Sitting of 8 May 1947

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

  VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS
  Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether your attention has been called to the fact that the Order Papers for today were available to hon. Members only about 25 minutes or half an hour ago, and that the Votes and Proceedings are not yet available to hon. Members? Of course, I am not criticising the staff; the trouble is due to the pressure put upon the House by the Government. Is it your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons should receive such short notice of proceedings, which does not give sufficient opportunity to hon. Members asking Questions?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me to decide. The Order Papers could not be put out earlier because the House was sitting. Whether the House sits or not is not my affair.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  PROXY MARRIAGES
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision of Lord Merriman in Apt, otherwise Magnus versus Apt, he will introduce legislation to make it clear in what conditions proxy marriages are to be recognised as valid.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am not aware that any further elucidation of the law on this subject is needed. The effect of the
  778
  decision is, I am advised, that the matter is regulated by the law of the place where the ceremony is performed.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is not his policy to encourage proxy marriages?
  Mr. Ede: Proxy marriages are not legal when performed in this country.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the effect of this decision will be that a girl in this country can get married in the Argentine without ever leaving London?
  Mr. Ede: If she is prepared to take the husband on trust, why should I interfere?

  POLICE

    Salford (Deputy Chief Constable)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the indignation created by refusing to confirm the appointment of the deputy chief constable of Salford to be chief constable as recommended by the Watch Committee; that this officer joined the Salford police force as a probationer constable, has passed through every phase of police work in the force and has been deputy chief constable nine years and acting chief for the last six months; and what are the reasons for disqualifying him for this post.
    Mr. Ede: I have, on two occasions, discussed this matter at length with representatives of the local police authority, and have, in addition, given a personal interview to the candidate himself. I have no reason to doubt that, in the course of these interviews, all the material facts were brought to my notice. I greatly regret that I could not approve the watch committee's choice, but, after the most careful consideration, I could reach no other conclusion than that the candidate whose name they submitted was unfit for the post of chief constable.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of the fact that the Minister has not given the reason why this man has been disqualified, will he explain why he was refused confirmation by the Home Office before any interview had been arranged, and also whether he is aware that the Home Office approved the short list of six prior to the appointment being made?
    Mr. Ede: The Home Office does not approve or disapprove the appointment. The Home Secretary does that, and I take the full responsibility in this matter. I pursued a course in this case which, I am told, is without precedent. I twice interviewed the watch committee in London, although they did not pay me the compliment of sending the chairman of the watch committee as one of their delegation to meet me. I also interviewed the candidate, and, as one who has given 40 years of his life to interviewing candidates for local government appointments, I say that if this man had appeared in front of me, and had been the best candidate, I should have readvertised the appointment.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of the fact that this man had 27 years' service and was condemned in an interview lasting 30 minutes, is the Minister aware that the Salford Watch Committee are receiving support from all parts of the country, including his own constituency, who have stated that they have appointed two chief constables neither of whom had served in any other police force?
    Mr. Ede: If my constituency have said that, the people who stated it have misinformed Salford. Many queer things have been done in South Shields for which I am not responsible. I am responsible for this appointment. Never before has a Home Secretary granted an interview to a candidate whose application he was, considering. I gave the man not half an hour, but three-quarters of an hour, and I venture to say that is a longer time than the Salford Watch Committee gave to any of the other candidates they interviewed.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in his opinion, this deputy chief constable of Salford is in any way inefficient for the job?
    Mr. Ede: He is inefficient for the job of chief constable of Salford.
    Mr. McAdam: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that he is more capable of judging the capabilities of an officer than those who have been controlling the officer for some years past?
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty is that the law places a certain responsibility upon me. I have to discharge that responsibility in accordance with my own conscience. I make no reflection on the good faith of
    780
    the Salford Watch Committee. They have discharged their responsibility. I have discharged mine. I regret that our views do not coincide.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

    Metropolitan Police (Strength)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reduced physical standards that have been laid down for recruits for the Metropolitan Police; whether, in spite of this, the necessary numbers have been passed; what is the present strength; and what is the total authorised establishment.
    Mr. Ede: The only alteration in physical standards was the reduction, in June, 1946, of the minimum height for recruits from 5 ft. 9 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. Since 1st January, 1946, 2,658 men have joined the Metropolitan Police Force, including 233 under 5 ft. 9 in. The total male strength is 14,850, and the authorised establishment is 19,741.
    Sir R. Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any other steps to bring the force up to its establishment, and thus relieve the pressure on the existing constables?
    Mr. Ede: I am doing all I can to increase the strength of the force, and since April, 1946, there has been a net increase in the strength of the force of 1,117. I hope that suitable men will apply for enrolment in this force.

    Shot Civilian's Dependants (Aid)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what official means exist of providing for the dependants in necessitous circumstances of citizens who may have been gravely injured or lost their lives in going to the assistance of the law by endeavouring to detain criminals in the act of committing, or immediately after the commission of, a crime.
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation will be paid to the widow of Mr. de Antiquis who was killed whilst assisting the police, and out of what Department fund.
    Mr. Byersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist for granting compensation to members of the public injured when assisting the course of justice or to their dependants if fatal injuries are sustained.
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any provision exists for compensating out of public funds the widow and children of Mr. Alec de Antiquis, who was killed while carrying out his duties as a citizen in an exemplary manner, and, if not, whether he will make special provision for them.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is considering making some recognition to the widow and dependants of Mr. Alec de Antiquis, who was killed while attempting to prevent the escape of three gunmen in the West End of London on 28th April, if necessary, by asking this House to award a special grant to the widow and six children of this gallant citizen
    Mr. Ede: I am sure the House would desire me to express their sympathy with the wife and orphans of this man, who lost his life voluntarily discharging the duties of a good citizen. The question of making an appropriate grant from the Metropolitan Police Fund is receiving my sympathetic consideration.
    Mr. Smith: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, which I am sure will be appreciated, may I ask him whether he will agree that it would be very undesirable if the sole means of compensating the dependants of loyal and law abiding citizens were to be private benevolence?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I hoped the final sentence of my answer would indicate that I intend to give practical recognition of my views on that point, and I hope I shall have the general support of the House.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. McGovern: In a case of this description, is not such a man assisting to combat the enemy as much as a man in the field of battle, and will it not be more dignified to see that in these circumstances consideration is given to the granting of a pension?
    Mr. Ede: I must have regard to what my statutory powers in the matter may be. I hope that when the House hears what I propose, they will feel that I have given adequate recognition to what this man has done. If I may be allowed to say so, I hope I shall be able to put the widow and children in a position which is no worse than that in which they would have been had the man survived. The House will appreciate that the machinery for doing these very desirable things is sometimes very difficult, in view of statutory limitations, but I will ask the House to empower me to do the right thing if, in fact, the Statutes at the moment prevent me.
    Mr. Eden: While endorsing entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the act which he proposes, may I ask him to be good enough to inform the House when he has come to a conclusion as to what action he can take?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, I think perhaps I can arrange for a Question to be put down.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that we have had a case of a similar nature in the City of Glasgow, would any action recommended by my right hon. Friend in the present case be directed to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Ede: If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State communicates with me, I will see that he and I walk in step in this matter.

    Armed Criminals
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the public is concerned at the alarming increase in cases of robbery or attempted robbery with violence by armed men in the Metropolis; how many such cases have been reported since 1st January, 1947; and in how many instances the culprits have been convicted.
    Mr. Ede: During the first four months of this year, 25 robberies occurred in the Metropolitan Police district where a firearm was known to have been used. Eight of these cases have been cleared up, involving the arrest of 14 persons, 13 of whom have been convicted and one of whom is awaiting trial. The Commissioner of Police is giving every attention to dealing with this series of crimes.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not really astonishing that so many crimes of this nature should escape solution, and can nothing be done to tighten up public security in this regard?
    Mr. Ede: I imagine that criminals of this type are pretty astute, and that they take steps to assure themselves that the coast is reasonably clear before they commit their crimes. I think the number of detections that I have been able to announce is not unsatisfactory, having regard to the number of desperate men there are about at this time, but the Commissioner of Police and myself are fully seized of the importance of putting down this form of lawlessness, and I am quite sure that we shall have the support of all law-abiding citizens in the efforts we make to achieve our object.
    Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the main, the illegal possession of firearms is punished in the lightest possible way by the magistrates, who are not using the maximum powers they possess? Would my right hon. Friend consider issuing a recommendation to the magistrates for the imposition of maximum sentences for illegal possession of firearms, or coming to the House for further powers to increase those punishments?
    Mr. Ede: It is my endeavour to issue as few recommendations as possible to magistrates because, having been a magistrate myself, I know the resentment with which the Home Secretary's circulars are sometimes received, but I have no doubt that the question put by my hon. Friend will draw the attention of magistrates to this matter, and I hope they can feel that the House is behind them in seeing that the law is enforced.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power with a view to the immediate termination of blackout conditions in the streets, which give these thugs an excellent opportunity of making their escape?
    Mr. Scollan: Is it the case, as I have been told, that the police are sometimes very badly handicapped in that they have not sufficient power, and that in cases where they know they could make the necessary arrest they are thereby handi-
    784
    capped? If this is the case, will not my right hon. Friend ask the House for further powers?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. One has to be very careful how one arms the police with additional powers. I am quite sure of this. The police themselves are very keen to bring this form of crime to an end, for, after all, they quite frequently are the persons most in danger from the use of these illegal weapons.

    Housing
    Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the impossibility of obtaining dwelling accommodation, many county constabularies are unable to provide sufficient police officers in districts which have grown up since 1939 and, in consequence, the burden on existing police officers is becoming severe; and whether he will arrange to acquire from the Ministry of Health a uniform prefabricated type of house on priority terms that can be erected for the use of police officers in rural and semi-urban areas.
    Mr. Ede: All the temporary prefabricated houses provided under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, have been allocated in accordance with the terms of that Act to housing authorities, and the demands are such that the share available for police officers is small. The question whether the provision of houses for the police can be accelerated by the use of any other type of prefabricated house is being studied as such houses become available.
    Sir R. Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to county constabularies in certain districts where large populations have recently sprung up, and where it is impossible to place constables owing to the inadequacy of housing at the present time?
    Mr. Ede: I have those areas particularly in mind. As I have moved about the country I have been in consultation with chief constables, standing joint committees and county district housing authorities.

    Flogging
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of robbery with violence since 1st January, 1947, punishment by flogging has been ordered.
    Mr. Ede: In 10 cases between 1st January and 31st March, 1947.
    Mr. Smith: But does not criminal history show that the ruffians who engage in this form of lawlessness are extremely tender about their own skins; and will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever may lie in his power to popularise this simple but salutary deterrent?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I should imagine there is no more controversial matter connected with the administration of my Department than the efficacy of flogging.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the Home Secretary aware that a large number of these forms of violence with arms are committed by men who have deserted from the Forces; and would not the most practical thing be for the Government to consider granting an amnesty to these men, in order to get them away from these evil conditions?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am not convinced myself that that would be the most efficacious way of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of To in his original answer. What was the total number of convictions of which the figure of 10 was a proportion?
    Mr. Ede: I would ask the hon. Member to give me notice of that.
    Mr. John Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Corporal Punishment, after examining a mass of evidence on this subject, came to the conclusion that flogging was futile as a deterrent to these crimes; and in his forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill will he take steps to abolish this barbarous punishment?
    Mr. Ede: The statement of my hon. Friend with regard to the report of that committee is accurate I must ask the House to await the Bill.

  RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD (REPORT)
  Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the annual report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board will be published; and for
  786
  what reason the publication has been delayed.
  Mr. Ede: I expect to lay the report before Parliament this month, which will be no later than is usual.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (RESIDENCE PERMITS)
  Mr. Mulveyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that natives of Northern Ireland, who had been absent from that area prior to January, 1940, have since their return been granted residence permits for the duration of the Order, thus entitling them to their United Kingdom franchise rights, while other natives of Northern Ireland, since their return, are granted residence permits renewable periodically, thus depriving them of similar franchise rights; what is the reason for this differentiation; and if he will take steps, pending the withdrawal of the Residence Permits (Transitional) Order, 1942, to secure their franchise rights for all natives of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am informed that it is the regular practice of the Northern Ireland authorities to issue a permit, valid for the duration of the Order, to all natives of Northern Ireland who fall within the ambit of the Residence in Northern Ireland (Restriction) Order, 1942, so that the second and third parts of the Question do not arise.
  Mr. Mulvey: Will my right hon. Friend give advice that in regard to the natives of Northern Ireland who are on temporary residence permits the matter should be reconsidered?
  Mr. Ede: I am perfectly willing to consider and to take up with the authorities of Northern Ireland any cases my hon. Friend cares to submit to me.
  Mr. Mulvey: Will my right hon. Friend bring this Residence Permits Order to an end and stop the inconvenience caused to employers in Northern Ireland, and thus prevent the restriction of movement of Irish people from one part of the country to another?
  Mr. Ede: That is too large a matter to deal with in answer to a supplementary question.

  SHOP HOURS (PROPOSED LEGISLATION)
  Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I1) whether he will publish the evidence given before the Gowers Committee on Shop Hours and make it available to Members of this House;
  (2) if he is yet able to announce his intentions with respect to the report of the Gowers Committee on Shop Hours.
  Mr. Ede: It is the intention of the Government to introduce, when opportunity offers, legislation on the lines proposed by the committee. The general effect of the evidence—which was voluminous—is carefully and impartially set out in the report, and in present circumstances I do not think the printing of the evidence could be justified.
  Mr. Leslie: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is very essential for this House to have before it the evidence on which this report was based, because the report is certainly contrary to the views of those who have an intimate knowledge of shop life?
  Mr. Ede: The report, which I have read, seems to me to set out impartially the evidence that was submitted on both sides. Many people claim to have a knowledge of shop life, but they do not all agree as to what it is like.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: In view of the recommendations of the committee—while, of course, the public convenience must be considered above all else—will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the circumstances of the shop assistants and the effect upon them?
  Mr. Ede: In framing any legislation I may have to submit to the House I will bear in mind not merely the recommendations in the report, but the effect of this form of employment and activity on all sections of the community.

  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (DIETARY PUNISHMENT)
  Mr. G. Langasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement with regard to dietary punishment in Borstal institutions.
  Mr. Ede: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the difficulty in this matter is to provide a satisfactory alternative to dietary punishment for enforcing discipline on recalcitrant and refractory lads. I am anxious to find an alternative, and I have certain proposals in view for this purpose, but before they can be finally settled consultation with various authorities is necessary and this has not yet been completed. For this reason, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement about these proposals, but I will do so as soon as possible.
  Mr. Lang: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and have no desire to embarrass him, may I ask if he is aware that I first raised this matter nearly a year ago in an Adjournment Debate, and asked a Question again six months ago; and can he give any indication how far his inquiries have reached?
  Mr. Ede: I think I can say that I am approaching the position where I shall be able to announce a decision.
  Mr. McKinlay: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how dietary punishment affects the people in Jarrow, who have returned a Labour candidate?

  CAPITAL SENTENCE (MEDICAL INQUIRIES)
  Mr. Langasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and by whom, application was made for an examination of the mental condition of Thomas John Ley, recently under sentence of death.
  Mr. Ede: Consideration of the question whether a medical inquiry shall be held into the mental condition of a prisoner under sentence of death does not depend on the receipt of an application. It is my duty in every capital case to consider whether any question arises as to the prisoner's state of mind, and to order a medical examination whenever I have reason to think further inquiry desirable.
  Mr. Lang: But does my right hon. Friend not realise that the defence of insanity was never raised at the trial, and was never raised in the Court of Criminal Appeal; and in view of the general disquiet about this case, will he assure the House that this is not a trial by doctors to supersede a trial by jury?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am not bound in my consideration of the case by what has been submitted either to the lower court or to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have to examine all the documents—and they are many and various—which come into my possession with regard to each individual case. If I have any doubt as to the mental stability of the person who has been sentenced to death it is my duty to order a medical inquiry. If that medical inquiry takes a certain course, the matter is then taken completely out of my hands.

  HOUSING

    Rent Tribunal Applicants (Protection)
    Mr. WilliamShepherd asked the Minister of Health if he has given consideration to the statement made by Mr. Michael Marcus, chairman of the East London Rent Tribunal, that applicants to that tribunal suffered serious physical injury at the hands of landlords or their hirelings; and what action is proposed to protect applicants.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): My attention has been called to this statement. Applicants suffering or fearing such assaults should report the matter to the police who will do all they can to assist.
    Mr. Shepherd: But is the Minister able to say that this statement was accurate?
    Mr. Bevan: It is not competent for me at the moment to make any comment upon whether it is accurate or inaccurate. All I can say is, that these persons are protected by law if they appeal to the law.
    Mr. Shepherd: Surely, if the Minister appoints these chairmen it is his duty to see that they do not issue statements which alarm the public?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not want to interfere with these chairmen too much.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the serious nature of the statement made by the chairman of the tribunal, has the Minister asked him on what evidence he based that statement?
    Mr. Bevan: It is not necessary for me to do so. If citizens fear assault, or if they have been assaulted, they can make use of appeal to the law. I am not going
    790
    to interfere with these tribunals unnecessarily.
    Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, since this statement, there have, in fact, been any such appeals from persons who claim that this statement is true?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not heard of any

    1947 Programme
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Health if he has now considered the housing programme for 1947 in the light of the industrial dislocation caused by the fuel crisis; and what effect this is likely to have on the number of houses to be built.
    Mr. Bevan: I have considered the housing programme for 1947 in the light of the conditions which have prevailed during the winter. The effect of these conditions both on building and even more on the production of building materials has been serious. It will reduce substantially the rates at which houses already under construction can be completed and, consequently, at which further houses can be started this year. I am including a full statement in the published monthly return which will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, or give us some idea, what will be the total number of completions this year?
    Mr. Bevan: I think that probably it will be as well for hon. Members to look at this statement in the monthly return. I was in this difficulty; that if I were to try to make a statement to the House after Questions on this very important matter it would be unduly long; but that if, on the other hand, I were to try to give a short answer it would be inadequate. I thought it was much better to make an addendum to the monthly return.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does the right hon. Gentleman now realise how wise he was when he published the original programme to provide himself with alibis?
    Mr. Bevan: But then, I am always wise.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the results of the industrial dislocation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider alter-

    791
    ing the targets at the zonal conferences which took place to fix the time, as the targets appear to have been fixed on a mathematical basis?
    Mr. Bevan: They were, in fact, not targets at all, as the hon. and gallant Member knows. They were merely attempts to bring the allocations in a zonal area in reasonable relationship to the physical capacity of the building industry in that area. The allocations are not going to be affected.

    Prefabricated Houses (Export)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Health how many prefabricated houses were exported to Holland during 1946; and what was the cost per house.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 3rd April to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Col. Lipton), of which I am sending him a copy. am informed that there is no record of the export of any other structures of this nature.

    Review of Contributions
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health if he has yet considered whether it is expedient that an order be made under Section 16 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946; and whether he intends to lay before the Commons House of Parliament a report in conformity with the provisions of the said section.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this matter in the near future.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the Minister realise that the Act in question places an obligation on him to take this matter into consideration immediately after the beginning of December, 1946, and if, on consideration, he is not going to make such an Order, to report thereon to the House? Does he not his agree that he is taking as long to make up his mind on this matter as he is in getting the houses?
    Mr. Bevan: I am perfectly aware of my statutory obligations in this matter and, of course, I shall conform with them. But as the housing authorities have handed over to the building industry about 100,000 more houses than the building industry can start, there is, obviously, no question at all of this delaying building.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman carried out the consultations he must have under Subsection (6) of this Section? Will he give a report on that?
    Mr. Bevan: Consultations have not yet started.
    Hon. Members: Oh.

    Building Licences
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Toothasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that licences granted to private builders for building new houses are often issued to cover several houses each; that in a number of cases where such a licence was issued to a builder outside the London area before 25th February, one or more of the houses included in the licence had been begun before that date while others in the same licence had not been started; that the consequent effect of the Order permitting an increase of ££100 in the maximum price of houses licensed before 25th February is to make such concessions inapplicable to these houses not yet started, without any power for the local authority to vary the conditions in the licence; and whether he will modify the terms of the Order to rectify this anomaly.
    Mr. Bevan: It is open to a private builder to ask the local authority to revoke a licence in so far as it applies to houses on which work has not been started, and to apply for a new licence in respect of these houses under the revised conditions.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Ministry refused a request of the Cheltenham authority to take action in this matter?
    Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of the particulars. If the hon. Member will send them to me, I shall have them inquired into. But I cannot, at the moment, accept the construction he has placed upon this.

    Subsidy
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health what revision is contemplated in

    793
    the basis of Annual Exchequer contributions as laid down in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, in the light of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
    Mr. Bevan: In considering the review of housing subsidy, all factors affecting the estimated cost of house building during the period for which subsidy is to be fixed are taken into consideration.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that if local authorities lose more by the reduction of subsidies than they gain by a reduction in the cost of sites this loss must be passed on in the form of increased rent, which is rather undesirable? Can he look very closely at this matter, as anomalies are very likely to arise?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not think local authorities are dissatisfied with the housing subsidy.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Is it not a fact that the cost of sites is a very small element in the cost of houses as a whole?
    Mr. Sparks: The Minister has misunderstood my question. My question referred to the position under the Town and Country Planning Bill, under which there will be a reduction in the cost of sites which, in turn, will affect scales of subsidies.
    Mr. Bevan: It is extremely difficult to say in advance what is going to be the effect of the operation of an Act of Parliament which is still a Bill. It will be soon enough to consider what the effect of that will be when we see it in operation.

    Site Costs
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the Minister of Health if site costs are included as part of the ceiling prices imposed on new houses, both in London and in the provinces.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Nurses (Shortage)
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Health if he contemplates further improvement in the pay and conditions of service of the nursing profession, with increased scales of pensions and a general advance in the status of hospital nurses, as
    794
    an essential constituent part of national health service.
    Mr. Bevan: The whole status and position of nurses will have to be reviewed in the light of the report of the Working Party on Recruitment and Training. Pending this review I cannot express an opinion on the Questions raised by the hon. Member.
    Sir P. Hannon: Does the Minister realise that a serious situation is created owing to the shortage of nurses? Is he taking any definite steps to intensify the recruitment to the nursing profession?
    Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member knows, I am very much alive to this matter, arid there is an intense recruiting campaign going on all the time. Indeed, I believe that there is an exhibition in Birmingham at the moment in connection with it. I am very anxious to get this report. Immediately I have it I shall be able to consider what to do.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon, Gentleman take great care to preserve the interests of those nurses who have served for many years, but who do not happen to have passed certain examinations, and do not happen to hold certain certificates, and who, therefore, are in danger of being pushed out because of the change in the basis of entry into the profession? If they were to go it would be a great loss to the hospitals, for they are very valuable nurses.
    Mr. Bevan: That is in mind.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: When is the House likely to be able to read the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not yet had it myself.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Health if he has had under consideration the embarrassing situation which has arisen in hospital administration in Birmingham owing to shortage of nurses; and if he proposes to intensify the campaign for recruitment of nurses in consultation with the health departments of local authorities.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware of the extensive Nursing Exhibition held in Birmingham from 29th April to 3rd May to encourage recruitment to the nursing profession.
    Sir P. Hannon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he contemplates an improvement in the conditions of service and the remuneration of nurses?
    Mr. Bevan: It would be extremely discourteous of me to appoint a working party to make a report and then to anticipate them by a public statement.

    Women Doctors (Training)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health, in view of the shortage of women doctors, what additional facilities are being provided for training medical students.
    Mr. Bevan: All provincial medical schools admit women students up to between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the annual intake, and the London schools have now all agreed to take a proportion of women as soon as accommodation can be provided. This should be ready for the 1947–48 session.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applicants are still waiting, and whether the facilities provided will absorb all those applicants? There are not sufficient women doctors to meet the demands.
    Mr. Bevan: There are waiting lists for both men and women.

    Aural Aids
    Mr. Thomas Lewisasked the Minister of Health what progress he has made with regard to the manufacture and distribution of aural aid outfits at reasonable prices.
    Mr. Bevan: My bright hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has already placed contracts for the manufacture of these aids. He hopes that enough will be available to make a start with distribution when the National Health Service begins. They will then be available without charge to patients for whom they are prescribed.

    Ambulances (Local Authorities)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made centrally with those in control of the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society for the taking over or use of their ambulances by local health authorities under the National Health Service Acts.
    Mr. Bevan: The statutory duty rests on local health authorities, who may make arrangements for the use of voluntary bodies' vehicles and staff. No arrangements are, therefore, being made centrally.
    Mr. Hastings: Have any instructions been sent from the central authorities to the local branches?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, the local authorities are being made aware of their statutory rights in this matter, but there have been no central directions.
    Mr. Hastings: I was referring to the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society, and I want to know whether instructions have been given. by those organisations to their local branches.
    Mr. Bevan: I do not know; and, of course, I have no responsibility for them, for they are voluntary organisations.

    City of London (Employees' Strike)
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the dead are lying unburied, streets remain uncleaned and public conveniences are closed in the City of London through unofficial strikes; and what action His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter in the interests of health and humanity and to prevent a recurrence of such a state of affairs.
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the Corporation of London are unable to arrange for burials in their own cemetery, and that they have had to suspend street cleansing and to close public conveniences. While I much regret the inconvenience which is caused to the public, I do not consider that any immediate danger to public health is threatened, but I am keeping the situation under review.
    Sir J. Lucas: Will the Minister, in view of this very unsatisfactory state of affairs, promise every possible assistance to the local authority should they need it, and if they are unable or unwilling to take action themselves will he take it for them?
    Mr. Bevan: I regard the stoppage of the workers who are responsible for burying and for scavenging, and other services of a vital health nature, as fundamentally irresponsible. If this strike does not end very quickly, I shall take action.
    Mr. Scollan: To what year does this Question refer—the year of the Great Plague?
    Hon. Members: Yes
    Mr. Gallacher: As the irresponsibility may be on the part of those who impose conditions that make such a strike possible, will the right hon. Gentleman take up with the local authorities the question of the working conditions of the men?
    Mr. Bevan: There is no body of workers in Great Britain who have made available to them better conciliation machinery than the employees of local authorities. I consider that suspension of scavenging and burying is an act of utter irresponsibility.

  EDUCATION

    Young Children (Teachers)
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Minister of Education what steps are being taken to improve recruitment for work in infant and nursery schools.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The first essential step is to extend facilities for training and this is being (lone so far as possible. The women's training colleges, both emergency and permanent, are being expanded and more attention is being given to the training of teachers for work with young children. I am discussing with the Interim Committee for Teachers what further steps can be taken to secure that more students are admitted for this form of work and what other measures can be taken to make this branch of the teaching service more attractive.
    Mrs. Manning: In view of the very grave shortage that exists for teachers for young children, will my right hon. Friend take steps to visit secondary schools to see, whether girls can be recruited?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is no use recruiting at this stage unless we have somewhere to put the recruits. It is not that we are short of applicants but rather that we are short of training places for them.
    Mrs. Manning: If I could direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to houses which would be suitable would he have a look at them?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We are already taking houses at a very rapid rate with a view
    798
    to turning them into emergency colleges. This question is being looked at with that in mind.

    Emergency Training (Completed Courses)
    Mr. Greyasked the Minister of Education how many students have completed a course of training in the teachers emergency training colleges since their inception; how many satisfied the examiners; and how many successful trainees have been absorbed into teaching posts.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Up to the 24th April, 1947, 2,514 students completed a course of training under the Emergency Training Scheme. Of these students only 12 were not adjudged to have completed the course satisfactorily, but a considerably larger number were withdrawn from the courses before they were completed. I am satisfied that practically all the teachers who were qualified through the emergency scheme have found teaching posts. The latest returns which I have received covering four of the colleges, show that out of 681 students only three were known not to have obtained posts two months after the end of the course.
    Mrs. Manning: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the proportion of these emergency trainees who have gone into senior schools?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, I could not do that without notice.

    School Records
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Education what special information is to be collected by teachers concerning their pupils; if he will ensure that the information is kept secret and up to what age it is to be taken; and, if the information covers more than the health records of each child, if he will give instructions that no references to the political views of parents will be recorded.
    Mr. Tomlinson: For the purposes of the school medical records of children, the only particulars which teachers are asked to supply are the name, age and address of the child, the name of the school he attends and records of his school attendance and educational progress. I do not prescribe forms of school record for other purposes, but I am proposing shortly to give some guidance to local education

    799
    authorities and teachers about the scope and content of school records. There can be no question of teachers being asked to refer to the political views of parents.
    Sir R. Young: When further action is taken in reference to the homes of parents, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that information is not given without the knowledge of the parents?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I will do that.

    Technical College Teachers (Salaries)
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Minister of Education if he is aware that a teacher in a London technical college, promoted to the new senior assistant scale on 1st April, 1945, was awarded a correct position ££73 lower than he could reasonably have attained if not promoted, lower also than the position held previously on the graduate scale; and, as this violates the spirit of Clause 13 (b) (I) of the Burnham Technical Report, if he will take steps to remedy this injustice.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I assume that the particular case the hon. Member has in mind is that about which she has previously written to me. On the facts available, the salary for this teacher has been correctly assessed and could be altered only after amendment of the relevant Burnham Report. It rests with the Burnham Committee to make any recommendations for amendment of their reports.
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Minister of Education what action he proposes to remedy the grievances of teachers in technical colleges who were on the maximum of the assistant scale with ££100 for special responsibility and who were promoted to the senior assistant scale on 1st April, 1946, but were awarded no increment on promotion, although under Clause 13 (b) (I) they should have been appointed at the next higher point on the senior assistant scale, namely ££650.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would furnish me with details of any cases of the type to which she refers, since I am not aware that salaries are being assessed by local education authorities on the basis described.
    Mrs. Ridealgh: Would the Minister look into the case I have sent to him, because there the man is receiving less under this new scale than he had previously?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but that is just an individual case and it is an anomaly which arises from a decision having been made between two decisions of the Burnham Committee. I am going into it at the moment.

    Out-of-School Activities
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Education whether a local education authority when advertising for assistant teachers is acting in accordance with the policy of his Department in insisting on out-of-school activities.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Under paragraph 4 (3) of the Second Schedule to the Primary and Secondary Schools (Grant Conditions) Regulations a teacher may not be required to perform any duties except such as are connected with the work of the school.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the teaching profession have never quibbled about doing outside work, but they resent having it as a stipulation? If I bring a case to his notice, will he inform the authority concerned that this should not be done?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will certainly look at it, but the phrase "out-of-school activities" is a wide one, and there may be some discussion as to what are out-of-school activities and what are not.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I ask d the ban on demanding a certain amount of out-of-school activity applies also to getting a teacher to take part in a youth service, which is necessarily a part of a local education authority's activities?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That depends upon the interpretation of the term "out-of-school activities," and whether the youth service is associated definitely with the school.

    School Allowances, Cardiff
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education the rate of grant per child allotted by the Cardiff authority for children over the age of II years in unreorganised schools; and what is the comparative rate of grant for Cardiff secondary schools.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that the allowance made by the Cardiff authority in respect of books, stationery and equipment for children over II years of age in unreorganised schools is at the rate of

    801
    10s. per child. The corresponding allowances for secondary schools which are all grammar schools are at the rate of 14s. per child for text-books and 28s. per child for other books, stationery and office expenses.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the children who are over the age of II in these schools which the authority fail to reorganise, are allowed 10s. a head, and the total for the children in secondary grammar schools is £2 10s. a head, and does he think this is satisfactory?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, and I think that with the raising of the school-leaving age, a demand for the higher figure will be made by those below it.

    School Reorganisation, Cardiff
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education whether, in order to give the schoolchildren of Cardiff the benefits of free secondary education under the 1944 Act, he will consult with the Cardiff authority with a view, as a temporary measure, to reorganising their schools within the existing accommodation.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Until new secondary schools can be built under the development plan, I should be happy to consider suitable proposals for temporary reorganisation within existing accommodation, and I am informing the authority accordingly.
    Mr. Thomas: Thank you very much.

    Languages
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what percentage of 12-year old boys educated under the national system will, during the current term, be learning French. German and Latin, respectively.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The content of the curriculum is primarily a matter for the school authorities and no statistics are available showing the numbers and ages of pupils taking particular subjects.

    Dartmouth College (Standard)
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what percentage of 12-year-old boys educated under the national system will, during the current term, be educated on a curriculum which will enable them to succeed in the examination held at the age of 13 years in order to select candidates for the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.
    Mr. Tomlinson: On the basis on which entry to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, is at present determined, the field of potential candidates from schools within the national system is limited to pupils receiving a grammar school type of education who are taking the particular subjects required in the examination. The number of the latter is not known but the percentage of boys in the 12 year age group who are in grammar schools is approximately 28.7.
    Mr. King: Is not that further evidence of the wisdom of the announcement made yesterday?

    Teachers (Intake)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Education what was the intake of teachers into the schools under his control during January, February and March, respectively.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Separate figures for each month are not available. The figures for the quarter ending 31st March last are at present being analysed and I will send them to the hon. Member as soon as they are ready.

    Size of Classes
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Education the present average size of, the classes in the schools under his control and the estimated increase as a result of the raising of the school age.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The average size or classes in primary and secondary schools as a whole was 33.5 in January, 1946, the last date for which figures are yet available. Since my plans for increasing the number of teachers provide for more than sufficient teachers for the extra age group, this figure will be progressively reduced in the next few years.
    Sir T. Moore: I asked in the second part of my Question what is the increase that the right hon. Gentleman thinks will take place.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give it without further notice, except to the extent which I -have already indicated.

    British Teachers, United States (Allowance)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Education what extra allowances he is granting to British teachers now in the

    803
    U.S.A., under an exchange arrangement, in view of the rapidly rising cost of living in the U.S.A.
    Mr. Tomlinson: A grant of £75 has been paid to each teacher in respect of the current academic year. No grant has been given in previous years, and I am not prepared to give an additional grant to the teachers who are at present in the United States.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this grant does not catch up with rising prices in the United States, and is it not undesirable that these teachers, who are unofficial ambassadors of this country, should be reduced to the position of poor relations owing to the insane abandonment of price controls by the Washington administration?
    Mr. Tomlinson: There has been a readjustment since the teachers went, and a grant was made. The grant for next year is being considered. I think it would be impossible to change grants every time there was a change in the cost of living.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a teacher who went from my constituency under this scheme not only has found it quite impossible to travel in the. United States, and thereby cannot get the best benefit from her tour, but is also having to do work in the evenings in order to maintain herself?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am receiving reports on what is taking place, but I would point out that they have not gone on a joy ride.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Illegal Strikes
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken to inquire into the causes of all illegal strikes.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): It is the normal responsibility of my Department to inquire into the causes and circumstances of any dispute, whether illegal or otherwise.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Russia if a man participates in an illegal strike his ration card is withdrawn?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have not been there, so I cannot say.
    Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman ought to go and see.

    Ex-Service Personnel
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-officers and other ranks were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Isaacs: The numbers of ex-Service men and women registered as unemployed at 14th April were 70,024 and 4,600 respectively, of whom 6,816 and 213 were exofficers registered with the Appointments Department. Separate figures for officers registered at employment exchanges are not available.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making special arrangements so that these men can be given the opportunity to go back into the fighting Services if they should so desire? I am sure that many of them would do that if arrangements were made.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure whether such an arrangement is within my scope. I think the object which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is worthy of examination, and I will take the matter up.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Sterling Balances (Egypt)
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement regarding the recent visit paid to Cairo by British financial experts; and if the negotiations which took place were secret.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the communique issued on 3rd March, to which at present I have nothing to add.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now make every effort to convince the people in Egypt that the scaling down of debts is in their interest as well as ours? I ask him to bear in mind that at the moment our publicity in the Middle East is so bad that our case is not getting over.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the speech of my right hon. Friend a night or two ago probably will help to rectify the point Mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Minister say, in view of the many authoritative statements that have been made in Egypt, why he is unwilling to make a statement of the policy of H.M. Government?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not a question of being unwilling. The answer I gave was that at the moment there was nothing to add to the statement made on 3rd March.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: If the machinery for putting over the very strong statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is inadequate, will the Financial Secretary see that that machinery is improved so that the people of Egypt do realise the determination of this country not to be done down for the debt incurred in saving Egypt?
    Mr. Scollan: Is it not a case that previous Governments generally had the support of the British Press in putting over their case, and now the position is that most of the Press of this country is hostile to the present Government?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Financial Secretary said that he cannot add to the official communique, but will he not say something in view of the Egyptian demands for the transfer of the Suez Canal and Anglo-Egyptian oilfield shares?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Question dealt with a recent visit to Cairo by British financial experts and the negotiations which took place there. I have replied to that Question.

    P.A.Y.E. Payments
    Mr. Richard Lawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that under the 1947/48 system of Pay As You Earn, in which a number of codes are grouped together, the result in some cases is a sharp rise in the amount of tax deducted per week whereby those earning a 'smaller salary now pay as much per week as those earning considerably more; and if he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend cannot agree that the P.A.Y.E. tables have the result suggested by the hon. Member; but, if he will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

    Civil Servants, Armed Forces (Pay)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what decision has now been reached about making up the pay of young civil servants called up to the Forces.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The question of making up the pay of young civil servants called up to the Forces is at present under consideration. I hope it will be possible to make an announcement shortly.
    Major Lloyd: It has been under consideration for a very long time. Some time ago I asked a similar Question and had exactly the same reply.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that is possible, but we hope that an announcement can be made shortly. These things take time.

    Post-war Credits (Ex-Servicemen)
    Mrs. Manningasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why ex-Servicemen are being required to sacrifice their postwar credits in order to liquidate arrears of income tax, due to wrong assessments of Service pay by the Income Tax Commissioners.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Ex-Servicemen are treated in the same way as other tax-payers in that any arrear is set off against the Postwar Credit for the year 1945–46. I am looking into the case about which my how. Friend wrote to me a day or two ago.
    Mrs. Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when the mistakes are mistakes of his own Department, made when these men were out of the country and so unable to put them right at the time, it would not be more generous, as well as more just, to spread these repayments over a long period so that the men should not feel the great loss which is incurred?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is exactly what we do. These payments are spread over a period by arrangement, and I can assure my hon. Friend that in those cases we are spreading the amount due over quite a considerable period.
    Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving more publicity to the fact that it is possible for people to appeal

    807
    against notices of assessment within 21 days of their having been made?
    Mr. Eccles: Would the Financial Secretary consider in a case—one of which I have brought to his notice—where the sum is greater than the repayments, forgiving the balance, because it is hard on a man, who really did not know what was happening, if he is docked of his postwar credit? Could not that be a full settlement?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In some cases, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that does happen, but each case must be taken on its merits. One cannot lay down any general rule and forgive people simply because they happen to be in arrears.
    Mr. James Callaghan: If the facts in this question are correct, is it not the case that a real debt is being satisfied by setting against it a future benefit, so that this must be to the great advantage of the men concerned?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: So far as postwar credits for 1945–46 are concerned, my right hon. Friend made an announcement during October to the effect that the Inland Revenue was to be instructed to set off what might be due against tax arrears, and the House agreed.
    Mrs. Manning: Does my right hon. Friend feel that it is fair to refer to future benefit as if this were a benefit which might never accrue? Is it not the fact that these men regard this as a nest egg, and think this is a method of getting out of repayment of postwar credits?
    Mr. Hall: The individual concerned can pay or have it set off. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in that. He can either pay now and have the nest egg, or go without the nest egg and have it set off.
    Mr. Gallacher: Cannot these men who owe this money make a statement to the Chancellor on the same lines as the statement the Chancellor made the other day on Egypt?

  NATIONAL GALLERY PAINTINGS (CLEANING).
  Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the drastic manner in
  808
  which the Velasquez paintings in the National Gallery have been cleaned; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is a matter which falls within the discretion of those responsible for the management of the National Gallery.
  Mr. Keeling: But as the Financial Secretary has answered the Question instead of asking for it to be disallowed, will he say whether he is aware that a great many people think that the Velasquez Philip IV has been very nearly ruined, and will he inquire whether the trustees are taking the best possible advice, including that of professional artists?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that this matter does not concern me at all. If the hon. Gentleman required that information he should address his Question to the proper quarter.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Minister tell us to whom it should be addressed in order that it may be quite clear that the too rapid cleaning of these pictures is causing considerable disquiet, and that the irrevocable damage to them is more important than "passing the buck" from one Minister to another?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week, and at the same time any modification in the Business for tomorrow?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. In regard to Business tomorrow, we shall proceed with the Committee stage of the National Service Bill, which we hope to bring to a conclusion tomorrow, Friday. As a consequence, the Statistics of Trade Bill, Report stage and Third Reading, announced for tomorrow, will be postponed.
The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 12th May—At the beginning of Business my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose a Motion for an humble Address to His Majesty, on the occasion of Their Majesties' return from South Africa.
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 12th, 13th and 14th May—Report stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, being the first, second and third allotted days.
Thursday, 15th May—Supply (4th Allotted Day), Committee. The Supply day will be taken formally, and afterwards a Debate on Foreign Affairs will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday, 16th May—Conclusion of Debate on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. W. S. Morrison: May I ask whether the Government will not reconsider the decision to rush the Town and Country Planning Bill Report stage through in three days? It is an extremely important and complicated Bill, affecting all classes of the population. There are more than 200 Government Amendments down already, and there will be a similar number of Opposition Amendments, and one of the days will almost certainly be entirely consumed by the recommittal Motion in the name of the Government. In these circumstances, could the Government not give more time for adequate consideration of the Bill?
Mr. Morrison: This was settled on the Allocation of Time Order. It was a decision of the House and I think we must leave it there.
Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a decision of the House can never be modified? The Government brought about the original decision, and they only have to whip their Members into the Lobby to change it.
Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has ambitions to be Leader of the Opposition, especially on Business, but he had better be careful about ambitions to become Leader of the House as well. This was debated on the Allocation of Time Order, and in fact an additional day was offered at that time, but it was specifically and somewhat indignantly objected to by the spokesman of the Opposition.
Mr. Hogg: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the brilliance of his repartee, and the dignity with which he conducts his present position, may I ask if it has not been apparent from the modification of Business for tomorrow how right we were when we protested two days
810
ago against his tactics then, and ape we not likely to be right again?
Mr. Keeling: Is the Leader of the House aware that when the Allocation of Time Motion was passed it was not known, and could not be known, that a large number of Clauses and a large number of Schedules would not even be discussed upstairs?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think it would be in Order if I were to go into the controversial history of these Bills under the Guillotine—
Mr. Keeling: It is a question of fact.
Mr. Morrison: I think it is a question of fact, but it is a question of what use—economical use—the Opposition makes of the time available.
Wing-Commander Millington: Will ray right hon. Friend sustain himself in getting this Business through, in view of the fact that now we have overwhelming evidence that the country is overwhelmingly behind us?
Sir John Mellor: The Leader of the House said that a decision of the House on allocation of time could not be changed. Is that correct, because on the Third Reading of the Transport Bill the decision of the House was changed, and a further amount of time was given by the Government? Surely it is quite incorrect to say that a decision of the House could not be changed?
Mr. Morrison: Of course it can be changed, if the Government put down another Motion, but that means more time, and we do not think we ought to be called upon to accept it. The time to have got more time was when the Allocation of Time Order was made. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio offered another day, but it was specifically rejected.
Mr. Paton: In regard to the foreign affairs Debate, may I ask if it is the intention to allow a general Debate to range rather widely, as an increasing number of hon. Members are disquieted in regard to Far Eastern policy and wish to have that discussed?
Mr. Morrison: The Debate is on the Adjournment, and it is a matter for Mr. Speaker as to whom he calls.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he says there

811
was an offer of an additional day, that offer was made on the condition that we assented to the proposals for the Committee stage, and it has now been proved that we were quite right in thinking that the time allotted for the Committee stage was insufficient? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman say that the additional day was offered in the belief that it was necessary, or unnecessary?
Mr. Morrison: It is really no good the hon. and learned Member trying to get the best of both worlds. The Government offered the day, and it was rejected at the time. The Opposition must take the responsibility, and must not come pleading another story now. We still take the view, both on this Bill and on another Bill, that the amount of time allowed for in Committee was adequate for the proper consideration of the Bill if the Committee had conducted itself as a Committee, instead of conducting itself as if it were the whole House. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Sir Waldron Smithers.
Mr. W. S. Morrison Mr. W. S. Morrison rose—
Hon. Members: Order.
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, may I call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, not for the first time among Ministers, has called in question in this House the proceedings of a Committee upstairs? I want to ask whether something could be done to stop the growing practice of breaking what is a Rule of the House, that we cannot criticise or comment upon proceedings upstairs. He used the actual phrase, "had the Committee conducted itself properly," and I suggest that is most improper.
Mr. Speaker: I think, and I have already given a Ruling on this matter, that the conduct of the Chair of a Committee is not a matter for discussion in the House. Presumably, the Committee had been properly conducted, and one cannot criticise the action of the Chairman.
Hon. Members: Withdraw
Mr. Morrison: If Mr. Speaker orders me to withdraw, I will withdraw. I will not unless. I made no reference to the Chairman, no criticism of the Chairman at all, nor did I allege that the Committee conducted itself in a disorderly way. If
812
hon. Members in Committee make speeches which are longer than they need be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—If hon. Members make speeches in Committee which are longer than they need be, and time becomes exhausted, it is not really fair to blame the Government. That makes no reflection on the Chairman of the Committee whatever.
Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. The Leader of the House has made a charge against the Members of a Committee which is sitting upstairs. That is a charge which is not made by the Minister in charge of the Bill. In reply to what the Leader of the House has said, if I might venture to quote something which was said upstairs, the Chairman explicitly said that there had been no obstruction in that Committee. I ask you to rule that it is improper for the Leader of the House, in discussing matters of Business here, to make charges against the conduct of Members in a Committee upstairs, which, under your Ruling, they are not allowed to reply to?
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the Committee having reported to this House, one is entitled to read the proceedings of that Committee, and to form one's own opinion. I have expressed the view that if the Chairman has conducted the Committee properly, to criticise Members for taking too long over their speeches and that sort of thing is a little unfortunate.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: I did not ask anyone to withdraw anything. If I want anyone to withdraw, I will say so.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Has it not been customary for many centuries in this House, when hon. Members have resented anything on which the Chair has expressed itself unfavourably, to invite the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who have made use of such an unfortunate expression, to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: Not at all. If I want anyone to withdraw, I shall ask them to do so.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. Is it not the right of hon. Members to call out the word "Withdraw" when they resent something?
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are supposed always to conduct themselves in an

813
orderly manner. Sometimes, the shouting out of words like "Withdraw" too long and too vigorously can be slightly disorderly.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. Do I understand that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, is that we were not entitled, under the Rules of Order of this House, to shout "Withdraw"?
Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members were entitled to shout "Withdraw," I also was entitled to say that I thought it ought to stop.
Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of about 4o other hon. Members regarding the treatment of dispossessed farmers, in view of the fact that particulars of several hundred of alleged serious cases have been sent to him?
[That this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire and to make recommendations concerning farmers and smallholders who have been dispossessed of their holdings since 1939.]
Would the right hon. Gentleman try to give time for a discussion on that important Motion, which affects the rights of the ordinary British citizen, and will he remember that the farmers of this country will find more than one use for the guillotine?
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that we cannot find special time for that Motion. Perhaps the hon. Member would seek to
814
raise it on the Adjournment, or on a Supply Day, if that should offer.
Professor Savory: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Northern Ireland Bill, as it is important, when gentlemen have to be brought from overseas, that some lengthy notice should be given?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot say when it will be taken. I gather, from the state of the Order Paper and the eagerness of hon. Members from Northern Ireland to take part in the Debate, that it is not likely to be overlooked, but I can promise the hon. Member that we shall not overlook it.
Mr. Yates: At what time is it proposed to conclude the discussion on the National Service Bill today? Is it possible to avoid a method for the discussion of the Bill similar to the unfortunate experience of last night?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot say. It must depend on what progress is made.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he professes to be a good House of Commons man, whether he considers it consistent with the dignity and the duties of the House of Commons that major Measures should be passed through the House without any discussion, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Morrison: I have said nothing to lead anybody to believe any such thing. Certainly there has been plenty of discussion about everything in this Parliament since we came here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 122.

Division No. 196.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mitchison, G. R

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Gilzean, A.

Montague, F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morley, R

Alpass, J. H.

Gooch, E. G.

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

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mort, D. L

Austin, H. Lewis

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Moyle, A.

Awbery, S. S.

Grey, C. F.

Mulvey, A.

Ayles, W. H.

Grierson, E.

Nally, W.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Naylor, T. E

Bacon, Miss A.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Balfour, A.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

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

Barstow, P. G.

Gunter, R. J.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Barton, C.

Guy, W. H.

Oldfield, W. H.

Battley, J. R.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Oliver, G. H.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Hale, Leslie

Parker, J.

Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hall, W. G.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Benson, G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R,

Pearson, A.

Beswick, F.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Pearl, Capt T. F.

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

Hardy, E. A.

Piratin, P.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Binns, J.

Haworth, J.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Blackburn, A. R.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Price, M. Philips

Boardman, H.

Herbison, Miss M.

Proctor, W. T.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hewitson, Captain M

Pryde, D. J.

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

Hicks, G.

Randall, H. E

Bramall, E. A.

Hobson, C. R.

Rankin, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Holman, P.

Reeves, J.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Rhodes, H.

Brown, George (Belper)

House, G.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hoy, J.

Robens, A.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hubbard, T.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Buchanan, G.

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

Robertson J. J. (Berwick)

Burden, T. W.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Burke, W. A

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

Royle, C.

Callaghan, James

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Sargood, R.

Champion, A. J.

Irving, W. J.

Scollan, T

Chater, D.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Scott-Elliot, W.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jay, D. P. T.

Sharp, Granville

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Cocks, F. S.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

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

Collins, V. J.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Colman, Miss G. M

Keenan, W.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Cook, T. F.

Key, C. W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Corlett, Dr. J.

King, E. M.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Corvedale, Viscount

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Skinnard, F. W.

Cove, W. G.

Kinley, J.

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

Crawley, A.

Kirby, B. V

Snow, Capt. J. W

Cunningham, P.

Lang, G.

Solley, L. J.

Daines, P.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Sparks, J. A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Stross, Dr. B.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lever, N. H.

Stubbs, A. E.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Levy, B. W.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

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

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Swingler, S.

Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Symonds, A. L.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Deer, G.

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

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Dodds, N N.

Longden, F.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Donovan, T.

McAdam, W.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Driberg, T. E. N.

McEntee, V. La T.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

McGhee, H. G.

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

Dye, S.

McGovern, J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Edelman, M.

Mack, J. D.

Thurtle, Ernest

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

McKay, (Wallsend)

Tiffany, S.

Edwards, N. (Gaerphilly)

McKinlay, A. S.

Timmons, J.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Titterington, M. F.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Tolley, L.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Farthing, W. J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Walker, G. H.

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

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Forman, J. C.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Warbey, W. N.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Watson, W. M.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mikardo, Ian

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Gallacher, W,

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Wyatt, W.

West, D. G.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Yates, V. F

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

Willis, E.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Wilkins, W. A.

Woodburn, A

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Woods, G. S

Mr. Simmons and

Mr. Popplewell

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir I.

Aitken, Hon. Max

Harris, H. Wilson

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Amory, D. Heathcote

Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Barlow, Sir J.

Haughton, S, G.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Baxter, A. B.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

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

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Beechman, N. A.

Herbert, Sir A. P.

Nicholson, G.

Birch, Nige

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Bowen, R.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Bower, N.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Howard, Hon. A.

Pickthorn, K.

Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Jennings, R.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Byers, Frank

Keeling, E. H.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Carson, E.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Renton, D.

Channon, H.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

Lambert, Hon. G.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Scott, Lord W.

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

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Crowder, Capt. John E

Lipson, D L.

Smithers, Sir W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.)

Snadden, W. M.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Digby, S. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col, M.

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Strauss, H. C. (English Universities)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Duthie, W. S.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Studholme, H. G.

Eccles, D. M.

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

Sutcliffe, H.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Teeling, William

Erroll, F. J.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

MacLeod, J.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Wadsworth, G.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Walker-Smith, D.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Gammans, L. D.

Marples, A. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Glyn, Sir R.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Grant, Lady

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Gridley, Sir A.

