we are the finest people in the

  1759
  world. If that is bad Socialism or bad internationalism, I must be forgiven. At least, I can afford those peccadillos because I shall not be guilty tomorrow of the great peccadillo. We sing something about
  "Let our hills and valleys shout the songs of liberty."
  They cannot shout them any longer if this Bill is passed, because we shall not be a free people. I believe that freedom is worth all the Armies put together. That is why I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White). I was glad to think that in that constituency, which Was once held by so distinguished a Parliamentarian as the late Earl Lloyd-George, they are still independent there. I like free men, even if sometimes they get in my way when they exercise their, freedom, as I get in theirs.
  I have said nothing about embarrassment. Which of us was the most embarrassing just now I do not know, but I do believe in freedom, and I have got it—the glorious freedom of the back benches. If I were packed on the Front Bench, I would have to be a good boy. One could not belong there and not be wholly with the team. That is why I rejoice in the freedom of the back benches. I have no doubt that after tomorrow my tenure of that freedom will be even more prolonged.
  At any rate, I have said nearly all I wanted to say about this matter, and I do mean this very seriously. I honestly believe that if we pass this Bill, and place it upon the Statute Book, we shall extinguish a flame that, in our generation, we shall not see rekindled; and that is much more serious to me than all the electoral doubts. The hon. Member for Cheltenham, quite rightly, was in a critical mood about that. Votes do not matter so much; whether we hold or lose our seats does not matter so much. We give our verdict on this Bill tomorrow, and this Bill will be one of the things upon which the country will give its verdict at the next Election. I believe it to be wrong, and therefore I shall have to be, for a short time, estranged from, I suppose, the majority of my hon. Friends.
  Before I sit down I want to say what I said at the beginning. I believe I am right. I have always believed that. For believing that; I once had 15 years in the political wilderness; it never proved me to be wrong in the end. but Droved me to be
  1760
  right. I believe I am right in this, and I believe right hon. Gentlemen are wrong. Let me say again, that I do not question their sincerity at all. So far as I am concerned, I believe that tomorrow they will do what I do, namely, what, under the circumstances, they believe to be right, with freedom of action. I believe in freedom—freedom to do what one thinks is right. It is a freedom which I would exercise were I the only one in that Lobby tomorrow, in doing what I believe to be right. I would like that freedom to be extended to everybody. In this critical period we are not lacking skill, ability, nor planning: what we are lacking is a great spiritual lead, and a spiritual basis. I believe that if we had somebody who would call to this nation, to give themselves in service of any and every kind, the nation might be reborn, having escaped, as it did, from the awful dangers of war. That appeal would be answered. I believe the people are waiting for it.
  Although it may well be a subject of indifference and amusement, if we had some Minister of spiritual propaganda that would be a far more effective thing for the country than the Bill which the Minister has introduced today. We have come through a period of terror. Many men have died—and who amongst us has not suffered? I can speak only for myself. We lost our youngest brother, and our best. He was not obliged to be in the Forces at all; but as a free man he volunteered for the Air Force, as a free man he fought, and as a free man he died. I know very well that it never entered his head that he was fighting to save us from the horror of German invasion in order that we might introduce a form of conscription into this country. We owe something to those men, and I hope that between now and tomorrow night we might remember that, as well as our obligation to our younger generation.
  8.53 p.m.
  Colonel Ponsonby: We have just listened to a delightful speech from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), and I do not wish to add any fuel to the different kinds of fires raging opposite. I want to ask the Government one practical question in connection with the future of the Territorial Army. When I say "future," I mean the immediate future. I do so because, for many years, I have been a member of a Territorial Association. For many years

  1761
  I have been a member of the Territorial Army, and I have the honour to be the honorary colonel of a Territorial regiment. I am proud of that regiment, partly because of its war record, and partly because the colonel, the second-in-command and two of the battery commanders are going to continue, in order to restart the regiment in the new Territorial Army. Perhaps I might say that in order to encourage other Territorial regiments, the name of the regiment is the 97th (Kent Yeomanry) Regiment, R.A.
  On 1st May recruitment commences, and there is no doubt that during the next year or so quite a large number of volunteers will join the Territorial Army. There is, however, a paragraph in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill Bill which reads:
  "… those called up during 1947 and 1948 will he released after serving for fixed periods ranging from two years to 18 months."
  Command Paper 6831 is referred to. The meaning of that, applied to the Territorial Army, is as follows. In 1947 recruiting commences; in 1948 recruiting will continue; but there will be no contribution from the national service men. The same thing applies in 1949. It is only in 1950 and 1951 that the Territorial regiments will be made up, presumably, to full strength by the inclusion of the national service men. The plan in its entirety, when it gets going, will be good, and will be for the benefit of the country and all the men who have to do their one and a half years, and then their five and a half years. But, have the Government realised that for the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and, at any rate part of 1950, there will be no increase in numbers in the Territorial units, because there will be no national service men? If my deductions are correct, I would ask the Government to expand what they propose to do. I also ask them to see whether they could make some improvement on what appears to be proposed, because, as we are all aware, it is not for the benefit of any unit that it should, for so long a time, remain nothing more than a cadre.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Swingler: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) will forgive me if I do not follow him in a discussion of the' Territorial Army. I should like, rather reluctantly, to say something about the general principle involved in this Bill. As
  1762
  we have heard this afternoon, I think there is no responsible Member of this House and no working citizen in the country who actually welcomes this Bill. It is an unprecedented step in peacetime for this country, and will involve, during the next few years, the call up annually of between 150,000 and 180,000 young men at a crucial period of their lives. As many hon. Members have said, that will involve a loss of production, greater difficulties in dealing with the manpower position in the country, and, at the same time, an interruption of careers, technical training, education, and so on.
  I believe the Government have made the acceptance of this Bill far more difficult, for two reasons. One reason is the fact that, in my opinion, and in the opinions of many of my hon. Friends, we are today maintaining, and the Government are proposing to continue to maintain 12 months hence, according to the White Paper on Defence, vastly excessive Armed Forces, which are not commensurate with the size of our population, and which demonstrate the fact that there must be a serious reduction in the amount of armed manpower, which the country cannot afford at its present level, and a reduction in commitments.
  In the second place, I believe the Government have made the acceptance of the Bill difficult by their failure to announce a definite new programme of reforms to be introduced into the Armed Forces, in order to modernise the Armed Forces and to make them efficient and more democratic. While I welcome certain signs of reform in this Bill, particularly in regard to the placing of the responsibility for further education on the Service Departments, I would welcome far more signs in the Service Departments of implementing this principle, that they should be responsible for such things as, for example, educational matters, and that steps should be taken to improve the facilities and rights of the men in the Armed Forces.
  Nevertheless, I must disagree with those of my hon. Friends, whose convictions I sincerely respect, who believe that the reason for this Bill, the reason why we have got to have conscription in peace time, is that we must maintain very large Armed Forces. I do not believe that that is the case. When we look at the actual facts, the Bill is to involve the call-up of

  1763
  the 18 year olds. It is fantastic to suppose we can maintain very large Forces on the basis of 150,000 or 180,000 18 year olds every year. It is a question of the ability to maintain Armed Forces of any size or character when there are such severe demands on the manpower of the country in other respects. Certain hon. Members have discussed, without going into any detail, what the actual position of recruiting is now, and what it will be in the next few years under this Bill. The Minister of Labour, in the effective speech with which he introduced this Bill today, gave the fact that in the Army at the moment, an Army of as vast a number as over 800,000, the actual Regular content is somewhere between 100,000 and 120,000.
  Last year—these figures can be got by hon. Members by referring to the Debates in this House and in another place—the position was stated, that to maintain in this country in the next few years an Army of, say, 250,000—and I give figures quoted by the Secretary of State for War and other Service Ministers—a monthly intake, of voluntary recruits, would be required of about 4,000, to cover wastage and run out. The best figure so far, in the period since the end of the war, over a period of months, has been the recruitment of 2,690, I believe; but over the months of 1946, the recruitment was anything between 1,200, 1,800 and 2,000—between 1,000 and 2,000; it was less than 50 per cent. of what was actually required, as shown in those figures to cover wastage and run out.
  I put it to my hon. Friends who argue this case that, after a long period of war, when there has been conscription to the Forces and a large number of men have been called up, when the country is very short of manpower in industry, and there is not one recruiting campaign in this country but half a dozen campaigns going on—recruiting for miners, recruiting for the iron foundries, and half a dozen other industries—that, in those circumstances, we have to face the question whether we can recruit a sufficient number to maintain even the very lowest level we have ever had of Armed Forces in peace time.
  I ask my hon. Friends, therefore, what alternatives they put forward to the House in this respect? What is the alternative? If you say that the problem should be solved by voluntary recruitment, bearing
  1764
  in mind that the principal recruiting officer under the voluntary system before the war was major unemployment, then you must be prepared to face the fact that the only way to do that is to make soldiering the best paid job in the country and give soldiers the best conditions of any occupation in the country, although it is an unproductive occupation. Is that the alternative that is being put forward? I am not prepared to swallow that alternative. I do not believe that is a policy which we should apply. In all the recruiting campaigns in this country, we want to recruit the best young men, the most lusty young men, for the coalmining industry, for the iron foundries—productive work—and we should not say, "Let us make soldiering the best paid, the most comfortable, occupation in order to be able to solve the problem of getting a sufficient intake into the Armed Forces by voluntary means." I believe that after a period of long war, and under the conditions involved in pursuing a policy of full employment—not, therefore, having the scourge of poverty and unemployment to drive men into the Armed Forces—the only way to get sufficient recruitment on the voluntary system would be to say, "Let us make soldiering the best paid job in the country, with the most comfortable conditions.
  I yield to no hon. Member in asking for improvements in welfare facilities in the Armed Forces and for democratic reforms, but I believe we should not put forward what, in my belief, is a militaristic policy of saying that, in order to get sufficient recruits for the Armed Forces, we should glorify them and so raise their status that we would attract and cream off permanently—to make careers in the Armed Forces—the best young men in the nation. I believe that today, in a period of peace, we want the best young men in productive occupations. That should be the principal recruiting campaign and the principal policy of the Government. For that reason, reluctantly—it is a question of reluctant necessity, for none of us wishes to welcome this Bill, and we all wish to do away with this system when the conditions of manpower shortage, and so on, improve—I believe that, with the qualifications I have given, we should support the Bill. The Government should give assurances to hon. Members that our Armed Forces will be reduced to a size

  1765
  commensurate with our population. They should face up to the fact that they must reduce our commitments, and introduce a programme of reforms, giving guarantees that they will be implemented. Then, we shall be more prepared—and I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill—to accept the inevitable necessity for dealing with recruitment to the Armed Forces in this way during the next few years.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Wyatt: I wish whole-heartedly to agree with almost everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), but I want particularly to deal with some of the arguments which my hon. Friends who have been sufficiently misguided to move and support this Amendment have been advancing during the Debate. The hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) spoke of the large size of the Armed Forces today, but I think there is one thing we should get clear straight away, and it is that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the present size of the Armed Forces. In the Debates on the Army Estimates and in the Defence Debate we had it quite clearly shown that, through the Government's own action in saying that no man called up after January, 1947, would serve for more than two years, the Forces will automatically fall from their present swollen size to something in the neighbourhood of 750,000 by 1st January, 1949, when this Bill will begin to operate.
  The main reason for the Bill is that it is impossible to maintain a reasonable-sized force without some compulsion. It is reasonable to ask why conscription is necessary. I imagine that few of my hon. Friends would disagree that the Armed Forces were not too large before the war, when the Army numbered 210,000. The Army today would require conscription to be kept to that level. We have already been told that recruitment for the Army allows only for replacement and wastage in relation to 129,000 Regular soldiers.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the advantage of reading an article in yesterday's "Sunday Times" by a man who was military secretary of the Cabinet
  1766
  during the war. I thought that writer was saying that without compulsion we could maintain a voluntary Army of 450,000.
  Mr. Wyatt: I think the writer was saying—I have not the article with me, but I did read it—that we could maintain the Armed Forces, namely, the Navy, Army and Air Force, at 450,000, and not simply the Army. That is an entirely different matter, and even so he was wrong. If we agree that the prewar Farces were not large enough, we must also agree that we cannot again have the pathetic business that we had before the war of divisions training on Salisbury Plain with a flag saying, "This flag represents three tanks," and another flag saying, "This flag represents two brigades." We cannot wonder that our Forces were not efficiently trained when the war began. That alone should be a sufficient reason. If we had no additional commitments at the end of the war we would still be able to agree that the Forces before the war were not large enough.
  Several speeches of my hon. Friends have quoted from articles by the military expert Captain Liddell Hart. They omitted to quote one serious statement which he made recently to the effect that he once made a report to the War Office before the war that our Armed Forces were 50,000 to 100,000 men short. That means that he agreed that with our commitments before the war we really needed something like 550,000 men in the Armed Forces. That leaves out altogether the question of Germany, in regard to which we shall have a commitment of 100,000 men for several years, inevitably. If Captain Liddell Hart is right on that point he must be wrong on conscription. He cannot possibly get such a force without conscription.
  I agree that we do not want to create a military caste in this country, but that would be inevitable if we made the rates of pay and conditions of service in the Army so attractive that workers would leave the mines and textile mills to join the Army. It would mean that the Army was priority No. I, as it was in Germany. We want the Army to be a respectable occupation, but not the most privileged. Arguments have been advanced by pacifists who know nothing whatever of military warfare that the invention of the atom bomb has made armies useless. Has it

  1767
  never occurred to them that one of the features of the recent war was the extensive use of parachute regiments? I would remind them that the way in which another war will be started in the ultimate will be decided by soldiers. Whatever we may say about the atom bomb it is the soldier who advises his Government on the best way to start a war. The soldier is much more likely to say, "Do not drop any atom bombs on that territory, because we want to occupy it and use it ourselves. In any case, if you do drop them, they will drop atom bombs on us in return." IL is much better to occupy a country quickly with parachute regiments, than to run the risk of retaliation with atom bombs.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: If the hon. Member was in command of the forces in this country, and if he decided to drop paratroops on the enemy and the enemy decided to drop atom bombs on this country, to what extent would the paratroops help this country to bring the hon. Member's particular war to a successful issue?
  Mr. Wyatt: The answer is that the paratroops I was discussing would belong to some other Power and not to us. In any case, if another Power decided to attack us, and decided to do it by dropping so many paratroops as to put us effectively out of action, we would not have the means to retaliate by dropping any atom bombs in return.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: Presumably the hon. Member is visualising a war, and presumably he is visualising one in which Soviet Russia attacks us. I take it that Soviet Russia will not attack us for fun, but because she thinks we are going to attack her. If one is realistic, is it not probable that Soviet Russia will not wish to occupy our country, but to destroy it so that we cannot occupy her?
  Mr. Wyatt: There are so many presumptions in that interruption that perhaps I will be forgiven if I do not follow it. My basic argument is that if we have an Army we must have an Army prepared to meet all possible eventualities of a war from whatever source it comes. It is unlikely that another Power would begin by dropping atom bombs. My point is that it is absolutely essential that we
  1768
  should have enough forces and enough reserves available to repel parachute landings in the first instance, while our other reserves can be mobilised and whatever allies we may have in the war can come to our rescue and unless we have conscription, it is unlikely that we shall have many allies on the mainland of Europe. It is most important that we should be able to repel any such paratroop landings until we can mobilise out reserves. We no longer have the six months breathing space which was given to us by the Navy. That breathing space has gone as a result of the development of air power. I see my hon. Friend is smiling, but this is a serious matter.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I was certainly not smiling at his argument. I could not help feeling a little delighted inwardly that I would have won the war by means of the atom bomb before my hon. Friend could send over a single paratrooper.
  Mr. Wyatt: I am very sorry to find that my hon. Friend is so bloodthirsty. The invention of the atom bomb makes no difference to the need of having adequate forces at our disposal. I confidently say that for several years to come we shall need an Army of at least 400,000. We will also need an Air Force of something like 220,000 and a Navy of 130,000 in order adequately to cover the commitments which we had before the war, and also to provide sufficient forces to police Germany. It is absurd to imagine that we can go back now into the state of unpreparedness we were in at the beginning of the war. I can remember very well, when I was first called up, the alarm and horror I felt on discovering that the platoon in which I was to serve had no weapons except two out-of-date Lewis guns, and the officers had never been trained with the weapons we hoped some day to get. It is not fair or reasonable of people to ask our Forces to go back to that state of affairs.
  Mr. Byers: Does not the hon. Member recognise that his argument is an argument for properly equipped Forces, not conscription?
  Mr. Wyatt: One does not maintain more equipment than there, are men to handle.
  Mr. Byers: Why not?
  Mr. Wyatt: What is the point of maintaining more Bren guns than there are men to fire them?
  Mr. Byers: Does not that show that the hon. Member is living entirely in the past?
  Mr. Wyatt: I may be learning from the past, but I am looking towards the future.
  It is objected that military discipline is an unhealthy factor to have in a democracy, and it is incompatible with it. But why should that be so? Is it really best to rely on a professional Army, which is put in a very privileged position, with an exaggerated importance, or on an Army the burden of which is fully shared by the community? I feel that there is no need for conscription to have a bad effect on our youth, if the Government concentrate on the educational facilities, which can make a splendid thing out of it. During the war, A.B.C.A. did a tremendous amount to make soldiers aware of the country in which they lived. I hope that my right hon. Friend intends to extend its activities, and not curtail them, as has been rumoured. By that means the meaning of democracy can be spread in the future.
  It is not a bad thing to be moved, in one's life, once or twice to one part of the country and to another country and to meet all kinds of people, at a fairly early age. I should be very sorry if I had not been moved about from one part of the world to another, and there are many people who will never have facilities for doing that unless they have a period of national service. That might seem to some to be a reactionary argument, and it may be unfortunate that we have to have conscription. But if we must have conscription let us look on the good things we can get out of it. There are advantages in such a system. I do not think that any one who has served in the Forces during the war would say that he had, on the whole, not profited from it.
  I would ask the Government to make sure that there are adequate facilities for vocational training for men during their period of national service, so that when they return to civil life they will have had a chance to extend their knowledge in the profession or occupation which they wish to take up on leaving the Forces. There is one serious danger in this Bill and in the idea of conscription. It is true that some conscript Armies have failed badly because of bad morale. I think that was true of the French Army, and that the failure there was due to poor conditions and the small amount of pay—I know that ours are
  1770
  to be a good deal better—and also because reluctant conscripts spread the infection of unwillingness and desertion among their comrades. This must not be allowed to happen in any way in our Army. The first thing we have to do is to keep the Regular Army, as a whole, more or less separate from the conscripts. That is most important. I will give another reactionary argument to support that claim also. I think the German Army was the most efficient, from the military standpoint, during the war—[An HON. MEMBER: "It lost."]—it lost because the odds were so overwhelming against it.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to have a separate regiment for national service men in the Regular Army?
  Mr. Wyatt: Perhaps I might be allowed to develop this argument. I think that the Regular Army should be maintained as a Regular Force, with its own units and constituted on the same lines for a period of years. The conscripted element should only be added to it in brigades, regiments or companies, quite separate and distinct from it. With regard to those people who have been described by the military expert quoted by my hon. Friends as the sensitive type, the artistic type, as not fit for conscription or employment in the Army. I think they should also be put into separate units quite ruthlessly as a necessity from the military point of view.
  The Government would also be well advised to keep a careful watch on the length of service, and see whether or not they can cut it down from. 18 to 12 months. We have to remember that the Service chiefs, quite naturally, are not going to advise savage cuts in the Army, or a shorter period of service. They are bound to ask for the thing which they know will give them the opportunity to do the job most efficiently. I think that it is up to the Government to see that these cuts are made. It is also very important to ensure that there are no delays at the beginning of the training period, and that men are not kept hanging about for three or four weeks in training camps before beginning training, as happened to many of us during the war. They must not waste any part of their period of training, but get straight on with the job, so that the period of training may be cut if necessary.

  1771
  I would suggest to opponents of the Bill on pacifist grounds that it would be more helpful if they would stick to their pacifist objections to it. I know that there are people who object to it on grounds of manpower or because they do not like the Government's foreign policy; but those who object to it on pacifist grounds should rely on the somewhat doubtful evidence of the Bible, as to whether it is wrong to fight in war or to have an Army, and not oppose it on military grounds. A number of speeches have been made today and were made on the King's speech last November which gave a lot of rather fallacious military arguments as to why conscription was not a good thing, when the real reason which the speakers had in mind was that they were pacifists. I think that the pacifist ought to realise where pacifism would have taken us if it had been followed through during the last war. We might all at this moment be conscripted in the German Army. I would say to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus), who disapproves of our foreign policy, and who would deny us an Army because our foreign policy was wrong, that one day he himself may become a Foreign Secretary, and he might find it rather disconcerting to have voted himself no Army.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Our Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, said on 9th March, 1936:
  "… you cannot separate foreign policy from defence …. Defence is the result of foreign policy. Very often defence proposals show what is the reality of a foreign policy, and it is so in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1936; Vol. 309, c. 1843.]
  Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Wyatt: I do not entirely agree. But I think it unwise from my hon. Friend's standpoint to press that point too far. On the whole, I welcome this Bill for its realistic approach to this problem. It does not bind us permanently to conscription. I think that the Government are quite genuine when they tell us that, as soon as possible, when U.N.O. becomes sufficiently strong, they will reduce the period from 18 to 12 months and also do away with the Bill altogether as soon as it becomes possible. Until that time we must have sufficient and adequate forces so that we are not a temptation to other countries, but strong enough to be
  1772
  a deterrent to anybody who may feel inclined to attack us.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I rise to support the Amendment, but not as a pacifist. I fought in the first world war, I was a Home Guard in the last war and I accept the principle of conscription. I agree that there is a great deal of force in the argument that if we have full employment, it is difficult to raise adequate forces by voluntary means. I also agree that there is force in the argument that conscription is a fair and democratic means of raising the necessary forces. I regard conscription as a military form of direction of labour, and if the necessity is great enough, I have no objection to the direction of labour either for military or even for civilian purposes. I do object, however, in principle, to the calling up of young men to fight for purposes for which I should refuse to fight if I were of military age. I think that just as in home affairs it is the duty of the Government to have a policy that will assure the people a minimum standard of life, so in foreign and defence matters, it is the duty of the Government to assure the conscripts a minimum standard of death, if I may put it that way. That standard does not exist today. There is no guarantee that our conscripts, whether in Palestine or in Greece, will not have their lives thrown away for a cause which is not worth the bones of a single British soldier.
  Mr. Bramall: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) says that the conscripts should be allowed to have a certain safeguard. Does he mean to say that it does not matter if volunteers are allowed to throw their lives away for a cause which he would not be prepared to support?
  Mr. Zilliacus: The volunteer is in a different position. When he signs on, tie signs on to obey the Government's orders for any purpose the Government want, and if he does not want to do that, he does not volunteer.
  The real root of my objection is stated this morning in the "Daily Herald." It says:
  "Only one thing, indeed, would justify Parliament in refusing to grant to a British Government today the powers now sought; and that would be the failure of such a Government to base its foreign policy on support for U.N.O."

  1773
  I am not arguing that this Amendment is an Amendment for the rejection of conscription in principle, or I would not vote for it. This Amendment asks the Government to think over the matter for six months, and I want them to do that because I believe—and I know it is a grave charge but I make it deliberately—that the Government's policy is not based on the United Nations organisation. It is not based on the obligations of the Charter.
  Mr. Follick: The mover of the Amendment said quite clearly that, moving the omission of the word "now" and substituting the words. "this day six months" was, in effect, moving the rejection of the Bill.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I am interested in the wording of the Amendment, not in the feelings of the mover of the Amendment. I do not agree with the mover of the Amendment in many respects. I believe the Government have got themselves into this muddle by a practice which in private life is held to be morally reprehensible, namely, to be "on with the new love, before being off with the old." Politicians are rather fond of being on with the new love without being off with the old, and I believe that the Government have got themselves into a state where they have practically committed political bigamy. They have gone through a form of marriage with the United Nations organisation, while still wedded to the policy of the balance of power. Let us suppose for a moment that the Government's policy was really based on the Charter of the United Nations organisation. What is the first thing they ought to do after a great war when they set to work to rebuild the world with the enemy disarmed and prostrate? I suggest that the first thing they ought to do, is to follow the advice of the late Lloyd George in the memorandum which he gave to the "Big Four," at the Peace Conference in March, 1919, when he pointed out to them that unless the great Powers, members of the Council—today we call it the Security Council although then it was known as the League Council—trusted each other in the matter of armaments and came to some agreement with each other—if they once started preparing for war against each other or rearming against each other—the Covenant would not be worth the paper it was written on. The same applies to the
  1774
  Charter a fortiori because the whole Charter is based upon the fundamental principle that the permanent Security Council members must not, in any circumstances, fight each other, and must trust each other.
  There is no obligation in the Charter for the great powers to coerce each other. The only obligation to apply force in the Charter operates when the great Powers agree and in no other circumstances. If any Member on the Front Bench denies that fact I wish he would speak now, because this fact makes it absolute nonsense, humbug and bunkum—to say the very least—to assert that we need conscript Armies or Forces on anything like the present scale in order to do our duty under the Charter of the United Nations organisation.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask the hon. Member a question about the United Nations organisation? Does he really consider that when Russia uses her power of veto as she does use it continually any confidence can be placed in the practical application of the Charter of the United Nations organisation?
  Mr. Zilliacus: I believe that the way to ensure reasonable use of the unanimity rule is to reach political agreements with the Soviet Union based on the Charter. But I do not agree that it is a reason for abandoning the Charter and reverting to power politics.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is hardly an answer to my question.
  Mr. Zilliacus: The unanimity rule is, of course, part of the Charter, on the basis of which we are functioning. If the Government mean business, I would remind the House of the statement of the Foreign Secretary on 21st February last year, confirmed by the Prime Minister on 6th March this year, that we do trust both the Soviet Union and the United States, and that there can be no policy or anything else which will lead to a conflict with either of these great Allies. If we are really basing our policy on the United Nations organisation and, within the United Nations organisation, on equal cooperation with both the Soviet Union and the United States, and if we do not apprehend war from either, and do not believe in preparing for war against either, and if, as the Prime Minister said on 18th November last, we do not believe in

  1775
  building up our armies against either of those States, is there any reason at all why we should not do today what was done in 1919? That is, instruct the fighting Services to frame their annual Service Estimates on the political assumption that we will not be engaged in a great war within the next ten years. And could we not add to that an instruction that they should not base our defence preparations on the assumption that we may have to fight the United States or the U.S.S.R.?
  I want to make the Government a sporting offer. If a member of the Government can get up now or at any time in the Debate, and state that they have given instructions to the fighting Services to base their Estimates on the ten year rule and on the assumption that we need not prepare to fight either the United States or the Soviet Union, I will vote for the Bill and will withdraw my support from the Amendment. But until they can give me such an assurance, I am voting for the Amendment, because I have a conscientious objection based on the Charter against this country joining either with the United States in fighting against the Soviet Union, or with the Soviet Union to fight against the United States.
  Mr. C. Shawcross: Does the hon. Member think it would be reasonable to base our policy on any such assumption, so long as the Soviet Union, with its enormous population, maintains not only conscription but a very large standing army?
  Mr. Zilliacus: that question can equally well be addressed to the United States who are now spending 13,000 million dollars on arms, whereas before the war they spent, 1,000 million. Either you trust both the Soviet Union and the United States—in which case their armaments are irrelevant—or you prepare for war against one of them on the side of the other. That was precisely my argument, that at the present time, while professing to base our policy on the Charter, which does call for trusting our permanent fellow members of the Council, we are in fact basing our policy on an Anglo-American balance of power, and an Anglo-American entente and arms tie-up. That is the whole point of my contention. The situation is ominously close to what it was between 1906 and 1914, when the Liberal Govern-
  1776
  ment were in power. Then, there were conversations between the General Staffs, leading to joint arrangements, whereas the Government kept on telling their back benchers that they were completely free and uncommitted, just as the present Government are telling us that they are free and uncommitted. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, writing on this event, said:
  "This was a step of profound significance and of far-reaching reactions. Henceforward, the relations of the two staffs became increasingly intimate and confidential. The minds of our military men were definitely turned into a particular channel. Mutual trust grew continually in one set of military relationships, mutual precautions in the other. However explicitly the two Governments might agree and affirm to each other that no national or political engagement was involved in these technical discussions, the fact remained that they constituted an exceedingly potent tie."
  That applies with uncomfortable accuracy to the present state of Anglo-American relations. There is a case, of course, for an Anglo-American balance of power and arms tie-up against the Soviet Union, and it was powerfully argued by the Leader of the Opposition at Fulton. I understand that case. It was a logical case. I feel about it rather as Ernest Renan felt about the theology of a great Church with which he disagreed—he said its doctrine was a logical system that went wrong only in its foundations. The foundation of the Fulton foreign policy is belief in the immaculate conception of the foreign policy of the capitalist United States and in the original sin of the foreign policy of the Communist Soviet Union. That dogma is based on the perfectly consistent and logical belief of the Conservative Party that the world's journey to Socialism is not really necessary. One can say with only a little exaggeration that the Tories of Britain and America are the Irgun Zwei Leumis of civilisation's march to Socialism. They would cheerfully blow up civilisation with atom bombs rather than allow it to move in that direction.
  I can understand this argument. But I cannot understand why a Labour Government, basing its belief in world peace on the advance of Socialism, must tie itself up with this crypto-Fulton, Woodford and water, foreign policy, while paying lip service to the United Nations.
  I beg the Government to pause, to reconsider and to reflect, and to change their foreign policy while there is still time to

  1777
  change it. I believe they ought to provide the people of this country with a minimum standard of death. It is a fatal mistake to believe that the workers of this country are going to join in fighting the Soviet Union as the junior partners of capitalist America. I think anyone proceeding on that assumption will find he has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind. I believe that it is disastrous to assume that the people of this country will be content to supply conscripts who will, in fact, be conscripted to serve a policy that is determined in Washington rather than in London. I believe there is a very strong feeling among the people of this country that it is time that history reversed itself and we had a British Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.
  I am only asking the Government to do what they profess to want to do, to base their policy on the United Nations organisation, and within that, on equal friendship and co-operation with both the Soviet Union and the United States, and on the assumption that we need not prepare for war against either. If we are going to conscript the youth of this country, they must be fully aware of what they are being conscripted for. I am going to keep on asking that question. I am asking the Government that they should base their policy on the new morality of the Charter. That is something new and revolutionary, if you like, hut we have got to do it. Unless the Labour Government base their policy on faith in our permanent fellow members of the Council, and in the principles of the Charter, of faith in the will to peace and the world purposes of both the United States and the Soviet Union, we are going to have a third world war. Of that, I am absolutely certain. It may not come today, nor tomorrow, but if we allow another armaments race to start, it will certainly come. I am tempted to say that. because we are in a very difficult position in the world, we must make up in wisdom what we have lost in Weight, we must by taking thought add a cubit to our shrunken power—political stature. We can only save ourselves from economic collapse by our own exertions if we save the world from a new arms race by our example.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The, hon. Member for Gateshead
  1778
  (Mr. Zilliacus) made the characteristically mischievous speech which the House, no doubt, expected of him. It would be difficult to imagine a speech better calculated to damage the relations of this country with both our major Allies. I must make my protest, as I am sure most hon. Members will make theirs, at the suggestion which the hon. Member saw fit to make, that the idea of fighting the U.S.S.R. existed in the mind of His Majesty's Government. I have no undue respect for His Majesty's Government, but it is really a monstrous thing that any hon. Member should so abuse his position in this House as to make such a suggestion.
  Mr. Zilliacus rose—
  Mr. S. Silverman rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have been referring to the hon. Member for Gateshead, and if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will allow me, I will give way to him.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I would point out that I did not assert what was suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to assert that the Government of this country, or any party in this country, wished to fight the Soviet Union. What I said was that we are basing our defence preparations on the assumption that we may be involved in a war with the Soviet Union within the next ten years on the side of the United States.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to have that assurance from the hon. Gentleman because, whatever he might have meant to say, I think he will find, on consulting the OFFICIAL REPORT, that his words might have led to the contrary impression. No one will appreciate better than the hon. Gentleman how important it is that that impression should not be given.
  Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman will now give way to me, I would like to say that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) made the very statement which he now says is dangerous.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not have the pleasure of hearing my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am sure that that was neither the effect nor the intention of his speech. I cannot imagine that any responsible Member of this House would make such a suggestion.