Mellor, Sir J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gumston, R. V

Molson, A. H. E

Mr. Drewe and Major Conan

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th May.]
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

    CLAUSE 14.—(Early registration and calling up.)
    3.50 p.m.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, in page 1O, line, 13, at the end, to add:
    "(2) This section shall come into force on the passing of this Act."
    This is a proposal that the Subsection which we were discussing when we finished this morning, shall apply at the passing of this Act, to allow people to come in
    818
    at a younger age instead of waiting until the end of the year.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this Amendment. Of course, the Clause to which it refers will now be altered considerably, and I am very glad indeed that the intentions of the Clause will be carried out, as from the passing of the Act, as they were until quite recently.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Wing-Commander Millington (Chelmsford): The discussion on this Clause which we had somewhat earlier in the day revived doubts which exist in the

    819
    minds of some hon. Friends and myself on the whole question of the proper age at which a young soldier should enter the Service. We believe, with the Government, that the youngest age at which a soldier should start his military service is 18. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour did, in fact, confirm that view that 18 is the youngest age at which a soldier should start his military service. I believe, however, that there are other considerations so far as the young soldier is concerned, and, except in a military emergency, I would put that age somewhat higher than 18, because I believe that, as the school-leaving age and the extra education age rise, we get our young men conscripted into military service more and more nearly direct from school. I am convinced, after some eight years' service with the Army and the Royal Air Force, that the barrack room is not the moral atmosphere into which it is wholly desirable to pitchfork impressionable adolescent young men. In these respects, some of us disagree with the whole Bill. Some of us would like the age to be raised to 21. So we ask the Minister to look again at the whole of Clause 14, because we would strongly resist any attempt being made to reduce the age and so force these impressionable adolescents into an environment which might be deleterious to them morally, and into which it is wholly undesirable to introduce them at too early an age.
    There are, however, other considerations which must be taken into account. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the purpose in the mind of the Government was to make 18 the age of conscription, and, by agreement, it was considered a good thing that some latitude, to the extent of six months prior to the age of 18, would be granted by the Government. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary said he would give consideration, between now and the Report stage, to a new form of words, because there was some fear that the interpretation of the words of the Amendment might not be acceptable. I ask him to consider whether drafting men into the Services at 17½ might not, in fact, be starting a vicious circle, and that, in future, the public might think of 17½ as the age at which men might be called up, and we might be allowing them to
    820
    start military service at the age of 17. I ask the Minister of Labour to examine further the implications of this Clause because we feel that it is a dangerous principle, to make it permissive to anybody to start military service below the age of 18 years.
    4.0 p.m
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Committee would do well to study this Clause very carefully before allowing it to stand pare of the Bill. It proposes first of all to allow a boy of 17 years two months to register for military service and to allow a boy of 17 years and six months to engage in a very intensive and exacting course of military training, some of it overseas. To say that the Clause is permissive is no answer. The country and its Government are judged as much by what they permit as by what they enforce. The Bill enforces the conscription of young men at 18, and, tragically to my mind, this Clause permits the conscription of juveniles at 17 years six months.
    Registration for military service is a conscious act of contract. As one who has no objection to military service, I should say that everybody who registers for such service should have as profound and full a knowledge of the implications as possible. It is difficult even for a grown man fully to realise the implications of military registration. Very few young men of 18 can fully realise those implications, but extremely few boys of 17 years two months can say that they know what they are contracting for at that age. There are many undertakings which the law of this country refuses to allow a man to contract for until he is 21. This is a most exacting and solemn contract which it is suggested that a boy of 17 years two months shall be allowed to undertake.
    The Clause also permits a boy no older than 17 years 6 months to engage in military training and service, part of which may be spent overseas, under conditions and in circumstances referred to this morning by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) and referred to in this House on numerous occasions. We have a responsibility that we do not by allowing the Clause to stand part of this Bill pave the way to placing some hundreds of thousands of adolescents in conditions and circumstances which they will find it hard to withstand from the physical and moral

    821
    points of view. It is a bad thing to compel boys to engage in military service at so young an age as 18, but it is perfectly outrageous to permit them to engage in military service, particularly in today's conditions, at 17 years six months. Even the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that 19 was low enough in all conscience.
    Having regard to the hazards these young people are likely to encounter through this Clause, one would expect the Ministers responsible to provide overwhelming reasons why the Clause and its provisions should stand. Up to now all we have had is a perfunctory sentence or two by the Minister in his speech on the Second Reading. He said:
    "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 …"
    Here comes the reason for the concession:
    "… so that young men going up through a university or to some other training course may choose to be called up a little earlier, enabling them to come out of the 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 careet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435. c. 1680–1.]
    Considering the enormity of the proposal in the Clause, the Minister's argument does not seem to be very impressive, but I grant that when the proposed fulltime service period was 18 months, as it was when he made that statement, when there was a prospect of a prospective student emerging from his full-time training at i9 and not being able to undertake his scholastic training until he was getting on for 20, there was some sort of case for conceding a recession in the ground call-up age of six months; but the position today is quite different. The period of full-time service has been reduced by six months and consequently there is no need to fix the lowest possible age of call-up at 17 years six months in order to enable certain boys to be able to emerge from training and proceed to the university at 19. If we stick to the ground call-up age of 18, the fact that we are not asking for more than 12 months' whole-time service will automatically bring those boys out of their full-time service in time for the university or other course at 19. That will meet the situation educationally and socially.
    822
    I hope the Minister will agree that the reduction of the full-time period of service has made this Clause redundant to his needs. I hope he will look at it and not force some of us to proceed into the Lobby on this matter. If he will not agree to withdraw the Clause today, will he undertake to examine the point between now and a later stage? The provisions of this Clause are not now vital to the Bill and if he would withdraw it it would certainly bring cheer and encouragement to many hearts in the country which are sickened by the "permissive" infamies of this Clause.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am surprised at some of the observations that have been made about these matters. It seems to have been overlooked that many of these points were discussed at great length in the early part of the day and the Parliamentary Secretary gave a pledge that he would look into them to see if there was any need for further safeguards before we came to the Report stage. There will not be hundreds and thousands of these young men concerned. There are not hundreds and thousands to be called up altogether. These will be a very small proportion of the total to be called up in the ordinary way, though however small the proportion is, it is right that their interests should be safeguarded. We are safeguarding their interests by giving these lads the choice of being called up if they want to be There is no compulsion; it is their choice. So that there shall be further guidance for them, we look to the possibility of their parents' views being known in the matter.
    The hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) said that this Clause was redundant to our needs. We think the Clause is not redundant to the needs of some of these young men, who prefer to come up at the earlier age, get their training over and then have the chance to take their scholastic career earlier. I would remind the Committee that this is all to be done by regulation, and there is therefore no need for any further Amendment of the Bill itself. If the Clause is left out, we shall not have the power to make regulations, and we want to make the regulations. The regulations will come before the House. Everything possible is being done to safeguard the interests of these young men. This affects not only young fellows who are going to

    823
    universities, but also those who find that an employer is not willing to take them on because they are likely to be called up in two or three months' time. Recently an hon. Member asked if I would see that his son was called up quickly as the lad was so "fed up" with looking for a job. I warmly appreciate the spirit which animated my hon. Friend in speaking on behalf of these young people, but we have done all we can.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Minister said that there would not be hundreds and thousands of young people placed in this hazardous position. It may well be hundreds and thousands, if the Bill becomes permanent, and the years go by and young men in annual quotas are subjected to it. If the age of call-up is progressively lowered, as' my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) suggested, there may well be hundreds and thousands. In view of the undertaking the Minister has given us about reconsidering certain aspects of this Clause and in view of the fact that I shall be able to raise this matter at a later stage, I do not propose to exhort my hon. Friends to press this matter now.
    Mr. Pickthorn: We have had some experience to show that, if one says anything at all critical or even interrogative about any phrase that contains the word "education," one is open to the charge that -one is against education. I hope that if one is slightly dubious about some of the assumptions made in respect of the word "youth" one does not run the risk of being called an enemy of youth. I suppose. that in view of my professional circumstances, I should be as familiar as anybody is with a high proportion of boys, in the relevant circumstances, in the past and just now. I should like, if it is not fulsome, to say that I think the Government spokesmen on this Clause have been extremely reasonable, fair and frank with us. I hope that they will stick to the sort of considerations they have laid before the Committee today and again just now.
    About the point of boys of 17 being in an unsuitable moral atmosphere in barrack rooms, two, considerations have been left out. One is that people dealing with boys would say that, in nine case out of ten, the atmosphere of the barrack room would not be the important thing and that it
    824
    would not matter whether the boy went into the moral atmosphere of a barrack room, a factory or a solicitor's office. It depends in nine cases out of ten on the parents of the boy. That is one of the meanings of the phrase in the Bible about the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children. So long as we can be assured, as I am sure we can, that in the case of 19 families out of 20, the early calling up of a boy means taking the decision after full consultation with his parents—and we are assured there will be every opportunity for that under the regulations—it really is not true that this is subjecting boys to any moral risk which they will otherwise avoid. Then we were told that there is a great factor of convenience about this in a considerable number of cases.
    4.15 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) said that if he were given the concessions which he asks for, the result would be that a boy would undergo his military service, and then at 19 go to the university and so on. There has been a tendency in the past for boys to go to the university at 19, but it is tending to get back a year from what it used to be in previous generations, and I think, on the whole, that is a good tendency. The hon. Gentleman's arguments would be fairly strong if all boys were born about the end of August—the Government, which is so good at publicity campaigns and exhortations, might be able to arrange for things to happen in that way—but we are not assuming that this Bill will last 20 years, and it has not happened that way recently. Boys have in fact been born on dates scattered all through the year, and that being so, there is a serious inconvenience both to the boys and to the educational organisations concerned, if large numbers of them finish their military service at such a stage that they have to come back very late in their 20th year which used to be fairly normal some 40 years ago, but has now become abnormal. I think it would be a reactionary result which I am sure none of us wants in this connection.
    Mrs. Leah ManningI wish I could agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot. My experience has been with lads a little younger than those of whom he has had experience. Probably most of the young men with whom he deals

    825
    are from 18 to 21; mine have been up to the age of 17 and, furthermore, they have not been of quite the same type. The arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) are very valid, now that we only want our young people for a year, in relation with what I am about to say now. It has been our anxiety—and especially the anxiety of those who have had charge of the education of working-class boys and girls—not to push the clock back, and I think the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), will agree that the tendency to push the clock back to 17½ has only been the result of a wartime expedient. It is not a general tendency for young people to go to the university at 17½. It has been the war that has made that necessary, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to go back to the Middle Ages, when people went to the university at 12.
    On the other hand, the general tendency in the State educational system has been to prolong childhood and adolescence and to build a bridge between the age when a boy or girl left school and the time when he or she went out into the world, whether to industry or to military conscription as is the case now. The new Education Act very deliberately sets out to do that. It gives boys and girls, when they leave full-time education, a chance to go to a county college from 16 to i8, and I say very deliberately that the possibility of taking up military service at 17½ will ruin the county colleges. It is no use for the Minister to tell us that they will have the right to go on with their county college work in the Army. It is a totally different thing. It means a break in the county college work, on which so many of us have built for their education during the time of their adolescence.
    It has been suggested this afternoon that parents will be consulted about this. But there are parents and parents, and I very much fear that the boys from a family where parental influence is very poor, and very badly exercised—the very kind of boy to whom the hon. Gentleman was referring when he said that the sins of the fathers are very often visited on the children, and that we need not fear the moral atmosphere of the barrack room if a boy had been brought up in a good home with good parents—will be the ones who will fly into the Army without the parents being consulted at all. They
    826
    are the boys we want to keep in the county colleges so as to exert influence over them—the boys from the bad homes. But they are the ones who will be likely to go, rather than those over whom the parents will exercise an influence to keep them behind.
    Now that the period is 12 months instead of 18 months, I am sure that the vast majority of boys going to the university, or into professions, will be influenced against going into the Army, but there are many other parents—and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour must recognise this—who will not exercise any such influence upon their young sons at all. Those, as I say, are the very ones we want to take care of, the very ones we want to keep in our county colleges. Employers of labour will not take them, so they will not have a job and they will not have much education, and will go into the Army unprepared to meet those dangers, difficulties and temptations to which we cannot close our eyes. Especially if they are going on to the Continent, who would be so foolish and unwise as to close his eyes to the dangers those boys will meet, all unprepared? It is to them, and not to those who are going to the university at the age of i8, that I ask the Minister to give his very careful consideration.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I hesitate to speak, as I was not here when this Clause was discussed earlier, but I rise to ask a question which may have been answered at an earlier stage. What is the definition of "for sufficient cause"? What the hon. Gentleman said about the change from 18 months to 12 months is connected with that. There has also been some discussion about Clause 10 and education, and what is perfectly clear is that there will not be quite so much opportunity, whatever people may say, during the period of 12 months, for the kind of training and education some of us hoped would be incorporated in the 18 months' period. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that the university student must be allowed this opportunity, but if it is going to be universal it is a very serious thing. Imagine what is happening now. A boy has to stay on to the end of the year in which he reaches the age of 15. It is perfectly clear that in certain parts of East London—and North

    827
    Kensington—at the present moment there are boys between 17 and 18, who are out of work. Employers will not take them for one reason or another—perhaps because they do not want to employ a person who will only be available for a few months—but it is an appalling thing that there should be any unemployment between the ages of 17 and 18. Therefore, could the right hon. Gentleman define the words "for sufficient cause," and assure us that only in a limited number of cases, will university students or similar boys be allowed to enter at 17½? Has that point been discussed before?
    Mr. Isaacs: It was discussed before. We are using the words "for sufficient cause" so that there may be some elasticity. It may be because they are going up to a university or because they are going for training or something of that kind, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this has been done honestly in the interests of the boys.
    Miss Herbison: I wish to support my hon. Friends on this side who are pleading with the Minister to reconsider this Clause. We were told a moment or two ago by the Minister that the interests of the boys would be safeguarded, and that it was only if they desired, and their parents were willing, that they would be allowed to enter the Forces at 17½. But surely, if we consider only whether they are willing or not, we might as well say about children that we safeguard their interests by giving them the right to put their hand in the fire and have it burnt or not. There is one important point with which I wish to deal. Listening to the discussions so far, I have learnt that in England, the usual age for entrants to a university is at present i8. It is not so in Scotland. In Scotland a boy or girl goes to a university usually at about 17 years of age. Before I came to this House I taught boys right up to the age of 17 years, and I want to make a particular plea to the Minister. Those boys are certainly not fit to go into the Forces. They have led a very sheltered life indeed as pupils in a secondary school. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] An hon. Member opposite dissents from that, but I know it only too well. They are very different indeed from boys who have gone out to work at 14, and have had three years
    828
    among people or all kinds and of all sorts of opinions, and I think it would be a very gave danger indeed if we took these lads straight from school and sent them into the Forces. We ought to give them the chance of having at least one year, in the technical college or the university, which would have a broadening influence on their lives and be of great help to them when they go into the Forces.
    I make a plea also for the boy who is not fortunate enough to go to a university or technical college. In April of this year, we raised the school-leaving age to 15, and I am glad that one hon. Member has mentioned the county colleges. If we take boys at 17½ we are taking them in the middle of the third year of their apprenticeship. I have spoken to ever so many tradesmen on this subject, and almost every one of them declared that in the first two years, a boy is merely finding his feet in the trade he is learning, and it is not until the third year that he is really doing something worth while. I feel that if a boy is given at least his three years as an apprentice, no matter what trade he is working at, he will come back after his year's training a much fitter person to continue his apprenticeship. I also feel that, if full use is to be made of the county colleges, we need at least three years for the boys. For those two reasons, to give the student the benefit of a broadening influence before he enters the Forces and to give the boy who is an apprentice time to begin to know his job, no boy should be allowed to enter the Forces until he is at least i8 years of age.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Enforcement of requirement to submit to medical examination.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Piratin: I would like the Minister to say whether it is the intention that any young man will be bound, when asked to do so, to report for medical examination and so on, and that he can be arrested without a warrant if he fails to do so. Is that the purpose of the Clause? It may be necessary during wartime that such steps should be taken, and

    829
    that the police should have such powers to act without warrants, but in peacetime I think a different kind of approach is required, and I should like to see some relaxation so that the normal civil procedure may apply. I should be grateful to have the Minister's opinion on that point.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: During the Second Reading Debate, I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to a circumstance obtaining under the Military Service Act at present in force, which everybody regards as undesirable. It was that a man who claimed to be a conscientious objector and whose claim had not been admitted by the tribunal, nevertheless persisted in his objection. The man then refused to comply with the notice calling him to attend a medical examination. By the nature of that offence, it could be made, if not a continuing offence, one capable of infinite repetition. It could result in the man being prosecuted for each failure to comply with a series of notices to submit himself for medical examination.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): There is an Amendment to deal with this specific point on the next Clause.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken when he says that the Amendment to the next Clause has much to do with the point I am now submitting. It is true that I have on the Paper a proposed new Clause to deal with the point, and if the contention which I propose to advance when we reach that Clause is acceptable, Clause 15 ought not now to be ordered to stand part of the Bill. Everybody agrees that, in form, and technically, a series of sentences should follow a series of offences, but in this case it will be a series of penalties for what is, in essence, only one offence. The Minister of Labour did me the honour of suggesting that I might try to find some way of getting round the difficulty. The suggestion I am making is that in the case of a man who claims to be a conscientious objector, we should dispense altogether with the medical examination, if the man refuses to comply with it. The State will lose nothing thereby. I suggest that a man in that position should be called up as though the medical examination had taken place. Then,
    830
    upon his failure to comply with the call-up notice, the authorities will get him anyhow, just as they would if he failed to comply with any other provision of the Act or with any military order after he has been called up. I invite my right hon. Friend to say what his attitude is to the principle which I have outlined. If he were disposed to look favourably on it, the case for Clause 15 would disappear, and we might dispense with it altogether now.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The provisions in the Clause may be necessary in present circumstances, but I think the Committee are entitled to be told why, at this time of day, the Government require these additional powers. I understand that the Clause permits arrest without warrant in cases where no previous provision of the law has given that power. Indeed, if that is not so, there is no point at all in the Clause. I was under the impression that wartime Government had armed themselves pretty adequately with emergency powers of all sorts, and it seems to me a little curious that nowadays, when we are more or less at peace, the Government should require further power of arrest without warrant. There may be a satisfactory explanation, but we are entitled to be told why these additional powers are required.
    Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the brevity with which these points have been put, as well as their importance. The general principle with which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is concerned, is what is usually called the "cat and mouse" procedure.
    Mr. Ayles: It is a question of the beginning of the police State.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am proposing to give an explanation, but perhaps when I have given it, the hon. Member will not understand.
    Mr. Ayles: There is no necessity for the Minister to be insulting.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have known my hon. Friend for such a long time that I will overlook what he says, and take his remark, having in mind from whence it came.
    Mr. Ayles: On a point of Order. The Minister of Labour made the suggestion that after he had explained a point, perhaps hon. Members would not have understood it. Is that not a rather insulting remark?
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Has it not been a frequent occurrence in the last few years that Ministers have explained things and that the whole House did not understand them?
    Earl Winterton: It is not the first time that hon. Members opposite have shown that they are ill-conversant with the Rules of the House of Commons. In terms of great indignation the Minister said, "If I did explain, the hon. Member would not understand." I suggest that hon. Members opposite might learn the Rules of the House.
    Mr. Isaacs: We have heard of storms in teacups. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) did not understand what I said, but I am sure that we shall now understand each other.
    I want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. We are very anxious not to get conscientious objectors into the position of being brought up, dealt with, put in prison, taken out of prison, dealt with, brought up again, and so on. We want to get away from all that. That is the point which will be raised when we reach the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The proposal in Clause 15 applies to the man who is called up and claims to be a conscientious objector, and who is ordered to submit himself for medical examination. The man can be taken by a constable to the place of medical examination. Having got there, the man refuses to submit to the medical examination and just walks out under the policeman's nose. Then he has to go through the same process again, at the end of which he walks Away, and the policeman cannot apprehend him. Then he has to go to court, we have to get another warrant, bring the man up again and take him to the medical board. He walks away again.
    In those circumstances we ask that if the man disobeys the order of the court to submit himself to medical examination he can be apprehended at once by the constable and brought to the court again.
    832
    We can then proceed under the other Clause. We are anxious to give the conscientious objector a square deal and we do not intend that there shall be constant persecution. Our records show that very little of that kind of thing has happened. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Southall will recognise that fact—and there is no sarcasm about that. The association representing conscientious objectors have expressed their appreciation of the way in which these matters have been dealt with.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to thank the Minister very much for what he has just said. Like other hon. Members I have a natural dislike of the idea of arrest without warrant. We put an Amendment on the Paper on the point, but it did not get very far, and we have not had any help from the Communist Party or from other hon. Members opposite, whether crypto-Communist or otherwise. For a long while there has been an abuse in connection with this matter. We have been arresting these people, and then they have been able to walk away. I gather that that is being stopped now. It was a real abuse. The country has tried to be generous to conscientious objectors, whether agreeing or disagreeing with their point of view. With all our dislike of arrest without warrant it seems to me that the Government's proposal is a definite improvement on the existing position. I would like the Leader of the House to take note of our attitude on this matter, and to remember that we try to help the Government in every way we can.
    Mr. Piratin: I want to be perfectly clear about what the Minister has told us. Do I understand that all the various procedures mentioned in the Clause are separate, or are they all part of one procedure? We find in the Clause that the man has to submit himself for medical examination. Later it refers to "further medical examination." Again it says "or examination by a consultant examiner." Further it says "and to be detained in custody." According to what the Minister just said, it is only where all those procedures have been gone through, that the constable then has the right to arrest without warrant?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, that is quite definite. It is only where a man has been ordered

    833
    to go for medical examination or for consultation. Upon refusal to obey the court's order, the constable would have the right to arrest him.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I recognise that there is no real conflict between us. We want to know what is the best machinery to carry out what we all want. The procedure under Clause 15 is very cumbrous. If the Government insist upon medical examination, they will need Clause 15, cumbrous or not. If the Minister will accept the principle which I have endeavoured to put to him, and have embodied in the proposed new Clause, it is difficult to see why the machinery of the Measure should include this cumbrous procedure at all. A man who is willing to be medically examined will attend for examination upon receipt of an ordinary notice. I suggest that in the case of a man who is not willing to be medically examined, the Government proceed as though examination had taken place. I cannot see why the Government should bother themselves in those cases with this cumbrous machinery.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Having listened to the Minister's explanation and to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I find myself very much impressed by what the hon. Member has said. I do not understand why, when a man has said that he will not serve and will not submit himself to medical examination, that examination should be forced upon, him. There will be a point where he will be taken to the court if he persists in his refusal to serve. The Minister does not make clear to my comprehension his reason why the suggestion that he should omit the medical examination in such cases should not be followed.
    Major Tufton Beamish: I cannot understand why a conscientious objector in such circumstances is taken by a constable for his medical examination if he is not already detained in custody, and is not already under arrest. If a constable is standing in a room, is the man not escaping from custody when he walks out?
    Mr. Isaacs: When the other Act was passed, the authorities thought they had the power which we now propose, but it was proved that they had not.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Would the Minister pay some attention to the point which has just been made by my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris)? It seems that the question of medical examination of the conscientious objector is being discussed at a wrong stage of these proceedings. If a man says he has a conscientious objection to military service, is not the first thing to do to find out whether that objection is valid or not? If it is, medical examination is irrelevant. If it is not a valid objection, the tribunal will find out, and the man must then submit to medical examination and be called up. There seems to be a first-class opportunity for the Minister to improve the whole system and attitude towards the conscientious objector.
    Mr. Scollan: We seem to be involving the conscientious objector in two disputes with the law instead of one. The first dispute is on the question of medical examination. He has to go through the whole rigmarole of examination. Then he has to go through the whole thing again in regard to registration of his conscientious objection. To make it practical, the first thing would be to establish that a man is a conscientious objector.
    4.45 P.m.
    Mr. Isaacs: I think the Committee are overlooking the fact that the man might not be a conscientious objector at all. He might simply say, "I will not go to be medically examined." A man has to be medically examined in order to ascertain his fitness for service. If he is found unfit for service, he is not wanted. If he is found fit, it is then for him to say, "I am a conscientious objector." Without this provision there would be a loophole of which the genuine conscientious objector does not take advantage.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: What the man says is, "I will not serve." He does not say, "I will not be examined."
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Other Amendments.)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) The said Acts shall have effect as if at the end of Subsection (7) of Section six of the principal Act the following words were inserted, that is to say 'and such regulations shall provide for the grant to any person who on the

    835
    date at which he becomes liable to be called up under the National Service Act, 1947. is serving an apprenticeship or receiving full-time education in a universty, school or other institution, or who satisfies the Minister that he will within one year from that date be so receiving education, of a postponement certificate for the period of such apprenticeship or education.'"
    The effect and intention of this Amendment are such that I have no doubt they will have the sympathy of the Minister. Indeed, the object of this Amendment is to put into the Bill substantially what the Minister has said are the intentions of the Government. Briefly, the effect of this Amendment is to provide that a right to postponement shall be granted to students and apprentices for the period of their studentship or apprenticeship. That, with one additional factor, to which I shall invite the attention of the Committee in a moment, is the intention of this Amendment. I do not think I shall be challenged if I say that I believe that is, administratively, the intention of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is able, after his strenuous efforts of the last 48 hours, to cast his mind back to the day before yesterday, which, I have no doubt, seems a very long time ago to him, he will recollect that he said, with reference to the intention of the Government:
    "It is apparent that the hon. Member for Southall has not realised that deferment is not restricted to indentured apprentices, but also covers non-indentured apprentices, and, what is more important, those who are called 'learners,' who have not the privilege of being apprentices, but are being taught a trade. All who are going through a course of instruction for a trade, or who are going to the universities; shall have the right to ask for deferment."
    The right hon. Gentleman also said:
    "I was making clear what was already indicated on Second Reading, that any apprentice, learner, or student going up to the university, may himself make application for his service to be postponed until after his training has been completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 237–8.]
    That indication of opinion is, I think—so far as any indication of opinion can be—satisfactory to most hon. Members of the Committee. The only variation which this Amendment makes to that intention is to add the provision, which hon. Members will see upon the Order Paper, to the effect that there are also included within this right to postponement, those who can satisfy the authorities that they will,
    "within one year from that date, be so receiving education."
    836
    The intention of that additional factor will, of course, be apparent to the Committee. Schools, universities, technical colleges, and so on, generally begin their academic year on one date only in the year. It may be that a young man becomes i8 in April, and desires to proceed to a technical college in October. He cannot proceed to a technical college till then, because they will not have him. This further provision is designed to cover that point.
    I hope that after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he will indicate a willingness to accept this Amendment, and will not merely ask the Committee to accept his good intentions in the matter, perfectly genuine, as I am sure most hon. Members will agree, as those intentions are. There are several reasons I suggest to the Committee, why it is much better to have this provision in the Bill. First, there s the psychological one. There is no doubt at all, that to the ordinary citizen of this country, there is a great and inevitable difference between the most reliable Ministerial assurance, and an enactment by the Legislature. People know that the latter is their statutory right, ensured to them by the law of this land, whereas Ministerial assurances have obviously—and I am casting no reflections—less validity and less binding force.
    I think that the young men affected by the provisions of this Bill would be somewhat reassured if they knew that their rights under it are actually written into the Bill itself. That is important in enacting what, with the exception' of the Act of 1939, is the first provision for compulsory military service in peacetime in this country. It is equally important that in the Bill there should be full recognition of the need for safeguarding both education and apprenticeship. Then, again, there is the fact that this is obviously a matter of major policy. I imagine that the Committee will agree that it is inevitable, in these days, that minor matters can and must inevitably be dealt with administratively, or even by regulation. But this is not a minor matter; this is a matter of major importance, inasmuch as it affects, not only the whole life of a large section of the younger part of the community, but also fundamentally affects the possibility of this Bill working smoothly, and with the minimum of damage to the community.

    837
    I think that it was the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who, some hours ago, pointed out that it was important at this moment that the wartime emphasis upon priority for the needs of the State, as against the needs of the individual, should be reversed, and that it should be made clear that, although a compulsory military service was accepted as a regrettable necessity by the majority of the Committee, the wellbeing of the individuals affected by it must come first. If the Committee accept that point of view, I think they must insist that what is, perhaps, the most important provision for the care of the individual concerned shall be written into the Bill. There will be this additional advantage. I will say, quite frankly, that, as far as I am concerned, I am far from happy about this Bill. [Laughter.] I am sorry that some hon. Members laugh. I ask them to accept the view that it is not unreasonable to be reluctant to vote away for a year the liberty of a large section of the population. The fact that I shall give my vote, when necessary, to that effect does not deprive me of anxiety and reluctance on this matter. I believe that attitude will be found to exist among a great many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I am very sorry that any hon. Member should regard that aspect of the matter as one for merriment. It will reassure a great many people, both in this Committee and outside, if they know that the inevitable damage to the education and training of the young, which this Bill involves, is being minimised as far as possible, and minimised by provisions within the Bill itself. It is for that reason that I am moving this Amendment.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I address myself to the Amendment. It seems to me that there is a great element of misunderstanding in this matter. Briefly, the position is, as I explained yesterday, that there are two methods by which a person's liability to serve is deferred. There is the deferment method, and the postponement method. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for in this Amendment is that the present method of deferring students shall be transferred from the present machinery to the hardship committees. In other words, he is asking for a major Amendment of
    838
    the provisions of the National Service Act, 1939. But that part of the Act is being retained here. If the Amendment were carried, it would give to every student in the country, whether there was a place for him in the university or not, the absolute right to exemption until he had gone to the university.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to mislead the Committee. Surely, the provision on that point is clear. It provides for exemption during the period of university education, or if the applicant can satisfy the Minister that he will be going through a course within one year. To satisfy the Minister of that, he would obviously have to show proof that the university would take him.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: But then we should have the position of a man, who is now liable for 12 months service, having that service postponed, because, in 10 months' time, he can get into a university. He might, indeed, spend such time in the university, under the right given to him by this Amendment, as would take him beyond the age of call-up. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is wrong."] I was satisfied about the confusion which existed concerning the method of granting postponement certificates and allowing deferment under the deferment procedure. It is really all mixed up, and is done in such a way as to make nonsense of the present legislation, and the whole procedure. I will try again to set out the position. The postponement provision in the National Service Act was inserted for a special purpose. The postponement certificate is only granted in cases of personal hardship. The hon. Gentleman is now asking that people should be given a postponement certificate, but such certificates can only be issued by a hardship committee.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but I want to get the point clear. We had a Debate on Tuesday last about 18 or 21, and I put to the Committee the very point which my hon. Friend is now putting. At that time, my hon. Friend said that this Bill was to make a change in the law, and that, whereas, under the existing law, the applicant had to prove hardship, under the procedure of this law he would have to do no such thing, and would have an

    839
    option, provided he proved that he came within those circumstances.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to have to press this point, but I am afraid I have not made myself clear. A postponement certificate is granted on the grounds of personal hardship. It is provided that such a certificate shall be issued by a hardship committee. I submit that a hardship committee is the wrong machine for granting deferment. We are now discussing deferment for apprentices and for persons receiving full-time education in a university, or who satisfiy the Minister that within a year they will go to an educational institution. The only body to grant a postponement certificate in this type of case is the hardship committee. The only postponement certificate that can be issued is one issued by the hardship committee. I appreciate the intention of this Amendment; I can see what is behind it, but this is the wrong way of doing it.
    I think this is a matter of some importance. Let me indicate what is done in the case of apprentices, learners, pupils and students in full-time attendance at certain technical clases or courses. I propose to quote the headnote of the form N. L. 11 which is issued to every student or every person in this category when he registers at the employment exchange. In the form are set out the conditions which are applicable if he desires to obtain deferment of his service. Let me quote the part relating to apprentices:
    "Deferment may be granted by the District Man Power Board if your employment as an apprentice, learner or pupil satisfies all the following conditions:"
    It then sets out the conditions. The first material condition is:
    "That a period of training after the age of 18 is required in your case in order that you may obtain the necessary skill for the occupation, or a recognised qualification for the profession, you intend to follow."
    The second condition is:
    "That training begun (a) within the normal limits recognised in a scheme of apprenticeship or similar training for the industry, profession or occupation concerned."
    Otherwise, as soon as a person received notice to register, it would be open for him to enter into apprenticeship in order to get the benefit of this deferment. The form then says that this training and
    840
    apprenticeship shall have commenced before the age of 17. There are other conditions laid down, presumably recognised and understood by the student and apprentice who wants to exercise his option to claim deferment for the purpose of his apprenticeship.
    Now I come to the conditions of deferment of students attending a full-time technical class. I am taking a little more time over this point than, perhaps, I might otherwise have done, because there are several Amendments later on the Order Paper which cover substantially this ground, and I think the time spent now on this matter will be very usefully spent. The form says:
    "Conditions of deferment of a student attending a full-time technical class. If you are a student in full-time attendance at an approved technical class or course (other than a course of the kind referred to in paragraph 8 below), deferment may be granted by the District Man Power Board provided (1) (a) you begin your technical education before the age of 17 or within three months of the end of your whole-time general education; and (b) the course forms a normal part of, or is appropriate to, your training for the skilled occupation or profession you intend to follow; and (c)"—
    this is relevant to some of the discussion we have had previously in the Committee—
    "the Head of the technical college which you attend, or propose to attend, certifies that you have been accepted as a suitable student for the course in question; (2) you are making satisfactory progress in your studies."
    That is of the greatest importance. Otherwise, fellows who are not pulling their weight at the technical college, who are using this as a means of escape, will continue to fail examination after examination, until they have reached the age of 26, and will escape liability completely. In the case of deferment, one does not add to the period of liability the period of deferment. It is only in the case of postponement that the period is added, so that the postponement does not affect the liability of the person to his obligations under the Bill.
    Mr. Boyd Carpenter: The example which the Parliamentary Secretary put of a person deliberately failing an examination implies criminal negligence on the part of the educational establishment. Any such student would obviously be dismissed from the place of education, and would then forfeit the deferment. I think the hon. Gentleman has made a false point.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have, so far, covered the case of the technical colleges. Now let me come to the case of the students. These are the conditions with regard to the students:
    "If you wish to apply for deferment on the ground that you are taking or propose to take, a full-time course at:—(1) a University, or (2) a Medical, Dental or Veterinary College for a recognised professional qualification, or (3) a recognised Agricultural College, leading to an approved qualification"—
    in which some hon. Members were interested yesterday—
    "or … (5) a Teachers' Training College, you should consult the Head of your school or college regarding the special arangements for the deferment of such students. Pending a decision on your deferment for such a course, you may be eligible for temporary deferment under the separate arrangments referred to in paragraph 9 below."
    Mr. K. Lindsay: Could we have the date of that document?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the document which is now issued regularly on registration to any person who desires a deferment on any of the grounds I have mentioned. The date of the document as revised is February, 1947. This is the document which is in operation now.
    I now come to the point raised in the Amendment. The Amendment confuses the two positions. It seeks to use the postponement certificate which is issued by the hardship committees for cases of deferment. I warn hon. Members that what they would be doing by their Amendment would be this: If a postponement certificate—and this is a term adequately described in the old Act—were granted to persons who were entitled to deferment, they would lose the benefit which they now have, namely, that their period of liability for service is not extended by the period of their deferment. This is a very difficult matter—
    Brigadier Low: The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful, at any rate, as far as I am concerned, but I would like to see if I have correctly understood the effect. Does he want the effect to he that anybody who goes to a university for three years shall, instead of doing seven years' service under this Bill, do only four years? Does the hon. Gentleman want to produce that effect?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is what we have decided.
    Brigadier Low: When did we decide it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Hon. Members should look more closely into what was done during the night. I know we were not all at our best, but hon. Members should see what was decided by the Committee. I am sorry I have not made myself as clear as I would like to have done, but this is a highly technical matter, as the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) knows, because he is experienced in this matter. The position will be this: Instead of getting a deferment, they will get a postponement certificate. Then their liability to service will be extended by the period of deferment which is now called the period of postponement. I am sure that is not the intention of the Amendment. If that is the intention of the Amendment, it was not the reason given when the Amendment was moved. The reason which was given when the Amendment was moved was that every student and apprentice in the country expecting to go to a university immediately or within 10 or II months, should have the absolute right to be exempted from service, so long as he continued at the university, the technical college or as an apprentice. I submit that this would create a situation which would be capable of very great abuse. A man might fail in one college; he might fail in Cardiff, and he could then go to London. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He would not do so now, at this stage, because of the tremendous pressure to enter the universities, but would hon. Members consider what the position in the educational institutions of this country will be in three years' time when all these men have come out of the universities? It will become a great racket, and that is not the intention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.
    I am satisfied hon. Members opposite want to do the right thing by the students and apprentices. I do not want their position to be worsened; and at same time, a method ought not to be created which would give rise to substantial abuse. Let me take the position of a student in a technical college. He gets a postponement certificate. He not a bright student, but he is doing his best. Hon. Members would describe him as a hard-working student. We cannot take away his postponement certificate because he is not brilliant, so long as he

    843
    is conscientious. But this is the postponement method and not the deferment method, and he will go on slogging away. He fails to pass his examinations until he reaches the age of 26, and, as the Bill now stands, he escapes his liability to service. That is all right in the case of the genuinely dull man, but, after all, there is an inducement for a man to be dull, because by being dull he will escape his obligations.
    Mr. McGhee: He might become a general.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not wish to be offensive, but he might even become a Member of Parliament. This Amendment raises issues which will involve greater considerations than were in the mind of the mover. We shall have to discuss the matter later, when we come to the new Clauses, but I have tried to give the general framework, indicating how service is postponed and how it is deferred. They are two entirely different types of machinery and involve two entirely different types of reasons. This Amendment confuses the case of the man who ought to be deferred with the type of postponement which the hardship committee gives to a fellow who has some domestic hardship. Therefore, I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn. Perhaps we shall have further discussion on the matter when we come to the later Amendments dealing with agricultural workers, technical students and so on.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the Parliamentary Secretary, who has done his best to explain the difficult position which arises with the present complicated machinery, has really failed, though I am not blaming him for it, to appreciate the true purport and significance of this Amendment. I feel sure that if he had appreciated it, he would not have said some of the hard things that he did say about it. He said, for' instance, that if this Amendment were accepted, it would lead to a great racket. I agree, it would, if the Amendment provided for a right to deferment which could be exercised, and go on being exercised, until the 26th birthday came, when the youth would be free from all liability for compulsory service. But that is the reason—although it may involve certain administrative
    844
    procedure, to which I will come later—why the reference in this Amendment is not to "deferment" but to "postponement." If the postponement is granted, the liability for service does not disappear. If it were postponement, there would be no incentive to the student or apprentice to engage in "ca'canny" in the hope of obtaining a deferment sufficiently long to free him from liability for service. That is the reason why the word "postponement" is found in this Amendment. It is an important point, because there is no intention on this side of the Committee of enabling students and apprentices to escape liability for national service under the terms of this Amendment.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member is not quite clear. It is probably my fault that I have not made the position as clear as I might have done. I thought I had indicated that the granting of a postponement certificate is decided by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. It also provides who shall issue it. The postponement certificate has a special technical significance. It must be issued by a committee which is quite incapable of dealing with things of this sort, but which deals with matters of other sorts. It also lays down for what the certificate shall be issued, and it does not cover any of the points in the Amendment. The Amendment does not propose to amend the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. All the Amendment proposes to do is, to amend the Bill before the Committee, which leaves the 1939 Act intact upon this point.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Parliamentary Secretary has again made clear what he had already made clear. I was going on to deal with the point which he has raised. I was dealing, first of all, with the arguments he had adduced on this particular Amendment because several times he referred to the Amendment creating the possibility of a great racket. I am trying to satisfy him that the word "postponement" was deliberately put into this Amendment for the very purpose of ensuring that there should be nothing in the nature of a great racket. I was going on to deal with the points he raised as to the difference between a postponement and a deferment. I appreciate the difficulty about that. It may

    845
    be that if this Amendment were accepted, there would be necessity for some consequential Amendment to the Third Schedule of the Bill. But let us deal first of all with the point of principle.
    The fundamental point of principle, surely, is this. If a young man engaged in an apprenticeship, or a student, or an undergraduate at a university, in the interests of his career and with the advice of his parents, deems it to be to his advantage—and, indeed to the national advantage—to complete his course of education, then surely, so long as he does not avoid liability for national service some time, there is a great deal to be said for his being allowed to postpone—I use that word in its non-technical sense—his military service. I appreciate the difficulty. But, surely, if the principle is accepted, the difficulty then becomes a matter of machinery? One of the difficulties about this machinery is that it tries to divide all these cases into two distinct compartments. Where there are cases which are partly of a compassionate nature and partly of an educational nature in respect of which deferment is obtained—and it is not so easy to get a correct assessment of both—
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and learned Member cannot escape with one, because an aggrieved person can claim the benefit of either machinery.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I quite agree; he can claim the benefit of either. I am not trying to escape from anything, but I am saying, from my experience of working this, that sometimes when a man has not a very strong case before one tribunal, or a very strong case before the other, the sum total of his two cases is a very strong case. I shall not pursue that, or I should probably get out of Order. The postponement certificate, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, is designed to deal with cases of personal hardship. The machinery may want altering. It may, indeed, be a grave personal hardship to a young man to have his career interrupted at the age of 18 when no interruption might ensue if his service could be postponed for one further year. I ask the Committee, in considering this Amendment, not to become too involved in the technical terms "postponement" and "deferment," but to apply their minds to the principle behind the Amendment; that is to say, the principle of allowing the
    846
    young person the exercise of an option in his own interests, on condition that the exercise of that option will merely postpone and not avoid his liability to national service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, in referring to that particular form, and reading out the conditions, said quite clearly, not that deferment should be granted when those conditions were satisfied, but that it "may" be granted. That, I have no doubt, was entirely right. But I suggest that in peacetime the option should rest more with the individual than with the tribunal to determine whether, in a particular case, liability for national service should be postponed or deferred. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary—I hope I am not taking too long over this—to apply his mind to the principle behind the Amendment, and also to deal with this further point. Some time ago, as it now appears to me, I put him some questions with regard to those engaged in agriculture who are not strictly apprentices, and who can only be described loosely as "students." While listening to him reading that form, I must say I was at a loss to see into what category those people come who are learning agriculture—which is a skilled occupation— and how they could bring themselves within the four corners of that form for the purpose of securing postponement of liability for service. I do not ask for a reply now, but I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that matter. I accept all he said the other day about agriculture, and I need not remind him of it. But I do not think that form is wide enough to cover the cases which both he and I had in mind.
    Mrs. Manning: I am sure there will be a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the Committee with the principle behind this Amendment. I will not go so far as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry. (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in suggesting that it should be left to the young person himself. Anybody who had experience of these matters during the period of the war will agree that the Parliamentary Secretary is not exaggerating when he says this could become a racket. During the early part of the war especially there were quite a number of cases and—although I would far rather not have to say this—it was much more usual among girls than boys during the

    847
    war. When national service first came into operation, a number of parents were horrified at the idea of their daughters entering national service, and in peacetime that might apply to boys as well. As far as my own work was concerned, there was always considerable pressure being exerted in regard to moving girls from one college to another, or re-examination of the reason why she was not going to be allowed to continue for another year or another term.
    I think, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary has perhaps carried it to an illogical absurdity when he says a person could go on till 26 years of age, and then escape the whole thing. It might so happen if it were left to the young person himself to decide, which is what I understand is being asked for. That would, indeed, be very dangerous, and that is something we could not accept. There was a lot of trouble in this regard at the beginning of the war, and at the beginning of national service, until it was established. Believe me, the Parliamentary Secretary really knows what he is talking about in this matter.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: I think we have great sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. The real question in my mind is whether what the Amendment seeks to achieve is not already provided by the provisions of the Bill. In order that I may be quite clear about that, and perhaps to clarify the minds of other hon. Members, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether my understanding is right. A boy is called up at i8 years of age. If he does not intend to enter apprenticeship or a university until after he is 19, then obviously he must do his 12 months' service first. If, on the other hand, he wants to enter the university before he is 19, he can ask for a deferment and proceed with his three years' or, at the most, four years' course. That would take him to the age of 22 or 23. We are then faced with the possibility, I think the fantastic possibility, suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, that he may manage to spin out his education for three more years so as to escape military service altogether. I cannot believe that is a suggestion to be taken very seriously. It is true that a boy might be willing to and might desire to do that. But is there any reputable educational institution in England or Wales today which would lend itself to that kind of thing?
    Mrs. Manning: At one time did not young men stay at Cambridge for many years after they had finished their course? Although there is difficulty in regard to accommodation at universities at the present time, might not they go back, and stay there a good many years?
    Mr. Harris: The hon. Lady has raised the very point on which I intended to touch. I see no prospect of that kind of position in the universities for years to come. We are being asked by Parliament to double the number of university students in this country. It is quite impossible to approach that, and it will be impossible for years and years. I cannot conceive that any university or college would keep within its walls anyone who was not paying proper attention to his education and who had not passed the examinations he ought to have passed at the end of three or four years. But I do not attach any importance to that. It seems to me that the intentions behind this Amendment are fully covered by the present arrangements for deferment.
    Brigadier Low: I should like to expand the question which I put earlier, when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, and I apologise if I then seemed slightly discourteous to him. It does appear from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that the operation of deferment provisions, as opposed to the postponement provisions of his registration machinery, results in certain exemptions from part-time service under this Bill.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not desirous of being discourteous, but I am very anxious that I should understand the point that is being made. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it again.
    5.30 p.m.
    Brigadier Low: I will try again. It appears to me, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the way in which his Ministry operates the deferment provisions results in a form of exemption from part-time service. I will give an example. If a man at the age of 18 is given a four year deferment, to allow him to complete a four year course at a university, as my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has suggested, he will finish the course at the age of 22; and, if what the hon. Gentleman says is right, he will then have only four years in which he is liable for service

    849
    under this Bill: whereas this Bill provides for a period of seven years' service. That is, I think, right. There is an example of exemption from part-time service which is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bill. I always understood that it was a principle upon which the whole Committee was agreed, that there should be no exemptions from service under this Bill, except those set out in Section II of the principal Act, and underground miners, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. If the hon. Gentleman is right, and if he proposes to administer the provisions in this way, the Committee should discuss the desirability of this form of exemption from part-time service. I have always believed that, if there are to be exemptions from part-time service, the man in a reserved occupation at the time his exemption applies has a far better case. But I have been persuaded that it is better to have no exemption at all. I put the point to the hon. Gentleman, and I should like to have an answer.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I must confess I have a good deal of sympathy with this Amendment. I cannot, having had some experience in matters of deferment and postponement during the war, anticipate the serious consequences that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has imagined. I do not know where the racket was that was referred to by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), unless—and here is the reason I speak tonight—unless the racket arose because of the impersonal organisation, which determined this, that, and the other, under deferment during the war.
    Mrs. Manning: It is not where we have impersonal organisation that we get the racket. It arises in personal matters, such as those suggested in the Amendment, where the young persons themselves take steps for their deferment.
    Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the excellent efforts made by the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up the confusion on this matter have only added to it, but if hon. Members persist in misunderstanding most of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, I certainly cannot place all the responsibility upon him. Not at all. Let us take the question of deferment, on the one hand, and that of postponement, on the other, as we saw them operate under
    850
    the National Service Acts. First, deferments were granted by manpower boards situated in different parts of the country. That is the reason why I used the word "impersonal." The applicants, in 99 cases out of every 100, had no opportunity of being present in person before the manpower boards. The whole business was done by correspondence. The pupil could not go there with the headmaster, or another master from his own school; the apprentice could not be accompanied by a representative of the firm to which he was apprenticed.
    In the case of the hardship tribunals, the applicant could appear in person, and take a friend along with him. That friend could be his headmaster, or one of the masters in the school, or a representative of the firm. The case for the apprentice or pupil could be placed before a tribunal whose members knew the locality in detail, and knew a considerable number of people there. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that only cases of personal hardship could be brought before the hardship tribunal. I disagree with that. The applicant for postponement who appeared before a hardship tribunal, could put his own personal case of hardship, and that case could be reinforced by his employer, who would argue that, if that particular applicant were taken away from him, the employer himself would experience considerable hardship. I think I should try to show how this worked from the experience I had during the first war, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember a good deal of what he and I went through in the first war.
    The manpower board is not an appropriate board to consider individual cases such as are referred to in the Amendment. What I suggest to my right hon. Friend is, that he should broaden the powers of the hardship tribunals, because there, all the personal facts relating to an individual can be brought out. I am trying to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to this point, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should act as a barrage between the right hon. Gentleman and me. I think the Minister is fully competent to answer anything I say. I notice that this Amendment simply asks for postponement. I am amazed that an Amendment of this kind should come from the Opposition benches. According

    851
    to this, the student or the apprentice would have to satisfy the Minister. How can the Minister be satisfied by placing the student at the mercy of an entirely impersonal machine? I know what has happened in my own country. Appeals have been made for deferment to the manpower board by an individual living 25 or 5o or even 70 miles from the manpower board, without any personal contact at all between the applicant for deferment and the manpower board. I am confident that the manpower board is not the right organisation.
    I will go further. As far as South Wales is concerned, I would rather take any case I felt I could honestly support before the hardship tribunal or the court of referees, where I could get the personal touch and where I would be dealing with individuals who would know the local circumstances, and where the applicant would be there in person, and not placed at the mercy of a machine dealing only with correspondence.
    Mr. Braddock: I want to touch on a rather different aspect of this Amendment. There is a danger that by the Amendment we should limit the scope of the application of the Clause. An important statement was made by the Minister on Clause in dealing with Amendments concerning the ages of 18 and 2I. The Minister made it clear that others, besides apprentices and students, are to receive consideration, that is to say, learners. It seems to me that there is a danger, if this Amendment is accepted, of the deferment being limited to apprentices and people who are going to universities or colleges. I think that that would be an exceedingly dangerous state of affairs to bring about. Other sections of the community ought to have this consideration.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The effect of this Amendment is the exact opposite. This Amendment proposes to grant to these people, not deferment, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, postponement. Therefore, it will not affect the position of other people who might or might not qualify for deferment.
    Mr. Braddock: That may be so, but we shall limit the application of the Clause,
    852
    by specifying two classes. It is likely to have a bad effect on sections of the community not specifically mentioned in the Clause. Although I am sympathetic with the Amendment, I think there is danger in a limitation of this sort, and I ask the Minister, if he thinks there is anything in this Amendment at all, to reconsider the matter, and bring forward words that will make the Clause apply to all sections of the community, and not merely to these two specified classes.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would ask the Committee to come to a decision on this matter. We have gone into it in great detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Some hon. Members were not here when these points were fully discussed and criticised on both sides of the Committee. We are now beginning to tread on our own tails, and to go over ground already covered. I should like to deal with one or two points which have been put forward, and to show why the Amendment should be withdrawn. In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said deferment may be granted. I agree that the word "may" is there. It is because conditions have to be fulfilled, and because no non-Service student can be allowed to go into a university to crowd out an ex-Service student. That is why the word is "may." There must be available adequate accommodation when the deferment certificate is granted. I will consider the point raised about the young men in agriculture.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mts. Manning) said there could be a racket in this business. I do not want to criticise the young womenfolk of this country. How many of these young women. when we started calling them up, entered the universities, or undertook apprenticeships, or studentships of any sort, to avoid the call-up? It is said that medical students did the same thing. I am not making any charge against the profession on that ground. In those cases to which reference has been made the procedure is that the young man who wants to go to the university makes his application for deferment on the form which I have described. The matter goes to a competent authority to decide the question of whether or not he will make a good student, whether or not his deferment in order that he may go to the

    853
    university is justified. His application goes forward to the Joint Universities is Recruiting Board. Surely, that s the body to decide whether, in the national interest, the student should have deferment, rather than the hardship committee, whose chairman may be living next door, in which case the same considerations would not apply as would apply if the matter were dealt with by the Joint Universities Recruiting Board.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary entitled to make such unwarrantable strictures on these people, the members of the hardship committees. who gave their services for nothing to help the national cause?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is not the duty of the Chair to assess what are unwarrantable strictures.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not indulging in any strictures upon these committees, who did a great job of work. I am only saying that they are not competent to decide this question. I say that they will not be big enough to go into the relevant considerations, but will be inclined to take account of personal considerations, which have nothing to do with it.
    Mr. King: Is it not a fact that deferment is granted on the certificate of the headmaster, and that great pressure is brought to bear on headmasters?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We have gone over this matter before, and I have described it in detail. It is unfair to the Committee, at the end of the Debate, to go back over points that have been decided. Let me now deal with one other point. There are no exemptions at all in this Bill. No exemptions are granted to anybody. They are not exemptions, but deferments or postponements and nobody is excluded from liability. I think I have covered most of the points raised. I have done my best to deal with a very difficult piece of technical machinery and administration, and I hope that, in view of what has been said, the Amendment will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Stanley: We have had a long and I must say intensely interesting Debate on this subject. I find myself in considerable difficulty to know what to do,
    854
    because, frankly, I want two things which I cannot get, either under the present system or under the Amendment. I want to get, if I can, the methods of deferment with the results of postponement. All that I have heard has convinced me that the methods of deferment and the procedure adopted for deferment constitute the proper procedure for cases of this kind, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been conclusive on that point. On the other hand, I want to get the results of postponement. That is exactly the object of this Amendment, and not what the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite thought it was. The object here is not to create a privileged class. We do not feel that these university students and apprentices should have the double advantage of taking their education at the time they want, and, in addition, the possibility that, by deferment, they may, in the end, escape part of their military service. We think that they should be able to have their education when they want it, and when it is convenient to them, but, when they have completed it, they should be like everybody else and go through their military service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. If we catch them before they are 25, then we are all right, and the present machinery does catch them before they are 25, but, through this machinery of the hardship committees, we cannot touch them. If we catch them before they are 25, they do not lose their liability, and the important thing is that the present machinery does help us to get the student before he reaches the age of 25, so that he is not, in fact, able to escape.
    Mr. Stanley: He may be caught in time, but he may slip through the net, and I understand that, in some part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman told us how it was possible that that might come about. I want it made clear that, in those circumstances, a person cannot have either deferment or postponement and unusual chances of education which will result in his being exempted from any part of his military service. Unless the hon. Gentleman can give us some assurance, between now and the Report stage, that he will look at this Clause again, and give us a further assurance on the avoidance of any possibility of escape

    855
    from military service, we shall have to press this Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Pickthorn Mr. Pickthorn rose—
    Hon. Members: Divide.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to resent the continuance of this discussion—
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I showed no resentment.
    Mr. Pickthorn: In view of the fact that we have sat continuously for 19 or 20 hours out of the 24, there is one thing I want to say, and I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. We have been told more than once, and more often from the other side of the Committee, that this Bill is one of profound constitutional importance and I agree. We all know that it has been agreed between all parties that, in the life of this Parliament, Bills of constitutional importance are to be taken on the Floor of the House, and that pledge is now being kept. All I ask is whether it is being kept in the spirit, or whether we are not now in the difficulty of having this matter discussed either by hon. Gentlemen who have not been here for much of the earlier discussion—and I do not in the least blame them for that—or by those in my situation, who think that, whether or not usually intelligent, they are now much less intelligent than usual. I am bound to say that the Ministers responsible for this part of the Bill have treated us with the greatest courtesy and kindness, and, in my experience of these matters, have been almost unprecedentedly patient with us. The fact remains that, at the point we have now reached, I am not quite clear about this matter, and I would undertake to bet that there are not 6o hon. Members of this Committee who are—I think, it would be fairly safe to say, not even six.
    If that is so, is this really the proper way to legislate on a matter of this importance? I cannot believe it is, and I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench think so at this moment. I speak wholly for myself, when I say that I am not quite sure what we ought to do at this stage. I am, rather dubiously, in agreement with my right hon. Friend that what we want is the method of one form of procrastination—if I might use a not very suitable neutral word—with the results of another. I am
    856
    inclined to think that, perhaps, he is right. Let us see how we can get that result. I think most of us are in great difficulties about what the results of this Amendment would be. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say now, whether he thinks it proper to go on in this way. I am not blaming right hon. Gentlemen; they are in very difficult circumstances. But, if they do propose to go on in this way, I ask them to consider whether they ought not to give us some unusual assurances in this matter. We have all tried very hard, but I think we ought to have a promise that all possibilities of some new arrangement have been considered, so that we all understand what any suggestion means, and so that the Ministers understand exactly what they can offer towards what we want. I think that unofficial discussions on such points are always undesirable, especially in this case in view of the high level or scope of this legislation. In the absence of any such assurances, the result of this part of the Bill will have no direct connection with the real will of the majority of hon. Members in this Committee, unless some steps towards such an ad hoc arrangement are possible.
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman referred to an ad hoc understanding. I do not know if what I am about to say comes within that classification or not. I appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). We want to see that nobody escapes their military service. That is the first thing. We will certainly look at the Clause, and, if we are satisfied that anything more can be done with it, we will try to do it. With regard to the second point which was put by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), we will consider whether we can issue a White Paper or some other document setting this matter out in clear and precise terms, and I hope that, in view of what I have said, hon. Gentlemen opposite will withdraw the Amendment and let us get on.
    Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Minister if he can say what numbers he has calculated for deferments, because the Parliamentary Secretary has said that people with deferments could be caught up to the age of 25? Could he say what the average of deferments is to be?
    Mr. Isaacs: That will be very difficult. If I said that, the whole circumstances would be altered.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's double undertaking, first, to look again at the Clause and, secondly, to consider the issue of a White Paper setting out the provisions of this complex matter, I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Keenan: I object. I have been up about a dozen times, and have not had an opportunity to speak.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Member objecting to the withdrawal of the Amendment?
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Keenan: Yes, I want to put a point to which no reference has been made, on this Amendment. I am not so much concerned about the categories of people involved, or about people who may try to secure an easier means of deferment or postponement of national service. I want to urge the Minister not to agree to any change that will make it any easier to avoid service under the National Service Act.
    What I cannot escape from in this connection is that this is the first of a number of Amendments which ask that certain categories should be postponed for an indefinite period. Looking at. them, I wonder who will be left for national service if they are carried. It seems to me that the number will be considerably limited. I do not know how many this Amendment would affect if it were carried. With regard to others who are eligible for national service, with nobody behind them, with no likelihood of a profession or of university or technical education—are they to be the only persons who will be called up at 18 or 17½?
    I am agreeing to national service because I believe it is essential in the circumstances, and in that I fall out with a great many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. But let us have national service; let everybody who reaches the age of 18 accept that responsibility, and do not let us be too ready to exempt those for whom these pleas are being made. I am not saying that a case cannot be made out for them, but I certainly do not want to see what went on during the war, when there was an oppor-
    858
    tunity, which was embraced in many cases, for both boys and girls to get out of service because of the weakness of the machine. I urge the Minister not to give way either on this Amendment or subsequent Amendments. I hope he will keep to it, and make a proper approach to national service, so that it will be national service for everybody, irrespective of the class from which they come.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Deputy-Chairman: In calling the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson)—in page 19, line 24, at the end, to add:
    "Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act—

    (a) any person liable to he called up for service by virtue of this Act, who declares himself to be a conscientious objector, shall not be sentenced to suffer penalties imposed by or under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946, on more than one occasion; and shall, thereafter, be discharged from any liability to further service under this Act;

    (b) no person who has declared himself to be a conscientious objector shall be subject to the death penalty for any offence against the provisions of the National Service Acts."