  1779
  I should like to deal with the hon. Member for Gateshead's arguments on the subject matter of this Bill. As I understood them, he was not, like a good many of his hon. Friends, opposed to compulsory military service on principle. He was opposed to it simply if it were imposed by a Government with whose foreign policy he did not agree. I can appreciate, and, if I may say so respectfully, respect the attitude of hon. Members who are against compulsory service on principle. That is a respectable position to take up, but to adopt the attitude of the hon. Member for Gateshead, that one will not support compulsory military service because one dislikes the policy of the Foreign Secretary, is really to reduce the principle of democratic Government to a farce. Indeed, it goes further. Presumably, the hon. Member for Gateshead dislikes the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government because he thinks that that foreign policy is increasing the danger of war. If the hon. Member believes that, then, surely, there is an even stronger reason for providing proper military forces. If the hon. Member is genuine in his apprehensions as to the conduct of our affairs by the Foreign Secretary and their consequences, he should be pressing upon the Government not only the carrying through of this Bill but the provision of greater defence forces all over the sphere of defence.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I did say—and I thought I made it clear—that I had a conscientious objection to this country fighting either the United States or the Soviet Union, and I would oppose such a war by every means in my power. I am not a pacifist. I do not believe that a refusal to fight in any war in any circumstances is a useful psychological basis for proceeding in the modern world, but neither do I believe that readiness to be conscripted to fight for any cause against any odds is a good psychological basis for making peace.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has not appreciated the full logical consequences of his argument. The foreign policy of a democratic country is, or should be, conducted in accordance with the expressed wishes of the majority of the representatives of the people. Yet the hon. Member is, apparently, prepared to say that such a foreign policy should
  1780
  not be supported by conscripted men. Further, the hon. Member forgot, when he interrupted me just now with his references to the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., that in this connection his particular reference was to the possibility of a conscripted man being shot at in Greece and in Palestine. We cannot conduct a democratic Government on this principle. We cannot say that we are prepared rather to strip our country of its defences than to permit the foreign policy of the Government to be carried on. That is, surely, not an argument of a sufficiently responsible nature to commend itself to hon. Members of this House.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is it the hon. Gentleman's contention that men ought to be conscripted for Palestine and for Greece? Would that be all right?—because those purposes are only remotely connected with national defence. They are something rather different.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is good enough to invite my opinion. I would say to him that we cannot argue the matter in this way; that if we are satisfied with the necessity for the provision of adequate Forces, we cannot get out of the obligations to provide those Forces merely by saying that we do not like what is going on in Greece and in Palestine. Tie hon. Member cannot argue the matter in this piecemeal way. He must face the dilemma; either he is prepared to support the provision of adequate defence Forces in this country, or he is not. He cannot add a kind of conditional support and say that he will support the provision of this country with adequate Armed Forces, provided its foreign policy is such that there is no risk whatsoever of war.
  With reference to certain observations of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), I will not attempt to follow him in his discussion of high level strategy, but I would offer a comment on his speech, which I am perfectly certain the hon. Member himself would accept were he here, namely, that that speech should have been delivered from the Front bench. The hon. Member for Aston attempted, at any rate, to do what so far has not been attempted from the Front bench, to justify with facts and figures the necessity for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, in his admirably read speech—[Interruption.]

  1781
  If hon. Members object, I will withdraw the word "admirably." The right hon. Gentleman did not put the House in possession of the facts and figures on which, alone, hon. Members can come to a proper decision on this matter. He has, therefore, asked for the difficulties which he is manifestly encountering from his supporters behind him. Let me put it in this way. I am one of those who believe that the right hon. Gentleman has a good case for this Measure, but he did nothing to help those of us who hold that view, and he did nothing whatever to quieten the doubts of those behind them who doubt the necessity for this Measure.
  It is quite impossible for hon. Members of this House to discharge their duty on this matter—and it is a matter of very great seriousness to the younger generation of this country—unless we are told what are the forces which it is necessary to maintain in order to maintain the position of this country in the world, and unless we are also told, with such approximation as is consistent with security, what are the forces required for different theatres, what are the forces available, and what are the forces which will be necessary in a year or more's time. It is not fair to ask hon. Members—and in particular to ask those of his supporters who, very naturally, in the circumstances, have their doubts about this Measure—to accept this Bill merely because the right hon. Gentleman comes to that Box and says it is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman—and I hope the Minister of Defence may fill the gap tomorrow—must tell the House what are the military calculations and the military needs upon which this Bill is founded. If he does not do so, if he fails to make that case which I and my hon. Friends believe he has, he puts his own hon. Friends in a really intolerable position. He is asking them to go back, in most cases, on their past; he is asking them to repudiate speeches and expressions of opinion which they have made and held, and which, I think, most of them will be prepared to repudiate if they are given a reason. The mere opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is no reason. The House is entitled to be told the facts and figures. That is why I say that the speech of the hon. Member for Aston was, at any rate, an attempt to do what the Minister of Labour did not even attempt to do.
  There is one aspect of this matter on which, if I may say so, I can congratulate
  1782
  the Minister. That is the care which he has obviously taken to see that the provisions of this Bill do not interfere unduly with either the system of apprenticeship or the system of education. I was very glad to hear what he said about the effect of the Bill in this respect, and I can only express regret that, as this Bill does not come into force for nearly two years, both apprenticeship and education will have to suffer till then from the manifest imperfections of the. present system. The same observation applies to another provision of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the very proper provision under which a young man who so desires can commence his service at the age of 17½. I understand that that concession is not at present in effect under the present system. Once again, I must express my regret that the provisions which are rightly included in this Bill, which do undoubtedly minimise the hardships and unfairnesses of any system of compulsory service, have to be put off until 1st January, 1949. I hope we may be told from the Government Front bench, that during that interim period it may be possible to put into effect some of those provisions of this Bill, so as to prevent the hardships which these provisions are designed to obviate when the Bill has come into effect. I understand from the—
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  CIVIC RESTAURANTS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  CIVIC RESTAURANTS BILL

    CLAUSE I.—(Power of local authorities to established restaurants.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 15, after "that," to insert:
    "(i) where the Minister of Food is satisfied that the council of any county in Scotland are unreasonably refusing to exercise their powers under this Act in any district of the county he may by order direct that the powers of the county council, so far as relating to that district, shall be exercisable by the district council instead of by the county council; and
    (ii)"
    10.1 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House is aware, I think, that, in the closing stages of the Debate on

    1783
    Report in this House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertook to have considered this Amendment in another place when it was found, I believe, to be out of Order at that time for technical reasons. The Amendment is an endeavour to meet the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that in some of the rural areas of Scotland—or, at least, the non-urban areas in Scotland—county councils might not be disposed to exercise the powers conferred on them under the Bill, and that the district councils, in those cases where the district councils represent fairly populous areas, would make a better exercise of the functions. It was represented to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Food that, in certain instances, the county councils might be disinclined merely to delegate the functions if we should add the district councils to the Clause dealing with delegated powers. We undertook to provide that, where we could be satisfied that a county council was unreasonably refusing to exercise the powers, they would be transferred, or might be transferred, to the district councils.
    As we closed our Debate on an earlier occasion one gathered from the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that he took exception to the Minister of Food s being the Minister permitted to interfere with the local authorities in Scotland in this way. We gave this matter very careful consideration before we came before the House on an earlier occasion, and we have given it careful consideration since; but I would ask the House to appreciate that, if a Minister of the Crown is to exercise this function of determining whether a local authority is reasonably or unreasonably exercising its functions under the Bill, then that Minister, in this case, must clearly be the Minister of Food. I do not think, really, that it could be argued that the Secretary of State is in a better state than the Minister of Food to determine whether or not a local authority is carrying out its duty under the Bill. I commend this Amendment to the House.
    10.5 p m
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think that the state-
    1784
    ment of the Joint Under-Secretary of State leaves us precisely where we were before I can think of no reason why the Secretary of State, who is, after all, our sole representative, should give up his powers in favour of the Minister of Food, however much the Minister of Food may know about these things. Surely, the Minister responsible to the Cabinet is the Secretary of State for Scotland, and not the Minister of Food. The Secretary of State for Scotland is the only safeguard we have, and it is he, and not the Minister of Food, who should deal with these things. Surely, it is clear that the Minister of Food should advise, from the food point of view, the Secretary of State, who should decide for Scotland.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Williams: This is a very curious Amendment. There is, first, the rather interesting provision that the Minister can say that he disagrees with the county council, which is the senior authority, and allow the district authority to act. As far as I understand the Amendment, that is the system that would apply to Scotland, although I do not think it applies to England. Scotland may accept it—that is their concern—but it is not a good thing to interfere in a general way with a senior authority, and to take away its powers and give them to a junior authority. To do that means that there will be piecemeal orders and rules in which sometimes it is a question of the county council and sometimes the junior authority, and that position is fundamentally wrong. One or other of the authorities, alone, should have the power to administer this Measure.
    I am astonished by the fact that under this Amendment it is proposed to take away the powers in this respect of the Secretary of State to administer Scotland. I notice that the representatives of the Ministry of Food are present in full force, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is at least as able a fighter as the Minister of Food in many ways, has been driven out of the field. I can only say that if I represented a Scottish Division, which I do not—for the very simple reason that I am much happier where I am—I should certainly oppose this Amendment tooth and nail, since under it the Secretary of State for Scotland loses power, and the Minister of Food gains power. I always imagined that Scotland

    1785
    was very anxious to keep its own administration as far as possible. This Amendment is another illustration of the way in which things are being concentrated quite needlessly in Whitehall, and power is being given to Whitehall which is completely unnecessary. I cannot conceive that anyone in London can really judge, between two Scottish authorities, which of the two is administering things in the right sense for a Scottish district. This Amendment shows how utterly the Ministry of Food are out of touch with the affairs of the country, and I regret that this sort of thing should be tried on Scotsmen.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was right when he said that we in Scotland are very jealous of our autonomy and control of our own affairs, but I am partially in favour of this Amendment, because on the Report stage I said I thought it would be in keeping with our democratic institutions in Scotland if we were to concede this power to the district councils. I remember that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that it would be very unlikely that this power would be exercised on any occasion. It is likely in the development of new centres that district councils might, in certain cases, be better vehicles or media to administer powers such as this. So far I am in favour of the Amendment.
    Nevertheless, I protest at this process of constantly putting power into the hands of the Minister of Food. For a very long time and ever since there has been a Secretary of State for Scotland by that name all the powers of administration in regard to Scotland have been concentrated with him. If we accept the Amendment, as I appreciate it will be accepted because of the overwhelming number supporting His Majesty's Government, we shall be departing largely from those principles to which we have for so long adhered. I await with interest anything that the Joint Under-Secretary of State may have to bay, or the Minister of Food—I should appreciate hearing the Joint Under-Secretary of State—on why it is necessary to put this power in the hands of the Minister of Food, outwith Scotland.
    10.12 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have not heard the arguments
    1786
    in favour of the Amendment. The Joint Under-Secretary said that he had thought this matter over very carefully and had come to the conclusion that the proper Minister was the Minister of Food, but he did not give us the benefit of the reasoning which had led him to that conclusion. That is what we are rather awaiting. It is right that there should be the district council. We are grateful to the Government for having inserted the provision that the district council should, in certain cases, administer this matter, and for that reason we do not propose to divide upon the Amendment. It carries out a reform which we desire. On the other hand it gives us what we are continually finding in the case of this Government and what we protest against. Is it necessary to transfer administration and initiative in these matters from Edinburgh to Whitehall? We do not see why that should be so. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State could give us a few words of explanation on the matter, I am ready to give him an opportunity to do so.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak again, with the leave of the House. I thought I had said when I was on my feet that it seemed clear that the Minister of Food was the one who was competent to determine whether a local authority, being a civic restaurant authority, was reasonably exercising the functions and the powers given to it under this Measure. I should have thought he was the Minister who would have the facts available to him on which such a decision could be reached. This is not a case of transferring power from Saint Andrews House to Whitehall. We have not any restaurant powers at Saint Andrews House at the present moment. It is not unusual for Ministers whose headquarters are in Whitehall to exercise powers in Scotland. Many Ministers do so, and have done so for a very long time.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Far too many.
    Mr. Fraser: The local authorities are in almost daily consultation with the Minister of Transport and not with the Secretary of State. As regards building licences the Minister of Works is responsible, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland. In discussing with a Government Department matters concerning gas undertakings, the local authorities do not go to Saint

    1787
    Andrews House to have a chat with the Secretary of State. They discuss the matter with the Minister of Fuel and Power. There are lots of precedents for the local authorities in Scotland having to consult with a Minister other than the Secretary of State for Scotland. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is to be made responsible for feeding the people of this country, and is to be made responsible for the distribution of food, and is to be answerable to this House for the successful operations of the Civic Restaurants Bill, I suggest that he is the Minister and the only Minister who can be asked, on application by a district council, for powers under the Bill, and he is the only Minister who can determine on the facts available to him whether or not a county council are making a reasonable exercise of their functions.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Joint Under-Secretary has given us more and more cases of how the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving up his powers.
    Mr. Speaker: This is not the occasion on which we can discuss the giving up of powers.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of local authorities to establish restaurants.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 18, at end, insert:
    "and
    (iii) a justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1934, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in any such restaurant in England or Wales shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption in the restaurant with a meal; and
    (iv) such a licence shall not be granted in respect of any such restaurant established in premises forming part of, or used for the purposes of, any church, chapel or other place of religious worship or used for the purposes of any religious organisation, except with the consent of the incumbent, minister or other person in charge of the church, chapel or place of worship or, as the case may be, the consent of the religious organisation."
    10.18 p.m.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The effect of these paragraphs is to make two provisos in the Clause dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor. The first
    1788
    is of comparative substance; the other is very small. The first is that the justices may only grant a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor with meals. On the whole, we think this is a reasonable proposal, and we suggest that the House should agree with it. It has some disadvantages, which have been argued, and it has some adantages. I think it is true to say that in the vast majority of cases the civic restaurants will only desire licences of this kind and so we recommend the House to agree with the Amendment. The second proviso is intended to meet the very strong feelings of those connected with religious organisations, and it deals with those rare cases in which a civic restaurant is conducted on premises which form part of a religious foundation of one sort or another. In these cases, intoxicating liquor of any kind can be sold only with the consent of the authorities of the religious organisation concerned.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. James Hudson: I am glad to say at this point that I believe this Amendment represents an improvement in the situation. The Minister spoke of this change as being of comparative substance, and he added that in the vast majority of cases, civic authorities would not desire to go beyond the new provisions. This seems to be a discovery which the Minister has made since we were discussing this matter previously in the House. On that occasion, the Minister put up a flat-footed resistance to every reasonable suggestion upon the matter. He sent the Bill away without any changes in this rsepect. Now he yields finally to the suggestions and proposals made in another place. If our Amendment had come back in the form we would have liked, I should not have indulged in any constitutional crisis, but my right hon. Friend is apparently prepared to accept, quite willingly, on the suggestion of another place, what he would not accord to any of us here. I feel I ought to say that his record in the whole conduct of this Bill is not one about which we shall have much enthusiasm.
    10.22 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I welcome this Amendment and I congratulate the Government on having brought it forward. I should like to raise with the Minister of Food a point as to the exact meaning of the words:

    1789
    "the sale of such liquor for consumption in the restaurant with a meal."
    During the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Food was very insistent in saying that he thought it would be a good thing for those who were taking a meal in the restaurant to be able to have a glass of beer with it. Does this Amendment really mean that no liquor will be served in civic restaurants, unless the person ordering the liquor is actually having a meal; or does it mean that if a person goes to the bar and has a sandwich, he may have as much drink as he pleases? That is a most important point. I should like an answer from the Minister of Food on whether the Amendment really means that an individual ordering liquor must have a substantial meal; because if it means that he has only to order a sandwich, the effect of this Amendment will be much less than it is meant to be.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. Walkden: I am sorry if I disturb this mutual admiration society which seems to be concerned because the Minister has not clamped down on this Amendment, from another place. The Minister resisted to the utmost limits, in Committee, the whole idea that this particular form of Amendment should be accepted by the Government. The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) said the right hon. Gentleman had altered his opinion as a result of certain pressure. I say that the Minister has not altered his opinion one iota. If there has been pressure, it has been brought about by the Members of the Government. The Government have determined it for him, and he has had to come to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am maintaining this point because I feel as strongly one way on this matter as some hon. Members feel the other way. I have no shares in any brewery nor have I any other interest but a common interest in the folk who are to share the common benefits derived from civic restaurants. I believe that this will be a crippling Amendment in relation to the wellbeing and development of our civic restaurants, as indicated by the Minister when presenting the Bill. I discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Somerville Hastings) some six weeks ago. He is a former chairman of the L.C.C., and the L.C.C. have some excellent ideas, which sooner or later they will be able
    1790
    to develop. They have, since 1934, under a Socialist majority, developed a park in North London. Later the L.C.C. hope to develop another park in the Southern part of London—an excellent idea. In this particular park they themselves, as a county council, hope to do the job as direct contractors. In London parks today—Kensington Gardens, Hampton Court, wherever one cares to go—one may partake of a meal.
    If you do not wish to partake of a meal and wish to ask for half a pint of lager, or a liqueur, or an aperitif—[Interruption.] These are the facts; if anyone wishes to partake of a drink without ordering a meal, one may do so without anybody saying, "By your leave," or "You must have a bun or a scone or a sandwich." The condition that will be imposed as a result of this Amendment is this: When the London County Council develop their various parks and catering schemes, one will be required to order a meal in a London County Council park to get a drink; but one will be able to go into another park, where the catering is done by Mecca or Lyons—and they are very efficient people—and get a drink without a meal. In those London parks where the L.C.C. do the catering, a person will have to order a meal if he wants to get a drink. I think this is an injustice, and I believe that the Minister thinks so too. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not be so keen on supporting the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. Hudson) in his ideas.
    This matter goes a little further. When we look at the question of what is likely to be the function of British Restaurants, we have to take into account the fact that many of the local authorities will be catering for public dances, and other celebrations, such as weddings. It is fairly obvious—and Members opposite must be aware of this—that when there is a public dance today, the promoters of the dance announce the fact that liquid refreshments will be available, or that a licence will be applied for. They invariably use the phrase, "licence applied for," as an advertisement. It simply means that there will be something to drink. Let us consider what will happen. Assuming that a local authority has catering facilities in a public hall, and that the authority sublets the catering to a commercial undertaking, that undertaking can go to the

    1791
    local magistrates and apply for an occasional licence, for which, I think, they pay 10s. 6d. The local authority will be able to sub-contract, with the permission of the Ministry, to the commercial firm for 10s. 6d. the right to supply drink at a dance; but the local authority, who owns the hall, and probably provides the catering on six days out of seven, will not be able to provide a drink unless a meal is taken at the dance. That is wrong and unjust, and a crippling blow to the local authorities. Therefore, I believe that the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, that there should be fair play for the local authorities, is the only argument which the House ought to accept.
    Either we are going to be honest in our approach to this question of municipal undertakings and municipal enterprise, or we are going to accept the principle that commercial undertakings will have every advantage over the municipalities, who will only be able to supply a drink with a meal. Either we are going to play fair with the local authorities and give them the same opportunity that Lyons and other concerns have, whether brewers or public houses, or we are going to accept an Amendment from another place, which, in itself, is a crippling blow to the local authorities. I therefore hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
    10.30 p.m.
    Captain Marsden: I think I support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) though his arguments were so overwhelming that I am slightly swamped by them at the moment. But I definitely support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), and I do not think the Minister should permit this Amendment to go through in its present wording. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that the words "substantial meal" should be used, but it is perfectly obvious that it is impossible to get a substantial meal nowadays. No doubt hon. Members will recall that many years ago there were certain houses of call where one might get a drink provided one also had something to eat. There was always a mysterious sandwich, and if one ate it, one became most unpopular. The sandwich, however, was always put in front of one with the drink, and that
    1792
    sandwich had to be paid for. If that were done, then the drinks were in order. I suggest that that is exactly what will happen in the civic restaurants. One will be told that a bottle of beer cannot be served unless one has a meal. One might then say "I am a very small eater, what is the smallest meal I can get away with?" and the answer will be "A sandwich," or, possibly, "a doughnut or a banana." That is a serious point, and will defeat the purpose—which I have no doubt the Minister desires—of permitting drinks to be served with a sit-down meal. Since the wording of the Amendment says merely "a meal" and not "a substantial meal" I can assure the Minister, from my own experience, that we shall be following a road which has been trodden already. People will go into civic restaurants, and will be provided with a musty old sandwich that has done duty for hundreds of drinks. One will be within the law and, presumably, everyone will be happy. I make no objection to that, but I do feel that there is some objection to indicating the intention in one way, yet using words which will make it easy to drive a coach and horses through the Clause.
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Challen: I think this is a very good Amendment, and I think it will be for the courts eventually to interpret just what a "meal" is. We know perfectly well that under the licensing laws, meals have been interpreted as meaning sandwiches or anything light, but that is not the intention of this Bill, and I do not believe that local authorities will so interpret the Bill when it is passed. They will consider a meal to be what we all regard as a meal where one sits down to eat at a table—not just eating a sandwich at a snack bar. I feel that this Amendment is a step in the right direction. One fine day the courts will have to adjudicate upon the meaning of the word "meal." I should like to say that I have never been happy about the interpretation put by certain police courts in London on "bottle parties" and so on and so forth. This matter is going to arise, and in the interpretation of this Measure we shall find that the common sense of our courts will eventually say something similar to what a late Lord Chief Justice said, namely, that when one is drunk in charge of a car, "drunk

    1793
    means drunk." Some fine day it will be said that "a meal means a meal." From that point of view alone, I agree with the Amendment.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think, Mr. Speaker, that most of us on these benches would agree with the description given by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) of the Minister's conduct, although it is only fair to come to the right hon. Gentleman's defence on one small point. The hon. Member for West Ealing said that this Amendment had been discussed in Committee. It never was discussed in Committee, because it was never put on the Paper, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food must welcome it. I remember the panegyrics we heard about the desirability of having a drink with a meal.
    As regards the second paragraph of the proposed Amendment, we are told the Minister was anxious to meet the opinions of religious bodies and so forth. I hope that no hon. Member of the present Government will try to get away with the idea that, by bringing in this proposal, they have avoided breaking the pledge which they gave at the General Election. That is not so. This merely prevents liquor from being sold in premises such as a church. It does not deal with the more important point, which is that the pledge at the General Election was that liquor should not be sold in a civic restaurant. Nothing which this Amendment contains removes the fact that there has been a broken pledge since the General Election.
    Mr. C. Williams: I think the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) was very unkind to the Minister. I feel that a Socialist Minister would never be influenced by the kind of thing which the hon. Member suggested. But I would add that no hon. Member has given the real reason for this Amendment. Everyone knows that the Minister wishes to make these civic restaurants a success, and everyone also knows that there is a shortage of beer and stout. It would be an awfully bad advertisment for these restaurants if anyone should put up a notice in them to this effect:
    "No more beer. No more stout,
    You put them in "—[Interruption].
    Mr. Speaker, I think that you know the rest.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries.]

  FIRE SERVICES [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 27th March].
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  10.44 p.m.
  Question again proposed:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for fire services in Great Britain, to transfer firefighting functions from the National Fire Service to brigades maintained by local authorities, to provide for the combination of areas for fire service purposes, to make further provision for pensions and other awards in respect of persons employed in connection with the provision of fire services, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (in this Resolution referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:
  A. Of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred—

  (i) in making grants to authorities in respect of expenditure in connection with the provision of fire services, of amounts not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of such expenditure;

  (ii) in the provision of instruction in matters relating to fire services;

  (iii) in the provision of equipment for purchase by fire authorities for the dis. charge of their functions under the Act;

  (iv) in giving effect to provisions of the Act relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities in respect of service in fire brigades and other service which under the Act is to be reckoned as equivalent to such service, and in making payments to other authorities in respect of liabilities incurred by them for pension purposes, and in the payment of compensation in respect of loss of emoluments or pension;

  (v) in defraying expenses of Advisory Councils constituted under the Act;

  (vii) in paying remuneration to inspectors, assistant inspectors and other officers appointed under the Act,

  and of any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in giving effect to the Act.
  B. Of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1946, the enactments relating to the superannuation of persons employed by local authorities, and the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the Act;

  1795
  and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the Act."
  Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, to leave out lines 14 and 15.
  If hon. Members will refer to paragraph A (iii) of the Financial Resolution they will see that it allows the Secretary of State to provide equipment for purchase by fire authorities. I want to know what is intended to be done under this heading. If this merely empowers the Secretary of State to dispose of equipment which might by left on his hands, we have no objection to that. But if it implies that the Home Office is going to set up a supply department for fire appliances then we have an objection. It seems to us that there is the Ministry of Supply at hand as the supply department and that it is merely duplicating matters if the Home Department is to have a supply section within itself to supply equipment to the local authorities. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to dispose of that point right away and if so, it will save a great deal of time.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The hon. Gentleman is, in part, right. It is no part of the Government's intention to set up supply divisions at the Home Office and the Scottish Office. We did have some equipment, and we shall have some equipment still to dispose of when the fire service is handed back to the local authorities, and we considered it desirable to put this provision into the Resolution, because, of course, provision is made in the Bill for the Secretary of State to provide equipment for purchase by the authorities. We have visualised that local authorities might wish to facilitate the purchase of standard equipment in future, and that we should play a part with them in organising the purchase of equipment which is, in turn, to be purchased by them. It was to facilitate that that the provision was put in. I should like to indicate the type of equipment, but I think that during the war years, and, indeed, before the war started, it was found to be of great convenience for the central authority to purchase equipment when it was hurriedly needed for supply to the fire service authorities.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I understood the Joint Under-Secretary, in
  1796
  what he has just said, to indicate that there was a certain amount of fire equipment available at present for disposal to the local authorities. During the Second Reading Debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave me a reply to the effect that the equipment necessary to establish the fire services would be handed over free of cost. That seems rather to affect what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Is this equipment to be handed over to the local authorities free, or will they have to pay for it? The Secretary of State, quite definitely indicated that it would be handed over free of cost to the local authorities.
  Sir John Mellor: It seems to me that this provision is quite unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, justified the provision for central purchase on the ground that it was most necessary to have standardisation, but he has ample power to secure standardisation under Clause 20, under which he may give to any fire authority directions, determining equipment of any description specified in the direction, to be maintained by the authority. Therefore, the main argument about having any provision of this kind has been thrown away by the Home Secretary himself. I cannot see why the fire authorities should not be competent to decide upon and purchase what equipment they need, and, if measures of standardization are necessary, the Home Secretary has ample power under Clause 20 to secure that standardisation.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I thank the two hon. Members for their contributions, and I will endeavour to make the point quite clear. We have at the moment a certain amount of equipment which is used by the National Fire Service. We propose to distribute that equipment free to the incoming local authorities, on a basis which will be agreed by them. It was represented to us, in the course of the negotiations, that some local authorities would prefer that certain equipment, such as hose, with the couplings which it is very desirable should be standardised in construction, should be obtained centrally, and should be available for them by purchase. It is not proposed to set up inside either the Scottish Office or the Home Office a supply department to deal with that equipment. If it

  1797
  is found that local authorities desire this service, it will be carried out by the Ministry of Supply. I propose to move an Amendment in Committee to make it quite clear that no authority shall be compelled to purchase from the central store, if set up. If they desire to purchase their own materials, they will be free to do so, but they will, of course, have to have regard, as the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has pointed out, to the absolute necessity of having a standard form of equipment for those parts that may have to be used in conjunction with an adjoining fire service. I hope. therefore, that this power will not be operated unless there is a demand for it to be used from local authorities, but, should they so desire, they will get their supply from the Ministry of Supply, and it will not be through any department of either of the two Offices promoting the Bill.
  Mr. Shurmer: The Home Secretary has indicated that this Fire Service equipment from the N.F.S. will be distributed free to the different local authorities who may require it. I would like to ask him what will be the position of the large local authorities—I have in mind my own city which, at the outbreak of war, had one of the finest fire brigades in the country—who had some of their equipment taken from them. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to see that such authorities receive back such equipment, so that they may get back to the position in which they were at the outbreak of war? I have in mind, of course, the position of Birmingham under this new Bill. The fire service cost Birmingham a fivepenny rate in 1939. Under the new set-up, it is going to—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting on to a point quite outside the Bill. It seems to me that he is raising a matter which might properly be raised in Committee on the Bill, but which certainly cannot be raised on the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Shurmer: With due deference, Major Milner, I would point out that the Home Secretary talked about giving away surplus equipment I want to know what is going to happen to the local authorities who had to give up some of their equipment at the outbreak of war
  The Chairman: The hon. Member has made his point, but, as I have said, it cannot be discussed on the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. As he has satisfied me on the point I wished to raise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. Marlowe: I only wish to ask two points on the Motion. It is a usual criticism, when we come to a Money Resolution, that the Treasury is going too far in the expenditure of public money, but I must point out that on this occasion, the reverse is the case, because, in line 11, as the Money Resolution stands at the moment, there is a limitation of 25 per cent. of the grant which the central authority can make to a local authority. I want to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider that amount, because the limitation is really too small. It would be quite out of Order at this stage to go into the question of what the Bill compels, or may compel, a local authority to do. Indeed, I do not want to make my Second Reading speech again. The point is that the general effect of what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this Bill is to throw a very considerable burden on to the local authorities.
  The Bill is something in the nature of a sham because, while maintaining central control, the right hon. Gentleman has given the appearance of giving the fire brigades back to the local authorities; but at the same time he is pulling so many reins himself as to have complete control. He is now in the position, with the large expenditure of money with which he is concerned at the moment, that he is able to give directions to local authorities on a hundred and one different things which they may have to do in the regulation of their own fire brigades. There is nothing here to indicate where the limitation is to be drawn. It virtually amounts to this, that the right hon. Gentleman may say to a local authority that he wants them to do this and that with their fire brigade, and may involve them in considerable expenditure and, when it comes to meeting that expenditure, he may say, "I am only going to give you