    —I should point out that the Amendment he will move will cover only paragraph (a), and not the last three lines of which paragraph (b) consists.
    Mr. Stanley: I did not quite understand you, Mr. Beaumont, when you said that this Amendment would cover paragraph (a) and not paragraph (b).
    The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for West Ealing will leave out the last three lines of the Amendment on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Stanley: But is not this rather a new procedure, that the Chair can call on an hon. Member to move a different Amendment from the one he has on the Order Paper?
    The Deputy-Chairman: If an Amendment is in the wrong form, it is open to the Chair to advise accordingly.
    Mr. Stanley: What is meant by that, Mr. Beaumont?
    Mr. James Hudson: I do not wish to make difficulties, but I respect the advice, which I accept.
    Mr. Stanley: We do not know what it means.
    Mr. J. Hudson: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman.
    Hon. MembersTell us now
    Mr. J. Hudson: I was advised that it would be better for the discussion to take place on the main question that I wish to raise, namely, the conscientious objector, and not to raise the issue in paragraph (b) because it is a separate issue which arises under the National Service Acts.
    Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. That is exactly the opposite of what the Chair has said. The Chair has said.that the Amendment would cover only paragraph (b).
    Hon. Members: No.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, paragraph (b) would not be moved. The Amendment to be proposed deals with paragraph (a) as set out on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act any person liable to be called up for service by virtue of this Act, who declares himself to be a conscientious objector, shall not be sentenced to suffer penalties imposed by, or under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946, on more than one occasion; and shall, thereafter, be discharged from any liability to further service under this Act"
    If the matter raised in paragraph (b) is to be discussed, it will have to be discussed on some other occasion and in some other place. I will proceed to deal with the issue that is left. It has been debated long in the House, and the general points are well understood. I am sorry to say that the commitments made in connection with the administration of national service, especially the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the days when the principal Act was introduced, have not been fully implemented in the treatment of conscientious objectors. I shall make my point best understood if I refer to a case I have brought to the attention of the Home Secretary. It is the case of a young man, a member of the Society of Friends, who on two occasions has been convicted in the courts and given a month's imprisonment because he did not accept the conditions laid down for him by a tribunal under the Military Service
    860
    Acts. He was given work on agriculture, and declined to accept it. Hon. Members may think he was wrong to do that but, on strict conscientious grounds, he felt that to accept an arrangement even for purely civilian duties, imposed upon him in connection with the prosecution of the war, was in violation of his conscientious convictions. So although the tribunal was clear in its distinction, he declined to accept that distinction. He went through the whole process of being indicted as a conscientious objector, was imprisoned for a month, came out and went through exactly the same process again, and was again condemned to a month. This has happened this year and he is now awaiting—or may be awaiting, we do not know—a further procedure of this kind.
    This case has been presented to me by the clerk of Jordans Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends. They are much impressed with the genuine conscientious convictions of this young man, they stand by him in his scruples, and they have brought his case to my attention. He is one of many others whose cases I do not know as clearly as his, but it is a case in continuance of many similar cases in the last war from which we supposed that we had escaped. We thought that under the National Service legislation which was brought in in 1939, we had taken steps to prevent our falling into this difficulty again.
    I knew a teacher in the last war who was given not work on the land, but work in the school where he was engaged. It was a good school and a pleasant job. There was no question of his dodging military service and looking for a "cushy" place; the "cushy" place was offered to him, it was his own place. But he said to the tribunal, "You are endeavouring to fasten me down under an arrangement so that you may place your finger upon me as a teacher in school to fit up the war machine in a totalitarian position. You are prepared to organise me in that position in order that you may send someone else in my place, and I decline to enter into an engagement which, while it may assist me, will put someone else in the difficulty that I have conscientiously declined to accept for myself." Hon. Members may say again that that was a wrong action, but it was an action conscientiously made by a man

    861
    moved by his convictions, the consequence for him was a series of imprisonments that went on all through the war—first, three months, then six months, then imprisonment that ran for nearly two years, until he was released at the end of the war.
    It was that kind of case that the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain referred to when, at the time of the introduction of the principal Act, he said that we were in a position where we no longer wanted to face such a difficulty again. To quote his words:
    "But there is a great variation in the way in which people are affected by scruples of this kind."
    that is, of a conscientious objection kind:
    "There is the most extreme case, where a man feels it is his duty to do nothing even to aid or comfort those who are engaged in military operations, although it may well be that those military operations have been forced upon us by the aggression of some other country. Probably that is the smallest of all classes of conscientious objectors. But it often happens that those who hold the most extreme opinions hold them with the greatest tenacity."
    Now that Act was accepted, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain went on to say:
    "We learned something about this in the Great War, and I think we found that it was both a useless and an exasperating waste of time and effort to attempt to force such people to act in a manner which was contrary to their principles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1939; Vol. 346, c. 2097.]
    I submit that at that point Parliament had agreed to accept the convictions of people of this kind and not to continue to imprison them. To be going on today under the Military Service Acts and to be threatened, as we are now in connection with this Bill, with a continuance of this process is something that I am sure my right hon. Friends on the Front bench will want, with all their power, to avoid if possible.
    My Amendment—and I am no lawyer—may not be drafted as it ought to be, but I submit to my right hon. Friends that they ought to be able to give us a clear undertaking today, either by accepting this Amendment or some other designed to do the thing that I wish to happen, that, if a man has been punished once under the law—however big or however little the sentence may be—after declaring himself to be a conscientious objector and declining to carry out what he feels he cannot carry out conscien-
    862
    tiously, it should be settled once and for all when his sentence has been served, and that thereafter he ought to be discharged from any further obligation of service in the Forces.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Solley: I interrupt in no captious spirit, but in order to obtain information. As I understand it, the proposal is that he should not continue to suffer certain penalties under the National Service Acts. Would my hon. Friend be good enough to say the nature of offences which he has in mind in respect of which penalties are imposed? There is a world of difference between an offence under the Army Act, and an offence under the National Service Acts.
    Mr. Hudson: The difficulty is in connection with cases such as that of which I have given details.
    Mr. Solley: Just one case.
    Mr. Hudson: It is that kind of case, where a person is required to do certain things by a decision of a tribunal. If he does not do those things, it is an offence against a provision of the National Service Acts, and for offences of that sort I am suggesting that after one sentence has been served, the matter should be finished. I am the more anxious to make this plea, because I know I am on very difficult ground. A remarkable step forward has been made already by the House of Cornmons in national generosity—
    Mr. Ayles: Justice.
    Mr. Hudson: —and justice, on this question. I agree entirely that if we could get the punishment laid down under the provisions regarding conscientious objection, all sorts of dodgers may get out of their obligations to serve. I do not deny that at all. Indeed, I take pretty much the same view as George Bernard Shaw took when dealing with this problem of obedience to the inner voice of conscience in the Preface to "St. Joan," when he spoke about the possibility of the voices such as St. Joan listened to being not at all the voices of the Infinite, but the hallucinations of a madman, or the promptings of a criminal, or of a social saboteur. It may be the case that a person claiming conscientious objection had not those grounds at all. I know that fear exists, but the fact that we have got

    863
    to a point where the State has admitted in an Act of Parliament that a conscientious objection can be genuine and ought to be accepted, and that persecution of the conscientious objector ought to stop, is, in my judgment, a clear indication that Parliament and the public conscience is now at a point where we can no longer accept the old method of cat-and-mouse punishment, until by some process of oppression the conscientious objector is driven into a position which, if left to his conscience, he could not accept.
    I hope the Committee, if not in the actual terms of the Amendment, will agree that it should be the duty of the Government to prevent such a case as that of the young man mentioned in the Jordans Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends, whose progress through prison, a progress now going on, occurring again. That case, and all cases like it, should come to an end, and I hope the Government will accept a provision by which it will prevent their recurrence in any circumstances.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has put this Amendment down so very late. I appreciate the earnestness and sincerity with which he has moved it, and I think he has done so under very great physical inconvenience to himself. I wish he had put it down a little earlier—
    Mr. J. Hudson Mr. J. Hudson rose—
    Mr. Isaacs: Let me finish my sentence. The Amendment cannot possibly be accepted—
    Mr. Hudson: Would my right hon. Friend permit me to explain that I put the Amendment down under Clause I, but it was suggested to me that that was the wrong place? I put it down a number of days ago, and it was suggested that I should move it to this position. I thought it right to accept that. I am sorry to have caused inconvenience.
    Mr. Isaacs: I was not making any complaint, because, as I said earlier in the afternoon, we are very much appalled by the idea that it is possible for a man to be constantly going in and out of prison for the same offence. But, the trouble with this Amendment is that it refers to
    "any person … who declares himself to be a conscientious objector."
    864
    There must be some satisfaction that he is a conscientious objector. I cannot accept the Amendment for that, and other reasons, which I will not go into now. But I would like to know what the Committee feels about this matter. I am not very skilled in dealing with these matters in Committee, but I would like to know, as we cannot accept this Amendment, whether it would be possible for me to have a look at this before the Report stage, and bring forward an Amendment then on which the House could say something.
    Mr. Hudson: I think the statement is so generous that I ask permission to withdraw—
    Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Ealing West (Mr. J. Hudson) wish to withdraw the Amendment?
    Mr. Hudson: I was looking at several people; I think I desire to withdraw—[Interruption]—I do not ask for anything at the moment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, because it seems that we are all agreed. I suggest that there are two defects in the Amendment from a machinery point of view. One is that it does not define what the one penalty shall be. If passed in this form, there would be a wide variety of penalties for what is the same offence, and the other defect is that the simple declaration could hardly be accepted by anyone as sufficient. I have tried my hand at some sort of suggestion, and I put it forward, in great fear and trembling, for what it may be worth. I suggest that something like this might meet the case, and might be considered between now and another stage:
    "Where any person who has claimed exemption under this Act, or the principal Act, on conscientious grounds, and who has either had his claim rejected, or granted subject to conditions which he refuses to accept, has served a sentence of "—
    My right hon. Friend can consider what period it should be—
    "for failing to fulfil any obligation under this Act, he shall be exempted from further penalty, or further liability to serve."
    That would provide two things which are lacking in the Amendment; that there should be at some stage an examination by the tribunal, even though it be abortive

    865
    and fail and even though there is to be one penalty, and that it would be a definite and limited penalty, with the sanction of Parliament.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to prolong the discussion. I think there is very little difference on principle, but I see a difficulty in the original proposal and in that proposed now. We all want to avoid what is called compendiously but inelegantly cat-and-mouse procedure. Equally, I think the overwhelming majority of us want to prevent any system arising under which a National Service Act, if passed, could he avoided on any substantial scale. Both are important considerations. The difficulty about what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested is that, whatever the period was—and that itself would be a most delicate operation, to select the exact number of weeks, months, or years in prison which has to be served before the man comes out altogether—supposing the period were too short, people who wanted to evade the Act on grounds which could not properly be called conscientious, would evade it deliberately by serving the prison sentence. There would be some such persons, I have no doubt. If, on the other hand, the period was made too long, there would he the opposite and equally catastrophic effect that a number of people who ought to be sentenced lightly for a first offence would, in fact, receive a heavy sentence from the courts precisely because in doing so they would carry in their minds the belief that by doing so that would wipe out the whole thing altogether. I think it would have in practice a bad effect on the mind of the tribunal in imposing a sentence of this sort.
    If a figure is chosen betwixt and between, there would be cases of both sorts, and some courts would impose heavy sentences, while others would impose light sentences, and persons would evade military service for one reason or another, and get out through a loophole. In an Act of Parliament we cannot be certain that we achieve the result desired in this case. This is a case where provision should be made in the machinery for revision after each case when the man is sentenced. The fact that he is sentenced for failing to comply with direc-
    866
    tions of a tribunal ought automatically to bring his position as a conscientious objector into review, so that he would have his case personally considered at each stage, and so that there would be, as far as one can ensure it, no case where a man was put in and out of prison repeatedly on conscientious grounds. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee would like to see protections inserted in the Bill on behalf of the individual. I hope that the Minister, whose courteous and friendly attitude has impressed the Committee, will not exclude the prospect of achieving his object by administrative machinery.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. J. Hudson: In view of the generosity of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "In Subsection (2) of Section one of the National Service Act, 1942, after the words a notice under this Section, 'there shall be inserted the words' or having been registered under Section fourteen of the National Service Act, 1947:
    This Amendment is necessary because it has now been proposed and agreed that Clause 14 shall be brought into operation on the passing of the Act instead of on 1st January, 1949. That modifies Section 1 (2) of the National Service Act so that men who have been permitted to register for military service before their normal age will now be covered by the provisions of this Clause. This Amendment is necessary so that we can at the same time see that it is removed to the Third Schedule
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act male British subjects called up for service in the year nineteen hundred and forty-five or the year nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be released after a period not exceeding two-and-a-half years.
    This Subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act."
    I hope that I need not detain the Committee for long about this. If my recollection is right, and if it is just right enough I shall be slightly surprised, so far as my recollection goes, we have fairly fully covered this point on an earlier occasion; I hope that the Ministers will correct me if my recollection is not right. The short

    867
    point may be put easily. I think, and again I hope the Minister will correct me if I get any of the technical details wrong. I think that when this Bill becomes law, presuming it does so without much change, the effect will be that there will be a set of young men whom I call Section C, that is, those coming into the Services under this Bill, who will have a maximum whole-time service of 12 months. Moving backwards, there will be a second section whom I will call Section B, people called up during 1947 and 1948, who, perhaps under statutory authority, or more probably, under Ministerial assurances and the White Paper, will have a maximum of 23 months. Then, moving further back, there will be Section A, those older people who are already in the Forces and have been there for some time, and who will not have, as the matter stands, a terminus put to the amount of service which His Majesty, by his Ministers, may require from them. I hope that that is a correct statement so far as it goes.
    If so, I hope that I carry the Committee with me in saying that it is evidently desirable that some kind of terminus should be put for Section A as well as Sections B and C; I do not say the same terminus, but as we have tried to taper off Section B towards Section C, so we should surely try to taper off Section A towards Section B.
    I hope that the Ministers are fully in agreement with me so far as that point goes. If that is so, the object of this Amendment is to say that Section A ought not to be held for a continuous period of more than 30 months, as contrasted with their slightly younger brothers, who are to have a maximum of 23 months, and the following batch, who are to have a maximum of 12 months. If I may repeat something I said earlier in the day, it seems to me that to resist that suggestion, the main meaning of that suggestion—I am not arguing for the exact form of the Amendment—does involve taking a very odd attitude. It does involve saying that at the moment when we assert that it is not right or proper to ask, by Statute, for more than 12 months, it remains right to go on asking for more than 130 months from people who are at present held under what really has become a legal fiction, the fiction that what was called "the
    868
    present emergency," the war with Germany, is still, in some sense, going on.
    To resist the substance of this Amendment, it becomes necessary to adopt that proposition. I hope that I carry the majority of Members with me in saying that that proposition is untenable. If so, then my proposition may not be exactly the right one, but something like my proposed Amendment is clearly just. I hope that Ministers will find it possible to tell us how they can find it practicable to assent to the logical result of that, or on what logical grounds they can resist it.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The Amendment which the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has just moved has a somewhat similar effect as the previous Amendments which we debated yesterday, or in the early hours of this morning; with this difference, that the hon. Gentleman is seeking, by this Bill, to speed up the demobilisation of men who are not in the same category as those who are specified in the Government's White Paper, which we debated in the early hours of this morning, or yesterday. Hitherto, all men who have been called up under the National Service Act have been released on what is known as the age-and-service release group plan. That, on the whole, has worked very satisfactorily.
    The men to whom the hon. Gentleman seeks to give some speeding up preference are not in the same category as those defined in the White Paper, and they will come out in accordance with the release plans already announced, and other plans which will be announced as time goes on, for completing what the hon. Member called his Class A category—in other words, those men who were called up during the emergency, in the normal way, under the previous National Service Acts. I am afraid it is impossible, by this means, to force the speeding up of their demobilisation. That is a matter with which we have to deal administratively. I am not at all sure that it would not be unfair to those whose release groups are already announced if we did what he suggests, in this Amendment, we should do. For those reasons I cannot include what he wants, which I am sure we all want, and we shall endeavour to do it by administrative action. We cannot do it in this Bill.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that Members of the Committee will not think that answer satisfactory. whatever they think of my proposition. There was not the least attempt to meet my reasons, which I think were fair reasons. It is not for me to assume that hon. Members agree, but I think that my argument was a fair and fairly exact one. There has been no attempt to meet any part of it. It is the mere assertion of the existing state of affairs. I suppose someone has told the Secretary of State for War that the existing state of affairs was the best possible state of affairs; that is all we are told. Really, I hope the Committee is not prepared to accept that view. Let me make another suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. If it is impossible to say that these men in my Section A may get out at the worst after 30 months, although men in his Section C are to get out after 12 months, if that is impossible because of the necessity of holding them for practical use, that could be got round by having a Clause in the Bill to impose upon these young men what they are at present not having imposed upon them, a certain amount of reserve service. It will be far less an interruption of their careers if they could get out a little sooner now. I should have thought that as far as garrison or tactical use, or eventual use, if there is to be a crisis, or in the next two or three years a renewed emergency, was concerned, that such an arrangement might have been more use to the War Office than what is now being insisted upon.
    Mr. Bellenger Mr. Bellenger indicated dissent.
    Mr. Pickthorn: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to shake his head. He must do a little more than come here and give us a paraphrase of an existing arrangement as one half of his argument, and a shake of his head as the other half of his argument. There must be something more he can do. I appeal to the Committee. This discussion, which has not been acrimonious, has not, from our side, been more controversial than could be avoided. I ask Members of the Committee to agree with me that, they ought not to allow the Secretary of State to get away with this unless he can put up a reasoned argument. If they choose to think that his reasoned argument is better than mine, or even if they choose to think that if his reasoned argument is
    870
    not better than mine, that it is not the fault of the available arguments but something else, whatever they may choose to think, let us at least have some reasoned argument before this thing is disposed of, after a continuous debate of nearly 24 hours by what HANSARD or somebody else the other day called the mere "ipse fixit" of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult position here. He is now to get recruits who will come under the Bill, and there is, in between, a section of the community, many of whom have been called up since the end of the war, Then we have the group with whom we are dealing under this Amendment, who will have to serve much longer than the people who come under the provisions of the Bill. I am not saying it is unfair. In anything connected with war and service we try to be fair but circumstances cause great hardships. We do not want to be unfair with the time-and-age principle more than we can help, but there does come a time when there is unfairness inflicted by that. If there comes a time when there are groups having to serve two or three years—men who have served for 18 months or more, with little or no hope of getting out for another 18 months—while others will be serving for under two years, they will have a sense of hardship. It is not an easy matter to decide but one does find a sense of real hardship in these matters. Realising the great difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him, as there is another stage of the Bill, if he will have another look at the matter and see if, in some way or other, he cannot work out something so as to try to remove, at any rate, some of the hardship from these men who today are living in a state of complete indecision as to what service they really have to do. It is that indecision which is causing the real trouble. They do not know where they are, It cannot be good for the Services that they should be in that state. They cannot produce their best. Many are men who have volunteered to get their service done and who have put their education on one side for the time being. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he will consider this matter again I ask him whether he cannot give some assurance that he will try to bring a closer

    871
    limit to the amount of time which these men have to serve in order to give the men a real idea of where they are?
    6.45 p.m.
    Brigadier Low: I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of the argument used by my hon. Friend. Surely, this Amendment is extremely relevant to the purpose of the Bill. Here we are dealing with men called up under the National Service Acts. In this Bill we have put a definite end to the period of service, instead of a continuation of the principle of age and length of service. It is, therefore, reasonable that we should try to bring a definite end to the service of those who are now serving in the Forces. If it is so reasonable, then I submit to the Committee that, as we have said on other occasions, here is a very strong case for making that end statutory rather than relying upon the so-called pledges or intentions of the Government. I would remind the Committee that apparently even a pledge of the Government on this important matter given in a White Paper can be watered down, it may be, unintentionally.
    The Committee may remember early this morning discussing the pledge given in Command 6831 entitled "Call Up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948." That was a distinct pledge. Though that was accepted as a pledge at that time, the Minister of Labour, probably unintentionally, in reply to one of his hon. Friends, on 4th March, said that it was only the intention of the Government. He did not say that it was a pledge. He was pressed to give a pledge but he watered that pledge down and only gave it as his opinion that it was the intention of the Government. That might have been done unintentionally. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten, for the time being, that a definite pledge had been given in the White Paper. It is for that reason that there is a certain amount of uncertainty about these matters.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am relying on my memory. Did I not say that it was the intention of the Government to carry out that pledge?
    Brigadier Low: No. I will read the right hon. Gentleman's words. The question was put:
    872
    "Is it not possible to say, quite frankly, that in no circumstances will a conscript called up after 1st January be released before men called up before 1st January?"
    That question was put by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan.) The reply was:
    "I can only repeat that that is the intention of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 229.]
    There is a great difference between intentions and pledges. I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with any illfaith. There is a further difference between pledges and statutory Clauses. It is for that reason that we on this side of the Committee have urged consistently that the Government should adopt a statutory termination of the service of men called up under National Service Acts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about this matter. He may not approve of the actual terms suggested in the Amendment. If he does not, could he suggest an alternative? This is merely a ceiling. He may be able to release men before the term is reached. All that we ask is for him to lay down in an Act of Parliament what is the maximum period of service which men now serving in the Forces may be called upon to give.
    Colonel Ropner: I wish to add my protest against the short speech made by the Secretary of State for War. I listened carefully and I am sure that no one would say that he attempted to answer the argument put so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a pressing sense of grievance amongst these men in the knowledge that the chances are that they will not be released until men who have been called up very much later. It is wrong that that state of affairs should exist. In spite of the fact that demobilisation under age and service groups may be working more or less satisfactorily—that is a matter of opinion—it is unfair to say that that must now stand and that there must be no ceiling at a time when there is no war to fight.
    Mr. Swingler: Hon. Members opposite say that there is this sense of grievance amongst members of the Forces. Surely, it is clear, as was reiterated this morning by the Minister of Defence, that the Government gave a definite pledge that men called up for service in 1946 or 1945

    873
    will be released before those called up for a two-year period in January, 1947. That is a definite pledge which was reiterated by the Minister of Defence this morning.
    Mr. Bellenger: I wonder whether it would shorten the Debate and help hon. Gentlemen if I say that the reason I curtailed my speech was that I thought that everyone had read the White Paper of May, 1946, Command 6831, which has been accepted by the House. The classes of Servicemen to which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is referring are specifically dealt with in the White Paper. Perhaps the Committee will allow me—although I thought it was understood—to read what that pledge was:
    "Men already serving in the Forces at the 31st December, 1946,"—
    with certain exceptions which are not material—
    Mr. Pickthorn: Oh, yes; certainly, they are material.
    Mr. Bellenger: Except those serving on voluntary terms—
    "will be released according to the existing age and length of service scheme, and all such men will be released before the end of 1948, that is to say, before any of the men called up in 1947. Moreover, it will be the aim of His Majesty's Government to release during 1947"—
    that is this year—
    "all men called up before the 1st January, 1944."
    That, I take it, is specific and I should have thought it covered the point.
    Colonel Ropner: I am not sure that I have really followed what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. If he said that what this Amendment seeks to put into statutory form will happen in any case, 1 ask him to accept the Amendment. I hope that he will appreciate the sense of injustice which will be engendered unless some sort of provision is made. In view of the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee, I hope he will consider the matter before the Report stage.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I do not want to repeat the arguments which I think were so brilliantly put forward by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), but to give briefly some of the reasons which prompted him and me to put this Amendment on the
    874
    Order Paper. I am not seeking to cast any doubt on any pledge given by any right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is of the utmost importance that when we are passing into law a Statute of this novelty and importance we should do justice and appear to be doing justice. It is in the interests of hon. Members in every quarter of the Committee, to whatever party they belong, that on the whole this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be accepted, as far as possible, as fair. I believe that one of the great blemishes is that in the Bill itself, as in all the discussions that have taken place, hon.. Members are always showing great concern about men who are going to fall within the provisions of this Measure in the future, but they so often seem to forget—though in reality I am sure that they do not—the hardship and sense of injustice felt by those already serving under our present system.
    Possibly because of an occasional Question that I have put to the Minister of Labour, I have had a good deal of correspondence not only from such men, but very often from their parents who are very much concerned with their education and the possibility of their entering a university. I hope I have got it right when I say that one of the evils of not accepting some such principle as my hon. Friend and I have sought to embody in this Amendment, is that eventually there will be far too many people all coming out at nearly the same moment, which will be very adverse to their prospects and their careers and will very much accentuate the difficulties of universities in seeking to provide for them. The advantages in the interests of justice of having something on the face of the Statute are overwhelming. I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether something of this sort cannot be achieved. Nobody who knows the technicalities will say with any confidence that the Amendment we have put on the Order Paper is, in its exact form, necessarily right. I dare say that all sorts of technical criticisms could be brought against it. I suggest to hon. Members that it is really no answer to say that if one looks up some non-statutory document issued some time ago and finds some sort of satisfactory pledge, or if a Minister makes some sort of promise in the future, that is any substitute for having something that these men already in the Forces can look to in the very same

    875
    Statute that enacts the permanent system. I hope that the Committee will bear in mind the interests of justice and the sense of justice which I am sure all are anxious to secure. For those reasons I strongly support the case so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: This Amendment, like several previous ones, obviously puts all of us in a considerable difficulty. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) made a very strong case, a case with which we all sympathise if we are trying to do our best to finalise the service of those who have been called up just as in the rest of the Bill we are finalising the service of those who are to be called up under the new Act. All of us must want to stretch as far as we can to give those now serving the same privileges of exact fore-knowledge that will be enjoyed by those called up under the new Act, but at the same time, with a sense of responsibility, we know that we cannot force upon the Minister an Amendment, however just in itself, which might have the effect temporarily of disorganising the Services and leaving us for a period unable to meet our commitments. Both sides have a difficult choice to make.
    We discussed similar matters at an early hour this morning. On that occasion we were trying to put in statutory form the exact terms of the pledge indicated in the White Paper, and there was some agreement that if that pledge were given, it was just as well that it should be reproduced in statutory form. Approval of that was expressed from all sides of the Committee. This Amendment goes somewhat beyond the pledge given in the White Paper. To that extent it is different from the two other Amendments that we moved. My recollection is that on those other two Amendments the Secretary of State for War—
    Mr. Bellenger: The Minister of Defence.
    Mr. Stanley: —the Minister of Defence said that between now and the Report stage he would look at the whole question and see what could be done. I suggest he adds this third Amendment to the other two, because they all fall into the same sort of category, and sees what, if anything he can suggest to the House. If he would
    876
    promise to do that, I would recommend my hon. Friends to withdraw the Amendment on this occasion on the full understanding that if when we came to the Report stage the Minister of Defence was not in a position to offer any satisfaction on these points, they would be at liberty to raise them again.
    Mr. Alexander: I did say that I would look at those matters again. I think the right hon. Gentleman appreciated our difficulty with regard to the maintenance of a certain strength in the interim period between now and 1949, which is a matter of great concern to those who are responsible for meeting our commitments in every part of the world during that period. Though I promised to look into the matter, I could not make any admission that I would be able to make any provision in the Statute on those matters. I certainly had not seen the proposed Schedule which hon. Members opposite have prepared.
    In this case the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. This Amendment goes even further than the one we discussed early this morning in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), but I would be quite willing to look into the matter to see if there is any way in which we can assist in bringing any further sense of satisfaction to the men concerned. On the point made by the right hon. Gentleman it must be clear from the passage read from the White Paper that the period had been quite clearly finalised.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: The object of the age and service group release system introduced during the war was to ensure that the people who had done their service during the war should be released fairly. The result of that has been that those who are being released under that system have so far felt that they have already done their job and that they are, as it were, ticking over, waiting for their number to come up. They are, in the current phrase, "group happy." We are moving to an entirely different system where there is a defined period of service. There is a very strong case for putting in the Bill something that will tell men who did not actually serve in war but have been called up since exactly how they stand. They will ask how this Bill affects them.

    877
    It cannot be said that merely because they will be released before the national service men are called up, they are not affected by the Bill. They may be affected by the Bill, for example, under Clause 8, so that argument cannot be advanced. The Minister has said that he has commitments to meet. On the other hand, he has made a pledge. These two things are incompatible, and there is a very strong reason for getting it absolutely cut and dried in the Act.
    Mr. Pickthorn: We are in some slight difficulty here because we have not HANSARD for the previous Debate. would not for the world accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence of deliberately now saying less than I thought he offered last night. I think it will be found on reference to the words that he was a little less forthcoming this evening than he had been yesterday. I hope he will look at these words very carefully with that in mind. He intimated yesterday that he meant to look at the thing with a real and genuine hope to find something that could be done.
    I have that more particularly in view on two considerations, one being the want of argument we have had from the War Office and the other being the constitutional importance of all this and the fact that we are having this on the Floor of this House in response to a pledge that such things should be taken in Committee of the Whole House. We are having it done in such a way and with such a continuum of sitting as to make real discussion by a full Committee impossible. Ministers ought to find in their consciences that each one of these declarations or pledges—if the right hon. Gentleman has arguments to make, I am willing to give way to him. He seems to have arguments enough to mutter but not arguments enough to utter. Ministers ought to find themselves on these occasions very particularly tied to an extremely conscientious view of the assurances they have given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Brigadier Low: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour about Section 10 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, which will continue. It relates to
    878
    arrangements as to civil servants. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about it.
    Mr. Isaacs: We shall put an Amendment on the Order Paper to take it out of the Schedule.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Postponement of liability to be called up for service.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is the Clause to which reference was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour during a discussion on a previous Amendment moved from this side of the Committee. This Clause as it stands is, I think, clear enough. It makes it clear that, in cases where the postponement certificate is granted, in fact there is no avoidance of service but a mere postponement. It seems to do that quite clearly, but the question I want to ask is, does the same consideration apply where it is not a case of postponement but of deferment? I shall be very grateful if the Minister of Labour could make that point clear.
    Mr. Isaacs: After some of the mistakes I have made this afternoon, I do not know whether I can, but I will try. This Clause, which the hon. Gentleman says is clear enough—I should have thought that "clear enough" was "clear enough" he seems to mean clear enough—
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as it goes.
    Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend went to a great deal of trouble this afternoon to try to clear up in the minds of hon. Members the difference between postponement and deferment. The statutory postponement of liability is to be distinguished from deferment, which is granted administratively in pursuance of the discretion as to the calling up of a particular individual which the Minister has by reason of the fact that the power to call up for service under the Acts is permissive and not mandatory. Sometimes, we may be asked to grant a man a long administrative deferment. If his application is granted and he gets deferment, he might possibly go beyond his 26th birthday before he is called up. This is of little importance at

    879
    the moment, when the upper age limit is still 51, though it is not being used, but the Bill reduces that age to 26, with the result that a man may pass out of liability under the Bill during the period of his postponement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Deferment?
    Mr. Isaacs: He passes out during deferment. I hope that is clear.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend that, whether it is clear or not clear, it does not go far enough. I would like to ask a little more about this very important Clause on the postponement of liability for call-up, and. I would like to know what are the grounds for postponement and for deferment of call-up. Cannot the Minister give us some idea of the grounds? I know Clause 9 deals with dentists and doctors, but surely there are other students and other people? Is it automatic so that everybody who wants to have his call-up postponed can have it simply by applying, and a thing for which they are not required to apply? At 7.30 this morning, when we dealt with Clause 5, the Minister answered with great sincerity and thoroughness many of the questions we put, but there was one about medical and dental students, whether they could take their call-up when they wished rather than wait until being qualified, to which the Minister did not give a reply. I think it is rather an important one. I do not think it will be used by many students, but it would be of great value, as I think I said at 7.30 this morning, to those who cannot get into the medical schools, and could do their national service with great benefit to themselves and to the nation.
    Mr. Isaacs: I will see if I can face the bowling this time. Postponement is statutory, deferment is administrative. The Minister can end a deferment when he wishes and it is the intention to terminate all deferments before the man concerned reaches the age of 26. I hope that will meet the point.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Laying of Orders in Council and regulations before Parliament.)
    7.15 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "other than an Order made under Section twenty-three thereof."
    Perhaps the Committee might conveniently take the Amendments in lines 14, 15 and 16 along with this one. They are substantially drafting Amendments to secure a very simple and straightforward purpose. Their object is to remove any Order in Council which relates to the Isle of Man from the scope of the requirement that the draft must be laid before Parliament, and that the Order may not be made unless our Parliament here approves the draft. This of course is to conform to the recognised constitutional practice in regard to subordinate legislation affecting the Isle of Man. It is contrary to practice that Orders in Council relating to the Isle of Man should be submitted to the approval of this House. The Minister will be in consultation with the Isle of Man Parliament, and they take into account local law and conditions, and it would of course be inappropriate for them to come before this House.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the purpose of this series of Amendments, but I am a little concerned about the second one, in line 14, to leave out "in Council." With those words omitted it would appear that any Order made under this Bill—
    "may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order made in like manner and subject to the same conditions."
    I would like to ask the right hon. and learned- Gentleman whether there are any orders other than Orders in Council to which this Subsection (2) can possibly apply, and, if so, would he say what they are. This Amendment would appear to be giving power to vary orders made under this Bill without those orders coming before this House, and without any opportunity being given of praying against them. I do not know if that is the intention; if so, it is going a little further than the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated in moving the Amendment. If there are orders other than Orders in Council, I would like to know what type of orders he is referring to.
    The Attorney-General: I took it very quickly. The position in regard to the Amendment in line 14 is that it is consequential on the new Clause of which the marginal notice is "Termination of power to make up civil remuneration," and on the new Subsection (2) to Clause 2, which enables the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State respectively to make orders which are not in fact Orders in Council.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 14, leave out "in Council."
    In page 11, line 15, leave out "like," and insert "the same."
    In page 11, line 16, at the end, insert "as the original order."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, to leave out from "shall," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
    "be of no effect unless they are approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
    This is a small but, I think, quite important skirmish in a very ancient and continuous battle, the battle that delegated legislation should be permitted only where it is clearly shown to be necessary, and that where it is shown to be necessary the maximum control should be maintained by this House. I hope that no hon. Member will think that this is simply an Opposition matter. Hon. Members who have been in this House at all long will know that a considerable number of us have fought this battle along the same lines, whichever party has been in power.
    The Attorney-General: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to tell him that the battle is already won. I can explain what I think the hon. Member has in mind. He may not wish to give way to me.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am quite willing to do so if the Attorney-General prefers to make his speech now. Reserving any right I may have, I am quite willing.
    The Attorney-General: I think I have the point in mind which the hon. Member desires to put. It is that any Regulations, as distinct from Orders, made by a Minister should be subject to approval. I apprehend that that is why he wishes
    882
    to delete the words, "by a Service authority."
    Hon. Members: Wrong Amendment.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The Attorney-General appears to be speaking to the wrong Amendment. We are on the next one.
    The Attorney-General: I am very sorry.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I must say that it is very gratifying indeed to find a Minister so anxious to help us in saving time, but if time is to be saved Ministers must be quite sure they know which point of the Bill we are at.
    Shall I start all over again, or does the Attorney-General retain in his mind my opening tropes? Some of us have always wished that there should be as little delegated legislation as possible and that whenever there must be delegated legislation there should be that additional Parliamentary control which is implicit in the positive procedure rather than the negative procedure. On almost all occasions where the negative procedure is provided for in Bills, some of us have put that point. I hope that the Committee will consider that we are on particularly strong ground in pressing that argument on this occasion. We think it is universally admitted that we are making a great and unprecedented interference with the ordinary constitutional arrangements of this country. I believe that that is universally admitted to be true.
    Secondly, we are doing that in pursuance of a pledge given by the Government on coming into Office. We are doing it on this Bill in Committee of the whole House. I would argue, if it were to be argued, that there have been other Bills to which equally that pledge ought to have been held to apply. That point I will not now argue. This I will say: This is one of a very few Bills to which the Government have admitted that the pledge applies. Even on this Bill the Government are applying the pledge very much more in the letter than in the spirit. If they admit that this is a Bill of immense constitutional importance, they are not really giving that due amount of Parliamentary control which they promised when they said that these matters should be taken in Committee of the whole House, by sitting more or less continually for anything—we do not know what—from 36 to 48 or 60 hours.

    883
    That does not really give the House that opportunity on this kind of legislation which I think we all thought on all sides of the Committee that the Government were promising us two years ago. I ask hon. Members opposite to agree with me that their leaders are bound in this Bill to meet any reasonable, constitutional demand that is put up by either. I think—I am sorry for my voice, which has been rather overworked lately—that the general case (a) for as little delegated legislation as possible and (b) for the maximum of positive procedure when there must be delegated legislation, is peculiarly and almost uniquely strong in this connection. I beg the Committee not to believe that this Amendment should be rejected except upon very strong and explicit arguments.
    The Attorney-General: I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. I must be a little hard of hearing. I thought the Amendment to line 17 was being called. I agree that great constitutional issues are involved here, but what is of constitutional importance is the Bill, the Act, when the Bill passes into law. Regulations of the kind which may be made by the Services Departments hereafter, and which will merely carry out and provide the machinery for implementing the new constitutional principles which Parliament itself will have implemented when it passes the Bill, have always been regarded as proper subject matter of the negative Prayer procedure. The practice is only to adopt the affirmative Prayer procedure in cases where delegated legislation itself involves something which is in the nature of a new principle or a new constitutional issue. Where the delegated legislation is merely machinery for carrying out and bringing into effect or into operation a constitutional principle which has itself been adopted by Parliament in the Bill, the procedure that is followed is the negative Prayer procedure.
    It is not desirable to add to the classes of case in which the affirmative Prayer procedure is adopted, except where it is perfectly clear that the subject matter of the Regulations is likely to raise issues of great constitutional importance which Parliament would certainly be likely to wish to debate. That is not the case with these Service Department Regulations, and to
    884
    make them the subject of affirmative Prayer procedure would involve a considerable waste of Parliamentary time. It would mean that before any of them could be brought into operation we should have to move them in the House and to provide an opportunity for Debate upon them. Therefore, I am sorry that we are not able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Harold Davies: I want to know exactly what is to happen under this Clause. We are afraid of the growth of delegated legislation and so I humbly appeal to the Committee. I do not know whether I can make my case clearly to the Committee, but I believe that any regulation made under the Bill by a Service authority has to be laid before Parliament and that
    "if either House within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such regulations are laid before it resolves that the regulations be annulled"—
    and this is where I am getting to the hub of the problem—
    "they shall thereupon become void; but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations."
    I appeal for information here. Do those words mean that if this House decides that a Service authority has made a regulation which is unconstitutional and shall be void, we are not allowed to touch that regulation till the expiry of the 40 days? In other words, for a period of some 40 days, the Service authority has had the supremacy over the sovereign body of the people.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has put the point with extreme clarity, and, if I may say so, has slightly understated it in one respect. For instance, if this House rises before the beginning of August, or at the beginning of August, as I understand is the intention, and as I understand is the pretext for the performance to which we are being subjected, and does not meet again until near Christmas, then the Service regulations will be imposed and enforced. If, for instance, they are made in the first week in August, they will be in force for months without this House having any opportunity at all of saying that the regulations are bad, and if this House does say that they are bad when it first has

    885
    an opportunity of doing so, that will not affect anything done under the regulations.
    I am rather astonished by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in justification of this form of procedure with regard to the regulations which can be made under this Bill by a Service authority. He said that he did not think that Parliament would be likely to wish to debate these regulations. I very much doubt the accuracy of that statement when one comes to consider the various matters on which the Service authorities can make regulations, and when one bears in mind the importance, from the individual's point of view, of seeing that there is some co-ordination between the various regulations, and that the particular man who is directed, for instance, to the Naval Reserve, has not cast upon him by regulation far greater obligations than those cast upon a man who is directed to the Army or to the Territorial Reserve. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 2 (4), he will see that the Service authorities have power to make regulations as to what constitutes a day's training. That will be a matter affecting a considerable number of young people. I can well imagine that, when it sees those regulations, this House will want to say something about them. When we look at Clause 4, we find that regulations may be made for the compulsory transfer of a man from one Reserve to another without any option, except in a few cases, on the part of the individual affected.
    In Clause 5 there are regulations saying what terms of service shall be equivalent to terms of whole-time or part-time service. I should have thought that these were matters affecting the liberty and the duties of the subject which this House would anxiously consider, and would desire to have the opportunity of considering and expressing an opinion upon before the regulations came into force. We do not want to hold up this Bill, the principle of which we support, but I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could meet us in this respect, that would meet with the approval, not only of hon. Members on this side of the Committee but, obviously, from the observations of the hon. Member for Leek, with the support of hon. Members opposite.
    I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been very good in
    886
    this Committee, if he would look at this matter again, because the need for coordination between the Regulations of the various Services is imperative. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence will agree that, so far as that can be ensured, it should be ensured. Probably the best way of ensuring it is by saying that none of the regulations shall have any effect until approved by Parliament.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Disliking and opposing this Bill as I do, I am strongly tempted to support the Amendment. But, if I am to look at the matter conscientiously as one of delegated legislation, without giving effect to my desire to make the Bill not work, then I am bound to agree with the Attorney-General's view of the matter. It seems to me that one of the criteria in deciding whether to use the negative or the positive procedure, which is really the issue involved between the Bill and the Amendment, is whether the Government need the regulations in the meantime, subject to the right of the House to challenge and annul them if it disapproves of them at a later date, or whether the things are of such a nature that they ought not—whether Parliament deals with them or not—to be law without the positive and affirmative approval of Parliament.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Departments do not already know what regulations they are going to need under this Bill? What "meantime" does he refer to?
    Mr. S. Silverman: I had in mind the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke just now, when he said that, supposing we have regulations, it would, in any case, be a very long time before the House could challenge them. That, of course, is true, but if we use the affirmative procedure, then it will equally be a long time before the Department, administratively, could have them, and it might well be—I do not know—that in these circumstances, the Bill would have to be held up until November.
    I think that the distinction is correctly given effect to in Clause 19. It will be seen that in Subsections (1) and (2) of that Clause, the affirmative procedure is followed, subject to the Amendment which the Committee accepted a moment ago on a narrower point. In general, however, the Orders in Council required

    887
    under Subsections (1) and (2) are expressly given the affirmative and not the negative character, whereas in Subsection (3) the negative form is used. If one considers what is done under Subsections (1) and (2) and contrast that with the kind of thing done under Subsection (3), one appreciates very clearly the difference between the kind of Regulations which demand affirmative procedure and the kind of Regulations which are dealt with in the other Amendment, which, After all, the House can, by Prayer, control.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. Member for Nelson and Calne (Mr. S. Silverman) would accurately have stated the case for the negative procedure had he been right in saying that the positive procedure would make the Bill unworkable. But in suggesting that it would make it unworkable, I do not think he gave a conclusive reason, and certainly that argument was not the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. He did not assert that this would be unworkable, and I think that if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will examine the particular matters dealt with in this Bill, he will see that in the long time before it actually comes into operation there will be plenty of time to adopt the affirmative procedure. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said that the affirmative procedure would make the scheme unworkable.
    But the right hon. and learned Gentleman put a different ground. He suggested that it was only right to have the positive procedure if matters of great constitutional importance arose under the Regulations. I think he overstated the case. The point that the Committee really should consider is whether Parliament is likely to wish to debate these Regulations. I believe that in answer to that question, hon. Members in every quarter will say, "Yes, they are Regulations which the House will wish to debate." Then the main difference between the positive and negative procedure is this: If it is the positive procedure, the Government must find suitable time for it. If it is the negative procedure, the Government do not find convenient time for it. There was a period in our Parliamentary history when the distinction between those two forms of procedure may not have been of such over-
    888
    whelming importance. It is right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have made it of enormous importance. As we know from the arguments which take place every Thursday, Parliamentary time is one of the most important matters concerning the working of our Parliamentary institutions. Therefore, if the Committee come to the conclusion, as I am certain they will, that they will wish to debate these Regulations, then they will be Regulations for which the Committee will desire the Government to find convenient time.
    To secure that position, they have only one means, and that is to adopt the positive procedure. For those reasons, I say in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that in this case the positive procedure does not make the Bill unworkable, nor, indeed, has the Attorney-General suggested that it did. That being, I think, the only argument that could be used against the positive procedure, I say that the positive procedure is the one on which the Committee should here insist.
    Mr. Byers: I seriously ask the Government to look again at this matter, because the question of the positive or the negative procedure is very important from the point of view of the individual. Let me remind hon. Members that during this week we have had a number of affirmative Resolutions to allow people to open cinemas on Sunday. It seems to me to be quite wrong that we should apply that positive procedure in that case, and deny it on a great constitutional issue like this. I suggest it is a constitutional issue, for, indeed, what greater constitutional issue can there be than the rights of the individual under a compulsory scheme of service of any type? I was surprised that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) took the line that he did in his speech. I am not criticising him. I am saying this more in sorrow than in anger, in that I believe he came to that conclusion because he thought this positive procedure would make the Bill unworkable, and if he felt it would make the Bill unworkable he was perfectly entitled to make that point.
    I suggest that it will not make the Bill unworkable. What it will do—and I think I can say this from my administrafive and operational experience—will be to make it far more difficult for the

    889
    Service authorities. What we shall, in fact, get will be more care and greater thought devoted to these Regulations. We shall get far fewer of them, because every time anybody in a Government office has got to draft one of these regulations—and the Secretary of State for War knows this very well indeed—he will say to himself, "Wait a minute, this is going to call for a Debate. Let us be careful. Let us have a word with the Air Ministry. Let us go and see what is happening in the Admiralty." But when the penalty is that of being "carpeted" by the Minister for letting him in for an all-night sitting instead of getting the thing right in the first place, I say we shall get far better regulations; we shall get far fewer of them, but they will be well thought out.
    7.45 P.m.
    I do not wish to make a party point about this, but perhaps I might give an illustration. In the last six months we have had a regulation to decrease the amount of poultry feeding rations. I am quite convinced that if that regulation had been an Act of Parliament or an affirmative Resolution of the House, the Ministry of Food would have scoured this country to find the 200,000 tons of feeding stuff required, rather than take up Parliamentary time and face the Leader of the House and the Ministers concerned. I suggest that the positive procedure will not make the Bill unworkable. We would get fewer and better regulations and better co-ordination, and the interests of the individual would be far better considered under the positive procedure than under the negative procedure.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: I approach this question with an entirely open mind. I must admit that the views expressed by hon. Members opposite certainly require most careful consideration. I feel Parliament has to watch all the time and guard its rights against the Executive, There is a constant danger of too much delegated legislation which Parliament is unable to control. At the same time, we have to preserve a balance. A great deal of legislation in these days is very complicated. Some Members think there should be less. I think we are right to have a lot. On the other hand, there is a danger of the cluttering up of Parliament and of the whole procedure getting bogged down in a mass of words. Therefore, we have to draw the line between
    890
    affirmative and negative Resolutions. Negative Resolutions can be obtained easily. Affirmative Resolutions have to be put before Parliament, and time has to be found for them by the Government. I can see the Government's point of view. Affirmative Resolutions may make too serious a demand on the time available. I think the answer to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), who has just made an interesting speech, is that a negative Resolution can be dealt with, if necessary, by a Prayer. In that case, I think it is not necessary to insist upon an affirmative Resolution, and, where it is necessary to raise Prayers, we can find the necessary time.
    Mr. Byers: The same applies in the case of affirmative Resolutions.
    Mr. Philips Price: Anyway, we have got to draw the line somewhere.
    Sir John Mellor: I find some difficulty in appreciating exactly which side the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price) is on. I think the only real support that the learned Attorney-General has had has come from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). My impression is that he most emphatically underlined the intervention of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) which, I thought, was a most impressive contribution. There is one thing which is quite apparent, namely, that these regulations will be discussed by hon. Members who have the opportunity of discussing them. It is quite true that hon. Members can put down a Motion to annul regulations where the negative procedure is applicable. But some hon. Members may have some diffidence about doing that, and it may be that, first of all, they would like to ascertain, after debate, just what are the pros and cons in the matter. They may not wish to take the step of putting down a Motion to annul a regulation when they are not at all sure whether they approve or disapprove it. If the Government adopt the affirmative procedure, then automatically at the end of Government Business, a Motion is moved from the Front Bench that the regulation be approved, and then hon. Members have an opportunity of asking questions, not necessarily with any hostility towards the regulation but in order to elicit information, and to express their views. An opportunity is there given for the House to

    891
    give proper consideration to the regulation without anyone taking the initiative in expressing hostility by putting down a Motion to annul.
    The only argument the learned Attorney-General put forward in favour of the negative procedure in this case was, first of all, that he thought it was more in accordance with practice, and that if the affirmative procedure were adopted it would involve waste of Parliamentary time. What does he mean by a waste of Parliamentary time? I do not consider that Parliamentary time is wasted when hon. Members on both sides wish to discuss something. In regulations arising out of this Bill, above all, it is evident that discussion will come from both sides of the House. In the course of the Debate so far we have seen, I think, that, if anything, rather more contributions have come from the other side of the Committee than from this side. Therefore, this is not a case where there would be likely to be in the minds of the Government any fear of their Business being interrupted or held up out of any partisan motives. The discussion on these regulations, if it takes place, will be not on a party basis at all. I think the learned Attorney-General will need to consider this matter fairly, and to give a further and better reply before we leave it, as to what view he takes of the contributions which have been made from this side and from the other side of the Committee in the course of this discussion. It is perfectly evident that great interest will be taken in these regulations. If the regulations give no offence to any hon. Member they will go through with q nod. What harm is done? It merely means that a Minister will have to put in attendance at the end of Government Business, and to bow to the Chair when the matter is reached in the course of Business. That is all a Minister need do: bow to the Chair. If he is asked by any hon. Member for an explanation he ought to give it. If discussion arises as a result of that explanation the Government ought not to resent it. We ought now to have a further explanation from the Attorney-General, because it is not good enough merely to tell us that it is more in accordance with practice, and that if the affirmative procedure were adopted it would be a waste of Parliamentary time.
    The Attorney-General: I am always happy to try to respond to the appeals
    892
    of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). I hope I am as jealous as the hon. Member of any possible encroachment on the proper functions of the Legislature by the Executive. When I put this matter to the Committee I sought to put it on the basis of what I conceive to be the true constitutional doctrine, and not on any grounds of expediency, although there are, indeed, very strong practical reasons against the adoption of the affirmative procedure. The position is that all the previous National Service Acts have had regulation making powers, some of them wide powers, which have been subject to negative prayer procedure. In the last two years, of course, as the Committee very well knows, we have passed a number of Statutes which contain regulation making powers of a very drastic nature, sometimes also subject to negative prayer procedure. But the regulation making power under this Bill is really of a very restricted kind. Even if it did happen that particular regulations had been made, and were subsequently declared void by a negative prayer in this House, no great constitutional or individual harm could, in fact, be done.
    Just look at what the regulation-making powers in fact, are. First of all, under Clause 2, to define what constitutes a day's training. It is perfectly idle to say that there is any constitutional issue in that. The real constitutional issue is whether the Service authorities should be empowered to decide what is a day's training. That is the constitutional issue, and that is the issue which this Committee have already disposed of by deciding to confer that power upon the Service authorities. Whether the Service authorities, in the exercise of that power, decide that a day's training is constituted by four hours or four and a half hours is, quite clearly in my submission to the Committee, not a constitutional issue at all. One can see the practical point in making that particular regulation. Suppose that in August it was found, owing to experience in camps and so on, that it was desirable to alter the period of hours from six to four, or from four to six. Would it really be desirable that the Service authorities should have to wait until Parliament met in October, perhaps later, when they would be able to get an affirmative prayer before the House?
    Take the next one, under Clause 4, to provide for transfer from one auxiliary

    893
    force to another. The constitutional issue there is, whether the Service authorities should have power to provide for a transfer by regulation from one force to another. That is the constitutional issue—a very important one, certainly. The Committee have already affirmed that the Service authorities should have that power. They have decided that constitutional issue. How that power is exercised in practice is a mere matter of machinery in carrying out something which this Committee have decided should be vested in the Service authorities. It is the same under Clause 5, to define
    "what terms of Service shall be treated as equivalent to terms of whole time and part time service …"
    and to provide for notification of changes of names and addresses. I ask the Committee to say that this is a mere matter of machinery, and that it would be quite wrong to apply to it the affirmative procedure.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I really do think the arguments of the Attorney-General get "curiouser and curiouser" His first argument, I think, was that for the necessities of war and under the necessities of war great powers of this kind have been given to previous Governments, and therefore they should go on being given. His second argument is this; Although during the war we were always promised, whenever any of these things were done, that they should be for the war period and that only, yet he now says that in the postwar period—if the last two years are properly described as "postwar period"—the Government have, in fact, again taken vast powers of delegated legislation, and therefore they should now be allowed to take more powers of delegated legislation. That does not seem to me to be a very good argument. His third argument is, that it is not a constitutional issue, and that the constitutional issue is whether the Services should have these powers. Of course, that is a larger constitutional issue; but that does not exclude the possibility that these are constitutional issues.
    Mr. S. Silverman: They are not.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has made one speech on this matter. He may make another speech on this matter if he likes, and I hope he will; but dogmatically to interject "They are not" is really not at all helpful.
    Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am not going to give way to him now. He can speak again after me if he chooses.
    Dr. Morgan: Quite right.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. and medically learned Gentleman and I share a background in a small, geographically remote part of the world, and I am glad that, politically, we should tend together at this moment. The argument of the Attorney-General was, as I was saying, that this is not a constitutional issue because something bigger than this is a constitutional issue. He says this is not a constitutional issue at this point, because at this point these are only small matters that are concerned—changes of address, little things of that sort; and then he says it would be administratively impossibly inconvenient that they should not be able to alter the regulations about these things without having to wait. If these are small administrative matters I should have thought that even the Secretary of State for War, with the help of the organisation he has behind him, would be able to get the thing right at the first shot—at any rate, to get the thing good enough, that it would not go wrong just after he had gone off grouse shooting at the beginning of August. Or, perhaps, he grouse shoots from his yacht—a difficult thing to do, I believe. It really ought not to be impossible for them to get these regulations so nearly right that they do not often have to come to Parliament for new regulations. I do hope that the Committee are not going to allow the Attorney-General to get away with this argument, and certainly I hope we shall divide on the point.
    Mr. Gallacher: There is great suspicion here in regard to this Bill, and, in particular, in regard to the methods by which the regulations are to be made. One reads:
    "Any Order in Council may be varied or revoked—"
    Mr. Pickthorn: We are long past that. Like the Attorney-General, the hon. Gentleman has got the wrong Amendment.
    The Chairman: Will the hon. Member kindly make his speech?
    Mr. Gallacher: I have been busy about the House, and I was asking, having returned, about the Amendment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to make a speech, but I do want to apologise to the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) for my seeming discourtesy. for what seemed to him to be dogmatism in the interjection I made. The fact that one thing is a larger constitutional issue does not exclude the possibility that the smaller question, though smaller, may still be a constitutional issue; but I thought that, perhaps, a regulation deciding whether four hours, or three hours, or two hours shall constitute a training day for a period of 6o days might properly be described as not being a constitutional issue.
    Mr. Pickthorn: That is not what everybody said was a constitutional question. What we said was a constitutional question in that connection was, that the House of Commons should have the assurance, by a positive method, that,
    for instance, in that connection, the various Service Departments are keeping in step with each other, and that they should not be free to run off in devious or divergent ways. I think that this is a matter on which we should assure our constituents that we have constant watch and positive control.
    Mr. S. Silverman: That was not in the hon. Member's original speech. The question obviously was whether the regulations which are made under the authority of Subsection (3) of this Clause are, in fact, matters of constitutional importance, or matters only of administrative detail; and I should have thought, subject to what the hon. Member thinks, that they were matters of administrative detail, and not matters of constitutional law.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word but,' in line 21, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 109.

    Division No. 197.]

    AYES.

    [8.6 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Alexander. Rt. Hon. A V.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Alpass, J. H.

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

    House, G.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Deer, G.

    Hoy, J.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hubbard, T.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Diamond, J.

    Irving, W. J.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Donovan, T.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Janner, B.

    Baird, J.

    Durbin, E. F M

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Balfour, A

    Dye, S.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Barstow, P. G

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

    Barton, C.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Beswick, F.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

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

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Ewart, R.

    Keenan, W.

    Binns, J.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Blackburn, A. R

    Field, Capt. W. J

    King, E. M

    Blenkinsop, A

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

    Kinley, J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Foot, M. M

    Kirby, B. V.

    Boardman, H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Gaitskell, H. T. N.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

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

    Gibson, C. W.

    Leonard, W.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Gilzean, A.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Levy, B. W.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Gocch, E. G.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Burden, T W.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Burke, W. A.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Longden, F.

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Grey, C. F.

    McAdam, W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Grierson, E.

    McAllister, G.

    Chafer, D.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Chelwynd, G. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Mack, J. D.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Gunter, R. J.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Guy, W. H.

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

    Collins, V. J.

    Hall, W. G.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    McLeavy, F.

    Cook, T. F.

    Hardman, D. R.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

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

    Hardy, E. A.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Randall, H. E.

    Tiffany, S.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Ranger, J.

    Titteringlon, M F.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Tolley, L.

    Marshall, F. (Brightside)

    Rhodes, H.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Richards, R.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Viant, S. P.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Walkden, E.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Walker G. H.

    Monslow, W.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Morley, R.

    Sharp, Granville

    Warbey, W. N

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

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Watson, W. M

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

    Moyle, A.

    Shurmer, P.

    Weitzman, D.

    Nally, W.

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    West, D. G.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Simmons, C. J.

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Paget, R. T.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Wilkes, L.

    Palmer, A. M. F

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

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pargiter, G. A

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

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Parker, J.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Solley, L. J.

    Williams, W R (Heston)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Willis, E.

    Pearson, A.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Wise, Major F. J

    Peart, Capt T. F.

    Steele, T.

    Woodburn, A

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F

    Stress, Dr. B

    Woods, G. S.

    Popplewell, E.

    Swingter, S.

    Wyatt, W.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Yates, V. F.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Price, M. Philips

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Pritt, D. N.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Proctor, W. T

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

    Pryde, D. J.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Daines.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

    Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

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

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon W S. (C'nc'ster)

    Amory, D. Heathcote

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Beechman, N. A

    Grimston, R. V.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Bennett, Sir P

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Birch, Nigel

    Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Boothby, R

    Houghton, S, G.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Bowen, R.

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

    Pickthorn, K.

    Bower, N.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pitman, I. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E

    Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G

    Hope, Lord J.

    Prescott, Stanley

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O

    Butler, Rt Hon. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

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

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Byers, Frank

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Renton, D.

    Carson, E.

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

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Jennings, R

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

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

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

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Snadden, W. M

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Davidson Viscountess

    Lipson, D. L.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Digby, S. W.

    Low, Brig. A. R. W

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Drayson, G B.

    McCallum, Maj. D

    Touche, G. C.

    Drewe, C

    MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Marples, A. E.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gage, C.

    Medlicott, F.

    Mr. Studholme and

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

    Gates, Maj E. E.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I have been listening to the discussion on various Amendments,

    899
    and I think there is very great suspicion and doubt about this Bill and about the regulations arising out of this Clause. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) argued that, if the positive method is adopted it would make the Bill unworkable, which was an argument that made it clear that, if the House of Commons passed this Bill containing this Clause, it would be finished with the whole business. That is the argument. I heard the hon. Member for Kingston-n-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) saying earlier that he was very unhappy about this Bill. The hon. Member is only one of a great majority of unhappy men in this Committee. In view of the character of this Clause, and of the conditions under which we are going to place these lads, in view of the regulations which may be brought in and later discovered to be of a worse character, I hope hon. Members of this Committee will consider whether they ought not to get together for the purpose of killing this Bill and restoring freedom and peace to these lads. If they read the Clause carefully, they will see that that is the job they ought to do.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I had understood that the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends and myself was going to be favourably treated, and I do not know whether, on the question of the Clause standing part, I should be in Order if I referred to the issue which my Amendment raised.
    The Chairman: The Amendment was not called, but the hon. Member would be in Order in referring to the contents of the Clause.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, I have been misinformed, but I am obliged to you, Major Milner, for what you have said. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was good enough a few moments ago to refer to some remarks I made on an earlier Amendment and I agree with him that there are a lot of hon. Members who are unhappy about many provisions of this Bill. That was the reason why I and my hon. Friends sought to impose a restriction which would strengthen the control which the House of Commons would have of the delegated legislation permitted under this Clause. We took the view that the regulations which this Clause authorises will be regulations of very great importance to a gen-
    900
    eration of young men who will be taken, in time of peace, by the State from their normal occupations for the purposes of the State. Therefore, it seems to us most important that the treatment of those young men should not be too far removed from close Parliamentary scrutiny and supervision.
    For that reason, within the Rules of Order, I can only say that we are now faced with regulations affecting the lives of these young men which can only be dealt with, thanks to the decision which the Committee has just taken, late at night on Prayers put down by hon. Members; Prayers by which these regulations cannot be amended, thereby making it extraordinarily difficult for hon. Members who desire, helpfully and constructively, to cause variations in small parts of these regulations. As this Clause now stands I feel that we are handicapped at every turn in doing what will be one of the most important duties of Members of the House of Commons during the years in which this Bill is in force, and that is, seeing that the interests of the men for whom we are responsible for being taken from their homes are properly looked after and safeguarded. That is not a responsibility which we can, in our consciences, delegate to any Minister or to any Department, however well advised or however eminent.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: I agree very heartily with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said. It is a matter of the greatest importance that it should be possible for the House of Commons to amend regulations rather than merely to vote them void. I cannot understand how the Government can have avoided putting in some words similar to those which my hon. Friend has inserted in his Amendment which has not been called. It seems to me to have been something which the Government should have themselves put in in the first instance, and I shall find great difficulty in voting for this Clause unless we can have some satisfactory assurance from the Front Bench on this point.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Attorney-General going to reply to the points made by my hon. Friends?
    The Attorney-General: I had hoped that I had replied adequately to the speeches made before the Division, but the sugges-

    901
    tion that there should be a power not merely to reject these regulations—and that power is firmly vested in Parliament—but in addition power to amend them is, I hope to persuade the Committee, wrong in principle, unworkable in practic, and unnecessary in performance. It is wrong in principle because the whole essence of the practice of delegating legislation to subordinate bodies is to make sure that Parliament is absolved from the duty of examining or debating or framing in detail the legislation it has delegated. If the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) desires to discuss the details of how names and addresses should be registered, he should have secured that that should be dealt with by Bill, not by subordinate legislation. That is the whole purpose of it, to save Parliament the necessity of examining details of this kind.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt? He says that the purpose of delegated legislation is to make it unnecessary for Parliament to examine these matters. Surely the whole purpose of the laying of these Orders on the Table of the House is to enable hon. [Members to examine these matters. I would suggest to the learned Attorney that it is their duty to their constituents to do so.
    The Attorney-General: I was dealing with the question of amending them—
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He used the word "examine."
    The Attorney-General: I was dealing with amending them—which I thought was the point—discussing, debating and examining them in detail with a view to amending them, and I was saying that the whole point of delegated legislation is to avoid the necessity for Parliament to deal with them. If Parliament wants to deal with matters of that kind, it does not delegate the legislative power to do it to somebody else. Secondly, in regard to amendment, it is quite impracticable to give a power to amend in either House of Parliament because if you have one set of amendments in one House and another set of amendments in another House, there is no means whatever of reconciling the two. It is quite impracticable. Did the hon. Gentleman wish to say something?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The learned Attorney-General has asked me to intervene. It is not unknown for the House of Commons to insert a number of Amendments in a Bill and for another place to insert other Amendments in a Bill, for that Bill to come back, and for the matter to be resolved between the two Houses. It is surely not outside the flexibility of our procedure to do that in the case of these Orders.
    The Attorney-General: I should have thought that it was, There is a well established and constitutional procedure for securing that the House of Commons view ultimately prevails in the case of Bills; there is no such procedure, nor could there be, in regard to amendment by Prayer. I hope the hon. Member will see quite clearly that that is so. You cannot have amendment by both Houses because you cannot have machinery for reconciling them. The hon. Member's purpose is really quite unnecessary. If it is thought by the House that particular regulations ought to be amended, ought not to be put into operation in their existing form, the House rejects the regulations, points out to the Minister what the amendments ought to be, and gives him an opportunity of laying them afresh.
    Sir J. Mellor: Surely this point about the impossibility of reconciling Amendments in one place and another only underlines the imperfection of delegated legislation, because one House can annul, and you may, therefore, have the approval of a regulation in one House, but it may be annulled by the other. The Government can always deal with the situation if inconsistency arises because they can always revoke a regulation, if it has been amended in a fashion of which they disapprove by the House in which they may not have a majority. They can then make a fresh regulation. It seems to me that when the Attorney-General considers that it is not appropriate that Parliament should examine in detail the contents of regulations and have an opportunity to amend, he is really taking a strange view. I should have thought that the question of whether or not Parliament should be able to examine detail and amend, should be a matter for Parliament itself and not for the Government. If an opportunity were given to Parliament to amend regulations it would remain at the will of

    903
    Parliament, and I think it should. It is not likely to happen that Amendments of the trivial kind visualised by the Attorney-General would be put down.
    Considerable interest has been taken in the contents of this Bill, and it is quite evident, from the interest that has been taken on both sides of the Committee in the whole of this matter, that great interest will be taken also in the contents of the regulations and in their substance. It would be most desirable that hon. Members on both sides of the House should have an opportunity of criticising those regulations by means of putting down amendments which would then be debated. At present, we only have the opportunity of criticism by negative Resolution and, as hon. Members know only too well, we have no opportunity in the House to do other than accept or annul. It may well be that the regulations would be regarded as satisfactory as a whole by both sides of the House; on the other hand, there may be particular portions of them, of some importance, that this side of the House or that may feel strongly should be a changed. Hon. Members may not at all wish to annul the regulations, but they may wish to amend them. It is often asked by a Minister, "What will happen if the regulation is annulled? There will be chaos, because there will be nothing in its place." That would not arise if there were power to amend. I think this is a matter of which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee should take great notice. Although the regulations as a whole may be desired, in special respects there may be an excellent reason for amendment.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) says that it is not likely that trivial amendments would be put down to the regulations, but I venture to think that if he is an hon. Member of this House it is most likely that a whole series of amendments will be put down—
    Sir J. Mellor Sir J. Mellor rose—
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member is a master of this subject of delegated legislation, and I think he has put down or supported as many Prayers as any hon. Member of this House. Sometimes it has
    904
    been a question of substance, but quite often points involved have been quite trivial.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Member allow me—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. Is it not according to the usual courtesies and customs of this House that when an hon. Member directly criticises the conduct of another, the other should be given an opportunity to reply?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to answer the speech made by the hon. Member in respect of amendment of regulations. He is suggesting that the House should have the power—
    Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member said much more than that. He said that if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was a Member, there would be plenty of trivial amendments. I think that, in accordance with the usual custom, I should be given an opportunity of challenging him when he said that. If he can give a single example—
    Mr. Fletcher: Quite obviously it is not possible to give an example offhand of trivial Prayers which have been put down, but I am quite sure I am speaking within the recollection of hon. Members when I say there have been occasions when Prayers have been put down against delegated legislation, not because of some substantial point, but because of some quite minor point
    Sir J. Mellor Sir J. Mellor rose—
    Mr. Fletcher: really do not want to give way again, but to answer the point the hon. Member made in regard to the idea that this House should have the right to amend regulations made under this part of the Bill. He said that it was unlikely that trivial Amendments would be put down, but the Committee must realise what the position would be if that were the case. It would be open to anyone to put down, not one Amendment, but a series of Amendments of the regulations, and all of it would involve Debate. If the House had power to amend regulations it would lead to a ridiculous position. As there is a recognised system whereby the House has the power to approve or annul an order, that would be an entirely undesirable innovation in our

    905
    whole system of delegated legislation. Over and over again the House has expressed the view that the right way of dealing with delegated legislation is to put down a Prayer, so that the general substance of the regulations can be discussed. The Executive can then have the benefit of seeing what particular points are raised by hon. Members, If the order is approved, well and good; if it is rejected on some ground, it is for the Executive to take the opportunity of making a new order to remove any blemishes which have been brought to light.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Member give instances of any Prayers which have been moved in the House, and which have been successful?
    Mr. Gallacher: That is the Lord's Prayer.
    The Chairman: We cannot pursue this question any further.
    Mr. Fletcher: There was a good example the other night.
    Sir J. Mellor: I would like to deal with the question of trivial Amendments. The Chair has power to select Amendments. In regard to the criticism of my hon. Friends and myself, who the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) says have frequently moved to annul orders in order to discuss matters of minor importance, how else could we have discussed those matters? The only way we could have brought them before the House was by a Motion to annul the orders. While the matters may not have gone to the root of the whole order, or have been of vital importance, nevertheless they have been of sufficient importance for the House to consider, and that was the only way in which we could bring them before the House.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: think the Debate is now going off on a false point. Whether an Amendment is trivial or not, is not an important point, I remember a saying of Bagehot's about this House that good talk was better than bad talk; that is obvious, but then came his important point that bad talk is better than no talk at all. Power to put in a trivial Amendment is the chance to put in a vital Amendment and it is upon that right that liberty rests.
    Mr. Stanley: Although at first I was rather doubtful about the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor) the speech of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E Fletcher) has entirely convinced me of it merit. He has shown conclusively that the result of the present method forces people to put down Prayers to annul orders on trivial points, which otherwise could be dealt with purely by amendments. I do not propose to vote against the Clause on this occasion, because we do not want to see the Clause go, but I hope my hon. Friend will have a better chance on the Report stage of raising this point, and I only hope that then the Attorney-General will be saved from his friends.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 12, line 14, leave out "eighteen", and insert "twelve".
    In line 17, leave out "eighteen," and insert "twelve"
    In line 19, at the beginning, insert:
    "For the purposes of this Act."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, to leave out "(being a person who", and to insert "he".
    I also suggest that the following two Amendments—in page 12, line 29, leave out "who"; and page 12, line 34, leave out from "suzerainty" to the end of the Subsection—might be considered with this Amendment, as they are consequential. These Amendments import the exception which is contained in Section II, Subsection (1 a), of the principal Act, and also the Amendment to that Act of 1941, namely, the exemption of persons who are Dominion subjects and resident in the British Isles. It similarly exempts persons who are employed by the Dominions and are also residents in the British Isles. If Dominion subjects were exempt from conscription during the war, it is not quite clear to us why they should be brought within the scope of this Measure after a qualifying residence in this country of two years. I move this

    907
    Amendment to get some elucidation on this point. I would like an assurance from His Majesty's Government that the Dominions authorities have been consulted in this matter before it was included in this Bill. Otherwise, I suggest that there might be an accusation, to put it mildly, of a lack of tact.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment. Broadly speaking, the effect of this and the other Amendments is to exempt from liability under the Bill men from any part of the British Commonwealth or Empire or overseas possessions who come to live in Great Britain. As the Bill stands, the position of the men in question is as it has always been under the National Service Act and there has never been any complaint on the part of our Dominions about that. That is, if they come to reside in Great Britain, except for a temporary purpose, or for the purpose of education, they become liable for national service here after being here for two years. There appears to us to be no reason to change that position at all. Such a man who makes his home here can reasonably be expected to take his share in the defence of the country, like the rest of us. Another difficulty of this Amendment, which probably has not been noticed by the hon. and gallant Member is that as it is phrased it would exempt a man born in another part of the Commonwealth, who came to this country in infancy, has lived here ever since and intends to remain here. The change which is proposed is not at all necessary, and we regret that we cannot accept it.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is there not surely the case of trade officials and representatives of one Empire country or another? A man might reside here for perhaps two years and one month and be required back in Sydney in his office, but he would be called upon for a period of a year's service and there would be a further compulsion on him to give part-time service in this country. Are there exceptions which would cover that case?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot speak with legal definiteness, but if the case about which the hon. and gallant Member asks is that of an official of a Dominion or a Colony who is here on official
    908
    business, he still remains a national or a subject of his own country, however long he stays. Also people from other parts of the Commonwealth may come here for temporary purposes or for the purpose of education without coming under the provisions of this Bill.
    Mr. Stanley: I take it that Subsection (3, b) overrides Subsection (3, c). In other words, a national of Australia, for example, might have lived here for more than two years, but by producing evidence that he had been sent to take charge of a London office, it would be accepted that he would at some time return, and he would take advantage of Subsection (3, b).
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Application to Scotland.)
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, at the end, to add:
    "(2) An Order made under the Section (Termination of power to make up civil remuneration) of this Act which relates to Scotland only shall be made by the Secretary of State; and an Order so made which relates to England and Scotland shall be made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State jointly."
    The Amendment is consequential on a new Clause put down by the Government relating to the termination of power to make up civil remuneration. That Clause will be dealt with later. It enables an Order relating to Scotland to be made by the Secretary of State or an Order which relates to England and Scotland to be made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Health jointly. Some of the appropriate authorities for the purpose of local government staffs exercise functions in both countries. This is a drafting Amendment, and the actual terms of the new Clauses to make the real Amendment will be before the Committee later.
    Mr. Stanley: I ask for the assurance that this drafting Amendment does not commit us the acceptance of the new Clause which is to follow.
    Mr. Isaacs Mr. Isaacs indicated dissent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Application of National Service Acts to Isle of Man.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, after "that," to insert "any of."
    This and the next four Amendments are in connection with the application of the previous Measures to the Isle of Man.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 13, line 16, leave out "any such Order."
    In line 16, after "may," insert "by Order in Council."
    In line 17, leave out "of the said enactments," and insert "enactment."
    In line 18, leave out "enactments," and insert "Acts."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Duration of National Service Acts.)
    Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, to leave out from the beginning, to the second "the," and to insert:
    "No person who attains the age of eighteen years on or after."
    This is largely a drafting Amendment, bringing this Clause into line with the decisions reached earlier relating to the age of call-up.
    The Chairman: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates)—in page 13, line 20, leave out "fifty-four," and insert "fifty-one "—might properly be discussed with this Amendment, if the Committee wishes. Does the hon. Member for Ladywood wish to speak?
    Mr. Yates: I take it I am to move my Amendment now?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member may do that if and when the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is disposed of.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the great importance of my hon. Friend's Amendment, would it be possible then to have a Division upon it?
    The Chairman: Certainly, when the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been disposed of.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: May I seek your guidance on one matter, Major Milner? Is it your intention to call the Amendment standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends—in page 13, line 20, leave out from beginning to "except," and insert:
    "thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine"?
    The Chairman: No, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's Amendment has not been selected. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) is associated with that in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)—in page 13, line 19, leave out from "Acts," to end of Clause, and insert:
    "shall continue in force only for such time, and subject to such provisions, as may be specified in an annual Act of Parliament, bringing into force or continuing the same."
    Major Legge-Bourke: I have been trying to understand what this Amendment is about. As far as I can make out, it makes complete nonsense of the Clause. Were it to read, "in page 13, line 19, after 'of' insert" the words suggested, the Clause might make sense, but when reading it with the present Amendment as printed on the Order Paper, I do not think that it makes any sense at all.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In order to clear up the matter, I would explain that this Amendment should be taken in connection with the Amendment to be proposed to line 20. The Amendments must be taken together in order to make the Clause read sensibly. As amended the Clause will read:
    "No person who attains the age of eighteen years on or after the 1st day of January, 1954, shall be liable under the National Service Acts to be called upon to serve in the Armed Forces of the Crown; and accordingly those Acts shall continue in operation only with respect to persons who have attained that age or who have been called up for service under those Acts before that date:
    Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council substitute for the said day such later date as may seem to His Majesty expedient."
    The short point is that up to 1st January, 1954, men will be liable to be called up under this Bill. After that date none will be liable to be called up unless the Committee makes other arrangements. Those men who have been called up under the Bill will carry their obligations beyond the date when the Bill comes to an end.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. If these Amendments, which amount to a new Clause, are carried, will that preclude discussion and possible Division on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) in page 13, line 20? If the present Amendment is now carried, it appears to commit the Committee to 1954.
    The Chairman: No. I want to make it clear that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) may be discussed and divided upon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Yates: I beg to move, in page 13, line 20, to leave out "fifty-four", and to insert "fifty-one".
    This is next to the last Clause but it is by no means the least important. In fact, it is fundamental. I feel rather sad that up to the moment we have not been able to make any great impression upon the Government in regard to the general principles of this Bill. I have opposed conscription, but in this Amendment I am asking the Committee to agree that the period of the duration of this Bill should be two years instead of five. When it was first suggested that this Bill should be introduced, the great fear in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself was that for the first time we were introducing into this country a permanent system of peacetime conscription.
    It will be well within the recollection of the Committee that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether it was in the mind of the Government to make military conscription a permanent part of the life of the country, he replied that it was difficult to give a literal translation of the word "permanent."
    "I do not ask to see the distant scene, One step enough for me."
    Naturally, we had fear, and today we have equal fear about the real intention of this Bill and whether it is to be a permanent Measure. We are justified in those fears because when the Military Training Bill was first introduced by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain it was a Measure which was not so far-reaching as this. That involved only a six months' period of training and yet Mr. Chamberlain
    912
    realised at that time, because of the action of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, that in their minds there was a fear that it would become permanent. That was in 1939. Here we are today asking that this shall continue until 1954.
    9.0 p.m.
    I would like to quote from Mr. Neville Chamberlain's speech on that occasion. It emphasises the fear in minds then and the fear in our minds today. He said:
    "I want to conclude by making an appeal to. the party opposite."
    That is, to my right hon. Friends:
    "… I think we fully realise what this word 'compulsion' connotes in their minds. They hate it. They have believed, and I daresay they do believe now, that once you introduce compulsion it is difficult to stop it. It might spread until it affected every aspect of national life."
    Later in the same speech he said:
    "It is a limited Measure which is designed only to meet immediate and temporary needs"—
    1939—
    "It will be framed specially to emphasise its temporary character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1939; Vol. 346, C. 1351.]
    I submit that when Mr. Neville Chamberlain introduced a Measure of that kind the fear that it might be permanent was justified. Today we are considering a much more far-reaching Measure, one which asks in 1947 for conscription to be imposed from 1949 to 1954. Why does the Government insist upon a five-year period? Perhaps they will tell us. At the General Election there was no question about conscription. There was no mandate on this issue. In that pamphlet which we have so often held up in this House, "Let us face the future," there was no reference to military conscription. I suggest to my hon. Friends that so far as our own party is concerned and our own party conference, neither the Labour Party Conference nor the Trades Union Congress has ever passed a resolution in favour of military conscription in time of peace.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that this Debate is confined to the length of the conscription period and is not concerned with the merits or otherwise of conscription?
    Mr. Yates: I will endeavour to confine myself to the essentials of this Amend-

    913
    ment, Mr. Bowles. I am asking why this should be for five years. After taking office, the Government decided to introduce an interim scheme with a call-up only for two years. Why should we now have a Bill for five years? If I am not out of Order, I suggest that when the last Labour Party Conference discussed the issue whether the present policy of the Government was one to cater for immediate needs, it was made quite clear that what the Government were concerned with was immediate responsibilities.
    I am asking tonight whether the Government consider that it is really necessary that we should have a Bill upon the Statute Book imposing conscription for a full five years. I want to suggest why I consider it should only be introduced for two years. Of course, if I could have my way, I would not agree to it at all, for any period, but I do suggest that it is morally indefensible that a Government which came to power as this Government did in 1945 should proclaim that they have the backing of the country in imposing a Measure of peacetime conscription for four years beyond the next General Election. The next General Election is due in 195o, that is, if we go the full constitutional period. May or June, 195o, will normally be the time when the Government should go to the country, and I am asking the Committee to agree to limit this conscription Bill until the January following the time of the next General Election if it is held in June, 1950.
    The Government should be able to tell us, in 195o, what progress has been made through the United Nations, for what commitments we are considered to be responsible, and whether, as it is hoped, the situation will be such that it will not be necessary to have conscription at all. At least I think we should be able to see the position clearly. The Foreign Secretary has just returned. We understand. the difficulties of the international situation, but he has told us that things are not so bad, and that, after all, it is expected that there will be an improvement. Is it not reasonable to expect that before the next General Election, or at least by June, 1950, we shall know precisely what our commitments are? At least, I think it is reasonable to expect that we ought to do so, and that at that moment the Government could go to the country, if they felt that conscription
    914
    must continue, and put the issue clearly to the people.
    I submit that this is a fundamental issue upon which we ought to have a mandate from the country. Though I am not denying the right of the Government to face their immediate responsibilities, I do not think in the circumstances it is necessary to place a Measure upon the Statute Book which extends that responsibility from 1949 until 1954. I want this Government, and our movement, to face the country with completely clean hands, and I believe that I am making a reasonable request in asking that there shall be a limitation of the duration of this Bill. It is a reasonable request, and it is one which I am sure the country will fully appreciate. I disagree entirely with the necessity for this Measure, but of this I am absolutely convinced, that there is no justification whatever for imposing it upon the country for five years, before we even know in firm detail what the requirements of the nation are now or will be within the next few years.
    I urge the Government to give the fullest consideration to this matter. I am not moving this Amendment in a frivolous manner. I recognise the Government's responsibilities. I am only asking that they shall take out this figure and face the country in 195o and get a Mandate if they want to go further with it.
    Mr. Scollan: In view of the Ruling which you have given on this Amendment, Mr. Bowles, I may be in some difficulty in keeping in Order. It is difficult to support an Amendment that would bring this matter before the nation in the General Election of 1950 without telling that Committee why we want that done. I wonder whether I would be in Order in telling the Committee why this thing should be placed before the people before it is imposed as a permanent institution on the nation? This nation has consistently, in the most dangerous periods of its history, resisted the conscription of its manpower when it was confronted with conscript countries all over the Continent. It becomes difficult to know exactly how to approach the matter in Debate. Would I be in Order in referring to the Second Reading Debate, when I told the House that there was a hint that if we accepted the principle of conscription for the nation, the Government would take out 18 months and give us 12 months? That hint has

    915
    proved to be correct. If I am still in Order, I would repeat that the military caste, after every war, has immediately taken control of the destinies of the youth of the nation, as far as they could.
    The Temporary Chairman: A decision was taken by the House of Commons upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was in favour of conscription until 1954. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) has moved an Amendment to alter that date. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) to confine himself to the subject of the Amendment.
    Mr. Scollan: I bow to your Ruling.
    Mr. Byers: Does the hon. Member include in the military caste of which he spoke those hon. and gallant Members of the Committee who are opposing conscription?
    Mr. Scollan: I can only say that the hon. Member is flattering himself if he thinks that he is one of the military caste. The main reason given by the mover of the Amendment why the duration of the Bill should be reduced from 1954 to 1951 is that a General Election is due to take place in 1950. That brings me to a very important point. It is rather amusing that the Minister of Defence, who could not rise in this Committee and say that he had received a mandate and that the mandate was contained in "Let us Face the Future," could yet go to the Cooperative Congress and claim there that there was.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is not amusing.
    Mr. Scollan: It is not amusing.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: But the hon. Gentleman said it was.
    Mr. Scollan: Yes, it is rather amusing that he is not here to hear it. One of the main reasons why it should end on 1st January, 1951, is obviously because it will be too near the period of the General Election for the matter to be ignored, and, consequently, they will have to explain to the people at that Election what the crisis is now.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Scollan: No, the hon. Gentleman may not. What is the crisis which faces this country at the present moment and which makes it necessary for us to have conscription in peacetime? In a vague and general way we were previously told that the international situation was of such a character that we could not depend upon U.N.O. being a success, and that we needed some kind of intimidating Armed Force behind the Foreign Secretary so that he could negotiate and get good conditions for this country out of the various conferences, international and otherwise. If that is the case—
    Mr. Tiffany: Will my hon. Friend allow me—
    Mr. Scollan: No, I cannot,
    Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Bowles, for my hon. Friend to misreport a statement made by the Minister of Defence to the Co-operative Party Conference?
    The Temporary Chairman: It is up to the hon. Member who follows him in the Debate to correct the hon. Gentleman if necessary.
    Mr. Scollan: There are many ways of getting in an interruption on points of Order. The point I was trying to make was that if the Government go to the country in 1950, they' will have to tell the people—since conscription is going to finish on 1st January, 1951—what was the particular crisis that justified them making it a permanent institution on the people of this country in 1947. It is the principle they want; they do not care whether it is a year, six months, or a fortnight.
    The Temporary Chairman: The principle of conscription has already been decided.
    Mr. Scollan: With respect, Mr. Bowles, they have only got it up to Clause 24; they have still to get the other Clauses. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to point out that the main thing in the Bill is the principle of conscription in peacetime.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to the principle; he can only argue whether the length of service is to be five years or two.
    Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. I am not quite sure, Mr. Bowles, whether

    917
    you really meant the words you just uttered. Surely the matter under Debate now is not the question of five or two years' service; it is a question of whether for five years or for two years there shall be compulsory service for one year. It is quite a different point.
    The Temporary Chairman: Surely, the point is that the Bill, which has passed its Second Reading, provides that compulsory military service should continue until 1954, and the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) seeks to reduce the period by three years.
    Mr. Scollan: I will try to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Bowles. The idea of conscription is accepted today because it was necessary in wartime. One of the most aggravating things about the whole of the discussion on the Bill is that one no sooner draws attention to the objections to the principle in peacetime, than somebody dubs one as a pacifist. I am not, and never was, a pacifist, but, at the same time, I do not see why this should be shoved on for another four years after the next opportunity for the people to say whether they want it or not. Therefore, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. Obviously, if they are going to say that conscription is necessary to carry them over the crisis, they will have to tell us, some time or other, what is this crisis. What are these commitments, all these things that we are told about in a vague, nebulous sort of way? Is there somebody round the corner waiting to pounce on us? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Front Bench."] I do not know if anybody on the Front Bench would pounce, but I have seen quite a lot of it on the second bench. I ask the Government to consider the fact that one of the cardinal principles of the Labour Party is that the people should be consulted before a change of this character takes place.
    Mr. Nally; If this Amendment is not accepted, it will mean that this Committee, by rejecting it, will have decided that 10 and II year olds will, in due course, be conscripted into His Majesty's Forces. The argument that has been used is this, that where we are making a serious decision without precedent in our national life, and that decision is being made by a new Government of a different kind, it is
    918
    right and proper that that Government:, introducing this new principle into Britain's peacetime life—
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has heard me rule before that there can be no discussion on the merits of conscription. The only argument permissible at the moment is whether it is to be for two years or five years.
    Mr. Nally: With respect, I submit that if you had allowed me to continue to the end of my sentence I was not going to challenge the merits of conscription at all. I was about to say that at least the length of it ought to be subject to the decision of the next General Election. I really did mean to say that, and I am not now attempting to evade your Ruling. I know we are not to discuss the merits of conscription. Clearly, this Amendment would place the lifetime of conscription roughly within the lifetime of this Government. It would enable the country itself to pass some judgment, either on the merits of the case—which I should be out of Order in discussing—or upon the length of it. I cannot see why it is essential for the Government to have this particular period of time. Why have they said 1954? Why not 1955? If there is a case to be made out—and we are entitled to have it made out—for 1954, the person who makes out that case must demonstrate why 1954 is better than 1955 or 1956; and he must demonstrate also that there are insuperable difficulties in the way of accepting our Amendment.
    Although the Committee have accepted the principle of conscription, I hope that those who believe that these major changes in our national life should not be carried through without the utmost care taken to submit them, in the fullest possible way, to the people as a whole will accept our argument that it is wrong for this Government to embody such a period in a Measure of this kind, and to carry its life to 1954, which is three and a half or four years beyond the elected period of this Parliament. We ask from the Front Bench a quite specific and clear justification for the date of 1954. We are not to be put off by vague assertions that it helps administratively, and that any Government which succeeds this will be assisted by the date of 1954. We want the facts upon which that decision is based. We want the complete case

    919
    against 1951, and we want complete justification for 1954. Unless we get those answers we shall go into the Lobby against the Government, and I hope very many other hon. Members will also.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: I should like to reinforce the argument that this Bill makes a great change in the constitutional position. It makes the change in the constitutional position not immediately, but in 1949, when no one knows what the situation will be. The Amendment puts forward the real and sensible situation. If there is to be a change, what justification can there be for this date of 1954 in regard to a position about which we shall not know until 1949? In that problematical position the speculative two years is far preferable, and is far more justifiable than the five years proposed in this Bill. For that reason, I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. John Paton: I had not proposed to intervene in this Debate at all. I have been tempted to speak because of the nature of the Amendment and of the arguments by which it has been supported. I voted against conscription on the Address, and I voted against it again on the Second Reading of this Bill. I did that on two occasions, although I am not a pacifist and never have been one. I did it on general grounds which to me seemed good. But I cannot possibly sit silent and abstain from voting on an issue of this kind. I am really astonished at the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) and the lion. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) supporting the Amendment in the way they have done, or putting it down at all. Both those hon. Members, as is the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. H. Morris), are opposed to conscription in principle. They do not want it. They do not want it for five years, and they do not want it for two. Is it possible for anyone who opposes conscription in principle to propose to this Committee that we can accept it for only two years? That seems to me an utterly illogical position to try to sustain, and I am surprised at the arguments used to support it.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Yates: It is perfectly true that we have opposed conscription, but the House
    920
    has accepted it, and I have no alternative but to try to reduce the period.
    Mr. Paton: If one cannot possibly touch a thing so evil, one cannot buy it in small packets. This Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: On a point of Order. Upon this Clause, there is no way of challenging conscription under your own Ruling, Mr. Bowles—except by amendment of the proposed period.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have accepted the Amendment, and so I do not regard it as a wrecking Amendment.
    Mr. Paton: Of course, an hon. Member can oppose the Clause. But I said that this was a wrecking Amendment—and that, is in fact, what it is—
    Mr. Nally: On a point of Order. You said from that Chair, Mr. Bowles, a few moments ago, that you did not regard this as a wrecking Amendment, for otherwise you would not have called it. We now have an assertion from my hon. Friend that it is a wrecking Amendment. Is that in Order, after you have stated quite specifically that you do not regard it as a wrecking Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman: The position is perfectly clear. I have accepted the Amendment because I do not regard it as a wrecking one, at all; but the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) is perfectly entitled to describe it as a wrecking Amendment if he thinks it is.
    Mr. Paton: I propose to say why I applied that term to it. It is because I believe it is a wrecking Amendment that I choose to intervene for the first time in 24 hours, after listening to, and exercising great restraint in, the Debates all last night. The reason why I say that is that, whatever one may think of the Government's plans as laid down in this Bill, at least, they are logically constructive. They have a serious meaning. It has been explained over and over again, in this Debate and in the several Debates on the Bill, that there is a specific reason for the period that is proposed—that it is quite impossible to have this Bill at all, and the machinery of conscription that is proposed, unless we also have an adequate period in which it is to operate. I should have thought that that was now understood by everybody in the Committee.