  1799
  25 per cent. as a maximum." It is not necessarily 25 per cent., according to my reading of this Resolution; that is the maximum. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that figure, because this is going to throw a considerable burden on to local authorities in financing fire brigades over which virtually they have no control. There are considerable precedents for doing so. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the grants which are available for road undertakings and in the Police Bill, and in a number of other authorities. I think the grant is up to 50 per cent. in most of those cases. I ask him to consider these a least, and to come into line with them before this matter is finally concluded, and to decide to give local authorities more than a 25 per cent. grant.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: I want to add a word on the lines of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). I do not want to labour this point. It was made during the Second Reading Debate, but I was not fortunate enough to have a chance of speaking on that occasion. The county borough which I represent takes a very serious view of this 25 per cent. limitation. Before the war it managed to get by with a rate of seven-eighths of a penny for its fire services. During the war, that had gone down to five-eighths of a penny under the National Fire Service scheme. Now, under the regulations which are being imposed upon it—quite rightly, to get an efficient fire service—the rate is going to be something in the neighbourhood of 8½d. That, in view of the rises in other local authority expenditure at this time, is a very serious matter. The Home Secretary, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, rather congratulated himself on having got 25 per cent. out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he quoted a learned friend of his, Alderman Dale, in an earlier stage of the proceedings, in a very congratulatory mood.
  Mr. Ede: May I say that he is no friend of mine.
  Mr. Hughes: I apologise to my right hon. Friend, but I would like to assure him, that many county boroughs are not feeling in any congratulatory mood about this 25 per cent. limitation. I should
  1800
  have liked the opportunity to argue this point in Committee, but because of the way this Resolution is drawn, that will not now be possible. Therefore I have taken this opportunity of putting this point to the right hon Gentleman again.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I also would like to emphasise this particular point, because, as the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) has said, we shall not be able to discuss it after passing the Money Resolution. I think there is no doubt that the associations of local councils, especially in Scotland, are deeply moved about this particular figure of 25 per cent. There may be some good reason for it, but they argue that as education gets 50 per cent. and police gets 50 per cent., why must this figure of 25 per cent. be fixed in this case? If the right hon. Gentleman would give a direct answer to the question why this 25 per cent. has been fixed, it might help to allay the troubles of the local authorities who are deeply concerned about this question. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that and will give us a good reason, that may end the argument, but we ought to know why. I hope he will not say that in 1938 they got nothing. In 1938 they may not have got a grant, but they did have complete control of the fire services.
  Mr. Ede indicated dissent.
  11.0 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Even if they had not got complete control, they had far more control than they have under this Measure. Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what the 25 per cent. is based, and why that figure is chosen? —because the local authorities are deeply moved about this, and I do not blame them.
  Mr. Shurmer: I am sorry to intervene again, but on the Second Reading of the Bill I felt rather "sore" because, having been a member of a local authority for 26 years and having been on the fire brigade committee, there was a lot I would like to have said, but, unfortunately, there is not much I can say now. My local authority in Birmingham are very much opposed to this figure of 25 per cent., in so far as a great local authority like that, controlling one of the finest fire brigades in the country, in pre-war days

  1801
  had a 5½d. rate. The new set-up will cost half a million pounds or a 1s. 1d. rate, and, whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, we shall have no control over that fire brigade. We shall be told what men we must employ, what equipment we must have, what wages we must pay, and we shall be directed as to disciplinary action, the appointment of the chief officer and the schools to which the men shall go for training. A local authority, if they are going to control their fire brigade, do not mind what money is required to be paid out of the rates, but they strongly object to having to pay 75 per cent. of the cost and to have virtually no control over their fire brigade. I wish to make my protest on behalf of the City of Birmingham. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter before the Bill comes to this House for its Third Reading, and will give a larger grant to local authorities. As it is, they are going to lose control of their fire brigades; they are going to put out the fires, and pay for it.
  Sir J. Mellor: Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have protested that the way in which the Money Resolution is drawn will restrict discussion. The trouble is that exactly the same figure has been put in the Money Resolution as has been put in the Bill. I submit that the figure in the Money Resolution should have been somewhat greater so as to widen the terms of the Money Resolution and permit adequate debate. In the Second Reading, it was obvious that every speech, except those from the Government Bench, advocated an increase in the rate of grant to local fire brigade authorities. That being so, it is rather unfortunate that the Government should persist in keeping the terms of the Resolution so tight. I interrupted the Under-Secretary in his winding up speech, to ask if the Government would withdraw this Money Resolution and substitute one drawn in rather wider terms, in order to enable Debate to take place in Committee, and he replied that, of course, Debate would be able to take place, because there was a Clause in the Bill.
  It is true there is Clause 25, which provides for exactly the same rate of grant as appears in the Money Resolution, and it would be competent for anyone in Committee to move to reduce that amount to something less than 25 per cent., but, as I have pointed out, every single speech
  1802
  on the Second Reading, except from the Government Front Bench, advocated an increase. So the Clause will not be helpful to the Committee. What the Committee will want to discuss will be whether or not 25 per cent. is adequate. While they might be able to discuss it, to some extent, on the Question that the Clause stand part, in order to discuss it in a proper way it should be possible for an Amendment to be put down to increase the amount. With the Money Resolution as drawn, that, of course, will be quite impossible. I submit that the Government are not being fair in dealing with this matter of, perhaps, the most vital importance of all. Compared with the Second Reading, hon. Members will hardly be able to touch on it at all. The Government should reconsider the terms of this Money Resolution so that the Debates that take place in Standing Committee may represent the feeling which was shown on all sides of the House during Second Reading, and in order that this very important point may be fully thrashed out. I hope the Government will consider this point very seriously, because it is not a party point at all; it is one on which there is universal feeling that the matter ought to be seriously considered.
  Mr. Pargiter: The Committee should remember that the agitation to get the fire services handed hack to the local authorities started with the local authorities—and very rightly. They wanted the services back. It is equally true to say that they would have undertaken, presumably, to have met the cost of those services, as they did prior to the war. The alarming fact is the estimate in this Bill as to what the cost of those services will be. It is appalling to think that our fire services in the country, having regard to the known efficiency of all the larger authorities, will cost approximately four times as much in the postwar period as they did in the prewar period. That is a factor which is most alarming to the local authorities who will be charged with this responsibility. What they are afraid of is, that the Department will have a tendency to ask them to live up to the £12 million rather than concentrate on the question of the efficiency of the service, which might be maintained at a lesser figure. They are not left very much scope, if they are given orders to do things which

  1803
  they might not think absolutely necessary in the interests of an efficient service.
  There ought not to be this very wide gap between the prewar cost and the postwar cost, to justify the figure which is included in this Bill. If it were possible to bring that figure down and the Home Secretary agreed, even if the figure were to be reduced the cost to the Treasury need not necessarily be reduced, but could remain at the maximum figure of £3 million, which has been suggested. That might be worth consideration and examination with the idea of maintaining an efficient service. In the knowledge that the efficiency they produced would not necessarily reduce the amount they had to recover from the Treasury, they would at least be given some degree of encouragement. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to consider the possibility of giving, at any rate for some fairly considerable time, a fixed maximum grant based on the maximum figure provided, if that is all we can get out of it, with a view to seeing whether we cannot get the figure of £12 million down to some more recognisable figure within the purview of the local authorities.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) started his remarks by saying that local authorities clamoured for the return of these services. I do not know quite what happened in England, but in Scotland, at any rate, the position was, that something like one in six, in reply to a request by a circular on choice, answered that they would like to have the service handed back to the National Fire Service. I should think one of the main reasons why they said that was because in so doing, presumably, they would have to pay nothing and the National Fire Service would pay everything. Of the remainder, quite a number said they would like to have the services handed over to the joint committees. But one or two, like my own county, for example, very cannily said they would like to have them handed over to the committees, provided that there was an adequate Government grant. I do not know whether this has been taken into consideration sufficiently. There is no doubt whatsoever that these local authorities do not regard 25 per cent. as an adequate Government grant, especially as it involved rural districts, particularly, in an enormously increased
  1804
  cost. In some cases it is six, eight and ten times more than they were paying in 1939–40.
  In those circumstances, it is quite obvious that the 25 per cent. grant from the Treasury is quite inadequate. There is no means of compensating it otherwise, particularly as joint committees have already been set up in Scotland. They have more or less committed themselves to sharing on a flat basis between burghs and rural areas. They have committed themselves, so that now they cannot have differential rates. Thus it is that rural areas are particularly hard hit in this matter, and the 25 per cent. grant would go nowhere near giving them anything like justice in this matter. I quote one example, the example of the County of Dumfries, where, in 1938, the cost of the fire service was a little over £1,000. Under the new scheme it is going to cost something like £20,000 in the whole county, and would go to 25,000 on the three-shift basis. In those circumstances, the 25 per cent. grant would be a mere drop in the bucket.
  Mr. Younger: I should not be addressing the Committee at this stage if we had had any argument so far for this 25 per cent. grant to which we could attempt a reply. During the Second Reading Debate hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to this point. My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that neither he nor the Under-Secretary of State told us anything about the method by which this figure had been reached. We were told by the Secretary of State simply that there never before had been a grant, and we had been lucky to get this; and when the Under-Secretary came to reply, he was at pains to say this was not on all fours with the police force; but the only distinction he was able to draw was, that in deciding the remuneration costs local authorities were directly concerned with the joint industrial machinery, whereas now that machinery would be worked as between the council and the Home Secretary.
  That may be true, but, of course, in practice, it is not a very big distinction, when we think of the great expense that is going to fall on the local authorities in this matter. They will take pretty cold comfort from the fact that they themselves are concerned directly in the joint in-

  1805
  dustrial machinery. The Under-Secretary admitted immediately afterwards that the discretion of the Secretary of State in questions of remuneration will be closely limited by the fact that he will have to take the advice, and abide by the decisions, of those engaged in the joint industrial council.
  The expenditure in which the local authorities are involved is very heavy, and the restrictions or their discretion in running these forces are very considerable, covering every phase of their activities. I think we are entitled to hear from the Home Secretary why he is offering a grant which, so far as I know, is the minimum of grants that are offered in any comparable case, and much lower than in most of the other cases, whether we take education, health, or the police. The Government have given no argument in the Debate on Second Reading, and have excluded the thing from discussion on the Committee stage of the Money Resolution. It would be a lamentable thing if we were to allow this Bill to go right through the House without any argument having been advanced.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): There have been three Home Secretaries concerned with handing back the National Fire Service to the local authorities—my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, my immediate predecessor, Sir Donald Somervell and myself. My two predecessors, which shows that on this matter at any rate there was no party bias, told the local authorities brutally and frankly that they would get these services back but that there would be no Government grant.
  Mr. Shurmer: But no control of the fire services.
  Mr. Ede: I was just going to say that. There would be greater central control than before. I read the appropriate quotation from a speech by Sir Donald Somervell during the Second Reading Debate. When I took office I had at a very early date a meeting with the local authorities. They asked me whether it was possible to get a grant. I told them that I thought it was unlikely. I could make them no promise at all, but I said that I would go to the Treasury. I quoted
  1806
  the remark that was made by the leader of the Association of Municipal Corporations when I said I would go. They did not expect that I would get a penny. I did not expect myself to get very much. The reason that the grant is 25 per cent. is that that was as much as I could get. It is infinity per cent. more than anybody else ever obtained for the local authorities in this matter.
  Figures have been quoted tonight and were quoted last Thursday which must indicate to anyone that there are some people who have shamefully neglected their duty in this matter in the past. There are some great local authorities, like that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) which had efficient services before the war. I do not accept the figures that have been compiled by municipal treasurers and town clerks and handed to Members for Parliament to use in these Debates, because the establishments have not yet been fixed, and I propose that the responsibility for the first draft of the establishments should be placed fairly and squarely on the local authorities.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: In Scotland it was the Secretary of State who himself said that his Department at St. Andrew's House worked out the establishments on the estimated cost.
  Mr. Ede: Yes, but the Secretary of State for Scotland managed to reach a greater measure of agreement with the local authorities than I was able to do. I understand that the Schedule to the Bill represents I do not say complete agreement—and I am not going to enter into the difficulties of Scottish local government and the relationships with the Scottish Office—but a general agreement as to the appropriate areas into which the country is to be divided.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But they were never consulted.
  Mr. Ede: I happen to know that that is not the truth.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Secretary of State for Scotland himself said that he consulted the fire committee or some body but the counties themselves were never consulted.
  Mr. Ede: I was present at a conference at which the Scottish counties were repre-

  1807
  sented where they expressed their agreement with the Schedule to the Bill. I took no part in the discussion. It was a rest for me. I was wrestling with the English local authorities, and I was amazed at the skill and energy with which so small a person, physically, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland disposed of his differences with the local authorities.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With great respect—
  Mr. Ede: I am not going to give away again.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Secretary of State for Scotland told us otherwise.
  Mr. Ede: Probably he was very modest. So far as expense is concerned, that is entirely governed by three factors—the number of men employed, the hours fixed for their employment and their rate of pay. So far as the hours fixed for their employment are concerned, that is a matter which has already been decided for England and Wales by a Joint Industrial Council on which local authorities and representatives of the men have been in negotiation with one another. As the local authorities were to take over from 1st April, 1948, it did not seem right to me that the negotiations should be conducted between the Home Office and the employees, and then for the local authorities to be asked to foot the bill after negotiations in which they were not concerned. As regards hours of duty agreement was reached on a 60-hour week: it is true that as regards rates of pay no agreement was reached, and the matter went to arbitration, and then, as a result of that arbitration, the present rates of pay were fixed. No local authority had a 60-hour week before the war started. London had agreed in 1938 that there should be a 60-hour week, but had not implemented that up to the outbreak of the war. The 60-hour week represents, even in a progressive area like Birmingham, a very substantial increase in the cost, and, of course, it will mean a substantial increase in the number of whole-time men employed in the big centres.
  The rates of pay, again, were settled as a result of an arbitration agreed to
  1808
  by a Joint Industrial Council on which the local authorities were represented, and they were arrived at with their knowledge and consent before any promise of any grant at all had been made. Such expense as has been incurred has been reached by local authorities through the Joint Industrial Council machinery before the date when any grant could have been anticipated by them. The grant, therefore, is a matter which has come, to the extent that it has come, as a relief to the expenditure they had consented to bear. It would be out of order for me at this stage to deal with the question of how far the Government has obtained additional control under this Measure as compared with the 1938 Measure, because these are matters which can be dealt with during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I venture, however, to say this. I heard It said so often on Thursday last that the Government were taking additional powers that I thought it must be true, and I went very carefully through the 1938 Act and compared the powers the Secretary of State had then with the powers that will be given to the Secretary of State under this Measure. I think that it is safe to say this. There is nothing in this Bill which was not in the 1938 Act, but, I have weakened my powers in one respect. That is that I have no power in this Bill to supersede a local authority—a fire authority—whose fire service I regard as inefficient. I regret that it is not possible to hold out any hope that this grant can be increased. I would say that I believe that it represents a reasonably generous—and I will not put it any higher than that—gesture by the Government. No other Government, neither the Coalition nor the caretaker Government, was prepared to look at a grant for the fire service. The line of argument has been that there is no service as local as the fire service, and, therefore, the cost should be borne one hundred per cent. by the locality. I have succeeded in securing a grant for the service. My own experience is that I have never known a Government grant, once made, to be decreased. I am making no prophecies regarding the future.
  The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) made the point that it is to be a maximum of 25 per cent. This is the one weapon which I think I have to secure an efficient fire service