    921
    Because, quite clearly, this attempt to limit the Bill to two years completely and wholly destroys the Bill and its purpose, I call it a wrecking Amendment. I oppose conscription root and branch, but I do not propose by this sort of thing, and this sort of completely inconsistent tactics, to attempt to destroy the Bill.
    Mr. Sorensen: I and my colleagues have not the slightest desire to obstruct the passage of this Bill. Although I speak for myself, of course, I think that a few words may be expressed as indicating my own point of view and that of my hon. Friends. I cannot understand the remarks of the last hon. Member who spoke, who seemed to suggest that it was a case of all or nothing. I cannot understand that, especially in view of the fact that the hon. Member is a well-known advocate of the abolition of capital punishment who, on more than one occasion, has tried with others to put a limit to that particular sentence. Every one of us, in this party or the party opposite, can, if he likes, associate with others, because we take the lesser of two evils, and, therefore, I cannot see why we cannot object to the length of time of a principle while realising that the principle has been sanctioned by the House, even though we would prefer that that principle was not in operation. I think it is fairly clear that the length of time in the Bill is largely determined by the reason for the introduction of conscription, and that reason varies according to different sections of the party in power. There is a minority who believe that conscription is the best way of rationing out the respnsibilities of the people of this country, and there is another section which feels that, for some years ahead, the circumstances of the world and our own commitments—
    The Temporary Chairman: I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is out of Order. He must either say that he is in favour of five years or two years, or, as another hon. Gentleman has said, the people of the country should be consulted before the decision is taken nearer 1950.
    Mr. Sorensen: I think if you had listened to the end of my sentence, Mr. Bowles, you might have given me permission to continue with the point I was making. If you will give me a moment's latitude, may I say this? The length of time of conscription, I say, was deter-
    922
    mined by the reason for the introduction of conscription, and, therefore, the second reason which I was about to adduce was that, if the country requires conscription for a certain period of time, and there is perhaps an adequate reason for extending conscription for another two or three years, it does not follow that it will have the same justification. There will be new, and, we hope, improved conditions in the world, and we trust that there will be less tension between the Powers, and that is a reason which I would submit to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. While I can see a reason for extending conscription for a certain period of time, there is no justification for continuing it beyond that time, because the situation should be reconsidered in the light of the conditions which then exist, and which we all hope will be an improvement on the present situation. I hope that this Amendment will receive consideration.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: The point of view of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) is one with which, at first glance, I have considerable sympathy because those of us who opposed peacetime conscription in principle, are now faced with a Bill which has been accepted in principle by the House of Commons and by this Committee. We now have a choice to make. The choice before us is in this Clause, which says that the Bill shall cease to have effect in 1954. The hon. Member for Norwich said that he would vote against the Clause—
    Mr. Paton: I think the hon. Member misunderstood. I was challenged as to what should be done to express opposition to it other than by voting for this Amendment, and I suggested it could be done by voting against the Clause standing part.
    Mr. Roberts: I shall deal with that. The hon. Gentleman suggested that opposition could be expressed by voting against the Motion that the Clause stand part, but this Clause limits the operation of the Bill and, if one voted against the Clause, then logically the result of the vote would be that one was prepared to commit the country indefinitely without a time limit to the continuance of this provision. Do we accept the limitation in the Clause that conscription shall cease to have effect in 1954? Faced with that choice, we say

    923
    that if the House of Commons is imposing conscription, and if we regard it as an evil thing, then we must do all we can to restrict its scope and limit the term of its operation. We do not regard it as desirable or necessary for the country to be committed to conscription indefinitely, and in those circumstances it is perfectly logical for us to take the line, at this stage in the Committee, that we must support this Amendment which will restrict the operation of this evil thing to two years.
    It has been argued that the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the matter of conscription in peacetime will be an issue at the next General Election, and that is reasonable. Nothing could be more desirable than that the country should have an opportunity of discussing it and voting on it at the next General Election. I believe that were this an issue at the General Election, it would dwarf every other issue. There is only one weakness in the argument, and that is to assume that the next General Election may not be held until shortly before 1951. That may be so or that may not be so. It is for that reason that my hon. Friends and I put down an Amendment to limit the operation of the Bill to one year, because we do not think that Parliament should grant these powers except for one year. That Amendment would have the effect of making conscription an issue whenever the General Election is held.
    There is one further argument I wish to adduce in support of this Amendment. In yesterday's Debate the Minister of Defence said that he was defending the first conscription Measure of its kind ever introduced in "a reasonably normal peacetime period." That means that this Bill is not introduced by the Minister of Defence as a Measure in time of emergency but that he accepts this as a reasonably normal peacetime period. Have we any reason to believe that world relations will have deteriorated so far that it will be necessary to prolong this Measure until 1954? In view of those words I submit that it is the duty of this Committee to limit the term of compulsory military service as rigidly as possible. For that reason I support the Amendment.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I would not have thought it necessary to intervene, but for
    924
    the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton). Apart from my hon. Friend there seems to be a complete silence on the part of those who are presumably going to vote against the Amendment. I wonder why? Let me examine the argument of the only Member of the Committee who has so far attempted to defend the Government's position. He says the first objection is that it would be a wrecking Amendment. By that I take it he means that if the Amendment were passed the Bill would prove unworkable, or useless. I do not admit that for a moment, but let us suppose for the sake of argument that he is right and that if we were to pass this Amendment the Bill would be rendered unworkable or useless—what objection has my hon. Friend to that?
    Mr. Paton Mr. Paton rose—
    Mr. Silverman: I will give way in a moment. I want to finish one point first, and then I will willingly give way. My hon. Friend told the Committee quite frankly that he was against this Bill. He said that he voted against it before ever it was introduced. As soon as it was foreshadowed in the Address from the Throne he voted and, I think, spoke in favour of the Amendment to the Address. He told us again that he voted against the Second Reading. He is against this Bill, as much against it as I am against it. Therefore, if an Amendment were proposed the success of which would have the effect of rendering the Bill useless and unworkable, he ought to vote for that Amendment tonight.
    Mr. Paton: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with his usual courage has intervened in this Debate although he heard neither the mover's speech nor the seconder's speech, to which I replied. Had he been here to hear those speeches, he would understand why I took that line.
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I certainly did not hear the speech of the mover of the Amendment, but I think I know what was in it. I heard other hon. Members' speeches and I certainly heard my hon. Friend's speech. He said in his speech quite clearly that he was against this Amendment because if we passed the Amendment a Bill which he is against anyway would

    925
    be rendered useless and unworkable. Here is a man who is against a thing, but refuses to vote for something which renders the thing he is against useless and unworkable. It is an astonishing position for any hon. Member to be in.
    Mr. Paton: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne completely misunderstands the nature of the argument I was using. I was attacking those who were sponsoring the Amendment because I believed they were indulging in wrecking tactics which were not good for them and the position they occupy.
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend was a Member of this House before I was and his knowledge and experience are greater than mine. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was not"] If I am wrong he will correct it, but I think he was here before I was first elected in 1935.
    Mr. Paton Mr. Paton indicated dissent.
    Mr. Silverman: Then I need not be as humble as I intended to be. Out of the depths of my longer experience I would say to my hon. Friend that there is nothing wrong with moving an Amendment to a Bill which one is opposing, because the effect of this Amendment would be to give one one's way. There is nothing unparliamentary about it, and certainly there is nothing wrong about it. That is one of the reasons I am in favour of the Amendment, because I think if I had my way it would not be worth the Government's while having a conscription Bill at all for two years. That, therefore, is a very good argument in favour of the Bill.
    Let us come to the second point. I suppose there is no Member of this Committee and certainly there is no Member on this side who would not agree with this proposition that in a democratic country, if it is proposed to alter the fundamental constitutional life of the land, it should not be done, unless it is impracticable to do otherwise, without first submitting it to the electorate and getting a mandate for what is being done. I do not think that anyone on the Government side of the Committee will dissent from that view. The Government case is that in the circumstances that have arisen they had no option but to do it without consulting the people. Certainly it is not in "Let us Face the Future," and the Government have always been very careful in their
    926
    courageous far-reaching legislation never to go beyond what they thought was advisable or for which they had a mandate in the document to which I have referred, and on which they were elected, except in this one instance. I do them the justice of admitting at once that they would not have departed from that democratic principle except that they were convinced that in the circumstances they had no option but to do it. I do not agree with them but I honestly concede that they—
    Mr. William Ross Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock) rose—
    Mr. Silverman: Let me finish my sentence. As I was saying, I do not agree with them in that but I honestly concede that that is their justification, and I am sure they would not claim any other for having voted a Bill which not only fundamentally alters the constitution of our country, but which goes against everything for which this Party has stood.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must not discuss the merits of this question, but he must confine himself to whether the Bill should apply for two years or five.
    Mr. Silverman: I fully appreciate that and I hope that I am not attempting to discuss the merits. I only said that for this Government even more than any other to do this without electoral sanction could only be justified on the grounds of necessity. I do not argue the ncessity but I concede that that is their belief.
    Mr. Ross: I want to remind the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that "Let us Face the Future," was written and the General Election was fought before the war was ended.
    Mr. Silverman: I concede that most of it was written before the war was ended, but the General Election was fought when the European war was over. I do not know what the relevance of that is or what difference it makes. I concede that the Government did not believe that it would be necessary when they fought the Election to introduce a Bill like this, and, therefore, they did not ask for a mandate.
    They have introduced this only because circumstances have not changed as rapidly as they hoped. That brings me back

    927
    directly to the terms of this Amendment, because whatever excuse there is for bringing in the Bill, as they did without a mandate from the electorate, which they could not have obtained and which they did not seek, there can be no excuse for continuing it beyond the time of the next election without first submitting it to the electors.
    Mr. McKie: What Government has ever done that with any Bill?
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend must remember that we have a new type of Government now. I know that former Governments proceeded on quite different principles, but we reject those principles. It is not only this party that never consulted the electorate about conscription; neither did the Tories, the Liberals or anybody else consult the people about conscription. I quite agree that the Liberals had a very good reason. They had no intention of introducing it.
    Mr. Clement Davies: The hon. Gentleman is discussing whether any Government should bring in a great constitutional change without consulting the people. I would point out that in 1910, before the change in regard to another place, we did go to the country and get a mandate.
    Mr. Silverman: My right hon. and learned Friend is unusually indignant. I was making no attack. I think that the record of the Liberal Party on this point, if on no other, is perfectly clean.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Is not the hon. Gentleman's point about the mandate quite as much an objection to the Amendment as to the Clause? There is no earthly reason, if the Government think they should have a mandate, why they should not go to the country tomorrow.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is the very last hon. Member who ought to attack an argument like that. I heard him only this afternoon, and I have heard him on many previous occasions, plead most eloquently and forcefully the argument for democracy. He is against regulations with a negative Prayer against them. He does not think that that is democratic. He does not like to see this Bill which contains these provisions, and he voted against the provisions because they do not give the direct positive.
    Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to discuss again the question about the negative Resolution?
    The Temporary Chairman: That must not be discussed and the hon. Member knows it.
    Mr. Silverman: I am not discussing it at all.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think the Committee will agree that we cannot go into a discussion on democracy and that this point about negative Resolutions has been made on previous Amendments. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the Amendment now under discussion.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was anxious to see that the rights of Parliament are protected. He ought to be more anxious to see that the rights of the electorate are protected. That is the point I am making. I was using the previous point about positive and negative resolutions, not because I want to discuss their merits but because I would have expected that hon. Members who are anxious about democratic principles being safeguarded so that Parliament can have a direct sanction for Bills of this kind, ought in consistency to say that the argument is an a fortiori argument so far as the electorate is concerned. I expect those Gentlemen to vote with us for this Amendment. I do not want to detain the Committee much longer—[Interruption.] I can quite understand that those who have uneasy consciences about the matter want me to sit down even quicker than I intend to do.
    Whatever may be true of the Tories and the Liberals, as soon as my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side get the opportunity of submitting this, I think, great deterioration of our system—though they think this great reform, but whichever it is—to the electorate for a mandate for or against it, they ought to take it and ought not to seek to prolong the operation of this Measure one day longer than they have the opportunity of consulting the people of this country about it.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander: I do not propose to detain the Committee for any length of time because it would appear that the

    929
    Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) is an exceedingly narrow one. It does not affect at all the general principle in the Bill which has already been approved by the House; it merely argues that its period of operation should be reduced from five years to two. The short answer to that Amendment, in the first place, is that it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept it because it would not provide us with the number of reservists that we require for the planning that has to be done—and has to be done now. In the second place, reference has been made to the date proposed by my hon. Friend when the Bill should cease to be operative because it would then be near to the date of a General Election, and something has been said about the unwisdom of my party and the Government having brought this Measure in without a previous mandate from the electorate.
    Let me say first of all, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that the programme we put to the electorate was put in wartime with a pledge to prosecute the war against Japan to the full until final victory had come. There was also the page in "Let us face the future" which, in referring to the general international question, told the electorate that military insecurity was a menace to peace. That was largely the background in which the Labour Party sought the electorate's sufferages upon this kind of issue, although I agree that the specific issue of conscription as such was not put for the mandate of the people while the war was still being carried on.
    Mr. Byers: On a point of Order. I thought you ruled, Mr. Bowles, that we were not to discuss the principle of conscription. We believe that this country should be militarily strong and so does the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that on this we were not to discuss the principle of conscription. Conscription is a method. Hon. Members opposite thinks it makes the country strong. We think it makes the country weak. Surely that cannot be argued on this Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman: The issue of conscription is not the issue here. The right hon. Gentleman was in Order in that the argument about fixing the period at
    930
    two years, namely until 1951, was that it would make it very close to the next time when this Government and other parties in this House will have an opportunity of going to the electorate.
    Mr. Alexander: I need only add one thing. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that the Government did not claim that they had a special mandate from the electorate when they brought this thing in. That is right. The facts are quite clear. We had to bring it in because the previous authority of the House extending the call-up of national service men would come to an end in 1948 and we would be left with a period in which we had to meet our immediate commitments and plan for the subsequent future while we were getting the world more safe and the proper organisation of U.N.O. proceeding. Therefore, we had to bring in the Measure now in order to give proper notice and organisation to take the place or those men who will have finished with the Services at the end of 1948. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, because it would destroy the whole basis of the planning and the commitments on which the Bill is based and for the principles of which we had the approval of the House on Second Reading.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope that the Committee will regard this Amendment as the most important put forward since the Second Reading of the Measure, and those who take that view will go into the Lobby in support of it. I cannot understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence; and if he does not mind my saying so, I think I am as capable of interpreting Labour policy as he is. What is this plan he talks about and what are our commitments? We have never been told what our military commitments are. Will he tell us what special merit there is in 1954 as against 1951? How comes it about that the Government want to extend conscription for 10 years after the end of the war? We are reminded almost every week that our troops are coming out of India, out of Egypt, out of Burma, and ultimately, I suppose, they will come out of Germany, Italy and Austria, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Palestine."] I suppose we shall have to come out of Palestine some day. In any case we

    931
    cannot police the world, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Are we to assume that the whole world has got to be straightened out before we abolish conscription in this country? Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Do I understand him to say that we are to continue conscription, until we have developed the atomic bomb? I think we are entitled to ask that question. I would like to ask another question. Have we entered into any commitments at all with the American Government to pass this Bill? Then I would like to ask something else. What are our commitments to U.N.O.? They will not tell us; there is something very ominous and menacing in some of the suggestions in Government speeches on this issue. So far as I understand it, it is; "We will carry on with the voluntary system to safeguard the interests of our country and Empire, but in order to provide our quota for U.N.O. we must in addition impose conscription on our people until 1954."
    Let the Committee understand something else—this is not only until 1954, conscription is to continue beyond 1954 by Order in Council. As stated, this is the most important Amendment we have put forward, and I hope we shall rally a goodly number in the Division on our side. Let me add, as one who has been in this House almost as long as anybody, I believe that the fate of this Government may well be in the balance on this Bill. In any event, the fate of the Labour Movement outside is in this Bill. When the Tories support the Government on Measure like this, they are treading on very dangerous ground. Let me say finally, therefore, that we attach great importance to this Amendment, because I for one, who have fought as many Elections as anybody—and have not lost one yet, by the way—do not want the Labour Party to go to the next General Election with the fact against us that we have fastened military conscription on our people for good. I want us to say to the electorate: "If a future Government care to continue conscription, let them do it, but the Labour Party, at any rate, will face the country with clean hands in this matter."
    Mr. Byers: I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to part with this Amendment without a further explanation
    932
    from the Minister of Defence after the very feeble explanation he gave. This is a constitutional matter and it has nothing to do with conscription at all. The point is, Are we prepared to take this matter to the country at the next General Election or not? That is why the date 1951 has been decided upon. The Minister's answer was that we could not do that because it would weaken the country, and the reason why it would weaken the country is that we should not get the reserves that we required. I think that I have not misinterpreted the argument that the Minister put up at that Box. I want to ask the Minister of Defence, What difference is there likely to be in 1951 in our reserve strength, under the Amendment, or under the Bill as it stands? What difference? Answer. There is no answer to it, because there is no difference. The Minister of Defence now says that there would be a difference. He gave an indication that there was a difference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Can we have an answer? This is the crux of the Amendment. My point is that the Amendment would make no difference to the reserves. The Bill now says that the National Service Acts
    "shall cease to have effect on the first day of January, 1954."
    For that date it is proposed to substitute "1951." The Bill goes on to add:
    "except as respects any liability thereby imposed on any person before that date."
    In other words the reserve commitments go on. There is no difference except that we limit the application of the Bill to two age groups instead of to five age groups. We should go to the country in 1950 and ask whether the people want to go on with it. It makes no difference at all to the reserve strength of the country. Will the Minister deny it? I give him the chance to do so.
    Mr. Alexander Mr. Alexander rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that he cannot expect the Minister to give him an answer unless he resumes his seat and gives way to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Byers: I know that the Minister of Defence is tired, but one cannot always tell for what reason he is nodding his head at any particular moment. I did not know that he was waiting for me to give way. This is an important matter.

    933
    The Amendment is not a pacifist Amendment in any way at all.
    Mr. Alexander: Let me repeat what I said before. I said that we have to have a plan, and that to limit this Bill to two years of operation only would provide ultimately for a total rather less than, and certainly not more than 400,000 reserves. We have planned on a much bigger basis of reserves than that.
    Mr. Byers: The Minister of Defence must riot mislead the Committee on this matter.
    Mr. Alexander: I am not.
    Mr. Byers: Yes, he is doing so, by the words which he used. What he tried to tell the Committee by the way in which he dealt with the Amendment was that we cannot stop conscription in 1951 because we should have no reserves coming into the Forces between 1951 and 1954. That is how the right hon. Gentleman gets the difference between 1,100,000 and 400,000. That is wrong, and that is misleading the Committee. We have to compare like with like. We have to compare the situation in 1951 under the Amendment with the situation under the Bill, and that will be the same; or we have to compare the situation in 1954 under the Amendment, which depends entirely upon the mandate the Government receive from the people—if they get a mandate from the people—
    Mr. Alexander: We do not seem to be losing any by-elections.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Byers: I am not in the least challenging that.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the candidate at the Jarrow by-election made it perfectly clear that he was against conscription?
    Mr. Byers: I was not aware of that. I was wondering why the majority—
    The Temporary Chairman: We are not discussing the Jarrow by-election, but whether conscription should go on until 1954, or should stop in 1951. The hon. Gentleman has stated that whether it stops in 1951 or goes on till 1954 will make no difference in the number of reserves.
    Mr. Byers: I apologise, Mr. Bowles. I was drawn away by the Minister's intervention. The Minister should not mislead the Committee on this matter. He knows just as well as I do that the position of reserves and the total number of people in the Forces in 1951 will be exactly the same under this Amendment as it will under the Bill. That has not been denied, and the Minister cannot deny it. The real point of this Amendment is whether the matter should be taken to the country at the next election, and whether the Government should come back with a mandate. On that constitutional point I agree with hon. Members of the party above the Gangway. Are they so kern to get this conscription Measure that they are not prepared to put it before the country at the next election?
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I think that every Member of my party is committed to the principle of conscription, as opposed to Members of the hon. Gentleman's party who are against it. I do not think that that relieves the party above the Gangway of putting that straight to the people of the country at the next election. That is the point of this Amendment. It makes no difference to the strength of our reserves in 1951. The point is the constitutional question. Are they prepared to put it to the country, or are they frightened to do so?
    The Temporary Chairman The Temporary Chairman rose—
    Mr. C. Williams Mr. C. Williams rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman did not catch my eye. Does he wish to address the Committee?
    Mr. C. Williams: I have always stood up for that purpose, Mr. Bowles. I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He said two things which I thought were immensely sensible. In the first place, and as far as this Amendment is concerned, he said that it was deserving of support, because, if the period was reduced by three years, it would then render a Bill which we dislike—
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that I expressly said that I did not accept that view. I added that if I had accepted that view it would only have made me all the more determined to get this Amendment carried, if I could.
    Mr. C. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction, although I do not think that it alters the situation very much. However, he drew to my mind the fact that the intention of this Amendment was to reduce the value of the Bill, and that seemed to me to be a good reason for supporting the Amendment. He then said something which I thought was very interesting. He said this was a new type of Government. Indeed, it is a new type of Government. An Amendment has been moved striking at the root of the proposal in the Bill; the Government have had one supporter from their Front Bench, so far as I know, and a large number of their own closest supporters have been supporting the Amendment. That seems to be a very curious position, and I thought it was worth commenting on it. There have been few other signs, except of incompetence—
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he cannot base his speech on the obiter dicta of other hon. Members. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams: No, I would not use the obiter dicta of other hon. Members as the basis of my speech. I am basing my speech on the proposal to reduce the period from 1954 to 1951. The object of my speech was to draw the attention of yourself, Mr. Bowles, and of the Committee to the fact that we have this very interesting position: This is an Amendment which would undoubtedly have a wreck-
    ing effect, or a near wrecking effect, on the Bill because, as the Minister of Defence has said, we would not be able to build up the reserves. If I support the Government in the Lobby, I will do so for this reason; I was returned for the purpose, among other things, of building up, in connection with any party which might be in power, the defences of this country in such a way that we might defend this country and be effective in carrying out the work of the United Nations. We have had the word of the Minister of Defence—
    Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. What has this argument got to do with the proposal to reduce the period from 1954 to 1951? It has nothing at all to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams: I am seriously trying to keep very much to the point of the Amendment, and very much to what the Minister of Defence said. He appealed to his own supporters—not to us—and said the longer period was necessary from the point of view of defence and of U.N.O. I am saying that if I vote on this Amendment, I shall vote for the longer term, because I do not see how otherwise it is possible either to defend our own country or to enable our country to play its part in U.N.O., and that seems to me to be one of the main objects of this Bill.
    Question put, "That fifty-four 'stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes. 36.

    Division No. 198.]

    AYES.

    [10.25 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Bower, N.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V,

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Daines, P

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Amory, D. Heathcote

    Burke, W. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Carson, E

    Diamond, J.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Digby, S. W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Challen, C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Champion, A. J.

    Donovan, T.

    Baird, J.

    Channon, H.

    Drewe, C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Chater, D.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Balfour, A.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Barton, C.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Dye, S.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Beswick, F.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

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

    Cook, T. F.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Bing, G. H. C.

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

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Binns, J.

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Erroll, F. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Crawley, A.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Boardman, H.

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

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Ewart, R.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Farthing, W. J.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Ropner, Col. L

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

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Fool, M. M

    Linstead, H. N.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Low, Brig. A. R. W

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

    Sharp, Granville

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    McAdam, W

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    McAllister, G.

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

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Gibson, C. W

    Mack, J. D.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Gilzean, A.

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

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Cordon-Walker, P. C.

    McLeavy, F.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Steele, T.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Grimston, R. V

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Gunter, R. J

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Guy, W. H.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Hall, W. G.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Swingler, S.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Hardy, E. A

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Testing, William

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Houghton, S, G.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

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

    Hewitson, Captain M.

    Mort, D. L.

    Thorne, Ernest

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

    Tiffany, S.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Moyle, A.

    Titterington, M. F

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Wadsworth, G

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Walkden, E.

    Howard, Hon. A

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Hubbard, T.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oldfield, W. H

    Warbey W. N.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

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

    Orr-Ewing, I. L

    Weitzman, D

    Irving, W. J.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Palmer, A. M. F

    West, D. G.

    Janner, B.

    Pargiter, G. A

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Parker, J.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Pearson, A.

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

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Pearl, Capt. T. F.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Keenan, W.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Kenyon, C.

    Prescott, Stanley

    Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Price, M. Philips

    Willis, E

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wise, Major F. J

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Woods, G. S.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Ranger, J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Leonard, W.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Rhodes, H.

    Lever, N. H.

    Robens, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Levy, B. W.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Mr. Simmons and

    Mr. Popplewell.

    NOES.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Bowen, R.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Longden, F.

    Shurmer, P.

    Byers, Frank

    McGhee, H. G.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Cooks, F. S.

    McGovern, J.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Collins, V. J.

    Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Morley, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Wilkins, W. A

    Dodds, N. N.

    Nally, W.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Piratin, P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Rankin, J.

    Mr. Yates and Mr. Scotlan

    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: On a point of Order. Would it be possible for the lights to be switched on in the Division Lobby while Divisions are being taken, in order that hon. Members may be able to see with whom they are consorting?
    The Temporary Chairman: I do not think this is a point of Order, but I will pass on the request to the authorities.
    Mr. Scollan: Could you also, Mr. Bowles, see about hon. Members opposite getting, some mental light?
    Amendment made: In page 13, line 20, leave out from "fifty-four," to "before," in line 21, and insert:
    "shall be liable under the National Service Acts to be called upon to serve in the armed forces of the Crown; and accordingly those Acts shall continue in operation only with respect to persons who have attained that age or who have been called up for service under those Acts."—[Mr. Isaacs.]
    Mr. Ayles: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 23 to 25.
    The short argument for this Amendment is that there is always a tendency for Governments to gather to themselves more and more power, and the only way by which they can be curbed in a Parliamentary State is by full Parliamentary Debate. An Order in Council does not prevent Parliamentary Debate, but it can, possibly, prevent Parliamentary amendment. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will remain on the Statute Book until 1954, which means that we shall have another six years' experience of its operation. I do not think that, in a rapidly changing world, we can expect conditions to be the same in 1954 as they are today. We shall undoubtedly have a great deal of experience of the effect of this Bill on the young men of 18 years, and also its effect on industry, apart from a great deal of experience with regard to the Armed Forces. We do not know exactly what the military situation will be. In these circumstances, there is only one thing which a democratic Government can do, and that is, instead of ramming Acts on to the Statute Book by sheer brute force, to introduce a new Bill framed in the light of the experience of the six intervening years. I hope I shall get the support of the Committee for the elimination of these three lines which establish the continuance of this Bill, as an Act, by means of Order in Council.
    Mr. Alexander: The effect of this Amendment would be to prevent the scheme for compulsory national service being continued beyond the end of 1953, unless an entirely fresh Act was passed for the purpose. The Government might have introduced legislation in a completely permanent form, or on a basis which would have required an Order in Council to terminate the powers in the Bill. But we were very sensible in saying that the need for compulsory national service in peacetime should come under review by Parliament at the end of what we consider a reasonable time. To meet these conflicting points of view, Clause 24 was devised. The provision in that Clause is admittedly in the nature of a compromise. On the one hand, it provides that without positive action the National Service Act shall come to an end on 1st January, 1954. On the other hand, it provides for the positive action to be taken by means of an Order in Council, and safeguards Parliamentary control by the requirement that any Order in Council under this Clause shall require an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The purpose of that proviso is, while reserving full Parliamentary control to make it unnecessary to introduce fresh legislation if circumstances at that time necessitate the maintenance of the scheme. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) that the procedure of an Order in Council which will require an affirmative Resolution, would not give adequate Parliamentary debate on a major issue of that kind.
    Mr. Ayles: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to state that I said nothing of the kind? I said that it would not admit of effective amendment, which is quite different.
    Mr. Alexander: I should say that one would be able to put down a very effective Amendment to an affirmative Resolution, tabled by the Government for the passing of an Order in Council.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman insist that it is possible for an hon. Member of this House to put down an Amendment to an affirmative Resolution?
    Mr. Alexander: Hon. Members can certainly exert a tremendous amount of pressure on an affirmative Resolution, and in the course of Debate on such a

    941
    Resolution can bring very effective representations to bear upon the Government.
    Mr. S. Silverman: What the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting a moment ago was that you can in some way or other amend this Bill, by amending an Order in Council under this Clause. I am sure that he did not mean that.. The only Amendment which could be put down to an Order in Council would be about the date, or the period, or something of that character. You could not amend the Bill.
    Mr. Alexander: I think probably that is right.—[Interruption.] I do not think that there is any necessity for rude interruption from the hon. Member opposite who seems to think that he is the only hon. Member with Parliamentary experience in the House. I probably dealt with these Resolutions and Orders in Council in the House before the hon. Member ever entered the place; and I have probably carried more Prayers to debate in the House about that kind of thing than he has ever done. I ask him not to make such rude interjectory remarks. We are unable to accept the Amendment because we think we have taken all proper precautions to see that Parliament remains master in this matter. It is essential, under the Bill, for an affirmative Resolution to b put down for the approval of an Order in Council, and we think that the interests of Parliament and of the nation are adequately protected.
    10.45 p.m.
    Sir J. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman has not at all answered the point, on the desirability of being able to amend. He started his speech under the impression, apparently, that an affirmative Resolution could be amended. It does seem to me to be an affront to the Committee when a Minister of the right hon. Gentleman's rank comes to it with such a ridiculous misconception. I really think it would be a good thing if we could now have an answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General on the point. The answer we have had from the Minister is completely worthless. Perhaps the Attorney-General would be prepared to answer the Amendment which was moved in very reasonable terms by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) and which has considerable support in all quarters of the Committee.
    Mr. Hogg: Before the Attorney-General replies I should like to say that I thought my hon. Friend underestimated the cunning and cleverness of the Minister of Defence. It is perfectly true, as he told the Committee, that an affirmative Resolution is not amendable and it was for that reason, I believe, that the Minister of Defence rightly resisted this Amendment. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I must admit, I should have gone into the Lobby in favour of an Amendment such as this, for the very reason that the affirmative Resolution does not permit of Amendment, and the necessity of introducing legislation is one of the essential safeguards of Parliamentary discussion. But of course the Minister's experience of Amendments to this Bill has been unfortunate and he did not want to be faced with the problem henceforth, or even to have one of his successors confronted henceforth with a revolt of Members of his own side and compelled to give in in a humiliating fashion.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have spent considerable time in debating the date for the expiry of this Bill, unless prolonged by Order in Council, and there has been an unusual display of what must normally occur in the party meetings of Members opposite. This Amendment does raise a question of considerable importance and one which I do not think this Committee ought to discuss with any degree of levity or heat, because we are really considering making the ambit of conscription for young people greater. It is a serious matter for this Committee to determine what will be incorporated in this Clause with regard to the termination or prolongation of this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman was on this occasion commendably frank with the Committee in saying the proposal to prolong by Order in Council was a compromise. He was in my opinion inaccurate in saying the compromise provided for full Parliamentary control. It certainly does not do that. It provides for some degree of Parliamentary control, but no one with any knowledge of the practice of this House can say it provides for full Parliamentary control when there is no power of amending the Order in Council.
    This point must be recognised by the Government. Whether you have the Bill with no date for termination in it, so that it can only be brought to an end by an Act repealing it; whether you have the

    943
    Bill with a fixed date of 1954 in it and no machinery for prolongation, so that it can only be extended by another Bill; or whether you have extension by Order in Council there is no means whereby the Government of the day can avoid a Debate on the question. I think that one must approach this subject with that in one's mind, and then consider what is the best way of having that Debate so that the wishes of the people and the country can be reflected in the wishes and views of Members of Parliament. We on this side have always taken the view that prolongation of Acts of Parliament by Orders in Council is wrong. We have expressed that view in the Division Lobbies on a number of occasions, and no reason has been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman which would convince us that it would be right on this occasion to depart from the practice that we have followed up to date. Therefore, bearing in mind that whether you have an Order in Council, or a one-Clause Bill extending this Measure from 1954 onwards, there must, in either case, be a Debate, possibly a full Debate, in this House. I, for one, see no reason to depart from the attitude and the course that I have followed on previous occasions when this issue has arisen. It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman, if he is still in charge of the matter when it comes before the House in 1954, if he wishes to extend it, to introduce a one-clause Measure for that purpose, to include it, if one likes in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill or something of that sort, and there really has been no ground put forward by him this evening for the adoption of this machinery for extension of Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I wish particularly to address the Minister of Defence. It is, of course, the mere negligible bathos of Parliamentary humbug to accuse of rudeness those who propound arguments to which you do not have the answer or which convict you of misstatement of fact. Therefore, I do not in the least resent the accusation of rudeness, but, really, a Minister of Defence is a new office in this country, and one of the reasons why it is a new office is because it was felt to be an office too great for any man to hold short of the Prime Minister. When a Minister of Defence is in charge of a Bill of great constitutional importance, a Bill which is to be forced through by sitting practically
    944
    continuously for 36 hours—and I think I have been in the Chamber for 34 of the 36—when that is to be done, it is really necessary for the Minister of Defence to acquaint himself with the simpler principles of the technique which he is discussing. We have had very difficult matters to discuss during the last 36 hours, and any of us could easily fall into technical and even material errors, and no doubt I have myself done so more than once. But that anybody who is in charge should, when challenged, proceed to say "probably" and "that may be so" about matters ascertainable, really is treating this Committee with a contempt. There is another thing the Minister of Defence has said. He said there was a challenge from below the Gangway, when anyone on this side of the Committee was prepared to question the doctrine of mandate in these matters. I do not propose at this hour to detain the Committee to explain what I think the doctrine of mandate means, but I would say shortly that I question—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think the hon. Member will agree that what he is now talking about does not arise on this issue.
    Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, I can make quite clear the exact relevance of what I am trying to say. The matter before us is whether we shall, or shall not leave in the Bill a proviso
    "that His Majesty may by Order in Council substitute for the said day such later date"
    and so on. The Government may take the responsibility upon themselves of proposing conscription for one year, for two years, for five years, or' for an indefinite period. But, what is seems to me a Government cannot decently do is to impose conscription for a short period, leaving it open for themselves, or their successors, in peace time to continue that period by a process less serious, and less difficult than the process of a Bill. If there were any doubt that that is an improper claim on the part of any Government that doubt would be removed by the excessive emphasis which hon. Members opposite attach to the doctrine of mandate because it is quite clear that whether or not right hon. and hon. Members opposite have a mandate to impose conscription of two, three or five years, what they have not a mandate for is to impose conscription in the way proposed if this proviso is left in the Bill. That is the relevance of what I

    945
    was saying about the doctrine of mandate. The Minister of Defence appealed in this connection to the Jarrow by-election result—
    Mr. Alexander Mr. Alexander indicated dissent.
    Mr. Pickthorn: He is shaking his head, but I am within the recollection of the Committee—
    Mr. Alexander: Surely, the hon. Member wishes to be quite correct. I did not mention Jarrow. I said we were not losing by-elections.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Really, on this day, the right hon. Gentleman refers to by-elections and does not mean Jarrow.
    Mr. Alexander: On a point of explanation. No doubt the hon. Member will recollect that we have not lost an election since we introduced this Measure.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This emphasises the danger of introducing extraneous matters.
    Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, there is some relation, and it was not I who introduced the subject. I am surely entitled to reply. The allegation was that the matter was made safe by the avoidance of loss of by-elections, but it was immediately pointed out—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever reference was made, it was made on a previous Amendment, and not on the one now under discussion.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I think it was made on both occasions. In any case it happened on the same Clause. The point is quite simple; hon. and right hon. Members opposite are backed at Jarrow by someone who was against conscription, that is all.
    11 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: I want to mention only two arguments in respect of this Amendment. When anyone is introducing in peacetime such a tremendous innovation as compulsory military service, it is essential to set before the country the terms on which it is being introduced. Therefore if the only power we have of prolonging that Measure is by Order in Council, we are not setting a definite term to the operation of compulsory service. We on this bench are against this inno-
    946
    vation. There should be a definite term set to it, and at the end of that term the Government should come before the House with a new Bill. My second point is this. It has been argued that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the principle of the draft of the Order in Council and, therefore, will be able to discuss it year by year, but we consider that conscription is such an infringement of civil liberty and such a big thing that the impulse to introduce an Act of Parliament would surely be far greater than the impulse to introduce an Order in Council.
    Dr. Morgan: Ona point of Order. Is the hon. Member in Order? He is speaking on a particular proviso to a particular Clause. What he is now saying does not seem to relate to the Amendment which we are considering.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is in Order.
    Mr. Roberts: As I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—I am told that some hon. Members cannot hear what I am saying, and I will speak up in order that they may hear me. I will bring my second argument again before the Committee. What I said was that conscription was such a tremendous thing that it could only be justified through an Act of Parliament, and that the impulse to bring in an Order in Council is far less than the impulse to bring in an Act of Parliament. We consider that conscription is an evil, and, therefore, when the Government are seeking to renew it they should justify it up to the hilt, by bringing forward an Act of Parliament. It is the only method whereby we can see perfectly the way in which conscription operates in the experimental period. For those two reasons we support this most excellent Amendment. If there is any hon. Member who did not hear my first argument, I will repeat it—
    Hon. Members: We heard it.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That happens to be the part of the hon. Member's argument which I did hear.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes 97.

    Division No. 199.]

    AYES.

    [11.3 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Hewitson, Captain M.

    Price, M. Philips

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holman, P.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Hoy, J.

    Randall, H. E.

    Balfour, A.

    Hubbard, T.

    Ranger, J.

    Barton, C.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Rhodes, H.

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robens, A.

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

    Irving, W. J.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Rogers, G. H R.

    Binns, J.

    Janner, B.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Boardman, H.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

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

    Sharp, Granville

    Bowles, F. C. (Nuneaton)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

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

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Keenan, W.

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

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Kenyon, C.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Camyns, Dr. L.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Cook, T. F.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Steele, T.

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

    Leonard, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lever, N. H.

    Swingler, S.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Levy, B. W.

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Diamond, J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Dodds, N. N.

    McAdam, W.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Mack, J. D.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Durbin, E. F. M.

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

    Tiffany, S.

    Dye, S.

    McLeavy, F.

    Walker, G. H.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Weitzman, D.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    West, D. G.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Mitchison, C. R.

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

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Farthing, W. J.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

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

    Moyle, A.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Foot, M. M

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Willis, E.

    Gilzean, A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

    Gooch, E. G.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Wise, Major F. J

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Woods, G. S.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Zilliacus, K

    Gurter, R. J.

    Parker, J.

    Guy, W. H.

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Mr. Joseph Henderson and

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F

    Mr. Simmons.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Popplewell, E.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

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

    Ayles, W. H.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Digby, S. W.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Drayson, G. B.

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

    Birch, Nigel

    Drewe, C.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Boothby, R.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Low, Brig. A. R. W

    Bowen, R.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

    Bower, N.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    McGhee, H. G.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

    Erroll, F. J.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

    Gage, C.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Byers, Frank

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Carson, E.

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Challen, C.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Channon, H.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Haughton, S. G.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Nally, W.

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholson, G.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

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

    Nutting, Anthony

    948

    949

    Orr-Ewing, I. L

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Prescott, Stanley

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

    Studholme, H. G.

    Yates, V. F.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Tealing, William

    Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ropner, Col. L

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

    Mr. Emrys Roberts and

    Scollan, T.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Professor Gruffydd.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Viant, S. P.

    Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    It might be opportune to ask the Government what their intentions are now that we are about to approach the new Clauses. It is for the Government to decide whether they shall be discussed after a universal refreshment of mind, or whether we are to continue with the present methods. Any enlightenment that the Front Bench opposite can bring to the situation will be, if not gratefully, at least politely received.
    Mr. Alexander: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the discussions through the usual channels this morning, it was arranged, in view of the lengthy discussions on the Bill, that we should deal with the Bill tomorrow as well as today. There were no guarantees given, but we asked for the help of the Committee, with that extension of time for Debate, in getting the Bill tomorrow. There is still a considerable amount of work to be done on the Bill, but I suggest for the consideration of the Committee that we should sit a little longer tonight and get a little further so that we can be sure of getting the Bill to the end of the Committee stage by a reasonable time tomorrow.
    Mr. Eden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will forgive me saying that this is almost back to the Admiralty days, and it is the vaguest nautical definition I have' ever heard. What does "a little further" mean? How far are we to go? How many nautical miles, if I may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's previous experience, are we to proceed? In other words, how many new Clauses are in the Government's mind? If the Committee is to do useful work, it should know what is expected of it.
    Mr. Alexander: We thought if we could finish the next two and a half pages of the Amendments — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] that would cover a proportion of the new Clauses and leave a reasonable day's work for tomorrow, but I am willing to receive suggestions.
    Mr. Nally: At a very early hour this morning when a large number of us had sat through the night, it was suggested to us that we might continue, difficult as the circumstances were, and work right through. A number of us continued to sit on that assumption. Then, at 11 o'clock, we were surprised to be asked to break off, for no real reason at all, for at least three hours. There are some of those on both Front Benches, who have had a difficult time—as we all have had in this matter—and who are as tired as we are. I do not dispute that, but now, despite the fact that we threw away more than three hours after eleven o'clock this morning, it is proposed for no conceivable purpose, that at a quarter past eleven at night, we should begin discussions which even at a minimum estimate are bound to carry us well beyond midnight. That means for quite a number of hon. Members, yet another night out of bed. I should not have minded, had the Government been sensible at eleven o'clock this morning. But to be asked at this time of night to make up for something that we could have done at eleven o'clock this morning, is not fair, and I hope we shall not continue the discussions
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I want to say a word in the same sense as my hon. Friend. This morning shortly before eleven o'clock, I pointed out that there was no purpose to be served by wasting some 31¼ hours, particularly if the effect was to be to add it on to the late hours this evening and the early hours of tomorrow morning. We were at that time assured that that was not the intention, but that an arrangement had been reached through the usual channels which would prevent

    951
    our sitting very late tonight and would en- able the Government to get the Bill tomorrow. The Government have done very well about this; we have gone a long way. It is true that the last two Amendments have taken a little time, but except for those, we have made remarkable progress. [Interruption.] That is my view; anyone who holds the contrary view will have the right to say so. I say we have done remarkably well, and although there is a substantial amount still to be done, we can well do it tomorrow with the same co-operation as that which we have enjoyed this afternoon. I hope we shall decide now, after 36 hours or more with just that interval of three hours, which ought never to have taken place, that we have done very well, and may now adjourn until tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Alexander: It would perhaps facilitate business if I tried to see whether we could come to an arrangement convenient to all sides of the Committee. We could perhaps meet the situation tomorrow, if we took tonight just the two Government new Clauses, and finished at that point. If all my hon. Friends, in all parts of the Committee, will do their best to help us, we should be able to get the Bill tomorrow.
    Mr. Byers: I think we ought to congratulate the Minister and thank him very much for one of his remarkably rapid decisions.
    Mr. Eden: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it seems a reasonable arrangement, which we on this side will certainly not oppose. The only remark I have to make is that I have been looking at the pages of Amendments yet to be discussed, and I do not want to have any misunderstanding. It seems to be pretty heavy work for tomorrow, and I do not think the Government can necessarily guarantee to carry it through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We cannot; the Government must understand that it is not the Opposition which has been taking up the time of the House We should certainly like to finish tomorrow, but when I look at the number of Amendments that will be left if we stop at this point, I think the Government must bear in mind that they are leaving a pretty heavy task for Friday. They should bear that in mind, and address their minds tomorrow to the prob-
    952
    lem of meeting the convenience of the Committee. If they do so we will help them.
    Mr. Bing: May I say a word to the Committee on behalf of those people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] In case hon. Members opposite did not hear what I was saying, may I say that I was addressing my remarks principally to this side of the Committee—
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member say he was addressing that side of the Committee. Is it not customary in this Committee to address the Chair?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I assumed that the hon. Member was addressing the Chair, since it is customary to address the Chair.
    Mr. Bing: I am sorry, but I was not permitted to finish the sentence. I was about to say that I was addressing this side of the Committee through the Chair as is customary. I wanted to say a word on behalf of those hon. Members who up to now have not spoken on these matters but have solidly supported the Government, and who are prepared to support the Government for so long as the Government are prepared to go on. But we ought to make it clear there is a considerable demand on the physical strength of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and perhaps when we come to some consideration of this matter the Committee ought to regard the question—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Hogg: Let us go on talking then.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to hear what the hon. Member is saying.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I heard the hon. Member say that, through you, Mr. Beaumont, of course, he was only addressing his own side, and you ruled that that was in Order. Why on earth are we to be made to listen?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I appreciate the point of that remark, but I was trying to ascertain whether the hon. Member was in Order. Unless I hear what is said, I cannot give a Ruling.
    Mr. Bing: This is purely of interest to those hon. Members who attended throughout the night until this morning, when there were only a few Members on

    953
    the other side of the Committee. I am very sorry if I excepted these ten or twelve hon. Members who had the courtesy to discuss this matter throughout the night.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be desirable if we now came to a determination with regard to this.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Termination of power to make up civil remuneration.)
    (1) The power conferred by section one of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, to make payments to or in respect of a person ceasing to serve in his civil capacity in order to undertake war service shall not be exercisable in respect of any person who ceases so to serve after such date as may be specified by order of the Minister of Health.
    (2) This section shall come into force on the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Aneurin Bevan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I hope this Clause will receive the support of the Members of the Committee. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will give me their attention. The purpose of the Clause is fairly simple. There is a large number of people in Great Britain at the moment, very largely those in the employ of local authorities, who, under the Act of 1939, are—[Interruption.] May I have the attention of the Committee? Hon. Members are not obliged to listen; they can leave the Chamber.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not obliged to speak.
    Mr. Bevan: The purpose of the Clause is this—and I am certain that if hon. Members opposite will listen, they will agree with its purpose because it removes a certain anomaly. There is a large number of men, and some women, in the employ of local authorities who, under the Act of 1939, are having their Service pay made up to the civilian rate. This continues at the present time, and would apply to those persons called up under the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. This, we suggest, was a perfectly proper thing to do in time of war, but it seems to the Government that it is quite unreasonable that a certain section of the population should be so favoured that, when they are in the Services in time of peace, they should enjoy civilian rates
    954
    of pay alongside other people getting merely Service pay. This is the anomaly which we want to bring to an end.
    So long as the emergency continues, the present Statute applies, and I am advised that we cannot end the war emergency piecemeal. One has to amend the emergency ruling as a whole, and not in part. Therefore, in order that these persons may not enjoy this privilege above the other members of the community, we ask for this Clause which gives powers to enable local authorities to cease these payments which bring Service emoluments up to civilian rates. The time spent in the armed Services will be regarded as time counting for purposes of superannuation, and the law is not being amended in that respect.
    Captain Marsden: It is such a rare and refreshing thing to get some realism, and common sense, and an expression of equal favour to everybody, from the Front Bench opposite, that I am so overcome with this sensibility as to welcome the words of the Minister of Health. In the past we have had men going into the Services with their pay made 'up to what they would have received in civilian life. I understand that that will no longer be the case. That is very sensible, very surprising, and I would like to support it.
    Mr. Eden: What has been said by the right hon. Gentleman is something with which we fully agree. But I think that it would be in order if I asked at this stage for some enlightenment as to the position of civil servants. This Clause deals only with employees of local authorities.
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that it is not necessary to have an Act of Parliament determining the position of civil servants. That can be done by Departmental agreement.
    11.30 p.m.
    Major Legge-Bourke: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given to the Committee? May I ask him, however, whether a decision has been reached regarding civil servants?
    The Chairman: I can permit the hon. and gallant Member to ask a question, and allow the Minister to answer; but I am afraid I cannot allow discussions of that matter on this Clause.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I was really wishing to put a supplementary question arising out of the question which I had already put.
    Mr. Bevan: I can put the Committee in possession of the facts without difficulty. Discussions are taking place, but no decision has yet been reached regarding the date. It seems to us to be a perfectly equitable proposition that we should terminate the privileges for both classes at the same time, and that is why we are taking power to make the Order.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Safeguarding of employment.)
    (1) If the employer of any person liable to be called upon to serve for a period of whole-time service terminates his employment without his consent before the date on which he is required to present himself in accordance with an enlistment notice, and does so solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities which that person is, or may become, liable to perform or discharge by reason of his being, or being liable to be, called upon to serve for that term, the employer shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and the court by which he is convicted may order him to pay to the person whose employment has been terminated, as compensation for any loss suffered or likely to - be suffered by him by reason of the termination, a sum not exceeding an amount equal to five weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer
    (2) If the employment of any person is terminated by his employer solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities which he is, or may become, liable to perform or discharge in pursuance of this Act during his term of part-time service, that person shall be entitled to recover from his employer as compensation for any loss suffered or likely to be suffered by him by reason of the termination of his employment a sum not exceeding an amount equal to five weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer; and in case of dispute he may, within such time as may be prescribed by regulations under section sixteen of the Reinstatement Act, apply to a Reinstatement Committee for the determination of his right to recover compensation, and if that right is established to the satisfaction of the Committee they shall make an order for the payment by the employer to the applicant of such sum as they consider him to be entitled to recover.
    (3) If in any proceedings under this section the court or the committee, as the case may be, is of opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that the duties or liabilities afore-
    956
    said caused or contributed to the termination of the employment, the employment shall be deemed to have been terminated by reason of those duties or liabilities unless the employer proves that the termination was for a reason unconnected therewith.
    (4) The following provisions of the Reinstatement Act shall, with the necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section as they apply for the purposes of that Act, that is to say:
    section eight (which relates to Reinstatement Committees, umpires and deputy umpires);
    section ten (which relates to appeals from those Committees), except so much thereof as defines the expression "the employer";
    subsection (2) of section eleven (which relates to the recovery of sums ordered to be paid by those Committees);
    subsection (4) of section eleven (which relates to the institution of proceedings by authorised officers);
    section sixteen (which relates to regulations);
    subsections (3) and (4) of section seventeen (which relate to evidence);
    section eighteen (which relates to the priority of debts);
    section nineteen (which relates to expenses), and the definition of "the Minister" in section twenty.—[Mr. Isaacs.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I have to submit to the Committee the second of the Government Clauses which it is now agreed are to be the last to be taken this evening. It is a very long Clause, and is the redraft of one originally circulated. Therefore, I propose, if it meets with the convenience of the Committee, to give a brief statement of its contents; but if required I shall be ready to give a more detailed explanation of the several Subsections. Briefly, Subsection (1) makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker solely or mainly because the man is liable to be called up for whole-time service. The penalty is £50, and the employer also may be ordered to compensate the employee up to five weeks' pay. There will be no offence if the employment is terminated by mutual consent. This is on the same lines as that which obtains at present. Subsection (2) gives similar compensation to any employee dismissed because of his obligation for part-time service. In this case, disputes are to be settled by the reinstatement committees, just as reinstatement disputes are at present. In this Clause, relating to part-time service, there is no penal sanction against the employer, apart from his liability for compensation. Subsection (3) says that

    957
    where there is reasonable cause to believe that an employee's liability or duties were the reason for his dismissal, the onus will be on the employer to prove the contrary. That is not so onerous on the employer as was proposed in the original Clause 13. Subsection (4) applies the new circumstances to the present reinstatement provisions, which have worked with complete smoothness and satisfaction to all parties. The only substantial change is that the minimum of 26 weeks' reinstatement is reduced to 13 weeks, if the previous employment was not more than 13 weeks. That is a very brief summary, but I shall be glad to give further explanations should any hon. Member desire them.
    Commander Galbraith: I want to ask the Minister for a further explanation of why these two systems have been introduced. I do not gather why, in the first instance, the matter should go to the courts, and in the second instance, to the reinstatement committees. We have always paid deference to the courts and I would like to know why two systems are included. There is just one other point. I understand the rule of law today on matters of compensation is that where the employee is receiving remuneration, the compensation is adjusted in relation to the remuneration received. I would like to know if that still stands under this Clause?
    Mr. Isaacs: So far as compensation is concerned, there is no change in the existing rules at all. With regard to the first, we have had to consider the fact that when a man goes away for 12 months on fulltime service it may be argued that when he comes back it is a reinstatement. But when he is away for a matter of two or three weeks, then the Clause makes arrangements for safeguarding his con tract of employment. It is considered re-employment, if you can appreciate the difference between reinstatement and reemployment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Committee report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

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

  BRITISH WIVES OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
  BRITISH WIVES OF FOREIGN NATIONALS
POLICE
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Convicted Policemen
  Convicted Policemen
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FAMILY ALLOWANCES)
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FAMILY ALLOWANCES)
HOUSING
  Hammersmith
  Hammersmith
  Reigate, Dorking and Horley
  Reigate, Dorking and Horley
  Airey Houses
  Airey Houses
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Nurses, Tuberculosis Institutions
  Nurses, Tuberculosis Institutions
  GOVERNMENT POSTER
  GOVERNMENT POSTER
EMPLOYMENT
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES (TRADING PROFITS)
  PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES (TRADING PROFITS)
EDUCATION
  Playingfield, Shalford (Grant)
  Playingfield, Shalford (Grant)
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Qualified Teachers (University Degree Course)
  Qualified Teachers (University Degree Course)
  Supplementary Teachers
  Supplementary Teachers
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Polish Trade (Provisional Arrangements)
  Anglo-Polish Trade (Provisional Arrangements)
  ANGLO-POLISH TRADE TALKS
  ANGLO-POLISH TRADE TALKS
  Dollar-Earning Industries (Fuel Allocation)
  Dollar-Earning Industries (Fuel Allocation)
  Perambulator Industry (Materials)
  Perambulator Industry (Materials)
  Export Trades (Employees)
  Export Trades (Employees)
  Boat Building (Timber Supplies)
  Boat Building (Timber Supplies)
  USED LUBRICATING OIL (RE-REFINING)
  USED LUBRICATING OIL (RE-REFINING)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  Opencast Coal (Selling Price)
  Opencast Coal (Selling Price)
  Employees, Ayrshire
  Employees, Ayrshire
  Allocations
  Allocations
  Boiler Fuel, Orpington
  Boiler Fuel, Orpington
  Coal and Rent Allowance
  Coal and Rent Allowance
  BUNKER FUEL OIL
  BUNKER FUEL OIL
  HEATING BAN
  HEATING BAN
  MOTOR SPIRIT IMPORTS
  MOTOR SPIRIT IMPORTS
ROADS
  Private Hire Cars (Charges)
  Private Hire Cars (Charges)
  Maintenance Grants
  Maintenance Grants
  Pedestrian-Controlled Motors
  Pedestrian-Controlled Motors
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Statutory Orders (Consolidation)
  Statutory Orders (Consolidation)
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Wholesaler's Licence, Brentford
  Wholesaler's Licence, Brentford
  SOAP RATION
  SOAP RATION
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Disc Hoes, Gold Coast
  Disc Hoes, Gold Coast
  Fibre Growing, Uganda
  Fibre Growing, Uganda
  JAMAICA (TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
  JAMAICA (TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
  WIFE MAINTENANCE
  WIFE MAINTENANCE
  DIVORCE AND JUDICIAL SEPARATION
  DIVORCE AND JUDICIAL SEPARATION
  AIR SERVICE, U.K.—SINGAPORE
  AIR SERVICE, U.K.—SINGAPORE
  WAR SERVICE GRANTS
  WAR SERVICE GRANTS
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Brick Production
  Brick Production
  Government Offices (Floor Space)
  Government Offices (Floor Space)
  AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT
  AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  WELCOME TO THEIR MAJESTIES.
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House the following question of which I have given him private notice—namely, what arrangements His Majesty's Government have made to enable Parliament to partake in the general welcome to the King and the Royal Family on Their Majesties return to London next week.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for this opportunity. As your Lordships are doubtless already aware, the King and Queen with the Royal Princesses are expected home in London on Monday next, May 12, shortly after midday, arriving at Waterloo Station from the port of disembarkation, where there will have been a civic reception in their honour. Their Majesties will drive in carriages from Waterloo to Buckingham Palace by way of Parliament Square, and Members of both Houses will doubtless wish to have an opportunity of taking part in the general welcome to the King and Queen, who are expected to pass through the Square at about 12.45 p.m.
  Arrangements have been made to enable Members of both Houses and their friends to assemble on the pavements adjoining New Palace Yard, and on the opposite side of the roadway, at that time. A Humble Address of Welcome will be Moved in both Houses of Parliament on the afternoon of Their Majesties' arrival in London, and I know that as many of your Lordships as possible will desire to be present on that occasion. In your Lordships' House the time will be 2.30 p.m. I may add, perhaps, that all these arrangements follow the lines of those which were made on their Majesties' return from Canada in 1939.

  FOOD SITUATION
  2.38 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Woolton, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the growing danger of a serious shortage of food in this country.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think all noble Lords who were present yesterday and who had the privilege of listening to the debate, as well as those who have read through Hansard this morning, will feel that I am speaking for them in saying that the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is one of great importance, not only for this House but for the country as a whole. I cannot help feeling, however, that there is one point which perhaps disappointed us, if we did not find it more than disappointing and indeed most disturbing. I could not help feeling deeply disturbed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because to me it represented a complacency about the whole situation which is really frightening for the future. He opened by deploring the alarmism of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, whereas I think most of your Lordships felt that Lord Woolton delivered a speech of really deep statesmanship.
  The speech delivered by the noble Lord from the Government Bench is disturbing, particularly to those of us who have been trying to help not only the Government but the country by using what little influence we have in the countryside to persuade farmers to do even more than they have done. How can we go amongst the farmers, telling them that the position is desperate and asking for greater efforts from them, when we have from the Front Bench in either House of Parliament such, as I would venture to suggest, unjustifiably reassuring speeches as that which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, delivered to us yesterday? Recently I had the experience of going to a large farmers' meeting on the day after Mr. Turner, the President of the National Farmers' Union, had delivered what many of us felt to be a most important and deeply moving appeal to the farmers of the country. It was, incidentally, the day after Mr. John Strachey, the Minister of Food, arrived back from his Canadian tour. The response I received from the farmers was a very clear one. They said, "Why

  463
  should we put ourselves out to produce this extra food when"—and they brandished a paper in front of me— "the Minister of Food says that all is well?"
  What was it that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, really had to promise? So far as I could see, all he really promised was that there was not likely to be any serious deterioration. He said, in effect, "Things will not be better but they are not going to be very much worse." I hope I am not being unfair to the noble Lord in so paraphrasing what he says, but he said there is no great danger except with regard to our supply of meat and fats. He might have gone on to say that these are the two most important food deficiencies from which we are suffering to-day. This so-called reassuring message was based on the assumption of a continuance of good harvests in North America. What right have we to take such a gamble as that? In case I am being unfair to the noble Lord, I have here a description of his speech in the Press, and in order to be quite sure, I naturally selected the only paper that tells the truth—the Daily Herald. They have headlined his speech "Food Crisis Talk Nailed." How are we to bring the people of this country to a realization of the gravity of the position when that is the lead that is given?
  The noble Lord went on to say that, in his view, we need not be worried about a deterioration in the stocks of food because it is no longer necessary to have high stocks. It is perfectly true that he added: "at the same high level as the war period." I think probably we would all agree that it would be unnecessary to keep our food stocks at the level of the war period, though I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, would say. But are there not other risks against which we have to provide? Are there not strikes, not only in this country but in other countries? Have there not been strikes at the docks and in the transport industry in the great exporting countries? Are there not general transport difficulties and shortages? I mentioned that the noble Lord's assumptions of optimism about the grain position were largely dependent upon continued good harvests in the North Americas. Does he not realize that we have had a run of four or five good harvests in the North American sphere, and that on the law of averages we cannot possibly hope for, or gamble
  464
  on, a continuance of that situation? And what about the weather here? Have we not learned anything from the last six months in this country—the winter losses and the spring losses? Have we not to provide stocks against, if not a total, at least a partial recurrence of such happenings?
  Finally, there is one other factor which nobody has yet mentioned. From all the reports I have received from the Continent, the losses of winter corn were a great deal more serious than in this country because they had less snow. We at least had the protection of snow sitting on our crops. The first figure I was given of the losses in France was between 70 and 8o per cent. One can only hope that this was exaggerated—one knows that these loss figures are very often exaggerated in the first instance. However, the losses were certainly high. I would impress upon noble Lords the importance of stocks at the present moment, when virtually we are buying whatever we buy in a blackmail market. It is important to have high stocks, in order to be able to use them as a bargaining counter. There was one other omission in the speech of the noble Lord that struck many of us as curious, but possibly this was because he hoped some other noble Lord, perhaps the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, would deal with the point. It seems extraordinary to think that anyone can make a speech about the food situation to-day without mentioning the word "dollar." I read his speech very carefully this morning to try and find the word somewhere. The noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, referred to the speech of Sir Stafford Cripps during the week end. He quoted Sir Stafford Cripps as having mentioned the figure of £200,000,000 losses due to the fuel shortage. Does that not bear upon the food situation or is it that Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. John Strachey are not even on speaking terms? We hope the troubles in His Majesty's Government have not developed so far as that, but certainly the speeches of Sir Stafford Cripps do not affect the briefs handed out by Mr. Strachey because there was no reference to dollars.
  The noble Lords opposite devoted much of their speeches to a justification of bulk purchase. I do not want to touch upon that point because it seems to me that the most important subject before us today is not the method we shall employ

  465
  in purchasing our food, but rather the question of whether, when our dollar loans run out, we shall be able to pay for our imports, whether we purchase them by one method or another. I would like to devote the few remarks I am going to make to that specific point, and try to persuade His Majesty's Government that we must produce more food from our own soil; that we can produce more food from our own soil; and, finally, to say that His Majesty's Government may rely on all the help that it is possible to give front a united agricultural industry, if only they will take steps sufficiently drastic for dealing with the situation, and if they will give us the tools for the job. It has to be realized that desperate situations need desperate remedies, and, although I hesitate to say this to so notable a band of planners, they need a plan.
  One of the noble Lords on the other side of the House (I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd) said that we on this side of the House must make up our minds whether or not we wanted the total withdrawal of the State from these economic affairs. The reply is quite simple. We want better planning and less interference. There is nothing mystic about planning; it is what we must all have in our daily affairs. It is merely looking ahead and seeing problems before they overwhelm us. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a point (quite an amusing one, which we all enjoyed) about the activities during the war of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. All that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, did was to show that he had a perfectly open and flexible mind and was prepared to apply whatever remedy he considered most suitable at a particular time. Undoubtedly, in the conditions of the war, we all of us owed a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for the methods which he applied, and which were the most suitable. That does not mean to say that they are the most suitable methods for peace-time. Incidentally, he showed that he was competent to operate any machinery of purchase, and I do not think many noble Lords—even on the other side of the House—would contend that all Ministers are able to do that.
  What is the position? Let us look at the Economic Survey for 1947, which we discussed at some length recently in your
  466
  Lordships' House. What came out of that debate? I am afraid that the points which emerged were only too clear; that we are facing a deficit on our balance of trade of something just under £400,000,000 a year (between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000), and that we are proposing next year to expend £725,000,000 on imports of food, mostly from dollar countries. Those figures were given us before we knew the appalling losses—as yet really inadequately estimated—of this winter. Therefore, that £725,000,000 is likely to be a minimum figure, rather than a maximum. In addition, in our overseas indebtedness we owe amounts up to £3,000,000,000 a problem which we are glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now beginning to tackle, but as yet more in the realm of pious hope than anything else.
  There is another factor which is fundamental to the consideration of this problem but which is not, I think, sufficiently realized. It is that this tendency to import more than we export is not entirely a new tendency, confined to this period of crisis. It is a tendency which was started before the war. In those days we were already what I think is called "in the rain" on our balance of payments by about £60,000,000. Before the war those great raw material producing countries were increasing their own secondary industries, a tendency which we know has been multiplied five or ten fold as a result of the war. Not only in the realm of secondary industries but in the realm of agriculture there has been a change. These great exporting countries learned during the war that it not only pays them better economically but makes for better farming, and for bet ter fertility of their soil, to use their own animals and process foodstuffs which in toe past they used to send to us extremely cheaply and which we used to process. Those countries are not likely to abandon this.
  Finally, there is another factor which is quite different from what it was before the war. We built op our economy in the last few generations on cheap food. Who to-day is prepared to contend that food from overseas is cheaper than we are producing it? is it a fact (I have asked the noble Lord: I have never been able to get the exact figures from him, but he can correct rue if I am wrong) that wheat from Canada is costing as much as we are paying to our own

  467
  farmers to-day in this country; that wheat from America is costing us more, and that wheat from the Argentine (in so far as it is obtainable at all) is also costing a great deal more? I think I am right in saying that he told us the other day that we had been able to make only one purchase of linseed oil from India at £53 a ton, whereas, as a great concession during the last month or so, and making it very clear that it is only for one year, we are to pay our own farmers £45 a ton. It seems to me that these are the real facts that we have to face in a debate of this kind.
  I know how big and appalling the winter losses have been, but it seems to me that there is considerable danger in exaggerating them, in the sense that we may allow the gravity of those losses to obscure the real problem that is before us. These losses have done nothing more than to advance the crisis, it may be by four, six or twelve months—that is a matter of guess-work. There is a danger of obscuring the true nature of the problem which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, put so extraordinarily clearly yesterday, and with which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, also dealt—that the whole basis of our old prosperity built up during the last few generations has now been undermined by the factors which I have ventured to mention. And the danger of not admitting that is surely, that so long as we hang on to the fantasy that we can rebuild our prosperity on the old basis, so long does it mean that we cannot concentrate our attention on rebuilding our prosperity on a new basis. For instance (again I use the word fantasy) it is a complete fantasy to think we can ever attain to 175 per cent. of our pre-war exports. That is dangerous, because it is allowing us to think we can continue to live on our food production as it is and not determine to increase it to a far greater extent.
  I venture to stress the long-term side of the problem in this debate on the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has moved, and which is really a crisis Motion, because it seems to me that we are not going to deal with this emergency or crisis unless we recognize that we are not faced with something that is temporary, but with a long-term change in our economic life. We therefore have this paradox before us: that we cannot
  468
  deal with the crisis because we are tending too much to think of it in terms of a crisis instead of as a long-term change. I need not say in this House that agriculture is not an emergency industry. It is not an industry which you can pick up and develop when you are afraid of the food situation, and then drop again as soon as there is promise of easier markets. The steps that are needed to get an immediate increase—nobody is more aware of this than the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who has done such wonderful work for agriculture and has continually made this point himself—and the steps that are needed to help agriculture to deal with the crisis, are in fact long-term steps. Surely all this drives us to one point, and one point only—that we must produce more food here at home. Once we have reached that point, we shall begin to realize that the increase can be very great.
  It is obvious that we are all agreed on the general thesis. Where I do not think we agree—unless, that is, the noble Lord, Lord Huntingdon, has seriously changed his views lately—is on the size of the increase. But surely that is the point that matters. We have heard so much of the White Paper that was published the other day that I almost hesitate to mention it again, but it is absolutely fundamental to the whole problem. It was during the course of a speech in which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was attempting to prove as impossible the increased production of the size that the noble Lord Lord Teviot, and I were pressing on your Lordships, that he inadvertently referred to this document.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not at all.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Well, quite deliberately. At any rate, I could not help noticing that the noble Viscount was not very familiar with that document because, as he generously admitted to the House afterwards, he had misquoted. What does that mean? It means that there has been in the pigeon-holes of the Government, ever since, I think, the spring of 1945, a document worked out by two of the great Departments of State responsible for food production and food distribution, which not only informed them that something like £150,000,000 worth of extra food per annum could be produced, but worked out in detail how that should be done. Yet the noble Viscount, Lord Addison,

  469
  was obviously unaware of the date of that document. In terms of our total trade, £150,000,000 is one-third, or more than one-third; and that production could be accomplished by one industry. I should have thought that all the members of the Cabinet would know such a document by heart if they were taking the present position really seriously.
  That document, we have to admit, is two years old, and it would be fair for any of your Lordships to ask me whether it is sufficiently up to date to be applicable to the present situation. Only one change has taken place, and that is that production has gone down very considerably since the document was produced. Therefore, we are starting from a very much lower level, and it should be possible for the increase from the present level of production to be very much greater than £150,000,000. It is barely a month since there was held what was probably one of the most important conferences ever held in the agricultural world. It was called by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, and there were representatives of every section of agriculture; no fewer than seventeen of the leading agricultural bodies were represented, and there were representatives from Scotland, Wales and Ulster, and of all classes and all sections. They issued a Report (no doubt the noble Viscount has a copy of that Report; it has been laid before the Minister of Agriculture) which laid it down that, in their view, increased production of the extent that I am discussing—namely £150,000,000, which was £50,000,000 more than the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in our debate on February 19 said was possible—was, in their view, possible.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I said nothing of the kind. All I said was that it could not be done in the time the noble Earl talked about.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think the noble Viscount can point anywhere to the fact that I said it could be done in a year. I certainly did not say that. Every speech I have made on this project in your Lordship' House has emphasized the time it will take to do these things, and therefore, the necessity of getting on with it quickly. The fact remains that the noble Viscount would accept that Motion only if we took out the figure of £100,000,000, and it has now become
  470
  quite clear that the figure could in fact have been £150,000,000. Looking back to the debate that we had on this subject on December 11 of last year (Hansard, Column 808), I find that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, then said:
  "The truth, however, is that there is no possibility of a further large expansion unless we extend agriculture an to unsuitable land or make calls on materials and labour (which are very scarce) and on fertilizers and machinery which would be out of all proportion to the expected benefits …"
  How are we to gain increased production from an industry, when that is the leadership that is being given to us?
  I think I can guess what noble Lords on the other side of the House will say. They will probably say that the Opposition are always criticizing, and ask why we do not make concrete proposals. So sure am I that they will adopt that attitude, that I am going to take the risk of repeating to your Lordships—I apologize, because it has been done in debates three or four times already—what in fact are our practical proposals: We did it in March, 1946, we did it again in June and December of that year, and also on February 19 of this year. We then made the proposal that there should be definite production targets given to the agriculture industry, as was done by Mr. Hudson during the war. I do not believe these agricultural executive committees will be in a position to carry out their task—and it is a very difficult task—unless they are given some definite guidance as to what is wanted. There must be a larger tillage area. We have lost 1,250,000 acres since the war, and a very large proportion of that, at any rate, has to be made up. I know that many of your Lordships think the land is already overcrowded, and that we ought to concentrate more on livestock. But how many of us are prepared to go to the small farmers and tell them to build up their pigs and poultry again, as they have been told before, without some guarantee that we shall be able to maintain the supply of feeding stuffs? I suggest that the only way we can guarantee an increase in feeding stuffs is to grow more ourselves.
  The only difference between the tillage policy that I would recommend and that which we had during the war is that we should concentrate a great deal more on the growing of feeding stuffs and less on the growing of wheat. There should be

  471
  a great campaign for grassland improvement. I believe there is hardly a field of grass in the country, with the exception of certain lands—the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, is a representative of one of them—that could not be virtually doubled in production, if not by actual ploughing and reseeding, then at least by cultivation and manures. I think the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, put forward a suggestion that the slaughter of calves, not only of the beef breed but of the dual purpose breeds, should be discouraged. He went further, I think, and said "prohibited." I do not know whether I would go the whole way on that, because one has not had time to think it out. But certainly it should be discouraged and, after these terrible losses from the winter, the same policy should be applied to all ewe lambs.
  Of course, there is also the increased production of pigs and poultry which is the big exchange saver. After all, to-day it is a platitude to say we are thinking in terms of saving exchange rather than shipping. I apologize again for repetition, but I think it is better to be quite clear as to what we propose, and to say that we have concrete proposals. It has been said again and again in your Lordships' House that the very essence of this problem is the problem of labour. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was good enough to refer to the fact that I had already given quite detailed figures of what seemed to me to be the requirements of labour, and that we need something like a minimum of 100,000 to replace the German prisoners of war. That leaves us with nothing with which to increase production, and therefore we need a minimum of another 100,000 to increase production. And we must have houses for them. If the towns want to be fed, then they must allow the countryside to have priority on housing. I am not going back to the problem of reconditioning—we have already spoken about it so much—but we must definitely have not only new houses but reconditioned houses. Many of them, by virtue of reconditioning, could be put in such a state that they could take another man and, therefore, in fact be worth another house. We also need machinery, but this again is repetition, so I will not stress the point.
  472
  Finally—and I think the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will be familiar with this—a question has arisen lately in regard to fertilizers. I tell him quite definitely that crops this harvest are going to be considerably smaller than they should be owing to the shortage of fertilizers. After my having said this, I hope noble Lords opposite will not complain that we have not any concrete proposals. I have dealt with these points quickly because this is not a technical debate, and because we have dealt with them before. But surely what really matters at the moment is not the technical details; what matters is that we should get into the minds of His Majesty's Ministers—although I know they will get up and say they agree with so much of this and will try to laugh it off—that in the soil of this country to-day lies a minimum of £150,000,000 per annum of food and dollars that we desperately need, and that the agricultural industry is asking to be allowed to help to put that immense sum of wealth at the disposal of the country. If the Government refuse this advice and this offer, then henceforth it must be quite clear, when the storm bursts, where the responsibility lies. The Government were warned throughout this last year by your Lordships' House and by another place, and the country should know that the land owners, the farmers, and the workers, as a united industry, are convinced that more could be done and are prepared to do it if we give them the tools.
  I hope noble Lords opposite will appreciate that although some of us feel very strongly on the subject, because the life of the country is at stake, this Motion is not put down designedly as a political vote of censure. It is put down as a warning and as an offer, and I am prepared to make a prophecy that at the end of this debate the noble Viscount, Lord Addison (and we are all extremely fond of the noble Viscount) will get up and make a charming speech. He will make us all laugh a bit, and he will have a few "digs" at us for having dared to criticize the Government, and therefore having been so Party-minded. He will tell us we are only pushing at an open door, and that this is what he wants and has wanted for years.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is perfectly true.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I know it is true, but in a very departmentalized Government the noble Viscount is not Minister of Food or Minister of Agriculture.
  A NOBLE LORD: Or Minister of Health!
  EARL DE LA WARR: And in fact such is the position of the country that we have got past the stage where speeches matter very much. We have to judge by results. We could not have a Minister of Agriculture more friendly to the industry than we have to-day, but we are not getting the labour; we are not getting the houses; we are not getting the machinery and we are not getting the fertilizers. And that is how we have to judge it to-day. We are up against facts, not speeches. I implore the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who feels so deeply about agriculture, not merely to make a reassuring speech to-day, but to use his influence in the Government to see that the agricultural industry is put into a state and given the tools that will enable it to grow the food which the country is going to need so desperately.
  3.18 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I do not wish to talk about bulk purchasing or the Canadian wheat agreement, fascinating though those subjects may be. I wish to deal with only one aspect of this debate, and that is food production in this country. In an extremely powerful and eloquent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, suggested that His Majesty's Government should be very frank and tell this House and the people of this country what the position is, and not try to cover up the facts. I am going to take the noble Lord's advice to deal with the question frankly, and tell your Lordships that in these last few months the agricultural industry has suffered a major disaster. It is no good hiding that fact, and it is no good ignoring the effect that it will have on the diet of our people. Nearly 700,00o acres of land were flooded. The winds blew, the rain and snows came, waterways and dykes were burst, and as a result all those acres of some of our best agricultural land were inundated. So far as we can tell at this stage, 71,000 acres will not be croppable this year.
  474
  Owing to the bad conditions, a very large part of the country has been so waterlogged as to cause great difficulty in regard to cultivation, and in fact, allowing for losses and the replacement of winter corn by spring corn, the likely acreage for wheat this year is about 1,940,000 acres, compared with our target of 2,500,000 acres. That is a very serious reduction indeed. Our acreage in sugar beet is likely to fall by 25,000 acres, and 75,000 tons of last year's crops of potatoes Were utterly destroyed. Actually, potatoes may be planted up to the end of this month, but we must expect some reduction in this year's supplies. As to vegetable losses, we have not exact figures, but there will be large losses this spring and until July many things are likely to be in very short supply.
  When the Government realized the extent of the disaster which had befallen us they treated the whole matter as a war operation. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture were sent immediately to survey the extent of the disaster; and battle headquarters were set up. Help was given by all the Services, including the R.A.F., engineers, sappers, and the National Fire Service; everybody that we could think of was brought in to help in this disaster. I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the people who did such magnificent work —both local authorities and the Services—and to the help of the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, who laboured in extremely difficult conditions to try and stop the floods front spreading. We were faced with an extremely difficult problem. In some cases we sank tanks and other vehicles in the dykes; we obtained the loan from the Dutch Government of emergency cranes and pumps; we mobilized pumps from the Admiralty and the Metropolitan Water Board. All the personnel whom we could get gave valuable help, and as a result many acres were saved. But the damage to farm buildings, to land, and to implements, has been very considerable.
  That is only one aspect. Apart from our flooded areas—and that was a serious enough matter—there is the question of the flocks and herds up in the hill farms. These wretched farmers were cut off by the blizzards, in some cases completely. They had the greatest difficulty in finding means of feeding their animals. Even

  475
  before the emergency we had taken steps to get feeding stuffs to them. But no one could anticipate the magnitude of the disaster which followed. In extreme cases we mobilized the R.A.F., and the pilots flew out in very difficult weather conditions. I think seventy-seven sorties were flown, and as a result food was brought to many outlying farms which otherwise would have been in extreme difficulties. The county war agricultural committees also did a very fine job of work, mobilizing feeding stuffs for all quarters. We gave priority in transport to this matter. One thing which has had great success has been the mobilizing of teams of tractors, working sometimes eight or more together, so that whenever an area of land became workable these teams went on it and started the work of cultivation.
  As regard horticulturists and various other people who also suffered, special arrangements were made in conjunction with the manufacturers and the National Farmers' Union for the diversion of horticultural glass and timber to areas where supplies were most needed. Over 2,000,000 square feet of glass have been diverted under these arrangements. We also stopped the export of necessary tractors and machinery for the time being. In spite of all our efforts, however, and particularly in regard to the hill areas, I am sorry to say that the total loss of cattle is over 50,000 head, whilst over 4,000,000 sheep and lambs were lost. I do not need to impress on your Lordships how serious this will be for the Bill famers. These were foundation stocks; this was an industry which had been depressed for many years, and your Lordships will remember that a Bill was recently passed to help this industry to rehabilitate itself.
  The question next before us was what we could do on the longer-term basis to help these people. I do not want to go into all the details, but I would remind your Lordships that we are helping very considerably with subsidies. For instance, we have given a subsidy and are allowing the hill and sheep farmers to claim an advance on their subsidy up to a limit of s. per ewe this year, and 75. 6d. per ewe next year—part of the subsidy that will be paid in 1948 and 1949 respectively. This will help those farmers who, owing to heavy losses, will have few lambs or draft ewes to sell and, therefore, a much-reduced income. As a means of giving
  476
  confidence to farmers to rebuild their flocks we have also guaranteed that in 1948 and 1949 the subsidy will not fall below a minimum of l0s. per ewe, which compares with the present subsidy of 8s. 9d. per ewe.
  In addition there is the Lord Mayor's Fund, to which the Government have contributed £1,000,000, and the Agricultural Disaster Fund, to which the Government are giving approximately pound for pound for what is subscribed. We are giving special acreage payments in respect of land which has been abnormally flooded. This varies between £3 and £15 per acre, according to the crops grown. The principal food crops—potatoes, sugar beet, barley and horticultural crops for human consumption—are all included in this scheme, and we hope that with this backing many farmers will be encouraged to maintain the fullest possible cultivation.
  Special prices for spring sown crops and milk have also been authorized, because, owing to the abnormally severe winter, heavy arrears of spring work have to be concentrated into a very short period. The Government have decided, therefore, to make these special additions to the prices of barley, oats, potatoes, sugar beet, linseed and milk, and we believe that this assistance will encourage the effort to give us the largest area that can possibly be sown in the present conditions. We are introducing in another place a Bill that will shortly come to your Lordships' House and which, I trust, will have a speedy passage, to enable these payments to be made. In addition to that, we are allowing 20 per cent. of millable wheat and barley to remain with the farmers for the feeding of their stocks.
  EARL DE LA WARR: This year?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No; next year. I wish we could do it this year, but the cereal position is such that we cannot. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, warned us, if I remember rightly, of the dangers overhanging us and of an impending food crisis. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, reinforced this argument in a very powerful speech today, in which he dealt with the dangers which he suggested were bound to come if we were not very careful. I do not think I am misquoting the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when I mention that he said also that the British housewife was not so much interested in what

  477
  was happening in foreign countries as in the question of whether she was getting, and would be able to get, her necessary supplies.
  LORD WOOLTON: That was the sentiment that I expressed.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that in this the noble Lord rather misjudged the temper of the people of this country. I think one of the most encouraging signs which we see to-day is that the housewife of this country does recognize how we are dependent on foreign countries. She, and the people generally, I believe, recognize the situation not only in Europe but in the Americas also, and they appreciate that this country is not an isolated plot but one part of an integral whole. But whether the housewife is interested or not, this Government certainly must be. We cannot, for one moment, divorce ourselves from the situation outside our shores. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, also put forward various arguments to show that it would have been better to buy feeding stuffs rather than to import dried eggs and various other commodities. Of course, we heartily agree—nothing could be more true. But the great difficulty is, and always has been, to get hold of the feeding stuffs. That has been the limiting factor and the regulator of the whole business.
  LORD WOOLTON: Could you not have got maize for this country? The facts are known.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Actually we could not. I can state this fact: that the Government have never hesitated to pay any price if it was possible to get maize.
  LORD WOOLTON: The South Africans could get it, could they not?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That I do not know, but certainly we did our utmost to get maize and we were unable to do so.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said yesterday, quite clearly, that we were to get very largely increased supplies of shell eggs from the Continent. Can the noble Earl tell us where the people on the Continent get their feeding stuffs?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No, I cannot.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Surely the noble Earl realizes that this is a very relevant fact?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am not an authority as to how people on the Continent feed their chickens. We have been using every endeavour to get hold of feeding stuffs for our livestock including poultry, but until very recently we have found it almost impossible to do so. That is a matter which it is easy to gloss over, but it has been one of our great difficulties. To proceed on those assumptions, there is also the point to be taken into consideration that are still bound to a certain extent by international agreements on this subject. Unless we are to break up the whole system of international co-operation we must pay some attention to these agreements. We are but one among many peoples who earnestly want to procure food for human beings and feeding stuffs for livestock. Another point I wish to make touches upon the need which was so strongly stressed by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for fertilizers. I am glad to be able to announce that the supply position with regard to potash is very encouraging. For some months potash has been in short supply, but the rate of imports has lately been increased, and during April they were the highest, with one exception, for any month since 1944.
  EARL DE LA WARR:What about nitrates?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid I do not know the position with regard to nitrates. With respect to potash, however, the position and prospects are so much better that further arrivals of potash are to be directed for use in compounds or as a straight fertilizer, according to demand. I think that will be good news for the farmers. Another matter to which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has drawn our attention is Command Paper 7072, which deals with certain assumptions and forecasts with regard to agricultural production which were made by the late Minister of Agriculture. The noble Earl rather suggested that we were not very familiar with the contents of this Paper. I am wondering if the noble Earl himself is very familiar with it. If he

  479
  reads it carefully he will find that these calculations, which were based entirely on suppositions, were very strongly qualified by Paragraph 8, which emphasized that certain conditions must exist. For example, it was laid down that there should be no undue shortage of labour. I only wish we could say that there is no such shortage.
  EARL DE LA WARR: There would not be the shortage if the necessary houses were there.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I wish we could say that there was no undue shortage of houses. We have to recognize, as I hope the noble Earl himself recognizes, that this is a heritage of the past, a heritage of the period between the wars and a legacy of the war period itself, when we could not get the necessary labour and material for housing. Could the supposition referred to be fulfilled, it is true that the position might be different; but without the fulfilment of this, and especially having regard to the terrible shortage of cereals that has existed in the last few years and the consequent shortage of feeding stuffs, our difficulties have been extreme. In this connexion there is one thing which I should like to make clear, in case there is any mistake about it. Although the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, rather suggested that we would laugh this off and agree with him, in practice, the truth is that we are all out for maximum production. There is no difference at all between us there, so far as I can see. If difference there be, it arises over this important matter—that if, is our policy to switch over to livestock production.
  It has been said once or twice—I think the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, mentioned it and it is extremely important—that we must save foreign exchange, particularly "hard currency"—dollars. We have not emphasized this so much because we have assumed that everybody knew it. The dollar is really the key to the situation. That is why we are trying to produce meat, eggs, bacon, vegetables and other products which we have to buy from America and other hard currency countries. It is vital to our exchange position that we should do this, and it will become even more important in the future. Noble Lords must realize that we are in a transitional period, and
  480
  if they see a fall in wheat acreage in this country (I am not now referring to the recent crisis) it is because we are switching over and are trying, under great difficulties with regard to shortages of feeding-stuffs and other things, to carry out the policy of building up our herds and our livestock generally. We believe that that is vital to this country. At the same time, while doing that, we want maximum production from the land, and anything that noble Lords can do to encourage the farmers to increase all their produce to the maximum extent, will obviously be of great value from the point of view of His Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl to ask whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to encourage the building by private enterprise of the cottages, which are so badly needed for farm labourers in this country?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If I may be allowed to do so I would rather come to that later. At the moment I would like to proceed with what I was saying about our livestock policy. We have been asked very persistently what we are doing in regard to the promotion of maximum production; in other words, what are the Government doing for the agricultural industry? I think the answer is, first, that they are promoting the Agriculture Bill, which is being discussed in another place and which we hope will soon come before your Lordships. A wise person has remarked that the Bill will not produce one bushel of wheat, and that of course, is absolutely true. No Bill produces any wheat; those who produce the bushel are the farmer and the farm worker, with their skill and industry. What we can do by means of this Bill is to give the industry confidence and to provide conditions in which the farmer knows that if he does his work and produces his wheat he will receive a fair return for his money and labour.
  I think it is true to say that the one thing for which primary producers all over the world have prayed all their lives is some form of stability which will ensure that when, in spite of all adverse circumstances—the weather and the various things that may happen to them—they finally produce their crops, they will not be at the mercy of world exchanges and

  481
  of international finance which may render all their labours useless by bringing about an undue fall in prices. It is that which we are seeking to stop by means of this Bill. We are guaranteeing them markets, and we are guaranteeing them stable prices. We have set out a system by which the prices are discussed every year, so that the farmer knows before he plants his crops what he will get for them, and when he is breeding his herds he knows the minimum prices he will get for his stock in future years. I suggest that that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, is the greatest charter for agriculture which has ever been produced, by any Government, for any farming community in the world. I should say, incidentally, that the energy with which this Government have tackled this crisis and the generosity with which they have recognized the farmers' needs should be an earnest of what they wish to do and of what they will do in the future.
  I want to go on being frank with your Lordships. I recognize that there is one fundamental difficulty. It is a very serious one, and one which cannot be glossed over. It is the difficulty of obtaining labour. Many noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, amongst others—have referred to this difficulty and have asked what is going to happen. His Majesty's Government are not worried so much about this harvest. That is not the problem; the problem is what will happen when the German prisoners go back. I doubt whether any noble Lord will seriously suggest that we could go on keeping these prisoners in this country indefinitely, as a sort of slave labour force. If that is agreed, then the problem of what we are going to do to get labour remains. Various steps have been taken for this harvest. We are keeping on the Women's Land Army, who have done a magnificent job of work in helping the industry. We have volunteer agricultural camps and school harvest camps, and the Services have helped considerably. We hope to tide ourselves over the gap to a certain extent by using Poles and displaced persons. The Government scheme for recruiting displaced persons for work in the essential undermanned industries has already been announced and the movement of such workers to this country started at the end of last month. The Ministry of Labour officers who are engaged in the selection of such workers in
  482
  the British Zones of Germany and Austria are looking out for those suitable for heavy and medium work in agriculture, and discussions with the industry upon the absorption of such workers into agriculture are proceeding. The use of Poles and displaced persons will serve as a stop-gap, but there is no doubt that the ultimate solution of the problem is to get British labour back on to the land.
  In that regard it is encouraging to notice—and this is a point which is sometimes ignored by the members of the Opposition—that the number of regular British workers in agriculture is actually higher now than in 1939. In fact the figure is the highest for over ten years. That means that, to a certain extent, they are going back to the land, but if we are to get them in the numbers we want we must undoubtedly provide amenities, and we must provide good wages, which I think the present system will secure. But, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, suggested, the key to it all is housing; we must have houses. I am not going to deal with that subject because it will be dealt with very fully by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when he winds up tins debate. I will not anticipate his remarks, but I mention the matter to show that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture realizes intensely the fundamental importance of the problem of housing, which is indeed the key to the whole labour situation.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Our appetites have been whetted and we shall all look forward to this feast. Could the noble Earl assure us that when the time comes—and we will not press the matter until then—there will be a definite Government pronouncement on the Hobhouse Report?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid I cannot say that.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: Before the noble Earl passes from the question of labour, may I point out that I put some definite questions on that yesterday. Does the noble Earl propose to answer them, or will that be done by the Leader of the House?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I did not answer those questions because the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is to answer them personally. I am afraid I

  483
  have taken up rather a lot of your Lordships' time, but I feel that I may have been justified in doing so if I have at all managed to persuade your Lordships that the Government's attitude towards agriculture is not a complacent one and that we do realize the vital importance of food production in this country. We may have to put one thing down and to bring another up, but fundamentally we want to encourage the farmer to produce the maximum amount that he can possibly produce. If I have said anything to convince him of that need, and to persuade him that this Government will not let him down but that they are behind him in all his efforts, and are anxious to help him, in spite of very great difficulties, then I think my words will not have been unjustified.
  3.49 P.m.
  THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene for long in this debate (which is, if I may say so, a timely and valuable one) because there are many other noble Lords who wish to speak. I would like to associate myself with the very good company of noble Lords who think that more food could be grown and produced in this country, because I feel strongly that that is the case. To do that, we must have labour. I am not going to say very much on that because a great deal has already been said about it by noble Lords whose knowledge of it is greater than mine. We must, in particular, have stockmen, and the stockman is a skilled man. Looking into the future, we must have British skilled labour for that job. Stockmen must live with their stock, or very near to it, and I would like to ask, if it is not out of place to do so on a Motion of this kind, if more consideration could be given to that fact, and whether His Majesty's Government could reconsider their decision to restrict the ratio of public authority and private enterprise building to 4 to 1, even in rural areas where cottages could be built. I know of two farmers in my own county who wanted to build two cottages and who were told that no more licences could be granted to private enterprise this year. They wanted to build two cottages for stockmen, because they run very large herds of Shorthorn cattle, a dual purpose breed which is very important at this moment. I need not say very much
  484
  about the Hobhouse Report because the attitude of His Majesty's Government is fairly clear—they do not intend to do anything about it at the moment, but next year they may be prepared to introduce legislation. We can only look forward eagerly and hopefully to that new legislation.
  From my limited experience I can say that lately the farmworker, the small farmer and, indeed, the large farmer, have been working hard for very long hours, and they are not crying out for more food as are some other workers, however justified people may be in asking for more at the present time. But the people on the land are working long hours, and if there is any more food to be distributed among workers in this country I think they might be considered. On that score I would refer to a debate in another place, when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Food made the somewhat surprising statement that the Government would like to see farmers set up canteens. That might be an admirable thing, but I suggest that farmers have much more to do than to set up canteens. If there is any food spare, and I take it there must be if canteens can be set up, could that food be distributed to these people?
  We have heard many speeches, and no doubt we shall be privileged to hear many more, from people who are experts, and it is clear that the utmost urgency should be attached to this question. In company with other noble Lords, I venture to think that it is not being so treated at the moment. May I instance the case of certain spare parts during this recent trouble? I know of three American "crawler" tractors which are idle for lack of spare parts which, I am informed, it is not possible to obtain. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, could look into this matter, because I am sure that something could be done to obtain these spare parts for "crawler" tractors, which can do so much more work than the ordinary tractor obtainable in this country to-day.
  3.55 P.m.
  VISCOUNT LAMBERT: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House, but I hope you will excuse me if I do not follow the advice given to maiden speakers in another place,

  485
  which is to say nothing, but to say it nicely. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion has rendered one mole service to the country. When he was appointed Minister of Food I thought he would be greatly criticized, but, in reality, his foresight and his persuasive ability on the radio brought him to the hearts of all women. The situation to-day seems to me to be a really acute and a dangerous one. For years in another place I advocated the claims of agriculture for more stability and better prices. But the lessons of the 1914 war ware forgotten, and there was never a greater period of agricultural depression than in 1930. Here I will say, having seen the whole situation, that one of the best Ministers of Agriculture we ever had, struggling against adversity, was Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. Every time he tried to raise prices he was met by opposition, but fortunately he succeeded. Then the war came, and everything was changed.
  The value of food is calculated in calories and vitamins. I know the situation in my own county, where I meet the agricultural workers. They are underfed, and other manual workers are also underfed. They have colds and chills because they have not a sufficiently varied diet. One labourer, a first-rate fellow, spoke to me last autumn. He was very interested in a phrase that had been used in another place about "a song in my heart." He asked me about and I said, "Yes, Jim, It was Mr. Dalton." His reply was caustic, crude, and pointed: "You go up and tell that Mr. Dalton that if he has got a song in his heart I have got a rumble in my belly. He has got the music and I have got the wind."
  The Government are not putting first things first. I speak as a farmer, and what we want to-day is labour, fertilizers, feeding stuffs, materials and machinery. The Minister of Agriculture, one of the best fellows living, has given us the Agriculture Bill. An Agriculture Bill may be all very well in a few years' time, but to-day we want action for production. If Acts of Parliament, forms and coupons were food, we should be the best fed country in Europe. So far as I can see it—and I have no Government information but I have observed these things for many years—the position is gradually getting worse. There is no doubt about it. Ask any housewife and she will tell you that
  486
  things are getting worse and it is much more difficult to get essential foodstuffs.
  I observed that the Minister of Food said last Saturday (it was reported in Monday's edition of The Times) that he did not think we were in any danger of a food crisis such as had arisen with fuel. I certainly hope not We can shiver for Shinwell, but we could not starve under Strachey! We have to consider that we are living on charity—the charity of the Americans and Canadians. I do not blame the Government. They have a very difficult task. I thought, since the General Election, that it was necessary for us to have a Labour Government; and had there been any other Government in power the country would be in twice as great confusion as it is now.
  I addressed some meetings at the General Election. There was one thing stressed above all others—Russia. Russia was the paradise; Stalin was the Saviour. Mr Bevin—all honour to him—is doing his job extraordinarily well, and we take a little credit for that in Devonshire, because his only education was at a village school about seven miles from where I was born. It shows what grit, courage and ability can do, and one welcomes the fact that men born in the lowest circumstances can rise to such high positions. I am an old Liberal. I am not ashamed to admit that I am an old Gladstonian Liberal. I was in the House of Commons with Mr. Gladstone. I differ entirely from the fundamental conception of the Government in ensuring production. The Government conception relies upon Parliament. My own idea is that you should rely upon the people. They are the ones who will increase production in the country. Parliament—I have a long experience of it and I know it—is mixed up with politics; and politics do not mix with industry. If your Lordships will forgive me, I will just illustrate how Ministers are appointed. I was put on to a farm when a little under fifteen years of age. I had to manage it; the farm was my university. One thing about it was that it taught me to think. A man cannot be a farmer without thinking.
  I got into Parliament. In 1905 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman offered me a position in his Government; it was at the Admiralty. There was I—a farmer. I

  487
  went to the Admiralty. And I can tell your Lordships quite plainly that for two years I was "at sea." I was there for eight or nine years, and then a political crisis came. I had got to know something about it then. There was to be a representative of the Admiralty in the House of Lords. I was not eligible and I went out. That is my own experience. I do not in the least complain. But why are Ministers appointed? Not because they are fit for the job but because they must be rewarded for some political service to their Party. I have not the smallest doubt that the Prime Minister had the same difficulties when he appointed his Ministers in July, 1945. We have a Minister of Food. I do not say a word against him; he is a most versatile and agile politician. But what does he know about food and food buying? The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was a business man. He was brought up in the hard mill of competition. He succeeded. Then we had Sir Ben Smith.
  Now we have the present Minister of Food. He has to spend scores of millions of pounds in buying food. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said yesterday that this bulk buying is very advantageous. I am very dubious of it in the long run. If a Government buyer comes along, he is well-known; everybody is on the look-out for him. Suppose he goes to America or to Canada: The Canadians and the Americans have been extremely generous, but if he went to the Argentine, or even to India to discuss tea, he would not find that they are all myopic philanthropists there. They want to get the best price they can. And they do. Again, to ensure an amount of foodstuffs in this country essential for our population, it has to be remembered that coal is an essential industry. We have a Minister of Fuel and Power. He, too, is a most accomplished Parliamentarian, but he is elected by a mining constituency. He cannot he quite impartial; it is impossible. I can tell noble Lords—if they have not had the experience—that if you want to make a Member of Parliament pop about like peas on a hot frying pan you have only got to touch his seat. The Minister of Fuel is elected by the miners and they see that he behaves himself—from the miners' point of view. You cannot expect impartial justice when one of the parties to
  488
  the suit can dismiss the judge. Politics and industry do not mix.
  At the Election we had great promises of social reform—including the Beveridge Report. It was then constantly improved. The greatest social reform we could have to-day would be an abundance of commodities for our population. What is the value to-day of our money? I do not know, and no one can say. A man can come to London with, say, £100. But he cannot get a suit of clothes, a shirt, a pair of boots or a pair of socks without coupons Coupons are the valuable things to-day. I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I want to say again that I am a great believer in Mr. Gladstone's principle, that "the duty of a Government is to govern and not to trade." Further, I will give another of his precepts: "Let money fructify in the pockets of the people." To-day, in my judgment, the greatest deterrents to production are high taxes and, now, high rates. Taxes and rates are harbingers of want. Taxes are collected, rates are collected, and they are spent. But are they spent in producing wheat, or meat. or boots, or shoes, or clothes? If your Lordships think about it, almost all the taxes spent to-day are used by consumers and not producers.
  Take the case of the miners. I know nothing about mining, but I imagine that there is no greater deterrent to coal production than taxes. A miner works four days a week, and earns as much as he can spend; therefore why should he work two days more? The miner is a human being, and he does not think of adding to the national savings. It seems to me to be simple human nature. If P.A.Y.E. were abolished, I believe there would be a great increase in production. Men do not want to work those extra days of the week, because they are taxed so heavily, and they do not work for fun. A point which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed is that the real directing brains of the country are being frustrated. It is not a question of manpower but of well-directed manpower, and there are few men who have the ability to direct manpower well. Take the recent example of Mr. Henry Ford. He accumulated a large fortune, not because of his blue eyes but because he gave the world what it wanted. So a business man who directs labour in the wisest way will give the public what he wants, and will make a

  489
  profit. An appalling thing is profit, but you make a profit in business only if you serve the community. I cannot help thinking that the Government (I do not expect they will, because the idea would be very unpopular with them) should set about reducing taxes at the earliest possible moment, and reduce them drastically. Take the food subsidies. The food subsidies are costing the country to-day something like £1,000,000 a day.
  LORD WOOLTON: £4,000,000.
  VISCOUNT LAMBERT: I am always moderate. That enormous sum is added to the Budget. What is to be the value of the pound in the future if the Budget does not balance? I do not know, and I am sure that none of your Lordships knows. When I was in America last autumn I was told that the pound was going to fall. What would be the value of the pound to-day were it not for the Canadian and American loans? If I had any influence with the Government I would certainly take off some of the food subsidies. It is said that that will create hardship; but it would not create half the hardship that will be experienced later on when the pound depreciates in value, as undoubtedly it will. I shall probably get into hot water for saying what I propose to say now. I understand that the Government are proposing to maintain Armed Forces to the tune of something like 1,000,000 men in 1948. I do not think the country can afford it without very considerable privation amongst our people. Before the war we had, I think, something less than 500,000 men in the Armed Forces. The other place is strangely excited about conscription, but I think we want men home now for production. I know I shall get into trouble with the Admirals, the Generals, and the Air Marshals, but that does not interest me, because although I know nothing about naval, military or air strategy, I do know that an Army must be fed, and an Army must have munitions. I may be alone in that, but it does not matter—it is what I think.
  Take the great increase in the Civil Service. How many civil servants are producing food? How many are producing clothes or boots: and how many are producing material to send abroad to pay for food? There is this monstrous army of civilians overlooking other people, consuming all the time but producing nothing
  490
  but vexation. Then we have Government planners—there was a super-planner recently appointed. I have one remedy for planners—Government planners I mean—and that is to sack the lot. But the country will have to learn by suffering. There has been a vast amount of propaganda, telling us that our Labour friends would bring so much prosperity and plenty to the country. That propaganda has not been exhausted yet, but I am afraid the time is coming when there will be a very sharp awakening by our people. It seems to me, speaking again as an old Liberal, that all the emphasis against the profit motive has been wrongly directed. Profit can only be made by service.
  Then there are the trade unions. They are admirable institutions. The father of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was a great ornament in the trade unions, and a good Foreign Secretary, too, if I may say so. But the trade unions have got out of hand; there are strikes everywhere. When I read of the strikes in Covent Garden of the men who refused to unload food, I thought: They should think themselves lucky that they have any food at all. It is not a question of distribution of food, but really of getting the food here at all. I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to me. I observed yesterday that the Prime Minister had a meeting with his trade union colleagues, and I began to think that your Lordships' House is no longer the Upper House; the real Upper House is at Smith Square, and the real Lords of Parliament are at Transport House. I wish the Prime Minister, as well as consulting his trade union colleagues, would consult those leaders of industry who have built up the prosperity of our country.
  4.20 p.m.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, the duty falls upon me, on behalf of your Lordships, of offering the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, our heartiest congratulations, not only on his splendid speech but also on the fact that he has joined your Lordships' House. If I may say so—and I say it with a good deal of diffidence, being a somewhat younger man—the task should have fallen upon shoulders more qualified than mine to offer our congratulations, but I do so feeling that your Lordships will support me in every way. Everything the noble Lord said had sound substance, although I am not entirely

  491
  with him in his argument regarding military service. At one moment I was wondering whether he was in the wrong seat and, as a good progressive Tory, he was on the wrong side of the House. We hope he will be long spared to give us the benefit of his advice. We are very sorry, that he has first sat in your Lordships' House with a rumble in his "tummy," but I have no doubt that from time to time, by means of speeches in your Lordships' House, he will be able to get rid of that rumble.
  Unfortunately, I was unable to be present yesterday, owing to local authority work in Scotland, but I have read with the greatest of interest, and listened to-day with equal interest—though not without considerable concern—to what has fallen from the lips of noble Lords. I am especially concerned about what was said yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and by what I heard to-day from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I would like to say that whatever the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, says, must carry a great deal of weight not only in your Lordships' House but outside—and I say this quite frankly—by reason of his being Minister of Food during the war: and not only because of that, but because of the great success which he achieved during his tenure of that office. As I understand it, most of that success was due to the fact, as has already been mentioned, that he kept a very open mind, and above all was one of those who knew that the secret of good administration lies in delegation and decentralization—a fact that is not always realized, I am sorry to say, by His Majesty's Government. There were the further facts, which have already been mentioned, that he used all the best brains in the food industry in helping to advise him, and, above all, so long as he was able, before we were forced into Government trading, he allowed the skilled buyers to do the job for the Government.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, frankly admitted that whenever a Government trader or buyer went abroad he was easily recognized. I hesitate to say this in your Lordships' House, but in my country any gentleman from the Government, whether he be Minister or official, is known by the term "the mon with the strippet trewsers". He is a man who wears striped trousers, and I can assure you that we "smell" them in Scotland,
  492
  wherever they go. I am afraid it is not a term of endearment. I will not say it is a term of contempt. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that trading and politics do not make good companions. if you can get rid of this Government trading, then you allow realism once more to take charge, not politics nor international relations. That is very important in these days. This applies equally to the question of the housewives. Most of your Lordships will know by now that womenfolk are realists, and they do not care whether it is Lord Woolton or Mr. Strachey who is Minister of Food, so long as he produces the goods and gives them something to put in the stomachs of their children and their husbands. So long as he does that they are perfectly satisfied. When the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said that he felt the womenfolk of this country were beginning to understand the difficulties of the situation—and I almost thought he rather suggested that they understood why things were so difficult—I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I do not know if he has attended any of these housewives' meetings lately, but in Scotland we do not dare go into a queue.
  If your Lordships will bear with me—with the exception of one or two points which I intend to raise at the end—I will confine myself to a point which deals with my country, Scotland. I hesitate to inflict this upon your Lordships, but I am always trying to make you understand, if I can, that you cannot do without us. We are very important to you, whether through the breeding of men or seed potatoes I do not care. We can do the trick, and you cannot do without us. I am raising a special point with regard to the food administration of this country as it affects Scotland, which during the last few years have proved an utter failure, and has caused untold misery, quite unnecessarily—especially last winter. I refer, of course, to the question of winter storage of food for emergency needs such as arose last winter, and such as do frequently arise. The point has been raised several times in your Lordships' House, and I was informed that probably the most convenient way of raising it as shortly as possible would be during this debate, rather than to initiate a separate discussion in these busy times of what I choose to call this miss production of legislation.