  1809
  throughout the country. The way in which grants are operated to secure efficiency is to make deductions if a service in a given area is not efficient. Therefore, no matter what figure was put in the Bill, it would always be "grant not exceeding X per cent.", so that the Secretary of State could, by withdrawal, or reduction, express disapproval and take such steps as might be necessary to bring the service up to efficiency. I have known in the education and police services substantial deductions made from grants because it was thought that the authority administering the service was not efficient. If the Secretary of State gave a 50 per cent. grant, the complete withdrawal would be far more effective than the complete withdrawal of a 25 per cent. grant, and to that extent the power of the central authority to control the fire authorities is diminished, and I have no doubt that some of the local authorities will be able practically to disregard any threat made to withdraw the grant.
  When I went to the Treasury to get this grant I expected to be disappointed. When I came back I hoped there might have been, here and there, some slight whisper of praise. I have been so much abused for having got more than anyone else has ever got that I shall be very chary in future of going to the Treasury arid asking for the local authorities any contributions of that sort. It may be that Amendments will be made in the Bill and in the end some local authorities will say, "Give us the 1938 position and keep the 25 per cent grant." I am quite sure that if they do, the Treasury will instruct me not to refuse the offer.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: I am surprised at what the Home Secretary said in his opening remarks. I wonder if the Committee were fully seized of it. He said that three Home Secretaries of different political complexions had had discussions both with the local authorities and the Chancellor, and that he was the first one to get anything out of the Chancellor. But he is the first Home Secretary who has brought this matter to the House of Commons and surely the House of Commons, at the end, is the master. I must say that I was astonished that he should simply say, "Well, I have managed to get 25 per cent. out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my two predecessors could
  1810
  get nothing, and so that is my case." But this is the first time that this matter has come to the House of Commons, and Members on both sides have said "This is not enough." It is an extraordinary attitude to adopt to say that these discussions went on before, and to say therefore that this must be the right thing, ignoring the fact that this is the first time that the House has had an opportunity of saying anything about it. The Home Secretary complained of the reception he got. But imagine what reception his two predecessors would have had, if they had come to the House and said that they could get nothing. But there was a point in what was said by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). It might be that the total cost of the fire service, by means of reforms, could be reduced, and that the Treasury need not produce any more money than the £3 million which was expected, and that might perhaps come to a 35 per cent. grant.
  Our complaint is that we cannot even discuss it under this Financial Resolution. The Home Secretary has made it impossible to discuss any application of this money, in any different manner from the one set down, although it might not in the end cost the Treasury any more. The Financial Resolution is restricted so much, that we cannot even discuss these matters on it. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer previously came down to the House and said, "I have £11 million or so which I can give away. I can let the House discuss it, and I will decide how I will distribute that money in the light of the discussion in the House." That seemed to us to be a reasonable proposition. Why should it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "I have so much money to allow under the fire services Estimate—£3 million"? Why not let the House discuss how that is to be spent? But it is not possible under this Financial Resolution. We are tied down to 25 per cent., although the Committee on all sides is against it as being too small, and it precludes us discussing any other method such as that adumbrated by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter). We do protest that this Financial Resolution precludes proper discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill. All we can do is to register our protest. We cannot change the Financial Resolution, and we

  1811
  shall not vote against it, for that would merely be voting against what we have got. I emphatically protest against the drawing of this Financial Resolution in such a manner that when we get to the Committee stage this question cannot be discussed, although on all sides of the Committee views have been expressed that this amount is insufficient.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of Order, Major Milner. I am in rather a difficulty as a Scottish Member. So far as the Home Secretary has replied to this Debate, he seems to be completely in the dark as to what the Secretary of State for Scotland has already said, and our argu-
  1812
  ments were based rather on what that Minister said. Is there any way in which we can get some redress on that matter?
  The Chairman: That does not seem to me to be a point of Order which I can answer at this stage.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

FOOD SUPPLIES
  Condemned Cereal Food
  Condemned Cereal Food
  Strawberry Prices
  Strawberry Prices
  Local Executive Officers
  Local Executive Officers
  Tuberculosis Patients (Bacon)
  Tuberculosis Patients (Bacon)
RAILWAYS
  Delays
  Delays
  Service, Aberdeen
  Service, Aberdeen
ROADS
  London Transport Conductors
  London Transport Conductors
  Otley—Ilkley Bus Service
  Otley—Ilkley Bus Service
  Accidents (Junction A.580 and A.573)
  Accidents (Junction A.580 and A.573)
SHIPPING
  West Africa (Priority Passages)
  West Africa (Priority Passages)
  Continental Services (Fuel Economy)
  Continental Services (Fuel Economy)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  U.S. and German Ships
  U.S. and German Ships
  INLAND NAVIGATION
  INLAND NAVIGATION
AGRICULTURE
  Snow and Flood Losses
  Snow and Flood Losses
  Louth Drainage Board (Rates)
  Louth Drainage Board (Rates)
  Machinery (Hiring Charges)
  Machinery (Hiring Charges)
  Machinery Maintenance
  Machinery Maintenance
  Feedingstuffs
  Feedingstuffs
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Children's Bicycles
  Children's Bicycles
  Surplus Radio Components
  Surplus Radio Components
  Electric Motors (Germany)
  Electric Motors (Germany)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Electric Conduit Tubing
  Electric Conduit Tubing
  Liquid Paraffin
  Liquid Paraffin
  Discharges (Elderly Employees)
  Discharges (Elderly Employees)
  Margam Project, Wales
  Margam Project, Wales
  Tudor Aircraft (Contract)
  Tudor Aircraft (Contract)
  Motor Spare Parts
  Motor Spare Parts
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Motorcar Tyres
  Motorcar Tyres
  Wheat Straw Price, Scotland
  Wheat Straw Price, Scotland
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
  Spring Balances (Onion Sellers)
  Spring Balances (Onion Sellers)
  Factories, North Wales
  Factories, North Wales
  Giant Tyres, Lincolnshire
  Giant Tyres, Lincolnshire
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Business Premises, Manchester (Alterations)
  Business Premises, Manchester (Alterations)
  Office Premises, Glasgow
  Office Premises, Glasgow
  Motor Lorry, Weymouth (Delivery)
  Motor Lorry, Weymouth (Delivery)
  American Excavators (Purchases)
  American Excavators (Purchases)
  Westminster Hall (Roof Repairs)
  Westminster Hall (Roof Repairs)
  Water Tower, Micheldever (Sale)
  Water Tower, Micheldever (Sale)
  Building Industries (Reports)
  Building Industries (Reports)
  Buckingham Palace (Repair Work)
  Buckingham Palace (Repair Work)
  YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  TREATIES OF ALLIANCE (MIDDLE EAST)
  TREATIES OF ALLIANCE (MIDDLE EAST)
BULGARIA
  Currency Transactions, Sofia
  Currency Transactions, Sofia
  Elections (Reports)
  Elections (Reports)
  ISLAND OF LUSSINPICCOLO
  ISLAND OF LUSSINPICCOLO
  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  GERMAN EXTERNAL ASSETS
  GERMAN EXTERNAL ASSETS
  SUDAN (FLOGGING, RESTRICTIONS)
  SUDAN (FLOGGING, RESTRICTIONS)
  ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAK MONETARY AGREEMENT
  ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAK MONETARY AGREEMENT
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT
HOUSING
  Rent Tribunals, Leicester
  Rent Tribunals, Leicester
  Huts, Madley Aerodrome
  Huts, Madley Aerodrome
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Water and Sewerage Schemes, Berkshire
  Water and Sewerage Schemes, Berkshire
  National Service (Specialists' Salaries)
  National Service (Specialists' Salaries)
  RESETTLEMENT OFFICERS
  RESETTLEMENT OFFICERS
  RESPIRATORS
  RESPIRATORS
  POLICE COLLEGE (CHIEF CONSTABLES)
  POLICE COLLEGE (CHIEF CONSTABLES)
BRITISH ARMY
  Release Group 45 (M.E.L.F.)
  Release Group 45 (M.E.L.F.)
  Connaught Military Hospital, Bramshott
  Connaught Military Hospital, Bramshott
  SOMALILAND TERRITORIES (BRITISH MILITARY ADMINISTRATION)
  SOMALILAND TERRITORIES (BRITISH MILITARY ADMINISTRATION)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Families (Overseas Stations)
  Families (Overseas Stations)
  Lodging Allowances
  Lodging Allowances
  Civilian Employees (Tarrant Rushton)
  Civilian Employees (Tarrant Rushton)
  VOLUNTEER ARMED FORCES
  VOLUNTEER ARMED FORCES
POST OFFICE
  Delayed Telegram
  Delayed Telegram
  Cleckheaton
  Cleckheaton
  HOCKLEY PUBLIC HALL
  HOCKLEY PUBLIC HALL
  EMERGENCY TRAINED TEACHERS
  EMERGENCY TRAINED TEACHERS
  MINING MACHINERY
  MINING MACHINERY
  WOMEN'S LAND ARMY, SCOTLAND
  WOMEN'S LAND ARMY, SCOTLAND
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  CROWN PROCEEDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, in moving as I do that this Bill be now read a third time, I desire to take this opportunity of saying just a few words to commend this Motion to your Lordships. I should like to express my sense of the indebtedness which I feel to all noble Lords who have judicial experience and who sit in this House for the help they have given me in regard to this Bill. I should like to thank, in particular, my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon, who has called together an informal committee of those of your Lordships who sit on appeals in order that this Bill might be investigated not only clause by clause but line by line; and I have caused to be available for them the Treasury Solicitor and the draftsmen, to whom I have already on a previous occasion paid my acknowledgments.
  I have also bum in touch with the heads of the various Divisions—the Lord Chief justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Divorce Division—and with a very large number of other Judges who have great experience in this matter, and I think I may fairly say that this Bill receives the unanimous approval of the entire Bench of Judges. There are those who, because the Judges in Lord Ellen-borough's time took rather a recalcitrant view' with regard to certain criminal re-forms—in which, I may say, the Bishops supported them—seem to think that lawyers have always been opposed to any kind of reform. I hope that this Bill is a complete answer to any such contention. This Bill is a Bill for which the legal profession has been pressing for the
  924
  last twenty years, and I count it as a great good fortune that it has fallen to my lot to bring it forward.
  Lest it be thought that various clauses which have not been the subject of debate in the Committee stage of this Bill have been passed over without special notice, I wish to refer in particular to a question to which I mentioned on Second Reading—namely, the question of discovery. I should like your Lordships all to know that this question, as to the right method of dealing with discovery, has been the subject of most anxious consideration, and that the result specified in the Bill is the result at which we have unanimously arrived. I mention it again because I think this matter is of the first importance. During the preparation of this Bill, and in consultation with your Lordships, we have discussed this matter. I find a unanimity of view—namely, that the final decision as to whether a document should or should not be produced must be left, in the words of Lord Parker in a famous case, the Zamora, to "those who are responsible for the national security, who must be the sole judges of what the national security requires." I have heard it stated that the right thing to do in the interests of a subject who is a party to litigation with the Crown is to leave it to the Judge trying the case to say whether the document should or should not be produced. The matter has been dealt with as fully as it can be by my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon in his judgment in the Thetis case, where he quotes the opinion of Chief Baron Pollock, of Lord Dunedin and of Lord Kinnear.
  The reasons why the decision must be left to the executive are plain enough. In the first case, the Judge cannot possibly inform himself of all the relevant factors which may or may not contribute to the view that the production of a particular document would be injurious to the public interest. The interactions, for example, of policy and machinery governing the administration of the Service Departments are so complex that it would be virtually impossible to deal with a single document in isolation. I dare say—as my noble friend Viscount Simon pointed out—there is the reason that if the Crown is a party to the litigation the Court could scarcely take a decision on the question of whether a particular document ought to be produced without contravening the

  925
  elementary principle of justice that a Judge should have no dealings with one litigant on the matter in hand save in the presence of and in 'the equal knowledge of the other.
  I also stated on Second Reading that, in my judgment, the functions conferred on Ministers of the Crown in these matters are of a most serious nature. I pointed out that the administration of justice is of the greatest importance, that every relevant document ought to be produced, and it is only if the Minister really applies himself to the particular question as to whether the public interest overweighs the ordinary principle of disclosure that he is justified in giving a certificate refusing discovery. I think it would be right that I should inform the House that I have it in mind to communicate with my colleagues on this point, after the Bill is passed into law, in order—possibly by a directive of the Prime Minister himself—that the importance of this matter might be brought to the attention of all Ministers concerned. I will conclude by adding this. This Bill represents the joint effort of many of your Lordships of all Parties, and of no Party. I sincerely hope that, now that we are sending this Bill to another place, all Parties in that other place will work together to ensure that this Bill safely reaches the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  2.43 p.m.
  Viscount SIMON: My Lords, now that we are saying farewell to this measure which has been piloted through the House with such tact and ability by my noble friend, the Lord Chancellor, I think it right that we should look back on our labours and declare that they are very good. My noble friends and I are very appreciative of what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has been good enough to say about the help he has received, and he knows very well that it has been most willingly given. The Bill is a complete piece of construction dealing with a subject which in some respects is not at all easy.
  Now that we are sending it to another place I think we are entitled to remind ourselves, and anybody else who is con-
  926
  cerned in examining or criticizing it, that it has not been accepted without close examination, and that we in this House have in this field, as we have in so many other fields, members who can really claim to be qualified to form an opinion and to offer a judgment on some of the special difficulties involved. That has certainly been done in this case, and I wish it were thought proper that I should recite the names of all of my colleagues in the law who have joined me in rendering such help as we could. I think the Bill has been greatly improved in the course of its passage through this House. It was very well drafted, but when one examines these clauses one at a time one finds here and there something which could undoubtedly be changed for the better. That process has never, I think, been more carefully and thoroughly pursued than in the present instance.
  I must say one word in support of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just said about the clause dealing with discovery. As he reminded your Lordships, the provision in substance is that if what is required is the discovery— the disclosure — of Crown documents (which for practical purposes means certain departmental documents), it must be for the ministerial head of that Department to decide, after due deliberation and after weighing the matter as it ought to be weighed and as the law has laid down that it should be weighed. I am not at all disposed to favour any special indulgence to Ministers of the Crown. They are citizens like the rest of us, and they take the rough with the smooth. The law and the Judges are above them in all possible matters, just as they are above any others. We shall all agree about that. But when it comes to asking for the production of a document which is in the hands of a Government Department, very special considerations necessarily arise. After all, the public interest is something bigger than any private interest, and indeed it is to the interest of every private citizen that the public interest should be properly served. There is no contrast between the two things, but the question is, where does the public interest lie? If it is in the public interest, properly defined, that a particular document should not be produced, then it is not a question of what is ordinarily called discovery between the parties; it involves