  493
  I raise it in view of what I call an entirely unsatisfactory reply given by the noble Lord to a question asked a few weeks ago by Lord Tweedsmuir, and I think noble Lords from Scotland will agree with me. I am afraid I regard this reply as misleading. Of course, I absolve the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the noble Lord who usually answers for Scotland of any sinister motive. The fact is, that it was another dreary example of noble Lords having to rely on a Departmental brief without any real first-hand knowledge of the situation or of the rural conditions. I say this because I have the greatest respect and admiration for the noble Lord who answers for Scotland. He has done a great deal of work, and done a great deal for us, and he is a very good Scotsman. But we felt that in these days it is essential that we should be allowed to have someone to answer problems, not only as they affect the urban view, but from the rural point of view, because after all that is really the backbone of Scotland, and it is in these rural districts that there lies the great difference between England and Scotland.
  I want to be quite frank, without hurting anybody's feelings. I would suggest that one of the noble Lords who answers in your Lordships' House should occasionally spend six months in one of these glens; he would learn a great deal! Whether the climate or the people would kill him first I am not sure, because I am afraid the name of the Government is not very good just now. I do not think the people know who are the leaders but regard them as just a Government who do not seem to care whether the Scots have houses, or even if they starve. And they very nearly did starve last winter. I know of places where they were down to half a slice of bread, and had it not been for air transport they certainly would have starved. This point has been pressed again and again. The noble Lord who replied to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, stated that the machinery was there, but the fault was that the people failed to apply. It is true there was a certain amount of failure to apply, but for two very good reasons. The first was that we asked for a workable scheme, and it was not workable; it did not suit the conditions. The second reason was that the scheme was not made universally known.
  494
  The Minister of Food was good enough to receive a deputation of the Members of another place and myself, when I put forward two special points to him, which were these. I hoped that it might be possible once again to delegate to Divisional food officers, first to work out a scheme and to decide who was to be included in that scheme; and secondly, to make it known through the medium of the Press. This, however, was held to be absolute rank heresy. It was said, "What? Place responsibility on the shoulders of local officers, food officers and so on, to say who were to be included in the scheme? That would never do!" But it is the only way in which the country, with such diverse conditions, can be run. You mast delegate power, because these officers understand local conditions. The people in London and Edinburgh cannot be expected to understand. There are perfectly sound and sensible men who are quite capable, not only of producing a scheme that is suitable to the district but also of administering it. The fact that the Government do not delegate is, in my opinion, the chief reason for the ghastly muddle in which we find ourselves to-day.
  It was through our insistence in Angus in Scotland in 1943 that we got the power to lay in rations in advance. This winter was a very hard one, but I am not speaking idly when I say that if you ask the people in Scotland they will tell you that it was no harder than a good many other winters. As fast as the roads were opened up, down came the snow, and they were closed again. Last winter was little worse actually than the winters in 1941 and 1942. Ask the road surveyors. They will tell you and will also bear out that we have an average of three bad winters out of five. People are cut off and prevented from getting outside their doors from anything from a fortnight to ten weeks. Those are really special conditions and they need a workable scheme.
  I am not going to weary your Lordships with details of how such a scheme should be worked out, or with the difficulties inherent in it. But the Minister of Food, after having been prayed for many months to take oatmeal off points, took it off only at the end of one of the severest winters in the memory of man, when nobody wanted it so badly, and he took the subsidy away at the same time. What was the result. It went up to nearly

  495
  double in price. There may be some good reason, and we do want to get rid even of subsidies as soon as we can. Is this the forerunner of the taking off of further subsidies? Oatmeal is one of the necessities of life in Scotland. If you are going to take the subsidy off oatmeal, are you going to take it off bread? I think I can tell your Lordships the answer: it is physically impossible. Bread is 4d. per loaf now; if you took the subsidy off it would cost something like 1s. 4d. and you would have revolution in a very short time, But oatmeal is another matter. The Scots are too few and too far off to cause you much worry.
  It is obvious that when you have people snowed up to such an extent as they have been this winter they cannot keep bread in hand. You must, therefore, have some systematic arrangement for an alternative, such as flour to store. But, unfortunately, under the present system, flour is of 87 per cent. extraction and does not keep. Therefore you find that these people are allotted a certain amount of flour, but there is perhaps a four months' storm and they have flour that is no good. I do not know whether it is possible to give them white flour. They give it to the Navy. The proper answer, I think, is that these people should be allowed to store an emergency ration over and above the ordinary points and B.U.'s. This is a strong thing to say, but the Lord knows the conditions in which these people live are bad enough—shortage of coal, shortage of rations, shortage of clothes. All these conditions are much harder to bear at 1,400 to 1,500 feet above sea level than they are at 100 or 200 feet above sea level. This applies equally to clothes and food. These people really do need something a little extra. If their conditions can be lightened, I hope that the Government will do what they can in that direction.
  I repeat that you must delegate powers to efficient subordinates—the divisional food officers and so on—and they should be responsible for the administration. In my county we have a number of men with the Scottish characteristics of initiative and capability, and the Government should make it possible for them to produce and administer a scheme which would meet local needs. Is the Government too frightened of losing control at the centre and of meeting the needs of
  496
  these people in the most sensible way? The only other alternative is for His Majesty's Government to instruct the Ministry of Food to work out a scheme whereby dumps of necessities, such as flour that will keep, fats, canned margarine, treacle, syrup, canned soup and meat should be kept at strategic points in outlying districts. They could be in the charge of perhaps the local policeman, or the schoolmaster, or minister, or some other person of repute, from whom supplies could be drawn by sledge or sleigh. That is a way whereby a repetition of last winter's unnecessary discomfort could be avoided—and also effect a saving in rates by not having to feed them by air or by track vehicle. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that the matter will be looked into further.
  I understood the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to say that the Government were trying to give more feeding stuffs for livestock. I see in Hansard that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggested that we might get more shell eggs from the Continent, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, asked him how they got the feeding stuffs to produce more eggs. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, I believe, said he did not know. I do not understand that. Do we not work under a system whereby we get fair shares of the world supplies? I turn to the question of labour. In the debate on agriculture some weeks ago I asked a specific question as to what had been happening to the volunteers among German prisoners of war. I also asked whether some scheme could not be arranged whereby Germans who might wish to volunteer could be employed. I wonder whether anything further has come from that suggestion.
  Now I wish to turn to a more general point. I wonder whether at the present moment it is quite realized—I doubt whether it is for I do not think the Scottish papers are very much read in England—what a deplorable state agriculture in Scotland is in at the moment, owing to the dreadful winter through which we have passed and to the continued bad weather. The weather seems just as bad now as ever it was. I left Scotland only last night and it was still raining then. We have had practically continuous rain or snow since last October. Our stock have suffered terribly, and they are still dying. I was very glad to hear what the noble Earl,

  497
  Lord Huntingdon, said with regard to the help that is being and is to be given. But, as I say, our stock are dying, and, so far as I can see, there will be no lambs this year for sale and no gimmers next year. Crop cultivation is so far behind that practical farmers have voiced the opinion that we may easily miss a whole year's crop. That is perfectly possible, and I do not need to tell your Lordships what a serious thing that would be, not only from the Scottish point of view but also from the English point of view.
  Yesterday, or the day before, the Scottish Section of the National Farmers' Union sent a telegram to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Prime Minister telling them the situation, and urging that Double British Summer Time should be done away with. They emphasized the seriousness of the situation, and maintained that if it was to be saved this Double Summer Time must be stopped at once. The Government must listen to these experts—and they are experts. After al, we, in Scotland, do provide for you seed potatoes, quantities of oats, a considerable amount of wheat, sheep stock and so forth. Somehow or other, His Majesty's Government have got to be awakened out of their dream-sleep and brought to realize the seriousness of the situation. They keep on talking and saying that they want to see the agricultural situation improved, but they do nothing about it. They do nothing substantial with regard to housing or with regard to the labour position. They make a lot of speeches but nothing happens.
  When the weather is good, our labourers in Scotland, like those in England, are not frightened to put their backs into their work. They do not hesitate to work for the best part of nineteen hours out of the twenty-four. To-day we are living in an atmosphere of strikes. We wake up to strikes, and we go to bed with strikes still going on. Most of us have the greatest admiration for the miners, and for others who have been concerned in recent disputes. Some of us have served with them and we know what magnificent men they are. The country, as a whole, has always had a very warm feeling for the miners. I hate to say it, but that warm feeling is gradually being dissipated. You cannot expect the housewife to feel quite the same now about the miners as she used to do.
  498
  You cannot expect the agricultural worker to feel the same. And what about the agricultural worker? Does he not have to go short of coal? Suppose he struck; visualize the position which would arise. Suppose the agricultural labourer followed the miner's example, and said: "Unless you give me some coal I am not going; to produce any more food." It would be a very nasty situation for the miners and for the country as a whole. Indeed, I can almost imagine the girths of some noble Lords who now sit in this House being considerably reduced in a very short time.
  You could not blame the agricultural worker if he did strike. It makes him and his fellows a little unhappy when they see red carpets being put down, free lunches being given, and free tickets for football matches being handed out to the miners who, after all, are only trying, or should be trying, to pull the country out of a very serious situation. The agricultural labourer is trying to do the same. But does he get red carpets, free lunches, and free tickets to football matches? No, sir. All he gets is the thick end of the stick.
  I do feel—and this has been the theme of my very inadequate speech—that somehow or other His Majesty's Government have got to approach the present situation with much more sympathy for the rural population and the rural parts of the country; they must give up regarding it entirely from the urban point of view. If they continue to neglect it—they are still neglecting it, and it is no good saying they are not—there will be a most unholy economic crash, because the rural community are the backbone of this country. I am hoping that shall hear a free and frank declaration of the situation from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. His Majesty's Government owe it to the people, and they owe it to themselves, because, so sure as eggs are eggs, the people of this country will one day wake up to the truth and will want an account of this Government's stewardship. If I am not mistaken, while they might stand stupidity, and might even understand it if noble Lords in the Government have been mistaken, what they will not understand, and what they will not tolerate is— what I am afraid is a fact—that they have been deliberately misled. And I, for one, can only pray God for mercy on the Government's souls when they are found out.
  4.47 P.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, for nearly two days this debate has ranged almost all over the world—or at any rate to nearly every part of the world—and thanks to the noble Earl who has just spoken it has at last reached remoter parts of Scotland. I am sure that neither the noble Earl nor myself desire to keep the debate pegged down to the more remote parts of Scotland, therefore, if he will allow me, I would like to reply briefly to the particular Scottish points which he raised. Then, if he is satisfied—as I hope he may be—the debate may move forward on its journey again.
  The noble Earl once did me the compliment of quoting a remark which I made in my early days in your Lordships' House, to the effect that I had been brought up in a school, to which evidently he also belongs—a school in which, when you see a head, you beat it. The noble Earl has been carrying out that policy in a way that delights my heart. But I am not sure that he is not taking a rather exaggerated view in thinking that the people are seething with discontent at the conduct of the present Government. I think that comment applies not only to the noble Earl but to a good many other noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House who have spoken in this debate. If we were to believe all they say, it would seem that the name of the Government is not very good, not only in parts of Scotland but anywhere else. Perhaps when the noble Earl goes out of this Chamber he will look at the tape and note the result of a by-election which took place yesterday. That by-election was not in Scotland, it is true, but I doubt whether the result would have been very different if it had been.
  The noble Earl has raised several questions of detail which I am sure he will not expect me, at such short notice, to cover in my reply. But these points will be looked into, and I will give the noble Earl an assurance that they will be carefully considered by the Departments concerned, and a reply will be sent to him. There are, of course, as he will appreciate, practical difficulties in seeing that arrangements made in advance will be completely effective in all circumstances, particularly in the abnormal circumstances to which he referred. But, in so far as normal difficulties can be met they are already provided for in arrangements made during
  500
  the war, which are still in operation. Here I admit at once—and I regret it—that my knowledge of the remote parts of Scotland with which the noble Earl is so familiar is very scanty. I hope to improve it in the near future, and I trust that I shall have the noble Earl's assistance in doing so, when I get the time to go up to Scotland. I hope that he will show me some of these places of which he has spoken, and will be an instructor to me. In the reply which I shall give it is possible that the arrangements which I shall detail may not be operated adequately in all parts of Scotland. If there is any exception in any of those parts with which the noble Earl is so well acquainted, if he will let me know about it afterwards I will see that some special investigation is made.
  I want to deal with the arrangements under two headings—foodstuffs and feeding stuffs. The existing arrangements with regard to foodstuffs take the form of discretionary powers given to divisional food officers of the Ministry of Food to enable people living in outlying areas to use coupons in advance. These powers have been widely used since their introduction and during the past winter. It is said these discretionary powers are not enough, and that the Ministry of Food should arrange for the storage of food in bulk in outlying areas. If given effect to, this suggestion might be wasteful of both food and manpower. Surely it is a wiser policy to leave the distribution to wholesale and retail food traders who are well aware of the special circumstances prevailing in their areas, and who can make reasonable provision to maintain their stocks to meet these conditions.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: But they cannot get up there. I am talking about strategical points in the glens, where dumps can be made because the vans cannot get up.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I happened to be Food Commissioner for the West of Scotland during the 1914–1918 war, and we always left stores of food up in the Highlands and the glens and in such places as have been described by the noble Earl this afternoon. This was in order that in the bad stretches of weather, such as they always had in the winter, the people would not go wanting. That arrangement was quite satisfactory. You

  501
  have to rely upon the honesty and the good sense of the people, but it is the only satisfactory way of meeting these conditions. I strongly urge the Government or the Secretary of State for Scotland (whoever is responsible) to renew those arrangements as the only possible way of meeting the difficulty.
  LORD MORRISON: Perhaps both noble Lords will allow me to complete the reply I was about to make. The existing arrangements with regard to foodstuffs take the form of discretionary powers given to divisional food officers of the Ministry of Food to enable people living in outlying areas to use coupons in advance. I would like to emphasize the point about the discretionary powers vested in the divisional food officers. These include the power to distribute food held in the Ministry's own depôts in that area. That, I gather, is what the noble Earl indicated he did when he was Divisional Food Officer for West Scotland.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We actually placed stores with the grocers and so on, right up in the glens. What the noble Lord says is that these officers have the power of distribution.
  LORD MORRISON: What I said, and what I wished to emphasize, was that the discretionary powers vested in the divisional food officers included the power to distribute food held in the Ministry's own depots in their areas, and that coupons (except the weekly coupons for meat and bacon) can be used for the whole of the four-weekly ration period during the first week of that period without any special dispensation. That was made more flexible during the recent hard winter by arrangements under which food coupons were made usable for a further month beyond the normal availability date. As I said at the outset, if the noble Lord will let me have particulars of any cases of hardship I will be glad to have those cases investigated.
  With regard to feeding stuffs, arrangements are made each winter by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to release a quantity of feeding stocks to meet the needs of hill ewes at lambing time if severe weather should prevail and feeding stuffs be not available on the farm. A special compound nut is available for this purpose and, in the case of farm-access roads which are frequently
  502
  blocked in winter, an issue may be made in advance to ensure that a supply will be available should need arise. With regard to the other stock, sympathetic consideration is given by the Department to applications for advance issues of rationed feeding stuffs where the holding is normally isolated for a part of each winter, and where the stock concerned is entitled to allowances month by month under the rationing scheme. For example, shepherds and others in isolated areas can obtain coupons valid for immediate honouring as a means of purchasing the feeding stuffs required for feeding cows, calves, pigs and so on.
  I make the same point with regard to feeding stuffs that I made about foodstuffs. It is obvious that while supplies continue to be scarce it would not be in the national interest to store rationed feeding stuffs for use only in abnormal emergencies. There is the risk of deterioration due to climatic conditions and there is also the danger, unless the position is safeguarded, of premature and unnecessary use by livestock. I understand that during the past winter adequate supplies of feeding stuffs were in some cases available comparatively close at hand, but they could not be conveyed to the stocks because of the deep drifts. Even on individual farms where stocks of fodder were available on the steading, it was sometimes found physically impossible to move the material to isolated places where it was urgently required. In this connexion I would repeat the assurance I have already given in regard to foodstuffs. If the noble Earl will send particulars of any hardship cases, I will see that the circumstances are fully reviewed. In conclusion, I am sure the noble Earl will agree with my taking this opportunity of conveying a very deserved tribute to the Army and the Royal Air Force for the work they did in Scotland during the abnormal period. Both services gave great help in transporting foodstuffs to remote districts which were cut off by snowdrifts, and conveying feeding stuffs for animals marooned in the hillsides and glens. Both Service were most co-operative and responded to all the calls made upon them.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: All of which could have been avoided.
  LORD MORRISON: Perhaps the noble Earl will go further and say the snowstorms could have been avoided.
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I cannot but think that possibly some of your Lordships may have been a little perplexed in the course of yesterday's debate, because it seemed to me that we heard two opinions, or, rather, statements of fact, that were diametrically opposed. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that there was a grave shortage of food; that it was not likely to get better, and, indeed, was likely to get worse. He received a considerable measure of support. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who said that, save for a little temporary shortage of fats and a slight shortage of meat, everything in the larder was lovely and that we could eat, drink, and be merry, without the usual corollary. He also received a considerable measure of support. That must have caused some perplexity, but I think I am in a position to solve that difficulty.
  Your Lordships' will doubtless recall that over a period of a hundred years the French nation had a slogan Liberté, egalité, fraternité. We, in this country, thought fairly highly of that slogan as a whole. We realized it was difficult of attainment but, nevertheless, it was a high ideal. Well, of course, we have now changed all that. Liberty is as dead as the dodo, and, of course, much more lamented than that engaging bird. Fraternity is out of date. Its place has been taken by class hatred. Class hatred is far more popular now than fraternity or brotherly love. With regard to equality, in these days when everyone is not only just as good as everyone else but a great deal better, and when we pay lip service to equality, let me say this: I do not think that ever in the history of this country was there such gross inequality over the distribution of food as there is to-day.
  The people of this country are divided into two flocks which I think are just about equal. There is one flock which is adequately—nay, more than adequately—fed. They have ample food—not of a very appetizing sort, but nevertheless much of it, and, as we cattle farmers would say, tolerably well-balanced. Those people might quite reasonably be called the fat kyne. There are also the lean kyne and the lean kyne are very near the starvation border and below the malnutritional border. Who are the fat kyne? In the first instance, all the members of your Lordships' House are of the fat kyne;
  504
  also all those people who are able to go into a club or an hotel and get as much food (if they can pay for it) as they like. The fat kyne also include practically all civil servants; all those who work in the bigger shops and stores and most of those who work in the bigger factories throughout the country; in fact, all those people who are able to go into a canteen of some sort or other and twice or thrice a clay fill themselves up to the brim with meals off the ration.
  And who are the lean kyne; who, as I have suggested to your Lordships, are almost equally numerous? They include practically every housewife in the country, who has to queue in fine weather and in bad, in heat and cold, in snow and rain, very often to obtain only a few ounces of horseflesh; they include practically all the old people; the very young people; the sick and infirm; those who have been disabled by the war or otherwise, and also those who are occupied in a good many non-static industries, of which agriculture is the biggest and most important. Those are the lean kyne. I venture to think that if some of those pseudo-scientists who persuade us, with the aid of figures about calories and things of that sort, and with various statistics, that black is white, and white is black and that it is all only an optical illusion on our part, had been in a position to compare the food packet taken out by a farm worker to-day when he is going to do a full day's work in the fields, with the packet which he took out, say, ten years ago, perhaps they would have altered their opinion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was speaking in your Lordships' House yesterday for the lean kyne. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson—although his appearance belies it—was speaking for the fat kyne. If it be admitted—and indeed I think it can hardly be denied—that there is a very large section of our population on a borderline of malnutrition, shall we say, owing to shortage of food, why is that so? It has been suggested, even by members of the Government—I have read it, and I think the argument was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge —that to-day it is far more difficult physically to import food by ship than it was during the war. I really think that people who bring forward that argument must be taxing the credulity of their hearers a good deal. To suggest that it

  505
  is more difficult to bring food in now than it was when our ships were at the mercy of enemy attack by land, on the water and under the water, is taxing people's credulity.
  I venture to think that there are more people than myself—indeed a great many (and not a few of them supporters of the present Government)—who have a sneaking feeling that some of our difficulties arise owing to the fact that the people who safeguarded our food during the war were more capable administrators than those who have looked after it since. It would be safe to suggest that the reason why we arc short of food is an age-old one, and it is merely that we have not now the money to buy imported food to the extent that we should like, and we are not likely—at all events for many years—to have sufficient money to do so. Therefore, as has been said by several noble Lords in this debate, we are vastly more dependent than we have been in the past on what we can produce in our own country.
  I wish now to draw your Lordships' attention to an unfortunate and possibly somewhat ominous fact. It was stated during the war, and by the Government, that we were in fact producing about 70 per cent. of the food consumed in these Islands. That was a rather remarkable fact. I always like to believe statements of Governments and more especially, of course, when they are Governments of my own side. I therefore assumed that that statement was approximately true. But, fine effort though it was, it was not 100 per cent. I have been a member of a war agricultural committee for a number of years. I have been over hundreds of farms and I do not think I have ever been over one farm which was producing to 100 per cent. capacity. Certainly my own farm is not doing so by a long way. A great many farms have been producing, were producing and are producing, not more than 70 per cent.; not a few are producing under 50 per cent., and quite a lot of land, even during the war, was not producing anything at all. Therefore, if that statement be true, this country, in the matter of food, was in fact much more nearly self-supporting than is generally supposed.
  The disheartening fact is that since the war, although we are told that the emergency is quite as great now as it was then, the production of food has gone down and
  506
  is going down. The Ministry budgeted last autumn for a very considerably reduced output of food, and, even without the climatic disasters of the autumn and winter, I do not think that we should have reached the target at which we aimed. I think this is a rather remarkable fact. When I thought I was going to address your Lordships the other day, I put down what I thought might be some of the reasons for this unfortunate fact. I soon put down fourteen reasons; then I was stopped by shortage of paper. I will not go into those fourteen reasons, and any others there might be—and there are plenty of them—because your Lordships might, like Hitler, find your patience exhausted. There are, however, one or two to which I would like to refer.
  Labour, we have dealt with; and also our shortage of rations. Waste of land by public authorities has also been dealt with; and the intolerable delay in getting anything done. Then there is drainage. I think many of your Lordships know that drainage, which is a serious problem, and which, with such infinite pains, we improved during the war, is to-day going back. Then there is a shortage of agricutural machinery, as has already been mentioned. I found out only the other day that there is in fact no priority for agriculture for steel, for wood, or for hard fuel, amazing though that may sound. As proof of that, I was told that a Nuffield factory which was in process of producing a medium caterpillar tractor, which was in great demand by farmers and for which many approved applications had already come in, had to close down because they could not get the steel allocation. That, to my mind, is an astonishing state of affairs.
  There are one or two other points which I do not think have been mentioned. One is the disinclination to-day to work overtime. During the war overtime was worked extensively and patriotically, and a very great number of agricultural workers worked twenty hours a day all through the spring, summer, and autumn. They are not doing it to that extent now, however much they are told of the necessity. When they are told of the necessity, some of them say it is just another political stunt. They say they heard all about the coal crisis, and the fact that everything was going to shut down, and so on. That crisis was met quite satisfactorily, apparently, by cutting down the working week from five

  507
  and a half days a week to five, so why on earth should they be asked to do overtime now. I know nothing about coal, and there may have been admirable reasons for the crisis, but I do know the psychological effect on the agricultural workers. Another reason that has been alluded to is Income Tax. The farm worker is not inured, like many of your Lordships have been for many years, to Income Tax, and he does not like it. I remember some two years ago I tentatively suggested to your Lordships' House that it might be worthy of consideration that money earned by overtime, so far as the agricultural workers were concerned, should be relieved of taxation. I do so now with rather more confidence, because a good many people have since said the same thing. I would mention to your Lordships three rather good reasons for this.
  The first is that there is no question but that it would be a great incentive. I do not think there could be a bigger incentive. Secondly, I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose very much money. Tax on overtime is the easiest thing to evade. You have only got to caddy for a couple of rounds of golf, or work in somebody else's garden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not get a smell at those earnings. Thirdly—and this may have been considered—have the Government thought of the great saving in work, and the great saving of paper that would take place? I doubt if those of your Lordships who do not farm on a big scale have any idea of the amount of paper used, and the amount of work entailed—much of it unnecessary. The quantity of paper used must amount in a month to as much as a strong man can carry. I see forms rolling in and piling up, and yet we are told that there is a paper shortage. Quite a lot of necessary work is being held up, and quite a lot of books and periodicals, which form a source of amusement to the public, cannot be printed. Anything which could stop the use of this immense amount of paper in this way would be of some advantage.
  Another point that has not been mentioned is the shortage of ready cash after one hard season, with the certainty of another bad season. This Government are a very powerful Government, with a large majority and an immense capacity
  508
  for nationalization. But in this direction they have failed in one respect—which I think they would be inclined to acknowledge. They have entirely failed to nationalize the weather. There has always been a series of harvests—one good harvest, and then a second; then a bad one; then three good, and then two bad. In the past, farmers have recognized that, and have realized that if they want continuity for themselves, or for their sons, they must lay something by in the good years to keep for the bad years which will come; and this they have done. If they had not done so, their sons would not be there now. But now, owing to the action of successive Chancellors, it is practically impossible to do that. Income Tax, Super Tax, and E.P.T., have rendered it impossible for the honest farmer to do it—and there are still a majority of honest farmers, although I admit the temptation to be otherwise is very great. It is oblivion of that indisputable fact that may well cause all the good intentions of the agricultural Bills, to which the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, alluded, to come to naught. I hope I may be wrong.
  There is one further cause, and one only, to which I wish to allude; and that is the failure to realize the importance of agriculture, not by the Ministry, nor by His Majesty's Government, but by the people of this country at large. They still do not realize it. The vast majority of the town dwellers of this country still look on the land owner as a grasping. cruel fellow who wallows in his 1 per cent. on his money. They look on the farmer as a slow-witted fellow with a straw in his hair, instead of as one of the finest technicians there are in the country. And how do they look upon the farm worker? They look upon him as very low indeed; they think he is a very poor specimen. I would point out to your Lordships that agricultural wages have gone up quite a lot, and at the present rate I would say it is at least as much as the farmer can pay. Indeed, in many cases I think the farmer hardly can pay it and keep his land in proper condition. But these wages still compare very un-favourably with those paid in other occupations which are not so skilled. Why is that? It is because the moment you put up the agricultural wages every other industry says that their wages must go up too, on the grounds, if you please,

  509
  that "you would not have us paid like an agricultural worker." In many cases I would not; but it would not be upwards, it would be downwards.
  Your Lordships will remember, a year or two back, a spate of Memoranda on agricultural policy. I think I read them nearly all. I took part in framing quite a few, and they bore an acute family resemblance which has been a great help to His Majesty's Government at the present time. The first to come out was that of the Royal Society. It was quite a good one, but it differed in one particular from every other. They said: "We regard the agricultural worker as the first charge on the industry." They said that taking every relevant circumstance into account, the farm workers' wages should be settled, and directly they were settled, and at the same time, then prices would be so adjusted that farmers could pay them. They were the only ones who said that. Later On, to get unanimity, they drew back on it I venture to think that theirs was the only Memorandum which was right in that particular.
  I have spoken much too long, and I must beg your Lordships' pardon for that. I feel only that if I have done the slightest thing to bring home to anybody the fact that the nation is not getting the full output it is entitled to expect, which it must have, and if His Majesty's Government will examine the causes and find out by their own methods what they are—and there are many more than the fourteen which I have inflicted upon Your Lordships—and, when they have done that, do their best to put them right, then perhaps the time will not have been entirely wasted.
  5.23 p.m.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, the picture of the agricultural labourer which has been painted by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat is in my view a complete misrepresentation of him as I know him to-day, and as he is known in the country. Go into any village in Lincolnshire; I am proud to say that there is not a man in this House who would know whether it was the farmer, the labourer, or the schoolmaster whom he met in the street. The working men and the women are as smartly dressed and presentable as anyone else in the village.
  Those of us who for many years fought for a higher standard have
  510
  seen the corduroys disappear with the pearl buttons; the man is dressed the equal of anyone in your Lordships' House. That is all to the good. There are certain things which are still short, such as amenities and all the rest, and about which I shall have something to say in a minute. But so far as his general appearance is concerned, when he goes into a town to do his shopping, you cannot distinguish the country worker from any other citizen. That is what we have fought for, and we have realized it so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned. During my lifetime, since I worked on a farm as a boy, we have seen him rise from being merely a serf at £5 a year, and living in—that was the wage of a second hand; the third hand sometimes received 50s. a year—to what he is to-day. We have lifted the agricultural labourer from the picture that has been painted of always being the underdog. I agree that he should not be the underdog; he should he recognized as one of the most highly skilled and respected workmen in this country, and as highly paid as any.
  I listened to the speech of the noble Earl who opened this debate to-day, and I thought he was very critical of the Government. I admit that perhaps they deserve some of the things he said, but I have never known a Government about which I have not thought the same. Even the one in which my friend held office as Parliamentary Secretary was not noted for a great amount of work.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I was Parliamentary Secretary to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison.
  LORD QUIBELL: You may share the glory. My noble friend did not deliver speeches of that kind in those days, when potatoes were £1 a quarter, when wheat was 22s. a quarter, and when the conditions of the agricultural labourers were such that could not press upon the then Government the necessity of including the agricultural labourers in the Unemployment Act, because there were too many of them unemployed, and the funds could not stand it. We did not hear speeches like that in those days. Indeed, so far as agriculture is concerned, he is sitting on the side of the House which, during my lifetime, had the power, if they had had the will, to develop agriculture twenty and thirty years ago. If we wanted to build a

  511
  house the rural district council were chiefly composed of Tories, and there was nearly a revolution when that was suggested. They said it should be left to private enterprise. Some of the buildings in rural England were disgraceful. I am quite aware that this Government cannot destroy some of them, because we have neither the labour nor the material to put a better house in their place, though that is the object of the Government.
  So far as general conditions of agriculture are concerned there was the Land Tenure Act, which was introduced by the Liberal Party. I remember the Tory Member for my Division voting against it —he was a land owner and he voted against it. What my Division did was the right thing: they cleared him out the first time they had an opportunity to do so. The noble Earl said we are not getting the houses. That is perfectly true, but every member of this House knows why we are not getting the houses. First of all, there is the shortage of labour. In this case it is chiefly of what we describe in the building trade as the unskilled labourer; that is a bricklayer's labourer, whom I regard as highly skilled. Why is that? It is because his wages do not nearly approach that of the skilled man. It is my considered view that during the next few years we are going to see that the electrician, the carpenter, the builder and the builder's labourer—who can lay drains, concrete foundations, and level them, and can make a scaffold and things like that—should get the same kind of wage. The labourer has the hardest work.
  I remember the days when I carried what was known as a "monkey" on my shoulder, and I remember the fellow who, when working on a house, said: "We are working nine hours a day, but the man at the top does the whole of the work." I knew he did not. I knew who was doing the hardest work. The reasons we are not getting houses, as I say, are a shortage of labour, and, particularly, a shortage of timber. You cannot blame any Government, whatever Government hold office, because you cannot manufacture a tree. It takes over sixty years to grow a tree to felling size, and you would be very lucky at that; it takes eighty years for the soft timbers we are using in this country. There is a shortage of timber; and in no speech on the housing question have I heard one single practical contri-
  512
  bution which would help the Government to accelerate housing, dependent as they are on these materials which are in such short supply.
  What is the answer? One is that I put a roof on two houses for a local council without an ounce of timber. That is a practical suggestion which I offer. There will be two pairs of roofs on when I get back this week-end. They are constructed of hollow concrete boards. We have the cement, the machinery and the tackle. There is not a joiner engaged in it, not a nail to put in it, and no timber on the roof. We have in abundance all the materials required. Greater encouragement ought to be given by the Government to this kind of work. These roofs are hollow, principally because they thus prevent condensation which you get from reinforced concrete.
  I do not think the Opposition quite realize the situation—or if they do they have very skilfully concealed their doubts as to the possibility of any great step being taken immediately in rural housing. After all, plant and machinery have to be taken out. During the recent bad weather half the time would have been taken up by the men travelling backwards and forwards, and the housing programme would not have been forwarded in the slightest degree. I suggest, so far as immediate policy is concerned, that we should go in for the Airey house or some similar prefabricated house that can be taken to the site and quickly erected. I do not believe there is any other solution. I was talking to a colleague of mine on the Commission today and he was complaining that we had not got a single house yet. It is now nearly two years since I went round the country trying to get village sites. I found that the great difficulty was that the builder and contractor who knows and employs the men will not undertake a contract which means transporting materials and men backwards and forwards to a rural area if he can get a contract to build 120 or 150 houses concentrated in an urban district.
  I notice in the Hobhouse Report that the compilers have considered the question of rural housing. They have, in the main, considered it very favourably. They say in the Report that there is a certain amount of labour available in the rural areas in small villages, but that the men are not skilled enough to undertake

  513
  a contract in a town. But surely they could be employed for reconditioning some of the houses in the towns. Why not do that? I believe that so far as reconditioning is concerned a certain amount of it could be taken in hand. A certain farmer who lives in my district has reconditioned at his own expense some 134 houses in a village in Lincolnshire. He tells me that he is quite willing to go on with more if he can be given a subsidy of some kind—he has lost £300. I think this kind of thing should be encouraged.
  The Report says that there is a certain amount of labour in the countryside able to do the work of reconditioning but unable to do the work of building new houses. We all know that. I think it would be of great value in this direction if the Government would be wise enough and strong enough to put a Bill through the other place very quickly, during this year, to enable reconditioning to be done in this way. I was talking some time ago to a farmer whose house was falling down. He wanted to get permission to build another. He said: "What can I do?" I said: "Submit a plan for a house, or rooms in the form of a hostel, for your three men, and call it a 'house' or 'hostel'." I do not know how one gets over a Government Department unless you call a place something of that kind. The fact is that there are so many people looking for accommodation that the difficulty of getting workmen housed anywhere is really the greatest problem with which we are faced to-day. That example which I have given can be supplemented by dozens of other examples from the Trent Valley.
  In the recent floods in Lincolnshire from Morton the tide came up to Scunthorpe. Indeed it went to a point where the land was last under water one hundred years ago. In this connexion, I would like to tell your Lordships a little story. I have already told the Parliamentary Secretary how this job was being handled. The water came up to a clamp of potatoes and just washed it away like a wisp of straw. The talk on this occasion was concerned with compensation for loss of potatoes and other crops I said to this farmer friend of mine: "How did you get on with your potatoes?" He said: "Oh, I got in 350 tons of mine. I heard that the water had come through at Gains-borough and I knew it would ultimately
  514
  reach my place because there were spring tides. So I got men from other farms to help me and I saved 350 tons of potatoes." I said to him, "What about the other fellow whose farm we passed a little time ago?" He replied, "Oh, he just came and stood and looked at us getting our potatoes. He stood with his arms folded looking on, and he lost all his potatoes." Now I suppose that in most cases the principle of compensation would work in such a way that the man who stood and looked on with folded arms would be compensated for the loss of his crop. The man I would compensate would be the man who got busy and saved 350 tons of potatoes for the country—not the fellow who looker, on while the water came and washed his crop away.
  Now, what has happened with regard to land drainage?—and I hope that my noble friend will take notice of this. We have installed a lot of wonderful pumps and pumping stations for land drainage purposes. Some of these pumps are really marvellous—they shift 150 tons of water a minute, I was told I have no means of checking that figure, but it was an engineer's statement. I may say that I do not always accept such statements, except with a grain of salt. Now in the areas of which I am speaking, pumps were put at a low level because the shorter the lift the more efficient are the pumps in operation. So these particular pumps were put very well down to drain that farmland. We have never had anything like this before in my time, and I have known the Trent Valley for over sixty years. The pumps were put low down in order to shorten the suction. Then the flood came through at Gainsborough and it covered the pumps.
  But this is the strangest thing of all. None of these wonderful pumps could be worked, and the engineers, responsible had walled up with concrete and brick the natural outfalls, so that the water could not drain away at low tide. For that reason the land has been under water for a lot longer than it need have been. Had the drain heads been left in the condition in which our forefathers left them, the water would have got away weeks before. But, you see, the people who did this were engineers with high qualifications. The consequence was that the water remained on the land at a time when every day had become vital if sugar beet and other crops were to be saved.

  515
  In fact a friend of mine had half his farm kept under water because of this. In the end, it was thought fitting to fetch a Dutchman to see how clever our men had been. The water would have run off with the variation of the tide but for the desire of these men to show off their cleverness in operating these wonderful oil driven pumps.
  I hope that the Trent Catchment Board and every one of the little internal boards will insist that a thorough inquiry is made into why this flood occurred and why it was so badly mishandled that we had to call in someone from another country to advise us. I think it is time some of these people who are drawing fairly substantial salaries should be told just where they get off. They should be told that we want service in return for paying high salaries. We certainly did not get it in this instance.
  I am pleased to say that so far as the farmer is concerned he is doing a wonderful job. He has had some pats on the back, and I think he deserves every word of praise that has been given him in this House. I would also like to say that I, personally, would give unstinted praise to the Minister of Agriculture for having, in my opinion, by giving subsidies, applied compensation in the right form. This has encouraged the growers to do their utmost to get their potatoes in, for it has been pointed out to them that if they do so they will get £15 an acre as compensation. Furthermore, arrangements have been made for satisfactory prices for sugar beet. In short, everything possible has been done to encourage them to make the maximum possible use of their farms after the flood water has run off them. In my view the Ministry have done a very good job of work.
  Now a good deal has been said about the production of food. The noble Earl who spoke earlier but who has now left the Chamber made some comment about our rations. I do not think that we have any very serious grounds for complaint about rations. If any people ought to complain I ought to be one of them, but I do not think we are doing very badly. I know that, of course, everybody would like to be able to buy what they please, and that many things are in short supply. Well, we cannot help it that they are. The only thing I personally would com-
  516
  plain of is that I do not get enough meat. I should like to see all us heavy workers getting a little more meat. I have said that the Ministry have done good work. They may not have done everything that they should have done, but neither, I think, did the noble Lord who opened the debate do everything that was right.
  LORD WOOLTON: He never claimed to have done so.
  LORD QUIBELL: No, you never claimed perfection, I agree. At the same time, whatever Government was in power, in my view it would be faced with difficulties of a similar character. What we should do, I believe—and I have always believed this—is to pay the fullest possible attention to labour, to housing, and, if you like, to fertilizers. I am inclined to believe that humus is more effective in most of our British soil than artificial fertilizer. Artificial fertilizers may be good for certain heavy land. I think that we should do everything to encourage more intensive agricultural production, to arrange for proper price levels for agricultural commodities and to do all that is possible to provide the houses that are needed, whether of a temporary or permanent character. Furthermore, we should do our best to ensure that the people of the countryside are paid wages commensurate with the wages that are received by workers in the great industrial centres. If we do that, I feel confident that we shall get the labour we need on the land, and we shall also make a great contribution towards increasing our food supplies and to rendering this country less dependent upon dollars and upon other countries.
  5.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, in his dissertation on how we could get more houses. I hope that the Front Bench on his side will pay some attention to what he has said, because he speaks from great technical knowledge, and, as they now have an almost exclusive right to build houses, perhaps if they paid a little attention to him we might get some of the houses in rural districts which are so necessary, either built or reconditioned. This is a food debate and not a housing debate, so I am going to make a few remarks on the subject of the Motion. When the Government have complete control of any commodity which

  517
  is essential to the life of the nation, the supply of that commodity becomes, for the Government, a gigantic question of good housekeeping—nothing more nor less. If people in this country express doubts with regard to the ability of the Government to achieve success in housekeeping so far as food is concerned, I think they have reason. If they look at the deplorable results of the Government's housekeeping over the fuel supply of this country, I think there is every reason for the people to demand from His Majesty's Government the fullest possible information which will reassure them; otherwise they have every reason to doubt the Government's ability.
  We have had a number of speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made a speech the gist of which was that the Government hope (or expect) to maintain the existing level of rations in practically every commodity except meat. So far as meat was concerned, he gave us a very clear warning that: we may anticipate a fall in the ration. That was cold comfort to the hard pressed mother of a family who is hoping for an increase in the ration. But this was a ray of sunshine compared to a remark of the Minister of Food in a speech at Dundee last Saturday. This was reported in the Sunday Press, and if your Lordships will permit me I will quote from what he is reported to have said. He did not think there was any danger of a food crisis such as has happened with fuel. (It is rather menacing that he found it necessary to say that at all.) That did not mean they could guarantee that every ration would be kept at its present level; some were in danger, like tea and meat. (The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, did not mention tea as being in danger.) But (the Minister went on) he would always reduce a ration rather than allow breakdown.
  I would draw your Lordships' attention to that last sentence; that he would rather reduce a ration than risk a breakdown. Would not a reduction of our present rather meagre ration be virtually a breakdown in the Government arrangements? If the Minister of Food did not mean that kind of breakdown, did he mean a breakdown in his own organization? Is he prepared to starve the country rather than that his own organization should break down? I think we deserve some answer from the other side of the House to these
  518
  rather frightening remarks of the Minister of Food, which were made so recently as last Saturday.
  I come now to the question of home production, and the part that home production can play in our total food supply. We are all agreed (and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has dealt extensively with this point) that home production should and might well be considerably increased. All through the war, and the difficulties of the war, home production steadily increased from year to Year. It is only since the war has ended that we have seen a decline from that steady upward progress. I agree very much with my noble friend, Earl De La Warr, that we need definite production targets and some clear lead from His Majesty's Government on what they expect from home production. I feel there is also another major cause for the indifference of the farmers—and it is indifference—towards increasing their production. We have an admirable arrangement of price fixation which will shortly be embodied in a Statute; at least I hope it will. This arrangement, incidentally, was inherited by the present Minister of Agriculture from his predecessor. It is designed to give the farmer that security in the future which will encourage him to produce more. It has also been stated that alterations in price will not only be in accordance with economic necessity, but will also be designed to guide policy and production in the direction that His Majesty's Government may think right in the interests of the nation.
  That is all admirable, but what is happening? We are having our regular price fixation, and this consists, so far as one knows (because it goes on behind closed doors), of a good deal of hard bargaining, with the farmers trying to get as much as they can, and the Ministry of Agriculture, backed by the Treasury and the Ministry of Food, doing their level best to keep prices down. The net result is that prices are fixed which are just enough, but not an encouragement, and a price which does not allow for any margin of bad weather or bad luck. If His Majesty's Government really desire to see an increase in the home production of food which will assist our food supplies very materially, and assist our dollar situation very materially, they must introduce a spirit of much sweeter reasonable-

  519
  ness. They must be more generous in these price fixations than they have been in the past.
  It is a commentary on that system that three times there has had to be interim rises between price fixations. It is quite true that we are grateful for this last rise in price. It came on April 26, which was rather late. It might have come a bit sooner in order to encourage people to sow more than they would otherwise have done. Except possibly for land just emerging from the flood, April 26 is rather late for any normal sowing, and too late for a man to think about sowing a field which he would not otherwise have sown.
  There are other subsidiary factors which deter a farmer from increasing his production. One is the labour uncertainty, not only with regard to housing, but the loss of German prisoners. Another, and possiby only a psychological one, is the fact that we are buying in certain countries food which is being produced at home, and paying a price considerably higher than we are paying our own farmer. It is a most disheartening thing for a farmer to know that a man in South America or North America, or anywhere else in the world, is getting more than he is getting for an exactly similar produce.
  I want to conclude by saying a few words about the part which home production will play in the course of the next twelve months or so. We had a very forthright speech from the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who told us exactly what the situation was as a result of the weather disaster and other disasters of the last six months. He concentrated largely on the difficulties of the flood areas, and I would like to congratulate him and, through him, the Ministry of which he is a member, on their very prompt and effective action in the flooded areas in the Fens. He told us, amongst other things, that the total wheat acreage this year, instead of reaching the target of 2,500,000 acres was only 1,940,000 acres. I can envisage somebody in the Ministry of Agriculture saying: "Oh well, we are budgeting for 2,500,000 acres, anyway. That would be 2,500,000 tons. We are now down to 1,940,000 acres; that will be 1,940,000 tons of wheat." It is simple arithmetic and it is easy to pass on to the Ministry of
  520
  Food. But I very much doubt if that simple arithmetic will come right.
  We have had a very severe winter, and although we had very encouraging reports of wheat emerging and looking green under the snow (and which was better than anybody expected, because nobody ever expects anything from under the snow) in fact, if you really look at that wheat—and I have looked at it quite a lot—the plant is thin. It is hardly moving yet, and possibly we are not going to get even an average yield over the larger part of the area. As the noble Lord said, much of the wheat sown is spring wheat, and we all know that, generally speaking, the yield from spring-sown wheat is lower than that of winter-sown wheat. In addition we had a very wet autumn; we had a very severe winter, and we had a thaw with rain which saturated the ground again. That has washed out of the ground a great deal of the mineral fertilizers which are needed by the plant—whatever anybody may say about humus. At the same time, we have not been able to get the fertilizers which we require to replace the loss which has occurred owing to the weather, and that again will reduce the yields that one may anticipate. The same applies to barley—spring sown and sown very late indeed.
  I was lucky on my land, and I started my spring ploughing in the second week in April. But one of my tractor men came to me and said: "Do you realize that two years ago last Thursday we had finished spring sowing and were planting potatoes in this very field?" I had not at that time sown a single seed of corn. We were a month behind. We have had a late spring which must have an effect on the growth. We cannot expect the yields we ordinarily could expect. This applies to every form of production on the farm which grows out of the ground. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture can assure us that they have put the Ministry of Food wise to these difficulties, because they will have a very serious effect on our food production. It must be remembered in these days, when we are severely restricted with regard to food, that our production bears a far higher proportion of the whole than it ever did before the war, and a lowering of that production will therefore have a correspondingly bigger effect upon the rations which we receive.
  There is one other point which I must mention; that is, the subject of potatoes,

  521
  which are again suffering from lateness and also from unsuitable manure. I was glad to hear that potash is to come forward in greater quantities. It has not come forward yet. There are other factors. In my part of the world—the south country—we are desperately short of seed. I have 25 per cent. less seed than I require for my contract to grow potatoes. That includes eleven tons of seed said to be on rail somewhere. There is delay on the railway. It takes at least a fortnight for seed to reach my part of the world from the north of England. I take it that coal has probably got priority and food takes a back seat. That is a matter for the Government to sort out amongst themselves. But it must be realized, if they do allow that kind of thing, that we shall see a very definite reduction in our total production in the immediate future, with which I am dealing.
  I do not want to say any more beyond this: that farmers are by nature pessimists, with reason. They know—and have learnt by generations of bitter experience—that it is very necessary when growing food to be pessimistic, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will take a leaf out of the farmers' book and be pessimists. There is a certain psychological pleasure when your pessimistic forecasts are in actual fact realized. There is a correspondingly much greater pleasure when they are falsified. If we go on having mildly optimistic speeches, proposals and suggestions, such as we have had from the other side all through this debate, it gives people in this country the idea that everything is right in the best of all possible worlds, whereas we know that it is not really right. Your Lordships on the other side of the House know it is not really right. I wish you would be rather more pessimistic, and we shall be correspondingly more joyful when you are proved to be wrong.
  6.7 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think that two things have so far emerged from this debate: one, that everybody in your Lordships' House is agreed that we must grow more food at home; the other that His Majesty's Government in the last few months—or indeed since they have been in office—have done very little practical work to help that effort forward. I take up the question of potatoes, which the noble
  522
  Lord who has just sat down mentioned. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, mentioned that production of potatoes would be down this year and that there would be a scarcity owing to floods, but he did not mention what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, mentioned—namely, that there is no seed coming from the north and, therefore, the shortage will be much larger because nothing has been grown, quite apart front what has already been lost by damage. The only answer that we get from the Ministry when the N.F.U. or the committee press them with regard to this matter is: "Do not worry; it will come down in time." You cannot plant potatoes after May. It is now May 8. A large number of farmers who ordered their potatoes last autumn have not even got the invoice yet to let them know whether they are on the road, let alone the fact that they are on the railroad somewhere. I think that His Majesty's Government have at least been found wanting in getting potato seed down south. No doubt they will be able to give us some answer with regard to that.
  With regard to the housing and labour situation, with which many noble Lords have already dealt, I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, put forward such sound and reasonable suggestions with regard to rural housing and labour. As he is a Government supporter I think they would do well to listen to some of his very able and technical advice—even though it is agreed with by this side of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, told us of the machinery released by the Government. Like everything else, it is late. Half this material which was wanted many months ago will not be here until some time next year. The Government were pressed to release Government transport from the dumps, and after a long argument they held auction sales and sold these vehicles which were vital to the various industries. In the war agricultural committee dumps there are thousands of pieces of material and implements surplus to establishment, which are offered only to the dealers, and the dealers come and take them as and when they get a customer. If they had been put up for public auction in the markets, numerous small pieces of machinery, very useful to the small farmer, which he cannot get to-day, would have been made available to him

  523
  months ago. At any rate a week ago nothing had been settled with regard to that matter.
  As regards the foreign labour situation, we have heard much of the replacement of the German prisoners by displaced personnel—Poles, and such like. But at the moment little is being seen of them. I would suggest to your Lordships that to get this force working, even for next year's harvest, large numbers of them ought now to be in the rural areas, getting acclimatized to the country and the people with whom they have got to work. If this is not done, we shall have lost the German prisoners, the shortage of our own people will still be felt—possibly it will be greater, with the housing shortage—and we shall have a certain number of complete strangers who are unhappy themselves, and do not know exactly where they stand. The whole thing will not be organized.
  This debate has gone on for some time. I know there are other noble Lords who want to speak, and I will not detain your Lordships much longer. I would, however, like to add my humble weight to the suggestion that has been put forward by other noble Lords, that the Government must take some greater practical interest in the production of home food. Otherwise I think they will shortly find themselves in the position of the prodigal son before the fatted calf was killed, when he "fain would have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat."
  6.12 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the Motion before your Lordships' House is:
  "That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the growing danger of a serious shortage of food in this country."
  Although this debate has wandered over a very much wider field, especially the field of agriculture, which I agree is virtually inseparable in some respects from the food situation, I do not wish to follow other noble Lords who have spoken on the subject of agriculture in all the more detailed matters which they have raised. Indeed, most of the points that I want to make are points relating to the Ministry of Food and the administration of food. But before doing that, there are one or two points of perhaps lesser importance arising on certain things that have been said in relation to agriculture, which I would like to raise, having regard to the
  524
  presence of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in the House.
  First of all, may I say that I think the general theme which has run through all your Lordships' speeches, that a much larger proportion of the food consumed in this country could be raised here, is a matter of common ground. We have not for the last two days been concerned with whether or not we should try and produce more food in this country. I think we are agreed on all sides of your Lordships' House that more food should be produced, although we may perhaps be at variance with one another over the exact methods to be adopted for producing more food. In dealing first with this question of producing more food in this country, I would like to refer to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, upon one or two specific matters. The noble Earl, for instance, has taken the question of the losses of livestock, and the difficulties in which agriculture in this country has found itself, as being the result of the winter through which we have been through. I do not wish to traverse, to criticize, or to comment on the information which he has offered, except on one or two points. I find in the noble Earl's remarks, and in the statements of the Ministry which he graces with his presence, very much the same sort of ground for criticism that I find in the pronouncements of the Ministry of Food, in that they have an apparent fear of stating the worst to the public in this country.
  I will take a particular case in point. When, at the end of the winter from which we have all suffered, the Ministry were pressed and made an assessment of the losses which this country had suffered, the first estimate (I am quoting one instance), as the noble Earl will agree, was that about 1,300,000 sheep had been lost. At the time that estimate was given I think it was known to a great many people, including some of the best experts in touch with or under the Ministry of Agriculture, that in point of fact the losses were very much greater. It was common ground among those who followed the situation that the losses at that time were already estimated to be 3,000,000. That figure was given by the Ministry only some weeks later, and it was subsequently stepped up to 4,000,000. I can see no reason why the fact that the losses were as high as

  525
  3,000,000 should not have been stated at the time that the estimates were first compiled.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: May I just for a moment comment on that? It takes some time to assess losses of that kind. We heard rumours of losses, but we have to be very precise, and there was an inevitable delay between accumulating the losses at the committees and giving them to our Ministry, which explains why at first we issued one figure and later increased it.
  LORD RENNELL: I accept that there must be delay. It is obvious that if you are collecting figures of losses of sheep from remote districts some time must elapse before the final results come in. But the deficiency between the estimate of 1,300,000 and the figure to which it was increased eventually was very considerable—in fact, it was more than double. Another point arising out of that is that the losses were attributed very largely to the winter weather from which we suffered. That is perfectly true. It is obvious to everybody that we did have a winter, not of unprecedented severity but certainly of very great severity. I am sure it will be agreed by the noble Earl that the losses in sheep, in particular, were not only attributable to the weather. They were attributable in a large part to the lack of foodstuffs which were available at that time, and the winter from which we suffered aggravated the losses; indeed, the losses which make up the latter part of the figure of 4,000,000 which was announced, and certainly the losses in cattle to which the noble Earl referred, took place after the climax of the winter was reached, as a result of the weak condition in which stock found itself. Moreover, the losses of actual sheep and cattle are not the full tale, because included in those losses, though not in the figures, are the very large losses of unborn lambs. It follows therefore that the decrease of our livestock population is very much greater.
  I mention those figures not in criticism of the Ministry at all, although I am coming to one point of criticism in a moment. I mention them because they disclose to me in this case, as in certain other cases which I propose to put, the fear of giving the public the whole truth and the whole statement which was available and is available to His Majesty's
  526
  Government at the present time. With all respect to the noble Viscount who is going to reply I will show in a minute why I think those figures are a deliberate concealment of facts He will wish me, no doubt, to produce some evidence of what I said is a deliberate concealment of facts. I do that by referring to the monthly statistical statement which we have been recommended to read. I do not wish the noble Viscount to say: "Oh, here is that man again, with his statistical statement. He used it about a month ago, and now he is going to use it again and bore us with a lot of statistics."
  I will not do that this late hour, but in going through this statement there is one thing which strikes everyone perfectly clearly and without any shadow of doubt—namely, that whereas stocks of raw materials in this country, including imported raw materials, are in certain places stated very clearly (I refer to stocks of coal, iron, steel, pig iron, base metals, timber, pulp, and commodities of that sort), no stock figures have ever been stated in regard to food. They are not stated, they have not been stated, and I would like to know why they are not stated, unless it be for the purpose of concealing from the public of this country that stocks of food and materials are extremely low. Why, with all the bureaucratic machinery which is available for assessing stocks, are the estimates of available food stocks not published and printed?
  In the bad old days, to which the Benches opposite have frequently referred, when foodstuffs were bought and sold in the open market with whatever advantages or disadvantages there may have been in that system, statistical material was available of all the stocks in this country, what were en route to this country by ship, what had been bought, and what had been ear-marked, as was the case in very few countries, except possibly the U.S.A. Since the intervention of Government buying in food and in other markets, these statistics have been concealed; they have not been published. That is true, for instance, of cotton, because the statistics published of cotton available here—this is not germane to this argument—are entirely misleading and mean nothing at all. But if imported materials are referred to in those statistical tables for such commodities as base metals, pulp, paper, hides and so

  527
  forth, showing that they are bought by the Ministry of Supply or other Departments, why cannot food stocks be shown? They are not shown because I claim that the Government are frightened of showing them, just as they are frightened of showing to the public what the food position is, and as they are also afraid of showing how bad the position in regard to our food stocks really is.
  I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply, will deny that the reason why the losses of agriculture during this winter were under-estimated was motivated by the same set of reasons as have led to the concealment of these facts. There is one small point to which perhaps the noble Earl might reply and contradict me if I am wrong. If I heard him rightly, he said that there was now more labour in agriculture than before the war, and that remark was received with interjections from this side of the House to the effect, "We hope so." I turn to these statistical tables which we have been enjoined to read, and in particular to those which are in Table 22. The numbers employed in agriculture are shown in the left hand column as being 711,000 in June, 1939, and as being 889,000 in June, 1946. Of that figure the male labour population employed in agriculture was 618,000 in 1939 and 732,000 in June, 1946. But footnote (1) says that those figures of males include prisoners of war. The figure of prisoners of war employed on agriculture at the present moment is, I understand, something of the order of 135,000 to 140,000. I think I am right in that figure, but the noble Earl will no doubt correct me if that is not so.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Approximately.
  LORD RENNELL: If the noble Earl would subtract 140,000 from 732,000, the figure of male labour, he will find a substantial decrease over 1939, and perhaps that statement may well be amplified when the noble Viscount replies.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: In order to get quite clear what it is the noble Lord is asking me, do I understand him to say there is a footnote to say that the figures include prisoners of war? Because I cannot see it.
  LORD RENNELL: Footnote (1) says, if I read it correctly:
  "The figures for Great Britain, and for Northern Ireland from 1945 onwards exclude the occupier, his wife and domestic servants, but include relatives of the occupier (or of his wife) who work on the holding, members of the Women's Land Army, members of H.M. Forces, prisoners of War,"
  and so on, but not schoolchildren. One other point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Beveridge was the employment of non-British labour, for instance, Polish labour, and the labour of displaced persons who are being brought to this country to work on the land. My noble friend asked what numbers of Poles had hitherto been engaged to work on the land, and what arrangements were in process of being made to employ Polish labour. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to supply some information on that point, because it is a matter of very considerable importance to a great many people. My own experience, in the part of the world in which I live, is that Poles are not employed and that offers to employ them on the land have been singularly unsuccessful. I do not want to generalize, but my experience, not only from my own part of the world, the western part, but from the southern part, the Home Counties, is that efforts to get Poles out of camps to work on farms, even though they were farm labourers when they came here, have by and large been singularly unsuccessful. It is no remedy to the lack of labour on the land to talk airily about Poles being employed if the Poles do not wish to be employed, or do not wish to work there.
  However, as the main issue in this afternoon's debate, as yesterday's, is that of food rather than agriculture, I would like to go back to the terms of the Motion. And here, if I may express a personal opinion, I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Beveridge has said. We must accept that what was done—with all respect to his great work—by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in the Ministry of Food during the war, and what has to be done now by the Minister of Food, are not comparable. They are quite different problems. And one aspect of that problem which has not, I think, been brought out quite sufficiently in this debate—though it was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—is that we are living, so far as food is concerned,

  529
  in an international régime in which no one community like ours can obtain all its wants. Moreover there are a number of communities in the world at present who are demanders of all sorts of food of which we also are demanders, and who are likely to get a larger share of what is going than they did in the past—and quite rightly. Therefore there is less to go round. We must accept that, and we must further accept that these various communities are much greater competitors with us in the world markets for food—in North America, Australia and the Argentine—than they were before the war.
  Obviously the task of any Minister of Food must be considerable and difficult. But having accepted that—and I do not wish to draw any analogy between the problems which confronted the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and those which confront Mr. Strachey at the present moment—I confess that I for one, and probably other noble Lords are of the same opinion, am left with a certain sense of disquiet, not only about the food situation, but about the way the food supplies have been administered. The statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, tended to be reassuring in certain major respects such as meat. A recent statement by the Minister of Food was broadly to the effect that if we get a good harvest in North America this year we might be able to bring bread rationing to an end. I do not think that was a very weighty statement; it is rather on the lines of the old crack (if I may use that word in your Lordships' House) with which we are familiar: that if we had some bacon we might have some bacon and eggs—if we had some eggs.
  Of course, if there is a very good harvest in North America there will be more wheat, and if there is more wheat we may be able to bring bread rationing to an end. But what does disquiet one is the lack of figures in Government publications on stocks and such things. There appear to me to be administrative incoherencies. Last year bread rationing was brought in. Bread stuffs, the cereal situation as a whole, was regarded as so critical in this country that we had to bring in bread rationing. It was so serious that the undertakings given by the Ministry of Agriculture in regard to foodstuffs for livestock could not be met. As a result of
  530
  that, the livestock population of this country decreased very considerably. The figures of the decrease prior to the winter are evident in statistical tables. I have no doubt that the situation then appeared so critical that bread rationing was necessary, and also that it was difficult, if not impossible, to continue the rationing of livestock on the basis which had been announced.
  But a few weeks ago we were informed that the bread situation in this country was again so critical that it might not be possible to maintain the present bread ration. That was, think, in March. Within a very short time—a few days I believe—of that announcement, a statement was made about the increase, a small increase, of rations for livestock which was to take effect on May 1, and did in fact take effect on May 1. That small increase last year would have enabled a great deal of livestock to be wintered through, which in fact died as a result of the cold weather and shortage of food. At a time when we were contemplating having to cut down our bread ration here, the possibility of increased rations for livestock was announced almost simultaneously. It seems to me a curious inconsistency.
  May I go on to what happened to wheat? We do not know how many weeks' supply of breadstuffs were in this country. We do know that representatives of the Ministry of Food and the Minister of Food himself had to go on urgent business to various parts of the world to obtain sufficient food to see us through. Some reference has been made from the Benches on the other side of your Lordships' House about the freezing up of the Atlantic ports; some reference has also been made on this side of your Lordships' House. The necessity of having to import wheat by the Pacific route, is, I have no doubt, unavoidable. What I am questioning is whether administratively it was right or wise to leave dealing with the reserve food situation in this country so late as to make these devices necessary.
  I will go further and ask your Lordships to consider—not here to-night—what is the result of that administrative delinquency on. the price of wheat. I have had prepared a graph which I should be happy to show the noble Lord or the noble Viscount, of the price of wheat in the last months of last year and the early

  531
  months of this year, when, as may be known to your Lordships, the price of what is known as spot wheat—that is to say, wheat actually on the spot, or available immediately in Chicago—rose to the unprecedented height of $3.20 a bushel, which is the highest or second highest price in history. That rise started at the end of January and reached its climax in, I think, the second week of March. Your Lordships will recollect that last year we were told that the North American continent had had a bumper crop of wheat, of a size almost unknown in history; farmers' granaries and every receptacle in the United States were bulging with wheat, yet the price rose. The price of forward wheat, wheat at three months, not only did not rise but lagged behind. It seems curious that farmers who had no place to store wheat, and who were reported to be storing it under tarpaulins in the open, who were most anxious to get rid of it, should yet have succeeded in holding up the market and involving a rise of from $2.40 a bushel at the end of January to $3.20 by mid-March. That was this year. And the price of forward wheat always lagged behind that. The price of forward wheat never rose as high, and the percentage rise never went so high.
  What is the explanation? I think the explanation is simple; so simple that it must surely have been apparent to the public in England, though I have never seen reference to it. Put vulgarly, in terms of capitalist markets, we were caught short, and we had to get wheat at any price, anywhere we could buy it, in order to get something to live on for the next few months. That wheat was obtained by buying spot wheat at Chicago and shipping it at prices well known to your Lordships. If your Lordships on the other side of this House will accept the gift of this chart, and take the trouble to plot on to it the voyages made across the Atlantic by representatives of the Ministry of Food and by the Minister of Food, you will find a curious coincidence between the shape of that curve and those particular dates. That, I think, justifies my noble friend Lord Beveridge in suggesting that the administration of the Ministry of Food gives us on this side of the House very considerable anxiety.
  I am afraid that I must amplify that statement by quoting three other cases,
  532
  because I have made what are obviously serious charges. I would hasten to say that, in common with many noble Lords on these Benches, I am by no means opposed to bulk-buying by the Government, provided that that bulk buying is wise and well-conducted. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said, that there came a time at the end of the war when it was no longer possible to deal in foodstuffs through private channels. I accept also—what the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House will, I am sure, say—that these channels are no longer suitable for our present conditions. I do not object in any way to bulk buying of food by the Government, either then or now, if well done. But the instance I have given about wheat, and the rationing of cereals for livestock, suggests to me that even on these two points the administration has not been very good. Now I wish to quote three other cases in which I claim that the administration has been bad. This is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House feel little confidence in the administration of the Ministry of Food as at present conducted. These are not, however, cases which involve losses we have suffered, as in the purchase of wheat, by leaving it too late. These, on the contrary, are cases in which I think that most outrageous profits appear to have been made at the expense of other members of the British Empire.
  In the first place I wish to take the case of the purchase of palm oil in West Africa. I have given the noble Viscount notice of these matters, and I hope that he will be able to produce a reply. I can produce a reply myself up to a point. There is only one buyer of produce in West Africa to-day, the West African Produce Board, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, well knows. The Control Board are at the present moment buying West African palm oil at £25 a ton. The figure at which the Ministry of Food are offering palm oil for sale in England—that is a product comparable in quality and in bulk —is £97 15s. a ton, which, evidently is producing a substantial profit, possibly at the expense of our West African colonies. There are justifications. I know one of them that will be made; that is that you have to buy other oils at higher prices and this represents an attempt to equate all fats bought to prices which will not involve the Ministry in loss. But I would like the noble Viscount to say, if he can, whether

  533
  or not substantial profit is being made on these purchases. I think that outrageous profit is being made at the expense of our own Colonies.
  My second case is very similar. The West African Control Board are buying cocoa in the Gold Coast at £55 a ton in bags. Added to that should be an amount of £7 a ton for shipping, making a total of £62 a ton. Yet cocoa is being sold by the Ministry of Food at £119 a ton. Your Lordships will recollect that a Royal Commission was set up in West Africa to investigate the prices that were paid to native producers for cocoa, on the grounds that commercial buyers were not giving them fair prices. I wonder if the noble Viscount is in a position to say whether the relation which the price paid for cocoa in West Africa bears to the price at which the Ministry are selling it is fair to the native producer.
  My third example relates in part to cotton, which is not germane to this debate, but also to cotton seed from Uganda. I understand, if my information is correct, that the Ministry of Food are, or were about a fortnight ago, offering only £9 a ton for Uganda cotton seed oil, whereas commercial buyers from India, I think, were offering £25 a ton for cotton seed oil. If the Ministry of Food are out to get everything they can in the way of food it seems slightly odd that the price paid by the Ministry of Food to our own Colony is only £9 a ton, compared to what is being paid by India for the same oil from the same Colony.
  If production in this country is to be encouraged by the Ministry of Food—because the Ministry of Agriculture can produce or assist the farmer to produce farm produce, but the object of producing farm produce is to eat it—it ultimately depends on what the Ministry of Food are going to pay. I am always extremely troubled, when we are told that wheat is in extremely short supply, to find that our farmers are being paid a lower price for wheat than is being paid to farmers elsewhere for the same wheat, and also that they are being encouraged to grow barley, instead of wheat, by the very much higher price offered for barley. I have no objection to the farmer getting the highest price possible for barley, but I wonder if it makes sense, from the point of view of the Ministry of Food, that such a much
  534
  higher price should be paid for barley—which as we know goes into the deplorable beverage which is now sold as beer—than for wheat, which is what we have to live on.
  I could go a great deal further and could put a great deal more material before your Lordships. But I was reproved for speaking too long to your Lordships on the occasion of the economic debate. In conjunction with other matters which I have marshalled in these papers, that is the evidence upon which I suggest that a case can be made out that the administration of the Ministry of Food, as my noble friend Lord Beveridge has stated, is one that causes us anxiety, an anxiety which might be dispelled—could be dispelled—if we were given more facts. In conclusion, I would like only to say that I can see no reason why the facts should not be produced. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, about the necessity for being frank and telling the truth. I wonder why the Ministry of Food do not do so.
  In this debate, which inevitably has brought in agriculture, a great deal has been said in criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture. I have only this to say, and I believe the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will support me: that if there has been criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture, it is not against the Minister of Agriculture, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, nor, indeed, the staff. Those of us who have contact with them and their officers have been well satisfied—more than that, we have been delighted—in the contact we have had. Our complaint is that the Ministry of Agriculture has never been allowed to have the say it should have in the councils of His Majesty's Government. We regret, and I trust the noble Lords who sit on the Conservative Benches near me also regret, that the Minister Of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary have never had the hearing they deserve, and have never been able to get through what they want.
  6.50 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps in a debate on food, one of the two ex-Ministers of Food in this House, although coming in rather late in the debate, may be allowed to contribute a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said in his very conscientious

  535
  speech that he thought the Motion of my noble Friend, Lord Woolton, was very pessimistic and alarmist. Frankly, I thought the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was far too content with things as they are. Another noble Lord has said the speech was complacent. I do not mind Complacency in the noble Lord himself, but I do mind complacency in the Ministry of Food, and that is what that speech rather indicated to me. When I first went to the Ministry of Food I found as good a system of distribution in action as could be found anywhere in the world. We were able, and very proud to be able, to explain it to the Governments of the countries about to be liberated, so that they could base their own systems on ours if they wished to do so, and many of them did so wish.
  Finding that system as I did, I devoted by far the greater part of my time in two things: first, to getting more supplies, and, secondly, to seeing that other people did not get away with the supplies that this country ought to have. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, referred to there being quite different problems for the present Minister of Food from those of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. He did not include the problems that I had. In fact, I had both problems, because at the time I was there not only were ships being sunk on the High Seas and warehouses bombed, but all the Governments of the liberated areas were clamouring for supplies. It is all very well, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said, to realize that we are only one part of an integral whole—that, of course, is true —but what the Minister of Food has always to realize is that his job is to feed the people of this country. It may be for others to talk about an integral whole and to see that something goes to Germany or elsewhere. If any noble Lord had seen me when I was Minister of Food he would have been quite clear which people came first—the people who earned it more than any other because they took the brunt and the burden of the whole war.
  It was easy, with a good distributive system, to alter the value of the coupon, and there was sometimes the temptation not to make what effort one could when stocks were low. My only complaint is that the value of these coupons is going downward all the time and not upward. It is quite true, as the noble
  536
  Lord, Lord Rusholme, said, that at the Food Conference held in London in June, 1945, it was stated very clearly that for two years at least there would be a food shortage; that there was a shortage of sugar, oil, fats, and livestock produce, and that for three or four years livestock supplies would be inadequate. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was quoting me exactly or not, but those were my own views. That does not mean that I did not hope and think that within the coming two years we could improve supplies. We estimated that there would be a shortage for two years, but not a bigger shortage than we then had. We had a shortage that was gradually coming back to normal during that period.
  It was a sad story that Lord Henderson had to tell us exactly two years after V.E. Day: a stock level in wheat and flour causing a great deal of anxiety; that the Government hoped to keep bacon, eggs, butter, margarine and cooking fats, as they were, without any cutting down; that the sugar position should be about the same as last year, tea maintained with some difficulty, and that meat might have to be reduced. Fish was the only optimistic wobble in the water that I saw. It is quite clear that, as Sir John Boyd Orr said, the food position in. Britain to-day is worse than at any time during the war. I read the correspondence that went on in The Times during the Easter recess. What apparently everybody has overlooked is this very valuable document of the Food Consumption Level Inquiry, which was started in the régime of my noble friend, and which was issued when I was Minister of Food. That shows quite clearly that, compared with pre-war levels, our consumption levels of practically all the main products except milk and potatoes—all the main protein foods—are much shorter than they were during the war.
  The milk figures are not always as they are portrayed, because when we look at the figures for milk consumption in 1939, given in this book, we find that although the monthly average of liquid sales was 72,000,000 gallons, we were then getting 36,000,000 gallons—or the equivalent of it—in butter or cheese. When you add those up you get a total quantity of 108,000,000 gallons. That was in 1939. While these figures do not show the average for recent months, at

  537
  any rate, for January it was 114,000,000 gallons; for February 104,000,000 gallons; and for March 121,000,000 gallons. Last year it was averaging round about 115,000,000 gallons. Therefore, although much more milk is going into human bodies in the form of liquid milk, actually people are not getting it in the form of butter or cheese, which are of equal nutritional value. I know that a great improvement has been made and that a lot has been done with regard to the milk yield of cows, but one finds that in June, 1939, there were 2,841,000 cows and heifers in milk and in June of last year 2,919,000. There has not been a very great increase.
  Therefore when people say that we are getting much more nutritional value in the form of milk, one must look at the fact that there are not many more cows and we are not getting the butter and cheese. And, of course, we all know that since the consumption level inquiry was held on our consumption in 1943, things, unfortunately, have got worse. I want to say a few words about bread rationing. I never believed that it was necessary and I doubt whether it is saving very much. I heard from quite a reliable source a few weeks ago that flour was running out at 105,000 tons a month. I remember that during the later part of the time when I was Minister of Food, when we did not ration it at all, it was averaging about 100,000 tons a month. If we look at the pre-war consumption of bread, we find the monthly average was 82,600 tons. In 1641 it was 99,000 tons; in 1942, 95,500; in 1943, 96,700; and in 1944, 100,700. If our flour is really running out at 105,000 tons, we are not saving anything by bread rationing and we are putting many people to a lot of trouble in issuing all those books, in cutting off all those little coupons, and in the housewife having to take them to the shops.
  I really do not believe that, with the present level of bread rationing, we are saving anything at all by it. I would earnestly ask those in touch with the Ministry of Food to make a few inquiries to see whether I am riot right; and if I am, for Heaven's sake let us stop it—although you may preserve the system—as soon as possible, even if you may have to restore it for the very difficult months of the year. Frankly, I do not believe that anybody is counting those little bits
  538
  of paper, and, if you do not count them, and do not have to get your new supply on what has been counted, of course, it is not in the least an effective system. I believe that that is what is happening with regard to bread rationing. We had better give it up. The trade, in fact, offered to run along, without rationing, at 100,000 tons a week. If we are running at 105,000 tons, let us go back and accept their offer, and get rid of all this nuisance.
  With regard to meat, I should like to say that, of course, it is much less plentiful than it was. The margin has been cut. We know what that means. The meat that was given as manufactured meat is now given as part of the Sunday joint—and if you get that particular meat as your joint you are pretty unlucky. Many people are getting manufactured meat served up to them as their Sunday joint, and are far worse off. In the circumstances, it would be better to take that really bad meat off the ration. Perhaps the ration would have to be brought down 2d. a little earlier, but do let the people know that when they get their ration of meat they will get meat that they can roast and which will be a decent Sunday joint. I am delighted to see that the position with regard to fish is better. As my noble friend will remember—and certainly the Minister of Defence will remember—I took considerable steps to get some of these trawlers reconditioned and the crews back at the earliest possible moment. I am delighted to see those fruits of the sea now coming in. But, of course, that is of no avail if you have not got the fat in which to fry the fish. Boiled fish is all right on Good Friday, but it is not so palatable as fried fish—if you have the fat to fry it—and the people of this country deserve to have something better than a Lenten diet.
  Bacon, unfortunately, is also down. There is no doubt—and let us have no dispute about this—that unfortunately the people of this country are worse fed now than I believe they have been at any time in the lifetime of any noble Lord here. We do not need statistics; or Sir John Boyd Orr to tell us. You have only to go into any cottage home in the country or cottage or villa house in the town and the housewife will tell you that, even if your statistics do not. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord

  539
  Rusholme, is not here, because he commented on how well-fed a couple of us on this Bench looked.
  LORD WOOLTON: He was not referring to me. It was to you!
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I was going to challenge him. I would not take a very large bet either way which one of us—he or I—would tip the scales at the higher weight. That brings me to the point that it is not so much a question of the bulk of food which you get; it is a question of the kind of food. You can look quite well and get quite fat on starchy foods such as potatoes. But, of course, what we want is much more of animal proteins, especially meat and fats and indeed sugar as well. What can we do to get more? We have discussed to-day what could be done at home, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon—for whose speech we were all grateful, because he dealt very frankly with the agricultural situation—told my noble friend that he had forgotten Clause 8 of the paper which I have in my hand. As one of the authors, I have not forgotten, and I do not think he had. At any rate, I was going to comment on it. I was going to say that Clause 8—if I may suggest it—showed the way, and my criticism of the present Government is that, having been shown the way back in January, 1945, they have not pushed along it; and it is because of Clause 8, and because they have not taken the steps to fulfil the proviso in Clause 8, that I am critical of the Government on their home policy in regard to producing more food.
  I do not want to talk at any great length, or even on this occasion to cross swords on housing with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. The last time, I remember, the noble Viscount said that the targets of houses that the Coalition Government had worked out were fairy tales, although such people as the Prime Minister and others were on the committee that worked them out. Be that as it may. Of course, it was not quite what was said at the time of the General Election.
  "In the light of the figures of urgent needs mentioned above, this number is woefully inadequate, and not even the Government claim that it will meet the country's requirements; "—
  540
  that is the Conservative Government—
  "they simply claim that it is the most that can be expected with the resources of labour and materials which will be available. Yet if the preparations now on foot are examined it becomes quite clear that a larger target than this could be achieved if the job was tackled in the right way."
  I expect the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has seen that document, from which I have quoted before. As the noble Lord, Lord Quibell—whom we are always delighted to hear on these matters—told us to-day, there is a lot more that can be done in the country by allowing greater scope to the small builders. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act was not at all a bad Act, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, and the representatives here in your Lordships' House who understand something about the countryside, will press for that Act to be reintroduced. It gave the rural worker a house at a controlled rent—I have forgotten for how many years, but for ten years after the subsidy was given. The subsidy was not very large, but it was big enough to enable a house to be let at a rent which the ordinary farm worker could afford. That was the point of it. There are quite a number of houses that could be reconditioned now, and for which on a certain number of estates the extra timber with which to do the job could probably be found lying about, without having to get a licence for materials. There are also, as the noble Lord, Lord Quibell—whom I am glad to see has come back in his place—told us, and as I know for myself, many about the villages—men employing a couple of other men—who could do this work without affecting the main housing programme one little bit. We know—I think the noble Earl himself said so—that unless we get more houses we are not going to get these people back to the land. It is a test of the Government's sincerity. It is a test also of the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary, as to whether they can get the Government to agree with the views that they hold in their own hearts, and which they would see enforced if they had the opportunity of so doing.
  We have discussed this agricultural problem at some length to-day, and I do not want to go into it further at this stage. But before I finish I would just like to say a few words about the position abroad. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said, we are bound by any

  541
  international agreements that we make. The noble Earl will not find the Government very much hampered by any agreements I made, and it is only a question of the agreements which they have made since as to whether they are hampered in the least in their efforts. Mine were all agreements to get more food for this country, and there was not one that in any way fettered the ability of my successors to make what further agreements they liked. It all depends on what sort of agreement you make. Of course, if you make an agreement, you are bound by it. It has surprised me very much—I think my information is correct on this—to find out quite recently that the job of the Head of the Food Mission in Washington is now only a part-time one. The man who occupies that position—a very capable man, who served there when I was Minister of Food—is not now merely Head of the Food Mission but is looking after a lot of financial and Treasury matters as well. When food is of such importance to our country, I should have thought the least we could do would be to have someone looking after it as a whole-time job.
  A further criticism which I would make is this. In war, of course, shipping was the difficulty. We had to slaughter quite a lot of cattle and sheep—not so much the sheep, but certainly the cattle—and turn over to the growing of more cereals for direct consumption here. It was obviously right that we should bring in more of the bacon from Canada, where they built up their pig population to serve us, and the dried eggs, and things of that sort, instead of bringing over the feeding stuffs. In that way we were buying the more expensive articles. Now there is no shipping difficulty—or it is not the main difficulty. The difficulty now—and it is increasingly going to be so—is the matter of exchange. My criticism of the Ministry of Food's policy is that it has not gone over quickly enough to the right policy of now bringing in the cheap feeding stuffs. I am strongly in favour, as the noble Lord, Lord Ouibell, has said he is, of the greatest amount of farmyard "muck," as he called it, rather than this artificial fertilizer.
  Quite frankly, the only criticism I haw of the Parliamentary Secretary to-day is this: I should have thought that he and his Minister would be watching these feeding stuffs, and what the Ministry of Food do to buy them, like a couple of hawks. I should have thought they would see
  542
  it going—some of it to Denmark, as we know, some to Czechoslovakia, some to South Africa and some to Yugoslavia; and I would have thought they would see, very much earlier than has been the case, whether we could not get some here. The Ministry of Agriculture ought to be watching the Ministry of Food; I know the Ministry of Food buy it, but they ought to be watched—as in fact Mr. Hudson was watching me—
  LORD WOOLTON: And me.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: — and we ought to get anything we possibly can. I always think—and I have never disguised the fact—that the putting up of the extraction rate to 90 was the silliest thing a Minister of Food ever did, even though I believe we are now running at 87½. For every 5 points that you lower the extraction rate you get 325,000 tons more feeding stuffs. If I may, I will now let the House into a secret. It is much easier, in an international food allocation organization, to get food for human beings than it is to get food for animals. You can get it for animals quite easily without anybody being able to say, "You have dropped your extraction rate too low." That is because the extraction, rate in the U.S.A. and Canada is somewhere between 72 and 75, so you are absolutely safe at 80. You can get more allocations the lower your extraction rate, and then you can start to build up your flocks and herds in this country. I think, therefore, that the increase of the extraction rate was a very silly move. I made a move the other way for exactly the reason I have said. We started then what I think has been done too slowly since; that is, to rebuild our livestock population. We thought we were able to make promises to the farmers, and the promises were renewed under the present Minister of Agriculture. Then, through no personal fault of his, he had to go back on those promises, and all that advance in our livestock population has gone by the board.
  I want to deal with only two further points, and I am sorry if I have been rather long, although others have been longer. I want to de for one moment with Government bulk purchase. It is an absolute wonder to me, and was when I was Minister of Food, how well personal enterprise (perhaps a better term than the

  543
  hackneyed term "private enterprise") has fed this country in the years gone by. If you have those same men doing the job of buying for you, by all means let them buy for the Government. When just before the war, and before there was a Ministry of Food, we were short of wheat, in the summer of 1939 we got three big manufacturers to go quietly and buy wheat on behalf of the Government. The one thing they were not to do was to disclose to anybody that the British Government were the buyers. If you insist on Government buying you will find that in every case the other country will insist on Government selling. When you get this difficulty between the two, others may be repeating what it has been quite wrong for the Argentine Government to do over these recent contracts.
  Now I want to come to the question of stocks. I cannot for the life of me think why we should not be told what stocks we have got. I am not going so far as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and say there is something really sinister about it. I think it is just stupid. We get the stocks of every other "blooming" thing—if I may use that word in your Lordships' House—except the thing which the Ordinary person is most interested in; that is, food. The Minister of Food says that the reason is that people must not know that he is short. Good gracious me! Any person in any foreign country has only to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, yesterday, to know that we are short. Anybody has only to know that we are still rationing food in this country to realize that we are short, because I do not suppose rationing would be kept on if we were not. That, if I may say so, is the silliest reason for not publishing, statistics, to which I should have thought we were as much entitled as any others.
  After all, when it comes to that, all the members of the I.E.F.C. must know, and they are people who come from every country. Therefore, why should not the people of this country know? We give this information to the foreigners, and we do not tell our own country. I do not say it is sinister; I say it is just stupid. The people here are much better if they are told the truth. I always tried to tell them as much truth as I could, and I think it always paid. I could not tell them about my stocks.
  544
  There is one occasion I remember well, when we were only ten days short of going completely off the butter ration. It was no good announcing that, because that would have alarmed people; and it was no good my saying: "The reason I do not think we shall go off the ration is that there are four butter ships coming up the Atlantic to these shores, and they are full of butter." We could not tell them that in war-time, but luckily the ships all came in. We could not reveal our stocks then, but I believe we could now.
  To sum up, my criticism of the Minister of Food is this: that his attitude seems to be too restrictive and negative, and not positive enough. I wish that both he and the Ministry, and indeed the whole country, could get into what I consider the proper priority of the way of life. We have that in the Book of Common Prayer. If your Lordships remember, this sentence comes first in the General Confession:
  "We have left undone those things which we ought to have done"
  and it is only later on you get the sentence:
  "And we have done those things which we ought not to have done."
  That is the right priority, and the right emphasis. In fact, it is the only emphasis that will get this country out of its present difficulties. We spend too much of our time finding out what we cannot do under the numerous regulations.
  Let us have this in the forefront of our minds: "Go out and see what you can do; whether you can do something more; whether you cannot make a bigger effort than you have in the past." I say the same thing to the Minister of Food. Let him and his subordinates go out to these places and see whether they cannot get us more food, and not rely so much on the very simple act of putting in another little Order, or cutting down this coupon by another half ounce or so. If they do that, they will deserve better of their country than, in my view, they do at the present time.
  7.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing the views of all members of the House, of all Parties, if I say that I think the criticisms and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, were entirely helpful and fair.

  545
  I have no word of complaint about any of them. Some of them were matters which I myself have discussed a great many times, and it is entirely helpful that we should have comments and criticisms from an exceedingly experienced man, such as the noble Lord, on the matters to which he referred.
  I think it is right that I should address myself to some of the more fundamental and important matters which formed the body of the complaints against us. I should like to say a word on the detailed points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I obtained such information as I could in the short time that I had available to ascertain the answers, and I can give him no more than I have on these sheets of paper. The noble Lord went out of his way to animadvert on the Ministry of Agriculture because in the early publications of estimates of losses the figures were smaller than the final figure revealed the losses to he. The noble Lord really must be, if I may say so with the greatest possible respect, a very suspiciously-minded person. He seemed to think there was something sinister about the figures. The facts were that these figures were given out at different times, as the desolation wrought by the elements became more and more revealed. It was right and proper that, so far as the Ministry could gather information in the early days from their war executive committees and other people, they gave such estimates as they knew up to that time were reliable; and it would have been wrong of them to have exceeded that figure.
  We all know that at one time we were hoping there was going to be a thaw; in fact the Air Ministry promised us there was to be one. Then there came, to our horror, about the worst snowstorm of the whole winter. It is quite unfair to accuse the Minister of Agriculture because he was not able to forecast these disasters which piled tip on us. It was not his fault, and there was nothing he could do about it. He did the best he could as the horrible story revealed itself. There is nothing to complain of; it was just unfortunate.
  With regard to the noble Lord's question on cocoa and palm oil distribution, the price paid to producers in Nigeria for palm oil was £25 a ton, as he says. The Minister of Food actually paid not £25 but £45. The £25 was the direct payment
  546
  to the producer. As has often happened, and as I have complained hundreds of times in my political life, there is a very significant gap between what the producer is paid and what the middle man seems to be paid. £8 goes to a stabilization fund for the benefit of the native producer. The remainder, making up the £45, goes on transport to the coasts, agents fees, etcetera. There is nothing unusual in that. So far as I know, the prices charged by the Ministry of Food on resale in this country for oils and fats are such that we come out about level for those goods. Any surplus profits are put into the pool and help to level out losses on other commodities.
  Another question concerned Gold Coast cocoa. The producer is paid £55 a ton—as the noble Lord said—carriage, insurance and freight coming out at about £7. The selling price in this country as the noble Lord stated, is £119. The price to the producer is fixed at the beginning of the season by the West African Produce Control Board. Since the beginning of the season there has been a great increase in the world price of cocoa and the difference is being held in a fund by the Board for the benefit of the producer. I am afraid I cannot give any more information. No one has been a greater champion of a good, fair price to the producer than I have, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has followed me in that matter.
  I now come to the more major issues which have been raised, and I will deal first with the case put by the noble Earl Lord De La Warr. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has given the statistics of these shocking losses and I need not repeat them; but I think that Earl De La Warr did a little less than justice to the Minister of Agriculture for the unprecedented mobilization of assistance for which he was responsible, and for the steps that were taken to maintain production by various devices such as special acreage payments and special prices for some of the crops that he wished particularly to encourage—barley, oats, potatoes, and others. It is fair to say that the work of the Minister in this respect was exceedingly prompt and exceedingly generous that, I think, will not be denied. The noble Earl referred to what he suggests is the failure of the Government to adopt a particular policy to increase food production. I am glad to hear that the Party with which

  547
  he is associated are such enthusiastic advocates of these things at long last. It is twenty-five years ago that I myself was appointed Chairman of the Agricultural Policy Committee of the Party to which I belong. One of the first items of our policy was that this country can produce very much more food than it is now producing. It is an absolutely fundamental proposition; it has been printed and circulated all over the country for twenty-five years, and now the noble Lord has discovered it. It is not an original idea.
  Let me turn to the next point. I was rash enough to publish a book in 1937 on a British policy for agriculture, and I am happy to say that it had an unprecedented sale—which was very fortunate. I was very happy.
  LORD WOOLTON: I hope the profits were all right!
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: 63,000 copies were sold. It must have been bought by a large number of farmers. In that book the noble Earl will see some detailed calculations. He and I once served on a Committee, and we made some detailed calculations. If the noble Earl will refer to the calculations in my book—and it was accepted absolutely by the Labour Party—he will see that the figures there given—of course if you turn them into present day prices—amount to much more than the £150,000,000 which he was talking about. And I am certain that, in the course of time, they are realizable possibilities. Therefore, I admit his impeachment of me, that I have not paid very much attention to this Paper of his. I admit that I have not done so. It was, what I should call a very elementary and post-dated version of my own policy. Since the noble Earl has exhorted me to do so, then—as the Speaker would say in another place—for greater certainty I have re-read it. I take it that the burden of the noble Earl's complaint is that we have not addressed ourselves to a forward policy in food production. If he looks at the items that the Minister of Agriculture is now pressing forward, he will see that they are practically identical with the suggestions here.
  There is a point that I want to make on Paragraph 8 of it. It is stated that it must be emphasized that an expansion of home agriculture of the order indicated can
  548
  be achieved "only if." It is entirely conditional, and there are four "ifs" about it. The first condition is that sufficient provision should be made for additional capital for equipment for both landlord and tenant. In Paragraph 6 that figure is given as £250,000,000. They are quoting me again, for that was my figure in 1930. I think myself that it should be doubled.
  LORD WOOLTON: If it was right then, it is wrong now.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The point I am making is concerned with the amount of money required for agricultural buildings —that is for capital equipment. The point that this Paper of the noble Earl's makes is that this increased production is dependent upon this capital sum being made available for the improvement of agricultural equipment. And the sum is stated to be £250,000,000. I accept that—indeed I think it is a great under-statement. The amount of dilapidation in agricultural buildings up and down the country is appalling.
  LORD WOOLTON: That was my point too.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Everybody who knows anything about this matter knows it is true. What I am pointing out is that in this Paper, which is the noble Earl's primer, it is stressed that you cannot do these other things until you have attended to that. I think, mind you, that it is possible that they could to some extent be carried on at the same time.
  A condition then for this improvement in home agriculture is that you should spend this vast amount of money on the improvement of agricultural capital equipment. But it cannot be done in five minutes. What is it that we are looking at now? We are looking at the accumulated results of the neglect of fifty years. I could take noble Lords, quite easily, to many estates upon which it would be difficult to find a single cowshed that has a sound roof. I know several places where you would have difficulty in finding a gate that would either open or shut properly. It is true that in the course of the war we did carry out a good deal of improvement in small matters of this kind, but what we are discussing now is capital equipment of agricultural land and buildings; and that is an essential concomitant

  549
  of increased production. The noble Earl urged that the highest priority should be given to farm building work, including cottages. I agree. But a condition that is laid down in this Paper is that there should be no undue shortage of labour.
  It is also laid down here that there should be a substantial degree of control, and that that substantial degree of control must continue to be exercised over volume and types of farming operations. That is yet another condition. But that does not go very well with the noble Earl's exhortation that we should have less planning and more freedom. It says in the Paper that it is necessary that a substantial measure of control should continue to be exercised over volume and types of farming operations. I agree. I think it is very necessary. I agree too, that you want targets. But there must be a certain amount of control. It is further stated that farmers should be assured of a market for their main products at reasonable prices. Let me at this point draw attention to an unfortunate omission on the part of the noble Earl. He put the amount realizable on the increased production at £150,000,000 in present-day figures. In presuming to blame the present Labour Government because we were not realizing this figure, he omitted to mention that the increased output cannot be achieved, even if these other conditions were carried out —some of them contemporaneously of course—until 1950–1951. And this is only 1947.
  EARL DE LA WARR: We have not started yet.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh, yes we have —except on the landlords' side. I think that in fairness the noble Earl ought to have given us credit in this respect. He was censuring us for not having attained that figure at the present time. In his own printer it is pointed out that it is not attainable until 1951.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry to interrupt, but really there is a limit to the amount of misrepresentation that one can tolerate. I was not censuring the Government for not having attained this figure. I was saying that this was the possible target. I made it clear that I knew it would take time to achieve that target. My criticism now is that we have not even started on the road to achieving it. We
  550
  are still on the decline, going in the opposite direction.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid that the noble Earl's understanding of the meaning of the word "censure" differs from my understanding of it. I regarded his speech as being from start to finish one of censure. I am sorry if he thinks that I have misrepresented him. If he reads the report of his speech he will see that he did not have a good word to say for us from start to finish.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No; I have not.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: That proves my case; I need not say any more. Let me now come to another matter. I was about to give some figures, and may I say that I entirely agree that we shall never get the maximum increased production for which we hope unless we can get more labour on the land? I am not complaining—indeed I am very glad—that the noble Earl is embarking upon this mission to exhort the country to produce more food. I am delighted. The more he does that the better we shall be pleased. But it ought to have been done many years ago. The difficulties of the countryside with regard to housing, the dilapidation of buildings, the lack of a proper agricultural plan and a programme of increased production, a stabilized price and all the rest, are due entirely to neglect by the noble Earl's political friends over two generations.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Neglect by the whole country.
  VISCOUNT ADDISONNo; neglect by the people who were in control of the policy of this country. They suffered from intellectual anæmia. For two generations the Conservative Party in the matter of agriculture has suffered from intellectual anæmia. That is why they have never produced a policy; they could not think of one. As a matter of fact, the noble Earl knows perfectly well (he was my colleague and a good colleague too) that when I introduced the Marketing Act to begin to give some stability of prices, I had to battle with the unrelenting opposition of the Conservataive Party upstairs for six months. It took me six months to get that Bill through Committee.
  LORD QUIBELL: And the Drainage Act, too.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It was not quite so bad with the Drainage Act. It was unrelenting opposition and I was told on endless occasions that it was a fantasy to imagine one could stabilize prices. I was derided up and down the country. As the noble Earl will know, because more than once he attended my meetings, I received all kinds of criticism. Now we all expect price stabilization, but it ought to have been thought of before. That is my point, and I am glad of the noble Earl's new zeal. I hope he will succeed in affecting the Party to which he now belongs, but the Labour Party was the first Party in this country to produce a worth-while agricultural policy. I am not going to be chastened by the noble Earl or anybody else into forgetting that important fact.
  Just let me say a word or two about rural cottages. I agree with everything that has been said, that we cannot do without them. The Government is making very special provision to encourage the provision of cottages. In the first place, a subsidy of £25 10s. od. a year for sixty years is paid, and the local authority is required to make a contribution of only £1 10s. od. That is a tremendous subsidy, and it is only for the houses of agricultural workers. If the same authority builds the same house for somebody else, the subsidy is only £16 10s. od., and they have to contribute £5 10s. od. out of the rates instead of £1 10s. od. That is a very large subsidy in favour of the provision of houses for the agricultural worker. Then there is the prefabricated Airey house, which at present does not seem to be as popular as perhaps it will come to be, but it is a house designed to be erected by the country workmen who exist in every village. Of these houses, 20,000 will be available by September, and at the moment I think 2,500 of them have been erected.
  LORD RENNELL: For rural workers?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Entirely for rural workers. We are getting 5,000 prefabricated timber houses from Sweden for rural areas; 1,000 have been erected, and 1,200 are under construction. That is a small contribution.
  EARL DE LA WARR: For purely agricultural workers—not for village postmen?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must qualify that, because I am not quite sure, but they are for rural areas. Then as to the permanent houses, tenders for 42,000 have been approved, 24,500 are under construction, and 5,400 are completed. I think that is a very large contribution. The noble Lord asked me how many were actually occupied by agricultural workers. That is a very important question. The full returns are not available, but of the 5,400 completed houses, so far as the returns have been received, the total number occupied by agricultural workers was 1,255. This is a small proportion, but the war agricultural committees are being asked to represent their needs to the rural district councils. Whilst it is not possible—I do not think your Lordships would ask for it—to put a complete veto on any other tenants, they are instructed to secure that, in the selection of the tenants, reasonable preference is given to tenants who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses, and who have large families. I think we are bound to do that; whether it is a case of an agricultural labourer or the village postman, we must take account of these things.
  Then I come to the real charge of the debate—namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. I am afraid I shall have to take up two or three of his points, and I am sorry it is so late, but it is not my fault. The noble Lord said he was not seeking any Party advantage. I am very glad to hear it, but I confess I am a little perplexed if that is so. He said—and I agree with him absolutely—that the housewife is weary and tired. I would agree with all that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said—nobody would rejoice more than we should if we could make the diet a little more interesting and give it a little more variety; and if we could attain that position of plenty where rationing was unnecessary, everybody would be glad. But the solid fact is that the world is short of food. That is the governing factor, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, pointed out, there is a great difference between the conditions under which the noble Lord could get his imports and the conditions under which we can get our imports. For one thing, the noble Lord did not have to pay. That is a very important difference. His imports were under Lease-Lend, and he had not to look so carefully—
  LORD WOOLTON: Only 20 per cent., if you will just state the facts.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: They were not paying for all these imports in full as we have to do now; therefore he was in an advantageous position compared with us, so far as that is concerned. But, most of all, there was not then a great horde in Europe and India and the Far East clamouring for the short supplies. They could not possibly be diverted to many of those places. When the noble Lord went on to say that the housewife was alarmed, I think, if I may say so, he did his level best to alarm her. I do not wish to underestimate the difficulties of the situation. He knows they are difficult and we are only too painfully aware of them, and Lord Henderson gave the figures truthfully. But the noble Lord really overdid it. He overdid it so much that I looked up Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy when I went out of the House last night. I thought I might find a definition, and, as you know, that book is full of classical quotations. It is a strange and mysterious compilation which I used to enjoy on many occasions, so I knew where to look. I see that in one place it says that melancholy is a "bad and peevish disease" and in another place on the same page it says it is "a perpetual anguish of the soul fastened on one thing." I think the "one thing" in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is the Labour Government. That is quite evident, and I am sorry for the anguish of soul with which the noble Lord seems to be possessed. I think that was a very good definition.
  Let me call attention to one or two of the phrases used by the noble Lord. He quoted from some paper an article by Dr. Bicknell who said: "England is dying of starvation." That appears in Column 399 of Hansard. Of course, the noble Lord does not say he thinks so: he quoted Dr. Bicknell. Therefore it will go out all over the world that the noble Lord, with his immense authority, quoted this in the House of Lords. Well, I say that is a monstrous falsehood. It is not true, and it ought not to have been quoted. This Dr. Bicknell goes on to say that the unemployed before the war were better fed than most of the nation to-day —I am quoting from the noble Lord.
  LORD WOOLTON: You are quoting from Dr. Bicknell.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: In the first place, how did Dr. Bicknell know how the unemployed were fed before the war? We are all too well aware of the few shillings a week they had on which to feed themselves. We also know, on incontrovertible evidence—I have it here, but I will not at this hour bore your Lordships with all the details of Sir John Boyd Orr's figures, Mr. Rowntree's figures and those which I think the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, used in drawing up his own scheme—that there was 17 per cent. of the population so poor that they could not buy enough food. Sir John Boyd Orr puts the number at 10,000,000. At any rate, it is a large proportion. That is not the case to-day. However poor they may be, they get their ration of milk and they get as much as other people. Heaven knows, we should like a better diet, but it is wrong—and I say the noble Lord has no right—to disseminate statements of that character, which are manifestly untrue. It does great harm to the country and as a matter of fact such a statement is by no means correct.
  I also happen to have come across in my researches after the noble Lord's speech a somewhat encouraging statement in The Times on April 26. This was a statement made by Mr. Arthur Hunt at the 106th Annual General Meeting of the Wesleyan and General Assurance Society. He said:
  "The society's mortality experience has been favourable over a succession of years. Since as many as one in fifty of the population hold life policies with this society, I think the experience is significant. In my view, the light mortality is due to the fact that, even with to-day's shortages of food, a great number of the people are better fed than they were in the years before the war."
  LORD WOOLTON: "A great number of the people."
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes—not everybody. I am not suggesting that. It does not apply to the noble Lord; it does not apply to me, but it does apply to about 10,000,000, and, although the rest of us—and those other people, too—experience the many difficulties with regard to diet which the noble Lord mentioned (and I am not going to minimize or underestimate any one of them) there is that great section of the population which is undoubtedly better fed than it was before the war. Therefore I say that the noble Lord is not doing justice either to himself

  555
  or to his case to suggest those gruesome things. It is true that they are on the authority of this Dr. Bicknell; nevertheless, they are quoted in this House, and the people who hear them on the wireless at the other end of the earth, as they will do, will not attribute them to Dr. Bicknell. They will say that they were quoted by Lord Woolton who enjoys a high reputation throughout the world. I complain bitterly of those things being said.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: At the other end of the world it can only do good.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Can it? I will come back to that in a moment. I say that nothing could be more harmful to this country than for people all over the world to think that we are down and out —because we are not.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: What will it do to our foreign policy?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Nothing could be worse. I think that, as a business man, the noble Lord would agree that if you want the rest of the world to do what you would like, you do not let them think that you are feeble and helpless. That is the last impression you want to give. And, by the way, I want to correct this Doctor Bicknell's figures. He said that the average person in Britain gets 2,100 calories a day. I was surprised at that figure. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, on my behalf, went to the Ministry of Food and had the figure carefully examined, and the figure (Doctor Bicknell is only wrong by about 30 per cent.) is 2,900 calories. There is a great deal of difference between that figure and 2,100.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Could the noble Viscount give us an analysis of the rations and point goods in that figure?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, I cannot without notice, but I shall be happy to do so if required. I have not prepared that analysis.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The ration is about 1,400?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: There are a great many other things besides the ration.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: And on points 200—which is 1,600.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will, with great pleasure, give the noble Lord the details of how this figure is arrived at. I am perfectly certain that it is right. It was arrived at with great care. Doctor Bicknell says that the undrationed foods —and he includes potatoes—give only 400 calories. I understand that they probably give a great deal more. I will, however, obtain an analysis of the figures. But I am complaining that the noble Lord, with his immense authority, should allow himself to repeat those statements. I will cut the rest of my remarks short. The noble Lord complained, I think, of large-scale Government buying. On that question, neither he nor the noble Lord beside him is in a very strong position. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, would be any less competent as a buyer as Lord Woolton than as Minister of Food. I think that his abilities, sagacity and discretion would be the same in both capacities, and I am not impressed by that statement. Let us look at one or two facts. Questions have been raised about the Canadian wheat contract. I myself was very intimately concerned in the negotiations for that contract. There is a contract for millions of tons over four years. No private concern could ever contemplate a transaction of that magnitude, and one of the reasons why the Canadian farmer has supported his Government—as these farmers have, and we are immensely indebted to them for it—in accepting a lower price on the contract than could have been obtained in the free market, is because he wants stability.
  LORD WOOLTON: On a four years' contract.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The same as our farmers want stability. There is a floor in the contract, as they say, and a ceiling in the contract, with an adjustable arrangement in between. The Canadian farmer wants stability. So does every primary producer. That is why I am glad to say that the Canadian farmer has supported his Government in this contract. But the fact is that at the present moment the price we pay is $1.55 and the price in the open market in the United States is $2.75. If that were all, one could imagine that the Canadian producer would feel aggrieved. But he knows very well that that $2.75 may be something quite different in a

  557
  year's time. He wants security, and it is security that prompts him to support this long-term contract at this price.
  LORD WOOLTON: Of course, the question I addressed to the noble Viscount was not the question of price at all. What I asked was: Did you fix the terms of the contract for delivery, as to whether you are going to get so much month by month, because what you wanted was wheat—not price.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Of course it was, and we are getting it.
  LORD WOOLTON: Did the Government fix the terms? I am entitled to an answer to that question.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly the noble Lord is entitled to an answer, and I will give him an answer as best I can. I am afraid I cannot give the precise answer as to when $1.55 was paid, and I cannot give the exact location of the wheat at that moment.
  LORD WOOLTON: I did not ask for that. I must be precise, as the noble Viscount has chastized me considerably tonight. I gave full notice of this yesterday. What I asked was: Did the Government, when they made this contract, arrange for the precise terms of delivery? I said that without that they are likely to run short, which is what has happened.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure the precise terms of delivery were arranged, but as to what the terms were, so far as price is concerned, I cannot, of course, carry them in my mind. But they were certainly arranged in complete detail. So far as the monthly deliveries were concerned, which seems to be of particular interest to the noble Lord, I can say this. The agreed deliveries did fall down earlier this year; the deliveries were in arrears, so far as the terms were concerned. First it was through a great rail car shortage, and then there was an unprecedented fall of snow, with drifts up to thirty feet in many vital places, and there was a long and continued hold-up. We could not blame our Canadian friends for that. They have done their best to make up for the arrears, and I am glad to say that the wheat is now coming forward in very large quantities. The terms were arranged in the contract as to deliveries of quantities, and so on, and I shall be only too happy—the noble Lord is accustomed to
  558
  these things—to provide the noble Lord with the precise details of the contract. There is no reason why I should not. It was an exceedingly businesslike contract, and it gave us such security as we had by the purchase of, I think it was, 160,000,000 bushels per annum.
  LORD WOOLTON: That is the figure, yes.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It was not anything like the whole of our requirements, but it was a large section of our requirements, and it gave us a great assurance. I think myself that this is a case which abundantly justifies large-scale Government buying. I de not for a moment suggest that we would not modify that system if different circumstances arose where it would be advantageous to do so. We have no prejudices in the matter; we want to do what is best for our people and in the circumstances of the case. So far as that is concerned, as the noble Lord well knows—in fact, he knows the detail of it better than I do—the methods of purchase vary a great deal in the different commodities; the organizations which make the purchases vary, and the machinery for purchase varies according to the commodity. So there is no stereotyped system. I am sure that, with regard to wheat and many other commodities, large scale Government buying has abundantly justified itself, and it has brought great benefit and great security to the country.
  Finally, I would like to say a word on one point which is, if I may say so, a sentimental point. It is a part of my protest at the general style adopted by the noble Lord in allowing these deprecatory statements to be given this wide publicity. We know that our position is difficult, and we do not for a moment pretend to minimize it. But that is no reason why we should go out of our way to deprecate ourselves before all the world by the dissemination of statements which are much. worse than the realities. The people of this country are not dying of starvation, or anything like it. I protest, with all my heart, at statements of that kind being made. Every month I get a publication which is called The Royal Society of St. George. That sends a monthly message, and I would like to read to your Lordships one or two extracts from the message for the month of May, 1947, It is a Scot who writes about

  559
  England—a most refreshing thing, because it is not often that we find Scotsmen going out of their way to be complimentary to the English, although, of course, we often do the opposite. This man says that he comes back after two years, and—
  "Now I find the familiar game of belittlement is on again. To be patriotic is to be out of fashion."
  Then he protests against this belittlement, and he goes on to say that to him England is as strong as ever, and she can face the world unafraid. Finally, besides that passage there is a tribute from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I would like to read that in conclusion, because, in spite of all these miseries that we are enduring, I have the greatest possible confidence that we shall pull through; we shall overcome these difficulties, despite the fact that they are great difficulties. The right reverend Prelate writes:
  "My belief is that before England is sunk every other country in the world will hit the bottom a dozen times. There is no other country in the world which has had to suffer what we have had to suffer. The splendid spirit which is still in this country after all we have gone through is something upon which the world can gaze and marvel."
  I am in entire agreement with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has said, and anything which would lead the world astray or give the world a false impression is, in my opinion, wrongful to the best interests of the State.
  8.18 p.m.
  LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has found it necessary to use what for him is rather violent language about a statement that I made when quoting a distinguished member of a profession to which the noble Viscount used to belong. If that statement is wrong, then the Government have ample means of controverting it.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It should not be made unless the noble Lord knows it is true.
  LORD WOOLTON: I did not make the statement. I most carefully stated the facts, and the facts are these—and nothing the noble Viscount can say, with all the skill of debate that he has shown in this House to-night, will give any comfort to the housewives of this country. The noble
  560
  Viscount knows from his own experience that people are finding it extremely difficult in these days to keep their health going, and to keep their houses going.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly I do.
  LORD WOOLTON: That was the story that I told yesterday. I told the House that the health of the people of this country was deteriorating because of the shortage of fats.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think the noble Lord has proved that.
  A NOBLE LORD: There is no evidence of it.
  LORD WOOLTON: I have produced the evidence of a person of some distinction in his profession. If what I say is wrong, then the Government can convince the housewives of this country by producing the evidence. I said that I was seriously concerned about what was going to happen in the future. Have I not a right to be concerned? The noble Viscount talks about speeches of alarm. What about the speech the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, made this afternoon? I think the speech of the noble Earl—and I both thank him and congratulate him for it, because it was the speech of an honest man stating the facts—was a most alarming speech. I began to wonder whether I had not myself minimized the danger of food shortages during the next three months. That was what I was talking about, and nothing which has fallen from the lips of any of the Government speakers has given me any sense of security. Remember this, that you as a Government have an immediate past. On the subject of fuel shortages you did at any rate misjudge the situation. Now I wonder whether you are misjudging the situation regarding the food shortages. If you will produce the figures, then we will be able to form our opinion; but you will not produce the figures. Why will you not tell us how many weeks' supply of wheat there are in the country? If it is adequate, then there will be no reason for me to make alarmist speeches, but if it is not adequate, then I do beg you to take all the steps within your power, so that the unfortunate people of this country do not have to suffer during these coming months in hunger what they had to suffer in cold during the winter months. It is for that purpose that I raised this

  561
  question. Now, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, ETC.) [PETITION FOR BILL].
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IM PROVEMENTS) [PETITION FOR BILL].
      NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD SEA DEFENCES [PETITION FOR BILL].
      Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders: Referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
      CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
      Message from the Commons, that they concur in the resolution of this House communicated to them on April 24 last on the subject of Consolidation Bills and Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing Statute as desired by this House.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
      Message from the Commons to acquaint this House, That they have appointed a Committee of six Members to join with a Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Thursday last, to consider the Bill: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the joint Committee do meet in Committee
      562
      Room A on Thursday, June 5 next, at eleven o'clock.

      NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL. [H.L.]
      Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General: Received and ordered to lie on the Table.
      STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
      Report from: That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, ought to be dispensed with: Read and agreed to.
      ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORI SATION PROCEDURE) (SCOT LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
      Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

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

      City of Bristol;

      Borough of Cambridge;

      Borough of Cheltenham;

      Borough of Lydd;

      Borough of Stafford;

      Rural District of Hailsham:

      Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
      House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.