  927
  the far higher principle of the safety and proper administration of the State.
  I remember that at an earlier stage the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor gave an example. It is one with which, in the days when I was Attorney-General, I actually had to deal in a case which was being very keenly contested. As your Lordships know, every year the commander of every unit in the different Forces of the Crown makes his annual report to the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Ministry as the case may be on the junior officers under his command. He reports as to their ability, as to their diligence, as to their suitability for their work and as to any serious defects which he has noticed in them. If you are going to have an effective Force at all, you must have that system. The question arose in the case I have in mind of whether that report could be produced in a litigation in which one of these junior officers was concerned. I may perhaps say that it would have suited the Crown very well (I represented the Crown) to have produced it in that case, but I thought it was perfectly right for the Secretary of State to refuse to produce it, and on the simple ground that if once you permit these confidential reports made annually by commanding officers to be disclosed, you can never expect in the future that you will get commanding officers to report absolutely candidly, even though their reports may contain some unpleasant or unfavourable reflections. Therefore it is in the essential interest of the State—in the public interest—that such reports should not be disclosed. Upon the claim being made in all due form by the Minister who had studied the case and examined the document, the document was not produced; and I think that was quite right.
  My noble friend referred just now to the Thetis case. It is old history now, but what was desired there by the plaintiffs was to have produced to them then and there the blue prints which would have shown exactly how the submarine Thetis was constructed. I do not say that that would not have been of some little assistance to them; it would not have been of much assistance, I think, but it would have been of some. I do not think I am disclosing any secret nowadays when I say that if those blue prints had been
  928
  produced it would have appeared that submarines of the type of the Thetis were not only armed so that they could fire forwards under the water but that there were also further tubes which could fire from behind. That was a secret and we were at war with the Germans. I have not the slightest doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty was justified when after considering this particular circumstance, he came to the conclusion that he should say, "I am sorry, but I must claim privilege for these particular blue prints." It did not in fact do the plaintiffs any harm in the end, because their case was perfectly well made out without them, but it is a very good example of what I mean when I say that you really cannot (not even in a democratic community which treats everybody as equal to everybody else, or ought to do so) simply say, "The document is relevant; therefore let the Department produce it."
  But while that is so—and my noble friend was good enough to refer to the judgment of the House of Lords about this matter, in which I took a part—it is most essential to insist upon the way in which the Minister is to claim this privilege. I endeavoured to set it out in the course of the opinion to which my noble friend has referred. Let me point out three or four things. The Minister is not entitled to say, "I claim privilege for this document because if it were disclosed things would not look very well in my Department." He is not allowed to do that. He is not allowed to say, "If I disclose this document it would get the Government into trouble." That has nothing to do with it. He is not entitled to refuse to disclose it because the document is marked "Confidential"; no end of documents are marked in that way. He has got to claim privilege because, after being properly advised, he has come to the conclusion himself, as a matter of his individual judgment, that the particular document is one, or is one of a class, which it would be against the public interest to produce.
  Once he comes to that conclusion, I agree entirely with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that that must be a matter which is decided by the Minister and that it cannot, as some people have suggested, be decided by the Judge. In the first place, I cannot conceive how a Judge could have the material to decide it. He would need to go, in effect, and sit in the Minister's chair, in his Depart-

  929
  ment. He would need to call for other documents to understand the relation of this one to others. He would need to learn the methods of the Department, and that would be perfectly impracticable. Believe me, as a matter of practical possibility, it simply could not be done. The second reason, which appeals to me very strongly, is in regard to cases where the Crown is a litigant. Just imagine the injustice which might be involved if the Judge were to say to the representative of the Department: "Will you let me look at your privileged document for a moment? "He may then begin to ask questions about it of the representative of the Department. He may ask: "What is that reference?" and say: "Show me that other document." All the time he will be conferring with the one side when, in the nature of things, he cannot show anything to the other. If he shows it to both sides it would be the same thing as disclosing it before the matter is decided. Therefore, in my judgment, it is perfectly impracticable to allow anything of the sort.
  What we have to rely on—and I would willingly devise any other method if one occurred to me—is the uprightness of the Ministers who are properly advised by skilled, fearless, loyal, independent members of the Civil Service. In common practice, I think, the Treasury Solicitor is asked to join in the consultation in cases of difficulty. For my part, I speak only of the Treasury Solicitors I have known, and I would put the greatest confidence in their complete independence of judgment. They would most certainly prevent a Minister who, from personal reasons, Party reasons or improper reasons, wanted to prevent a document from being produced. I ventured to occupy your Lordships' time a little with those remarks because I feel so strongly that while there is a great deal that may be decided by the Judge I do not believe it is a practical course, and I find that many of those who have been among the best judges realize that to the full.
  That is all I want to say in commending this Bill, except one other brief observation. I see on the Minutes that there is, among the list of Bills which are described as "Waiting for Second Reading," a little production of my own; a misshapen, or, at any rate, a very imperfect Bill, which I now assign to the
  930
  waste paper basket. I have therefore given notice to those at the Table that I withdraw the Bill, and I am here, with due solemnity but with much satisfaction, wringing the neck of this callow fledgling which I am glad to think has never for a moment delayed or obstructed the hatching and the bringing to perfection of this magnificent prize fowl which will rightly bear the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I beg to support the Motion that this Bill be now read a third time.
  2.57 p.m.
  Viscount MAUGHAM: My Lords, I wish to add only one or two words in supporting this Motion, and I do so because in the course of a long career at the Bar and on the Bench I have often come across matters which were, directly or indirectly, connected with the subject of this Bill. When it was first produced I was, I am afraid, ignorant of the callow fledgling about which we have just heard. I was interested in this Bill, and I may say that, with the assistance of my noble friend who is, I think, going to say something on the Motion, I went through this Bill more than once, with great care, and examined every word to be found in it. If I was able—and I am afraid other people were more able in that respect—to add something to the present form of the Bill, I would count myself as being exceedingly fortunate. The Bill, well as it was drafted, has, I doubt not, been greatly improved in this House, particularly in reference to the addition of the first clause of the Bill which now helps greatly to show the matters which the Bill is designed to put right.
  I will add only that the whole matter is so complex and goes back over such a distant period of English law, beginning with 25 Ed. 1;c. 18, right down to the present period, that it would be amazing if it were an example of absolute perfection. It is possible that there are one or two gaps in the Bill which will, at some date, be filled, but for myself I am perfectly satisfied that as it stands it is a most useful measure. It removes our law from criticism which has been brought against it during the last five and twenty years, and it may be commended with the greatest confidence to the consideration of another place. I thank the noble and learned Viscount,

  931
  the Lord Chancellor, for the way in which he has received all suggestions of improvement in this Bill. Whether he was able to accept them all or not, I am quite satisfied that he considered them with the greatest desire to do what was right, and to leave this Bill in the most perfect state which conditions permit.
  3.0 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I ventured to say on the Second Reading of this Bill that it seemed preeminently a measure which should have its First Reading in your Lordships' House, and I think the policy which led to its introduction in this House has been amply justified by its subsequent history up to date. As one of the lower forms of legal life, who intruded himself at a respectful distance, into the company of the eminent on this subject, I think we may congratulate ourselves on having substantially improved the Bill in the course of its still comparatively short life. I wondered a little, as I heard the noble and learned Viscount making his statement to-day in connexion with Clause 28, whether perhaps he made it in response to a certain disquiet which I think has animated the legal profession in regard to that particular clause of the Bill. I think those doubts and anxieties will be very substantially allayed by what he and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, have just said. That there was disquiet in people's minds has evidenced itself in many ways, but perhaps in one small way by the number of various Amendments which I have had sent to me, with the suggestion that I should submit them. I have refused to take any action upon them, because I was satisfied that the procedure set out in the Bill is the right one. It is essentially a question of policy, and a question of policy must be a matter for a member of the Executive and not for a member of the Judiciary.
  For the rest, what I intended to say to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, has been largely made unnecessary by the fact that he himself volunteered to see that what I was going to suggest would be done: that is, to circulate some form of memorandum, synchronizing with the coming into law of this Bill, which would bring to the minds of his colleagues their heavy personal responsibility in these
  932
  matters. It is a personal responsibility, and when the Bill says "a Minister" it means not someone in the Department but the Minister himself. I think it will bring considerable satisfaction and relief to the minds of many people, if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack finds himself able to address his colleagues in those terms. The Bill will go forward with the general good wishes of all members of this House, who hope that, once it is passed into law, it will go far to afford to the subject ampler justice than he has been able to obtain in the past.
  3.5 p.m.
  Lord SIMONDS: My Lords, I would occupy only one or two minutes of your Lordships' time. Perhaps I might invite your Lordships' indulgence because twenty-five or more years ago I was in at the beginning of this hunt. Now I see, with great satisfaction, this Bill pursuing its way to another place. I do not rise to indulge in congratulation, or even self-congratulation, in this matter but merely to assure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of one thing: that is, that I believe nobody who has had judicial experience will challenge one word that he has said on the clause in regard to which he has betrayed, I think, a little anxiety as to what will happen in another place. Nobody who has had any judicial experience would quarrel with the view that it is not for the Judge but for the Minister ultimately to decide whether or not it is in the public interest that documents should be disclosed.
  His Majesty's judges undertake great responsibility, though matters of life and liberty will, of course, ultimately lie in the hands of the jury, subject to the Judges' directions and under their grave responsibility. Matters of honour and fortune are also the responsibility of His Majesty's judges. But I believe it would be putting upon them a wholly undue burden to suggest that it is for them to decide whether or not it is in the public interest that some document or other should or should not be disclosed. That is a matter on which they cannot be competent to decide, because they have not the knowledge. It is unfair to them to ask that they should undertake that burden, and it is not fair to the public that that burden should be discharged by someone who, ex hypothesi, has not

  933
  the knowledge adequately to discharge it. Therefore, I would assure the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—I speak for myself and, I believe, for every one what has had any judicial experience—that he is wholly right in adopting the policy which he has adopted in regard to this clause of the Bill. With regard to the rest of the Bill, it has the blessing of all those who are interested in this branch of the law.
  On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

PENICILLIN BILL. [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (The Earl Of Listowel): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Marley. After the noble Lord moved an Amendment to Clause 1 of this Bill in Committee I undertook to see whether I could meet his point by drafting before the Third Reading of the Bill was reached, another Amendment which was not subject to the same objection. I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord that I have done my best. With the help of my expert advisers from the Ministry of Health, and in consultation with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, both of whom were good enough to give this problem their personal attention, I have considered with the utmost care three alternative Amendments. I regret to inform the noble Lord that each of them, if included in the Bill, would create new difficulties, more serious than those which would be overcome. I am sure it would be pointless in this House to insist on introducing any Amendment into the Bill which would invite criticism in another place and probably be deleted. I shall now ask the Department to make a fresh effort to find a form of words to meet the noble Lord's point, and I can assure him that the Minister will give this matter his personal attention. If a suitable formula can be found, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will introduce as an
Amendment such a formula during the passage of the Bill through another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I am a little surprised at what the noble Lord just said. It seems to me rather a weak way of expressing the importance of your Lordships' House to suggest that it should be a deterrent on our part to move any Amendment or to express any opinion, because it might not be acceptable to another place. I rather gathered that there was a fear that if we did something the other place might take exception to it. I am prepared to move anything here if I believe in it, and to take a chance on what they do in another place. I am a little sorry that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, cannot be accepted. I have had experience of this particular drug. Two friends of mine have very nearly been killed by it, and only last week one of your Lordships told me that he had been treated with it and had suffered therefrom. When he asked the doctor who administered the drug about it, he was told "You are suffering from penicillin poisoning." He said: "Thank you very much. You administered it hoping that it would do me good. Look at the result." Of the two friends of mine whom I mentioned earlier, one very nearly died and the other is now in the process of recovering. I do not think the former will ever have the appearance lie had before.
That shows that this drug, though it admittedly does an immense amount of good, requires to be dealt with very carefully, and should be administered with the greatest care. It is no doubt a wonderful drug but it does not suit everybody. I congratulate the Government on the Bill, for I think it was very necessary that a Bill on this matter should be brought in. I hope it will restrict the use of the drug except in cases where it is administered by those who are thoroughly
qualified to prescribe it. I support the Bill, and I sincerely trust that its clauses will ensure that the greatest possible care is used in connexion with prescriptions where penicillin is necessary, and also in the administration of the drug by medical and other practitioners.
3.13 p.m.
Lord MARLEY: My Lords, may I be allowed to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for having given so much care and thought to the problem posed by me in the rather difficult Amendment which I put before your Lordships' House. I am a little worried about what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said, because, in a way, the cases to which he referred were in fact cases dealt with by qualified people. Therefore, it might conceivably be argued that unqualified people would make less of a mess of things than qualified people. However, this is a problem for members of the medical profession to deal with among themselves. I have no doubt that a number of technical articles in medical journals will help those qualified members of the medical profession who have not had experience of the extraordinary nature of developments of which penicillin is such an outstanding example. Meanwhile, I hope very much that the words of my noble friend Lord Teviot will be borne in mind during the passage of the Bill through another place. We here are not afraid of another place. We consider that, in many ways, revision by your Lordships of measures is a good thing. But this is a House of Lords' Bill, and therefore we want to send it down in as perfect a condition as possible. It is quite arguable that if a manuscript Amendment, inadequately considered, were included it might be found capable of improvement in another, even though less unhurried, legislative Chamber. I again thank the noble Earl for the care that he has taken.
On Question Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
3.16 p.m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Lord MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. As your Lordships will have observed, it is a somewhat formidable measure, and, as you will have also noticed, it contains no fewer than 382 clauses and fourteen schedules. It represents an important instalment of the work of consolidating and clarifying the Statute Law of Scotland. Some of your Lordships who have closer knowledge of local government, and in particular of local
936
government in Scotland, than I, will, I think, agree with me that the confusion and difficulty of understanding the existing law of local government in Scotland is somewhat notorious. When I tell your Lordships that this Bill repeals, in whole, 23 Acts of Parliament and, in part, a further 149 Acts of Parliament whose existence has extended over a period of 120 years, it will be appreciated that lengthy preparation has been necessary before the Bill has reached this House.
The real father of this Bill is the right honourable gentleman who was Secretary of State for Scotland ten years ago, Mr. Walter Elliot, who I am sure we were all glad to see was returned to another place recently, as representative of the Scottish Universities. In 1937, when he was Secretary of State, he appointed a Committee consisting of representatives of the Scottish local authority associations, the three main political Parties, and the Departments concerned. The chairman was Sir John Jeffrey, a former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The terms of reference of the Committee —I beg your Lordships' pardon I believe that the phrase in Scotland is not "terms of reference" but "terms of the remit"; the terms of the remit, therefore, were:
"To consider the consolidation of the local government and public health law in Scotland with such amendments as might be necessary to facilitate consolidation and to secure simplicity, uniformity and conciseness."
By July, 1939, the Committee had completed their Report and presented a draft Bill, but owing to the breaking out of the war a month or so later, these were not published until late in 1943. Copies of the published Bill and Report were sent to the local authority associations for their criticisms and for their constructive suggestions. The draft Bill was modified, in the light of criticisms and suggestions, and in October, 1946, a Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. Time did not permit of it being passed last Session, but its publication served the useful purpose of giving those concerned an opportunity of making further observations. I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships that, in its present form, this Bill may be regarded as being substantially agreed with the Scottish local authority associations. In view of the length of the Bill some of your Lordships may doubt whether it succeeds fully in securing simplicity and conciseness. I am hound to say, speaking personally,

937
that I share those doubts, and, apparently I am not alone in that, because I note that the Government have found it necessary, in order that this model of simplicity and conciseness should be fully understood, to publish with the Bill an Explanatory Memorandum of 121 pages. In fairness to all concerned I should point out that, as I have already said, twenty-three Acts of Parliament are entirely repealed, and 149 Acts of Parliament are partly repealed by the measure. So, on balance, I think we can all agree that at least some progress Yeas been made towards the difficult ideals of absolute simplicity and conciseness.
In these circumstances, your Lordships would not wish me to attempt a detailed examination of each of the 382 clauses or of the fourteen schedules. And I can assure your Lordships that I shall be quite content not to do so. The general scope and effect of the Bill can be briefly stated. Its object is consolidation—that is to say, to bring within the compass of a single Statute a mass of law now scattered up and down the Statute Book, much of which is over fifty years old. It deals broadly with the machinery of local government, including the constitution and election of county, town and district councils, and the appointment of officers, and it provides a framework of general powers which will be available to local authorities in the exercise of functions which they already possess or which they might obtain in the future.
Yet the Bill is not purely a consolidating measure. I am advised that if it had been entirely confined to consolidation it would have been of much greater length even than it is now, and that it would have been much less intelligible. Considering that much of the legislation dealt with has been on the Statute Book for over fifty years, and some of it for twice as long, your Lordships will appreciate the need for making the amendments which are made necessary by the march of time, and by the fact that language differs from decade to decade. The alternative of a purely consolidating measure would have been an even larger and less intelligible Bill, couched in very different language in its various sections, and making confusion worse confounded. As the Bill is not a purely consolidating measure, it cannot be referred to the Joint Consolidation Committee under the familiar procedure which applies to Con-
938
solidation Bills in Parliament. The Government therefore propose to invite both Houses of Parliament to concur in appointing a Joint Select Committee for the purpose of examining the Bill in detail, subject, of course, to your Lordships agreeing to the Second Reading this afternoon. In that event, I propose this evening to hand in a Motion, which will appear on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House to-morrow, that a Joint Committee be set up, and that the House in another place be invited to nominate members to serve on that Committee. The Government hope this Committee will be in a position to begin its task immediately after the Easter Recess, and that the time will suffice to enable the Bill to reach the Statute Book before the end of the present Session.
This Bill is entirely a non-Party measure. As I have already said, it was
initiated by the Right Honourable Walter Elliot ten years ago, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He was followed by Mr. Tom Johnston when he became Secretary of State, and it was continued by his successor the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. The Bill is now in the charge of the present Secretary of State. I am advised that, except on minor committee points, it is non-controversial, and it has been warmly welcomed by the Scottish Association of Local Authorities, and in the general and local government Press in Scotland, as a most valuable measure of legal codification. It does not aim to produce a new and perfect code of Local Government Law. As I have already said, it is aimed at the consolidation, simplification, and clarification of the existing law. The Explanatory Memorandum, to which I have already referred, shows clearly which of the clauses substantially reproduce the existing law and those in which some amendment has been proposed. If this Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will soon, it will be a notable example of present-day efforts to reform the Statute Book and to simplify the practice and procedure of the law. I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second Time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
The EARL of ROSEBERY: My Lords, I would like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on the way in which he has introduced this Bill.

939
It is the first important Bill (in fact I think the first Bill of any kind) that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has introduced into this House on behalf of Scotland. It augurs well for those of us from that country that someone has gone through this Bill not only with great care but also with considerable sympathy. As your Lordships know, sometimes we feel that those of us from north of the Border have not in the past received the consideration on these controversial subjects that we ought to have received, and it gives us more confidence that when in the future we have some more controversial Bills they will be dealt with for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison.
We have listened this afternoon to the Third Reading of the Crown Proceedings Bill and, if I may say so, we have had the most eloquent example of noble and learned Lords patting each other on the back that I have ever listened to on any subject. Let me hurriedly say, as a humble member of the public, that I am perfectly certain the noble and learned Lords were quite right to pat each other on the back. That goes without saying. Every Party in this country—Labour Conservative, and Liberal—can also pat themselves on the back on the introduction of what I might almost call this awful document. I do not say that we are all responsible for the 332 pages, nor would I like to make an affidavit that a member of every Party has even read every one of these 332 pages, but we are all responsible for the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, it was a Conservative Government which started the Bill, with Mr. Walter Elliot in charge, ten years ago. The English local government legislation was consolidated in 1933—fourteen years ago, but I do not, on this occasion, lay any stress on that. I do not consider this is another case of injustice to Scotland, because it was the war that prevented this Bill from being made law, as it would have been either in Mr. Walter Elliot's time, or Mr. Tom Johnston's time, or when I was Secretary of State for Scotland.
As one who has had some experience of Scottish administration, I welcome this Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration. For many years local authorities in Scotland have been pressing for the consolidation of the law relating to local government, and I am
940
quite sure they regard this Bill as a highly desirable and necessary step in that direction. This Bill, in the form in which it was drafted, was the result of eighteen months' steady work by the very representative Committee over which Sir John Jeffrey presided. Fortunately, the Committee's labours on the part of their remit which related to the general machinery of local government were completed before the outbreak of war in 1939. While it was not possible to proceed further with the draft Bill when it was published in 1943, it has since been very fully considered and discussed by the Association of Local Authorities. The Bill, as it is now introduced, is essentially the Committee's Bill, although, as a result of these discussions which have been held by the local authorities, there are a number of changes from its original form.
The present difficulties in the law relating to the various types of local authority, even though they are probably of a minor character, are a constant source of difficulty and even of irritation. The introduction of more uniformity will be of material assistance to all concerned. For instance, it will be a help to have certain provisions relating to local elections set out in full in one place, instead of being spread out over a number of Acts as at present. I would like to say a word of thanks to the permanent officials at St. Andrew's House, whose labours on this Bill for the last ten years must have been very considerable, and who must breathe a sigh of relief when the measure finally becomes law. And if, after careful examination by a Joint Select Committee, this Bill, as I hope, is approved by Parliament and finds its way on to the Statute Book, I can assure your Lordships that it will help not a little to oil the wheels of local administration.
3.31 p.m.
The EARL of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said—namely, that this Bill will be welcomed in Scotland, being, as it is, substantially agreed by all those immediately interested in local government. I feel sure that it will enormously simplify their tasks. Those persons are greatly indebted to the three or four Secretaries of State for Scotland who, one after the other, have pursued their labours or have encouraged their diligent staff in St. Andrew's House to do so. I should like to make just one comment. I do not

941
know if it is a reflection of the amount of work which a local authority has to do zhat this subject can be encompassed only in so large a space, but I do think that we have to-day to watch the effect of the enormous volume of local government work which is accruing, and has accrued, under the 1929 Act. It is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone who is not, shall I say, almost half-time employed on local government to play an active part. II think that whilst we have an opportunity we should bear in mind that, if possible, those duties should be lightened, so as to enable any citizen, regardless of his occupation, not to feel restricted from taking part in local affairs. Undoubtedly a number of citizens who are willing to come forward to-day cannot do so owing to the nature of their other duties.
There are in this Bill just two points to which I should like to refer specifically. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to consider, first of all, the question of the restriction of the rate for library expenses. That
matter is dealt with in Clause 'gr. The reason I bring up this question is that I am informed that at the present time the cost of running public libraries cannot be maintained on the existing rate, and the position will, in fact, deteriorate in the course of a year unless there is an amendment of that rate in
the immediate future. The restriction which is imposed in this Bill has been removed in England. It has, I understand, been removed in Glasgow, and I believe the .Secretary of State has in his possession a report, about ten years old, in which all local authorities were agreed that this restriction should be removed. I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider whether at a later stage of this Bill that restriction could not be removed.
There is one other point I should like to mention. Noble Lords will recollect that there was a Committee on Rating in Scotland some years ago which issued a report known as the Sorn Report. The Committee were not entirely unanimous bit a portion of that Committee were unanimous. In a non-controversial Bill of this nature it seems to me that it might have been possible to incorporate in it the non-controversial portion of that Rating Report. The reform of rating in Scotland is a matter of the greatest
942
urgency. I would not suggest that the incorporation of the agreed part would be a whole solution, but it would he a measure, and perhaps an important measure, towards the solution of what is at the present time art extremely difficult and major problem. With these few words I welcome the Bill, which I know will be a great simplification and aid for the local authorities.
3.35 p.m.
Lord SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like, in a few words, to associate myself with what my noble friends on this side have said in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on the way in which he has introduced this Bill, and also on having introduced it. I am sorry to have heard him say—as I think he said—that Statute law in Scotland is in very great confusion. If that is so—which I regret—all I can say is that he has added much strength to a point my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk often makes to me: that that is due to the Statutes that are made here, because the common law of Scotland, so far as I, a poor Victim, can express myself, is, I think, extremely clear, and wins natural assent from its victims.
I cannot help regretting that a Bill of this size should be introduced as mainly a consolidation measure. I do not know if it would have been possible, but I should certainly have preferred to see all new matters embodied in a short Bill, than that we should proceed under consolidation. One never quite knows where one is with a Bill of this size, a Bill which is mainly consolidation but which does introduce new matter. I give your Lordships one short example. Clause 197 (2) says that the auditors shall receive a salary to be "agreed upon between the authority and the auditor and approved by the Secretary of State or, failing such agreement or approval, shall be fixed by the Secretary of State." I understand that the approval of the Secretary of State in this connexion is a new matter, and it appears to make hint a party to, as well as being umpire in, the bargain. These little things are unfortunate. I am not suggesting it is not right, but, in so big a Bill, a little thing like that does lead to extra worry and work. Even if the Consolidation Bill had been much longer, it is not the length of the Bill, once it is understood, that matters, so long is the law is quite clear to those who have to

943
study it and have studied it. After all, these Bills are well indexed.
There are some matters which the Association of County Councils would have been glad to see included in the Bill. They were very anxious—if it had been in their power—to adopt the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act in certain sections which they are not able to do now and which would give them control of dance-halls in the country, and matters of that kind. They have also expressed the view that the opportunity provided by this Bill should have been taken—as it has not—to set up some procedure for enabling disputes as to the enlargement of burgh boundaries between the burgh and the county to be settled with less difficulty than is at present the case. They are also a little troubled about a change that is taking place in the accounts of county councils. They have told me that they do not like the change from the receipts and payments basis to the revenue and expenditure basis. I am not at this stage prepared to offer a personal opinion on these matters. I merely mention them to the noble Lord for his consideration.
In conclusion, I should like to pass on to him what a noble friend of mine, and an admirer of his, has suggested to me—namely, that a slight change should be made upon page 266: that the first two categories or compartments of Form F should be deleted from their present position and placed below the name of "Smith," in order to commemorate the fact that my noble friend himself has introduced the Bill, and to commemorate the fact that, from being a good Englishman, he has also become a good Scotsman.
The EARL of ROSBERY: He always was a Scot.
Lord SALTOUN: Well he sat for an English constituency. Anyway, I think we should commemorate the fact that he has introduced this Bill by putting his name at the head of that part.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should just like to give a brief word of welcome to a Bill in which I have had some interest in the years that have gone by. Many years ago it was my lot to be interested in elections north of the Border, and in particular in local govern-
944
ment elections. I had a very keen interest in the work of groups on local authorities. It is therefore pleasing to me that our Scottish friends should come so near to agreement in producing a Bill to consolidate the law. Perhaps in one direction those responsible have gone a shade too far, because I find that in the Second Schedule of the Bill there are matters dealing with elections. I am a member of a departmental committee who have almost finished their labours, and the work of that departmental committee has been to consolidate the whole electoral law of the country. Therefore, if this Bill goes through this Session, we may be called upon next Session to deal with electoral matters which will
lead to the amendment of this new Bill now introduced. Notwithstanding that, I hope that the Bill itself will finally reach the Statute Book.
Lord MORRISON: My Lords, I am afraid my first word must be somewhat heatedly to repudiate the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that I am a good Englishman. I certainly represented an English constituency for twenty years in another place, but that only shows what good-natured people they were to allow me to do so! As I think I mentioned in this House on a previous occasion, I made a very unfortunate mistake in my youth in leaving Scotland, and trouble has followed me ever since. But it is too late now to undo that, and I am doing my best to make amends, after all these years, by applying myself to trying to understand the Scottish law, particularly that of local government.
Lord SALTOUN: I apologize unreservedly.
Lord MORRISON: I am grateful to noble Lords for the way in which they have received what the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has described as "this awful document." The discussion has proved conclusively that this is not a Party Bill, and it may be all the better for the fact that it is not. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, that we owe a great debt to the officials. It is very easy for us in this House to laugh at the enormous size of the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum, but they represent a vast amount of work that must have taken a great deal of time. The noble Earl, Lord

945
Selkirk, asked me a question about libraries. The answer is that the whole question of libraries is being considered at this moment by the Advisory Council on Education, and any amendment of the law will have to await that Council's report.
Another question which the noble Earl asked me was in regard to rating. The main proposals of the Committee were controversial and could not be included in this Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that he does not propose to legislate on the lines of the Committee's Report referred to by the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, wanted to know why it was not
possible to have consolidation alone, without amendments. I thought I explained that I have been advised that if consolidation alone had been undertaken the Bill would have been much longer, not nearly so useful and much less intelligible, than it is at the present time—due largely to the fact that some of the legislation dealt with goes back 120 years, and language differs from age to age. At the same time, if there had been a Bill setting out the amendments only, I am advised that it would have been very long and almost incomprehensible.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I was trying to say was that I was sorry that we could not have a short Bill to make the changes in the law proposed here, and then to proceed to a consolidation Bill afterwards.
LORD MORRISON: According to my advice, it is necessary to go the other way round—to have this long Bill first, and then the way is clear for further action. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised a question about auditors' fees. These are subject to approval under the present law. The noble Lord also raised the question of the power of county councils to adopt the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. I am informed that this would not be appropriate to this Bill, because it does
946
not deal with the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act at all. Some of the other points that have been raised, including the point raised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, are Committee points which will no doubt be raised in due course. As has been said, this is the first opportunity I have had of moving the Second Reading of a Bill. I have nothing of which to complain in the way in which it has been received: on the contrary, I am grateful to your Lordships for the way in which you have received this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

REMEDY AGAINST THE CROWN AS OCCUPIER BILL. [H.L.]
Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

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

County Borough of Barnsley;

Urban District of Northwich;

Urban District of Ware;

Rural District of Whitby:

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

TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned on Friday last and praying leave to stand adjourned sine die for the convenience of Parties: read, and leave given accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock.

SMALL SAVINGS.
The following is the Table referred to by Lord Ammon on March 25 [OFFICIAL to

NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE. GROSS AND NET SAVINGS: QUARTERLY STATEMENT.

—

Purchases and Deposits £ million.

Encashments and Withdrawals £ million

April-June

July-September (revised).

October-December (provisional)

April-June

July-September (revised).

October-December (provisional)

National Savings Certificates

35·5

32·8

42·4

37·9

32·2

33·0

Defence Bonds

103·5

23·2

36·2

7·7

9·7

10·2

Post Office Savings Bank

113·6

121·7

112·3

108·0

104·7

105·2

Trustee Savings Banks

61·5

62·0

69·1

52·5

49·1

55·1

Totals

314·1

239·7

260·0

206·1

195·7

203·5

The following are estimates of accrued interest:

—

April-June.

July-September.

October-December.

National Savings Certificates

…

…

…

13

14

15

Post Office Savings Bank …

…

…

…

10

11

11

Trustee Savings Banks …

…

…

…

4

4

4

Totals

…

…

…

27

29

30

Notes:

(1) The figures for encashments of Savings Certificates represent principal only. Accumulated interest on the holdings repaid amounted to £6 million in the April-June quarter, £5 million in the July-September quarter, and £6 million in the October-December quarter.

(2) The figures for the Post Office Savings Bank exclude Services Release Benefits Accounts.

(3) The figures for Defence Bonds encashments exclude £8·3 million repaid on maturity in the October-December quarter.

(4) As regards Savings Certificates the figures of accrued interest represent the increase in each quarter in the estimated amount of the interest due on Savings Certificates remaining invested. As regards the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, the figures represent the estimated interest due on the outstanding balances at the end of each month, interest on the balances in Services Release Benefits Accounts being deducted.

REPORT: Vol. 146, No. 50] in his reply to a question by Lord Hawke: