Sitting of 17 March 1948

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

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (QUASHED CONVICTION)
Mr. Speaker: I think I ought to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the Lord Chief Justice:
"Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.C.2.
16th March, 1948
DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
I think it my duty to inform you that the conviction of Mr. David Weitzman, Member of Parliament, for conspiracy was this day quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal and his discharge ordered. I am glad to be able to say that the ground on which the Court quashed the conviction was that there was no evidence at all of his participation in any conspiracy.
Yours sincerely,
GODDARD.
The Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons."

PETITION (MILK REGISTRATION, EDINBURGH)
Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I desire to present a Petition on behalf of 140 of my constituents who were customers of the late Mr. John Anderson, dairyman, 27, Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, and who consequent upon the death of the aforesaid Mr. Anderson have, by order of the Food Executive Officer, Edinburgh, had their registrations for milk transferred to the Edinburgh and Dumfriesshire Dairy Company Ltd., a subsidiary company of a multiple business registered in, and controlled from, London. The Petition concludes with these words,
"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that they may be granted permission to transfer their registrations for milk to independent retailers
2062
whose businesses are domiciled in the City of Edinburgh. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
May I add that I earnestly hope that their Prayer will be duly noted by the Minister of Food as well as by this House.
Petition to lie upon the Table

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Criminal Justice (Administration)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal staff is now functioning in each of the British West African Colonies for the administration of criminal justice in the form of judges, Crown Counsel and Bar and for the defence of poor persons; and if he will consider the consolidation and co-ordination of the several systems for the purpose of securing greater efficiency and equality.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): As the reply to the first part of the Question is necessarily long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the second point, the Courts in the four Territories are already organised on generally similar lines, and no advantage appears likely to result from further consolidation and co-ordination.
    Mr. Hughes: While I thank the Minister for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that there is a strong body of opinion in the four Territories in favour of the union of the four systems under one judicial head, and would he consider whether that would lead to greater efficiency and economy?
    Mr. Creech Jones: If my hon. and learned Friend would let me know a little more clearly what he means by "consolidation and co-ordination" the matter shall certainly be considered.
    Following is the reply to the first part of the Question:
    Criminal justice is administered in each Territory by a Supreme Court and a number of subordinate Courts, the latter

    2063
    having limited jurisdiction and being generally subject to supervision by the Supreme Court.
    The composition of the Supreme Court in each Territory is as follows:
    Nigeria.
    Chief Justice and twelve Puisne Judges.
    Gold Coast.
    Chief Justice and seven Puisne Judges.
    Sierra Leone.
    Chief Justice and two Puisne Judges.
    Gambia.
    Judge of the Supreme Court.
    There are also in each Territory Magistrates' Courts and Native Courts or Tribunals. The latter administer native law and custom and also exercise jurisdiction in certain criminal matters.
    There is a West African Court of Appeal composed of judges from the four Territories. Appeal from this Court lies in appropriate cases to His Majesty's Privy Council.
    The Legal Departments in the four Territories consist of the following:
    Nigeria.

    Attorney-General.

    Solicitor-General.

    6 Senior Crown Counsel.

    8 Crown Counsel.

    Gold Coast.

    Attorney-General.

    Solicitor-General.

    4 Crown Counsel.

    Gambia.
    Attorney-General.
    Sierra Leone.

    Attorney-General.

    Solicitor-General.

    2 Crown Counsel.

    Each of the Territories has its own local Bar and the number of practising advocates is at least adequate for the amount of legal work which arises. In regard to the defence of poor persons, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his Question on this subject on 10th March.

    West Africans (Wages)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action will be taken legislatively or otherwise to secure wage and salary improvements for West Africans working for private business concerns, particularly in view of the great disparity in amounts paid to West Africans and Europeans, respectively.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The general policy in all four Colonies is to encourage the fixing of minimum wages and conditions of service by collective agreements freely negotiated between trade unions which are representative of the workers concerned and employers or employers' organisations. Where no adequate arrangements exist for the negotiation of collective agreements, arrangements have been made for the establishment of statutory machinery whereby minimum rates of wages and conditions of service can be fixed.
    Mr. Sorensen: In regard to the last sentence of my Question, does not my right hon. Friend think that this disparity exists as between West Africans and Europeans, and that though they may be performing the same- job they are paid with striking dissimilarity?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There is an obvious disparity but we are anxious to leave most of these negotiations to the organisations concerned. In any case the Government themselves have given a lead.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that as far as Government employees are concerned, the Government are active, but that the trade unions are weak in West Africa? Could not the Government give a lead in regard to other employers?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am sure the Question and answer will receive publicity in West Africa.

    Ex-Service Men, West Africa
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of ex-Service men in each of the West African Colonies; what was the amount of gratuity given on demobilisation; what steps were taken to provide employment for these men; and how many are still unemployed.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the failure to provide employment was one of the causes of the trouble in the Gold Coast, and does he think that the abduction of the six leaders of the

    2065
    Gold Coast will help in any way to provide the employment which is so desirable there?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I hope the hon. Member will suspend his judgment until he has examined the reply I have given him.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has no information about Russian ex-Service men in Outer Mongolia?
    Following is the answer:
    1. The numbers of men from each territory who served in the armed forces are:

    Gambia

    …

    …

    …

    4,500

    Sierra Leone

    …

    …

    …

    23,000

    Gold Coast

    …

    …

    …

    47,000

    Nigeria

    …

    …

    …

    96,000

    170,500

    2. The amount of the gratuity payable was as follows:

    For each month of service.

    s.

    d.

    W.O.1

    6

    0

    W.O.II

    5

    6

    Staff Sergeant

    5

    0

    Sergeant

    4

    6

    Corporal

    4

    0

    Lance Corporal and Private

    3

    6

    In addition each man received 56 days' release leave on pay, plus overseas service leave on the basis of one day's paid leave for each month of service outside West Africa. He also received £2 clothing allowance and retained most of his service clothing and equipment.
    3. Each Government established its own registration and resettlement machinery, which worked usually through the existing Employment Exchanges or Bureaux. Government departments provided work; special public works schemes were undertaken in some Territories for this purpose, and in addition departmental training schemes for ex-service men were set up. These schemes covered agricultural, trade and technical training. Legislation was enacted to oblige employers to reinstate ex-Service men and to reserve a quota of vacancies for them.
    4. It is difficult to assess the precise numbers of ex-Service men still unemployed in each Territory in the true sense of that term. The current estimated figures, based on registrations of ex-Service men for employment, are:

    Approximately

    Nigeria

    …

    …

    …

    38,000

    Gold Coast

    …

    …

    …

    4,600

    Sierra Leone

    …

    …

    …

    2,000

    Gambia

    …

    …

    …

    500

    It must be taken into account—

    (a) that a number of men have obtained employment without notifying the registration authorities. It is estimated that this would reduce the Nigerian figure to 30,000;

    (b) that others have returned to their prewar occupation of farming, but have retained their names on the live register in the hope of being offered more lucrative employment.

    Rationing
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what system of rationing is in force in the West African Colonies; and how many persons are covered in each Colony.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In Nigeria a rationing scheme for flour, milk and butter is in operation serving about 17,000 consumers. In the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone no official rationing scheme exists, but imported foodstuffs continue to be distributed by the main importers to their regular customers under the general directions of the local Supply Departments. No figures for the numbers of consumers concerned are available; but in all three Territories the system applies only to Europeans and to Africans who are accustomed to a European style of living. Information about the present position in the Gambia is being obtained from the Governor. Petrol is rationed to individual consumers in all four Territories.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that in the Gold Coast the average wage for a native is £4 a month and that for a European is £50 a month? What chance does that give the native to get any of the foods which are available there?

    Welfare and Trade Union Officers, Kenya
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the salaries and allowances of Mr. R. W. Osgathorpe, Welfare Officer to the Kenya and Uganda Railways, and Mr. J. S. Patrick, Trades Union Officer to the Kenya Government; what were their previous party affiliations and colonial experience; and whether applications for these posts were invited in the Colonies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The present salaries of these officers are £1,000 and £743 respectively. In addition they receive cost-of-living allowances of £28 and £172 respectively. Candidates for Government appointments in the Colonies are naturally not required to disclose their political affiliations. Neither officer had previously had Colonial experience but both have a wide knowledge of trade union practice in this country. Applications for the posts were invited through the medium of trades unions in the United Kingdom, as it was desired by the Kenya Government and the Kenya and Uganda Railways Administration, with my full support, to obtain the services of men with exactly this experience.
    Mr. Keeling: Would the Secretary of State answer the second part of the Question which was not what party affiliations they disclosed but what, in fact, their party affiliations were?
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had satisfactory reports of the work these men are doing?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have had the most satisfactory reports in respect of both men.
    Mr. Scollan: Is nobody allowed to take such a job unless he is a member Of the Tory Party?

    Disturbances, Kenya
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances 11 Africans were killed and 20 injured when the police opened fire on members of a religious sect at Malikisi, a police post in Kenya; and what action has subsequently been taken by the Government.
    Mr. Creech Jones: On 11th February a small group of police met a crowd of about 1,000 demonstrators of a religious sect who were proceeding to the police post at Malakisi with the expressed intention of liberating three of their number who had been arrested by the local African chief. The Assistant Superintendent of Police tried to persuade the crowd from their purpose. After he had been struck on the head several times and had fallen to the ground, and the crowd had started to attack the other police, he gave the order to fire with the result
    2068
    described. An inquest was ordered but I have not so far received the findings. I have asked the Governor for further information but I understand that there was no political motive in the incident and that no further disturbances have occurred.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any attempt was made in the first place simply to fire over the heads of the crowd before firing into them?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no information on that point but, as I have said, I am awaiting further information from the Governor.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances a British police inspector and two African constables were recently killed in Kenya; and what subsequent steps have been taken by the Government.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Assistant Inspector Mortimer and two African Police were ambushed and killed by members of a fanatical religious sect in the course of enquiries into an assault on an African with whom members of the sect had quarrelled. A number of arrests were made and subsequently 17 persons were charged with murder and committed for trial.

    Electricity Resources (Westlake Report)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons the Government of Kenya and Tanganyika have decided not to accept the main recommendations of the Westlake Report that electricity resources in East Africa should be nationalised; and what are the conditions existing in Kenya and Tanganyika which prevent these Governments from accepting the recommendation as the Government of Uganda has already done.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Governments of Kenya and Tanganyika decided not to accept the Westlake recommendations at present, chiefly because their technical and other resources are fully employed just now and already considerable development plans, taxing the administrations, are in progress. The size of the electricity undertaking in each territory is much greater than in Uganda and the cost of acquiring it and expanding it would also be greater. The decision does

    2069
    not in any way preclude the two Governments from taking steps to bring the electricity supply industry under public control at a more convenient time in the future.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say what the attitude of his office is to the application, of the Government of Kenya to raise additional capital? Does not that look as if there is no intention to proceed with nationalisation in the near future?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That raises quite a different question.

    Association of West African Merchants
    Mr. Parkinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what official recognition is given to the Association of West African Merchants; and what proportion of the trade with West Africa is done through this body.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Association of West African Merchants is a trade association and not a trading body. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise. On the first part, official recognition has been given to the Association to no greater extent than to any other lawful association of business or professional interests. I take the opportunity of saying that the Governor of the Gold Coast has recently suggested that the Gold Coast branch of the Association, which was formed during the late war on the suggestion of Government to assist in the administration of war-time economic controls, is no longer required and should be disbanded. The firms concerned are in agreement and will, I understand, take the necessary action.

  MALAYA

    Chinese Schools
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that all Chinese schools in Kelantan and Trengannu, Malaya, are being communistically administered; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. Creech Jones: These schools are subject to Government inspection, and recent visits have disclosed no indication of any political activity.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: If right hon. Gentleman evidence my Question, will he look into it further?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

    Teachers (Pay and Status)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in connection with the report of the Trusted Salaries Commission the Government of Malaya will apply the principle of parity of pay and status as between teachers of equal qualifications whether recruited locally or in Great Britain.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. The principle of parity of basis pay and status between officers of equal qualification irrespective of race or domicile will be applied throughout the Malayan public service. Expatriation pay in addition to basic pay will be proposed in appropriate cases on the lines of the Trusted Report and in accordance with the principles of the White Paper, Colonial No. 197.
    Mr. Skinnard: Does that mean that the graduates of British universities who are normally domiciled in Malaya will be recruited here, where it is possible, rather than wait until they return to Malaya to get into the service?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is rather a different Question from the one which is on the Order Paper, and I would require notice of it.

  GOLD COAST

    Wearing Apparel (Prices)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the prices in the Gold Coast in 1939, 1945 and for the latest available date, of printed cotton goods, linen, khaki drill and boots and shoes.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Governor to supply this information and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have received his reply.
    Mr. Gallacher: As well as communicating that information, will the Minister do whatever is possible to keep prices there down to the minimum, as the wages of the native workers are very low?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is always part of our active policy.

    Industrial Development
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what industries have been established in the Gold Coast during the past five years; what mainly is their nature; approximately how many are employed therein, including ex-Service men; and what is the prospective industrial development for the next three years.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot give precise details, and am obtaining them. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have received them.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the fact that a large number of ex-Service men and others who received training during the war period expected to find civilian jobs, but cannot find them? In view of that fact, can he say what steps are being taken to increase the number of industries in order to absorb their labour?
    Mr. Creech Jones: A most vigorous policy has been pursued by the Gold Coast to increase the economic facilities for such ex-Service men.
    Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend telling the House that his Department does not know what industries have been introduced into the Gold Coast under his administration?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would ask my hon. Friend if he would kindly read the Question which was addressed to me. It embraced a wide range of information which was not immediately at the disposal of the Colonial Office without communicating with the Governor.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the increased cost of living in Accra, Gold Coast, today compared with 1945 and 1939; to what extent wages have risen proportionately; and what is the approximate number of ex-Service men and others unemployed in Accra.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sorensen: Have wages risen proportionately to the increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Wages always drag behind increases in the cost of living.
    Following is the reply:
    Figures are not available specifically for Accra. In the Gold Coast generally, the cost of living index is as follows:

    August, 1939

    …

    100

    November, 1945

    …

    186

    November, 1947

    …

    211

    Wage rates for unestablished and daily paid subordinate Government staffs were revised on the recommendations of a commission last year with retrospective effect to 1st January, 1946, and are now estimated to be, in Accra, 85 per cent. above the 1939 level. Increases have also been made in the wages of workers outside Government employment, but no detailed figures are available.
    In February, 1948, there were 4,620 unemployed ex-Service men on the register of the Labour and re-settlement advice centres in the Gold Coast as a whole. Of these, a number have refused employment offered outside the town in which they applied.

  WEST INDIES

    American Air Bases
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that no racially discriminatory practices have been, or will be, introduced as a result of the use by American aircraft of American air bases or other airfields in British territory in Bermuda, Antigua, St. Lucia, British Guiana, Trinidad and Jamaica.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No Colonial Government has reported to me of the introduction of any such practices as a result of the use by American aircraft of airfields in the Colonies mentioned. I am confident that no such practices will be introduced in the future so far as it lies within the power of the Colonial Governments concerned to prevent this.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the Governments concerned have reported it to my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I had sent a circular to the Governors asking them to report to me all cases of racial discrimination.

    Tobago
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are being made for the introduction of a satisfactory medical and dental service in Tobago.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Plans have been under discussion in the Colony for some time and I am asking the Governor for the latest information on the plans now in view. I will write to my hon. Friend on receipt of his reply.
    Mr. Hynd: As it is fairly clear that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory, will the Minister, in addition to asking for information, press for an improvement to be made?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly, Sir, I am most anxious about it.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that cocoa and garden contract lands in the Windward district of Tobago, formerly held by peasants, have been taken over by the Roxburgh Estate; and what steps are being taken to make available alternative lands for these people.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that I have no information on the subject and am asking the Governor for a report. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I receive his reply.

  CYPRUS

    Volunteer Mineworkers
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Greek and Turkish miners of the Paphos district of Cyprus have offered their services for work in the British coal mines; and what action he has taken on their offers.
    Mr. Creech Jones: An offer of services has been received, through the Governor of Cyprus, from 20 Cypriots, who include both Greek and Turkish-speaking miners. I much appreciate the spirit in which this offer was made. I have been in consultation with the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Labour about it and hope that a reply will be sent very shortly.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men in Cyprus offered their services six months
    2074
    ago and did not get a reply, and that their main grouse is why they did not get an answer?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is not my information. There are practical difficulties in any case and I am trying to move them out of the way.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these Greek and Turkish miners were brought to Scotland they would be so shocked at the housing conditions there that they would want to go back on the next boat?

    Technical Education
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been prepared for the development of technical education in Cyprus.
    Mr. Creech Jones: An apprentices training centre has been established in Cyprus, in accordance with the recommendations of the 10-year development programme, at which instruction is at present given to about 33 apprentices. It is proposed to enlarge this centre from year to year until, in 1950, it should be able to cater for about 100. The objective is to provide a full five-year course in the theory and practice of engineering and allied trades. There are also plans to establish evening classes on technical subjects in connection with the centre, and a preparatory technical school for boys between school-leaving age and the age of acceptance at the centre.
    Mr. Skinnard: While welcoming this evidence of the intention of the Government to provide technical education, may I ask whether the Minister will consider a substantial extension of the provision, in view of the number of Cypriot technicians who are lost to the island because they take up appointments in Greece and Turkey where they have gone to be trained?
    Mr. Creech Jones: We have that point in mind in the general educational plan, but at the moment this is as far as we can go.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Could the Minister give us the age of the people to whom this technical aid is given?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should require notice of that question.

  SARAWAK (DISTRICT COURT CASE, CONVICTIONS)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the conviction of two Land Dayaks in the District Court, Kuching, Sarawak, for failing to comply with an order to assist in transporting the district officer's baggage from Kampong Segu to Kampong Hunggu during that officer's visit to those Kampongs; and how much they were fined.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am making inquiries from the Governor and will communicate with the hon. Member when I have received the reply.
  Mr. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no compulsory service or slave labour or anything like that going on in Sarawak at the moment?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware of any compulsory labour of the kind described. There are, of course, some provisos in the Forced Labour Convention. However, I am looking into the whole matter and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the right hon. Gentleman provides his report, could he also add whether or not these men are supporters of the Brooke family in Sarawak?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. James Hudson: Will my right hon. Friend make available to the House generally the information which he has promised to pass on to the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly, Sir.

  PALESTINE

    Arab Incursions
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been made by the Palestine Government to Arab States since 29th November, 1947, in respect to hostile Arab incursions into Palestine.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Representations on this subject are made by His Majesty's representatives in the States concerned.
    2076
    Since the date in question, protests have been delivered to the Governments of Syria and Transjordan urging them to take all possible steps to prevent incursions by Arab bands from their territories into Palestine. Representations have also been made to the Government of the Lebanon.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of the importance of this matter, can my right hon. Friend say why these protests and representations have not been placed on public record so that the whole world could know that the attitude of the British Government towards this question is one of genuine impartiality?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of illegal groups dealt with in the same period?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. John Lewis: To whom did His Majesty's Government make representations?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it a fact that since those representations started in November last the Arab incursions have increased?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The representations have been made when the incursions have taken place.
    Mr. Janner: Has my right hon. Friend impressed upon the States the sincerity of the Government in that regard, particularly in view of the fact that some 700 Arabs crossed over a bridge which was supposed to be guarded by soldiers of the Arab Legion and by some of our own soldiers, and although the Government were warned about two days before it happened that these people were coming?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no evidence in support of that allegation.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give a full report

    2077
    of the activities of Fawzi Kawukji in Palestine; and of the steps taken by the Palestine administration to deal with military incursion into Palestine.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now aware that Fawzi el Kawukji has entered Palestine with a band of armed Arabs and has declared that he proposes to establish himself there; and what steps have been taken to deal with this situation.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The information available to me about the activities of Fawzi Kawukji in Palestine is as follows: On the night of 5th–6th March, he entered Palestine with a few companions, mainly members of his personal staff. He was reported to be on a visit to the Arab bands dispersed in certain parts of the country. On 9th March it was rumoured that he intended to make a personal appearance at Jenin but this project was apparently abandoned in view of action by the British authorities to forestall it. He is reported to have left Palestine on the night of 14th March.
    Throughout his stay his exact whereabouts were unknown, as he established no headquarters and remained in the wild and broken hill country of Samaria, enjoying the immunity afforded both by the nature of the country and by the attitude of the local population. As has already been stated, the security forces in Palestine take all possible steps to prevent the incursion of armed Arabs into Palestine but owing to the nature of the frontier and the country in which these groups take refuge it is not always possible to control their movements.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that American, Russian and French representatives upon the Security Council have expressed the view that these hostile incursions constitute acts of breach of international peace? Can my right hon. Friend say what is the view of the Government on this matter?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is an entirely different matter.
    Mr. Janner: Is it true that these men crossed over the Allenby Bridge, which is supposed to be protected the whole time? In view of the very serious attitude that was taken up by the Government
    2078
    against this man before, why is not something more active done to prevent him from carrying on?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There is no reason for anyone to have suspicion in regard to the activities of the Palestine Government in preventing incursions and visits of this kind. Everything is done that is within the power of the Palestine Administration and military authorities to prevent incursions of Arab bands and to prevent from crossing the frontiers individuals who are intent upon stirring up more trouble for the authorities in Palestine.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is is not a fact that our Forces have suffered loss, both in dead and wounded in protecting Jewish life and property?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, and they have rendered excellent service in defending Jewish settlements from Arab bands.
    Mr. Cocks: Is this gentleman under the impression that his visit is welcomed by the Government? If so, can they not tell him that he is wrong and that he had better not come again?

    Sentenced Policemen
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the C.-in-C. Palestine has confirmed the sentence by a military court of four years' imprisonment on three young British policemen for attempting to sell a rifle to an Arab
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that these men will not be left in Palestine after we withdraw?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that some assurance can be given with regard to all British subjects, whoever they may be, serving sentences in Palestine at the present time?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I hope I may be able to say something about this in the Debate on Friday.

    MAURITIUS (SCHOOLS)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many schools in Mauritius are provided by the Government and outside organisations, respectively; what grants-in-aid are given to

    2079
    non-Government schools; and how the salaries of teachers compare as between the two types of school.
    Mr. Creech Jones: There are 55 Government primary, 74 aided primary, 79 non-aided primary, 2 Government secondary, 6 aided secondary and 46 non-aided secondary schools in Mauritius. The Government grant-in-aid to aided schools amounts to £70,150 in the financial year 1947–48. I am circulating a statement giving the information regarding the schools referred to.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is there any reason to suppose that there is justification for the statement made by the proprietors of non-Government schools that they may have to close down their schools because they cannot provide adequate staff?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is a common complaint in almost all of our educational arrangements throughout the whole of the Colonies.
    Following is the statement:
    Salary scales for teachers in Government and aided primary schools are identical, on scales from £45 to £225 per annum. Salaries of education officers in Government secondary schools are on scales from £225–£675 per annum. Salaries in aided secondary schools are not fixed in accordance with any scale but vary from £90 to £318 per annum for male teachers according to qualifications. Most of the secondary teaching in the aided convent schools for girls is in the hands of trained sisters, although they employ some untrained lay teachers on salaries of £36 to £80 per annum in preparatory departments.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Dockyards (Civilian Production)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give a comprehensive and detailed list of articles for civilian use which are now being produced at Royal Dockyards in Great Britain; how and to what extent these articles are respectively being exported and made available for the general public; and in what proportions they are distributed in England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other hand.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter J. Edwards): I will, with my hon. and learned Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of typical items being manufactured in the Royal Dockyards for civilian use. These engineering products are usually components of capital goods. They are not sold to the public direct but made to the order of public bodies, or of industry for assembly into complete equipments, the ultimate use or distribution of which is not generally known to the Admiralty.
    Mr. Hughes: Can my hon. Friend say something about the distribution of the goods as mentioned in the latter part of the Question; and can he say in particular what proportion of the goods came from Scotland?
    Mr. Edwards: As I have explained, these goods are supplied to persons who apply to us for the purpose of manufacturing them. The civilian side is very small indeed, and I certainly could not say what is distributed as far as Scotland or England or Wales is concerned.
    Major Bruce: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the capabilities of the Royal Dockyards in this respect are given wide publicity in those localities which may be interested?
    Mr. Edwards: It is not a question of giving wide publicity. I want to point out that the primary function of the Royal Dockyards is to see that we have an efficient Fleet and, after that has been done, we are quite prepared to use any stocks we have in the national interest.
    Commander Noble: Could the hon. Gentleman say what happens in the case of a contract like this if some urgent work is required to be done on the Fleet?
    Mr. Edwards: It has not affected us in that way yet.
    Following is the list:
    Brackets, guttering, water tanks, steel base stone moulds and other components for housing; chimney brackets and similar fittings for G.P.O.; repairs to railway wagons; fabricated steel structures for Ministry of Supply; coal loading hoppers, cast iron flywheels, mixing drums; cylinder blocks, pumps; relief valves; bed-plates for printing machines; copper and steel pipes; manufacture of triple roll paint mills, cranes; all types of castings

    2081
    including steel, miscellaneous items of machinery, fabrication, galvanising, patternmaking and forgings required for engineering, shipbuilding and general purposes.

    Malayan Campaign (War Diary)
    Captain Marsdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to publish Admiral Sir Geoffrey Layton's contemporary war diary as submitted to the Admiralty on the Malayan campaign; or whether this diary will be made available to naval correspondents and historians.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): No, Sir.
    Captain Marsden: May I ask the Financial Secretary, in view of the fact that this experience shows that rough notes taken as events are actually happening are far more accurate than despatches written afterwards, why this diary cannot be available for students and writers of naval history?
    Mr. Dugdale: The report was not written with a view to publication, and it is not considered that it would be suitable, in view of the fact that at that time Admiral Layton was not able to consult with the other two Commanders, both of whom were in prison and who have since written their Report in quite different circumstances.
    Captain Marsden: The Financial Secretary obviously did not hear or pay any attention to what I have just said. This is a record of events. May I ask, has Admiral Layton been consulted, or does he agree to his diary being published?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, he has.
    Sir R. Ross: Will Admiral Layton be precluded from giving his own version of events during this important period of the war if he so wishes?
    Mr. Dugdale: Admiral Layton is now a private individual and doubtless, if he wished to do so, he would ask permission, and we would have to see what happened when he did so.

    Target Vessels (Salvage)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if,
    2082
    In view of the shortage of scrap iron and steel for industrial purposes, he will issue orders prohibiting exercises likely to result in the sinking of warships scheduled for breaking up purposes.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The areas in which the trials are carried out are carefully selected to ensure that if the target sinks it can be readily salvaged. In fact, it is important to salvage the target in order to examine the result of the trials as well as for the purpose of providing scrap. The use of ships for ship target trials will, in practice, cause very little delay in their eventual scrapping.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the "Rodney," in which there are 39,000 tons of steel badly needed for scrap for industrial purposes, will not be sunk during these operations in the Forth?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot go into which particular ship will be sunk and which will not, but the ships will be sunk in shallow water if they do sink, and they can easily be got up from there to be used as scrap.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that if this ship is sunk, it will be difficult to retrieve 39,00o tons, and will he give the point consideration?

    Yachtsmen (Proficiency Certificates)
    Captain Marsdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with a view to encouraging navigational knowledge amongst yachtsmen, he will grant proficiency certificates on the same lines as Coastal, Yacht Masters' certificates were previously issued by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Dugdale: The Yacht Master (Coastal) Certificate was instituted in 1938 to determine the suitability of yachtsmen for commissioned rank in the Royal Navy on mobilisation. In view of the large number of officers who had wartime service in the Navy such a test is no longer necessary; neither did the number of applications in 1946 justify its retention. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would be prepared to reinstitute it if the need arose.

    R.N.R. (Commissions)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to renew the granting of Commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve to suitable qualified professional Merchant Marine Officers.
    Mr. Dugdale: The future size, organisation and functions of the Royal Naval Reserve are still under consideration in conjunction with other interested Departments. Pending decisions, there is no enrolment of Merchant Navy officers but the names of volunteers are being noted so that action can be taken as soon as this is possible.
    Mr. Boothby: Arising out of that, is it not very important to build up the Royal Naval Reserve without delay, and may I ask when the Admiralty will reach a decision on this point?
    Mr. Dugdale: I quite agree, and my noble Friend entirely agrees as to the importance of setting up the Royal Naval Reserve as soon as possible, but consultations are necessary between a number of Departments. These consultations are taking place, and I hope they will be finished as rapidly as possible.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the invaluable service given by this corps of very experienced professional seamen, whose skill is only equalled by their gallantry; and is he aware that this postponement is rather discouraging to those officers in the Merchant Service who wish to be associated with the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to have an opportunity of paying a tribute to this Corps, but I do not think it should be any cause for discouragement. There is plenty of time to reform and it will be reformed, I hope, within a reasonably short time.

    Special Service Engagement (Transfers)
    Major Bruceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement concerning the results of the scheme announced in August last for the transfer to a special service engagement of men who signed on for continuous service in the early stages of the war because recruiting on a hostilities only engagement
    2084
    was not open in the branch of their choice in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The House will be interested to learn of the very satisfactory result of this scheme. Out of 667 applications received, 569 have been assessed as eligible. Transfer from Continuous Service to Special Service engagement has already been authorised in 526 of the eligible cases and instructions are in course of issue for the transfer of the remaining 43 applicants. The scheme is now closed, except for the consideration of borderline cases.

  POST OFFICE

    Member's Correspondence (Mistaken Delivery)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Postmaster-General why correspondence addressed to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone from his office was delivered to the "Daily Worker" before ultimately reaching the hon. Member for St. Marylebone.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I can only repeat my apologies, already tendered to the hon. Member in writing, for this inexplicable happening.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the importance of his Department in so far as communications are concerned, it is of the utmost importance that proper security measures are taken; and in view of the recent statement by the Prime Minister in connection with Communism and security, what is he proposing to do about it so that instances of this kind will not occur again?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask if these letters were of a compromising nature?
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say whether this letter was addressed to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) at the offices of the "Daily Worker"?
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Postmaster-General, if the mail of the "Daily Worker" had gone to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), would it ever have found its way back to the "Daily Worker"?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Postmaster-General return tit for tat by

    2085
    placing the correspondence and instructions issued to the "Daily Worker" in the Library of the House of Commons?

    Advisory Council (Workers' Representation)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Postmaster-General if, in making appointments to the Post Office Advisory Council, he will ensure that representatives of the workers' organisations within the Post Office will be added to the Council in accordance with the principle now observed in setting up the Advisory Council for the nationalised civil aviation corporations.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The Post Office Advisory Council is a consumers' council and it includes several members of wide experience of workers' organisations in industry generally; but I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Cooper: Whilst appreciating the Minister's reply, may I ask if he realises that the workers in our nationalised undertakings, whilst the Socialist Government are in power, look to have those industries run in a more democratic way than has been the case in the past; and will he also give consideration to using his powers to give directives to the Governor of the B.B.C. with a view to the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C. also following the same proposals as those I have made in connection with the Post Office?
    Mr. Paling: That is another matter.

    Telegrams (Delivery)
    Commander Nobleasked the Postmaster General before what time must a telegram be handed in to ensure delivery as a telegram that day.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The hours of telegraph business vary considerably between the large town office and the small country office. Wherever a telegram is handed in, if there is clearly a risk—after about 6 p.m.—that it may arrive too late at the distant office for delivery the same day, it is the practice to inform the sender that delivery may not be possible that day unless a telephonic address is used. Special efforts, however, are made to deliver telegrams of obvious urgency the same day, irrespective of the time of handing in.
    Commander Noble: Will the Minister make certain that officials can understand the position, because I have had cases of people who have paid for a telegram which has been delivered with the first post next morning?
    Mr. Paling: Certainly.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the hon. Member explain why this Department, the Post Office, which was the only efficiently nationalised industry, has deteriorated so much under a Socialist Government?
    Mr. Paling: I do not agree that it has.

    B.B.C. SIAMESE SECTION (EDITOR)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the circumstances in which, after advertising for a British subject, the B.B.C. have finally appointed a Siamese as Editor of the Siamese section of the B.B.C. Far Eastern Broadcasting Service.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I understand that the B.B.C. were not satisfied with the qualifications of any British applicant for this post.
    Mr. Teeing: Perhaps this is another question, but can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any control is kept over this Siamese broadcaster, and what he broadcasts?
    Mr. Paling: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Farm Workers' Rations
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the following daily rations which are issued to temporary workers on farms for such operation as threshing, four-fifths oz. of sugar, quarter oz. tea, three quarters oz. margarine, two-fifths oz. cheese, three-quarters oz. preserves, half a point and two bread units, are sufficient; and whether he is aware that no additional meat ration is given.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Yes, Sir. These allowances are granted in addition to the normal domestic rations at times of seasonal activity and are sufficient for the purpose.
    Mr. Spence: Is the hon. Lady aware that these workers get the ordinary civilian ration; has she looked at two-fifths of an oz. of cheese; and does she think it is sufficient food on which to do a day's threshing?
    Dr. Summerskill: Not only have I looked at it, but we have consulted the N.F.U. and the T.U.C.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the hon. Lady make sure that there is sufficient meat for Cornish pasties, which mean so much to those engaged on threshing and similar work in the Far West?
    Mr. Nicholson: When the hon. Lady said that those organisations approved of these allowances, does that mean that they did not want more?
    Dr. Summerskill: They were consulted on these matters.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the additional farm workers' ration in respect of operations, such as ploughing, which consists of four-fifths oz. tea per man per week and one oz. sugar per man per week, is sufficient.
    Dr. Summerskill: The extra allowance of tea and sugar is given to provide hot drinks at work and is sufficient for that purpose. Farm workers may also, of course, get the special cheese allowance and the bread that goes with it.
    Mr. Spence: Will these allowances be increased at the earliest opportunity, in view of the arduous work, especially during the winter months?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am certainly prepared to consult the organisation I have mentioned.

    Food Office, Colwyn Bay (Poster)
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the map depicting Communist countries in red now being exhibited on the walls of the food office at Colwyn Bay; on whose authority it is so exhibited; and what is its purpose.
    Dr. Summerskill: The map displayed in the Colwyn Bay Food Office was one of the posters issued by the Bureau of Current Affairs in 1947. It has now been removed.

    Milk Distribution
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food why the final Report of the Committee on Milk Distribution has not yet been published.
    Dr. Summerskill: The usual procedure is being following and I can assure the hon. Member there will be no unnecessary delay.
    Sir J. Mellor: Surely the hon. Lady can give some indication when the printing will be completed, as we have been promised publication for some weeks?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member put the same Question down about a month ago and I said it would take some weeks then. I cannot give any definite promise.

    Social Functions (Meals, Amended Order)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Minister of Food why organisations representing the hotels and restaurants industry in this country were not, informed by his Department of the modification of the Order relating to social and business gatherings of more than 100; whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused because the new arrangements were brought into force before details of the modified Order were made available to hotels and restaurants; and whether he will undertake that in future before making changes which materially affect the staffing and supplies and long term contracts of hotels and restaurants, he will provide the industry with the necessary information in good time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that despite the modification on 10th March of the Order relating to social and business gatherings of more than 100 and the fact that the new arrangements were to take effect at once, managers of hotels and restaurants who subsequently telephoned to his Department asking for information on the subject were informed that no detailed information was available; and whether he can arrange for co-ordination in such matters in the future.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir. P. Macdonald) on 15th March.
    Sir T. Moore: Was it not somewhat discourteous to ignore the very people most intimately connected with this change in Government policy?
    Dr. Summerskill: I should remind the hon. and gallant Member that caterers were informed of this on the day the Order came into force. It would be quite wrong to give them information before the Minister made a statement in the House.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the hon. Lady realise that when Ministers are about to make Orders such as this they very often take care to see that the particular industry is warned beforehand?
    Dr. Summerskill: This House is quite rightly jealous of its privileges and if in all cases that were done, hon. Members would be very critical of Ministers.

    Imported Carrots
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food what has been the average price paid by his Department for carrots imported from Denmark during 1948.
    Dr. Summerskill: £13 12s. 10d. per ton f.o.b. Danish port, bags included.

    Fish and Chips
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that in the selling of chips it is frequently made a condition of sale that fish is also purchased; and, in view of the continued shortage of fats, will he take steps to prevent such conditions.
    Dr. Summerskill: As has been said more than once in answer to similar Questions, fish and chips is so well known as a composite dish that my right hon. Friend does not think he would be justified in seeking to compel fish-friers to supply them separately.
    Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Lady aware that prices are now about three times more than before the war, that the quantity is much less, and the quality very much inferior, which often accentuates these difficulties? Will she reconsider the matter?
    Dr. Summerskill: I should remind my hon. Friend that potatoes for fish friers have been cut by 40 per cent. and it would be inequitable if the small man had to supply a greater amount.

    Turnips and Swedes
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food how many tons of turnips and swedes respectively he has bought in the last six months at about £7 a ton; how many has he sold at about £3 a ton; who is responsible for these transactions; what is the cost to the taxpayer; and how many tons he now has in stock.
    Dr. Summerskill: I shall be happy to give this information when all transactions have been concluded, but not while they are in progress.
    Sir W. Smithers: Has the hon. Lady seen the "Daily Telegraph" this morning? Can she confirm the statement that, owing to this panic buying, the taxpayer has been mulcted by over half a million pounds, and that purchases were made against the advice of the experts? What action does she propose to take against those responsible?
    Dr. Summerskill: None, Sir.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    A.T.C. (Strength)
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Secretary of State for Air the present strength of the A.T.C.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): 42,000.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware of the continued decline in the numbers in this Force? Is it not due to the fact that so few cadets are now able to get into the air crews? Is he satisfied that the number taking proficiency tests has increased, or has it decreased?
    Mr. de Freitas: There has been a decrease, but latest figures show an increase again. On the point with regard to air crews, the first 100 places for National Service entrants are reserved for ex-A.T.C. cadets. The number of proficient cadets and first class cadets is 15,000, and the number taking their proficiency certificates is about three times what it was last year, and the quality has gone up.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department are doing everything they can to provide facilities and equipment for the A.T.C.?
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir.

    Harvest Work
    Mr. Shephardasked the Secretary of State for Air what help is to be given by men serving in the R.A.F. to assist agriculture during the 1948 harvest.
    Mr. de Freitas: Former farm workers and market gardeners who are serving in the United Kingdom or Germany will be allowed special leave. In addition to these skilled workers, as many airmen as we can spare will be made available to farmers, and our regional officers will work closely with the county agricultural committees to see that the best use is made of the Service transport and labour. Members of the R.A.F. will also be encouraged to help outside their working hours.
    Mr. Shephard: If a farmer is requiring them, has he to apply through the agricultural executive committee, or direct to the commanding officer of the station?
    Mr. de Freitas: I advise him to go to the county executive committee.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Air Accidents Committee (Inquiry)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when the Air Accidents Committee completed its inquiry into the methods of investigating accidents; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, following the report of the Air Accidents Investigation Committee any changes have been made in the procedure of inquiry into air accidents.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The Committee on Accident Investigation Procedure is a sub-Committee of the National Civil Aviation Consultative Council. That Council at its last meeting took no decisions on the Report, which is now receiving departmental consideration. My noble Friend will, of course, give careful attention to the views of the Council, which is to consider the Report further at its next meeting.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does that mean that the Parliamentary Secretary
    2092
    will undertake that his noble Friend, whatever he thinks about it, will make the Report public?
    Mr. Lindgren: This is the Report of a sub-committee, and it would be wrong to give any undertaking without consultation and agreement with the main Committee, to which the sub-committee are responsible.
    Mr. Beswick: Would it not be much more satisfactory to publish this Report in proper form than to leave it to a report in "The Times" newspaper? Now that that report has been published in that paper is he going to implement at least one of the two proposals?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, I cannot agree that the Report has been published. An intelligent anticipation of a section or one part of it may have been published. This is a report of a sub-committee to a consultative council. The decision in regard to these matters is taken by the Minister and he must take full responsibility.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a great deal of disquiet on this matter, particularly in civil aviation circles? Is it not right and proper to expect that his noble Friend would have the Report published?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Cannot the Minister instruct the sub-committee to publish the Report if he is responsible?
    Mr. Lindgren: If a group of persons is asked into consultation for advice, it is hardly etiquette to instruct them.
    Mr. Beswick: Were the Members on the committee told that they were sitting on a committee which would report to the Minister or that they were simply a subcommittee which would produce a report which would not be published?
    Mr. Lindgren: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: is it not the usual practice when a Minister makes an announcement that a committee will be set up that the finding of that committee should be made public.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend impress on his noble Friend that it is the feeling of this House that when the Committee has considered this Report it should be made available to hon. Members?
    Mr. Lindgren: I will certainly call my noble Friend's attention to these questions.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the high-handedness of the Minister of Civil Aviation, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Accident, Heathrow
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what form of inquiry has he ordered in respect of the accident to the Sabena aircraft at Heathrow.
    Mr. Lindgren: A preliminary investigation into the cause of this accident is being made by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. Meanwhile, my noble Friend is not in a position to decide whether a court investigation will be necessary.
    Mr. Beswick: In view of the difficulties that have been caused by the publication of recent reports, would my hon. Friend say whether the inquiry into this particular accident will be along the lines suggested by the Air Accidents Investigation Committee?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. It will be in accordance with the present procedure.

  GERMANY

    Weserhutte Works
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Weserhutte factory at Bad Salzuflen has been declared a Category 1 plant, in view of the fact that it is largely occupied in making excavators, road-making and other machinery.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I think my hon. Friend refers to the Weserhutte Works at Bad Oeynhaüsen. This factory has been declared a Category 1 plant because even before 1939 it made mountings for 37 millimetre guns and was expanded during the war to produce parts for guns of other calibres and for armoured fighting vehicles. Our reparations plan provides for the retention of more capacity
    2094
    for the manufacture of excavators and similar machinery than it would be possible to use for some considerable time because of the shortage of fuel and materials.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that any engineering works of this kind can make 37 millimetre mountings? I have done it myself. Is he further aware that this factory was engaged in manufacturing mining machinery, which has been stopped, and the miners are going without? Will my hon. Friend look into that?
    Mr. Mayhew: I will look into it, but the facts are as I have stated.

    Graving Dock, Hamburg
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the graving dock in Messrs. Blohm & Voss's shipyard at Hamburg is to be demolished; and whether he is aware of the urgent necessity of this dock for the repair of oceangoing vessels of all nationalities.
    Mr. Mayhew: No decision has been made regarding the graving dock at Blohm and Voss. Adequate facilities for the repair of ocean-going vessels will be retained in Germany.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when this matter comes up for consideration, that this is probably the most beautiful graving dock in the world, and that it would be an utter shame if it were destroyed at the present time?
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, but it also helped to build the "Bismarck."
    Mr. Stokes: But there is not the slightest chance of another "Bismarck" being built.

  GREECE (GUERRILLA FORCES, OUTSIDE AID)
  Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a further statement concerning outside aid to the rebel forces in Greece contrary to the terms of the Peace Treaty.
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. The reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 16th February has been seriously misrepresented by commentators in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. I am grateful for this opportunity

  2095
  of stating clearly and unequivocally that both the majority report of the Balkans Inquiry Commission and the interim reports of the Special Balkans Committee now in Salonica, have established that assistance is being afforded by Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria to the guerrilla forces in Greece. Moreover, the committees for Aid to Greece set up in Hungary and Roumania cannot be acting without the active approval of their Governments.
  Major Beamish: Is it a cause of surprise to the Minister that similar distortions of his statement were made by "Daily Worker"? Does he think that they are likely to publish a correction?
  Mr. Mayhew: It was no surprise to see these distortions, nor will it be a surprise if my further statement is also distorted.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend intimating what Secretary of State Marshall said yesterday, that the decision of the United Nations is being continuously flouted by these Soviet satellites, and that unless we are to go back to the old business of appeasement of totalitarianism effective action must be taken now?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that this problem would quickly be solved if all the member nations co-operated with the United Nations in its solution. Certainly the record of the co-operation of certain member States with the United Nations Commission bears out the interpretation suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Blackburn: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Statutory Rules and Orders were in force on 17th March, 1947; and how many Statutory Instruments and Statutory Rules and Orders are in force at the present date.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available. I am, however, glad to be able to inform the House that
  2096
  the publication of the Triennial Index of Statutory Rules and Orders in force, which was suspended during the war, has now been resumed. The latest edition of this index, which was published by the Stationery Office last week, gives the Statutory Rules and Orders which were made under powers granted by Parliament up to 31st December, 1946, and which were in force on 31st December, 1947.
  Mr. Renton: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the number of Orders now in force. Is he aware that attention to this overwhelming mass of Orders is dissipating the energy of the nation and curbing our enterprise? Will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps the Government are taking to keep them in check?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the ordinary subject can be expected to observe provisions which the Government cannot even number?
  Mr. Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously claim that individual Departments do not know how many Orders they have in force?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That was not the Question I was asked. I was asked the total numbers that were both published and in force at a given date, and it would mean a great deal of labour which, at the moment, it is felt it would be undesirable to devote to keeping this day to day record.
  Mr. Scollan: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House whether these things are peculiar to St. Patrick's Day?

  NEWFOUNDLAND (CONSTITUTION)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement regarding the conferences about the future constitution of Newfoundland and in this connection what proposals have been put forward by Canada regarding suggestions that Newfoundland and Labrador should enter the Canadian Federation.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): In reply to the first part of the

  2097
  Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) on 15th March. In reply to the second part of the Question, the terms of the offer made by the Canadian Government for the entry of Newfoundland into a confederation with Canada have already been placed in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Reid: Can my hon. Friend tell us when the people of Newfoundland will make up their minds to resume self-government either as part of Canada or as a Dominion?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: I cannot state the date. They have to decide that question now. The terms of the referendum have been fixed and the date for holding the referendum will now be fixed. I do not know exactly when it will be, but it will be in the near future.

  PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
  Sir J. Mellorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that, since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill, he has not changed the principles upon which he previously advised, or refrained from ad vising, the exercise by the Crown of the prerogative of mercy; and that he does not automatically advise reprieve from capital sentences.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Yes, Sir. Each case is considered on its merits and there has been no change in policy or practice.

  SHIPPING PASSAGES (FORM S.68)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that intending passengers by Fyffe's line have to state on Form S.68 among the particulars required by his Department, whether their complexions are white or coloured; and if he will take immediate action to put an end to a practice which is offensive to many millions of British subjects.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): Form S.68 is not an official
  2098
  one and the information referred to is not required by any Government Department. I understand from the company that the information is required by them for the convenience of passengers in arranging accommodation, and that all amenities are available to every passenger without distinction. I understand that the company have received no complaints in connection with this question on Form S.68.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that as recently as last week the company were still misrepresenting this requirement as being in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Trade and possibly his Department as well? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, require them to desist from this misrepresentation and from this obnoxious practice?
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not know that I would call it misrepresentation. I have a copy of the form here and it is certainly headed "Particulars required by the Board of Trade and His Majesty's Customs." That might refer to some or the whole of the questions. The company state that it refers to some of the questions.
  Mr. Driberg: Does that not quite clearly imply that all the questions underneath have a kind of official implication?
  Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought so, but I am not suggesting that it was intended as deliberate misrepresentation.
  Mr. Driberg: Then tell them to stop it.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerably less racial discrimination in the British Commonwealth and Empire than in the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that, so far as I know—though it is nothing to do with me—there is no racial discrimination at all in the Soviet Union, but that there is far too much of it in the British Empire and in the dollar empire of the United States?
  Mr. Callaghan: The only thing that I am concerned to say on this question is that the company state that there is no racial discrimination on their ships.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I put down a Question addressed to the Prime Minister asking for information about M.I.5. The Question was handed back to me, and I was informed, with a reference to Erskine May, that I could not ask a question about this organisation. M.1.5 did not exist when Erskine May prepared his wise guide for the hon. Members of this House, and may I ask if there is any way possible for hon. Members of this House to obtain information about this very sinister secret police force in this country? Is there any way of getting information, or any way in which hon. Members of this House, or this House as a whole, can get control over this organisation?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of this Question, therefore I cannot give a
2100
considered reply. A Minister is always entitled to refuse to answer any Question which deals with our Secret Service, and which he may consider affects the security of the State. That, I believe, has been the unchanging Parliamentary practice, and without notice I can give no further answer.
Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It was not a case of the Minister refusing to answer the Question on public or security grounds. At the Table I was given a reference to Erskine May and told that I could not ask a question about M.I.5.
Mr. Speaker: I was given no reference to Erskine May. I did not know anything about it, and therefore I cannot say anything at the moment.

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. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 120.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE, BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th March].
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE, BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Constituencies and electors.)
    The Chairman: I understand that it would be for the general convenience of the Committee if the first Amendment, in page 1, line 11, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and other Members dealing with the City of London, and the later Amendment in page 1, line 15, also in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford—to leave out "resident there," and to insert:
    "with either a residential or business premises qualification"—
    were discussed together. If the Committee agree, we will deal with the matter on those lines.
    3.45 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "constituencies," to insert "and the City of London."
    Yesterday we were discussing the representation of the universities. I understand that representatives of the universities first appeared in this House in 1603. Today we turn to an even older representation than that. I understand that it is certainly established that by 1284 the City of London was sending six representatives to this honourable House. Indeed, even less than 100 years ago they were still sending four Members, and during the last 60 years or more they have been sending two. Today, the Government invite us to abolish them altogether. It is a very serious day in our Parliamentary history. Let no one be deluded by the device which the Government offer us of adding an entirely different electorate, Finsbury and Shoreditch, and then calling it the City of London. That is certainly a complete change and, without being disrespectful to the two boroughs, I call it an insult to an ancient tradition. Indeed, the nearest analogy of which I can think for such behaviour of adding people who in the past have had nothing to do in this
    2106
    kind of sense with the City of London, is the well known device by which the Communist Party claims to be democratic. It just filches another name, a popular name, and pretends that it is the same thing. That does not deceive the ignorant in this country, and I do not think that this device of calling Finsbury and Shoreditch the City of London, would deceive anybody else either.
    The idea of abolishing this tradition of over 600 years is a very strange one, coming as it does from the Government Benches. It appears to be based upon some sort of egalitarian idea with regard to the value of the vote; but that is not the principle which is enshrined in the Bill. After all, it would he perfectly possible—absolutely fatuous, but perfectly possible—to divide the electors by the number of proposed constituencies and to say that every constituency should have exactly the same number of voters. Of course, no one would suggest such a nonsensical procedure and, in fact, the Government have gone very much the other way. Not only have they given to the Boundary Commissioners considerable tolerance one side or the other of the quota, but in the latest edition of the Commissioners' Report they have gone out of their way, in many cases, to stick to existing boundaries, names and identities.
    But not so for the City of London. The extraordinary part about all this is the attitude of the Lord President of the Council. The last time this subject was debated in this House was when it came up in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill in 1944. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
    "It is felt that to merge the City—and I think I shall carry the I louse generally with me—or any part of the City with adjoining constituencies, is not a proposal likely to receive wide support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, C. 1619.]
    That is what he said. The right hon. Gentleman was not then speaking as a Minister. [Interruption.] No, he was not the voice of his master either. I am glad to realise that he recognises that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is his master and that he was very pleased to serve under him as a master in those days.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am sorry. Sometimes the microphones are inconvenient.

    2107
    What I said was that I was then addressing my master, namely, the House of Commons, which is always supreme in these matters.
    Captain Crookshank: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has exactly the same feelings about this House of Commons from that point of view; but he was not speaking in this servant-master capacity at all. He was speaking as a Londoner. He made that point very decidedly in his speech. He said:
    "I as a good Londoner and a student of the City's history—centuries ago, the City of London played a great part in the establishment of British constitutional usage—would be sorry to see the separate Parliamentary representation of the City abolished even though the figures make a strong case for consideration the other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, C. 1618.]
    That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. He also said that he would be very sorry, and that it would not be likely to receive widespread support. He spoke as a Londoner. Is he no longer a Londoner since he went to Lewisham? I should have thought that he would be shocked, less than four years after this stalwart declaration, to come forward as one of the fathers of this base proposal.
    Of course, the issue is mixed up with the business premises vote, and you, Major Milner, have rightly invited us to discuss these matters together. I know that, as far as the City of London is concerned, that is one of the points at issue. I am told that something like 500,000 people go in and out of the City in the course of a day. I cannot check the figure, but that is the common figure given. Of all the people who work there, only some 4,500 are resident and sleep there. Taking the general run of constituencies all over the country, most people sleep and work in the same constituency. I think that is true of a very large majority of people, but not of the people of the City of London. Worthy as these 4,500 people are—and I have nothing to say on that subject—I am quite certain that they themselves, in honesty, would be the first to recognise that they are not aptly described, in any Parliamentary sense, as the City of London. They happen to live there, but when we are talking about the City, and when the world talks about the City of London, it does not really refer to the
    2108
    4,500 denizens who sleep there, but to the commercial, financial and banking centre of the Empire, and, indeed, of the whole world in some fields.
    It is for that reason, then, that we wish to keep this ancient tradition of special representation by one or two hon. Members, as the House will, because of the prestige, among other things, that it adds to the City of London itself, not to mention the distinction which that representation gives to us. We are, indeed, today needing all the prestige that we can get for ourselves. We lack a good deal in many ways, but the prestige of the City of London still remains very high. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discover what has made this country great, he might ponder upon whether it is not the combination of the skill and craft of the workers of the country, efficient management of the industries in this country and the paramount services that we can render in banking, insurance and high finance.
    It is the latter aspect of our national success which has been opened up by the City, and, therefore, as a consequence, is reflected in the representation of the City here. Those hon. Members, in the past, have been here to advise and guide us. The right hon. Gentleman, who said he knows the City as a Londoner—before he went over to Lewisham—will remember that, in times past, the hon. Members for the City were in fact the bulwarks against tyranny—the tyranny of the barons and the Crown. These are not today's tyrannies, which are much more likely to be found in the narrow-minded and ignorant bureaucracy poking its fingers into matters about which it knows little, and it is just in countering this sort of tactics that the representation of the City would be of value.
    It is quite true that, at the moment, the electorate of the City of London is small. I have not got the figures here, but, before the war, it was something like 40,000 on the then basis, but even that basis is going to produce a smaller electorate now, because of the proposed abolition of the spouse's vote. There is only to be one vote in future, and not two. Even now, it is something like 12,000 to 13,000. It is not the fault of the City that some 168 acres of the "square mile" do not exist any more, except as open spaces and masses of rubble, but the time will come, presumably, when it will be rebuilt, and when, once again, businesses

    2109
    which have been conducted there in the past will be fully staffed. I think a very powerful case will be developed by my hon. Friends upon that assumption, and upon the value and importance to us of the Membership for the City in this House, but that is not the only case I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    I want to come back again—though hon. Members opposite may not like it—to this question of where they stand, what is their attitude and why and how can they explain the breach of faith which we discussed yesterday on the question of the Speaker's Conference. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was discussing this matter in 1944, discussed it not from the point of view of the City not having a Member at all, but from the point of view whether there might be two Members or only one. The Report of the Speaker's Conference decided, after a very close Division, to recommend that the City of London should continue, as it did then, to return two hon. Members. All through the Debate then, and ever since until now, the question at issue has been whether there should be two Members or one—not a question of one or nought. The idea of nought is something new as a result of this Bill.
    Even worse is the question of the abolition of the business vote. Here again, if hon. Members will look back at the Report of the Speaker's Conference, they will find a recommendation made from that Conference that the business premises qualification should be retained, provided—if I might telescope some words—that the spouse's vote disappeared. That was agreed, but it was agreed that the business premises qualification should be retained. It was agreed by vote of some, if not all, of the Labour Members on that Conference. Actually, a Division was taken—the Report does not give the names—on the proposal that no person at any time should vote more than once, which was raising the issue of the business and university votes. The voting was: Ayes, 6; Noes, 25. That is a total of 31 members of the Conference who were taking part in the Division. The Conference consisted of 32 Members, of whom 11 were Labour; somebody was away, and we will suppose that he was a Labour Member. Therefore, 10 voted in this Division, so there must have been at least four Labour Members supporting the retention of the business
    2110
    premises vote. For all I know, there may have been II votes to retain plural voting, which involved the university and the business premises vote.
    Therefore, it is quite clear that, when the matter was discussed in the Speaker's Conference, there was a considerable—if not unanimous, and for all I know it may have been unanimous—vote by the Labour Party for the retention of that franchise. Having done that, it seems to me very definitely a breach of faith that the Government should not implement the decisions of the Conference. The Bill then under discussion in 1944 was, of course, a preliminary Bill, and the present Secretary of State for Scotland said as much in column 1623 of HANSARD of 10th October:
    "This Bill is the first fruits of the Speaker's Conference, and, of course, we expect that the Home Secretary will be producing, in the near future, other Bills to carry out the other recommendations of the Conference."
    He went on to say:
    "We hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will be able to give us some assurance that these Bills are on the way."
    4.0 p.m.
    That, surely, demonstrates that at that time, just as now, it was expected that the Report of the Conference would be implemented, because, all along, there has been no kind of doubt in anybody's mind that the result of that Conference was a series of compromises. It was bound to be so. That was the object of the Conference, and it was not put better by anyone than by the present Secretary of State for Scotland when, on 10th October, 1944, he said:
    "When people talk about compromise in a sneering voice they are talking about a system which is the method by which this country has progressed for many years to its present high standard of civilisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1623–4.]
    Of course it was. When 32 members get together, even tinder so distinguished a chairmanship as that of Mr. Speaker, they are obviously not going to get all they want, but they come out of the Conference, as these hon. Members did, having reached a general compromise over the field at issue. Having done that, it seems to me that it was incumbent, and is incumbent, upon the Government to carry out the decisions and recommendations of that Conference. Not to do so is certainly not only to be accused, but to be condemned, of a breach of faith.

    2111
    Of course, what the Lord President tried to ride out on yesterday was that he said he was prepared to take the matter before an impartial tribunal to see whether, in fact, there had been any breach of faith. That there were no undertakings and no commitments was the general gist of several columns of his speech yesterday evening. Of course, there is nothing in writing in a matter of this kind. When the Conference took place, and when we were all colleagues together in the Government, communicacations did not pass between the Prime Minister and the Deputy-Prime Minister saying, "We, Clement Attlee, Herbert Morrison, and So-and-So, on the one hand, and we, Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, on the other hand, agree this, that and the rest of it." That is not the way these things are carried out. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he would like to put it to an impartial tribunal, he knows perfectly well that he is talking nonsense.
    After all, it is an inherent and precedent condition to a Conference of this kind that people are attending it with a view to trying to find a general measure of agreement in order to carry out that agreement afterwards, as, otherwise, there would be no point in having the Conference at all. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself said so. On 17th January, 1945, he said, speaking of the Conference:
    "It was under the Speaker because he was impartial, and it represented all parties for the very purpose of seeing whether accommodation could he reached on a number of other matters which would otherwise be controversial. But for that purpose, we would not have had the Speaker's Conference; the Government would have made up their own mind, and brought forward their own proposals."
    Surely, that implies the contrary case, that, if there is a Conference, its recommendations are carried out. I think the right hon. Gentleman was basing himself on a very false point in his argument yesterday, because, on 17th January, 1945, he went on to say:
    "If, when the compromise is made, everybody is going to act as if there had been no Conference, it seems to me that the utility of the Speaker's Conference will not be so great."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1945: Vol. 407, c. 310.]
    Of course that is so. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it
    2112
    was an honourable agreement, and that it was implicit in the situation that the recommendations would be put before Parliament. That is not being done by himself and his right hon. Friends. It is their honour which is at stake, not that of the Labour Party at all. The Labour Party was not concerned in the same sort of way as these leaders and members of the party at that Conference, and who were, thereby, personal parties to the compromise. That is the point I would like the right hon. Gentleman to think about.
    Mr. H. Morrison: This is becoming a matter of repetition and monotony. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman is out of Order."] Cannot I say it is monotonous without being accused of being out of Order? It is monotonous. I have said before, and I say it again, that all those words were directed to a situation that existed in the last Parliament. I am still waiting for the Front Bench opposite to produce evidence of anything I said to indicate that what I and my right hon. Friends agreed to in that Parliament was binding on a totally new Parliament and a new majority.
    Captain Crookshank: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks this is monotonous and repetitive, but Major Milner has not yet called me to Order, and I shall await his decision before I accept that accusation.
    When the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no evidence that what he said in 1944–45, when the recommendations were made public, bound him for this Parliament, I say it is implicit in the fact, and that it is implicit until one has discharged one's obligations. When one enters into a conference, the compromises are made, and one's obligation is to carry them out so far as one is personally concerned. When, in a transaction of any kind to which a person is a party, and that person has accepted the point of view and says that something ought to be done, he can but carry out his own part of its performance. If others do not support him, that is their look out.
    Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite are the leaders, are they not? Is not the proposition that leaders of parties can, broadly, accept on behalf of their party certain things, as, other-

    2113
    wise, it is no good going into such a conference at all? The right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well—people are apt to forget the timing of all this; this was going on during the serious course of the war, and there was no question of introducing long electoral reform Measures then—and everybody else knew it too, that what was being done was an endeavour to get agreement, and to clear the ground for what could be put into effect as soon as that could conveniently be done. This was the same as all the other work which went on under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), and that of others dealing with postwar social services and education during the war. It has fallen to the lot of this Government to introduce the actual legislation, though that legislation was sketched out and broadly agreed by the Coalition Government. Exactly the same applies to the result of the Speaker's Conference. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to take that as a special case, and to say that the present Government are not bound to carry out the recommendations.
    I say to the right hon. Gentleman, when he asks us whether we are going to produce evidence, that we shall not produce signed, sealed evidence on the subject. It does not exist, and never would exist, because that is not the way the thing works. Again, take the analogy known to us of "the usual channels" through which our affairs are arranged, and from which he, as Leader of the House benefits the same as anyone else. The Chief Patronage Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip or his Deputy are in constant communication and arrange when the business will be taken, and even arrange when there will be an important Division. It is not done in writing; there is not a constant stream of correspondence to and from the Patronage Secretary. If that were so, he would have to have half a dozen stenographers for the purpose. We on this side and hon. Members opposite act on their guidance and advice, just as much as if it were all signed and sealed, because that is the way honourable men carry out honourable obligations.
    Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend was then Home Secretary. He introduced the 1944 Representation of the
    2114
    People Bill and piloted it through the House. Did not he in the Bill, just as in the Act, carry out the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, in so far as the City of London was concerned?
    Captain Crookshank: Some of the recommendations. We are now taking the rest of them. The recommendation that was made, as I have already referred to the House, on page five of the Report of the Conference, was "That they shall continue as at present to return two Members."
    Mr. Bowles: It was in my right hon. Friend's Bill in 1944.
    Captain Crookshank: That does not settle the matter; it was all part of the same scheme of carrying out all the recommendations, just as we are discussing the parallel case of the business premises vote.
    Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, of course, there was nothing in writing—there was nothing explicit in writing, no sealed agreement. Thereby, he is really alleging that I and my right hon. Friends were party to a verbal understanding behind the scenes that the Speaker's Conference recommendations would be binding on a new Parliament. I deny that, and in view of that implicit or expressed allegation I ask the right hon. Gentleman for his evidence of what verbal agreement there was that this would be binding on a new Parliament and a new Government.
    Captain Crookshank: I am sorry if I have not made clear the case which I was trying to put to the House. It is this: First of all, that when there is a Speaker's Conference of this kind, it is implicit, before we go into the Conference, that if recommendations are made, and particularly unanimous recommendations, they will be carried into effect over a period—not reversed in two or three years' time; and that these obligations are the personal, direct responsibility of the people who entered into them—nothing to do with a new Parliament. The people whom I am indicting are the Lord President, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, and the others of them, for their share. They accepted this. It is no good saying they put it on the statute book for the time being in the first Bill that came along. It is a specific part of a general settlement, as everybody knows.

    2115
    That is the technique of the Speaker's Conference, which has grown up; this was not the first. The idea is—I do not suppose it will happen again after this—that it was thought to be a good plan, when there was a general need for redistribution or changes in electoral arrangements, to start the matter in that way; a Speaker's Conference was the initial move and it was implicit, and it is implicit today, that if we have one, its recommendations shall be carried out. All these recommendations could not be carried out in that Parliament. As I was saying, we were at the height of the war. It was not a peace-time Parliament, but the agreements certainly were an obligation upon those concerned with it. I admit there is nothing in writing—I do not suppose there ever would be in a case like this, because it is regarded as a business arrangement, as honourable undertakings.
    I say it is a breach of faith on the part of the leaders of the Labour Party that they are taking this extraordinary line today. The Lord President of the Council said in his speech yesterday that, of course, if he had gone to his party and said that was what he was going to do:
    "It means that the party leaders on this side have got to dictate to the newly-elected Members of the House of Commons as to how they shall conduct their business, irrespective of their wishes. … I could tell hon. Members on the other side what my hon. Friends would have said to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1929.]
    That does not absolve the right hon. Gentleman in the slightest. We have long said that there is precious little leadership in this country and there appears to be none at all within the party councils. Surely if the right hon. Gentlemen felt any sense of obligation to carry out the duty to which they had been thus committed, they would go to their own party and say, "This is what we recommend and in fact this is what we are under an obligation to carry out. We invite you to follow us in this matter. If you do not, we are not going to break our word. You can get someone else who will do your work for you." That is the kind of way in which they should have dealt with this problem. I say it is shocking commentary on the mentality of the leaders opposite that they put up this sort of
    2116
    defence and discard all their personal obligations. I remember the quotation:
    "Honour rooted in dishonour stood."
    These are the last words I want to say upon that subject. They have failed in their duty—that is what they have done—and in failing in their duty, they are trying through this Bill—and no doubt, with their great majority they will succeed—to abolish the representation of the City.
    4.15 p.m.
    I close my remarks on this Amendment with these words:
    "There is a constitutional and historical connection between the City and this House. There is in this House the picture of five Members who escaped to the City from the wrath of the monarch. It is also the case that the City of London has been a champion of Parliamentary institutions and I do not think it is out of place, in considering the question of one Member of Parliament or two, that we should, with regard to this unique square mile, take into account these historical and, if you will, sentimental considerations, and say that it is such a special place that, if we can possibly help it, we will not destroy its Parliamentary identity"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1994.]
    These are not my words. They are those of the Lord President of the Council.
    Mr. Bing: I only want to spend one moment on this matter. There is imposed a high duty on Parliament to seek that form of representation which best represents the country, and it is our part of that duty not to implement any bargain between parties, whether or not it is made, but to address ourselves to the merits of the case. I suggest it is for the reason that he felt it would be undesirable to address himself to the merits that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was silent on that point. Let me, for a moment, address myself to these arguments, which he has gone over time and time again. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says there was some bargain made. Will he tell us—I will give way to him—how long that bargain would last—for this Parliament, the next Parliament, or the Parliament after? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us?
    Captain Crookshank: Until it is thought expedient to have another Speaker's Conference.
    Mr. Bing: That is exactly the answer I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give, and I ask him why he did not look up his authority; did he not remember what Mr. Baldwin said in 1928? Mr. Baldwin declined to have a Speaker's Conference in 1928 and Mr. Speaker ruled—and the right hon. and gallant Member should surely know that—that it was quite improper to hold a Speaker's Conference when party warfare had been re-established. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. Let me recall the exact position. It has been quoted once. Speaking of the Speaker, he said:
    "I have his permission to say that he decided—and I have no quarrel with his decision—that as party controversy had been renewed since 1918 he felt that in order to preserve the impartial position of the Chair he would prefer not to preside over such a conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1928; Vol. 215, C. 1471.]
    We are, therefore, placed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in a position where Mr. Speaker will not preside and, therefore, no conference can be held, and so does he say that the alleged bargain ought to continue till we have another war?
    Mr. Osbert Peake: On this occasion Mr. Speaker has not even been invited to preside.
    Mr. Bing: It is not for me to argue questions about the Chair, but I should have thought once one Speaker had given a decision on the point, it would not be proper to invite Mr. Speaker to do something which another Speaker had indicated he would not do.
    Let me for a moment address myself to the merits of the case, a matter which we have not yet considered. What about the business vote? Of course, the party opposite are greatly in favour of it. If one looks over to the other side of the North Channel where people of their party are in power, one finds that a firm has not one business vote but six. Of course, they would like not only one business vote but more than one business vote. What is the argument in favour of having only one business vote? If a man has one business vote, why should he not have more? Why stop at one? Let us have the thing really argued out.
    It is said for the City of London that it has a great democratic past. Of course,
    2118
    it has a great democratic past. Incidentally, it is closely association with Shore-ditch and Finsbury. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not propose at a later stage that they should be united to the City of Westminster. Westminster is entirely different in tradition. London had a very great democratic tradition, because it had a large number of resident electors. I do not know if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has ever looked up the poll figures before 1832. If anyone did so, he would find that in the last election to the unreformed Parliament, nearly 12,000 people actually voted in the City. The junior Burgess for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), I think, had a great grandfather who sat for Clitheroe. The figures there show that as late as 1865 the total number on the register was only in the neighbourhood of 1,700. Of course, in those days the City, compared with that constituency represented by the right hon. Gentleman's great grandfather, was very democratic. But the position is now reversed.
    I am very sorry the senior Burgess for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) is not here. I understand that he is ill. I am very sorry that he should be, and I am sure we all wish him a speedy return to health. It would be interesting to have his views, because it seems to me that he bases his attendance on a theory of absenteeism, which, however, proper in another place, and however correct an expression of political views elsewhere, is not really pertinent here. I want to put this question which, as the senior Burgess for the City is not here, perhaps the junior Burgess will answer. Will he give an undertaking on behalf of the City that if this franchise, by any chance, be maintained, the Members or Member for the City will give full attendance? Are we to maintain a Member on the ground that he does not come here? That does not seem to me to be a very sound basis for advancing the theory of representation.
    I agree very much with what the Lord President said, that we should, if possible, maintain this historic connection. It is for that reason that this constituency is being reformed in order that it may embrace those very areas in which the City electors lived in the ancient days; because it was from Shoreditch and from Finsbury that the electors came. One has only to read "The Ride of John Gilpin" to

    2119
    see that there lived all the electors who came to vote in the City in those times. Let us restore the ancient position. Let us see that these people again can return City Members of a type who will once more take that foremost part in the fight for liberty which City Members previously took.
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made some inquiry as to how long a bargain should be maintained. For my part, I feel inclined to say to him that, so far as he personally is concerned, as one who was not in the former House of Commons, he is in no way bound by an agreement that may have been come to at the Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament. Those of us, however, who were in the last Parliament are bound in some degree, because we had representatives inside the Speaker's Conference; and, broadly, we gave approval through our representatives inside that Conference. Those who actually took part in the Conference are personally bound to accept and implement the whole of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. The question is how long is the bargain to last. I would answer the hon. Member by saying that we are bound to that extent, and certain of those who took part in the Conference are bound absolutely on their personal honour; and that bargain should last until the distribution of population throughout the country has obviously got out of balance again. There are, even now, new towns growing up; alternatively, old towns will lose a large number of people from their electoral rolls.
    It is a very great mistake that we should be abolishing the representation of the ancient City at the present time. Curiously enough, on the one hand the Government are contemplating the removal of public servants in Departments of State, and, on the other hand, they are extinguishing the ancient links the House of Commons has with the City of London. It is a course which is not likely to commend itself in many parts of the world. The position of the City of London is so unique that it is worth considering for a moment how much we have benefited and equally how much the City of London has benefited by the interplay between the House of Commons and the City of London.
    2120
    When the King goes to the City, he is stopped at Temple Bar, but when Mr. Speaker desires to proceed in that direction, the road is open and free to him. Such is the confidence the ancient City reposes in the honourable House of Commons. The link is not only sentimental and traditional. There is a real and, positive link working even at this moment between the Government of the day and the City of London. It was only last year, when a large part of the country was in the grip of floods, that it was to the first citizen of the City of London that the Government turned to mobilise, not on behalf of a small body of 4,500 residents inside the City, but on behalf of millions of inhabitants of this country, relief for those who were suffering distress by flooding. Automatically we turned to the Lord Mayor of London to organise a relief fund. Even during recent months the Lord Mayor has launched a fund for the international relief of European children. I cannot think that that was done without some communications through the "usual channels" that exist between the Government and the Mansion House. The Lord Mayor, the Court of Common Council, and the City Livery Companies are always eager to aid the Government in the discharge of missions of mercy and, indeed, of hospitality. Therefore, in practice this link does exist now, as it has done for many hundreds of years. To break it would be a tragedy.
    The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that the electors of the City came from Finsbury and Shoreditch. The Lord President pointed out that the City merchants had moved out. They did not move out because they no longer wished to live in the City. They moved out because the buildings in those days did not enable them to provide their wives and their children with the amenities they desired. Since that time things have happened We now have the idea of building flats and apartment houses, and there is a plan for the rebuilding of the City. Who is to say that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time more people will not be living in the City, that the magnificent transport services provided now by day will not be provided in the evenings, too, so that living conditions will once again attract more to live within the ancient "square mile."

    2121
    Why could we not wait? Why must we be in such a hurry to destroy this link which has lasted for some 700 or 800 years? Could we not wait for another 25 to 30 years to see what shape the City finally takes when it is rebuilt? It is a sad commentary to think that the City, which suffered under the first fire blitz on London, to whose succour the present Lord President of the Council then came in his capacity as Minister of Home Security, should now be destroyed in part of its life. It is not its physical possessions that the Lord President is now destroying, for when they were in peril the right hon. Gentleman came to their succour. Now, when the City's traditions are in peril, his is the hand that guides the assassin's knife. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but when any self-respecting citizen is done to death for no sin of his own, the words I have just used are not inappropriate.
    4.30 p.m.
    There is, of course, a case to be made from the Government benches which was indicated by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). If absolute mathematical parity is wanted, at this precise moment the constituencies could be so arranged that an hon. Member elected to this honourable House represented as many constituents as, and no more than, any other hon. Member, But that would not last for long, because people would die, and others would come of age and would be put on the electoral roll. In this Bill we have already recognised some disparity, for Scotland and Wales are advantaged in comparison with England. I, as an English Member, do not think there is particular harm in the heart of England and the Empire having this perhaps odd representation, which in logic it is difficult to justify. There is, however, a tradition about this country which does not look too kindly on Governments who guide everything by some form of pedestrian logic. In the past, Governments were wiser; when an office or a post had outlived its usefulness, the genius of earlier Governments and of the people of this country would transfer it to some other use, which is why in the Government of today we find the peculiar offices of Paymaster-General and Lord Privy Seal. The Paymaster-General has
    2122
    no particular functions to discharge at the moment; nor, so far as I know, does the Lord Privy Seal have any connection with his earlier duties. Indeed, we could carry that argument a little further by saying that the Lord President of the Council does not discharge the duties formerly associated with that office.
    How do we relate this to the retention of the seat of the City of London? That seat might well be used in some special sense. Were it a question of preserving that scat, I am sure that either of the right hon. Gentlemen who represent the City of London now, most worthily, would be willing to make a vacancy. The City might be associated in a very particular and peculiar way with this House. Recently, in the "Daily Telegraph," there has appeared correspondence suggesting that the City might be a suitable constituency for the hon. Member called to the high office of Mr. Speaker to represent. Alternatively, the City would be well advantaged if there were to grow up a new tradition in place of the old, that the representative for the City of London should, be someone who had held the high office of Prime Minister. I believe that in the case of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) such a suggestion would be welcomed by the City; and I believe that the kind hearts of the City would be equally happy to have the present Prime Minister. The City is associated with charity and beneficence, and anybody who has served this country in maintaining that delicate equipoise between warring elements in the Cabinet is entitled to be relieved of the difficulties attached to looking after some territorial constituency in the future.
    There is no need entirely to abolish this constituency, or to cut this ancient link with this House; I believe it could be retained. It may need adaptation, but that is a matter for hon. Members far more senior than myself—those who have served as Members of the Government, as well as those who have served in Cabinet office. If this link with the ancient city is destroyed we may have achieved something in terms of logic, but every girl typist and every office boy who catches the overcrowded train to the City will feel that something fine has gone. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite do not understand the feelings of the working class of this country. Many of those of

    2123
    whom I am speaking come from suburban areas. I prefer to mention only Purley, where I live, rather than East Croydon, through which I pass, because I believe that East Croydon will not be popular with hon. Members opposite at the moment. There is that feeling behind the ordinary people of this country. The British are not a logical people; the British believe that tradition is something fine, honourable, and worth preserving; and young workers from all sections of the community, from all the great districts surrounding London, will feel that something fine has gone out of public life if this ancient link is destroyed.
    Mr. Charles Williams: In dealing with the representation of the City and with plural voting, I shall adopt a different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in any detail, save to say that I think his description of the City of London and what it stood for was fine. I rank it with another speech which helped to bring home to me the value of the City of London to the Londoner, namely, one which I heard the Lord Lord President make in this House
    For two and a half years of the last Parliament I had the very difficult duty of endeavouring to render myself nonpolitical. I found it much more difficult to be non-political than I did to return to political controversy. I am sure hon. Members opposite will understand that. During that time I beheld a great many compromises, and I saw how they worked out. One of the compromises affected plural voting, and I have refreshed my memory of that time by referring to the Debates. It never dawned on me then that what we were doing in that Parliament, could necesarily bind the next Parliament.
    When the Leader of the House or the Home Secretary says that one Parliament cannot bind another, nearly everyone would agree. But when there is a compromise, as in this case and when it is openly said in the House—as it was said again and again on this question—that the whole of the compromise could not be carried through in that Parliament and when it is assumed—as it was in this case—that there was an agreement to carry through definite reforms, then
    2124
    undoubtedly it must be assumed that there was an obligation on the next Parliament. I will give the Committee two simple illustrations of how obligations are accepted by different Governments. The two main parties agreed during the war on a definite system of demobilisation. That did not necessarily mean that this Parliament was bound to carry out that system, but it was a system which all understood and agreed was likely to be a satisfactory scheme.
    Mr. Cecil Poole: Surely the hon. Member remembers that one of the first things the Leader of the Opposition did when he came back to this House was to urge the scrapping of that scheme?
    Mr. Williams: I realise that there were people who urged hastening on with that scheme rather than scrapping it. On the whole, both parties have tried to carry out that scheme. My second illustration concerns war loans. The new Parliament could have rejected the obligations undertaken by the previous Parliament, but it was laid down that the obligations should be carried on by whichever Government was in power. These two illustrations have some bearing on the question with which we are now dealing. Unless we can come to an understanding between the main parties, with the realisation that the agreement will be carried out by whichever party comes into power, we are liable to make it extremely difficult to come to any future understandings. I urge the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary to look at this from a much wider point of view, and not merely from the point of view of the constituencies involved.
    The Home Secretary certainly considers himself under an obligation to deal with another side of redistribution, namely, the small boroughs. What was done by the Conservative majority in the last Parliament was certainly considered to be an advantage to the other side; if I had been free, I should have been only too glad to see a very much wider distribution of votes as far as the local authorities are concerned. However, we did that in the last Parliament with the feeling that we were carrying out our side of the bargain in good faith, trusting the other side to carry out their part of the bargain.
    What would the Leader of the House have said if the Conservatives had

    2125
    refused to accept the bargain on plural voting, because they did not trust the Home Secretary to carry out his part of the bargain when his party came into power? That could have been said, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were trusted at that time to do their part. They cannot ride that off now. The essence of the agreement was that all the provisions could not be implemented at once, but that the balance had to be put into effect in the new Parliament.
    4.45 P.m.
    This Government, with its great and overwhelming majority, which boasts of its love of democracy, is destroying one of the greatest world emblems of democracy by refusing representation to the City of London in the greatest institution in the world, the British House of Commons. One or two of the meaner spirits on the other side are leering at the idea that the City of London is a great institution, but the City of London will live longer than hon. Members opposite. I hope that in due time a greater and nobler conception of the City of London will obtain. The City of London representatives in the House of Commons have played a fine part in our work for freedom. They have been men with great knowledge of that centre of affairs, which has given British trade and commerce the highest standards in the world. I regret that the Government should use their great powers in this way. I regret that the Home Secretary, whom I have always admired in the past, should so demean himself as to take part in this contemptible action of the Government.
    Mr. Cecil Poole: I would not have intervened in this Debate except for the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I do not propose to go into the question of the alleged bargain, or into the question of how long a bargain should endure. I do not accept the views put forward by Members opposite. Nor do I want it to be thought that I do not uphold to some extent—perhaps as warmly as Members opposite—some of the great traditions of the City of London. But when the hon. Member for Torquay says that the City of London stands as an emblem of our democracy, I part company with him. My understanding of democracy must be something very different from his, because I could never justify 1,500 people return-
    2126
    ing two Members to this House while it took 112,000 people to find a seat for me here. I do not know of any democratic methods by which to measure that standard. It is fantastic that the City of London should persist in returning two Members to this House.
    The City, as a constituency, is not being destroyed by the Bill. There will still be a City of London constituency. All that is being done is to make it more respectable than it is now, and give it a number of electors who will be enabled to return a democratically elected Member, instead of the City being, as it is now, a little pocket borough which returns two people against all the rules of the game. There is nothing in the Government's proposal to which anyone could take exception. The hon. Member for Torquay waxed very furious about the terrific majority of this Government being used unjustly to smash down everything which was decent, and to force everything through the House. I remember sitting on the opposite side of the House when the Conservative Party, with almost as big a majority, smashed down many things which we deemed more important than the City of London. They smashed down unemployed men and women——
    Mr. Butcher: Would the hon. Member indicate the number of unemployed there would now be in this country if it were not for Marshall aid?
    Mr. Poole: I shall not attempt to do that, because I should be out of Order. I shall gladly go into the Division Lobby to make the City of London a constituency more comparable with the other constituencies which will be provided for by this Bill.
    Mr. Harold Roberts: The Debate on this subject must be inseparably connected with the Debate on the university seats which was concluded yesterday. I think it is fair to say that Government speakers, particularly from the Front Bench, treat this matter as if Members on this side were defending anomalies, as if it were the Euclidian proposition that there must always be "one man, one vote," that there must always be "one vote, one value," as near as can be, that any attempt at special representation should be abandoned, that constitutional changes might be brought in without a mandate, and

    2127
    that it was untrue to say that a constitutional change such as this required a preliminary conference.
    I will try to examine a few of these propositions, and I will take them in the reverse order. We had the advantage yesterday of two constitutional propositions being dealt with by the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary. The Leader of the House reminded us, as he said, that there was no mandate for the Representation of the People Act in 1928. He said:
    "The Conservative Party did not have it in their election manifesto in 1924. Probably the diehards in the party machine were too powerful for them to put it in; they were the trouble when it was put through Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 1936.]
    That was a very characteristic sneer, spoiled only by the fact that it bore no relation to the facts. We had later an interesting analysis of the conference idea from the Home Secretary, in which he said that since the Reform Act, 1932, only one conference had taken place. I think it may be as well as say, not being a great historical student, that I have been driven to make a little research into the facts since last night, and that I desire to test the accuracy of this statement to see where it leads us.
    First, there appears to be common ground that the Franchise Act, 1832, was not an agreed or conference settlement. It was imposed by the triumphant Whigs and Radicals on the defeated Tories, but it was imposed on them after a hotly-contested election on that very issue, and in pursuance of an overwhelming mandate. We next come to the Act of 1867, about which the Home Secretary appeared to be so confused. What happened was this: the Tory leader of the House, Mr. Disraeli, shortly afterwards Prime Minister, introduced a Bill which was thought to be trivial and paltry. He accepted Amendment after Amendment from the Liberal benches, and the Bill was passed. It was passed, be it noted, as an agreed Measure——
    The Chairman: I am not at all clear as to the relevance of these historical reminiscences to the Amendment before the committee.
    Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. May I respectfully
    2128
    remind you, Major Milner, that all these instances were adduced from the Treasury Bench yesterday, that they were not, in the belief of many of us on this side, correctly adduced, and that, therefore, it must be in Order for those who think their history is more accurate also to use these illustrations?
    The Chairman: I cannot agree that it is competent for hon. Members to answer, in this Debate, matters which were raised in yesterday's Debate on an entirely different subject although, it may be, associated in some degree.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Further to that point of Order. These matters are just as much associated with this Amendment as they were with the Amendments yesterday. If they were allowed to be in Order yesterday by whoever was in the Chair at that time, surely they should also be in Order today.
    The Chairman: As I have said, I am not clear about the relevance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) to this Amendment, but if they are directed to the various charges which were made yesterday, I must remind the Committee that there is such a thing as tedious repetition. The Chair has been allowing great latitude in that matter, and ought not to allow it to continue at undue length.
    Mr. Roberts: May I respectfully be allowed to make my own point of Order? In the Debate yesterday, the Treasury Bench endeavoured to answer allegations, made from this side, that grave constitutional changes should receive either a direct mandate or should be the subject of a conference. I apprehend that if I were to complain that this great change, involving the abolition of the City of London representation, has not been the subject either of a mandate or of a conference, the relics of the lecture which we received last night would remain in the minds of Members. I submit that I am entitled to dispel any idea that representations by myself on that point would be out of Order. I do not wish to indulge in tedious repetition, and I will endeavour to refrain from verbiage.
    5.0 p.m.
    That great constitutional change of 1867 was carried through by agreement. In

    2129
    the Government of 1884–85, a Franchise Bill was held up by another place. There was a series of conferences and a Redistribution Bill was brought in. Grave constitutional changes were made by the well-known Act of 1918. We still proceed, and I find that the enlargement of the franchise in 1924 was not governed by any mandate, but was an agreed Measure. It was carried by the enormous majority of, I think, 330 to 10. It was introduced by Mr. Joynson-Hicks and voted for by Mr. Snowden, Miss Bond-field and other respected members of the Labour Party.
    I am entitled to deduce from this the following statement: that a grave constitutional change, according to our practice of a century, must either have a mandate or be the subject of agreement. It must be one or the other. I deduce that from the examples given yesterday by the Home Secretary both ways. In the present case, nothing of the kind has been sought or attempted. One would have thought that there would have been some such attempt if one took at their face value the spiritual struggles which the Lord President said he had undergone when seeking some rational justification for separate representation of the City and that he could find none.
    The ultimate principle is, I think, this: that this House should, so far as human capacity makes it possible, be the mirror of the country. A century ago it was representative of interests. We have gone further and further in making it representative of individuals. Whenever that principle conflicts with the main one and leaves the country not correctly mirrored, we must decline to be bound by it. Let it be borne in mind that the principle of one man, one vote, is not universally held or adhered to. There are at least two Members on the Government side of the House who do not agree with it. So I ask, does the City of London mean anything? Has that entity a meaning? It is a large conglomeration of buildings and, alas, of many waste spaces, and I suppose that half a million people go there for their daily work. There was some merriment on the Government benches when reference was made to humble people claiming to be a part of this vast organisation. My own experience was just that. When I was a young man working in the City, I felt myself to be
    2130
    a member of that vast hive. Many years have pasesd, but I still respect the City. I respect its energy, its finance and the way in which it carries on the business of the whole world. It is an element in our national life which should be represented.
    I am told that we cannot do that unless we retain the business vote. Here I declare an interest, and I admit that if the business vote is abolished, assuming that all the business voters vote for me in my Division, I shall lose no fewer than 39 votes. That may not mean much in the country, but in the City it means more. It means that if the City is to be represented at all in the absence of the business vote, it will be by a collection of caretakers. Caretakers are excellent people, but one cannot say that they truly represent the inhabitants of the offices they maintain or clean out. I say definitely that the City of London should be maintained, and, if necessary, maintained by a business vote there. If the City man cannot have two votes, let him forfeit his residential vote. That is a perfectly practical way of doing it, if it is desired to do it.
    I come to these questions: I think it right to do it, but is it desired? The history of this matter is painfully significant. The case was put, first of all, that there was no bargain in the last Parliament, and, secondly, that if there was it is not binding. There is no need to go over all that ground again. If there was no bargain, why the uneasiness on the part of various Members to prove that it is not binding now? For example, the statement of the Leader of the House with regard to the City several years ago was most positive. He has explained since how he has sought arguments to retain it and has found none. I look with some scepticism on his spiritual struggles. I am bound to survey the history of this Bill as a whole and to see how far it agrees with his profession. The original project was as outlined at the Speaker's Conference, and speakers yesterday related the shocks which they felt when they found that the Bill was widely departing from those recommendations.
    When the Boundary Commission began to survey the scene, it early became apparent that the Socialist Party must suffer heavy losses in London for their

    2131
    activities. It is noteworthy that a Member on the Government benches yesterday said that if the particular Amendment dealing with the franchise votes, and I think also this one, had not been dealt with by the Treasury Bench, back-benchers would have put down Amendments. Naturally, pressure began to be put on the Government, and halfway through the Boundary Commission's Report their terms of reference were altered, and they had to start again. The result, when it came, was still pretty bad for the Government benches. Hints had to be given that the university vote must be attacked and also the City of London.
    With regard to the City of London, I must comment on the delightfully naive remark made by an hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago that it was going to be preserved by adding a bit to it. I was reminded of a story, probably an old one, that Abraham Lincoln once asked his Cabinet, "How many legs would a sheep have if the tail was called a leg?" The reply was, "Five." He said, "No, four. Calling a tail a leg would not make it one." Calling Shoreditch the City of London will not make it the City of London. I have no objection to Shoreditch, but I have an objection to childish make-believe.
    The real reason is not to be found in this remarkable desire for symmetry. It is to be found in the very simple fact that the Government supporters were going to lose too many votes. Therefore, it has been found convenient to forget the arrangement made, or explain that it does not apply. We have the assurance of the Leader of the House that this process in regard to the City of London is extremely unpleasant for him. I feel confident that he will survive it in the interest of his party, and will be content to have his feelings wounded. Although I suppose I ought to be pressing Ministers and pleading for mercy that the ancient City of London might be spared, I do not intend to do so, for I do not feel inclined to make any pleas of that kind. I merely say they are doing the sort of thing I expected they would do. It does not surprise me. I doubt very much if it surprises the public who think for themselves.
    Mr. Collins: The hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) said that the Government are
    2132
    doing the sort of thing he expected them to do, and that is how the people of this country regard this Measure. It is the sort of thing the people expect of the Government, namely, to do justice to the people in their franchise. I have an interest in this matter since if the business vote were to continue unrestricted I would have six or seven votes, including one in Shoreditch and one in the City of London. Any kind of system that allows that sort of thing to continue is utterly and completely unfair.
    This Debate appears to me extremely unreal, and those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the Committee who have taken part in it do not appear to have the least feeling or understanding of the City of London, and exactly what it means. Almost all they have said has been concerned with some alleged bargain in 1945, a bargain which has been completely denied and their contentions completely disproved. I do not propose to pursue that matter any further.
    My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has often proudly proclaimed that he is a Londoner. In many respects I do not regard him as one. I was born on the City boundary, and my family were born and lived and worked there for nearly three centuries. One of my forebears was mentioned by Samuel Pepys in his Diary, and he described him as a reasonable, decent sort of fellow. I hope that I shall tackle this problem in reasonable decent spirit. I am a freeman and liveryman of the City of London and have been for 17 years, and I yield to no one in my admiration of all that the City stands for and in the real regard which I have for its history and tradition and for its magnificent record as the only unconquered capital city in the world.
    Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) has disclosed the fact that he is a freeman and liveryman of the City of London. Is he not, therefore, pledged to maintain the Parliamentary representation of the City of London?
    Mr. Collins: Not at all. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) is in error. There is nothing in the freedom oath which I took which makes any reference to Parliamentary representation.
    Mr. Assheton: Does not the hon. Member think that the oath to maintain the franchise of the City of London is appropriate to this?
    Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The franchise of the City of London is not appropriate.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Collins: The franchise will continue and it will be exercised by all inhabitants of the City, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), in a better manner than it has been in the past, and indeed the City will be more actively represented. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) is, in fact, my Member for Parliament, but I see him so infrequently in the House that I cannot clearly recollect what he looks like.
    Mr. Sidney Marshall: Come oftener.
    Mr. Collins: The junior Member for the City of London is very assiduous in his attendance and he is always to the fore in making representations on behalf of the City. There is no point at all in the question which was just raised, because the franchise will still be there.
    I must disclose another interest. I have offices in the City and I pay a very considerable rent to the City Corporation, so that in all these matters, by birth, tradition, business interests and social and charitable interests, I have close links with the City, probably as close as any Member in this House. What I have to say in this matter arises out of my deep regard for the City. The Members who sit for the City of London are not what I regard as the authentic voice of the City. One part of the authentic voice is the Mayor and Corporation who are themselves not in the main indigenous to the City. We all know how the Common Councils from the City are elected and where they come from. They are largely accountants and professional men who live many miles out of the City. Gradually they have to go through the routine and eventually become members of the Corporation. We know, too, that almost at all times they and the members of the liveries and city guilds have no direct contact or connection, or indeed vital City interest in, Parliamentary affairs or in politics as we know them.
    2134
    They would jealously resent any kind of interference by this House or its Members with their ancient traditions and practices. That part of the City and its traditions and rights are very safe in their keeping. They are never likely to be assailed in any important sense by this House. The Mayor and the Corporation are really the City, and not the financiers. The other and by far the greater part of the real life and heart of the City are the half million people who go there every day and get their living there. It is only those half million people who go there who give life to what would otherwise be a dead place. Anybody who does not believe that should go to the City at night, as I have many times, or at weekends, and see where the real life has gone.
    Those half million people, except for a small number of those who qualify for the business vote, have no real voice or part in electing Members for the "square mile." The City typist who eats her lunch below my office window or amid the ruins of St. Swithin's Church, or the City clerk who sits on the parapet of the Thames and surveys the bombed ruins all around him, have no part in those elections, but they are the City. What have the present Members for the City of London done for them? I am sadly disappointed in my Members of Parliament, fortunate as I am in having two. It is extraordinary that the senior Member, although he is a Scot, should not have been able to put forward their point of view.
    Mr. Assheton: He is ill in hospital.
    Mr. Collins: I am sorry, I was not aware of that. There are many other things in the City that should have been attended to, and will be attended to when it becomes again part of what I regard as an ordinary constituency. Many things might have been different if my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) had been Member for the City of London. These half a million go there every day. What has been done for them in the provision of sufficient civic restaurants? What is done for the people who go to the City in utilising these great bomb-damaged places, where the willowherb grows, for the parking of cars?
    Sir William Darling: Do not civic restaurants come

    2135
    within the functions of local authorities and not within the functions of Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Collins: I am suggesting that in an ordinary constituency, where there is a live electorate and live representation, such things are more likely to be attended to. In a tremendous number of things of that kind much would have been done, in the ordinary way, in the City of London, if it were attached to one of those other places. Although we value the traditions of the City, there is often far too much tradition and far too little action.
    Now I will deal with the really practical aspects of the matter, which rest on the business vote. To apply the principle "one man, one vote," which is dear, I think, to the heart of most people, means that the whole case for separate representation for the City falls to the ground. Reference has been made to the fact that the people who live there are largely caretakers and other people who are looking after City buildings. To my certain knowledge a very large proportion, by far the larger proportion, of them are supporters of the present Government. It shows the strict impartiality of the present Government that they are not accepting the Amendment which would merely mean having another representative on these benches, and not one upon the benches opposite. It cannot be successfully contended that there should be a separate constituency for that tiny electorate.
    The whole case put from the other side of the Committee rests almost entirely upon tradition; no real case has been put forward. There is magic in the name "The City of London." That magic rests upon realities. Nothing that this House can do will remove those realities. The tradition and the history of the City of London have been built up by the people who live there and who go there to work. The name will still be there and the spirit will still be there, the heart of the British people. Things of a somewhat slighting nature have been said about what will happen if the City should be added to Shoreditch, Finsbury, or some other constituency.
    I have said that I have a business vote in Shoreditch. I have a business vote in the City of London. On the last Sunday of 1940,
    2136
    I was in Shoreditch. My factory is there and I, with a hundred workers, was living there during the blitz for the purpose of seeing that the place was not destroyed. That night the second Great Fire of London took place, possibly a night of damage greater than that of the first Great Fire of London. After we had attended to our own bit of trouble I went to see what was happening in the City of London. I then realised that when the people had gone away from the City, the heart was taken out of it. I saw the Guildhall burn. Very few people were there—very few of the electors who had a business vote. The people who were there were from Shoreditch and Finsbury. They had gone to see what they could do on that dreadful night.
    The preparations for dealing with emergencies of that kind at that time were nothing like as good or complete as they were in Shoreditch and in other London boroughs. I saw the blast wall which was in front of the Guildhall and the desperate attempts of the firemen to push it down to get in with their fire escapes. I saw the locked gates of the church of St. Lawrence Jewry. It absentee caretaker and absentee vicar were not there to unlock those gates. If they had been, the Guildhall might possibly have been saved. After the damage was done, the fire watchers service was built up to proper proportions but on that important night the heart of the City was not there to protect it. The heart of the City is in the people who live and work there and have a real interest in it. That heart will still be preserved if and when the "square mile" with its electors is added to an adjacent area—Shoreditch, Finsbury, or any other which this House might regard as more suitable.
    The Amendment should be rejected. By this 1%leasure, the Government are sweeping away the cobwebs which have been accumulating in the City of London. We need a great deal less in the City of patting each other on the back aid saying that we are such very good people, and a great deal more considering how we can really get down to democratic, Parliamentary principles. I hope that the Government will emphatically reject the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

  WESTERN EUROPEAN POWERS (TREATY)
  5.24 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have asked for the momentary interruption of Business so that we may mark a great occasion. At this moment, in Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just signed a treaty which provides for economic, social, cultural and defensive collaboration between the five Western European Powers, namely Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom.
  This is indeed no ordinary treaty. It is not an alliance based on self-interest and fear; it is rather an association of likeminded neighbours who, engaged jointly in shaping their way towards some closer social, and indeed spiritual, integration, base themselves on the essential similarity of their civilisations and solemnly pledge on paper their common obligations and their common intentions alike.
  The text of the treaty is now available in the Library, and I am arranging for it to be published as a White Paper. I will not, therefore, attempt to describe it in detail here. It is consistent with our policy to build up good neighbourly relations, based on the widest co-operation in all fields. Let me make it clear that it is directed against none. These recent negotiations, which have taken place since my right hon. Friend made his statement on 22nd January, have been conducted with understanding, with cordiality and with the determination to face the real facts. This is not only a treaty but a basis for activity in the economic, social, cultural and security fields. This instrument provides the opportunity for the consultation and collaboration which will enable all of us to secure such conditions as will contribute to a higher standard of life for all our peoples.
  Mr. Churchill: The Prime Minister is fully justified in declaring that this is a momentous statement which he has made. We on this side of the House should not wish to express final opinion
  2138
  on details, naturally, until we have had an opportunity of seeing and considering the text of the Treaty and of assuring ourselves that the position of our fellow Dominions is in full harmony with what has been arranged, and that the difficulties, if such there be, can be patiently and satisfactorily adjusted; hut, having made those reserves, I should like to assure the Prime Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition that we have a great feeling that the decisions which have been taken at Brussels will be found after examination to be in accord with the general sense of the House of Commons and will constitute a step in harmony with the needs of the times and with the hopes of the future.
  Mr. Whiteley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ordered: "That this House immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Representation of the People Bill."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Constituencies and electors.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 11, after "constituencies," to insert "and the City of London."—[Captain Crookshank.]
    5.34 P.m.
    Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), who has just spoken in the Debate which was interrupted for such great affairs for a short time, told us that he was a freeman of the City of London, and then tried to explain how it was that he would vote for its representation in this House being brought to an end. I will not go into details on the questions he raised with regard to the activity of the City Members. I am sorry that my senior colleague the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) is today still in hospital and is therefore unable to make a speech as he would have wished to do on this occasion. I am conscious of all my defects but I am not conscious of inactivity. I am one of the most active

    2139
    Members of this House and I have been an active representative of the City of London since I have represented that constituency. I am in constant correspondence with a very large number of those who live and work in the City of London, many of whom of course do not have votes, but nonetheless I do my best to look after their interests.
    I am not going to devote my remarks today to anything except the merits of this case. We have already had a considerable discussion on the question of the Speaker's Conference and the pledges which were then given, and I do not propose to deal with those matters which have already been fully covered by right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee. Nor do I propose to quote to the Lord President of the Council any of the speeches he has made in the past in favour of the representation of the City of London. I propose to address myself solely to the merits of the case. I think that is my duty as one of the Members for the City.
    There are two questions which have to be settled. Is the City of London a community which merits representation in Parliament? If it is, who should vote? Those are the issues which have to be considered. I do not propose to rely for my case on tradition, though Heaven knows that is strong enough. For nearly 700 years the City of London has been represented in this House, at one time by six Members, formerly by four Members and now by two, but I shall not rely upon tradition for my argument. I am not going to rely on the fact that the City itself is the very cradle of our Parliamentary institutions and that the procedure of this House is said to be based upon the procedure of the Court of Common Council which was in existence for many years before this honourable House came into existence.
    When he spoke yesterday the Home Secretary referred to the Reform Bill of 1832, and told us something of what it did. Just now, while waiting to speak, I was looking at Erskine May and reading about the number of the Commons at different times. The Reform Bill is there mentioned, and it says:
    "The object of … the Representation of the People Act, 1832, as stated in the preamble, was to correct diverse abuses that had long prevailed in the choice of Members. The right of returning Members was taken
    2140
    from many inconsiderable places, and granted to large, populous and wealthy towns."
    Does anybody deny that the City of London is a large, populous and wealthy town——
    Mr. Binns: Populous?
    Mr. Assheton: Yes, 500,000 people work in the City of London—[HON. MEMBERS: "They only work there."]—ten times as great as is the number for any constituency accorded under this Bill——
    Mr. Collins: It is like Wembley on Cup final day.
    Mr. Assheton: What is the proposition that hon. Members opposite seek to put forward? That because of the 500,000 people, only a handful sleep in the City, the City of London should be disfranchised. Look at the history of the Reform Bill. What was disfranchised? Was any great city or borough disfranchised? Nothing of the kind. Old Sarum was disfranchised; it had no voters at all. Some boroughs had one Member taken away. An hon. Member referred to the interest my family had in the Borough of Clitheroe. Two Members used to be returned by Clitheroe and by the Reform Bill only one was retained owing to the small population. Here is a proposition to take away the representation from a city which has a population of 500,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—and on what grounds? On the grounds that, of that 500,000, only a handful sleep in the City of London. Are not the 500,000 who are awake of as great importance as the few thousand who sleep
    Mr. John Paton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that all but the handful who sleep in the City, sleep and vote elsewhere?
    Mr. Assheton: Of course, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not recollect the basis on which this House of Commons is formed. It is a representation of communities. We have here hon. Members as Members for counties, hon. Members as Members for cities, others are Members for boroughs and others, happily, still Members for universities. All those are communities that are represented, not just 50,000 people whose names begin with

    2141
    A, B or C. Is it suggested that the City of London is not a live community today? Is it like Old Sarum, is it dead? I suggest it is the most live community that could possibly be imagined.
    Let us look at it and see of what it consists. Possibly some hon. Members have not been to the City of London and do not know much about it, so perhaps I may be allowed to refresh their memories and tell them something about it? In the City of London will be found a hive of industry. At the present time, I regret to say, there will be found 160 acres destroyed by the war which we hope to rebuild as soon as we are allowed to do so. Those 500,000 people are working, earning money which this country needs more desperately today than ever before in the shape of invisible exports. There are the Bank of England and all the great banks. There are the insurance companies, there are Lloyds, the Baltic, the Stock Exchange. There are the merchants, all the commodity markets. There are Smithfield Market, Billingsgate Market, the Corn Exchange—all those activities contribute enormously to the wealth of the community, enormously to the wealth of everybody in this country.
    What else is there? There are the ancient monuments such as St. Paul's Cathedral. There are the City Livery Companies, to which an hon. Member opposite told us so proudly just now that he belonged, and to which many hon. Members in this House are proud to belong. There are within the bounds of the City of London the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. Can it honestly be suggested that this is not a great community? And a great community which demands and merits representation in this House? I do not think it is possible to suggest anything else. Now I come to the question of who should vote——
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he give the vote to all who work in this community, or only to those who own property in it?
    Mr. Assheton: I should. If under this Bill plural voting is swept away, then let us give everyone who works in the City of London the opportunity to register himself or herself there as an elector; let them have an alternative vote. Let us find some way by which the representation of this great City can be pro-
    2142
    perly maintained in Parliament consonant with full democratic views. I do not want to be returned to this House by any limited franchise; I do not desire to be returned to this House merely by property owners, or by the occupiers of premises, or by those who happen to reside within the City walls; I want to be returned by those who work and earn their daily bread in the City of London, and that is the proposition I make to-day.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It is quite clear that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) has not fully thought out all the implications of the last statement he made, for I find no Amendment on the Order Paper so far which would carry out the proposal he has made. If such a proposal were made, why should it be confined to the City of London? Why should not every person who happens to live in one place and work in another have the choice as to whether he should vote in the place where he lives or in the place where he works? It is idle to suggest that in this respect the City of London is other than the most flagrant example of the kind of difficulties that would be created. A number of my constituents work in Newcastle-on-Tyne; should they be allowed to make a choice as to whether they vote in South Shields, or in Newcastle-on-Tyne? Others work in the shipyards of South Shields and live in one or other of the county divisions of Durham; is the same choice to be allowed to them?
    I suggest that any such proposal as this would mean that it would be almost impossible to compile any list of constituencies in the country at all if we are to have any regard to the "one vote, one value" for which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been contending. This is, of all the fancy franchises I have ever heard, the most amazing to be put forward, especially from Conservative benches.
    Mr. Assheton: It is democratic.
    Mr. Ede: I would not even say that it was democratic. There must clearly be some continuing body of electors, and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, apparently, would enable anyone who happened to be employed on, let us say, the basis of a week's notice, who happened

    2143
    to be in the City of London on the qualifying day as a worker, to be enrolled as an elector for the City of London.
    Mr. Assheton: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that anybody who happens to sleep on the appropriate night in the Salvation Army Hostel in the City of London is put in that position?
    Mr. Ede: No, the right hon. Gentleman should read the Bill a little more carefully than that. There is very careful provision that casual residence of that kind will not be the appropriate qualification for being an elector in any given constituency. I suggest to the Committee that this is merely a fanciful way of trying to evade the real issue posed by this Amendment, just as we had similar fantastic proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), who said, "why not make this the seat far Mr. Speaker?" That means that this House would elect the Member for the City of London, and not the electors for the City. Or, he said, why not have it assigned to an ex-Prime Minister? If there is only one seat and there happened to be two ex-Prime Ministers, as I have known in the course of my experience in this House, who is to decide which of the two is to be the Member for the City? And if there happened to be three ex-Prime Ministers and one or two seats, who is to decide odd man out?
    I suggest that to-day, as yesterday, there have been no arguments directed to the merits of this proposal. We have had a réchauffé of the Debate that took place yesterday on an alleged breach of agreement, and I intend to say no more on that matter except to deal with one of the more fantastic proposals of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He said it should have been the duty of the Lord President, the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, to have brought in a Bill which slavishly followed the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and that when my hon. Friends who were not Members of the last Parliament said to us, "We do not like this Bill, we want to carry out the long-declared policy of our party to abolish the university seats and to deal effectively with the problem presented by the City of London," we should have said
    2144
    to them, "You vote in our Lobby." At once they would have been accused of being Lobby fodder.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: They are.
    Mr. Ede: Oh, no, they are not. I did not say they were. I say that if we adopted such a line hon. Members opposite would have said, "You are compelling these people to desert their principles, and converting them into Lobby fodder," which I think was a description first used by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).
    Mr. Hogg: It is the Government who are Lobby fodder under this Bill.
    Mr. Ede: May I assure the hon. Member that that is not so? I bring this Bill before this Committee without the provision which it is now sought to insert, because I believe that this is the Bill which ought to be brought in, with no compulsion from anyone, either behind me, or beside me. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston asked why we should not continue this representation and suggested that in 10, 15 or 25 years' time we might find there will be a sufficient resident electorate in the City of London to justify it. We have made provision in this Bill—which has been in no previous Bill—whereby there is a permanent Commission, which will review the distribution of the electorate throughout the country at intervals prescribed in the Bill. When there is a case for an increase in membership it will be the duty of that permanent Commission to make a suitable recommendation to the House. If in 10, 15 or 25 years, or at any future time, the population of this constituency justifies a Member being granted for the City by itself——
    Mr. Assheton: The sleepers.
    Mr. Ede: The population, like that of the rest of the country, sleeps during the appropriate hours. May I point out that it is not peculiar to the City of London that a place where a person sleeps is regarded as the appropriate place for registering him as an elector? I recollect that there have been cases in which a man's bed was over the boundary of a parish or constituency and in which it had to be decided whether his head or feet slept in the place where he was to be registered. Generally, it was decided that the place should be that where his head was.
    Mr. Hogg: It was a Tory Government.
    Mr. Ede: We were asked by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to recollect the men who have been brought Ditto this House through the representation of the City of London. There is nothing that more condemns this constituency than the way in which it has been used in this century in order to secure that Conservatives who have been rejected by other constituencies should be brought back. Does anyone contend that Mr. Arthur Balfour, distinguished man as he was, was an appropriate representative for the financial and business interests of the City of London, or that the gentleman who was brought in during that same Parliament, after the Tory debacle of 1906, Sir Frederick Banbury, had any other claim to represent the City of London than the fact that he was regarded as the prime obstructionist to defeat the activities of the Liberal Government which had just been returned? When we parted company with the present junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) at the last election no one imagined that, except to get a Tory in, it would have been necessary to confer a peerage on one of the sitting Members for the City. The claim of this constituency that in some way it represents something which is above party and is purely national, is not proved by its history and its association with the Conservative Party during this century.
    The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough said that the fact that there were 160 acres vacant in this city was not the fault of the City. Let us agree, but neither is it the fault of Limehouse that its electorate is as low as it is at the moment. We have been continually reminded during recent months that Limehouse and other constituencies have suffered a decrease in electorate and cannot at the moment command a sufficient number to justify separate membership. If we are to give separate representation to the City of London, with 4,600 electors, there is no ground for the revision of any of the London constituencies in the drastic way we are undertaking the task in this Bill.
    We deny that the number of 4,600 people—or, if we give the full value of the business premises vote and make the number somewhere about 13,000—justifies the creation of a separate constituency for this one
    2146
    borough. We feel that it is appropriate that the electors here should be joined with some other electorates which will justify the return of a single Member of Parliament. In the Bill we propose that they should be associated with the boroughs of Shoreditch and Finsbury. I gathered from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the Second Reading that he was not at all sure that his constituents would welcome the accession to their ranks of the electors of the City of London. If the feeling is mutual, we shall be quite prepared to consider any representations made to us by the appropriate people in the City of London in regard to any other association they would prefer, rather than that of the two boroughs with whom they are at present associated, it being understood, of course, that the persons with whom they are associated also express their willingness for some alteration to be made.
    There is a very ancient connection—and, if tradition is to be the sole guide in this matter, it is a tradition which might well be thought of—between the City of London and Southwark. I do not know whether that would be more acceptable to the City than the present suggestion. They also adjoin the City of Westminster, which is now joined with the Metropolitan Borough of Chelsea and given two representatives. It may be that the City of London would prefer that some arrangement could be made whereby, in association with part of the City of Westminster, they could return a single Member to this House. We shall be quite willing to consider anything that the appropriate authorities may desire to bring to our notice in that matter, for we have no desire to force an unwilling partnership between the City, Shoreditch and Finsbury, if a more suitable arrangement for all concerned can be found.
    6.0 p.m.
    This is not the first of our ancient communities which, in the course of years, has had to accept the position that a falling population involves the loss of separate Parliamentary representation. The Act of 1884, which was first used at the General Election of 1885, was the last Act which placed the historic continuity above the requirements of the number of electors, and it preserved, as separate Parliament boroughs, such small places as Canterbury and Winchester. After all, Winchester was the capital of England

    2147
    before London made claim to that distinction, which I understand is furiously contested by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) who holds that the City of Westminster is the capital of the country—[Interruption.]—not even Tagg's Island, as we were reminded the other day.
    This is, therefore, not a unique position which we are asking the Committee to adopt. We have to live in the circumstances of today. We have been continually urged by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do something to get nearer "one vote, one value." It is quite clear that if we create in the Bill the City of London as a separate constituency with the electorate proposed, we should outrage that proposition. If we were to adopt, by some machinery not yet invented, the proposal of the junior Member for the City of London, and were to admit to the franchise, if they so desired, all the half million people who come into the City, I do not know whether he would then be content with two Members for the half million, or whether we should then have to construct some completely novel representation for the City of London, giving it a Member or Members appropriate to that electorate, and thus do something to keep as near to "one vote, one value" as we have managed to reach in the present Bill.
    Mr. Assheton: See how many would opt.
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty is that from time to time the number who opted might vary, and the permanent Boundary Commission would have to keep one eye towards all this possible floating vote in the City of London in order to ascertain that it had appropriate representation. If anything like half the half million exercised the option, it would create a series of great difficulties in all the suburban areas around London, and would also involve constant review of their electorates.
    There is no excuse for this suggestion of a fancy franchise. If we gave it to London, I am quite certain that we should have to give it to a large number of other commercial and industrial centres in the country, where similar claims could quite well be put forward. I venture to suggest, that the Committee should accept the view which the Government
    2148
    have placed before it, that the time has come when the City of London should be joined with some neighbouring borough in an effort to ensure that continued representation shall be afforded to those who live in the City of London, and that those who work there and live elsewhere should vote in the constituencies in which they live as they do now, where they undoubtedly exercise considerable influence, and where their association with the City of London is often the means of uniting them in the community in which they dwell.
    There can be no justification for giving the 4,600 people separate representation in this House, and I do not believe that the financial prestige of the City of London and its esteem in other countries depend on the accident of whether it is represented in this House by one Member, by two Members or by a Member in association with some adjoining area. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: The Home Secretary has today shown no sense of sentiment, of historical interests or even of tradition, all of which are held dear by Members on the other side of the Committee as well as on this. What is worse is that when a really sound case has been made out by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who has shown us the importance of the City and has suggested a very feasible scheme for ensuring that its people are represented—even then the Home Secretary has given us no compromise whatever, except the offer to tag on the City of London to some other constituency. The right hon. Gentleman had a very rough passage in his speech last night, and I believe that that was because he was worried about it. He did not seem easy when he was making that speech, and we had great hopes of him today. We thought he might be able to offer us something, but our hopes have been dashed to the ground.
    I support the Amendment, not because of sentiment or tradition, but because of the benefit which we would have in this House by having a representative from the City of London sitting on our benches. That value may be more appreciated this afternoon now that the Committee have heard the forthright speech of the junior Member for the City

    2149
    of London (Mr. Assheton). I, for my part, will leave out the sentimental side of the question, and try to impress on the Committee that the whole world revolves around the City of London. It is there that news, views and ideas come in from all corners of the globe—the Colonies, the Empire, and all the distant parts of the world. It is there that the news, views and ideas are turned over in the minds of City merchants, where discussions take place, and it is there that the Member for the City of London mixes with those people, hears their ideas, and from what he hears is able to broaden his mind and to come back here greatly reinforced by what he has heard, and is able to give valuable ad vice to the Members of this honourable House.
    The position of the City of London is unique. It has been built up on enterprise and on the ramifications it has all over the world. There is more at stake in that small area than is the case anywhere else. It has built up a great deal of wealth for this country in the past, and whether hon. Members opposite approve of wealth or not the City has helped this country by building up its wealth and industry. The prestige of the country has also been aided and the standard of living of many of the people has been improved by the enterprise of people who have hailed from the City of London. In that square mile there is probably more knowledge available than in thousands of square miles in other parts of this country. The Government bank there, and raise their loans there, and from there come the invisible exports, so vital at the present time. Hon. Members will remember that we lost our American Colonies many years ago on the cry of "No taxation without representation." Hon. Members may not be so familiar with the fact that one-sixth of the Income Tax of the whole country comes from the City of London. We lost our American Colonies; we do not want to lose the good will of the City of London. I know she is not going on strike, but why offend such an ancient place and a place which is thought so highly of throughout the world.
    The Leader of the House has been quoted as saying that the City has a great place in the municipal history and a great place in Parliamentary history, and that he would be sorry to see it abolished. Any hon. Member is entitled to change his mind, but not to change his word. Why,
    2150
    if he changes his mind, does the right hon. Gentleman want to abolish both seats? Could he not compromise by leaving us even one seat? The Secretary of State for Scotland said there is a sentimental and traditional aspect of the City that it might be wise to respect. I am supporting this Amendment for a greater reason than that and not, as I have said, through sentimentality or tradition. I believe that the knowledge that can be brought to this House by the hon. Members for the City of London is of great assistance to this House and of great advantage to the City at the same time. Its continuance would be a help to all of us and would be of paramount importance, not only to hon. Members, but to the whole country.
    6.15 p.m.
    Commander Noble: I would like to associate myself with what has been said by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and, as a London Member, I would particularly like to associate myself with what has been said, both on the Second Reading and again today, with regard to the breach of faith that is being perpetrated by the Government on this occasion. I do not think that any arguments have been put forward, either on Second reading or today, to have caused us to amend our charge in any way whatever. I simply cannot understand how the Government can take this decision without the courtesy of calling another Speaker's Conference. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote what Lord Pethick-Lawrence said—I know it has been quoted before—in 1945, on 17th January:
    "What did the Speaker's Conference do? We looked at the party issue and we said, 'Cannot we come to some compromise that will go some way to meet one side and some way to meet the other?'"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 17th January, 1945; Vol. 407, C. 295.]
    I have always thought that this Government is pretty thick-skinned, but when it comes to doing this without calling a Speaker's Conference, and in the face of a deputation to the Bar of this House from the Sheriffs of London, and also in view of the deputation to the Prime Minister by the Lord Mayor of London, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chairman of Lloyds and other City personages, that has only strengthened my convictions.
    As a London Member I would ask what correspondence other London Members

    2151
    have received on this subject, particularly hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. I have had correspondence from masters, prime wardens and liverymen of City companies and many freemen of the City of London. They represent, I think, a cross-section of independent minded people whose views were directed not in any political sense, but in an endeavour to maintain, not only what they consider to be right and proper, but the best value to this country. They are the people who work in the City and I think that their views should be respected. I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), himself a liveryman, has said on this connection. I shall be very interested to hear what experience either hon. Members have had in this connection.
    In summarising what I consider to be the case for this Amendment apart from the obvious breach of faith, there is, firstly, the case of the sentiment and prestige of the City throughout the world. I do not think that they can be lightly cast aside, and they were rather lightly cast aside by the Home Secretary a few moments ago. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) quoted the Lord President as saying in 1944 that he was a good Londoner and a student of the City's history. It would seem to me that the Lord President must now be a bad Londoner, and he must have conveniently forgotten the history that he said he knew then.
    I think it was my right hon. Friend the junior Member for the City (Mr. Assheton) who made the point that the City of London does expect its Member to take a special interest in economics and finance, not to mention banking, commerce and insurance. I know that all hon. Members do, or should do, that to some extent, on behalf of their constituents, but it is a special duty of the Member for the City of London, especially if he is to understand the effect of the many intricate financial Clauses of many Bills that come before this House. He must make a special study of these subjects, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree when I say that many of these Clauses require considerable technical knowledge if their purport is fully to be understood. The Home Secretary said today that he did not see any reason why the City should be different. I think it is
    2152
    very hard to see any reason why the City should not be different. I ask the Government to think again on this subject, so that the ancient courtesies and customs of our administration may be maintained.
    Sir David Robertson: I have worked in the City of London for 37 years, and I am a business voter in it at the present time. Ever since this Bill first appeared, I have been saddened, because I could not understand why the Government wanted to dismember this very great constituency. The City of London is not only the capital of our own country, it is the capital of our Empire. It contains, as the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) has said, not only banking houses and insurance and financial houses, but all the great commodity markets, the metal exchange, all the newspapers, periodicals and magazines, and the G.P.O.; and many other vital industries. There is Smithfield Market, the greatest meat market in the world, and Billingsgate Fish Market, the greatest fish market in the country—a market with which I have been associated for many years.
    Mr. Attewell: Noted for its language.
    Sir D. Robertson: I am afraid I did not understand that interruption. I submit that this is a unique community. Even if all the other proposals in this Bill are right—and they may well be—this is the exception which proves the rule. I appeal to the Government to take special steps to see that all these vital trades in this very live community, the City of London, which exists today and has grown throughout the centuries from Roman times, are represented in this House. All these great industries about which we have been told, and of which I have a personal knowledge, are carried on in this one square mile which is their market place.
    In my own small way I was connected with a fish business which in 1920 had a capital of £4,000. I resigned from it eight years ago when I became an inmate of this place. I had to make a speech on fish, then a second speech on fish, and I felt that I might be suspect in the eyes of my colleagues if I remained in the industry. Therefore, much to my financial disadvantage, I left it. But

    2153
    from this small beginning, and as a result of the energy and hard work of a number of men, with the assistance of London financial houses, the capital of that business has grown to somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000. The company built 46 modern trawlers a year or two before the war broke out. All of these with their crews were requisitioned for war service and, unfortunately, a large number of them were sunk. That is my own little experience. It is the experience of citizens throughout the ages—the combination between banking, insurance, industry, commerce and finance. I am sorry that the Government Front Bench has so few Ministers on it at the moment, because I think that the unique situation of the City of London is the kernel of the whole of the case.
    The United States of America were faced with a problem in regard to their capital city, just as we are faced with a problem in regard to ours. They overcame it by adding to the 48 States, the district of Columbia which is the area in which the beautiful city of Washington stands. I suggest to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that, quite irrespective of our party views, we owe something to this great City of London which has played such an outstanding part in our history at home and overseas. The Carolinas, Delaware, Virginia and possibly Massachusetts—although I am not sure of that—all had their roots in companies created in the City of London and owe their origin to merchant adventurers who went out from this City. In the City today we have the British India Steam Navigation Company, the P. & O., the New Zealand Shipping Company—historic names in the story of India and the East and New Zealand. There was the Donald Currie Line, now the Union Castle Line, which played a major part in building South Africa. All of them are in Leadenhall Street and thereabouts. Are the Government to deny to them representation in this House? That would be a sad step.
    I was mortified when I heard the Home Secretary so brusquely put aside the suggestion made by the junior Member for the City of London that alternative voting might be permitted to those who work in the City, and that they should have the right to vote where they live or where they work. The Home Secretary was very
    2154
    sadly off the track when he deprecated that on two grounds. The first was the mechanical issue. He said that it just could not be done. That is nonsense. I cash my B. Us, in London, in Bexhill or Liverpool. If that can be done with complex rationing, surely once in a five-year period, or thereabouts, men and women can have the right to elect to vote either where they live or where they work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at that suggestion again. His comparison of the City of London, the hub of our Empire, with Newcastle and the other side of the Tyne was a little unworthy. Surely, the City of London calls for special consideration.
    My final thought which I should like to put to my colleagues is to suggest that it is worth consideration that we should retain the business vote for the City of London alone. I think that that merits consideration. There can be no mechanical difficulties about it. It would merely carry on something which has existed for a very long time. I put that to my colleagues in all parts of the Committee. Unlike the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal National benches, I am fully convinced that the City never can become residential. That square mile is much too valuable for industry and commerce. It is too valuable to the country, as well as to those who run industry and commerce, for it ever to become residential. I think that the tendency will be for it to become less residential and even more sparsely occupied outside working hours and still a hive of activity during the day. For these reasons, I feel that very grave consideration should be given to this problem. I hope that the Committee will not act in any hasty fashion in coming to a decision which will destroy something which is so well worth while preserving in our life, in the life of the Empire and of the world.
    Mr. Binns: We have heard much of the history of this great City of London. Much of that history with its effects on the lives of the people of this country, its constitution, and the whole growth of our Empire, was brought about at a time when London itself was not merely a place of commerce, but the living hub of this nation's commerce, in terms not merely of business, but of the lives of the people. People lived

    2155
    and had their being in the place. Just half a mile from where we are now, there were fields and commons. This London was a place in which both commerce and living equally played their part. Since that time London has grown and spread its tentacles until now we have not only a county of London with 4½ million people, but a greater London in which there are possibly eight million people around this hub and having their being because of this hub. Does that not mean that London has not ceased to be but rather has grown a hundred times from what it was? Does it not mean that in this modern generation it is represented by perhaps a hundred Members, representing the same general interests in this House that were represented formerly by two or three Members?
    London as a great City had its opportunity only about half a century ago of taking part in this great spreading out. It had the opportunity of becoming not merely what it now is a relic of what it was, with a Lord Mayor and Corporation having no reality as far as the ordinary life of the Metropolis is concerned, but merely a means of hospitality and a show piece—but of becoming a real part of the organisation of municipal London. Always that opportunity was rejected. The reason why I speak now is not because I am a liveryman of the City or because I have any contact whatever with it, but because I happen to be the chairman of the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee which represents the 28 Metropolitan boroughs and the City of London. In that capacity I say strongly that not at any time in the whole of my experience on that body has the City of London taken its proper part in relation to the rest of the Metropolis. On the contrary, on every occasion when it could take a selfish view, it has taken it. Even when the recent Local Government Bill was before this House, it had the opportunity of acquiescing with the rest of the London boroughs in order to bring financial benefit to them, but it refused to do so.
    6.30 p.m.
    I will say, on behalf of that body which I represent, that, in fact, we do not agree that the City of London should have any representation at all, because
    2156
    we believe, with this Government, that representation should consist in terms of the counting of heads and not of the counting of money. It has been put forward from the benches opposite that, because of these great organisations which inhabit the City of London, which have great funds and which run great shipping lines, because the commerce of the country is centred in that city, because of all these facts, the City should have special representation. There are at least 100 hon. Members sitting on that side of the House who represent the City of London, and there are a few sitting on this side, too.
    How can it be said that the Members for the City of London represent it in any special sense? They never have been people, in my experience, entitled to speak for it with special knowledge and authority. There are at least 100 hon. Members on that side of the House who, by their special knowledge of particular industries, can speak for the City of London, and who can speak with full authority upon what happens in the City of London. I claim that that representation of the City of London is quite sufficient. Moreover, I will say that I would myself lead hon. Members on this side of the House—certainly every Labour hon. Member—into that Lobby against the Government if they dared, at a time when they are denuding London's representation by almost one-third, to give to the City of London, with an electorate of 4,600, the opportunity of having its own Member.
    I suggest that, if anybody wishes to see a member of the Municipal and General Workers' Union sitting here, with his top hat, on Budget Day, then he should ask that those 4,600 voters of the City of London should have a Member, because, undoubtedly, the caretakers will elect their own. I suggest that the real City in the modern sense should be the basis of representation; in other words, Holborn and Westminster, and the other areas into which the City offices have overflowed, are areas where they can get reasonable representation, but, there again, the popularity of the City is such that the City of Westminster would reject any such overture if its own identity were to be lost. At least I think so.

    2157
    What it boils down to is this. The Opposition are asking the House to give them a special case, and they must give special reasons why in this case we should not accept the fundamentals in which we believe, which are that each man should have one vote and one say in the government of this country, and that, if any man has special knowledge, ability, education, character and integrity, that man can, by these very virtues, carry these matters into this place by his influence on others. Those are the only virtues which should give him a special position in the affairs of the community.
    Mr. McKie: I am not going to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns), though I am grateful to him, and I am sure we all are on this side of the Committee, for having informed us regarding the views of his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman has no use at all for special qualifications. He said that he believed only in the counting of heads in the Division Lobby. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says, "Hear, hear."
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I did not say that.
    Mr. Binns: And I did not say the Division Lobby.
    Mr. McKie: At any rate, he and his hon. Friends only believe in the counting of heads. They believe only in the election of hon. Members who will, go into the Lobby to support any proposal, iniquitous or good, which is sponsored by the Government Front Bench.
    I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this Debate, as I am the first Member from Scotland who has had the opportunity of addressing the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) complained, the representation of Scotland and Wales is being left unimpaired, as far as numbers are concerned, by this Bill, so I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word in support of the ancient City of London constituency. Although no hon. Member from Scotland has so far spoken, I was glad to hear my fellow-Scot the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) reminding us of the importance of London from Roman times, though I suppose that would not make any appeal to the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. Since
    2158
    Roman times, the City of London has indeed occupied a unique place in this country, and, since about 20 years after Simon de Montfort, it has been associated with Parliament. The City of London has sent hon. Members to this House varying in number from six to two, and now that constituency is to be allowed only one Member, if the Amendment is accepted.
    I could not help reflecting that the Home Secretary seemed to be rather uncomfortable regarding this proposal, and his discomfort was shared earlier in the day by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), who tried to harrow our feelings by alluding to what took place on the night of the second Great Fire of London. He referred to the readiness with which help came from the adjacent boroughs of Shoreditch and Finsbury, and to the community of interest that should be established between these two boroughs and the old City of London constituency. I cannot altogether subscribe to that view. I feel very strongly about this, even more strongly than I feel about university representation. Although the universities have had their own representatives here since the days of James I of England—James VI of Scotland—the Members of the City of London go back some three centuries earlier than that.
    On the question of the proposed amalgamation, the Home Secretary said that he was not wedded to the idea of Shore-ditch and Finsbury, but that, if those who were qualified to speak preferred amalgamation with some other London borough constituency, he was quite prepared to consider any points they might bring forward. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Southwark and Westminster, and I was reminded of the speech by the hon. Gentleman for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who, at the beginning of this Debate, expressed the hope that there would be no amalgamation between Westminster and and the City of London, because he did not consider that the type of elector in Westminster was likely to be a suitable partner for the elector of the City of London. I suppose they would not be democratic enough, but my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) will probably be speaking about Westminster later in the Debate. From the historical point of view, I am afraid the hon. Member has not been refreshing his memory to

    2159
    find out some of the men who came to this House through Westminster. What about Charles James Fox, Sir Francis Burdett and John Stuart Mill? I hope we shall not hear any more statements such as he made.
    The Home Secretary, in replying to one of my hon. Friends, said he would not be a party to fancy franchises, and so he has made a somewhat lame attempt to dispose of the suggestion that, in this case alone, there might be considered the possibility of allowing the business vote in order to bring the electors of the City of London division up to the quantitative level which is now deemed to be necessary in these matters by the powers that be. I will make him a present of that, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to consider what he calls "fancy franchises," I will be prepared, in this case of the City of London, to allow the electors there, perhaps only 5,000 in number, to constitute one electoral division, because, so far as I am concerned, I have laid my cards upon the table.
    Surely, the Home Secretary, who is now in charge of the Debate, cannot fail to be interested; with his sound historical sense, he cannot fail to have been impressed by the pleas which are being put forward regarding the special treatment that should be meted out to this constituency. I would say, in passing, that I was very disappointed to hear the Home Secretary re-echo what was said, I think by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, about the way in which some Members for the City of London had discharged their duties in this House. He called attention to their poor Division record. Of course, the hon. Member for Gillingham indicated that that is the only criterion exercised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He implied it.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not here, but I do not think it is correct to say that he mentioned anything about the Division record of any hon. Member.
    Mr. McKie: The Home Secretary criticised the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) in that respect, and the same right hon. Gentleman was also criticised
    2160
    by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. If I am in error, I will at once withdraw that remark, so far as the Home Secretary is concerned.
    Mr. John Lewis Mr. John Lewis (Bolton) rose——
    Mr. McKie: The hon. Member Will have an opportunity of addressing the Committee at a later stage. I will remain to hear what he has to say.
    Mr. Lewis: That is very kind of the hon. Member.
    Mr. McKie: The Division record is a very poor way indeed of trying to assess the value of any hon. Member in this House, on whatever side he may sit. I would point out that speakers on the Government side are in no position, living as they do in glasshouses, to throw stones in this matter. If an accurate analysis were to be taken of the Division record of hon. Members opposite, perhaps they would not be so ready to trot out the kind of remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch this afternoon.
    I see opposite me at this very moment one of the two Members who sit for Fermanagh and Tyrone, and who for 10 years did not attend this House because they did not agree with the then Government. I believe it was the colleague of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) now present in the Chamber who said——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member has gone very wide of the Bill.
    Mr. McKie: I was endeavouring to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch concerning the attendance of the hon. Members for the City of London in this House, and I was pointing out that such remarks came ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite when one considers their own Division records. I was about to say——
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is the very thing I cannot permit the hon. Member to say.
    Mr. McKie: For 10 years, two hon. Members of this House absented themselves from attendance here. So far as I am aware, that has never been done by any Member elected to represent the City of London. Supposing my right hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of

    2161
    London (Mr. Assheton), who is now in his place on the Front Bench, were to say, "I am not coming to this Parliament simply because I do not like His Majesty's present advisers," would it be assumed that he was loyally carrying out his duties to those who sent him here? Certainly not. I sincerely hope that when the Under-Secretary of State reports to his chief what has been said in this Debate, his chief, who has been responsible for piloting this Bill through the Committee stage, will be impressed with the suggestion that, on this occasion, he should make a concession, even if the Government ruthlessly turn down the university representation. The Government have no mandate for this Bill, and no mandate for taking away the university representation, and they certainly have no mandate for taking away the City of London representation.
    I realise that I may be in the position of Abraham pleading for Lot, in pleading for the 4,000 or 5,000 people who dwell within the confines of the old City of London constituency. But I am not ashamed to do that, and, if this Amendment is not accepted, I shall have very great pleasure in supporting it in the Division Lobby against the Government who know what is right, but are doing what is wrong.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Lewis: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has succeeded in clouding the issue with so many irrelevancies that I do not propose to follow him in detail in what he said to the Committeee. However, I feel I must refer to one or two of his misrepresentations which have drawn hon. Members on this side of the Committee to their feet. He was kind enough to advise me that he would not leave the Chamber immediately he sat down, but would stay to listen to what I had to say.
    I refer specifically to his reference to the absence from this House of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan). That matter has been referred to, not only by him, but by other hon. Members of the Committee. If any implication was made, may I say, with great respect that I think the main implication came from the right hon. Gentleman the junior
    2162
    Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who, immediately after he had referred to statements made by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, said that he did attend quite regularly and was most assiduous in his duties——
    Mr. Assheton: I also referred to the unfortunate fact that my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London was in hospital, and that he has been there for a considerable time.
    Mr. Lewis: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I knew that the absence today of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London was due to illness. I have a great respect for him, having worked for him during the war, but I did wish to point out that the reference to his absence by other Members of the Committee was not in respect of today, but of other occasions when hon. Members thought he might have been present.
    It seems to me that the issue before the Committee can be divided into two separate parts. Hon. Members opposite claim that the City should have special consideration because it is a constituency of a special character. At least, that was one of the claims put forward by some of the Members opposite. In that respect, I yield to no one in my admiration for the institutions of the City of London. I have a close connection with the City, and, in common with other hon. Members of this Committee, I am a freeman and a liveryman of the City, a fact of which I am justly proud. I appreciate too that the City is the focal point of our invisible exports; it is the seat of our commercial activity, of our great banking institutions, and is the centre of our world wide shipping and insurance business. That, I think, is generally accepted. It is somewhat unfair of hon. Members opposite, in particular the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), to suggest that he detected a leer on the faces of hon. Members on this side of the Committee when they referred to the City, and for him to say that they assume that the City is a bad thing.
    That is not the point at issue at the moment. I maintain that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) is the salient one on this particular issue. If the special consideration which entitled the City

    2163
    of London to separate representation was that, without it, City interests would have no voice in this House, I might feel that there was something in the argument. But, in point of fact, there are many hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the Committee, as well as some on this side, who are quite competent to speak with authority, and with great specialist knowledge, on all the matters in respect of which the City is renowned, and I therefore feel that this argument also cannot be sustained.
    I would remind the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made a very important point which the hon. Member for Galloway took great care to omit in his speech, although he referred to many other matters in my hon. Friend's speech. It was what my hon. Friend said in respect of this particular breach of faith to, which so many hon. Members opposite have addressed their remarks. I would impress on the Committee that I should be the first to agree with these hon. Members if I thought there had been any such breach of faith by those right hon. Gentlemen who now constitute His Majesty's Government. The matter was resolved for me by the intervention of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), when it was argued from this side of the Committee that this alleged agreement, should not only continue for this Parliament—if the reasoning from the other side of the Committee was sound—but that it should apply to succeeding Parliaments. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough was asked what he would suggest in those circumstances, and he intervened to say that before any constitutional change of that kind could take place in his view there should be another Speaker's Conference.
    The point which I would emphasise is the one made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, who quite specifically proved to the Committee that in 1928, a precedent was created by the refusal of a former Speaker to preside over such a conference. The former Speaker made it quite clear that outside any Coalition or any periods when the parties existed on the basis of common agreement for common action, he did not think it was right and proper for him to do so. In those circumstances,
    2164
    this allegation that there has been a breach of faith cannot be sustained.
    May I say, finally, that if it were possible to retain the City of London as a separate constituency, with no plural vote and with the extinction of the business vote, I should be in favour of it, but in point of fact I think what is happening in this Committee is that hon. Members opposite are confusing the corporate life of the City with its representation in this House. Can it be suggested that, as a result of this Clause in the Bill, the corporate life of the City would be extinguished? Can it be suggested that the City of London would lose its prestige in any way? Can it be suggested that the City of London cannot exercise the same functions as those it has exercised previously?
    The Opposition claims and, in my view, they may be regarded as strong claims, are in the main based on tradition and not on the basis that, should the City of London no longer have separate representation in this House, its prestige will be affected. I maintain that the corporate life of the City and its manifold activities will continue in precisely the same way as before, and I maintain that the fact that there will no longer be separate representation in this House will make no difference whatsoever to the standing of the City of London as the capital city of this country and the capital city of the Empire. In those circumstances, I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will be reasonable and will realise that a dual vote and a business vote can no longer be sustained in modern times, when we are tending towards a much more progressive approach to anachronisms which have existed for so long in the name of tradition, and which for this reason probably have been retained longer than they should have been.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) will perhaps forgive me if I say I was not—nor do I think most of my hon. Friends will have been—wholly convinced by his exposition as to what he regarded as the constitutional position, either from the point of view of the separate representation of the City of London or on the question on which he also touched at the end of his speech, of the business vote. The reasons which lead us to support this

    2165
    Amendment are really of two main kinds and, as I see it, those reasons have never really been adequately answered from the Front Bench opposite.
    First of all, we are disturbed about the method of forcing these proposals through at the present time, from the constitutional aspect. We believe there has been a breach of faith. Although a great deal has been said upon that matter, which I do not desire to repeat, I must say this: I was not, of course, a member of the Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament, but I was a Member of this House and, as a Member of my party, I wag one of a number who were consulted as to the kind of view which our representatives at the Speaker's Conference could properly put forward.
    I can well remember the attitude of mind with which we approached that problem. Our attitude of mind was this, and I think it is one which it would be proper for any great majority to bear in mind when they come to handling constitutional matters. Our attitude was that we, the Conservative Party in this House of Commons, had a great majority which would have enabled us to command any constitutional changes which we desired to put into force. We would not choose to do so, however, not simply because of the wartime comradeship of the Coalition but because we thought it would be in itself a misuse of power; because we thought that the fact that we had a great majority was an insufficient excuse to justify us in behaving shabbily to our opponents in a matter of this kind.
    We therefore sought to instruct our representatives on the Speaker's Conference to make concessions on a reasonable basis, and on a basis that concessions would be given on the other side. We certainly had no idea, when those concessions were given and taken, that the mere fact that the balance of power would be altered in a succeeding Parliament would deprive the arrangement of its validity, and I must say, having heard the explanations of the Ministers since this became a matter of controversy, and having read the statements of the Labour Members of the Coalition Cabinet at that time, both before and since it became a matter of controversy, I am more than ever reinforced in the view that there was an honourable bargain, honourably arrived at, and that to depart from it now is a breach of faith by those who made it.
    2166
    I am not in the least impressed, if I may say so, by the argument which is put forward in extenuation of what I regard as a breach of faith—that a Parliament, or hon. Members of it, cannot bind its successors. Of course, as a legal proposition that is unexceptionable. If there were legal means of enforcing political bargains, there would be no need of political bargains. The whole point is this: statesmanship in this country is based on two strong pillars—principle and personal honour; and the party which wants to support, as its leaders, men who are worthy to occupy a great position in this country ought to be as jealous of the personal honour of those leaders as they are themselves.
    When we are told by the Lord President, or by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns), who made a speech some little time ago from the benches opposite, that if the Labour Ministers who had given their words to what we regard as an honourable bargain, had attempted to carry it out, their own back-benchers would have turned against them, I can only say that is the most ghastly reflection upon the political honour of the Labour Party that I have ever heard. I can say this, at any rate, for the party of which I am a Member—if we were told, as we have been told from time to time, by a responsible leader of our party that he had given his word to the opposite party in a matter of that kind and regarded himself as honourably bound by it, I have no doubt whatever that the Conservative Party as a whole would desire him to keep his bargain. If the matter were something which the Conservative Party regarded as a matter of principle, for which they could not depart, they would willingly accept his resignation from whatever office he held and respect him for resigning. If, on the other hand, they regarded it as a bargain which ought to be kept, they would back him, even against their own opinions, in keeping his word.
    7.0 p.m.
    One of the first lessons I learnt in political life was illustrative of this particular principle of our constitution. When my father was first elected to the House of Commons in 1922 his maiden speech in the House was on the Bill which gave a separate identity to what was then called the Irish Free State. My father is

    2167
    an Ulsterman, and had been all his life a Unionist, and he regarded this particular Treaty, made by the Government which immediately preceded that to which he belonged, as something which was wholly wrong in principle; but because the previous Parliament had committed itself—its word—to this proposition, he felt it his duty, as his first act in the House, to propose the Second Reading of the Bill which, he explained at the outset, was wholly contrary to his own opinion.
    I believe that that is the genuine principle of honour on which our constitution is based. I regard the departure of certain well-known Ministers from what I believe is the correct application of this principle as a very serious breach in our constitutional tradition—at any rate, so long as they retain their offices. I very much regret that the Labour Party have not found it possible to depart even from their own opinions in this matter, and to adopt a more reasonable and honourable attitude. I believe that in failing to do so they have lost very much more than they will ever gain; because if they had behaved in a forbearing and honourable way they would, I believe, have struck a chord of gratitude amongst those who differ from them which would have stood them in good stead in the hard times we have to face together.
    It is not only a question of an honourable agreement which has been broken. I believe that the introduction of these particular proposals into this Bill represents a serious departure from the real principles upon which the power of the majority should be used in this country. I believe that constitutional change should be effected only in one of two ways: either the majority party proposing the change should go to the country for a mandate to do what they propose to do, or an attempt ought to be made between the majority party and the minority party to come to some honourable agreement as to what should be done. I do not think that there is a third course.
    I do not believe that it is legitimate or desirable in matters of constitutional change for a party which enjoys a great majority, who did not choose to put their proposals in their election manifesto in order to be able to claim a mandate, to come, half way through the life of a Parliament, to ride roughshod over the rights of the other great party in the State.
    2168
    I should be as anxious to preserve the principle of honour in our constitutional affairs if I were sitting on that side of the Committee, as I am now that I sit on this side. It is simply not true, because a party has a majority, that they have the right to play dirty tricks on their opponents. I really do believe that the whole constitutional future of this or any Parliamentary country depends upon the modest use of the powers of the majority by those who possess them, in cases where they have not received a specific electoral mandate, and in cases where they have not attempted to come to terms with their opponents.
    Mr. J. Lewis: When the hon. Gentleman refers to arrangements between the two parties, or between the various parties, does he think that the effective machinery would be a Speaker's Conference on the lines of the last Speaker's Conference?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think it is necessary to specify what particular machinery should be adopted, provided the consultations are effective. The two methods of approach consist in either going to the country to get a mandate or going to political opponents and making an honourable arrangement. What is not legitimate is to use power to effect constitutional change when there is not a mandate. It is inevitable that it will be said—as it is being said in this case, and, I believe, with perfect justification—that, when the Labour Party find it convenient to invoke a principle for their own electoral advantage they do it, but where they find it inconvenient to invoke the same principle they do rot do it. It is a mere pretence to say that these two Amendments which relate to the City of London and the business vote have anything to do with any principle whatever. The alleged principle is entirely a facade behind which cynical machinations of power politics are being carried out.
    This leads me to a discussion of the principles upon which we ought to proceed in considering these Amendments. The Home Secretary sought to pretend that there was a principle behind this Bill. I shall discuss that in a moment. In the whole course of his speeches today and yesterday he seemed to me to be both shamefaced and uncomfortable. Although his performance today was slightly more convincing than his performance last

    2169
    night, I must say it seemed to me to be very present to his mind that, even if he was convinced that a principle was involved, he realised very clearly that rigid adherence to principle sometimes leads to great injustice and anomalous results. But, in point of fact, it is simply not true that a principle is involved in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman sought to base his arguments upon a suggested principle, that all Parliamentary representation should be based upon "one man, one vote"; or, in other words, borrowed from a right hon. Friend of mine, "one vote, one value." But that is simply not the principle upon which this particular Bill is or could be based.
    There are, in fact, two or three different principles of representation which are necessarily involved in any Representation of the People Bill. It is precisely at this point when we come to deal with the business vote, or the separate representation of a community like the City of London, or the communities which we were discussing last night—it is at this point at which these principles meet and have to be reconciled that the matter becomes of crucial importance. The truth is that the representation of the people by a General Election really involves the application of at least three principles, not inconsistent in all their respects, but which sometimes diverge.
    The first, of course, is the election of a House of Commons broadly representative of the votes of the people. The logical application of that would be, from the mathematical point of view, to reduce the country to a single constituency and have party lists as they do on the Continent. In that way a completely mathematically accurate reflection of political opinion in the country could undoubtedly be obtained—to our infinite disaster: because the truth is that this is only one of the purposes for which we hold a General Election.
    The second purpose is this. Quite apart from the first purpose, which is to elect a House of Commons representative of the individual opinions of the electorate, our second purpose is to elect a House of Commons which is representative of subordinate communities within the electorate. That, in fact, is applied in this Bill, and applied on a most extensive scale. Why is the representation given to Scotland by this Bill so much
    2170
    better than that given to England, or that given to Wales better than that given to England? Why is it that some constituencies are relatively small in the numbers of constituents while others are relatively large? In each case the principle involved is the same, namely, that, quite apart from the general purpose of electing a House of Commons, which is representative of individuals, it is sought to elect a House of Commons which is truly representative of living communities within the State. That is why different constituencies of different sizes are made. That is why a different basis of representation is given to Scotland and to Wales. That is why there is a different representation in Northern Ireland. The whole basis of this Bill—and, indeed, of the instructions which were given to the Boundary Commission—lies in the fact that this Committee has always recognised that subordinate communities ought to be given separate representation where they deserve it, quite independently of the question whether every vote within that community has the same value within the nation. It is precisely because that principle is applied that this Bill is even a tolerable proposition.
    There is a third purpose which we have to consider in a General Election, namely, the election of a Government. That is why we do not adopt the principle——
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): I have allowed the hon. Member ample opportunity to explain the principle. Perhaps he will now relate the principle to the two Amendments under discussion.
    Mr. Hogg: I was doing so, but, with respect, Mr. Diamond, you have not allowed me to develop the third purpose, following the two with which I have already dealt. The third purpose involves the election of an effective Government, and it is for that reason that the principle of proportional representation is not accepted. The Home Secretary sought to pretend that his case against the business vote and against the separate representation of the City of London—indeed, he pretended last night that his case against university franchise was based on similar grounds—was based upon an alleged principle of the Labour Party, namely, "one man, one vote," which should be applied rigidly to the whole electoral system of this country. I have sought

    2171
    to point out that this is sheer nonsense; that it is not proposed to apply any such principle, and that if it were the proposal would meet with very little approbation from any source whatever.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member has not quite accurately stated the position. I do not know of any way in which this Bill departs from the principle "one man, one vote." True, for reasons which the hon. Member has given, and for some others, we have not yet arrived at the working out of "one vote, one value"; but I do not think it can be fairly said that in this Bill we depart from "one man or one woman, one vote each."
    Mr. Hogg: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had agreed that the principle "one man, one vote" is meaningless unless it has attached to it the purpose of achieving "one vote, one value." Without that latter principle, I simple cannot understand what moral validity or advantage is derived from the principle "one man, one vote." Since the Home Secretary has challenged me, I must say that the whole introduction into this discussion of the phrase "one man, one vote" is nothing really but a specious red herring. That old principle, when first enunciated some years ago, was designed for the purpose of claiming representation for the disenfranchised, for people who were not, in fact, given one vote. It was the classical argument for manhood suffrage—and for womanhood suffrage, for that matter—which gave rise to that slogan in the first place, and it was not, primarily at any rate, a protest against plural voting.
    7.15 p.m.
    I must carry this argument a stage further. Apparently the Home Secretary has now changed his ground; he is abandoning the principle "one vote, one value," and at last he seeks to base his argument upon the different and, by itself, meaningless principle "one man, one vote." But the principle "one man, one vote" is not here in issue; we are discussing not whether there should be plural voting, but whether there should be a business vote and whether there should be a separate constituency for the City of London. At the moment I am not arguing that there is any advantage in plural voting; nor, I suppose, should I be permitted to do so were I to attempt it.
    2172
    What I am suggesting is that there is every reason, in principle, why there should be a business franchise and separate representation for the City of London. I am bound to add—I think I can do this within the rules of Order—that I am not in the least impressed by the fear that there might be a few plural votes cast if that representation were given. I have never yet come across any instance in any election, in this or in any other country, when anyone has ever suggested that the result has been altered in the slightest possible degree by the casting of a few additional votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—additional votes by one or two people in different constituencies, except, of course, in cases where it has been done dishonestly against the law, on an intensive scale.
    In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to pay a little attention to the business vote, because it seems to me that the Government have failed to understand that the principle they ought to apply to this case is, not only the principle of the representation, of individual opinion, but the principle of the adequate representation of subordinate communities. I believe that their failure to apply that principle has led them into precisely the error which they have committed. I wish to draw attention to a most important factor in the representation of the people, from the point of view of the business vote. It is absolutely vital, not so much that at a General Election a particular elector should exercise his vote, even where he has it, but that a man should be entitled to come to a Member of Parliament and to say, on a matter vitally affecting his interests, "You are my Member of Parliament and I ask you to take up this matter for me." The actual casting of the vote is an indispensable part of the electoral machinery; but the relationship between constituent and Member is one of the essential features of our Constitution, and it is that relationship at which these proposals are ultimately aimed.
    Let me give an example from my own constituency—an example which must be capable of multiplication in every urban constituency in the country. For my majority I do not depend, and have never depended, upon business votes. There are about 250 persons in the constituency who, if they chose to do so, could qualify for a separate business vote; and at the last Election I believe that 25 persons

    2173
    actually so qualified. I do not know whether they all voted; and if they did I do not suppose for an instant that they all voted for me. The situation is that in Oxford, like many other towns, there are many people whose whole livelihood and business interest depends upon the City of Oxford—upon its thriving, its separate position, its planning, its representation in the House of Commons, and its relationship with the Administration.
    Those people may live some miles away, but, none the less, in all their relations with the Government, and in all the matters which vitally affect their interests, they want to come to me, not because they, think I am a better Member than those who happen to represent North or South Oxfordshire, or South Berkshire, but because I represent the City of Oxford: they are Oxford citizens, and they come to me, not because they want to regard me as their Member, not because they want to exercise their vote to ensure a Tory instead of a Socialist representative, but because they want to be able to say to the Oxford City Member, whoever he is, "You are my Member of Parliament," and not to have to go to a person whose whole position in Parliament depends upon the representation of interests of all kinds of persons with widely divergent interests from their own. It is precisely at these sort of persons that the present proposals are aimed, and it is precisely to meet that sort of case that these Amendments are proposed.
    I do not myself believe that the representation of a single scat in this House would be altered, except perhaps for the City of London, by the business voter's right to register in his business community. It is said that we do not want people to vote twice at a General Election. I myself do not attach, for the reasons I have given, all the importance which hon. Members opposite do to that, because I do not believe that it has ever affected a single result in the whole country. But, all elections are not General Elections; there are such things as by-elections. I cannot for the life of me see why, if a person happens for other reasons to have within a particular constituency a qualification which he ought to have, he should be debarred from voting in a by-election in favour of a candidate he wants, simply because he was driven at a General Election to opt
    2174
    between that qualification and another. It appears to me that that is logic run mad.
    This leads me to the position of the City of London. It is, of course, true that the separate representation of the City of London on anything like its present basis depends on the preservation of the business vote. Some kind of amalgamation would almost certainly be necessary if that were taken away. If we apply the principle I have sought to suggest as a valid principle of our constitution—and it has its application even in this Bill proposed by the Government—that is, the principle of adequate separate representation of subordinate communities, then it seems to me that the case for the separate representation for the City of London is overwhelming. There is a body of men and women in this area who, whatever we may think about them, are a separate subordinate local community. It is true that they do not happen to sleep there, and in that respect they are practically unique, although the Home Secretary may have it, if he likes, that there are other towns in the country where the dormitory element is outside; nevertheless, the City of London in that respect is unique. It is a great local community with a population during the day which would otherwise be considered worthy of separate representation, quite apart from its historical traditions. It is to be denied separate representation in this House, not for any intrinsic reasons of its unworthiness, but because of the accident of modern civilisation, whereby those who live and work there do not happen to sleep there. To attempt to apply a principle, which never had universal validity, universally over our electoral system, can lead to nothing but anomalies.
    I only want to add this: that our great Parliamentary life has not developed solely by the rigid and legalistic application of mathematical principles, but it has sought to adapt itself to the living, continuous traditions of a vigorous and vital community; it has sought to get the substance of what was required by applying principles, not universally but generally, and by demanding always exceptions where exceptions were required. By attempting to apply a principle in this case which can, on the showing of the Bill itself, have no universal application in the country, the right hon. Gentleman

    2175
    is illustrating that there is only one principle which this Government have observed from its inception to the present moment, and that is the advantage and expediency of the Labour Party.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in his closely reasoned argument on principles on which the Bill should have been framed. I was in considerable sympathy, however, with the last part of his speech. Like him, I do not think the City of London has been extinguished by the centuries or by Hitler's bombs. I still think it is a living, throbbing and thriving entity. I am not against the Government so far as the figures are concerned, but I view the departure of the City of London representation from this House with the very deepest regret. I always think that in Debates like this I am some kind of a political schizophrenic. I always have some nostalgia which forces me by instinct into some wretched Conservative traditional backwater. I try by my intelligence to overcome that as far as I can, but in this sort of case, I feel that I must say a word in defence of tradition. Perhaps the fact that I was for many years a teacher of history has something to do with it.
    I know it is a long time since Charles I had to deal with the trained bands of London. Nevertheless, the great historical association of the City of London with this House, in the fight for the liberty of this House, still means something to us. We cannot forget it. Although it is true that the fight for liberty has passed on to a different plane, we should still like to feel that the City of London had that revolutionary fervour, and that in every Debate in this House its representatives would spring to their feet to fight for the things for which those of us who believe in liberty are fighting.
    There is another point of view which has a great appeal to me. My own constituency of Epping is very closely associated with the City of London, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the City of London for the way in which it has looked after our noble forest. I do not say it would have been neglected if the City of London had not had representation in this House; nevertheless, it kindles
    2176
    a little warmth in my breast which would otherwise not be there. I know many of the liverymen; freemen of the City of London and jurors who live in the great houses in my constituency have attempted to influence me with offers that if I will support them, they will take their votes away from Epping and use their business qualifications. Of course, that appeals to me tremendously. I should make no complaint about that whatever; I should not feel it to be a personal affront in any way if they did take their votes away from the Epping Division. But it is not because of that offer or promise that I must say that I would have been very glad if the Government could have found a way out of this dilemma. I do not know whether it is possible along the lines already suggested but I would have been glad if it had been possible to consider the alternative use of the business vote in some way. I deeply regret the severing of the long and honourable connection between this House and the City of London. Although I am bound to support the Government if they feel that this is a principle to which they must adhere, I shall do so with regret and the wish that it was possible to find a way out of this dilemma.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: I think that with the exception of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) there has been a motive in the speech of every Member who has spoken from the opposite side of the Committee. Before I leave what the hon. Lady said, may I give her a piece of advice from one who is very much older than she is, namely, that she should follow her instincts, and not always her brains. "Honour the heart, and not the head." If she does that which is right she will be able to come over here and counter-balance me on this side of the House.
    Mrs. Manning: I can do that from this side.
    Mr. Fletcher: What has run through the speech of every Member opposite, including the Home Secretary, has been something quite different from what has appeared. It was not logic at all; the logic behind this Bill has been destroyed by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee.

    2177
    The Government have gone to a most curious source for their Parliamentary logic on this occasion—to Mr. Jorrocks. All they can really say is, "Where I dines I sleeps, and where I sleeps I votes." There is nothing more in it than that. What is the motive which is so strong in their minds that it puts them into the embarrassing position of having gone back on their given word at the Speaker's Conference? I have watched carefully the faces of Members opposite during this Debate, and I have noticed that they have reflected great discomfort. What is the motive that is so strong that it impels them to put all that aside, and to come forward and vote the City of London out of this House? It is the motive of revenge. They are saying to themselves, "At last, we are able to do what we have longed to do for decades—to get at the rich City." The Government's true leader in this matter is not the Home Secretary; it is the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) who, time and again, has shouted to us from the other side of the House, "Robbers in the City."
    Mr. Gallacher: Robber landlords.
    Mr. Fletcher: I want, however, to put my plea on a quite different ground. We have often heard the phrase "over-privilege" and "under-privilege." That presupposes that at some point between these two there is a correct privilege. This is the occasion on which the City of London is entitled to enclaim that it has a correct privilege, that it is entitled to a unique privilege of representation in this House in a way quite different from anywhere else. I have not the slightest doubt that, if the Government accept that, they will find a way out of the dilemma. Love will find a way—and the Home Secretary is a very fine example of love. He has a very kind heart. He will find a way whereby the City of London can be represented. All the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman put up and knocked down, all the criticisms he made of our arguments from this side, mean nothing. They were merely another manifestation of that spirit of revenge, the desire to say, "We have killed the City." That is one of the bad inheritances of Members on the other side of the Committee.
    The word "privilege" is regarded as having a bad meaning, but I would remind
    2178
    the Committee that St. Paul himself was content to claim, on occasion, his Roman citizenship as something to be proud of, and as something entirely compatible with his other functions. The City of London, in the minds of a great many people, brings out a picture which is entirely incorrect. I want to describe one part of the City of London which is not usually thought of when the City is mentioned. Too often it is the financial side, which is highly important, and against which I am saying nothing—the banks, the Stock Exchange, insurance companies, and the like. All that is of the greatest value to the country, but we should realise the strength which the City draws from its waterside. It is the waterside, and everything that springs from it, that is most significant. It was the origin of the greatness of the City, and remains the chief source of its strength today.
    I have been engaged in the City of London for 25 years, dealing in commodities and raw materials. I have been the chairman of one of the biggest commodity exchanges, and I have infinite knowledge of what that means to this country today and in the very near future. It is no use Members opposite, like the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis), saying that that will not be affected if the City is disfranchised. It most certainly will. At this moment, when we have to repeat, over the next few decades, the building up of our outside assets, when we hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, and every responsible Minister on the Front Bench telling us that we must export, that we must close the gap, when we must recreate overseas, possibly in a new form, the partnership between the Government and private enterprise, when we must try to build up the £3,600 million outside assets which saved us in the last war, how shall we do it if the City is denigrated and pulled down in the eyes of the rest of the world by being ruthlessly disfranchised for no good reason?
    Walk through the wharves of the City with eyes and nostrils wide open; smell the spices, fibres and wool, all the things which come to London, because London is the great entrepôt, not only for this country but for Europe. Realise that this is our true inheritance of the merchants of Venice, with whom there was a community of interest between the sons of men

    2179
    who were financing ventures of which nothing was heard for two or three years. Realise that from this small square mile sprang the advantage to this country of opening up, throughout the world, communities which today look to London with gratitude. Look at the integrity, credit and high standing of the City of London, realise what it means, and what will be thrown away.
    The word "goodwill" is used in balance sheets and in conversation to indicate the invisible path which people tread towards a person or firm whom they know to be of high integrity, and who will carry out their business well and on a fair bargaining basis. If a bulldozer is made to uproot that path, and stop the representation of that community, and persuade people in other countries, who are waiting jealously to take away from us the entrepôt trade of the City of London, that is doing, on flimsy grounds, a harmful act. At the moment this country can ill support such a jealous and stupid act. As one who has dealt in the City of London for many years I know that such questions as arose today about the Speaker's Conference, as to whether a given word was as good as a written word, do not exist. Day by day there are carried out, in the tradition of the City, by word of mouth, contracts of every conceivable sort, which are absolutely certain to be carried through in a proper spirit. Not one in 10,000 bargains carried out in the commodity exchanges in the City, many of which, fortunately, still remain with us, are ever brought into question or even go to arbitration. We are told that in the next two or three years there will come a time of surplus in commodities. At that moment, the City of London will be up against the greatest test in its history, Then we shall know whether the City of London, by the power of its traditions and high standing, although financially weakened, will be able to hold the vital position of the world's greatest market, the position of honest broker throughout the world, as one of our greatest assets.
    I represent a Lancashire industrial constituency. I preach to the people there as also to this Committee that it is the invisible exports based on the integrity of the City of London—which are being crushed by the present Government and hampered by this attempt to disfranchise
    2180
    —which can, if properly handled, still provide enormous revenue without drawing on the pool of skilled industrial labour. There is the greatest opportunity that will ever present itself to this country. I can assure the Home Secretary from my experience of New York, Paris, and other countries that if the world is shown that the City of London is disfranchised on the flimsiest possible ground, that will be a body-blow to the City which it will find difficult to bear.
    There is a great deal of agreement on this Bill. It might become the Government, the Home Secretary, and the Leader of the House if they were to make it quite clear, that this is an exception; if they were to say, "We will either form a sub-committee or find a way to enfranchise the City of London not only on its past tradition but also because that is a necessary act in helping our economic recovery." If that were to be done, if it were made clear that it was an exception and not the rule, and if instead of descending into the niceties of logical debate about "one man, one vote," and "one vote, one value"—all of which may be all right—they were to say, "One City of London, one greater glory of this country, one enormous asset that can be replaced by nothing else" we should be doing the right thing and it would have support from both sides of the Committee.
    7.45 P.m.
    Mr. Sparks: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) speaking in justification of the business premises vote and the status quo for the City of London. He put forward a powerful argument, in some respects, for the retention of the rights of owners of business premises in the City of London to retain their vote in the place where their business is located, in addition to their vote in the place where they live. The argument he made was briefly that their life interest and the welfare of their own community was centred in a particular locality and, therefore, they were entitled to an additional vote on that account. There was, however, a great omission in what he said. It is doubtful whether these business premises can exist or continue to function but for the fact that large numbers of workpeople have to carry on their

    2181
    daily occupations in such business premises.
    In the City of London there are thousands of people who have to carry on the work of the City and whose labour is necessary for the life of the City, including the existence of business enterprises, but apparently the hon. Member for Oxford would not concede to them the principle for which he is asking for business men. I would say that if the business premises vote is to be conceded to the business men because of their business interests in a particular locality, the same principle should be conceded to the men and women who work in those businesses and whose labour is responsible for the businesses being able to carry on. There is no reason, in my view, for drawing that distinction between those who happen to be owners of business premises and those whose labour makes it possible for those business enterprises to be carried on. The mere fact that he suggests including one and excluding the other indicates the partiality of his argument. It would be impossible in principle to accept that persons who work in a constituency should also be entitled to vote in that constituency as well as to vote in the places where they reside.
    I represent a constituency which contains about 500 factories, large and small, and each day some 15,000 workpeople come into my constituency. When they have finished their job, they go out of it to sleep. If there is a case for the business premises vote, why should not these 15,000 workpeople, whose livelihood depends on their employment in my constituency, and whose welfare and the welfare of their children and families is bound up in that employment, be allowed a second vote if we concede that principle to the owners of businesses? I submit that in this age we have no right to differentiate on a fundamental principle of that kind as between the person who happens to own the business and the person whose labour makes that business possible. Therefore, in fairness, I cannot see that the Home Secretary can do any other than establish the principle that one man should have one vote and that there should be no discrimination between those who happen to own business premises in a locality and those whose labour makes it possible for those enterprises to carry on. I cannot follow the logic of
    2182
    the hon. Gentleman's argument when he inferred that unless a businessman had a vote where his business is he would not go to the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which his business was located because he had not got a vote.
    Mr. Hogg: My point was not that he would not do so; I do not know whether he would or not—that is hypothetical. The point I made was that he would not have a right to do so because the Member would not be his Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Sparks: I cannot conceive any Member of Parliament being unconcerned about the affairs of his own constituency and the employment of his own people. I cannot conceive any Member of this House refusing to take any interest in the welfare of his own constituency just because the owner of that enterprise or the businessman in that area did not vote in that particular locality.
    Mr. Hogg: The point is that the owner ought to have the right and not depend on the public spirit and integrity of the particular Member concerned.
    Mr. Sparks: I would say that it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to look after the interests of his constituents, whether businessmen or not. It is perfectly obvious that every Member of this House would adopt that attitude in relation to the interests and welfare of his own constituency. I think that the argument was to some extent fallacious—to deduce that by withdrawing the business premises vote the businessman would not like to go to his Member of Parliament about any matter affecting him.
    I should like to say, in conclusion, that I hope the Home Secretary will adhere very rigidly to this principle. It is a principle with which those of us on this side of the Committee have been concerned not this last year or two, but for a very long time because of the partial way in which the business premises vote operates. There has been no recognition of the ordinary rights of the ordinary work-people who maintain and keep these businesses alive and active. Therefore, there is no fair principle to which we can adhere in this matter and we should now stand for the principle of "one vote, one person," that vote to be where the person resides, at the same time knowing full

    2183
    well that any Member of this House, irrespective of whether a person had a vote in his constituency, or not, would know it was his duty to look after the interests of his constituents, and the business enterprises, welfare and livelihood of his constituency. Upon that basis no one will ever suffer from any injustice.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: During a great deal of yesterday's Debate, and throughout the Debate today, I found myself in a position of some difficulty. Whenever an argument was turned upon the merits I found myself disagreeing, as I am about to disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), in the arguments advanced against the Bill. Yet, at the same time, I remain far from satisfied that what we are doing in this Bill is the right thing. What I mean to say is that, in my opinion, we ought not to be concerned with the merits of representation for the City of London, any more than yesterday we should have been concerned with the merits of university representation. That, in my opinion, is not the real issue before the House. The real issue is—ought we, at a given point of time, in a given set of circumstances, and against a particular background, take away university or City of London representation? I conclude we ought not to, and I will very shortly give my reasons for so saying.
    In the meantime, we must dismiss the romantic overstatement and unfounded arguments advanced tonight by the hon. Member for Oxford. He said, amongst other arguments, that the Bill was valueless because, while asserting the principle of "one man, one vote," it did not achieve or attempt to achieve the principle of "one vote, one value." That is perfectly true, and it is equally irrelevant. If it means anything at all, it means that we should never do anything to ameliorate existing conditions unless we can put it completely right at one go.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) did not realise the point. I did not, in fact, say that this Bill is valueless. On the contrary, I pointed out that its value resided in the fact that it did not attempt to do that very thing, but that it did attempt to apply another principle, representation of subordinate communities.
    Mr. Brown: That was the argument I was next corning to, because the assumption underlying it that the House of Commons represents organised communities is as fallacious as the one I have just disposed of. If, in the 20th century, we were talking about representing communities in this House, our whole approach would be utterly different from what it has been on either side of the House in the detailed Debates on the Bill. We should want to discuss how the miners, the engineers, the cotton operatives, the Civil Service or any one of a dozen other categories, which are more closely integrated and more homogeneous in interests and outlook than any geographical constituency on the one hand, or the City of London, on the other, should be represented. I regard the second argument as being more in favour of a House of Commons composed on an entirely different basis from the present geographical constituencies.
    Mr. Hogg: Again the hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what I said or implied. I would have made the argument about other kinds of communities on another Amendment. I made it abundantly plain that what I was talking about this afternoon was local communities.
    Mr. Brown: I do not want to weary the Committee, but the argument of the hon. Member will be within the recollection of hon. Members, and they will agree with me that my reply is not wholly impertinent—in the wide sense of that word—or wholly inappropriate. He went on to advance the argument that particular individuals in Oxford, who have a business in Oxford, but who live outside the city, desire that he should be their Member, rather than that they should go to the Member representing the area in Berkshire or South Oxfordshire where they resided. If I were in the same boat I would make the same choice. As compared with the hon. Member for Oxford, the backwood and benighted Members for the rural areas around Oxford who accompany him to this House would not stand a chance, and I would gladly put my case in the hands of the hon. Member for Oxford. It would be the only time in my life when I should have secured the services of a skilled barrister for nothing whatsoever. That is a most

    2185
    powerful argument for choosing the Member for Oxford rather than a Member who represents a constituency nearby.
    However, where does that argument lead to? They want to go to him because they are businessmen primarily, although they may live in North Oxfordshire. This is again the second argument, of which we have already disposed. It really resolves itself into argument that we should have representation in this House, not by geographical areas, but by categories and interests. If we are going to have that sort of discussion it takes us to the very root of the whole composition of the House of Commons. Then there was the argument about the fellow who might want to vote in a General Election on the basis of his residential qualification and on his business qualification in a by-election. If I may say so without being at all offensive, what a hog that man would be! He would want to vote in one constituency at a General Election in his residential right, and in another constituency in another by-election in his business right, so that he would exert two votes in an interval during which other people would only be enabled to exert one vote. Such a man would be an electoral hog!
    I do not agree with the argument that a businessman needs more votes than his fellow because he has got a business. On the contrary, I should say the more businesses a man has got the more he can dispense with the Parliamentary vote. I was a little alarmed at the number of businesses which one hon. Gentleman opposite had. Political power may be economic power, but there is no doubt at all that economic power is political power. And the businessman, so far from requiring more votes than the ordinary man, requires less. The case against what the Government are doing does not rest upon the arguments I have heard advanced today. It rests upon an entirely different set of considerations. In my view the issue before the House is not whether we want to abolish the City of London representation. There is one answer to that.
    Mr. Alpass: Why not?
    Mr. Brown: I will try to explain why. If we were reconstructing the House of Commons, I do not believe it would occur to any one of us to go out of our way
    2186
    to give representation to the City of London. But the circumstances that it would not occur to us to give representation to the City of London if we were now reconstructing the House is not, in itself, a conclusive argument for taking away the representation of the City of London in a given set of conditions.
    Mr. Alpass: If the hon. Member regards the representation of the City of London as an anomaly and an injustice, would he not agree that the sooner we get rid of anomalies and injustices the better?
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Brown: Not if the price of so doing is to create a greater anomaly and a greater injustice. I want to argue this thing quite fairly. I have disposed of these chaps on this side quite fairly, and now I want to turn to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    We have had great argument whether there was or was not an obligation of honour resting upon the Government, arising out of the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference. The Lord President of the Council, an exceedingly able debater, has demonstrated conclusively that, so far as the letter of the bond goes, there was no undertaking, either that the whole of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference should be carried out, or that a new Government should be inhibited from going further in some directions than the Speaker's Conference proposed to go. So far as the letter of the bond is concerned, the Lord President has dealt with it. He is a fair-minded man, and will appreciate my subsequent argument, even though he does not agree with it. I put it to him that sometimes there is something more in political situations than the letter of the bond.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member is taking me on far too narrow a front. I say that neither on the letter of the bond, nor on the spirit of anything that passed, nor on the verbal exchanges, is anybody entitled to advance the argument of had faith in this matter.
    Mr. Brown: I have not mentioned the words "bad faith" yet at all. I now understand the Lord President to say——
    Mr. Morrison: I said it as fair anticipation.
    Mr. Brown: Sometimes the trouble with the Lord President of the Council is that he is too anticipatory, and anticipates trouble where no trouble is coming. At any rate, I take what he has said. He rests himself upon three things: the letter of the bond, the spirit of the situation, and the verbal exchanges that took place. The letter of the bond I give him. I give him, so far as I am concerned—because I was not there and do not know—the verbal exchanges. I now come to the spirit of the situation.
    I do not say that there was any obligation of honour on the part of the Government. Therefore, I make no charge of bad faith. Let me make that quite plain. What I represent to the Lord President is this: Against the background of our methods of dealing with changes in the electoral law over a considerable period of years, there have been two legitimate expectations which the Opposition, in such circumstances, might have properly entertained. One was that while an obligation contracted in one Parliament is not legally binding upon a subsequent Parliament, it is morally binding upon the Government to do its best to give effect to it. That is legitimate expectation No. 1. In my view, the Government have failed to satisfy that legitimate expectation.
    The second expectation is one of more gravity, and it is the predominant influence on my mind in this Debate. This legitimate expectation is that if further changes beyond those recommended by the Speaker's Conference—an agreed Speaker's Conference—were in mind, they would not be applied as a one-party decision without prior consultation with the other parties concerned in the House. That is important, for reasons that I will try briefly to give. It is a fact that over a considerable period of time we have all taken the view that it was desirable, if possible, that changes in the electoral law should be made by common agreement. I think every one of us will agree that, if that is possible, that is the desirable thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should have thought that even the most quarrelsome hon. Member——
    Mr. McGhee: Women's suffrage was not obtained in that way, but after a great fight.
    Mr. Brown: Is that interruption intended as a contribution to my store of learning? If so, in the circumstances I declare it immediately to be redundant. It has been our tradition for some time that, where possible, we should effect changes in the electoral law by agreement. To which ever party we may belong, every one of us would sooner that things were done by agreement than in disagreement. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) wishes to interrupt me, I will immediately give way, if he has anything to say. I hope he will not maintain a running fire of semi-articulate and only half-audible remarks.
    Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member has quite a mistaken idea about the history and development of this matter.
    Mr. Brown: I do not see why that opinion should be the subject of an interruption. If the hon. Member thinks I am wrong, he may be fortunate enough in being enabled to get up and make a powerful speech showing that I am all wrong. I hope that hon. Members opposite will learn the lesson of tolerance one day, even in debate. I am not referring to the more courteous gentleman above the Gangway, but to some of the harumscarums below the Gangway, who do not seem able to contain themselves when somebody is presenting an argument with which they do not agree.
    I was saying that it is the background and tradition over a period of years for us to make changes in electoral law by agreement if possible. Why should we prefer that to any other method? We should prefer it because, if, when there is a majority of Tories in this House they would alter the electoral law to suit themselves and when there was a Labour majority on that side of the House, they would alter the electoral law to suit themselves, there would be neither agreement about the basis of the actual law or a basis of action to go upon. I thought it was common ground that, if possible, such changes should be made by agreement.
    Here are changes proposed not by agreement but through the operation of a Parliamentary majority. Undoubtedly the Government can carry these changes by the use of their Parliamentary majority, but I warn them that if, at the next

    2189
    General Election, the electoral dice so falls that there is not a Labour majority on that side but a substantial Conservative majority, the Labour Members then in opposition would have no moral grievance whatever if the Conservative majority in that Parliament started to alter the electoral law to their advantage.
    Mr. McKinlay: The hon. Member would then get the best of both worlds.
    Mr. Brown: I did not hear that interruption.
    Mr. McKinlay: I said that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) would then be able to get the best of both worlds.
    Mr. Brown: I should continue to regard with equal distaste and corresponding pity the operations of both sides of the House.
    Mr. McKinlay: The hon. Member means that he will patronise both sides of the House.
    Mr. Brown: We have seen in recent months—and this is a consideration which ought to appeal to anybody familiar with the recent operations of social democracy in Europe—the ruthless use of power to alter electoral law and electoral practice to the advantage of dominant groups in Eastern Europe. There is no law which exempts us in this country. We have seen in the last few days the Communist-dominated so-called Parliament in Prague——
    Mr. C. Poole: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, may I ask whether we are discussing Communist domination in Europe or the City of London electorate?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I assume that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is merely illustrating the argument which he has put. That is in Order.
    Mr. McKinlay: Would it be in Order, Mr. Beaumont, for the hon. Member for Rugby to quote his speeches in the 1929 Parliament in relation to Russia?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think we might allow the hon. Member for Rugby to continue his speech.
    Mr. Brown: So far as I am concerned, I do not mind anybody quoting at any time speeches I delivered in whatever year. If I have learnt something since 1929, I wish that I could believe that was true also of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). The point of my argument is a simple one, and it is very germane to this issue. This is a change proposed which is out of line with the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and it is to be carried through by the operation of the Parliamentary majority in this House—not by agreement, but the reverse. When we start on that path, we may start it, but other people may finish it. We have seen examples in the last few days of what happens when Governments proceed not on the basis of changing the law by agreement but on the basis of using power to override opposition. We have even seen the parliamentary immunity of Deputies taken away from Czechoslovakian Members of Parliament during the last few days. Great oaks from little acorns grow, and we may think this is only a little thing, but little things like this have a habit of becoming big things, especially in times of acute political or economic crisis.
    My conclusion is that whether there was a technical bargain or not, whether it was part of the bond or not, and whether it was part of the verbal exchanges or not, it is in keeping with the modern spirit of Parliament that changes in electoral law should be made by agreement, and after the discussions have taken place through what has become the constant and standard machinery, the machinery of Speaker's Conferences. It is a regrettable misuse, and an unwise misuse, by the Government, of its Parliamentary majority, for the sake of what is involved in this thing—a couple of seats in the City of London and a few scats in the universities—to carry this thing through in the way that it is proposed to be carried through. On those grounds, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall vote with the Opposition tonight.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Sidney Marshall: We have today listened to very sincere pleas for the retention of the City of London representation, which is the matter to which we are really applying ourselves, in spite of the discursions of

    2191
    so many hon. Members. I was very disappointed with the speech of the Home Secretary in the light of what has happened as recently as 1944. I shall not say for a moment that one is not entitled to change one's mind or opinion, but I feel quite sure—I shall not refer to it again after this—that at the 1944 Conference the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary were certainly of a mind which I believe was backed with sincerity. It is very difficult for me to believe that those two right hon. Gentlemen have so suddenly conscientiously changed their minds and opinions about the universities and City of London representation. The reason I am so concerned is my feeling that this is because of the pressure being exerted upon them by their own back benchers.
    When the distribution of seats Bill was considered, I have no doubt that the Socialist Government had nothing in their minds about changing the representation of the universities or the City of London, but the result of the Boundary Commission's Report was to deprive the Government of a large number of seats. That was inevitable, I imagine, and I believe that the Government were not so very much influenced by that fact in regard to the Boundary Commission's Report being a very sound one. I imagine that the losing of so many seats caused pressure to be brought to bear upon the Home Secretary and the Lord President to make at least a corresponding gesture to their own side by abolishing the university vote and at the same time the representation of the City of London.
    In this matter the Government have obviously tried to work by logic. It is impossible to apply strictly logical thought to the franchise in this country. We have heard about fancy franchises. We should not so quickly and readily cast scorn upon fancy franchises. I must admit that on logical grounds, or on grounds of reason, the City of London representation cannot be defended. That must be admitted, but there are many other grounds upon which it can be defended. I cannot think that the Lord President of the Council or the Home Secretary are of the calibre of mind to disregard tradition and all that it means. London is not to be regarded as an ordinary town, city or division. As we have
    2192
    heard this afternoon from so many hon. Members, the City of London is an institution. We cannot reduce it to a question of mere numbers or residential qualifications.
    The Government have yielded to a pressure which in 1944 would have had no influence whatever. We cannot carry this thing to a logical conclusion by mere mathematical measures. We find anomalies throughout the Report of the Boundary Commission, and we know that anomalies are bound to exist all the time. I cannot imagine that we could so mathematically order the division of this country that the value of "one man, one vote" would ever be exact. I believe that "one man, one vote" is a cheap slogan which will eventually have a very different evaluation placed upon it.
    I do not know whether anybody in this Committee really believes it is the right way of getting proper representation in the government of a country, because "one man, one vote" means that we do not recognise intelligence or any other quality but that of being a person. It means that we could argue that the spiv has the same value for his vote as the Cabinet Minister. That may appear to be quite fair, but if it is carried to its logical conclusion, we should be likely to face a kind of mob rule, because if the larger number of votes is all the time to carry the government of the country—purely on numbers—the implication of the argument is that the uninformed vote can bring us the best form of government.
    As we have heard this afternoon, the City of London has a great tradition. It represents something which is intangible in many ways, yet it has this value in the eyes of the world, and I should have thought that, in this country and the Empire it stands by itself as an institution. On those grounds alone I should have imagined that the Government would have stood by the 1944 Conference and said, "We will allow the City of London, as a separate institution, to retain its two Members, and we will find a method by which these two Members can be properly elected."
    I believe that a method could be found if the Government would look at this question again. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) suggested that a way could be found if the business vote were applied only to the City of

    2193
    London. That would not be unfair, and not so difficult as it might first appear. It works today. Many hon. Members have said that the business vote in their own constituencies is really valueless, and I think it is true that the numbers of business people claiming votes in the ordinary constituencies are small. However, that would never apply to the City of London, where the day population, the merchants, the bankers and all the people engaged in so many diverse businesses there, actually claim their votes. I feel that both the Lord President and the Home Secretary in their heart of hearts would be content if they could find a solution whereby the membership of the City of London could be retained unimpaired.
    I do not want to dwell on the broader question of "one man one vote," but only on the Amendment. It is quite true as so many hon. Members have said, that the mere fact that we are so ready to abolish the traditional representation of the City of London will not add one iota to the prestige of this country. I could imagine that if we were ruled by a Communist Government in this country at any time, one of the first things it would do would be to abolish the City of London, but I cannot think this Government desires that. The Government is adopting a bad principle in attempting to apply so logically the "one man one vote" principle, and so extinguish one of the greatest privileges which they themselves would acknowledge should be maintained, namely, that the City of London should not lose its separate representation in the House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that the Government will endeavour to find some means whereby the City of London will still be able to have a voice in this Chamber.
    Mr. Naylor: I hope it will not be regarded as an impertinence if a London Member joins in this discussion, especially one who happens to represent a borough contiguous to the City of London. That, of course, does not necessarily give me any right to presume that I can contribute to the discussion in any greater measure than hon. and right hon. Members who live in other parts of the country, but there have been one or two things said with which I do not agree, and my constituents
    2194
    would not be satisfied if I did not say what is in my mind.
    In the first place, Southwark is close to the boundary of the City of London and, naturally, my constituents would come to me, if this Measure were successfully opposed, and say, "How is it that you allowed a proposition of this kind to go from the Minister without according him your support?" They would argue, "We have so many more thousands of electors in this division than are in the division of the City of London." That is at least one reason why we should support the Minister in this part of the Bill and oppose the Amendment.
    I do not mind making one present to the Opposition, because it caused me some surprise that the most favourable argument from their point of view has not been put. It is that, as the City of London is a Corporation, and an important municipal entity in the government of London, that is at least a traditional argument in favour of Parliamentary representation in a direct sense for the City. Possibly, as I have not been here for every minute of the day, although I have listened to most of the Debate, that may have been put forward, and, if so, it would have had my sympathy because there is something in that argument. However, that aspect of the question is subject to all the other arguments that can be advanced against the Amendment. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who no longer favours us with his presence, but I was not able to follow him in most of his arguments, especially in relation to the Speaker's Conference. He apparently would allow no exception to be made, even on the part of the Minister or in the event of a Cabinet decision, the decisions of the Speaker's Conference would be placed before the House of Commons, and the House would be expected to accept them without question.
    8.30 p.m.
    I have no doubt that, if the hon. Member were here, I should be interrupted at this point and I will supply his intervention in his absence. He would say that the three or more parties concerned in that Conference came to an agreement and, therefore, the House should not attempt to alter that decision. Surely, however, if we can alter or attempt to alter the

    2195
    decision of a Government in this House, we can criticise and decline to accept a decision reached by representatives of the parties at a Speaker's Conference? Mr. Speaker is not present, but in his absence I make bold to say that even a Speaker's Conference is not sacrosanct as far as we are concerned. After all, the last decision inevitably rests with the House of Commons, and all the talk of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is of no avail in shifting that opinion.
    Another point which was made was that political tradition had always governed any decision of constitutional practice. Surely a constitutional change must be regarded as of importance if it relates to the suffrage of the individual members of the community. Fortunately, today we have almost reached the summit of our ambitions in that respect, but to say that the suffrages of the people of this country are a matter of traditional decision by a Speaker's Conference is going against all history. The favourite reading of political students today is that about the struggle working people and radical politicians had in securing one political franchise and then another. It seems to me that this case, where only Parliamentary representation is involved, cannot appeal to us as being a matter of traditional privilege. We all respect tradition, but that does not mean that we always retain a tradition, merely because it is a tradition. We retain those traditions that are good, and we reject those which are bad. Hon. Members have their choice of whether they are bad, or good.
    This afternoon the Home Secretary spoke with regard to the arrangement to be made for connecting the City of London with Shoreditch, with Finsbury, with Westminster or with Southwark. I represent a Southwark constituency, and if Southwark is to be brought into this question, to enable the City of London to be incorporated therewith, I trust that the representatives of Southwark will be consulted before they are expected to enter such traditional company. We have always lived side by side on the best of terms with the City of London, I dare say, although I could not say for certain; that in all probability those I represent would welcome their entry into the fold. I cannot however commit them, and I am glad to have the assent of the Home Secretary
    2196
    to the extent that Southwark will be consulted during the discussions that take place. I apologise for intervening in the Debate, but, as so many hon. Members from far distant parts have made a contribution, I thought it right that a London Member should take part.
    Sir Stanley Reed: I do not wish to cover points which have been threshed out in detail, but I want to call the attention of the Committee to one point which has been touched on, but not in any great detail. I have no close connection with the City of London, except as a place where occasionally I have lost a certain amount of money which I did not want to lose. I profoundly regret that at this time the Government have thought fit to sunder the close and intimate relations between this House and the City of London which have endured throughout the centuries.
    I have a certain nodding acquaintance with history, and I think it is true to say that there is no country in the world where there has been, and still is, that close and intimate connection between the capital city and the seat of Parliamentary power which exists in this Kingdom. It is true to say, although I do not want to pursue the argument now, that Parliament would not have taken its present form, and have become as it is now, the embodiment of our ideas of freedom and liberty, if it had not been for that close and intimate connection with the City of London. During the darkest days of our Parliamentary history, it was the City of London which stood four-square behind Parliament against Stuart tyranny. It was from the City of London that the trained bands went forth—their memory is marked on the threshold which hon. Members pass over every day—to do battle for the freedom of Parliament. It was the jurors of the City of London who, in the days of James II, opposed their own obstacles to the tyranny of that King by refusal to convict for political offences until the charters were superseded. In all this time there was the close and intimate connection between Parliament, as the guardian of our freedom and liberties, and the City of London, and without that connection I am convinced we should not have the strength and position we occupy at the moment.

    2197
    I know something of the feelings towards the City of London and its connection with Parliament of those who live overseas. In all courtesy, may I say to the Home Secretary that when they turn their footsteps homewards from those lands, they do not turn to North Shields, South Shields, or even to the City of Newcastle, but to the City of London, because there they feel they have a welcome home. Thinking of the Commonwealth and Colonial possessions, I believe it an unfortunate thing that at this moment we should weaken that close connection between Parliament and the City, which has endured through all these days.
    These are not things which can be estimated by the mere counting of heads, by logarithms or equations. They are things of the spirit, and things of history. I profoundly regret that at this hour in our history the Government should have chosen to take the course which sunders that link, which has been so powerful in maintaining our position and liberties, and in weakening that connection which means so much to our far-flung possessions over every one of the seven seas. I ask the Government to think on these things again. They are destroying something very precious which will never be recreated if this unfortunate step is taken today.
    Mr. Alpass: I do not intend to refer to the question of the abolition of the representation of the City of London, because I think that an overwhelming case has been made out already for its abolition. I think that that abolition is long overdue. I rise for the second time in my Parliamentary experience to support the abolition of the plural vote. In the 1929 Parliament, a Bill introduced by the then Home Secretary contained a Clause similar in principle to the one now being discussed. I opposed the plural vote then, and I do so now, because I believe that it confers upon those who possess it an undue privilege and an unfair share in the representation in this House. I would like briefly to make a point which I do not think has been made previously by any speaker in this Debate, which is that the plural vote gives those who possess it and who live outside a Parliamentary constituency the power to determine the representation of a constituency in which they do not reside.
    2198
    May I be allowed to refer to my own Parliamentary experience in that connection to reinforce my point? I succeeded a Member who was a previous Attorney-General, the late Sir Thomas Inskip, or, as he later became Lord Caldecote. He was never elected to this House for the Central Division of Bristol by the people who lived in that Division because there was always a larger number of plural voters living outside that Division who came in and voted for him, and provided his majority. That is the nullification of what I consider to be true Parliamentary democracy. That can only be truly expressed by the people who are elected to this House being chosen by the free and equal votes of the people who live in the Division which they presume to represent. It is because I believe that the abolition of the plural vote will secure that desirable result that I have, for the second time, the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the abolition of that plural vote and the privilege it confers.
    Sir William Darling: I am fortunate in following the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) because I have the good fortune to hold views which are entirely opposed to his. They are not popular views, or views which will meet with approval in this Committee, but they are sound and well founded. I believe in plural voting, I believe in the business vote. I suggest to the House that unless they are prepared to give increasingly a measure of advantage and support to the business vote, which means businessmen, the series of crises, of which we have had far too many, will be multiplied. This belief in the mere counting of heads is unworthy of His Majesty's Government. This belief that the number of heads and not the contents of the heads is important is a disappointment to one who had hoped that the Representation of the People Bill would contain at any rate some new ideas.
    There is a complete failure to recognise that a great man, called Graham Wallas, who was once a member of the party opposite, and who wrote, "Human Nature in politics," supplied at any rate sufficient ideas to make a much better Measure than this one. He made it clear, as some right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite who once accepted his teaching may remember,

    2199
    that the mere counting of heads would never bring in a Socialist democracy, that the bringing in of Socialism depended not upon the mere counting of heads but upon the organisation of intelligence. If there is any Member of the Treasury Bench who has lost his copy of this book "Human Nature in Politics," I should have been happy to make it my business, if this book were not unfortunately out of print, to supply him with it. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had read it and studied it and were familiar with its contents, this House would be considering a very different Representation of the People Bill tonight.
    8.45 p.m.
    I am an unrepentant supporter of the business vote, and if the electorate of this country do not soon realise that it is not by the counting of heads but by the counting of brains that this country can be saved, then indeed our country is wellnigh lost. I do not understand the theory, especially on the part of the Government, who have as high pretentions and doubtless substantial claims to be more intelligent than most Governments, although I have never understood the argument, whereby they say, "Where they sleep shall people vote, not where they produce and create." This is giving the franchise to somnambulists. The argument is apparently, "I sleep in Lewisham—or Southwark—I work in London. Where I sleep, I vote. That is where my intelligence is dull and blunted. I do not exercise my franchise where my brain is intelligent and alert." Graham Wallas would have laughed that out of court.
    I am not afraid of the tied Member. I am not afraid of advocating special representation for businessmen before this assembly. Have we not had recommended miners' constituencies, represented by miners? Is it not stated that agricultural constituencies should be represented by agriculturists? That is the whole basis of the claim for the Labour Party. I can think of constituencies in which I could live in the knowledge that I would never, by the use of my vote, be able to return a Conservative Member. There are constituencies which for 25 years have been pocket boroughs of the Mineworkers' Federation. I do not object to it, but if hon. Members accept that principle—
    2200
    and there are Members who sit on those benches because of the acceptance of that principle—would they deny it to me if I also asked for the type represented by the City of London to be represented? If miners are to have an exclusive right of perennial representation, whatever Parliament should be elected, are businessmen not to have the same right? There will always be more miners' seats than those of businessmen, I agree. I am willing to accept the logic of the argument, but if we are to have miners' pocket boroughs and agriculturists' pocket boroughs, there is a claim and justification in an intelligent Representation of the People Bill for a pocket borough for financiers and businessmen.
    The whole of this Bill is based on a fallacy. There is a search for an ideal political system, an ideal voting system. The search is futile. Why, far from having achieved that, should it provide less representation? Surely, an intelligent Government, anxious to consult the people, a Government of the people, for the people, would want to give more representation? It is their intention to give less representation than before, because they say, "the university vote is an anomaly—away with it. The business vote is an anomaly—away with it" More intelligent men would say, "We will not reduce the representation of the people, we will enlarge it. We will see that these anomalies are lost in a wider, fuller scheme." Instead of that we have restriction, limitation, a narrowing and lessening of the contact of the people of this country with their representatives. I am not afraid of the challenge of my argument. There should be two votes for anybody if he has two qualifications——
    Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: What are the qualifications?
    Sir W. Darling: The hon. and learned Member will not expect me, in the time at my disposal, to indicate his qualifications. My hon. Friend sitting near me suggests that an addition to his existing qualifications might be a little more intelligence, but it is not for me to put forward that argument.
    I turn to the second aspect of this Amendment, which is the prestige of the City of London. It may seem a little odd that a Scotsman should speak about the

    2201
    prestige of the City of London, but it is true to say that it was Andrew Patterson, a Scotsman, who came to London, and founded the Bank of England, which has recently been made a nationalised institution. So that we Scotsmen have some interest in London. That interest is not like the interest of the Lord President, a false, fickle, fleeting, sentimental interest, which evaporates before political difficulties. It is a sober interest. I shall be sorry that the Lord President, with his pride in London and his pride at being a Londoner, is ready to see the rights of the City thrown away. I should have thought that there at any rate, would have been one Member who would show that he could be faithful when others behind him were faithless. I am reminded of a discussion between a Royal Fusilier and a member of the Black Watch. The Royal Fusilier said, "If I had not been a Royal Fusilier I would have liked to have been in the Black Watch." The Black Watch man said: "If I had not been in the Black Watch I would like to have been in the Black Watch"—he was not prepared to offer any compliments.
    I read with feelings of emotion what the Lord President said on previous occasions about his feelings for London. During the war, when he was Minister of Home Security, I knew of his pride and affection and regard for the great City. That is what makes his apparent retraction more unfortunate and a matter of great regret. I feel that this is an uncomfortable moment for him, and I would like to add to his discomfort, as I also hope to add to the discomfort of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government are throwing away the prestige of London. When the Commonwealth of Australia was set up, what did the democracy of Australia do to promote prestige? They created the new capital of Canberra. The Dominion of Canada chose Ottawa against the conflicting claims of Montreal and Toronto. The U.S.S.R re-created the capital of Moscow. Capitals are the representation of great democratic beliefs and none will say that the U.S.S.R., the Dominion of Canada, and Australia have not democratic beliefs. This Government is throwing away something which it has always had in its possession—the world- wide, unique unchallengeable preeminence of the great City of London. In
    2202
    this difficult hour of crisis they are throwing that away as if it were something of no value.
    There are places and people which are exceptions. There is only one Speaker in the House of Commons. There is only one Archbishop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there is only one Archbishop of Canterbury. There is only one Prime Minister—surely that is not disputed. May I suggest that this great country can afford only one capital, and that that City may well have unique advantages over the rest of the community? No other place would grudge it those advantages. I do not see what we gain by giving away those advantages. London will be something less because of this decision. It will be the only capital in the world, I take it, which has not the great pre-eminence that other capitals everywhere else enjoy. There have been changes in the constitution of London itself. I think it is true to say that the Bank of England no longer enjoys the prestige which it formerly enjoyed as a great commercial institution in London. It now more or less only carries out the orders of the Board of Trade, or the Treasury, or the Ministry of Supply. London's prestige has been seriously impaired. Is it right to throw it away?
    What are the gains in this Bill, against which the Amendment strives to express an opinion? We are to gain uniformity and a certain consistency. I am reminded of someone who said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little statesmen and little minds. There are no little statesmen here and no little minds, but there is a search for consistency, and that is all we shall get from this Bill. I feel that the attempt to unify the situation, to get a level of uniformity, is a mistake, and false. In, human affairs, fortunately, in spite of what otherwise well-intentioned folk may endeavour, there will always be a glorious irregularity and lack of uniformity, and, in my judgment, it is well that that is so.
    This is an unhappy and unfortunate Measure. This House, during the last few days, and possibly in the immediate future, will have to consider grave and difficult matters. Is this the best contribution which the Government can make towards unanimity—to attempt to raise this wholly controversial issue? I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr.

    2203
    Hogg) this is not the kind of Bill to cast into the troubled waters surrounding us. The Government have need of what unanimity this country can give. Is anyone seriously disturbed about the representation of the people at the present time? Do they cry out in the Highlands, or in Devonshire, or in Birmingham, or down on the coast at Dover, about these injustices? Is it causing sleepless nights? No. There is little disturbance in the minds of people about the anomaly of representation in the City of London, or about the university representation and the university representatives, who may think themselves more important than do either the country or the Government. It is sometimes wise to leave well alone. I think it would be wisdom on the part of the Government in this Measure to leave well alone, and so I shall vote for the Amendment.
    Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I thought, a few moments ago, that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee made up their minds, with regretful envy, that there was only one example of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). It is my difficulty that, having in front of me a note of 26 speeches, it would be quite impossible for me, as I think it will be for the right hon. Gentleman who will follow me, to go through them in detail. Therefore, if I take out certain important points that have been made in the Debate and deal with them, I hope that the Committee will bear with me. I shall try, as I deal with those points, to pick up the main arguments that have been advanced from all quarters of the Committee.
    It is a real danger to try to erect into an everlasting principle prejudices only recently acquired, and, with regard to plural voting, that is the position to which the party opposite must plead guilty on this occasion. Before the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) gets too worked up about it perhaps he will note what I have to say.
    9.0 p.m.
    My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) put the case far too low when he said that at least four of the representatives of the Labour Party voted against the Resolution that the Conference
    2204
    should recommend that no person at any election should vote more than once. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I have the authority of the Lord President of the Council to say that all the representatives of the Labour Party—that is, all the Labour Members on the Conference apart from the hon. and learned Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) who was then in a position with regard to his party upon which I need not spend time—were supporting the majority and against the Resolution to which I have just referred. On 17th January, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President put it in these graphic words:
    "What was the position of the Labour Members? The Liberal Members, it is true, opposed it."
    That is plural voting—
    "They were not in a responsible position, if I may say so, as the Labour Members were. They had little to gain and little to lose. The Labour Members could either take the concession which the Conservatives gave, of throwing the spouse to the wolves.…"
    Then here—the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—he mentioned the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the desirability of that hon. Member controlling himself, but I shall not go into that in detail. Then he passed on and said:
    "They said"—
    referring to the Labour Members—
    "'we can get the concession about the spouse or nothing; and the concession is nearly half the problem, so we will take it.' Having taken it they signed the Report, and those who were Members of the Conference must stand by it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1945; Vol. 407, C. 311–2.]
    It is rather difficult, after that unanimity of the Labour representatives on the Conference, and their declaration in voting against the Resolution which I have mentioned, for them to say that it is a matter of principle on which they must oppose anything in the nature of plural voting. Therefore, we start from that position. That gives an answer apart altogether from the suggestions that have been made as to the use of the optional vote which, of course, has worked perfectly well between the business and university votes for many years. The party opposite are the last people who can say that this is a matter of principle, because when the occasion came they were quite ready to

    2205
    vote against that principle on grounds of expediency and compromise.
    Let them regard the position as they did in 1944, from the point of view of expediency, desirability or any other noun they may prefer. Look at the practical problem with which we are dealing here on the question of the business vote. There are 64,500 business votes left in Great Britain, and 51,000 of them are in England and Wales. There is not a seat in any of the county divisions of England and Wales which has more than 100 of those votes. Most of them have 10 or 20. Of the seven seats where there are between 500 and 1,000 business votes, three are held by Conservatives and four by Socialists. Of the nine seats where there are over 1,000, including the City of London, five are held by the Labour Party and four by the Conservative Party. That is the problem of the business vote put in its existing terms and that is what hon. Gentlemen have to consider tonight. In that background what is the interest—I say "interest" and not "interests"— of the business voter in the place where he has the qualification?
    Mr. C. Poole: I take it that the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned are figures of business votes which have been claimed? He has not attempted to arrive at the business votes which could be claimed.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I assume that in order to get on the register and, therefore, to be counted, they will have to be claimed. I confess that I did not verify the point. That is how I understood the position. I am not seeking to make any false point. These are the recorded business votes. Believe me, this is not a question of an attempt on my part to try to dodge the issue by saying that the baby was only a little one. This is trying to get the problem we are discussing into true proportion. These are the figures which we must consider. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite that in the area where the business voter works, and where his vote would be exercised, undoubtedly he generally has great social interests, because that is where he meets and sees the people amongst whom his working life is spent. He has clubs, associations, charities in that area and a great section of his life is spent there. The division I happen to
    2206
    know is the Exchange Division of Liverpool, but that applies in Manchester and in many other places.
    I do not think that any one has answered the point, which I raised on Second Reading, that it seems absurd that in the constituency where he works for the whole of his life and provides work for others, he should be denied the infinitesimal fraction of political power that is contained in one vote when that is given—let us face the facts—to anyone who may occupy an attic in his office building. That is the real problem. It is one which, I submit, deserves consideration. There is also a point of great substance which was developed in a speech of the highest quality by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), that if the man's business is situate in a certain division it is through the Member for that division that he will want to raise the points affecting his business life, and it is difficult if he is not an elector and has not the approach which an elector particularly has to the hon. Member for purposes of that sort.
    I was very interested in the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), and, although I do not think he is back with us, I should like to answer it in courtesy and in recognition of the case he put forward. He said that, on that basis—the broad approach which I have been putting forward—why should that not apply to any industrial worker who lives outside his Division? I think the same point had been made earlier by the Home Secretary. Again, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at the realities of the position. The Labour Party is organised very largely—I do not say entirely or mainly, but very largely—on a trade union basis, and there is no vague or general connection, but a specific connection, and the choice of candidate in a large number of constituencies is very largely influenced by the great trade unions in which the workers in these constituencies have membership. Therefore, it has worked out—and, believe me, I am speaking perfectly honestly when I say that, in my opinion, it works very well—that the industrial interests of the workers are represented through the trade union Members of this House. I put that forward as a real, practical answer which the commonsense and political acumen of

    2207
    our people has found to meet the interesting problem which the hon. Member for Acton raised.
    I pass, because time is short, to the arguments with regard to the City of London, and I want to approach it on the basis that, even if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree with me on my general argument on the business vote, the special position and special arguments for the retention of the City of London demand their attention. Again, let us look at what has happened in the past. It was not in dispute in the Speaker's Conference that the City should retain at least one Member; the division was on whether it should be one or two, but the precedent exists beyond that in the Bill which the Labour Government introduced in 1930–31, when they proposed that the business vote should be abolished except for the City of London. I cannot believe, as the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of that Government, that the general electoral acumen has altered so little during that time, and certainly no other factors have altered. Therefore, again, on this matter, hon. Gentlemen have to consider their own proposals, and that is really what this Debate has come down to on that point of the special position of the City of London.
    I am not going to read again what I read with great pleasure on the last occasion, which has not been entirely forgotten in this Debate—the eloquence of the Lord President on the position of the City—but I do feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite must face up to the position of the prestige of the City. I know that some people may not like them, but I will quote the great words of the historian Lecky, who was an hon. Member of this House and who, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will remember, in dealing with this subject. He said:
    "No other spot in the globe comprises so many of the forms and elements of power, wealth, all the varieties of knowledge, all the kinds of influence and activities that are concentrated in that narrow space."
    9.15 p.m.
    I ask hon. Members opposite, does anyone really say, and want to say, today that they would like the prestige and influence of the City of London to be less in the world than it was 50 years ago? Do they really want people abroad and in our own Dominions to have a less high
    2208
    opinion of the City than they had at that time? Let us put it the other way. Would there be more or less worry about the economic situation of our country at the present time if they thought that the strength of the City, with all these forms of activities which have been detailed to the Committee within the course of this Debate, had seriously declined?
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward the argument, "Well, even if the prestige of the City were to be maintained, you could do that without having this Parliamentary representation." I say, again, that, on the points of interest and importance that come from the City—exchange control, questions from the commodity markets, questions of banking and insurance—it must be of vital interest to any Government, whatever their political colour, to have the view of the City put forward by somebody who understands the subject, and who can act as a true liaison in the matter. Only one argument was put forward by an hon. Member opposite about the selfishness of the City. I am very glad that was answered not from these benches but by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who told in her own way, and with much power, the great public-spirited fight that the City had made for the preservation of Epping Forest which has done so much good for London, and which has provided a lung for the whole of its population.
    With regard to those who are entitled to vote for a City candidate, I think that all of us should pay attention to, and should consider the suggestion of, my right hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). As I have said, it has not been beyond the powers of manageability to work options in the past, and when we have a constituency whose prestige is of such importance, I should have thought that the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend was well worthy of further consideration at a later stage. I am most anxious that it should not go out as a result of this Debate that this Committee, or any section of it, regards the City of London today as a mere husk whose former greatness has departed. It is a great institution, a great part of our heritage, and a great section of our national life. It is from these proud considerations, coupled with the fact that the membership can be of such value, that

    2209
    I ask the Government to reconsider, without any pettiness, the issues involved in this case.
    I now pass to the vexed question of the breach of faith which we allege with regard to these proposals, as with regard to the university proposals. The right hon. Gentleman has narrowed the issue, because he said yesterday that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) had argued that there was a bargain which was binding on the political parties. The right hon. Gentleman said that up to that point there was some truth in that, but then went on to say that he absolutely and flatly denied that the bargain operated today. The right hon. Gentleman asked for some evidence on which that allegation was based. He is entitled to do that and he would expect me to give it to him.
    I do not want to repeat, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not hold it against me, the contemporary quotations which I gave at length on the Second Reading. They are on record for anyone to see. But let us come to the other points which have been evolved since then: First, it is now quite clear that the scheme of reform of representation was to be completed after the Election, and was to be given effect to in a Bill which would be introduced in the next Parliament. There is no doubt that in any of the negotiations that took place at the time the Conference had that in mind. That is clear, not only from what I have already said but from the form in which Section 3 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944, is drawn. It makes provision for orders up to a point, and clearly contemplates a Bill for completing the matter. If that stood alone I cannot see, when contemplating finishing the matter off in the next Parliament, how undertakings do not run until the matter has been completed.
    The Home Secretary did his best on a sticky wicket, but it was obvious that when he said, on 21st November, 1945, that the Government regarded themselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament—that is this Parliament—to submit to the House the necessary legislation to give effect to the recommendations, he was considering, he was mentioning, the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, subject to any technical alterations that might have to
    2210
    be made as a result of the Reports of the Carr and Oliver Committees. The right hon. Gentleman's first exculpation was succeeded by the statement at the end of his speech which goes 90 per cent. in the direction of what I have already said to the Committee. The Carr Committee was given terms of reference, and was permitted to continue with its work for nearly three years on the basis of the existence of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and to work out its effects. The Prime Minister, when asked a general question about this Bill, during the Debate on the Address, stated that it would be brought forward from the Speaker's Conference.
    Now I come to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as, no doubt, he would expect. He made it quite clear, on the Second Reading, that in his view there was an agreement, but that it ceased to be binding on the Labour Party when the Conservatives put up candidates who won, first, the Combined Universities seats and then the Scottish Universities seats. These points are clear, and are on record for anyone to read. They are there in addition to all the excerpts that I gave on the last occasion.
    May I deal for a moment with the argument that we put the other way? The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) quoted from Mr. Baldwin's statement in 1928. The hon. Gentleman did not read it far enough. If he had, he would have seen that Mr. Baldwin went on to say:
    "Had we taken up the question of redistribution and other such matters as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) specified, then, indeed, a conference would have had manifest advantages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1928; Vol. 215, c. 1471.]
    There had been no question then of giving up the conference, but there was a general agreement as to the extension that was made, which does not mean, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there was a veto. It means that if there is general agreement we need not go through the procedure of having a conference because it is unnecessary. We have an informal agreement which is expressed. I am anxious not to trespass on the right hon. Gentleman's time, but may I put the constitutional position, as I understand it, very briefly?
    Before the Reform Bill of 1832, to which the Home Secretary referred, there

    2211
    had been for 30 years at least constant Debates in this House on the question of reform, and the party line had become quite clear cut. Then there was an Election, and then there was the Bill. In 1867, a date to which the Home Secretary also referred, Mr. Disraeli threw over his own suggestions based on John Stuart Mill and on multiplicity of votes and took the suggestions acceptable to Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal Party. He was in a minority in the House. Then we come to 1883, when Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone made an agreement, and, after that time, we come to the succession of conferences in 1917, the Ullswater Conference in 1931 and the Conference in 1944. It is quite clear that in the last 8o years a constitutional practice has been formed that we do not make changes with regard to Parliamentary redistribution or electoral matters without first trying to get agreement in some way or another. If we do not get agreement then we can, if we like, introduce our party line, and if we do get agreement we honour that agreement until we have carried out that agreement or until a new situation arises.
    That constitutional procedure is profound and simple. It is simple because it is easily understood and can easily be put into effect. It is profound because it makes the difference in the working of British politics between reasonableness and agreement and a shoddy tit-for-tat. What the Government are doing by refusing to honour the agreement of 1944 is to make it necessary for us to say, as we must say, that we shall restore the university seats and the City of London.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether in addition to declaring that they will restore the university seats and the City of London they intend to restore the business plural voting and not abolish the 7 million new local government voters?
    9.30 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has got to take what I have told him and he can consider the other matters later on. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get away from the main point, and this is one which he recognises. I am not going to be taken from it. I know the right hon. Gentleman far too well. Here the alternative is either we stand for that practice and we carry out
    2212
    honourable agreements that are made until the matters in the agreements have been carried out or until the time is ripe for a change when we try to get other agreements and in the absence of that agreement then carry out the party view, or else we come to tit-for-tat. The right hon. Gentleman may want that. He may desire that when any party in this House gets a majority it should take the line which he is taking today, which is simply gerrymandering with the constituency to get an electoral advantage. If the right hon. Gentleman likes that sort of line he can have it, but I say that this is an innovation in British political and public life which I regret, and I am sure that every one in this Committee will regret it before they come to the end of their political and actual career.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): May I, first of all, apologise to the Committee for having left it for some hours last evening? I had an engagement with my wife and our neighbours some weeks ago to go to a theatre, but because of Parliamentary business we had to cancel it, and we substituted last night instead. It was very pleasant, for we went to see "Annie Get Your Gun." I came back in time for the Division, and when I returned I saw the shocking passage my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was having. I thought he was being treated rather badly, and I had the feeling that I ought to have brought back Annie and her gun with me. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in one of his bad moods again?
    Captain Crookshank: When I was making my speech this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman persisted in interrupting me, and I shall do the same tonight.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Tit for tat.
    Mr. Morrison: It is a sort of tit for tat.
    Mr. Assheton: That is what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Morrison: I engaged in the perfectly orderly process of intimating that I would like to interject, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough

    2213
    to give way. That is not interrupting, but part of the normal process of Parliament, within proper limits.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) stated his case with the vigour and competence that we expect from him. As far as I know, he is the first Opposition speaker who has argued seriously on the question of the business vote. Otherwise, this has been almost ignored in a Debate in which, by agreement between both sides, it had been accepted that we would debate both the City of London and the business vote. There was reason for so doing, because part of the argument about the City of London is inevitably related to the preservation of the business vote in some form. In arguing the case with regard to the business vote, the first point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that at the Speaker's Conference the Labour representatives voted for the preservation, broadly, of half the remaining business voters. I follow his argument. I have heard it before, in another context, from the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who has also pulled our legs upon this subject. I am not sure that she and her friends were not responsible for putting Labour Members at the Speaker's Conference "on the spot" to such a degree that they had to vote one way or the other upon that issue. That was quite fair and competent Liberal tactics at the Conference.
    The answer was given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, that there was discussion and accommodation reached by people within the limitations of a Coalition Parliament and a Coalition Government. Everybody had to do the best they could for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, and for the country. Let not the Opposition think that they were not thinking about themselves. Of course, they were. Let us hope that we were both thinking about our legitimate party interests on all sides, and about the interests of the country and what was fair and just.
    The quotation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made from a speech of mine was, so far as I can see, quite sensible and reasonable. It was that, in an argument of that kind, one side
    2214
    says, "We are not going to agree to the abolition of the business vote." The other side says: "That is what we believe is right." At the end of the day, the first side says: "We cannot do it," and the other side says: "At any rate, you really cannot justify the spouses being directly qualified to have the vote." The first side then says: "We accept that there is something in that point." At the end of the day, they have knocked the spouses out and left the original voter in.
    That is the accommodation. That is the bargain, within the limitations in which they are working. Having struck that bargain it is quite right that the Labour Members of the Conference should say, when the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey gets up to her tactical operations: "We shall vote for the retention of the remaining half." They had got half of them out. They did very good business in the circumstances in which they were working. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued—I think this was the meaning of his argument—that the business vote in total is small and is not a dominating matter in any but a very limited number of constituencies. It is true that it does not nowadays, especially in view of the removal of the spouses from the register, enormously affect the balance of representation.
    Of course, in the case of the City of London, it is obviously difficult to survive unless there is a business vote, so the conclusion to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes is, why bother about limited affairs of this kind? I might answer, in that case, why get excited about the removal of a limited anomaly of this kind? I think we have the better case. I cannot see that anybody has made a reasonable case for the business vote as such. That is a perfectly true statement, as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) will agree. He has had a night out and enjoyed himself, recalling his old Socialist days, even if he came to a very reactionary conclusion. There really is no argument for the business vote on the merits of the case. Nobody can show that the average business voter —this was the assumption of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh—has a higher degree of intellect or of political judgment than the non-business voter.
    Sir W. Darling: The tax collector can.
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman now wants voting on the basis of how much tax is paid. He wants enormous plurality of voting for the millionaires. I do not know what he would do for the working classes down below.
    The fact is that the Opposition have no intellectual conviction behind them regarding the business vote, otherwise we would have heard some better arguments about it. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby did his best. He tried, but the others did not even seriously try, and the fact is——
    Mr. Hogg: You were not here.
    Mr. Morrison: I am not bound to be here every time the hon. Member for Oxford is speaking.
    Mr. Hogg: Why not tell the truth? Are you indulging in normal Parliamentary practice?
    Mr. Morrison: I hope the hon. Member will not repeat the rather pathetic exhibition he made of himself last night.
    Mr. Hogg: Why not tell the truth for a change?
    Mr. Morrison: That was partly why I went out. I could not stand another sight of that exhibition.
    Mr. Hogg: Shoddy little vulgarian.
    Mr. Morrison: Nobody has really supported the business vote.
    Mr. Hogg: That is just what they did do, but you went out.
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly went out when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. It is a wise thing to do. There is no argument on the business vote. No case has been made out, and I do not believe that any case could be made out——
    Mr. Hogg: You were not here. Why not tell the truth?
    The Chairman: I must really ask the hon. Member to restrain himself or I shall have to require him to leave the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has more than once used the personal pronoun "you," and I take strong exception to it in the context. I trust that he will restrain himself.
    Mr. Hogg: On that Ruling, Major Milner, of course I regret any use of the
    2216
    personal pronoun, but the position is that the right hon. Gentleman has repeated again and again that certain things were not said when they were said, and then when somebody tries to point out that they were said, he says he was not here and does not care. Hon. Members are surely entitled to some courtesy from Ministers and some protection from the Chair against this perpetual stream of vulgar abuse?
    The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say so, he himself is not guiltless in that respect. With reference to the allegations about truth or untruth, of which I know nothing, the matter is before the Committee, and hon. Members can form their own opinion on that subject just as well as the hon. Member.
    Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that there was an opposite number of the business voter or the businessman Member of Parliament on this side in the trade union representatives, and that we had that advantage, about which he made no complaint. On the contrary, he thought it was right, because the Conservatives or the business people had got theirs; but there is no analogy whatever. My hon. Friends who have associations in the trade union movement of an official character are returned as Members of Parliament by the electorate in the ordinary way. They do not seek any plural voting in order to get them in. They have to chance their arm and get selected by a constituency just like any other hon. Member.
    From reports which I have received and from what I have heard—I have heard the great bulk of the Debate—I do not think there has been any serious or material argument put forward about the business vote, although the hon. Member for South Edinburgh certainly went the whole hog and the full course in the argument. However, I thought he was having a happy time—we all thoroughly enjoyed it—rather than expecting the very extreme arguments which he put forward to be taken too seriously by either side of the Committee.
    I now come to the question of the City of London. As I have said, it was right that we should have the Debate on the two subjects together, because we cannot disentangle the City of London

    2217
    from the business problem. I do not need to repeat the sentiments which I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and on the occasion that has often been quoted in 1944. I deeply regret the termination of the separate Parliamentary existence of the City of London. I have been listening with great care to the Debate in case arguments should arise which would give us a way out of the real difficulty that we face in relation to the City; because there are many good things to be said, both in the history of the City of London and in some of its practices, as there are some things to be said against the City of London. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that the City was very fine in acquiring Epping Forest, and it was appropriate that she should have mentioned the point. It still maintains Epping Forest, and it has done many other things of a good character.
    Of course, we are not abolishing the Corporation of London in this Bill, nor are we abolishing the Stock Exchange or the Bank of England or the Mansion House or the Guildhall—all these great historical and important places will remain. And because a place ceases to return separately a Member to this House it does not, so to speak, shake the word quite as much as it is being suggested it does. Therefore, the City in all its essentials will remain; the only change will be that it will be merged in Parliamentary representation with some territory outside the City. Sooner or later this situation was bound to arise, unless the business vote had been preserved, because as the City has developed it has become, inevitably I suppose, less and less residential and more and more business and commercial in character.
    I myself have always been sorry that the ancient City, with its great municipal and other status, did not follow the normal course of municipalities in the provinces, the great county boroughs which, as the urban area grew, tended to extend their boundaries and to absorb the surrounding urban territory. I think it would have been a good thing in 1888 if the City had agreed to absorb the County of London and, instead of having the London County Council for the County, we had had the Corporation of the City of London for the whole of the County of London. I believe it would have been a
    2218
    good thing and, if it had happened, this problem of the non-separate representation of the City of London would not have arisen. However, those things did not occur, and it is possible to take two views about it: one, that the City has never sought municipally to absorb surrounding territory, and the other—perhaps it could be argued—is that it ought to have done, but took a more narrow view of its civic responsibilities and functions.
    There it is, however, and we are involved this time with a single square mile which is limited in its population and is a very special part of London, although there are other parts of the County of London in the middle of London where, to some degree, the similar problem of depopulation has gone on and the extension of the business area has arisen. There are other parts of the central part of London which also are of great importance and are very well known in the world. It all depends on what sort of a person you are, and what you are up to, as to whether of a night or in the daylight at a week-end you absorb the dignified quietness of the narrow streets of the City of London—which is one of the most pleasant experiences to have—chinking in the history of the place, or whether you go to the other square mile which radiates from Piccadilly Circus, where there is life and amusement and restaurants——
    Captain Crookshank: And "Annie Get Your Gun."
    Mr. Morrison: I am glad the right hon. and gallant Member is showing signs of becoming human at last. He is showing signs of a smile. We are coming on fine. As to all these folk overseas who, it was alleged, have a deep affection for the City of London, I do not deny that. Many of them have, but I am bound to say that the same overseas people yesterday had all their affections centred upon the university Members of Parliament. Let me assure hon. Members that, while many of these people overseas, it is true, have a deep affection for the City of London, and when they wend their weary way home instinctively want to go to the City of London, there is an equal number who, when they wend their weary way home, wend their steps to Piccadilly Circus. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is positively laughing now. I will

    2219
    go with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. These affections, these sentiments, vary according to what one is used to. For example, I have an enormous emotional sentiment not only for the City of London, but for the East End of London. There is a beauty about it, and an attraction about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "And an affection for East Lewisham?"] Yes, and an affection for East Lewisham; which has character as well. I understand the feeling for the City of London, and can sympathise with it, but I wish hon. Members would equally understand that there is a very strong case for Shoreditch, for example, having a very strong sentiment about themselves. It is distinctive compared with the rest of the East End boroughs. So it is with Woolwich.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to deal with this point. Will he tell us why it was right in 1931 to leave the City with a business qualification, but wrong now? His own party were responsible then.
    Mr. Morrison: I have dealt with that before.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think so—not tonight.
    Mr. Morrison: I have, though not tonight. I said that that minority Labour Government were often governed by the political circumstances under which they were working and by force majeure.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Not on that.
    Mr. Morrison: Oh yes, they had to approach with a good deal of caution and nervousness, and a lot of it was forced upon them, and some of it perhaps naturally on Ministers of that Government. For instance, we introduced the alternative vote, and that was understandable in the political circumstances of the time. But, if it is argued that we are bound to do in 1948 what we did in the circumstances of political compromise in the middle of a great war in 1944—[An HON. MEMBER: "In 1931."]—No, in 1944, in the Government of which the present Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister. I do not think it any more reasonable to say that what we did as long ago as 1931 the Government should do in 1948. That is running Con-
    2220
    servative stick-in-the-mud doctrine too far. The truth is that the situation and the average ability of this Government are better than those of the Government of 1929–31. I say that although I have been a member of both Governments.
    The City problem still remains; what can we do about it? I do not see what one can do, except to merge it with something else. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we are perfectly willing to study the feelings of the City about what it shall be merged with, and also the feelings of those with whom it thinks it would be a good idea to merge. I do not blame the City, or City Members, for refusing to discuss that matter until the House have disposed of the main issue, but if there are feelings about that, we are perfectly willing to discuss the type of merger most acceptable to the City of London. As to separate existence, the fact remains that the electors who will survive under this Bill will be somewhere round about 4,600. In view of the slaughter that is happening to constituencies in the whole of London and constituencies contiguous to the City of London, including Bethnal Green, and Shoreditch—which is going to lose its Parliamentary identity, which is very dear to it and be merged with Finsbury, a very interesting operation just now—and in view of similar things which are happening to other constituencies around the City of London, it is quite impossible that we should say that the City has to be preserved on the basis of an electorate of 4,600 even though one does not like having to do it, and one feels sad and unhappy at it having to be done. If the figure were materially greater I would, for my own part, have been willing to agree to giving the City a preference of a material order. But the figure here is so dramatically lower that it is quite impossible to make the concession.
    The right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) has been looking around for arguments, as was his duty, and he has put them before the House. He has put forward the argument that there are half a million people knocking about the City of London in the day time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Knocking about?"] Can I not engage in a little London language, as we are discussing the City of London?

    2221
    I dare say that worse English than mine is heard in the City of London. I am not sure that the figure of half a million is correct. When I was engaged in municipal affairs in London, we used to have a census of the City population now and again. My recollection is that it was about 300,000 or 350,000; I do not think it was any more.
    This is really a ridiculous argument. It is plural voting in its most extreme and chaotic form. I can understand the administrative practicability of a business vote, an arrangement based upon property of some sort and the payment of a certain rent in respect of a certain class of property; it can be done, it is an administrative possibility. But if every Tom, Dick and Harry, all the good people of all sections of the community who work in the City of London day by day are to have the right to say "I opt to be a registered voter in the City of London and to de-register in my residential constituency," what sort of number of City electors will result? Is it to be an electorate of half a million? If so, what is to happen then? Are these people to have the right to register in the City in one register, to register outside the City in the following register, and to return to the next City register after that? What sort of political gerrymandering should we get there? One can visualise all the clever political agents moving their voters about in blocks. If all these registered voters among City people were known to be a given understandable type of Tory, I should be tempted about it. It would be tempting to divert them away from the residential areas.
    But that is not the argument now. It is not the old business argument in this respect. I would only say that if everybody of adult age who works in the City were to have the right to register, registration would become an utterly chaotic business which it would be quite impossible to administer fairly and properly. The political and Parliamentary representation of the City would be far less coherent and dignified than it will be under the proposal in the Bill. Who would the Member represent? He really would not know. He would have this changing floating electorate, and he would never know to whom he was really
    2222
    responsible. It is a good "try" but it just does not stand up to examination.
    Therefore, the conclusion must be reached, with regret as far as I and many others on this side of the Committee are concerned, that the time has come when the case for separate City representation has become impossible to defend, and that we must merge it as best we can with neighbouring territory and merge the electorate with neighbouring electors.
    There is really nothing else to be said, so far as our side of the case is concerned, on the merits of the argument. There has been a good deal of time spent today—nearly as much as yesterday—on the question of what is known as good faith. I will only say that this matter has been argued inside out. There is no point in both sides of the Committee repeating the arguments. They have been heard, and the evidence has been given, and we must leave it to those who read Parliamentary Debates to form their own judgment. For myself, I am not afraid of that examination of the arguments which have been advanced. I merely wish to say again that we are not conscious of any bad faith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—we are not conscious of any departure from any agreement. There is no point in merely repeating it, and there is no point in raking up the old history of the Conservative Party as to good faith and bad faith in the past. The arguments have been heard on both sides, and we do not accept the allegations of bad faith.
    We believe that, on the merits of the case, it is right and inevitable that we should do what it is proposed shall be done about the City of London. The business vote is merely a class privilege vote, deliberately put into the electoral scales for the purpose of building up the political powers of a well-off section of the community and to strengthen the Conservative Party. It is time, and over time, that that monstrous electoral innovation was scrapped and terminated. Therefore, in the interests of equity and sound policy, we ask the House to reject the Amendment which has been moved.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 323.

    Division No. 98.

    AYES.

    [3.34 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Fairhurst, F.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Mayhew, C. P

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Field, Capt. W. J

    Mellish, R. J.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Foot, M. M.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Forman J C.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Attewell, H. C.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Morley, R.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Gallacher, W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Mort, D. L

    Balfour, A

    George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Moyle, A.

    Barstow, P. G

    Gibbins, J

    Mulvey, A

    Barton. C

    Gibson, C. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Battley, J R

    Gilzean, A

    Nichol, H. R. (Stratford)

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

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

    Benson, G

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    O'Brien, T.

    Berry, H.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Beswick, F.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Orbach, M.

    Bevin, Rt. Hon E. (Wandsworth, C.)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Bing, G. H C.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Binns, J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Pargiter, G. A

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

    Parker, J.

    Blyton, W R.

    Hannan, W (Maryhill)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)

    Pearson, A.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Harrison, J.

    Peart, T. F

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

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Perrins, W

    Braddock, T. (Milcham)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Piratin, P.

    Bramall, E. A.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Brock, D (Halifax)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    House, G.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hoy, J.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

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

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Burke, W. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Randall, H E

    Byers, Frank

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ranger, J.

    Callaghan, James

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

    Rankin, J.

    Carmichael, James

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Reeves, J.

    Champion, A J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Raid, T. (Swindon)

    Chater, D

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Richards, R.

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Janner, B.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Robens, A.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Cocks, F. S

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

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Collick, P.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Collindridge, F

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Collins, V. J.

    Keenan, W

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Kenyon, C.

    Royle, C.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Key, C. W

    Sargood, R

    Cook, T. F.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Scollan, T

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.

    Kinley, J.

    Segal, Dr. S.

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

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Sharp, Granville

    Cove, W. G.

    Leonard, W.

    Shurmer, P

    Crawley, A.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Silverman J (Erdington)

    Cunningham, P

    Lever, N. H.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Daggar, G.

    Levy, B. W.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Skinnard, F. W

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lindgren, G. S.

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

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

    Lipson, D. L.

    Snow, J. W

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Solley, L. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lyne, A. W.

    Sorensen, R. W

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    MeCallum, Maj. D

    Sparks, J. A.

    Diamond, J.

    McEntee, V. La T

    Stamford, W.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Mack, J. D.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Dye, S.

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

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Swingler, S.

    Edelman, M.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Sylvester, G. O

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McLeavy, F.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Mann, Mrs J.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Marquand, H. A.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Ewart, R.

    Marshall, F. (Brightside)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Walker, G H

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Watkins, T. E.

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

    Tiffany, S.

    Watson, W. M.

    Willis, E.

    Timmons, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Titterington, M. F

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Tolley, L.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Woods, G. S.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L

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

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Usborne, Henry

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Wilkes, L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Viant, S. P.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.

    Wadsworth, G

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    NOES.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Nicholson, G.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

    Odey, G. W.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Orr-Ewing, I L.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Head, Brig. A. H

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Beechman, N. A

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

    Pickthorn, K.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

    Boothby, R.

    Hogg, Hon Q.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Bower, N

    Hope, Lord J.

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Jennings, R.

    Renton, D.

    Bullock, Capt. M

    Keeling, E. H.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Butcher, H. W

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Robinson, Roland

    Carson, E.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londond)

    Challen, C.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

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

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Cole, T. L.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Scott, Lord W.

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (. of Wight)

    Snadden, W. M.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Spence, H R.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Donner, P. W.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Drewe, C

    Maclean, F H. R

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    MacLeod, J.

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

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Teeling, William

    Fletcher, W (Bury)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Marlowe, A. A. H

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Marples, A. E.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

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

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gage, C.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gammans, L. D.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (Cirencester)

    Mr. Studholme and

    Grant, Lady

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Major Conant.

    Grimston, R. V

    Mullan, Lt. C. H.

    Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair"[Mr. Whitley]—put and agreed to.

    Division No. 99.

    AYES.

    [10.3 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

    Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)

    Nicholson, G.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

    Nield, B. (Chester)

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

    Noble, Comdr A. H. P

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)

    Haughton, S. G.

    Odey, G. W

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Astor, Hon M.

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

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peto, Brig C H. M

    Barlow, Sir J

    Herbert, Sir A. P.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Baxter, A B.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pitman, I. J

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hogg, Hon. Q

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E

    Beechman, N. A

    Hope, Lord J

    Prescott, Stanley

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

    Birch, Nigel

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

    Raikes, H. V.

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

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N J

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Boothby, R.

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

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Jarvis, Sir J.

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

    Bower, N

    Jeffreys, General Sir G

    Ronton, D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Jennings, R.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Keeling, E. H.

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

    Robinson, Roland

    Bullock, Capt M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

    Carson, E.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Challen, C

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Savory, Prof. D. L

    Channon, H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Clarke, Col R. S.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

    Cole, T. L.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Smith, E. P (Ashford)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Snadden, W M.

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

    Lucas, Major Sir J.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Spence, H. R

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Darling, Sir W. Y

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Studholme, H. G

    De la Bère, R.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Donner, P W.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

    Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Teeling, William

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Maclay, Hon. J. S

    Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maclean, F H. R.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    MacLeod, J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F

    Eccles, D. M.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Touche, G. C

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Erroll, F J.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

    Marples, A. E.

    Walker-Smith, O

    Fletcher, W (Bury)

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Fox, Sir G.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)

    Maude, J. C.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

    Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

    Medlicott, Brigadier F

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

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

    Mellor, Sir J.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Gage, C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Williams, C (Torquay)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Gomme-Duncan, Col A

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

    York, C.

    Grant, Lady

    Mott-Radclyffe, C E

    Young, Sir A S. L (Partick)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mullan, Lt. C H.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harden, J R. E.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

    Mr. Drewe.

    NOES.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Baird, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Balfour, A

    Bottomley, A. G

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Barstow, P. G.

    Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Barton, C

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

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Bramall, E A.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Benson, G.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

    Berry, H.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Beswick, F

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Binns, J

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Blackburn, A. R

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G

    2224

    2225

    Burden, T W.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Haworth, J.

    Oliver, G. H

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Orbach, M.

    Byers, Frank

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Paget, R. T.

    Callaghan, James

    Herbison, Miss M

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Carmichael, James

    Hobson, C. R

    Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Holman, P

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Champion, A. J.

    House, G.

    Pargiter, G A

    Chater, D.

    Hoy, J.

    Parker, J.

    Chetwynd, G. R

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

    Parkin, B. T.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pearson, A.

    Cocks, F. S

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

    Peart, T. F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Perrins, W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F

    Collins, V. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Janner, B.

    Price, M. Philips

    Cook, T. F.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Proctor, W T.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Pryde, D. J.

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

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

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Corlett, Dr. J.

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

    Randall, H. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Ranger, J

    Cunningham, P.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Rankin, J.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Daines, P.

    Keenan, W

    Reeves, J

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Kendall, W. D

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Kenyon, C.

    Richards, R.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Key, C. W.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M

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

    King, E M.

    Robens, A.

    Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kinley, J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Diamond, J.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Dobbie, W.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Dodds, N. N

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Donovan, T.

    Leonard, W

    Royle, C.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Sargood, R.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Levy, B. W.

    Segal, Dr. S

    Dumpleton, C. W,

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Dye, S.

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Sharp, Granville

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

    Edelman, M.

    Lindgren, G. S.

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

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Shurmer, P

    Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Longden, F

    Silverman, (Erdington)

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Lyne, A. W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    McAdam, W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Ewart, R.

    McEntee, V La T.

    Skinnard, F. W

    Fairhurst, F.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Farthing, W J.

    Mack, J. D.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Fernyhough, E.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Field, Capt. W. J.

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

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

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

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Solley, L. J.

    Follick, M.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Foot, M. M.

    McLeavy, F.

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Forman, J. C.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H

    Stamford, W.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Steele, T

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Stross, Dr B.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Marshall, F (Brightside)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Summerskill, Dr Edith

    Gibbins, J.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Swingler, S.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Gilzean, A

    Messer, F.

    Symonds, A. L

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Monslow, W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Moody, A. S

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Grey, C. F.

    Morley, R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Tiffany, S.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Timmons, J.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

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

    Titterington, M. F

    Guy, W. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Tolley, L.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Moyle, A.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Hale, Leslie

    Mulvey, A.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Murray, J D.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Naylor, T. E.

    Usborne, Henry

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Hardman, D. R

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Viant, S. P

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Wadsworth, G

    Harrison, J.

    O'Brien, T.

    Walkden, E.

    2226

    2227

    Walker, G. H.

    Wigg, George

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Warbey, W N.

    Wilkes, L.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Watkins, T. E.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Woods, G. S.

    Watson, W. M.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Wyatt, W

    Weitzman, D.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Yates, V. F.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Williams, J. L, (Kelvingrove)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

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

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

    Williams, W. R (Heston)

    TELLERS. FOR THE NOES:

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

    Willis, E.

    Mr. Snow and Mr. Wilkins

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Wills, Mrs. E A.

    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in Page 1, line 15, to leave out "resident there," and to insert:
    "with either a residential or business premises qualification."
    Question put, "That the words 'resident there' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 188.

    Division No. 100.

    AYES.

    [l0.17 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Cove, W. G.

    Harrison, J.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

    Cunningham, P

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Daggar, G.

    Haworth J.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Daines, P.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hobson, C. R

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

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

    Holman, P.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    House, G.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

    Hoy, J.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

    Bacon, Miss A

    Diamond, J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Baird, J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Balfour, A.

    Dodds, N. N

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

    Barnes Rt. Hon A. J

    Donovan, T.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Barslow, P. G.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Barton, C

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Battley, J. R

    Dumpleton, C W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Dye, S.

    Janner, B.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Benson, G.

    Edelman, M.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Berry, H

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

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

    Beswick, F

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

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

    Binns, J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Blackburn. A. R

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Boardman, H.

    Ewart, R.

    Keenan, W.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Kendall, W. D

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Kenyon, C

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Fernyhough, E

    King, E. M.

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

    Field, Capt. W. J

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

    Kinley, J.

    Bramall, E. A.

    Follick, M.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Foot, M. M

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

    Forman, J. C

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Fraser, T (Hamilton)

    Leonard, W

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Leslie, J R.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N

    Levy, B. W.

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G

    Gallacher, W.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Burden, T W

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Burke, W. A

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

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

    Gibbins, J.

    Lindgren, G. S

    Byers, Frank

    Gibson, C. W

    Lipson, D. L.

    Callaghan, James

    Gilzean, A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Carmichael, James

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Longden, F.

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Gooch, E. G.

    Lyne, A. W

    Champion, A. J

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    McAdam, W

    Chetwynd, G R

    Greenwood, A W J. (Heywood)

    McEntee, V La T

    Cluse, W. S

    Grenfell, D. R

    McGhee, H. G.

    Cobb, F. A

    Grey, C F

    Mack, J. D.

    Cocks, F. S

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Va

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Coldrick, W

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

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

    Collindridge, F

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Collins, V. J.

    Guy, W. H.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Haire, John E (Wycombe)

    McLeavy, F.

    Comyns, Dr. L

    Hale, Leslie

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Cook, T. F.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Mann, Mrs. J.

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

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Marquand, H. A.

    Rankin, J.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Marshall, F. (Brightside)

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Mathers, Rt. Hon George

    Reeves, J.

    Tiffany, S.

    Mayhew, C P.

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Timmons, J

    Mellish, R. J.

    Richards, R.

    Titterington, M F

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Tolley, L.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Robens, A.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Monslow, W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L

    Moody, A. S.

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

    Usborne, Henry

    Morley, R.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Viant, S P

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Wadsworth, G

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

    Royle, C.

    Walkden, E.

    Mort, D. L.

    Sargood, R.

    Walker, G. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Mulvey, A.

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Warbey, W. N.

    Murray, J. D.

    Sharp, Granville

    Watkins, T. E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

    Watson, W M.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

    Weitzman, D.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Shurmer, P

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

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

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    O'Brien, T.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon J.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

    Oliver, G. H

    Simmons, C J.

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E)

    Orbach, M.

    Skinnard, F. W

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

    Paget, R. T.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Wigg, George

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Wilkes, L.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

    Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Solley, L J

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Parker, J.

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Sparks, J A

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Stamford, W

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Pearson, A.

    Steele, T.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Pearl, T. F.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Willis, E.

    Perrins, W.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Plaits-Mills, J. F. F

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J H

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Wise, Major F. J

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Swingler, S.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Price, M. Philips

    Sylvester, G. O

    Woods, G. S

    Pritt, D N.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wyatt, W.

    Proctor, W. T

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Yates, V. F.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Randall, H. E

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Ranger, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mr. Snow and Mr. Wilkins.

    NOES

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Cuthbert, W. N.

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

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Darling, Sir W. Y

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Herbert, Sir A. P.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    De la Bère, R.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Astor, Hon. M

    Dodds-Parker, A D.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dower, Col. A. V G. (Penrith)

    Hope, Lord J.

    Barlow, Sir J

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Baxter, A B.

    Drayson, G. B

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

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Duthie, W. S.

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

    Birch, Nigel

    Eccles, D. M.

    Jarvis, Sir J.

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

    Elliot, Lieut-Col., Rt. Hon. W

    Jeffreys, General Sir G

    Boothby, R.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Jennings, R.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Bower, N.

    Fletcher, W (Bury)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Fox, Sir G.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

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

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Gage, C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

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

    Gammans, L. D.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Carson, E.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Challen, C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Channon, H.

    Grant, Lady

    Low, A. R. W.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Lucas, Major Sir J.

    Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

    Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Cole, T. L

    Harden, J R. E.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Conant, Maj. R. J, E.

    Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

    McCallum, Maj. D.

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

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    2230

    2231

    Mackeson, Brig H. R

    Orr-Ewing, I. L

    Spence, H R

    McKie, J H (Galloway)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Maclay, Hon J. S

    Peto, Brig C H M

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Maclean, F H

    Pickthorn, K

    Strauss, H G (English Universities)

    MacLeod, J

    Pitman, I J.

    Sutcliffe, H

    Macmillan Rt Hon Harold (Bromley)

    Ponsonby, Col C. E

    Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)

    Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

    Prescott, Stanley

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

    Manningham-Buller R E

    Price-White, Lt.-Col O.

    Teeling, William

    Marlowe, A A H

    Raikes, H V

    Thomas, J. P L (Hereford)

    Marples, A E

    Ramsay, Maj S

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

    Marsden, Capt A

    Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    Marshall, D (Bodmin)

    Reid, Rt Hon J S C (Hillhead)

    Thorp, Brigadier, R. A F

    Marshall, S H (Sutton)

    Renton, D

    Touche, G. C

    Maude, J C

    Roberts, H (Handsworth)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Medlicott, Brigadier F

    Roberts, P G (Ecclesall)

    Wakefield, Sir W W

    Mellor, Sir J

    Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)

    Walker-Smith, D

    Molson, A H E

    Robinson, Roland

    Ward, Hon G R

    Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T

    Ropner, Col L

    Watt, Sir G S Harvie

    Morris-Jones, Sir H

    Ross, Sir R D (Londonderry)

    Webbe, Sir H (Abbey)

    Morrison, Maj J G (Salisbury)

    Salter, Rt Hon. Sir J A

    Wheatley, Colonel M J (Dorset, E.)

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

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    White, Sir D (Fareham)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C E

    Savory, Prof D. L

    While, J B (Canterbury)

    Mullan, Lt C H.

    Scott, Lord W

    Williams, C (Torquay)

    Neill, W F (Belfast, N.)

    Shephard, S (Newark)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Neven-Spence, Sir B

    Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Nicholson, G

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    York, C

    Nield, B (Chester)

    Smith, E P (Ashford)

    Young, Sir A S L (Partick)

    Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

    Snadden, W M

    Odey, G W

    Spearman, A. C M

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Drewe ond Mr. Studholme.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir Ronald Ross: On a point of Order. I should like to refer to the following Amendment which stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), myself and several other hon. Members—in page 2, line 3, at end, insert:
    "Provided also that in Northern Ireland no person shall be entitled to vote at a parliamentary election unless he has resided in the constituency for a period of at least three months immediately preceding the qualifying date."
    This raises a very important point on a matter which is recognised as being one in which the position of Northern Ireland is distinguishable from that of Great Britain. This Bill makes large alterations in the law, and I would ask your guidance, Major Milner, as to why this Amendment was not selected and whether it will come on somewhere else. It deals with the proviso of restricting the register, and, with great respect, I am rather at a loss to know why it is inappropriate to discuss it at this time. Obviously, it must be discussed at some time. It may be necessary, in view of your ruling, to discuss it on the Motion "that the Clause stand part of the Bill.".
    The Chairman: The hon. Member knows it is unusual for the Chairman to give any reason for not selecting an Amendment. I have formed the opinion that
    2232
    this particular Amendment, if it is to be discussed at all, had better be put down in the form of a new Clause. I understood the hon. Member and his friends have been so advised. I suggest that course to him.
    Sir R. Ross: I am very much obliged.
    Mr. Gallacher: Did I understand you to call my name, Major Milner?
    The Chairman: The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gallacher: I have an Amendment on the Paper—in page 1, line 17, leave out "full," and insert "eighteen years of." It was impossible for me to get through to the Chamber. I went round the Lobby and waited until the door was unlocked and as soon as I came in I heard my name called and made a run to my seat.
    The Chairman: I am extremely sorry. As the hon. Member knows, there will be other opportunities. I am sorry his Amendment had been passed over when he arrived.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry I missed my Amendment, but in discussing this Clause, I think it would be desirable if the Home Secretary would agree that between now and the Report stage he would look at the Clause and see whether it is not desirable to give the lads of 18 a vote. I do not

    2233
    want to take up time at this late hour, but yesterday or the day before attention was drawn to the fact that a number of young lads of 18 years had been sent to the Middle East. There was some question whether they would go to Palestine. Young lads are being sent away to protect and care for the interests of this country, possibly to the danger zone of Palestine. Surely, the Home Secretary, particularly after the discussion yesterday and the day before and the arguments put as to the undesirability of certain types of votes, should recognise that these young people of 18 years of age who have to face the responsibilities of life should be brought as speedily as possible into the political life of the country. I would ask the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that I missed the opportunity of putting my Amendment through no fault of my own, to give some consideration to this question between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Ede: I regret also that the hon. Member was prevented from being in his place to move the Amendment when his name was called. But I can hold out no hope that the Government will be prepared to consider this Amendment when we get to a later stage of the Bill. Our view is that 21 years of age is the appropriate age for people to undertake the duties of citizenship. It requires a certain amount of maturity and experience, and we feel the long-established practice in this country of regarding 21 as a suitable age should be continued.
    Mr. Parker: There is a question I would like to ask the Home Secretary about this Clause. At the beginning it says:
    "There shall for the purpose of parliamentary elections be the county and borough constituencies."
    But there is no definition of what is a county constituency and what is a borough constituency. If we look at the Schedule in which is set out all the county and borough constituencies, there seems to be no particular principle on which the Boundary Commission has acted in classifying constituencies as either county or borough. I would ask the Home Secretary: What is the definition of a county constituency as opposed to a borough constituency, because there are very curious anomalies in the actual classification made by the Boundary Commission?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be endeavouring to raise the question contained in his Amendment. That question does not come within the Clause, and, therefore, it is not in Order.
    Mr. Parker: May I say that the words "borough constituency" appear in Clause 1 and there is no definition of a county constituency or a borough constituency. Surely, I am entitled to ask the Home Secretary for a definition.
    Mr. Ede: What is a county and what is a borough constituency is determined by the position in which a particular constituency is placed in the First Schedule under the heading of the geographical county within which it happens to be situated. I admit that it appears to be very difficult to ascertain why some constituencies have been put into the county group and some into the borough group, but the answer is that this is what the Boundary Commissioners recommended, and we felt that in this matter it was desirable to follow the arrangement which had been made by the Boundary Commissioners. I think the only difference which really exists, or which matters very much, is the fact that candidates can spend less money in a borough constituency than they can in a county division of comparable size. There are a few other differences. For a county constituency—a normal county constituency—the registration officer is a county officer. In a borough constituency he is an officer of the borough, or the urban district or of one of the urban districts in the geographical area of the constituency. I am bound to say that I think the Committee would be well advised to adhere to the arrangements set out in the First Schedule. But, of course, if it is desired by any hon. Member to move a constituency from the county to the borough list, or vice versa, when we get to the First Schedule, subject to your right of selection, Mr. Chairman, of an Amendment dealing with that matter, it seems to me to be open for an hon. Member to move such an Amendment.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: May I ask for clarification upon this point? Is it the Boundary Commission which decides whether a constituency is to be a parliamentary borough or a division of a county, and can the Home Secretary say upon what principles

    2235
    the Commission was working. Can he also say whether anyone laid down a directive for the Commission?
    Mr. Ede: No; there was no directive given to the Commission. Perhaps I was wrong in saying that the Commission settled the matter. This House will settle whether a constituency is a borough or a county division when we get to the First Schedule.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Residence.)
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the beginning, to insert "In determining."
    My hon. Friends and I have put down this Amendment to get an explanation of the meaning of certain words which have been put into this Clause. Perhaps it would be convenient to refer to this and the following Amendment—in line 32, leave out from "election," to "be," in line 36, and insert "regard shall in particular"—together. The effect of these Amendments is to take out the words:
    "shall be determined in accordance with the general principles formerly applied in determining questions arising under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, as to a person's residence on a particular day of the qualifying period, and in particular regard shall."
    One would imagine, unless it were stated to the contrary, that this sort of question would be determined by case law. We, therefore, cannot understand what is the intention or the effect of putting in the words which I have just quoted and which these Amendments seek to take out. That is the whole point of these two Amendments, to get that explanation, and, perhaps, with these few words I have made it clear what explanation we want, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us the meaning of them.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): As hon. Members know, the meaning of the term "residence" varies very greatly according to the context in which it is used. It is perhaps one of the most difficult words to define in the whole vocabulary of the English law. It means one thing for the purpose of Income Tax and another thing for the purpose of
    2236
    serving legal process. For instance, it means one thing when it is required as a qualification for appointment, and another thing when it is required for the purposes of a drink after midnight in a West End hotel. With regard to the franchise, it had a fairly well recognised connotation, although it had not been the subject of any very precise definition; but it was supposed to be something equivalent to "inhabitance," but if I were asked what is "inhabitance" I should have to reply in the words of a learned judge, who said that it is something approaching "residence." The point about the words which it is now sought to delete in this Amendment is that we want to make quite sure that in changing the law—we are here, as hon. Members know, substituting "residence" on one qualifying date for "residence" during a qualifying period—we were not intending to alter in any way the principle which should be applied by the Courts to ascertain whether "residence" was taking place. We thought that it might possibly be considered by the Courts that by a change in the Clause we intended that the old line of cases should not be looked at. We did not intend that. We want the old case law to be looked at under this Clause and Bill just as was done under the 1918 Act and in case there is any doubt about it—I think myself that we are erring on the side of caution—we thought it better to say so in this Clause.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation. It seems to me that it is a satisfying one, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 47, to leave out "and will not be," and to insert "insofar as he is not."
    This is rather a fine point, perhaps, but I think it does affect the constituencies of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary rather more than mine. The point of it is the vote of mariners who will be at sea during the course of an election. As the Bill stands, as we see it, there is no provision made for merchant mariners to vote by proxy under Clause 6 (3) or under Clause 8 (3).

    2237
    No mention is made of merchant mariners who in the course of their profession sign articles, for example, for two years at sea. That will preclude them from giving the required undertaking. As the Bill stands at present, they cannot give this undertaking because they will be out of the United Kingdom. I think that if the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary study this point carefully, they will see that the Amendment will make it possible for these individuals to be deemed for the purpose of the foregoing Subsection (2) not to interrupt their residence in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I do not want to take up much time on this point but I would ask the Home Secretary to consider this change in the wording to enable merchant seamen to vote at the next General Election.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment appeared on the Order Paper only this morning and I think the hon. Gentleman realises that on the face of it it does not disclose exactly the point at which it was aimed. He was good enough to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself earlier in the day to explain that point to us. Between that time and this it has not been possible for me to get advice on the point he desires to raise and this is a matter of considerable importance. I am quite sure that every Member of the Committee desires that men of the Mercantile Marine should, where they have a fixed abode in this country to which they return from time to time, be assured that they can participate in the ordinary exercise of citizenship which the hon. Member hopes to provide. It has not been possible to examine this Amendment to see whether it covers only that point or whether it might let in a number of other people whom we might not wish to see included in this category. As the hon. Gentleman says, I have some constituency interest in the matter and I will undertake between now and the Report stage to have the point carefully examined and if it turns out that this, or some similar provision is necessary for dealing with men of the Mercantile Marine, I shall certainly undertake to see that proper provision is made when we get to the Report stage.
    Captain Marsden: May I ask the Home Secretary to concentrate on one point? He said he would consider men of the Mercantile Marine who have
    2238
    a fixed abode in this country. But what about the large number of men of the Mercantile Marine who have not a fixed abode when they are in this country but live in sailors' homes or lodgings? They are just as good citizens as anybody else. It may be a small point, but the Home Secretary perhaps overlooked it in his rather swiftly arrived-at promises. May I ask him to bear that in mind and also to include those men of the Mercantile Marine who are seamen registered in various ways as being British seamen but who have no fixed abode?
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty about that is that registration must be attached to some place of residence in the country. It would be exceedingly difficult to provide for the registration of persons who have no fixed abode. I do not know whether he could be registered in one of the wards of Wapping or something like that. That, in the old days, was the parish to which persons at sea were supposed, for certain purposes, to be attached, and I am not desiring to do anything that would belittle the chances of men of the Mercantile Marine to exercise the franchise; but it is clear that, in a Measure which bases the franchise on the principle of residence, there must be some residence to which the individual voter can be attached.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: What about the City of London?
    Mr. Ede: I did suggest a place that was rather more associated with the Mercantile Marine than that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I think the Committee will see the difficulty, that this Amendment was placed on the Order Paper this morning dealing with a highly technical point, but I can assure the Committee that I am viewing the matter with the utmost sympathy.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out from "given," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
    "in the expectation that throughout the period for which it is given the person giving it or his wife or her husband will."

    2239
    The paragraph affected by this Amendment is intended to preserve a person's right to be registered for his normal place of residence notwithstanding that he is away for the purpose of his occupation and that his residence is let furnished for the period of his absence. As the paragraph is now drafted, the case would not be covered where the letting was done by the wife and not by the person—that is, the husband—himself. The Amendment seeks to remove this anomaly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Are you, Mr. Beaumont, not going to call the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)—in page 3, line 12. after "patient" to insert:
    "under treatment for mental illness or mental defectiveness"?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It has not been selected and will therefore not be called. The hon. Member can speak on it on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gallacher: It is quite possible to find people in a mental hospital who have gone there in order to avoid mental trouble and who are quite normal in most respects. They are not mentally deficient, or suffering from any mental illness, and it seems to me to be undesirable that no account should be taken of these people. I want, Mr. Beaumont, to mention that at a recent by-election I went myself to visit a mental hospital, and there, among the other people were four persons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Patients?"]—yes, patients, if hon. Members say it—who were generally normal, and I got those four persons to vote for the Labour candidate in that by-election—[Interruption.] I had better not mention the locality, or there might be a purge of those four persons, but it is a fact that I have been on many visits to mental hospitals and have spoken to many of the people there; I have spoken to those who have been threatened with mental illness, and I have seen people who have gone voluntarily to such hospitals. They were not mentally sick in any way, but they were threatened with mental trouble and
    2240
    went to hospital to seek the opportunity of overcoming that threat. In a matter of this kind, care should be taken where there are such people. They are people who leave their homes for three or six months to take refuge in a nursing home or mental hospital, and they should not be treated as part of the general run of the patients there and excluded from any of the benefits of this Clause.
    I appeal to the Home Secretary, having known so many cases in the places I have visited. During that by-election the four people I mentioned were not only intelligent, but thoroughly intelligent—ahead of any Tories on the other side. I ask the Home Secretary to consider this question very seriously.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Communist Party have so obvious a party interest in securing the full electoral representation of mental defectives that I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. Gallacher: I was not talking about Tories, I was talking about people in mental institutions who are in a sane condition which the hon. Member, I am sure, will not possibly understand.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly would not understand the hon. Member's definition of sanity; I was only saying that I fully appreciate the interest of the Communist Party in securing that every mental defective has the opportunity of casting a vote, because if there is any field in which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will look for support that is it.
    This Clause turns on the question of the residence point put on the previous Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden). There are certain very reputable citizens of this country who have, in the ordinary sense, no residence in this country. It is highly desirable that those people should have the opportunity to cast their vote. They should surely have the opportunity to be represented in this House. I recollect that during the war, under the Services' registration, provision was made for persons serving abroad and with no obvious home in this country to elect and use their right to go on to the register, indicating that they were residing in a particular place.

    2241
    I appreciate that this matter has been rather sprung on the Home Secretary. He cannot possibly give an answer tonight, but I would support the plea of my lion. Friend that the position of people in this situation should not be overlooked and that people who are British citizens but who happen to have no permanent residence in this country should not for that reason be deprived of the franchise. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has some sympathy with this point of view and I can only support the plea of my hon. Friend that we may perhaps get in another stage of the Bill some provision incorporated to secure that these very worthy and respectable citizens should not be deprived of Parliamentary representation.
    Mrs. Braddock: I should like to support the plea put forward by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), because under the Mental Treatment Act persons can offer to go into a mental institution without being certified at all and in many cases they remain in the institution for quite a long time. In fact it has been specifically arranged, in order to avoid certification of cases, that where a person is prepared to enter an institution as a voluntary mental patient, there shall be no certification at all if it is at all possible to avoid it. If a person volunteers to take treatment in an institution of this sort and remains there for a period of, say, five or six months and an election intervenes in the meantime, that person ought to be able to have that residence marked. There is no question about these persons not being able to decide for themselves which particular line they want to take in relation to a political party. It would be wrong for persons going into such a hospital voluntarily in order to avoid certification, to be debarred from exercising their right to vote.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: It is so seldom that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Lady, the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) on any subject, that it gives me great pleasure indeed to support nearly everything she and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) have said. Just outside my own Division there is a very well-
    2242
    known mental institution where there are many patients of the type to which the hon. Lady has just alluded. I am speaking here as a Scottish Member, and I hope that the learned Lord Advocate, who, after all, is largely responsible for the affairs of Scotland, will take note of this. The hon. Lady, the hon. Gentleman, and I, do not want to see these unfortunate people, who go into these institutions voluntarily and surrender their rights temporarily as citizens in order to avoid certification, and to have the best possible medical advice and treatment, to be penalised when a General Election comes.
    I must enter one caveat with regard to what the hon. Lady said. She said that when a General Election or a by-election occurred a patient should have an opportunity of recording a vote. I hope she will agree with me that, of course, in this Bill we have not provided for mental patients voluntarily entering mental hospitals in order to avoid certification, and there would be a possible danger if the hon. Lady's suggestion were agreed to in toto. A patient, not quite normally fit at the time, being allowed to go to the polling station might run into considerable trouble and danger or do something stupid owing to the fact that he had not quite recovered from his previous illness. With these few words of warning, I am completely in accord with the main principle in the speeches of the hon. Lady and the hon. Member.
    Mr. Ede: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is, I think is covered by the Clause. Where the person is a certified mental patient, his place of residence is the institution to which he has gone. The effect of this Clause is that as such, he will not, as a certified patient, be registered as an elector in respect of his residence at the mental hospital. I did have a complaint after the last General Election from one hon. Member, in fact, an hon. and learned Member, who shall be nameless, complaining that a patient who had been on the electoral roll and subsequently certified before the date of the election, was not allowed to leave the mental institution in order to go and vote for this hon. and learned Gentleman—who was elected in spite of this abstention.
    If the person is a voluntary patient—and that is the type of person for whom I

    2243
    understand the plea is made—he will be registered in respect of his home address. I cannot help thinking that that is appropriate. It does not appear right that merely because a mental hospital happens to be situated in a certain constituency the voluntary patients should become voters in that constituency from which I have no doubt they hope to get away at the earliest possible moment, consistent with the cure. I hope that explanation will satisfy those hon. Members who raised this point.
    The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), followed up the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) in an earlier discussion in regard to persons normally associated with the United Kingdom in which is their permanent place of residence but who are abroad and may be for some years, on pleasure or on Government business, and suggested that these people should be registered for a vote. Exactly the same difficulty arises with regard to those persons as arises in connection with seamen who have no fixed abode in this country. It is very difficult to say to which constituency they should be attached if one wanted to do it. Of course, some people go abroad intending to reside abroad for a temporary period, but then for some reason or another they may decide to become permanent residents abroad. It would be difficult to arrive at a definition which would enable such persons to be attached to a constituency when we have no idea whether they intend to return to this country. They might give a pledge in good faith that they did intend to return, and then find, when they got abroad, that they would rather reside there. If the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames at some later stage of the Bill has some ideas to put before us in regard to that matter, I can assure him we will consider them.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is it not possible to treat persons on Government service abroad on the same footing as members of the Services, who make a declaration that during their service abroad they shall be deemed to reside at an address which is specified?
    Mr. Pritt: I am not happy about the point dealt with by
    2244
    the Secretary of State in regard to patients in mental establishments. He says they will be registered to vote at their normal place of residence. I quite agree that that is the proper place, but quite a number of people, for one reason or another, may go into one of these establishments for a few months, and they cannot reside at home. They may be perfectly sane, having gone in for treatment. They may say, "I am told that I cannot be registered at this establishment or anywhere else because as a matter of fact I have no residence anywhere else." That is an easy thing to happen. I do not know whether this affects a large number of people but it will concern some, and I would ask the Home Secretary to give it a little more consideration.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). In certain areas of the country where people voluntarily enter one of these establishments they could be a long way from their usual place of residence and it might not be physically possible for them to vote at that place. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this matter is sufficiently covered? I am not sure that it is, because these people may be so far from home for a limited period that they will be unable to vote.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think that we could limit the concession asked for by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) to the class of person that he names. People might be sent abroad by a private firm on a Government contract. They are not in Government employ. There are people who are sent out by private firms who are not on Government work.
    Mr. Roberts: Why not extend it to them?
    Mr. Ede: Precisely. That is the difficulty. Where is one to draw the line? The basis of the franchise must be residence, and reasonable likelihood of the person being at that place of residence, or within easy reach of it, during the period for which the register lasts. When I use the words "at home," with regard to a point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), clearly I do not mean the family

    2245
    home. Perhaps I should say the address at which the person but for his residence in the mental institution would have been residing. I think that sort of wording would convey more accurately what I mean. I am sure the hon. and learned Member will realise that I was not trying to speak in strictly legal language.
    It seems to me that possibly the most likely address would be the address at which the person was residing when he volunteered to enter the hospital. I will undertake to have it examined, to see whether what I have said is actually covered by the Bill. In as much as these people will not be at the address in respect of which they are qualified, and may be some distance away, it would appear to me that by a later Clause in the Bill they are covered by the provision for postal voting. I am sure that for the majority of these people, if it is a long journey, grateful as many of them are on occasion for a trip from the institution, it would probably be better for them if they exercised the franchise by post. I will have that point also examined. I have no doubt that the candidates would probably prefer that, instead of going a long way to pick up one voter like this, such motor cars as they have at their disposal should be used rather nearer the polling stations.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  ROYAL MARINES BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered.
  ROYAL MARINES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to raise Royal Marine Forces Volunteer Reserve.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 14, leave out "it applies" and insert "they apply."
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment. Their Lordships have displayed a rather better knowledge of the English language
    2246
    than we did, and they found that it is better to say "X and Y do" than "X and Y does," and have therefore substituted the plural for the singular.

  COTTON SPINNING (RE-EQUIPMENT SUBSIDY) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of grants for the re-equipment or modernisation of cotton spinning concerns, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of grants to persons carrying on cotton spinning concerns in respect of expenditure incurred in re-equipping or modernising, in accordance with plans approved by the Board of Trade, cotton spinning mills comprised in those concerns, such grants not to exceed one quarter of the expenditure so incurred; and

  (b) of any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board of Trade."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS
  So much of the Lords Message [11th March] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills considered.
  Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session:
  Mr. Challen, Mr. Stanley Evans, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Thomas Reid and Mr. William Ross to be Members of the Committee:
  Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

  PETROL ALLOWANCES, SCOTLAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: I make no excuse for raising the question again of an allowance of basic petrol for the rural districts of Scotland. I feel sure the case is one the Government should recognise. I can assure the Minister that Scotland will grant him no respite on this issue. It will pursue him like Banquo's ghost. Agriculture is the staple industry of Caithness and Sutherland, just as it is of many other Scottish counties. Admittedly, farmers receive grants, though insufficient to satisfy their needs, but there is also the question of farm employees.
  I would point out that no amount of subsidy will encourage people to stay on the land if they are obliged to suffer isolation. I am informed by the chairman of the Scottish National Farmers' Union that it is the practice of farmers in the North of Scotland to supply motor transport to their shepherds and outlying employees to enable them to be contended and remain on the land. If that is not done, they will leave the land, the sheep will be sold and the country will suffer financial loss.
  Surely, instead of discouraging mobility, the Government should look forward to supplying every farm labourer with a motor cycle of low horse-power capable of travelling 100 to 120 miles to the gallon, because such a grant would bring happiness and contentment to land workers far beyond the cost to the nation. At Kildonan, farm employees have to travel 20 miles to an inn. I would suggest to the Minister that if one has to travel 20 miles on a cycle to satisfy a thirst, he probably comes back with as great a thirst afterwards. Although I believe some undertaking has been given to farmers that they will receive petrol to attend the Royal Agricultural Show at Inverness, until recently it was not so. Even exhibitors were refused allowances. When the Minister comes to reply, I hope he will clear up any doubt and that his answer will receive wide publicity. The isolation felt in the rural districts of Scotland is not confined to the agricultural community. There is depopulation, which is much to be deplored, taking place because of this loneliness.
  I have received from Kildonan in Sutherland the information that an application for one gallon of petrol a week for
  2248
  salmon fishing has been declined, although such fishing would assist the local larder and the food supplies of the nation. Further, relatives may suffer anxiety on the question of illness because they are unable to travel to where the sufferer lies. And the Minister, for whose attendance I am most grateful, will realise that on Sundays no transport of any kind operates north of Inverness. In the event of death relatives are unable to attend funerals because of this 20 miles embargo on hire cars. Permission can be applied for, and granted, but how long does that take? Death does not always give notice.
  I turn to the medical aspect of the matter. I have been advised by doctors that their petrol allowances have been severely cut down. I am referring to doctors in the outlying districts of Sutherland, and I am told that they are unable to answer calls when they receive them, but have to let them wait until the next day, so as to call on several patients together. Then, the limitation of 20 miles on hire cars, concerning which I fear the Minister has twice within a very short period been addressed from this side of the House, is a handicap in the case of illness. The main hospital of Sutherland, the Lawson Memorial Hospital, Golspie, to which I desire to pay every tribute, has not sufficient ambulances to meet snap demands from the outlying districts of Sutherland, and in the case of illness it has been the usual practice to hire cars to carry patients to the hospital. That practice, in fact, continues, but owing to the 20 miles' limit, and the natural nervousness of hire firms, patients—often in pain—are being transferred once, sometimes twice, on a relay system of cars to reach hospital.
  There is the question of the small garage. Caithness and Sutherland cover a wide area, and dotted all over the counties are small garages started by ex-Servicemen, employing two or three men. Through this discouragement of motoring, they are being obliged to close down, and these ex-Servicemen are losing all.
  Now comes the familiar cry of the hotel industry. It will lose nothing by repetition. There are no less than 59 licensed hotels in Caithness and Sutherland and in view of the immense area concerned, I would like the Minister to understand that this is not one too many. The withdrawal of basic petrol led to the cancellation of

  2249
  bookings for Christmas, 1947, and to the cancellation of bookings for Easter this year. Bookings for the summer are being cancelled wholesale. Nearly all the west coast of Sutherland is studded with good houses, stretching from Lochinver to Scourie, Durness and Melvich. They are situated no less than 50 or 60 miles from the nearest railway station. It has been suggested that an allowance of petrol should be given to hotel proprietors to enable them to meet guests at the railway station. But imagine running empty for 5o miles to meet, or deposit, guests. And there is the question of the black market. What an opportunity this would provide. Hotel proprietors, like the rest of the community, possess among their number some black sheep, and I would suggest that such an allowance is not the best method of dealing with the matter.
  The Scottish hotel season lasts barely four to five months and these hotels are empty throughout the rest of the year. They have already suffered seven years of hardship during the war and if this lack of petrol continues I implore the Minister to realise that they will close down. There is a strong affinity between Scotland and America. Many of the best American citizens are of Scottish extraction and they come back to visit Scotland and their ancestral homes and this is a necessity because it brings dollars into the country which we can ill afford to lose. They will not come unless they are able to travel through Scotland by car and enjoy what they expect when they come home.
  I am a believer in lifting the ban on foreign travel. Any one condemned to remain in this country under a Government of gloom, producing more and more hardship is bound to suffer from claustrophobia. But when granting foreign travel I would draw the Minister's attention to the effect it will have on the Scottish tourist industry. The British holidaymaker who takes his car to France or to the Continent is granted an allowance of petrol. He may motor from the French coast to the southern portion of Italy but if he goes to Scotland he will not get one gallon to enjoy his holiday. The Scottish hotels have suffered a second blow. It would be inappropriate for me to refer to the Catering Wages Act. It is enough to point out that five and seven bedroomed houses in Scotland are being
  2250
  treated as if they were West End hotels. We have recently seen that 17,000,000 dollars are to be spent to provide American films in Great Britain. As far as the rural districts of Scotland are concerned they think that the money would be better spent in supplying a little petrol rather than American films.
  It has been noted, too, that the Hollywood film industry has been invited to invest, I think, the sum is 2,500,000 dolars, in purchasing, or investing in, British hotels. If the Minister studies the Scottish papers he will find that never before have so many Scottish hotels been put up for sale, so America should get them on the cheap. I do not wish to see a dollar wasted. I voted against the American Loan because I believed that this country could only recover by its own efforts, but in spite of the amount of Scotch whisky exported, the Scots still have insufficient petrol to run their cars. There is a general feeling that this Measure is a piece of bitter class legislation. I do not support that. I believe that it is a mistaken policy and I think that the Government are simply reluctant to admit a mistake. It is not my duty to save this Government from unpopularity but I can assure the Minister that nothing has caused more gloom, irritation and hardship than these regulations, and what example is being set. Are Ministers and officials motoring to a minimum? What is the average horsepower of cars which stand daily in the Speaker's Court? Imagine, too, what Scottish rural feeling is when they read the following, and I quote from the "Dorset Daily Echo," of Saturday, 13th March. It has been sent to me by a constituent:
  "No fewer than Ono motor coaches went to Sheffield for the tussle between Derby County and Manchester United."
  An Hon. Member: Shame.
  Mr. Gandar Dower: The policy is, of course, a Cabinet responsibility but the Minister will bear the brunt of public attack, and if Scottish rural districts are asked what mercy should be rendered to him, they will cry "a halter, gratis; nothing else."
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland and Caithness (Mr. Gandar Dower) has performed a useful public service in drawing the atten-

  2251
  tion of the House to this matter. I am glad he stressed the hardship caused to the rural areas in Scotland by the withdrawal of the basic petrol ration. Folk who live in towns can see their friends, go to the cinema, or concerts or dances or to their sports clubs, on foot, or by public transport. That is very seldom the case in the scattered rural areas of Scotland in which country folk have to live in isolation, like hermits, in their own houses, unable, for weeks or months on end, to be visited by their relatives or their friends and unable to go into towns for recreational facilities. That is hardly calculated to attract young men and young women to go and live in the countryside. Of course, it may be said that it is always open to people to hire cars. That is all right if they can afford it, but hiring cars is very wasteful of petrol both because of the double journeys involved and because most hire cars are very large, and high horse-powered cars do a very small mileage to the gallon of petrol.
  My hon. Friend mentioned American films. If a Scotsman were asked whether he would rather have the restoration of American films or the basic petrol ration he would say, "the basic petrol ration every time." "Forever Amber" is a sordid substitute for the freedom of the road and God's open air.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I interrupt? I do not think this refers only to Scotland. I think it refers to a great many other districts in England and Wales also, and I hope that in his remarks, the hon. Member will also bring in England and Wales.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: If it were in Order, I should be delighted to do so, but I understand that the Adjournment Debate is specifically about Scottish rural areas. However, what I was saying about the rural areas of Scotland applies to almost every other rural area. What I want to say particularly concerns hotels, because hotels are in the very greatest difficulty. They have to face difficulties, which the Minister knows about, in getting permission to do work. They have had great staff difficulties and now they have the difficulties of the wages regulations under the Catering Wages Act, and on top of that there is this withdrawal of the basic petrol ration.
  2252
  I will give one example only, because the difficulties are well known to many hon. Members. This is a case from my own constituency of the Invercauld Arms Hotel, Braemar, on Deeside. This is a hotel which was requisitioned during the war and, after possession was obtained quite recently, great difficulty was experienced in getting the necessary permit to do the place up. The proprietor got together a staff of between 40 and 50, mostly ex-Service men and women, and they were working excellently as a team. But because of the withdrawal of the basic petrol ration they had to close down, leaving a caretaker and bartender in charge. Their booking for the summer are almost all dependent upon the basic petrol ration being restored. That is one example of a great many others up and down rural Scotland and in England and Wales as well.
  I know that the Parliamentary Secretary informed us last night that the Minister of Fuel and Power is about to make an announcement shortly about petrol for the tourist industry, and I am very glad to hear it. It is very important and even more important that he should give a promise that the basic petrol allowance will be restored at the earliest possible moment.
  11.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): The whole House, I am sure, will have listened with attention to the very well reasoned argument which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) has made tonight, and the admirable contribution which the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has made to this discussion; and I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said he did not share the view, which some of his hon. Friends hold, that this is a case of class hatred, because if there is a class which has suffered, it is the working class. I know that approximately 500,000 cars are laid up, but it must be remembered that there are about 300,000 motor cycles laid up, and I am one of those who wants to see these people with more freedom once again. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland dealt with the rural areas of Scotland, and one readily appreciates all he said. But in relation to overseas visitors, it will be

  2253
  recalled that I said last night that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be making a statement on this particular matter next week, and I think we can leave this until that time to see what provision is made. The other points which the hon. Member has made are matters to which I will try to give a helpful reply. He indicated the difficulty of taking people to hospital, and I would explain that it is not necessary for the owner of a hire car to wait until he has a call to get a permit for the journey. He can get a blanket licence so that he is covered for taking people to a hospital even although the journey is one of more than 20 miles. We are most anxious to be reasonable and generous in so far as we can in helping people in these circumstances.
  Mr. Gandar Dower: May I interrupt? I thank the hon. Member for his assurance, but may I make it perfectly clear? Can hirers who would normally take patients to hospital, obtain a blanket licence beforehand to meet eventualities of this sort?
  Mr. Robens: Yes, that is so where the area necessitates it and the distances are more than 20 miles. The hon. Member also referred to shopping, church-going, and taking children to school. The allowances for these things are mainly advantageous to rural dwellers, because they are the people who are most advantaged by those concessions. We have given allowances to veterinary surgeons and farmers for their needs, and so far as doctors are concerned, there is no complaint from the medical profession that we are not giving them sufficient for their needs and for all necessary travel in attending to patients. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is not my province, nor am I competent to debate, tonight, the relative expenditure in dollars on films from the United States and on basic petrol, and I hope, therefore, that I shall be forgiven if I do not enter into that controversy.
  With regard to motor coaches, the petrol allocation has been cut, but this is one way in which the present transport difficulties can be eased. Provisions for motor coaches apply in Scotland as equally in any other part of the country.
  Mr. Blackburn: I am sorry to interrupt my hon.
  2254
  Friend, and I quite appreciate that this is not his responsibility, but could he deal with this one point? The point that a large number of dollars are to be spent on films compared with the restoration of basic petrol, is one which I am sure the Government must have in mind and on which we do hope there will be some early statement.
  Mr. Robens: I take note of what the hon. Member has said and I will convey that to the right quarter: it is an important and necessary point.
  With regard to hotels, and the fact that some of the Scottish hotels are a long distance from the railway stations, that is another case where the hirer can get a licence for a particular purpose. In any case we do give an allowance to the hotel proprietor to take guests to the hotel from the station and vice versa.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor Mr. C. S. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Robens: I have got to get on and there are one or two important things I want to say. We have done what we can to ease the situation within the problem of meeting the position. I have been at this Box a number of times during the past week in connection with basic petrol and I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have used before; but I think it is important that I should tell the House something about the average weekly savings. In October the average weekly savings were 5,000 tons; in November, 15,000 tons; in December, 17,000 tons; in January, 20,000 tons and in February, 23,000 tons. That is a total saving of 350,000 tons in five months ending 29th February. It represents approximately £4,123,000 at present prices of £11 15s. 7d. per ton c.i.f. or approximately 16,600,000 dollars. Thus it is a real saving and it does represent something very well worth while, bearing in mind the earlier months where there was very much less saving of petrol.
  Let me say something about the position of the restoration of basic. That is what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland wanted to know and what the House and the country want to know—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members need not sit up in great expectation. I am not going to say anything as definite as all that—but much depends, in relation to the restoration of the basic

  2255
  petrol ration, or shall I say, a petrol allocation—on the findings and the recommendations of the Committee which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power set up to deal with black market dealings in petrol.
  As the House knows, this Committee has been sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Russell Vick and I am glad to tell the House that we anticipate that his report will be in the hands of the Minister in a few days' time. The Minister will want to consider that report along with other matters. When he has done that he will come to the House and he will make that long-anticipated statement which the House is so desirous of hearing and it would not be for me tonight to anticipate what that statement will be. Therefore, I do ask the House to wait in patience—and there is not much longer to wait—for that statement and to be assured that there is good will and the desire to help. It is with that point of view and that line of thought in mind that this whole matter is being investigated.
  Mr. Gandar Dower: Can the Minister give an assurance that allowances are being made to farmers to visit the Royal Agricultural Show at Inverness, one of the great Scottish shows?
  Mr. Robens: I am sorry the hon. Member has asked me a question about a specific show, but, by and large, we have agreed in respect of shows of that type
  2256
  that farmers should be entitled to go, and I do not think there will be any difficulty.
  Mr. Gandar Dower: Thank you.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what relation the saving of petrol has to the advantage which the Americans have gained over the films deal? Surely, it would be far better if this country were given back basic petrol instead of being presented with "Forever Amber."
  Mr. Robens: I am sure I would not be permitted to enter into an argument on the relative merits of "Forever Amber" and petrol. I have been dealing on this Motion tonight with the question of how the petrol ban affects Scotland, and this is not the time to discuss film versus petrol.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is not so much a question of getting a guest from a station to the hotel and back again. It means having a car to visit well-known beauty spots, and people will not come to the hotel if they cannot make these visits. That is why it is so necessary to have petrol.
  Mr. Robens: I understand that, but the same point applies to hotels throughout the country.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

  TOGOLAND (ANGLOFRENCH COMMISSION)
  TOGOLAND (ANGLOFRENCH COMMISSION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (IMMIGRANT WORKERS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (IMMIGRANT WORKERS)
  SINGAPORE (GENERAL PERCIVAL'S DESPATCH)
  SINGAPORE (GENERAL PERCIVAL'S DESPATCH)
ROYAL NAVY
  Corvettes (Disposal)
  Corvettes (Disposal)
  Shipbuilding Target
  Shipbuilding Target
POST OFFICE
  Telephone Poles (Rural Areas)
  Telephone Poles (Rural Areas)
  Registered Packets (Charges)
  Registered Packets (Charges)
  Telephone Applications, Kirkheaton
  Telephone Applications, Kirkheaton
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (MARRIED QUARTERS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (MARRIED QUARTERS)
  ARMED FORCES (PURCHASE OF DISCHARGE)
  ARMED FORCES (PURCHASE OF DISCHARGE)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (SUBSIDIES)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (SUBSIDIES)
GERMANY
  Assets (Neutral Countries)
  Assets (Neutral Countries)
  Private Visits
  Private Visits
  CHARTER AIRCRAFT (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  CHARTER AIRCRAFT (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  MUNICIPAL NURSERIES
  MUNICIPAL NURSERIES
  TIMBER DRY ROT
  TIMBER DRY ROT
  PETROL ALLOWANCES (SHOW, INVERNESS)
  PETROL ALLOWANCES (SHOW, INVERNESS)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Domestic Supplies, Hastings
  Domestic Supplies, Hastings
  Agricultural Requirements
  Agricultural Requirements
  ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Stafford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF BURNLEY ORDER;
BOROUGH OF MONMOUTH ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF MALTBY ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SWINDON GAS ORDER, 1948, MIDDLESBROUGH GAS ORDER, 1948,
SOUTH YORKSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE GAS ORDER, 1948.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as approved by the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE.
2.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN rose to call attention to the Statement Relating to Defence, 1948, (Cmd. 7327); to ask His Majesty's Government, what progress has been made during the past year in matters relating to defence; and to move for
864
Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, very often of late our debates have been so harmonious that they might almost have been mistaken for meetings of a mutual admiration society. It is with some regret, therefore, that I have to say that my remarks may not be quite so un-controversial as those which have recently been made by some of my noble friends on these Benches. But it is no part of my business, or my wish, to bring defence matters unnecessarily into the realm of Party conflict, and if I do make some observations which seem to have that effect, then it is only in the hope that I may succeed in opening out a road towards the common ground which we all wish to reach in this matter.
This Motion was put down on the Order Paper before the Defence White Paper came out, and we put it down in terms which inquired what progress had been made in national defence during the past twelve months. I may say that we put it down because, from what we could gather, the progress made had been very little. When the Defence White Paper came out we saw no reason to alter the terms of our Motion, and merely added to it that we wished to draw attention to the contents of the White Paper. The 1947 White Paper said this:
"1947 will, however, still be a stage, and perhaps not the final stage, in the transition from war to peace, and the immediate preoccupations of post-war settlement and revival of the national economy have inevitably taken pride of place. But sight is not being lost of the need to plan our post-war defence policy, and an examination of the fundamental issues is already in hand."
Now we have the 1948 White Paper. The word "progress" does not seem to be used very much. There is a section which is called, rather diplomatically, "Developments since the publication of the last Statement"; and the developments include the National Service Act, the outline of Civil Defence and the withdrawal from certain countries where our presence is now unnecessary or unwelcome. If I may, I will deal with the first two of those developments later.
With regard to the last development I would say merely that if it is progress that is referred to there, it is progress in what we usually regard as a reverse direction. Leaving out the marked defects of editorship and the patchwork state of the White Paper (caused, apparently, by the fact that

865
a number of different Departments put forward their contributions and there was no one possessing a sufficiently strong hand to iron them out), and also leaving out what my noble friend Lord Rennell—when referring to the Economic White Paper—called "the critical exegesis"—and there certainly is some exegesis needed in this matter—it is difficult to find, either on the lines of the 1948 Paper or between them, any sign or manifestation of our policy for post-war defence. There is no sign that I can see—and I think my noble friends here agree with me—as to whether His Majesty's Government have decided what are the fundamental issues to which they refer in the 1947 White Paper, or that they have based on them any plan for the composition of the Forces in regard to man-power, material or location which can be translated into action. We all know perfectly well that there have been a number of violent changes in the distribution of our existing Forces, but surely the withdrawal from India was foreseen and cannot be prayed in aid as a reason why no scheme has yet been produced.
I am not going to deal with the Estimates in detail. There have been debates on the Navy Estimates, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Mr. Churchill threw some doubts on the accuracy in all respects of the Navy Statement. The Air Estimates do not tell us what is to be the size or the shape of the future Air Force. We have a little more guidance from the Army, but it comes from no official source, unless one may regard Hansard as such. Our only information is still derived from the New Statesman and Nation and, so far as I understand, has not been confirmed or denied, either here or in another place. The figures given were two divisions, one armoured division and one parachute brigade. We are still very much in the dark. We have no reason to think that anything has been happening. But I put it to your Lordships that security can be overdone. My own feeling, with regard to security is that the fog in this country is much blacker among the people who are entitled to know than it is in the intelligence services of foreign Powers—who probably know anyway. Scarcely anyone in this country really knows—for it has not been clearly brought before the public—why we want a defence organisation, why we want not only an over-all national
866
effort but also personal efforts on the part of our people.
It was only this morning that there came into my hands a copy of a resolution which, I am informed, was passed by a section of the Labour Party in one of the counties. This resolution states that:
"In view of the serious economic situation with which this country is now faced and as it is imperative that the utmost precautions should be taken against economic collapse, the military considerations must not be allowed in any way to affect he production drive. Therefore, the Party calls upon the Government to cut all sections of the Forces to the lowest possible level, thereby releasing tens of thousands of personnel to improve production and drastically reducing current expenditure."
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): Would the noble Viscount permit me to ask him whence that quotation derives?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My informant was asked to go to a meeting of a county Labour Party to discuss this resolution.
LORD NATHAN: What county was it, may I ask?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Oxfordshire. I am simply giving that resolution as a sample of what is going on in the country, and of what, in my view, is bound to go on unless the matter is clearly put to the people. No greater damage can be done to national defence than by drawing the veil of security too closely over it, or by making the problem of national defence a Party matter. After all, the affairs of our Forces and the careers of the people in them are matters of far too long a term for the question to be allowed to become a Party one. No machine, no tank, no weapon, no aircraft which goes into production now will appear until 1950, and we do not know who will be in the Government then. A young man who joins the Forces now will, perhaps, reach the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or Wing-Commander in fifteen years' time, and no one knows what will be the composition of the Government of our country then. Ships, regiments, and squadrons of the R.A.F. are not made in a day, though it is true that they can be broken in a week, and you cannot suddenly raise Armed Forces overnight in the way that some people who took part in the debate in another place seemed to think.

867
I think that the suggestion in the Defence White Paper—certainly it is so in the passage devoted to works—is that economies, if they have to take place in one year (this year, for example), can be made good and the lost ground regained by a double dose of expenditure in the following year. I put it to your Lordships that that is sheer wishful thinking—it cannot often happen. You will never recover the years that the locusts have eaten; you will never make up for a year of unreasonable economy any more than if you starve a horse one year you can make up for the harm done in his life by double-feeding him the next. However, here we have the White Paper, and we must try to deal with it on the information available. I do not think we have any quarrel with the sentiments expressed in paragraph 62 of the Paper, but when we come to consider what appears in the Estimates we see very little sign of those sentiments being put into practice. The whole White Paper is written in a tone of what one might call apologia—apology for failure to produce results. It almost appears that the Ministry of Defence is taking up the line that it ought to be on the defensive, just as the Opposition ought to oppose. This White Paper is on the defensive, and its whole theme is that, the economic position being what it is, and so little money and materials being available, therefore, little can be done. I put it to your Lordships that that is a major fallacy.
The Minister of Defence, speaking in another place, seemed to be at pains to relate defence measures to what he called a healthy national economy, and, of course, defence must occupy a proper place—we cannot take it out of context in one direction or another. But, surely, a more important angle, which is hardly mentioned in the White Paper, is the angle of Commonwealth and foreign policy. I do not want to say much about our policy in regard to the great Dominions. That is a subject upon which a good deal is best left unsaid. Therefore I will content myself by saying that my impression is that the conversations which Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein has had at Staff level have been successful. But the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in the foreign affairs debate a few days ago, said that without Armed Forces not only was it impossible to have
868
an effective foreign policy, but it was impossible to have any foreign policy at all. If that is true—as I am sure it is—and if it is also true, as it says at the end of the White Paper, that we wish to be a great Power, then if we are to be a great Power not only on White Paper but in fact, we must have two things: we must have a certain minimum strength at a high state of readiness at sea, on land and in the air, and we must have power to expand quickly, in man-power and material, to war-time strength. If we do not have those things, then surely we are in exactly the same position as the man who finds himself in financial difficulties and decides to cut down his insurances. People who do that in national affairs are entitled to the same amount of praise or blame as those who do it in private life.
So much for the White Paper. There is no evidence to show that any minimum standard of Forces has been agreed upon. Our withdrawal from Palestine does not answer the question. The Forces in Palestine, I understand, were originally a striking force, diverted to these duties. We have no knowledge whether any striking force is to be reconstituted when the troops are withdrawn from Palestine. We do not even know whether the Chiefs of Staff have at their disposal sufficient Forces to deal with disturbances such as have happened lately in British Honduras and British Guiana. We just do not know. Of course, everybody knows what strong arguments there are against producing ships, tanks and aircraft in peace time, but surely the moral to be drawn is not that, because we cannot have the best we should have nothing at all. Yet that is what is happening; and that, I believe, is entirely wrong. Until the right moment comes to produce the best, we should keep the second best and not send it for scrap. To do as we are doing now, scrapping everything and putting nothing in its place, is going the way which led to Munich.
History has been written since then and everybody can read in history what has happened. I feel very strongly that if those who are responsible will compare their administrative actions with the administrative actions which took place before Munich, and led up to it, they will find the resemblances far too great for the issue to be shirked. That is what is happening. "Priority" in 1948 has

869
exactly the same meaning as "priority" had ten and fifteen years before—which meant that the Forces were getting practically nothing. No one has answered the question as to what is meant by "priority" in the White Paper. Does it mean anything is being produced, or that nothing is being produced? The White Paper does not tell us. Some people may say that we are quite all right, because plans for research and the atom bomb are going ahead well. I wonder. I wonder very much whether "research" is not another way of saying, "We should have given you enough money to spend on real men and equipment, but if we say ' research' you cannot say we are wrong, though you do not know what is happening."
In 1939 some people thought that infantry and battleships would be obsolete—that tanks and gas and other things would do the trick. But when the time came, gas was not used; and when Lord Montgomery made his final advance, the infantry were still there. Therefore, so far as we must still maintain a minimum Force, the proper criterion is not simply the sum we can spare from subsidies for food or social services, but what is the minimum Force required to make our Foreign policy reasonably realistic and not: something which, in the end, cannot be achieved because it cannot be enforced. In saying that, I should perhaps add that I realise that the Estimates are very big—£692,000,000, all told, or £592,000,000 without civilians, compared with £243,000,000 for all three Services in the 1938 Appropriation Account. But it is possible to spend a lot of money and yet fail to achieve anything. I do not want to go into small items, but I would mention the £4,295,000 in the Army, and the £1,956,000 in the Air Estimates—both entirely for the Poles. That may be covered by appropriations in aid, but I do not think so.
The "teeth to tail" ratio was talked about in another place. We have a lot of soldiers and a lot of airmen, but are we producing the maximum number of field units? It is not probable, unless the plans for the expansion of the Forces have been decided upon. I do not wish to reopen the vexed question of National Service. Time is too short this afternoon, and I would merely say that in my belief, and in the belief of my noble friends, it
870
is absolutely vital to maintain the principle of National Service. We cannot lay on National Service in a hurry. Either we have it on the Statute Book now, or we wait until it is too late. I do not want to intrude my own personal experiences in the last war, but one of my most vivid recollections is of September, 1930, when I went to France. Soldiers were coming out who had been attested only four days earlier; before that they had never worn uniform. It was expected that they would have to deal with dive bombers, gas and paratroops—things that might have happened then, but did not happen until later. What hope had these men, and whose fault was it that they were sent out? It was the fault of the people who had decided that National Service was unnecessary. And there history has been clearly written.
Without National Service we cannot convince our Allies or our partners that we are in earnest. In spite of that, I am not saying that the present arrangements for working the National Service Act are right. Everything seems to show that the present method of working the Act is ill conceived. It has never recovered from the change to twelve months, which has never been worked out properly. It is heavy enough to make a serious draft on our civil resources, but it is not calculated to meet present Service needs. The obligations and emoluments of National Service men, as compared with volunteers, are out of line; and this has the effect of making volunteering for the Regular and Auxiliary Forces unattractive in comparison with what it might have been. Furthermore, the staggering of the age of call-up will produce far more trouble than noble Lords opposite may think. If time were longer, I would go into it in detail. As it is, I will merely point to the difficulties of the Territorial Army—a subject on which we hope to have a debate after Easter—to the bad accommodation for single and married Regular troops and to the lack of real provision of married quarters. I will only mention the failure so far to produce a proper scheme for the employment of Regulars after Colour service, which has been asked for from these Benches time and time again. Others may speak about this, either in this debate or later.
There is another rather more important point. I am very much surprised in reading the White Paper to find that so little

871
connection appears to exist between the plans for National Service and the plans for Civil Defence. We want a high state of readiness in home defence and the plans for training National Service men do not seem to bear much relation to the possibility of a number of them being employed in home defence, whether they are in reserved occupations as civilians, or whether they are in the Forces. After all, if manpower problems remain the same as they did in the 1939–45 war, then a great deal of our part-time man-power and woman-power will be wanted for part-time service in national defence.
I do not think the Civil Defence scheme which has just been announced is very convincing. It does not seem to be treated as an operational matter. The Service adviser appointed comes from the Indian Army. One would have thought that there were plenty of officers from Fighter Command of the Royal Air Force, or from Anti-Aircraft Command, with the operational experience necessary for those who are to build up the scheme. It looks as though Civil Defence were now being treated, very largely, as a departmental Home Office matter, with mentally defective children next door and prison reform down the passage. We shall never get it right unless we treat it as an operational matter; and we shall never get it right if the Home Office, or any other Government Department, are allowed to walk into the muddle of man-power between Civil Defence, fire watching, the Fire Service and the Home Guard, which, as I well know, existed for three years in the last war.
I would ask what is happening at the Ministry of Defence, if all that I think is going on outside the Ministry of Defence is true. We do not hear much: a few noises behind the iron curtain, or perhaps the plaster board partition which separates the outside from the inside of the Ministry of Defence. How much time have we left to sort these things out? Not very much. The Russian line has now been advanced to include Czechoslovakia, a line which geography tells us is accessible to our own strategic effort and in which history tells us we have made strategic effort. I leave the matter there. The moral of this story is that these are no days for making any assumption—if, by any chance, such assumption is being
872
made—that we have any length of time during which we are likely to be immune from war. I see my noble friend Lord Chatfield in his place, and I hope the words in his book, and the title of that book—It Might Happen Again—will be remembered.
We have a clear lesson of history before us; indeed we have something more tan a lesson of history. We are now responsible in a way, as never before, for the welfare of the people who live in the Western Zones of Germany. Presumably—though I do not know—those people, who are just starting to build their lives again, are looking to us to see whether, having helped them to reach a certain way of life, we are going to help them retain it. What of the Benelux countries? How can the negotiations, which seem to have gone on so successfully, be a reality unless the part which we are prepared to play in defence matters is also a reality? It is not a convincing picture. The reason why is not that the sentiments in the White Paper are ones with which we disagree—that is not so—but that there is no evidence that effective steps are being taken to make them good, or that the Ministry of Defence is fulfilling the functions of co-ordination, leadership and direction for which Parliament established it last year.
I do not wish to be unconstructive. There appear to be certain directions in which we should go to remedy this state of affairs. We should settle or, if they are settled, we should announce, the plans to be carried out and the objects in view. Let the Services and the people who are in them know where they are. Unless we know where we are, and perhaps take a little chance on security, the men and women in the Services will no: know what to prepare for and the public will not be convinced that they have to make the sacrifices which, for my part, I am convinced are necessary. We must take administrative action which, judging from the Estimates, does not seem to have been taken yet, to remedy the obstacles to voluntary recruiting and the operation of National Service. We should put a stop to what seems to me to be a bad case of departmentalism in home defence; and we should not use research or planning as an excuse to conceal the absence of concrete steps and real measures which ought to have been taken, but have

873
not been taken, and yet must be taken before it is too late. I submit to your Lordships that all this can be achieved if we have a strong Ministry of Defence backed, as I am sure the Minister is, by harmonious and unanimous Chiefs of Staff. My noble friends on these Benches will certainly support any measures to that end, and will welcome concrete signs of progress. I beg to move for Papers.
2.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, thirty years ago, improbable as the outcome may have looked in March, 1918, this country, with its allied and associated Powers, triumphed in a war which we were confidently assured was to end all wars. Being in those days young and credulous, we believed what we were told. Twenty-one years later we found ourselves embarking upon a second war, although perhaps those of my generation, being then older and more sceptical, had not cherished quite the same innocent faith in the power of our victory to regenerate mankind. Yet even three years ago there were surely few—and those only the most tenaciously pessimistic—who would have expected that to-day we should be discussing the question of defence against a background at once so sombre and so obscure. I say "sombre," because it would be futile to pretend that the policy of one Power, so recently our admired and invaluable Ally, does not now cause perturbation and misgivings. Surely never was so much good will so swiftly and so wantonly thrown away.
We, to whom democracy is the touchstone of freedom, cannot but be appalled at the stealthy advance across Europe of a grim and militant brand of self-styled democracy—a sort of democracy in perverted commas, which passes for the genuine article behind the iron curtain. The situation is sombre, too—though to a lesser extent—because of recent Antarctic antics which we have witnessed; they are not wholly comic, they are also symptomatic—symptomatic as yet one more evidence of that nationalist malaise which is the prevalent disease of so much of the world, and the great source of international ill-will. And it is obscure because, over and above the manifest uncertainties of the future, pervading and dominating the whole scene, there hangs
874
that vast question mark of the atomic bomb, incalculable, inescapable. Just because we know so little about it, there must attach even to our discussions to-day some considerable element of unreality. That element is fortified by the absence of any concrete information in the documents with which we have been presented by the Government.
We have had a White Paper, to which the noble and gallant Viscount has referred. When the Ministry of Defence were inaugurated, the step was widely and warmly welcomed. It was hoped that the Minister would not merely essay the difficult task of co-ordinating defence, but would himself assume the direction of policy, after consultation with the Services concerned. There is in this document little enough evidence of such a course. It appears to bear all the imprints of something in the nature once more of a symposium, a contribution by the three Services to which the Minister of Defence has acted as editor. It is not an unremarkable example of the art of taking evasive action when called upon to produce concrete information.
This House; as part of the Legislature of the country, has not only the right but also the duty to obtain information as to what the real question may be. Those who have to think on the problem of defence should not, of course, anchor themselves to the precepts and the practices of the last war, but should look ahead. Yet there would be few, however prescient, who would be prepared to say that in any future operations the combined activities of the three Services, which were the outstanding achievement of the last war, will not once more play an important part. Army cannot function without Navy, and neither can perform its rôle without Air Force. We find in the While Paper mention of a Join: Services Staff College. I would like to know: Is there a Joint Services Staff? If there is, is it confined merely to a small planning section attached to the Ministry of Defence, or is some real attempt being made to weld officers of the three Services: into one homogeneous Staff, so that they will be able to study and solve the many problems, not only operational, but what our American friends taught us to call "logistical," which are at once so complex and so vital to the success of modern war?

875
Again, on this particular aspect of the matter, is there study as to whether it is possible to produce a little more in the way of standardisation than is indicated in the White Paper? The White Paper talks about remote plans for the amalgamation of the administrative sides of the Services. That is probably a far distant goal, and in the sense of amalgamation it may well be right that it should be. But without going so far as that, is it really necessary to limit the experiment so narrowly as merely to the medical, educational, and chaplaincy Services, which are singled out for comment in the White Paper? Could not this principle at least be tried over a far wider inter-Service field? Could not some effort be made to see whether some real standardisation between the Services in the purchase, manufacture and distribution of arms, equipment, ammunition and stores is possible?
No one who has seen anything of a modern army in action can fail to be startled at the immense tail that drags its unwieldy length behind the fighting men of to-day. I remember going one day during the last war to a large Ordnance depot and being shown round by the officer in charge. He exhibited to me, with great pride, an immense shed filled with a multiplicity of trays, racks, and shelves of every kind, each containing numberless different types of spare parts for different makes of vehicle. He was as pleased with that as a schoolboy with his first stamp album; but I must confess that it appalled me to think that not only was there this immense waste of labour on the manufacture of all these divers parts, but of the tremendous absorption of man-power on the collection, sorting, issue, replacement and fitting of all these separate articles. In some of these fields—and particularly, I suggest, in the very wide field of vehicles, for it is a very wide field nowadays—it is surely possible to attain some greater standard of uniformity and, by that means, to save more men from the business of trailing behind an army in order to perform the real work of an army—that of engaging the enemy.
It is no good having a striking force, unless that striking force is properly maintained and equipped. But is there a striking force? There is nothing in the White Paper to indicate that such a force exists
876
at all. This is a White Paper on Defence, but the most elementary acquaintance with principles of defence makes it clear that defence cannot be merely static if it is to have any chance of success; there must be at hand a striking force, efficiently equipped and up to strength. If a striking force does exist, is it a nucleus, or is it a force? Is it equipped on a skeleton basis, or is it fully equipped? Has it got its vehicles? Has it got its armour? Has it got its ammunition? And has it, incidentally, got its men? There is one other aspect of the striking force. We read in the papers this morning of exercises carried out between the Home Fleet and the Royal Air Force. It would be interesting to be told how closely the training of that striking force—if it exists, and if it is in a condition to undergo advance training—is combined with the training of the Royal Air Force: and not merely the Royal Air Force in general, but the particular tactical group which will be allotted to it in the event of actual operations taking place. In that almost complete integration of Air Force and Army, I suggest, lies one of the great secrets of the success of the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff as a Commander in the field.
I said something in passing about armour. We are told in the White Paper that the Services are to be a balanced force. It would be not uninteresting to know, from that point of view, what is regarded as the correct balance between infantry and armour in such divisions as do exist; and, whatever that correct balance may be, whether the armour is in fact in existence, and with the people who are going to use it. That leads me to say one thing, and one thing only, about the Territorial Army, because it comes more into the general picture than into the special one with which we may deal in a later debate. Are the authorities now quite satisfied, after reflection, that they have been wise in laying upon the Territorial Army the burden of trying to raise, equip and operate armoured divisions? Is that a possible task for men who accept the obligations of the Territorial Army, and especially for those living in big towns? It is not only a question of keeping your vehicles somewhere outside and going at weekends occasionally to try them out; you have to keep in close touch with the maintenance of vehicles from every point of view. I do not want to

877
labour that point now; I will return to it, if I may, when we come to the later debate.
One of the difficulties of armour is that it requires large spaces in which to manoeuvre. The country has been asked to give up those vast spaces, sacrificing thereby not only amenities but a considerable amount of valuable agricultural land and not a few dwelling-houses. Is advantage being taken of those areas which have been thus appropriated? In particular, is opportunity being given to general officers who would be likely to hold high commands in the field, now, in peace time, to keep their hands in and to educate their successors in the not too easy matter of manœuvring large bodies of men and of armour in the field? One day during the last war I asked a senior general officer a question. I asked him what opportunity he and his colleagues had in the years before the war of handling substantial bodies of troops actually on the ground. He shrugged his shoulders and said very bitterly, "Oh we came together at Camberley for a fortnight once a year and did some exercises—on paper. Then cub-hunting began, so of course we all went home." Not on that basis will you train an Army to confront the mechanised armies of the future. The late war produced a number of highly skilled tacticians and admirable leaders of men. They must be given the opportunity to keep themselves up to date in the recent developments of war.
One more word—and my last—about officers. I apologise to your Lordships for returning to a theme which I have raised before. I received no answer to it last time, and I shrewdly suspect that I shall receive none to-day. Can nothing be done to give a little encouragement, and incidentally a little knowledge, to the numberless officers who go on the Reserve at the end of a war and wait, neglected, ignored, until another war occurs, when they are asked to turn out again? For twenty years between the two last wars there were many officers on the Regular Army Reserve and the Territorial Army Reserve who never received a pamphlet, never heard a lecture, never attended a demonstration. They were, in fact, nothing more than names on the outside of a jacket of a file in some cellar of the War Office. But when the time comes not only are they needed but they are expected to be up to
878
date and to know their job. It is unfair to them to put them in that position, and almost more unfair to the men whom they are expected to command. No one can read with a light heart the recent White Paper on the economic situation. Quite obviously, the amount of money available for the Services is not what the circumstances of the moment actually require. But it is a spendthrift policy to dole out too little money into too many hands. The more you are under the necessity of husbanding your resources, the more you are under the necessity of concentrating them. Therefore, so long as we have the Services, let them at least be fit for service; and they will not be fit for service if, during the period of organisation and: raining, they are stinted and starved of the essential tools of their trade.
2.58 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, this is a timely and important debate. I trust it will be to the convenience of your Lordships if I intervene at this stage. My noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will answer points that may be put during the later course of the debate. We have had the opportunity of listening to two important speeches, one from a member of your Lordships' House who has given a lifetime of service in the Regular Army, and the other from a member who, from the lime of his youth to this day, has not spared himself in his efforts on behalf of the Auxiliary Services. They both speak with great knowledge and experience. Your Lordships will not expect me to give a great deal of detailed information about the Forces; because so much has been given already in the Defence White Paper itself, in the Service Estimates, and during the debates in another place. I do not think your Lordships will desire that I should cover that ground again, and I propose to deal only with the broader aspects of the defence problem, with particular reference to the general framework within which the problem has to be considered.
Let me first attempt to give your Lordships a picture of the existing situation. The Forces are still in the throes of the extensive reorganisation which is inevitable at the end of a great war. The enormous temporary element which constituted the great bulk of the strength in 1945 has had to be released as speedily as possible, and at the same time the much depleted Regular element built up. During

879
such a period of drastic reorganisation, the Forces cannot use their man-power to the best advantage. Personnel in units are constantly changing. Trained and experienced men have to be replaced by untrained men and, as a result, a disproportionate amount of man-power and time has to be allotted to the training of individuals. We are now at the moment of transition, and obviously that must inescapably be a most difficult time for the Services. All this reorganisation has had to be clone within the framework of the large-scale redeployment of the Forces overseas, due to the constitutional changes in India, Burma and Palestine, and to the effective withdrawal from Egypt. And throughout the period, it has been necessary to meet heavy commitments on the Continent of Europe. Your Lordships are all too familiar with the fact that, concurrently with this difficult situation in the Forces, the country as a whole has had to face the economic crisis, so that we have had to concentrate the maximum amount of man-power and resources in maintaining our life-line.
In addition to all these factors, and in the midst of a swiftly changing political scene, scientific developments, particularly (as the noble Marquess has emphasised) in the use of atomic energy, have suggested that considerable changes may be called for in the shape and the size of the Forces in future, and in the implements to be placed at their disposal. In the light of that, it is claimed in some quarters that military Forces are no longer needed; in others that we must concentrate mainly on Civil Defence. The Government consider that we must have efficient defence Forces, both military and civil. In the light of present difficulties, it would be natural that your Lordships should seek some assurance that the plans of the Government are developing in an orderly fashion and that they have as their objective the provision of adequate means of defence. I give that assurance.
As to progress to date, let me tell your Lordships something of what has been done. The run-down of the war-time temporary Forces has largely been completed. Nearly 5,000,000 men and women have been released from the Forces since June, 1945. The last of the war-time entrants will have left before the end of this year. At the same time, the Regular
880
Forces have been building up, and they have already been built up to a figure of upwards of 350,000, which tops the pre-war figure. The creation of new reserves on a large scale has been provided for by the National Service Act of 1947. The men coming forward under that Act will be far better trained for war than were the members of the Territorial Army between the wars. The various Auxiliary Forces have been re-established on a voluntary basis. A start has already been made and nearly 43,000 recruits have been obtained to date. On the whole, in all the circumstances, I do not think that that is too bad. In the Territorial Army in particular, it has been necessary (as certainly the noble Lords who have already spoken and as other noble Lords who are yet to speak know well) to build up slowly, pending the provision of accommodation and other facilities. This has been particularly difficult. But let me say to your Lordships that the Government are determined that facilities shall be made available as and where the need arises, and appropriate steps will be taken to achieve that end.
So far as man-power for the Forces is concerned, I think we can fairly say that the ranks are being filled, in line with the deliberate plans already laid down by the Government. The future naturally depends on the continued success of recruiting for both the Regular and the Auxiliary Forces, and I am happy to say that recent recruiting figures again show an upward trend. It must not be forgotten that in the interim, pending the build-up of our new Forces, our readiness in emergency is assured by the existence of a vast reserve of well-trained man-power from among the men recently released. We must face the fact, of course, that these men will gradually become older and I suppose they will become "rusty," but the plans of the Government ensure that new reserves of young newly-trained men will be built up before that time arrives. It is the object of the Government to be on with the new before they need to be off with the old.
Noble Lords who have spoken referred to the question of re-equipment. No large scale re-equipment of the Forces has yet been undertaken. In the view of the Government, this has been neither necessary nor desirable. We have used what equipment we had, rather than impose an extra burden on the industrial machine in this present period of special difficulty.

881
However, production has been maintained at a sufficient level to enable the Forces to meet their current commitments and, in certain more important fields—notably aircraft—to provide for a measure of re-equipment. Apart from the reasons which I have outlined, we should have hesitated to undertake a large-scale re-equipment of the Forces at this time, having regard to the possibilities suggested by recent progress in scientific developments. The noble Marquess referred to the "over-hanging question mark." Up to the present, in order to preserve the immediate readiness of the Forces in the event of an emergency, the Government have been pressing on with the rapid re-establishment of the Forces along fairly conventional lines. That is merely common prudence in the light of the changing political situation. However, the Government are fully alive to the fact that an entirely new conception may be called for, because of the development of scientific weapons and, in particular, the possibility of atomic warfare.
It has sometimes been argued that the Government must choose between developing new Forces available in, say, ten years' time, without adequate defence in the interim, or maintaining adequate Forces on the existing basis which will be out-of-date in ten years' time. The Government do not agree.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know who argued that.
LORD NATHAN: It has been suggested.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not in any responsible quarter.
LORD NATHAN: I think it was by the Economist. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would suggest that the Economist is not responsible.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should say it was an irresponsible argument, whoever advanced it.
LORD NATHAN: In the view of the Government, however, the keynote of the present policy must be flexibility. While the Government are, of course, prepared to change the Forces as may be required to meet new technical developments, they are determined to maintain in the interim compact, well-trained and well-equipped Forces, on a basis sufficient for our commitments in peace, in support of our
882
foreign policy, and capable of rapid expansion in war. For this reason they are not attempting at the moment to lay down rigid directions governing the detailed composition of the Forces and their complete re-equipment for many years to come. Full advantage cannot yet be taken of the lessons of the last war. Scientists and research workers are not yet ready with the answers to some of the questions which have been raised.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, and I do not suppose he will be able to answer this question. When he said that no firm direction is going to be laid down about the composition of the Forces, does that mean that there is, or is not, to be an order of battle for the striking force?
LORD NATHAN: I will deal with the question of the striking force in a moment. Meanwhile, let me say that the fundamental principles governing the structure of the three Services now and in the immediate future are stated in the Defence White Paper in paragraph 60. Admittedly the composition and dispositions of the Forces are not given in the White Paper, although a good deal of information has since been published about the strength of the Royal Navy. In the case of the other two Services, it has been considered contrary to public interest to make a unilateral disclosure about formation strengths and dispositions. This point was raised recently in another place, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has promised to consider whether any further information can be given. The matter is still under consideration. That is as far as I am able to go on that point at this moment
My Lords, in the preparations for the future, research and development have rightly been placed in the forefront. This is an essential prerequisite to the production of new vessels, aircraft and equipment of types markedly superior to those now in use and coming off production It is also essential to the determination of the ultimate shape of the Forces. But at the same time, we are not neglecting any opportunity of taking advantage of results already achieved. For instance, I need only refer to such items as jet-propelled aircraft, gas turbines for the Royal Navy, and the "Snort" device for submarines.
In opening this discussion, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested

883
that the money provision for the Forces has been based upon what we can afford rather than on what is necessary for adequate defence. But surely it is essential in all circumstances in peace-time, and particularly so in the situation in which we are now placed, to have regard to our financial position when framing our defence Budget. It has been stated in the White Paper—and I doubt whether any noble Lord will contradict it—that a sound economy and a flourishing industry are prerequisites of any successful system of defence. Without them there can be no defence. Our economic system is at present under a severe strain, and it is only common sense to align our defence programme to our general needs. The paramount importance attached by the Government to defence, despite the present economic difficulties, is clearly evidenced by the substantial provision made for 1948 and 1949. The Estimates allow for the orderly development of our plans, and for such re-equipment as is practicable and wise at the present time. Your Lordships will have noticed the substantial amount allotted to research, to which the Government attach the greatest importance. The main limitation in this connection is not money; it is the lack of qualified personnel.
The noble Viscount raised a question with regard to the provision in the Estimates for Poles. That is there, in one sense, as a matter for form, in that the Estimates must necessarily make provision for all expenditure for which the Service Departments are administratively responsible. That is the reason why the cost of the Polish Resettlement Corps is included. The noble Viscount referred at some length to the National Service Act. It is unnecessary for me to say that the Government attach the greatest importance to the continued operation of the National Service scheme on the lines laid down in the Act of 1947, and especially to the maintenance of the principle of universal service. But during the present period of reorganisation, it would clearly be unwise to ask the Services to take and train more National Service men than they can manage, having regard to their total commitments. It is for that reason that the intake of National Service men will, for the time being, be restricted to 150,000 a year. The method of limitation decided upon
884
(that is, increasing the age of registration by three months), was selected as the fairest to the men concerned, and as being the most flexible from the point of view of the Services.
The allocation of the 150,000 men between the Services in the forthcoming year is based on the current capacity of each Service to provide training and useful employment under the conditions now ruling. It is not necessarily the normal allocation. It is the intention that each Service should build up an appropriate Reserve of National Service men according to its needs. Naturally those men cannot be absorbed to the same extent in the highly technical branches which will require long periods of training, although every effort will be made to employ them over the widest possible range of duties.
Reference was made by the noble Viscount to Civil Defence. No defence planning can ignore the importance of Civil Defence and the need for completely adequate arrangements in that field, no less than in the field of military affairs. The Military and Civil Defence plans are one, but the Defence White Paper naturally dealt only with the military aspect. It has been contemplated in all our Civil Defence plans that the Army has an important part to play. Your Lordships may be interested to know that since the end of the war there has been no interruption in the study of the many and complicated problems in the field of Civil Defence. The Prime Minister made a statement in another place in November in which he gave an outline of the plans which are being made for a new Civil Defence organisation, which includes provision for reinforcement of the civilian services by military mobile columns. The matter has been brought to the attention of the local authority associations and, in the near future, conferences are to be arranged with those associations on that part of the plans which concern local authorities.
In the meantime, important changes have been made in the planning organisation of the Government with a view to securing closer integration of civil with military planning, and improving coordination of the plans of the numerous Government Departments concerned over the whole field of Civil Defence. The central feature of this organisation is the establishment of a Civil Defence Joint

885
Planning Staff, centred in the Home Office, under the Chairmanship of Major General S.F. Irwin. This planning staff will include representatives of the Service Departments and of the Civil Departments concerned and will have access to all sources of information which they require for their work. At the same time consideration is being given to the preparation of schemes of training, and Sir John Hodsoll will have special responsibility for this. Discussions are already in progress as to the training to be given to the Army in this regard. It has also been decided to create a new post of Scientific Adviser to the Home Office. That officer will serve as a link between the planning staff and the scientists engaged on research of various kinds connected with defence problems. It has been arranged that Doctor E.T. Paris, shall shortly be transferred from the Ministry of Supply to the Home Office for this task.
The Government are satisfied that these arrangements will greatly increase the efficiency of the planning organisation, and will enable all the Departments concerned to take more effective measures than have hitherto been possible. The answers to the numerous questions involved can be found only by co-operation between all Services and all Departments; there has never been any doubt as to the desire to co-operate, and the new machinery will greatly facilitate this.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, with his long experience of the Territorial Army, mentioned the importance of the questions which arise in regard to it. I understand there is to be separate debate—I think just after Easter—upon a Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on the subject of the Territorial Army. I think noble Lords will agree that it will be far more convenient if I deal with that matter then, rather than attempt to deal with it now. The noble Marquess also inquired about the integration of Service Staffs. The training of Staff Officers of the three Services in the doctrines and methods of the other Services, and in the functions of an integrated Staff, is carried out principally at the Joint Services Staff College—as the noble Marquess is aware. In answer to the specific question which he put to me, let me tell him that there is a Joint Services Planning Staff, and the work of training is
886
carried out principally at the Joint Services Staff College; training is also included in the work of the three individual Service Staff Colleges. In peace time, the Staffs of the Commanders-in-Chief Overseas are integrated wherever their responsibilities make this essential. At the present time, for instance, the Commanders-in-Chief Committees in the Middle East and Far East are both served by integrated Staffs. In this country, the Chiefs of Staff themselves are served by an integrated Staff in the central organisation for defence. The principle of a Supreme Commander or a Commanders-in-Chief Committee being served by integrated Staffs is accepted as essential both in war and in peace, and all training of Staff Officers is directed towards giving them an inter-Service outlook and the maximum experience is given in their employment in such integrated work as the number of such Staffs allow.
Another point raised by the noble Marquess, and also I think by the noble: Viscount, related to the training of an Expeditionary Force. At present, it cannot be foreseen what formations will be allotted to any particular Expeditionary Force. All depends on the strategical position prevailing at the time. No separate training, as a Force, is, therefore, given, but in the case of the small all-Regular formations available in this country to meet sudden emergencies overseas, their location is planned to provide them with opportunities for the special training which is required.
The noble Marquess also inquired how the numbers in the actual Fighting Arms compared with the numbers employed in the Auxiliary Services—I think he put it as the proportion between "teeth" and "tail" in the Army. The whole problem of maintaining an appropriate balance between the "teeth" and the "tail" is a matter which has long been the subject of close and continuous examination in all three Services. I agree with what the noble Marquess has said about the difficulties which arise, but every effort is being made to achieve the obvious objective of keeping down the size of the "tail." The problem becomes increasingly difficult as mechanisation develops, and as weapons and equipment become more varied and complex. In peace time, however, it is usually possible to keep the "tail" within

887
reasonable limits; in the Army at the present time the ratio is about fifty-fifty.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: May I ask the noble Lord if he means the ratio between the "teeth" and "tail" or the ratio between field units and non-field units.
LORD NATHAN: Between "teeth" and "tail." But let me amplify that a little. By "teeth" I mean the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, the Royal Corps of Signals, the Infantry and the Anti-Air-craft Command; and by the "tail" such branches of the Service as the Royal Army Service Corps, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the like. The proportion at the present time is as I have said. In time of war it is impossible to maintain so favourable a proportion between the "teeth" and the "tail," since the Forces must be self-supporting to a much greater extent in war than in peace, and the Auxiliary Forces have to be expanded substantially to take a greatly increased administrative load.
The need for building up a small but highly efficient Regular Force, ready to proceed overseas at short notice, is fully recognised, as indicated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, speaking in the debate on Army Estimates in another place on March 9. This policy is being implemented. It would be inadvisable, despite the pointed questions put by the noble Marquess, for me to say what proportion of the active Army will be allotted for service in such a Force. At the present time, a large part of our active Army (both Regular and National Service) must necessarily be employed in dealing adequately with our overseas commitments. The need for the concentration of our maximum strength in emergency is, of course, kept fully in mind.
My Lords, let me, in conclusion, say this. In recent months there has been from time to time a certain amount of suggestion, in rather general terms, of disorganisation and waste of man-power in the Services. I am not at all certain that I did not find certain reflections of that tendency in the speeches which have already been made in this House to-day. I hope that what I have said to-day will
888
do something to dispel the impression which has been thus created. The Government have, of course, no wish to avoid or discourage criticism, but allegations of the kind to which I have referred, continually repeated, are liable to have effects which cannot be other than detrimental to the country and the Services. I will not attempt to discuss the effects on foreign Powers of a general impression of disorganisation in our Armed Forces. Noble Lords are well able to appreciate that for themselves. I should, however, like to put in a word for the actual serving members of the Forces. The Forces are going through a difficult period, as I have explained; but, notwithstanding that, they are fulfilling all their commitments, many of them both difficult and dangerous, with their traditional efficiency and bearing, and are at the forefront of scientific progress in their post-war development. We all like to feel that we are part of a well-managed and up-to-date concern, and are putting up a good show. If we are constantly told that we are in a bad show, we become disheartened and our efficiency naturally suffers. Let us give the men of the Forces their due, recognising the magnificent part that is being played by all ranks and the substantial progress which has been made in rebuilding post-war Forces.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure all who speak in this debate to-day will do so with a deep sense of responsibility, imposed alike by the importance of the subject and the gravity of the times. I am certain that nearly all of us would wish to give the same support to the Government in their defence policy that we gladly give to them in their foreign policy. But if we are to do that, we must know what that policy is. The noble Lord who has just sat down told us that we would find it in the White Paper and in the speeches made in another place. Frankly, his speech, interesting and courteous as it was, did not add materially to our knowledge of the plan. So I turn back to the White Paper which I, in common with all your Lordships, have read and re-read. It contains a number of cliché s and aphorisms, some admirable and some not quite so admirable, but it seems to me to arrive at no conclusion. I am reminded of the observation which Mr. Churchill made on a certain famous Foreign Office despatch

889
during the war, that although they had used every cliché known to the British language bar two—which I will not specify—they had arrived at no conclusion. I am bound to say that the White Paper is rather like that.
And so, as directed by the Minister of Civil Aviation, I turned for further particulars to the speech of the Minister of Defence (Mr.A.V. Alexander) in another place, and I was rather amazed to find at the very beginning of that speech these words:
"In a great administrative and organisational development of this character"—
that is the Ministry of Defence—
"some years must elapse before wide results can be expected to mature."
That would be a period of gestation excessive even in an immature elephant. One might suppose from that that the Ministry of Defence and the whole Combined General Staff and joint planning organisation were the personal conception and creation of the present Minister. They are nothing of the kind. The Minister inherited a going concern and a concern that was going very well. The whole joint planning organisation, the Combined General Staff and Combined Intelligence, which had been developed and forged and tempered by Mr. Churchill into a fine and effective instrument of war, was established and the functions of the Minister were agreed some years even before the war started.
If I venture to quote two passages from a speech I made in this House fourteen years ago, it is not from any reminiscent pride, but because the principles and the practice which were then laid down received at that time the whole-hearted endorsement of such men as the late Lord Salisbury and Field-Marshal Lord Milne, with their extraordinary experience of the whole of Service administration, and of every experienced member of this House who had been concerned in matters of defence. Those principles were completely reaffirmed not much more than a year ago in the debates we had on the White Paper and the Bill setting up the Ministry of Defence. On February 27, 1936, I said this:
"But there must be no risk of failure or of our not getting the best. I want to speak as frankly as others have spoken. Are there not two risks that we have to guard against? The first is the risk that in this combined Staff work men may sometimes come to sit
890
with sectional and preconceived views. The second is the risk lest there should be any failure or disinclination to face up to a situation in which there might be a difference of opinion….
"The difficult case is not the case where there is a great deal to be said on the one side and very little on the other. The difficult case, as we all know who have been engaged in this work, is where there is an enormous amount to be said on both sides. The worst way you can approach that kind of question is to approach it in the spirit of thinking that you have on your side all the knowledge, and that there really is nothing to be said on the other side at all."
Then, with regard to the duties of the Minister of Defence, I said:
"It will be the duty of the new Minister to ensure that the combined Staff works to the best advantage. I conceive that it is not part of that man's duty to dictate policy but to ensure that every problem and every aspect is fully considered, and that difficulties and differences are frankly faced. He should evoke the best that each Chief of Staff can give, secure agreement, and where there is a genuine difference of opinion which cannot be reconciled, then he should present the whole case fairly to the Committee of Imperial Defence and to the Cabinet. I believe it may be much easier for Chiefs of Staff to agree and indeed for Chiefs of Staff to differ—and there are occasions when they ought to differ, when you do not want the kind of compromise which is the least common denominator of agreement—under the guidance of a wise and unprejudiced chairman."
I do not believe anybody differs from that, and, if that be so, then surely to-day the primary duty of the Minister of Defence is to formulate with the Chiefs of Staff the best plan for meeting the situation now and in the immediate future. The Minister said that we should create an Expeditionary Force when we knew who was attacking us, and how. I should have thought his duty was to meet that situation now. In planning there must be the closest consultation with the Foreign Office. In the old days, the Leader of the House will remember, there was a ten-year rule. Probably it went on too long, but if stopped a long time before the war. There certainly cannot be a ten-year rule to-day, but is there any equivalent of that rule, and, if so, what? Generally I would ask for an assurance on this question: Is the present plan, whatever it is, a plan based on the Foreign Office appreciation of the situation?
The noble Lord spoke much of research, and the White Paper mentions it a great deal. I am the last to under-rate research.

891
It was the integration of the scientists in the higher operational staff of the Air Ministry which gave us radar, far ahead of any other country in the world. But, valuable and essential as research is, it does not supply our present need, and it does not and cannot excuse or justify the failure to provide a present effective strength. I am rather fearful of the statement made by the Minister of Defence in another place, that all but the minimum must wait on research. In all sincerity, I would say to the Government: Do not let the better be the enemy of the good. The minimum must be what is effective as a deterrent, and what is effective as an offensive, defensive force. Again, great stress is laid on the economic situation—on what we can afford, and what should be the relative priorities between Service and civil demands. What can we afford? There is a measure of defence—call it the minimum if you will, but the effective minimum—which we cannot afford not to have. That is our vital, indispensable insurance. There the Service priority should not be relative; it should be absolute.
The White Paper lays down—and none of us would dissent from it—that our main object is to maintain world peace. To that our contribution must be twofold. First, there must be a wise foreign policy. That, thank God, I think we have. I am sure the vast majority of people in this country are behind the Foreign Secretary and the policy which he is pursuing, and we shall join in congratulating him upon the new Treaty which he is, I suppose, at this moment signing with the Benelux countries. The second essential to maintain world peace is preparedness in defence. That, as my noble friend who leads the Opposition said in his remarkable speech on foreign affairs the other day, is the counterpart of foreign policy, and without that foreign policy cannot exist. The White Paper itself says:
"The best deterrent to war is tangible evidence of our intention and ability to withstand attack."
It wisely goes on to emphasise that the right form of defence depends upon a correct estimate of the form of a future war, should it come. Those are principles to which we all subscribe. Our anxiety is: Are they being carried out in practice? If we are anxious, it is not because of any carping criticism; it is due partly to lack
892
of information (the White Paper itself stops short at the crucial point) and partly because such evidence as we have must make us anxious. I cannot honestly exclude from that reason for anxiety some of the information, conflicting, indeed, as it has been, which has been given by the Government.
Our anxiety is threefold. First, are the plans the right plans to meet a future war, if it should come? Secondly, are those plans being made effective? Thirdly, are we getting value for our money? The seriousness of our economic position makes it the more important that we should be right upon these vital matters. In war the Services have the first priority for everything. The concentration of industry on the war effort makes it relatively easy to meet all demands; and he concentration of the Chiefs of Staff, working together daily on the conflict on which they are all engaged, evokes and enforces the highest common factor of combined efficiency. In peace it is much more difficult; and to-day it is more difficult than ever, because of our economic position and the enormous export drive which we have to undertake. But just because of that economic difficulty, because of the kind of war which will be the war of the future, if we have to face it, and because time is not on our side, it was never more important that the plans which are made now should be right, and that the Minister of Defence should put first things first.
Nothing could be worse than a sort of rationing system for those in the queue, where everyone gets something but nobody gets enough. That, indeed, would be the lowest common denominator of compromise, which is fatal. Such a compromise would be wasteful—wasteful in money, wasteful in man-power and wasteful in material—and would be dangerously ineffective as an offensive and defensive insurance. May I, very briefly, test that in two Services? Of the Navy I speak with diffidence; others will speak with much greater authority on that Service. But there are certain considerations which are general and not technical. The White Paper lays down that the Navy, with its naval air arm, must control sea communications. I would also add to that, "with the long-range aircraft of the Royal Air Force." Surely, it must be obvious to us all that the menace which will have to be met is the menace of the submarine. There are no great battle fleets which

893
would be likely to be ranged against us; but there are submarines. Can we be assured that we are in a position to counter long-range modern submarines on all sea routes?
On the air side I would venture to speak with a little more particularity. In the air, in a future war, the emphasis will be greatly changed. From 1936 to 1939 we were right to place the principal emphasis on the fighter and on radar. We were right to order our Spitfires and Hurricanes off the drawing boards; we were right to circle Britain with the great line of radar stations; and we were right to train every fighter and all the ground defences in this wonderful new technique. As the Battle of Britain proved, that was the right conception then of the war of the future, and of the first and most vital need. But to-day, I think, the emphasis has changed. No doubt we shall need the most up-to-date fighters, both for defence and for the escort of bombers; but with the new weapons which would be used against us, surely the most important defence will be the offensive bomber striking force. The front line of defence will be the destruction of enemy bases and vital sources of supply. We must be ready to paralyse before we are paralysed ourselves. The late Lord Baldwin once said: "Our frontier is the Rhine"—though I rather think he meant the Meuse. To-day our frontier lies further East—very much further east.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said that we are spending a great deal. I agree. We are spending £173,000,000 on the Royal Air Force. I do not begrudge a penny of it, if it is well and wisely spent. But, without asking for actual numbers, if the Government are against that, I would ask these questions. Have we to-day a bomber striking force of sufficient size? Are there the ground personnel, adequate in numbers and efficiency, to maintain that force in action? Are the bases from which that force must operate equipped and organized? For organisation is just as important as equipment.
There are two more critical problems which must be faced in planning for what the White Paper calls "the form of a future war." The initial stages—and this, I think, is axiomatic—would be more rapid and more devastating than ever before. War would be total in a new sense. The character and range of new
894
weapons may involve widely separated areas from the very start. All these are additional reasons for planning wisely in your operational plans, and in the dispersal of equipment and training. The march of events and the abridgement of time and space, the common danger to what is left of a free world, if they must needs divide the world, will unite the Commonwealth even more than it is united to-day, as they are uniting the whole of free Europe. Every decision as to the part which Commonwealth countries will play rests absolutely and entirely with each of our fellow Dominions.
But the Minister of Defence, with all the combined Service organisations, reinforced, as I rejoice to think, by senior experienced officers from the Dominions, must pool with the Governments of the Commonwealth the full appreciation and basic plans upon which the Dominion Governments will have to take their decisions, and without which they will not know what decisions they have to take. In this there is no question of dictation or of interference. It is a duty we owe to them, and to each other. In the wide range of our defence structure, the Colonies of the Crown play a great part, both in the Fighting Forces and in the strategic location of bases. In the last war their troops—every one a volunteer—came forward in great numbers; and they had a gallant record which they would be proud and eager to match again should need arise. The Colonial lines of communication and bases proved invaluable; they were indeed the lifelines upon which we lived.
I have only one other thing to add, a final aspect of the universality of a future war. Before the last war the Germans had developed a new weapon, the Fifth Column. In some countries it had a great success. Where it succeeded, it was largely because the preparations and operations of the German Fifth Column were secret, or at any rate were not recognised for what they were; and the Governments and their peoples were taken by surprise. The technique is varied and comprehensive. On the spiritual side it seeks, by insidious methods, to sap and undermine the morale and resistance of a people. On the physical side it conducts a system of espionage, before and during war, and it is the instrument of sabotage, both by actual destruction and by the less crude—

895
though often more effective—method of fomenting industrial unrest and holding up production. The essence of a successful Fifth Column is that, while it is directed and controlled by the external enemy, the operating column is composed of citizens of the country against which it is directed. As perhaps some of your Lordships know, I speak with a first-hand knowledge of how the Nazis operated all these activities in many countries during the last war. But because the Germans were singularly unsuccessful here, let no one suppose that we run no risk in the future or, indeed, to-day. Hitler was up against one great obstacle. In most countries outside the Axis very few people were attracted by the Nazi creed or way of life. Even so, because of lack of knowledge and counter-preparation, the Nazi Fifth Columns had considerable success.
I hope and trust—indeed I feel sure—that the Government do not underrate the danger and will be fully prepared to meet it. Propaganda is the more insidious the less it is recognised. Whatever form propaganda may take, the answer is to expose the lie and the motive, and to tell the truth—as many trade union leaders are doing to-day. If the British know, they will take care of themselves. But other matters are not so simple. Science provides the expert and ingenious saboteur with new weapons—for example, bacteriological warfare, which might be used without warning. Espionage is not less deadly if it is volunteered by a democratic pervert and not bought from a hired traitor. These things ought to be said, but not in any mood of alarm or despondency. Forewarned is fore-armed. The deterrent and preventive of total war is preparation against all contingencies. Defence is indeed the supreme national interest, for it is the insurance of peace. Our one desire—and I think I speak for everybody on this side of the House—is that the Government should give us, over the whole field of defence, a policy we can follow and a plan we can support.
3.58 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has moved this Motion this afternoon, and he did so in a speech which was most interesting, probing and, if I may say so, well delivered. In the
896
rather anxious days that the world is passing through, I think it is of considerable value that we should hold debates here on defence. I have frequently expressed the view in this House and elsewhere that Parliament has in the past neglected its duties in defence matters, and it is encouraging to-day to see Parliament in both Houses keen on defence matters and cross-examining the Government on their policy. These debates are sometimes referred to as criticisms. I do not think that really is the right word to use. They provide an analysis of the situation and afford an opportunity to put questions to His Majesty's Government and receive from them answers which will satisfy doubtful minds.
But I feel that these debates should be most welcome to the Service Departments and to their Boards and Councils too. I am sure that all the Ministers fight hard for their Services; I am sure that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has fought like a tiger for the Navy, and got what he could for it. I was at the Admiralty for twelve years in the 1920's and 1930's, and the thing that used to depress me most was the deadly silence of Parliament, including the Opposition, when the Defence Service Estimates came before another place and before your Lordships' House. If the silence was broken, it was probably to move that the Estimates should be reduced. Never in my time at Whitehall did I hear a Motion moved that the Service Estimates should be increased beyond what the Government proposed. After all, criticism does show a watchful interest and is an encouragement to the Departments. It strengthens their hands in the inevitable struggle they are bound to have every year for finance to carry out their responsibilities.
I did not speak in the useful Naval debate initiated by my noble friend, Earl Howe, last week, because I preferred to speak from the general defence point of view. I am not speaking for the Royal Navy to-day, and I do not intend to follow the remarks of the noble Viscount who has just spoken in regard to battleships, submarines, bombers and such things. To my mind, that is not what we want to do to-day. I feel that when the armchair critic criticises military policy he is a great danger, and the danger is

897
almost greater when longshoremen, such as myself to-day and the noble Viscount, start to talk about technical things which we really do not understand.
I was interested the other day to pick up a book which was written by an American airman, a scientist, called There Will Be No Time. I think those were the words used by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his speech and referred to by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I opened this book, and in the middle portion I came across these words:
"Navies are not obsolete."
I thought it was worth reading, so I went through the book very carefully; and I was delighted to find, to my surprise, that this American airman was strongly in support of our putting atom bombs in warships and sending them all over the oceans, so that if we were attacked unexpectedly by atomic warfare, and our aerodromes were blasted with radio-active material, retaliation could be made from our ships in different corners of the world.
However, as I said, I have not come to talk on those matters and I will not pursue that intriguing argument. I think your Lordships will give me credit for looking on the work of the three Services as one great task, a combined problem, and I am just as anxious that the Air Force and the Army should have all the money they want as I have been in the past that the Navy should have the money that it needs. In the debate on the Forces moved by the late Lord Croft last October, I said that if one Service is let down by the Government, then the other two Services are let down also, because the strength of our defences is that of the weakest link. It is useless for the other two Services to be adequately equipped; all three Services must be equally efficient and well provided for. I asked the Defence Minister to let that absolutely vital truth sink into his mind.
The Defence Minister, in a speech last Autumn, gave particulars of the Services' priorities. I said that we accepted priorities and I was sure that all the Services would do so. The Air Force had, of course, the greatest responsibility. But you cannot have a strategic defence policy based on priorities. Fixing priorities is like trying to give a first, second and third prize in a three-legged race; it is impossible to do it. The new White Paper which we are really discussing to-day has
898
caused in people's minds some disappointment which has been clearly expressed this afternoon. I never expected that all the evil spirits of defence could be exorcised in a day; it must be a gradual process, and to me the White Paper has given encouragement. We must take it broadly and must consider two things: Is it a better White Paper than the last one; and is the defence barometer going up or down? I have often said in this House that if you have the national income of a Balkan State you must have the defence and therefore the foreign policy of a Balkan State. But admitting the difficult financial circumstances, the White Paper shows a slight but quite definite rise in the barometer, at any rate administratively. It is a better Paper than we have had before, and it gives recognition to defence principles that I, for one, have long presumed to express in your Lordships' House and in the country.
Last October, in the debate to which I have referred, I strongly opposed the priority system. I said:
"We want to have two definite statements from the Minister of Defence. The first statement which we want is a statement as to what is our defence policy, how are we going to build up our strength and or what principles. There is one other thing which we want the Minister of Defence to tell us, and that is, how he is going to restore our strength in time, because in the pre-war years we allowed our means of arming to decay."
Having said that, I must say that I view with the greatest gladness paragraph 60 of the new White Paper. It is so important that I would like to quote from it. It says this:
"… the Government have decided upon the following principles. The Royal Air Force must be maintained at a level sufficient to preserve its essential structure and its initial striking power. The Royal Navy, with, its air arm, must be enabled to perform its vital röle in the control of sea communications and to execute such tasks overseas as are laid upon it. The Army must be in a position to meet its overseas commitments and to provide the organisation needed for training its National Service intake."
This is the first time in our defence history that a Government have given each Service in peace a definite responsibility. I have previously pointed out to your Lordships the great difficulties which the Air Ministry and the War Office faced in the peace years in the past, in that they had no definite responsibilities allotted to them. Therefore, as I said, they were

899
easy game for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Navy were fortunate in that they had inherited a standard of power with which they could argue and fight against the financial pundits.
Now there are three responsibilities. Each Service is given its task, and each Chief of Staff can seize hold of that task, and firmly make his financial claims on the national income. He has never been able to do that before. That is a great advance. The only point about it is this. If no responsibility is laid down, it is pure estimation as to what that responsibility is to be. But, if the Government lay down responsibilities for the three Services, then what they say becomes of great importance. One has therefore to consider whether these three statements are good. Is it sufficient to say that:
"The Royal Air Force must be maintained at a level sufficient to preserve its essential structure and its initial striking power"?
That does not seem to me to be a full definition of what the Royal Air Force responsibilities will be in war. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, mentioned the importance of the long-range support that should be given to the Navy. What about the support of the Royal Air Force to the other two Services? Surely that is a very important part of what is described as "its essential structure." But if you have to do more than one thing, yet have the money to do only one thing, you have not enough to meet your responsibilities. There are many other duties that the Royal Air Force have to perform. They have to protect this island against bombing attack. What about Fighter Command? Where should we have been in 1940 if we had not in 1938 and 1939 built up our Fighter Command?
So far as the Navy is concerned, I accept the broad and general statement. As regards the Army, the Army responsibility does not seem to me to be based on what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to in our last debate (not to-day) as "strategic principles." It seems to me much more like a statement of the Army's peace duties. The Army must be in a position to meet its overseas commitments. I agree that later on in the White Paper, half-way down paragraph 62, these words are added:
"The forces which we maintain in peace must be sufficient to provide an adequate
900
nucleus for expansion in war, to meet the need for garrisons overseas, including those engaged on occupational duties, and to furnish our contribution, when needed, to the United Nations Armed Forces. All these duties are the inescapable responsibilities of a great Power intent on preserving peace."
Of course, that makes the matter clearer, but I agree with what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, that the whole White Paper, good as it is in parts—I have mentioned some other good points in it—does not read like a master Paper. It looks to me more like a Paper that might have been issued by a Minister for Co-ordination of Defence. But we need now, as Defence Minister, a man with a powerful mind; he has a powerful position and can obtain the best military advice and strategic ideas. And he should then put these ideas into powerful and effective Parliamentary language to explain to the public what is meant. Somehow or other, I feel that however hard the Minister may have argued on this it is not quite a satisfactory statement.
Perhaps I may refer again to the last debate on defence, when the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was summing up for the Government at the end, after the First Lord of the Admiralty, had spoken. He used these words:
"So I may answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, by saying that the reorganisation is not primarily based on a money basis, but on a strategic basis."
He also said:
"On the question of the size and shape of the three Services … the latter"—
that is, the shape—
"is under close examination, and a scheme will emerge having as the underlying object that the Forces will be able to meet their commitments."
I want to ask the Government this. What do they consider to be a strategical basis for the state of our Forces? It would normally mean that they would examine the standing responsibilities of the Services in peace, whatever they may be, whether as occupational forces or doing police work all over the world. They would add the responsibilities envisaged for the three Services in what seems the most likely war they will have to face. When the Minister has taken that advice and analysed it, it is his duty to give the Forces the money required for that strategical need, according to when they imagine it will arise. If the

901
Government can see it a long way off, they can give the Services less money and plan in time. But, if it is an instant danger—this year, for instance—then they cannot take that risk. The money must be given at once, for whatever that responsibility is.
But do we do that? Is that how the Government have provided for our defence to-day? Or have they said "There is £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 available"—and £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 seems an immense sum of money to me—"Now take it and divide it between yourselves the best way you can." That is the wrong way; and that is not planning on a strategical basis. At any rate, I am happy that in the last two lines of paragraph 60 these words are used:
"In this process of selection and concentration, the varying length of time which would be required by each Service in order to re-equip it to full efficiency at the outbreak of war must be given due weight."
That is a valuable and wise statement, and it is followed in paragraph 62 by another valuable, and indeed historic, statement—namely:
"It remains the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain the Forces which are needed to support its international policy, to ensure the security of the United Kingdom, to maintain its interests throughout the world, and to enable it to play its full part in the preservation of world peace."
All this is of great importance. I almost feel I might have written that last sentence myself. Anyhow, Parliament has now two statements to grip hold of.
Paragraph 60 states the decision about responsibilities, and paragraph 62 the firm intention of the Government to meet the needs of defence. With those two new statements, there is no excuse for Parliament if it fails to press the Government to do their duty at all times in defence matters. I think the defence barometer is definitely rising. Let us hope that fine defence weather will follow in the years ahead. But we had better keep our eyes on the defence horizon.
There are two smaller points in the White Paper to which I would like briefly to refer. Paragraph 52 states:
"In the present situation, where the United Nations Organisation is not yet able to enforce peace, the best deterrent to war is tangible evidence of our intention and ability to withstand attack. Whether it is a question of self-defence or of support of the United
902
Nations, it is necessary to maintain British Forces in peace time to deter aggression which might lead to war."
Those are brave words, and all I want to ask is: Are we giving-tangible evidence of that statement?
I had nothing to say the other day, in principle or technically, about the scrapping of our ships. Everybody knows that the "Queen Elizabeth" class ought to have been scrapped and replaced with other ships fifteen years ago. Ships of that age cannot be kept, not because they cannot be modernised but because they are so old that their bottoms get thinner every year and finally fall out. By the time a ship is thirty years old, the plating of her bottom is only about one-twenty-fifth of an inch thick instead of half an inch. It wears away. I would make one small criticism. I think it is a great pity that so much publicity was given to that scrapping, because there are many people in all countries, including politicians who make the wars, who know nothing whatever about Navies or Air Forces, and whose only idea of the strength of nations is formed by taking a Navy List, or an Air Force List, and adding up the number of battleships, cruisers, or air squadrons each side has, and saying: "He has the larger number; he is bound to win. We had better not go to war with him." When you advertise the fact that you are going to reduce your Navy by so many ships, it does not bear out that splendid thesis of giving tangible evidence of your strength.
With regard to our Air Force, I dare say—I do not know—that it is wise not to announce what our strength is. If its strength is said to be a deterrent, then it seems to me that we are assuming that the enemy knows what that strength is, whereas we ourselves do not. I do not want to labour the point, but I rather doubt whether our recent actions have, in all senses, been following out the excellent principle laid down in paragraph 52.
There is one other point, and that is in regard to paragraph. 36. It is rather an important point, because this paragraph deals with our ability to get ready for war. I will not quote the whole of the paragraph but in one part it says:
"Fortunately, however, those basic industries of the country on which war potential ultimately depends are in a healthy and flourishing state, though difficulties are likely to be experienced in certain highly specialised fields."

903
I wanted to ask the First Lord whether he could give any assurance about the state of our armour firms.
I know so well that in the middle of the 'twenties—the peace years—when I was Comptroller of the Navy, I had to deal with the dreadful problem of how we were to maintain the armour production of our country. There were five firms and their maximum production was something like three times the amount we could use in peace-time. What was to happen to that extremely valuable plant and its wonderfully trained and skilled men, its professors and scientists, who were working on the production and continuous improvement of armour? That was the question which exercised our minds then. Eventually a plan was produced by which we scrapped two of the armour firms and kept the other three. In order to keep them in being, they were given a higher rate for their armour than it really cost them to produce. When war approached and the Air Force began to consider putting armour plate into their bombers, and the Army began to demand vast quantities of armour for tank production, the fact that we had taken even those moderate steps ten or twelve years before was of the utmost importance. I ask the First Lord whether he can give us some general assurance that steps have been taken to preserve, so far as possible, our important armour productive capacity.
To-day we are naturally all wondering whether war is years distant or whether it is close at hand; that thought is bound to exercise our minds at this moment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said. Are we to have, or is there some possibility that we may have, some enormous new commitment which has not been allowed for, suddenly thrown upon our Army and Air Force? That is a very unpleasant thought. It is something against which we may not perhaps be able to provide in our present financial circumstances. I cannot help feeling that those who are interested in the safety of this country will be anxious in regard to the responsibilities which are being placed on us, or will be expected of us, in regard to the Five-Power Benelux Pact. Are we expected to provide our Forces to save Europe again; and, can they be ready in time? Can we hope that our wonderful friend the United States will support us and underwrite
904
some of those responsibilities for us? Either we must take some steps to meet this new commitment, or we must change our foreign policy—and that would be highly regrettable.
I do not want to ask the Government any impossible questions or to embarrass them in the slightest degree, but I cannot help feeling that this debate would be insincere and incomplete, now that events affecting defence are rushing at us at such a rate, were we merely to discuss the White Paper as it was written possibly two or three months ago. That is all I wish to say about that point. On the whole, I shall give my good wishes to the White Paper, as it has much in it that is good. I regret that it is incomplete and that it leaves out much that I should have liked to see in it; but, as I have said before, in defence matters we must take things gradually, and, on the whole, I think the Government have not done too badly.
4.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I have listened to the debate so far with the greatest interest. I would like to say here and now that I agree with practically every word that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said. I felt that he was dealing with the present time, and I myself shall deal with the situation which exists to-day when I put before your Lordships two points which I desire to stress. I am not going to shut my eyes to present-day conditions; and I am assuming that our foreign policy is to be as outlined. I have read the White Paper with great concern. I cannot find anywhere in it—and for the last six months the situation has been well-known—a satisfying reassurance that we are now preparing our defences on a sound basis. Whilst I agree that it would be unwise for the White Paper to give details, it ought to show that the Government are thoroughly seized of the vital importance, even in these days of economic crisis, of ensuring that the country has at its disposal a Force which by its very existence would help to prevent war, or which, if war were unfortunately forced upon us, would give us time to bring into early play all our potential power. The Government must make up their minds now on a clear-cut policy. There is no time to be lost. The Government must decide what act of hostility or aggression by a foreign Power would be considered sufficiently dangerous

905
to constitute an act of war, calling for an appropriate response at once on our part.
May I look for a moment at the lessons of past history? From the time when the German menace first became plain in 1933, we allowed acts of aggression to continue unchallenged, one after another. First there was the reoccupation of the Ruhr; nothing was done about that. Next came the absorption of Austria; nothing was done then. The incorporation of the Sudeten territory into the Reich followed; nothing was done. Then, in spite of the pledges which she had given, Germany took over the whole of Czechoslovakia. Once again, nothing was done. Then, at long last, the British Government suddenly made up their minds and took a stand. They startled the world a good deal by declaring that any act of aggression against Poland would bring about war. That declaration was made, I believe, with little or no consultation with the Chiefs of Staff of the Services of that day. Shortly afterwards we were plunged into war, and we had no means of hitting the enemy in his own country—none at all. Nor could we reach Poland to help her. Recent events in Eastern Europe make me wonder whether history will be repeated; and that brings me to the question of the type of strength of the Armed Forces which we should have to-day.
I know full well the great economic difficulties in turning any more men on to war production, or into the Services to strengthen them, when the vital need is to increase our exports. It is essential, therefore, that the Government should consider what form and type of military force would make the minimum demands on our resources and man-power, and, at the same time, make any potential enemy realise our power to hit, and—if need be—to hit hard and quickly. I feel there is only one power in existence to-day that can fulfil these requirements, and that is air power. Air power to-day is even more powerful than it was in the last war. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has spoken about the use of atomic power and the atomic bomb in the future. I think that atomic bombs were dropped twice from aircraft in the recent war. This strengthens what I have said, that air power is even more formidable to-day than it was in the last war. It is also the only power at our disposal at the present moment which might tend to
906
restrain an enemy from hostile provocation, or which—if it did not succeed in preventing war—would enable us to mount an offensive while we were developing our resources.
If the Government decide to place their confidence in air power, we must then have a strong force of long-range bombers, long-range fighters and interception fighters. That is essential. Then we must choose the location of our air bases throughout the world. If we have not already chosen them, the proper course is to organise these bases throughout the world without delay. In the past, when our security depended on big navies, what did the Admiralty do? They rightly decided to insist on having efficient overseas naval ports. So, in the same way, we must be certain that we have our air bases throughout the world. I hope that this matter is being taken into consideration now, in the conferences which are taking place in Paris and Brussels in connection with the Plan for a Western European Union.
To digress for a moment: I have recently read the Despatches of Field Marshal Lord Wavell, Field Marshal Auchinleck, General Percival, and Air Marshal Maltby. These all show our failings with regard to the organisations of bases. Although it was decided in 1933 or 1934 that air should be the chief means of defence at Singapore, those who have read Air Marshal Maltby's Despatch will see that the organisation was not ready. Nothing was really done to organise and prepare the base. The headquarters of the different Services were as much as twenty-five or thirty-five miles apart; there were not sufficient runways; there were no buildings or operational rooms, or any of the detailed organisation required. I say, emphatically, that to neglect air bases now is asking for disaster in the future. There is another consideration with regard to air bases and the choosing of them. I hope they will be chosen as near to the sea as possible. They must, if possible, have a sea approach within reasonable distance so that a good sound system of supply can be maintained. These ports must have up-to-date equipment for all the innumerable small vessels that ought to be able to use them with ease.
Besides the Air Force we must have a small up-to-date Army, well-equipped and trained, ready for transportation by air

907
to any base necessary, so that it can be used, when opportunity occurs, for landing in any particular theatre. This would require the provision of adequate air transport, and would need careful organisation in respect of supplies, bases and defence. All provision of ammunition and the like, without careful organisation, is useless. With regard to the Navy, I feel that we must have (and I know that I am saying this in the presence of a number of noble Lords who know the Navy from A to Z) a large number of small vessels and submarines. I am talking of what is needed to-day and not what we should have ten years hence.
In short, what we want is an Air Force of long-range bomber squadrons—say thirty, forty or fifty squadrons, though the Chiefs of Staff, of course, must decide the actual numbers—long-range fighter squadrons and interception squadrons. We need an Army comprised of a certain number of small airborne forces and (this is especially important) enough air transport squadrons to move them to any base necessary. For the Navy, it is vital that there should be a large number of fast naval vessels and submarines, and, in addition, fast merchant ships for the transportation problems bound up with the use of a mobile force such as I have described. This I believe would be the force which was most economical in manpower and materials, capable either of preventing war or tiding us over until we could mobilise all the resources of the nation.
As there are so many speakers, I have cut down my remarks to the essentials of the Forces required, omitting all details and discussions with regard to Reserves. I have probably oversimplified the matter, but I believe that I have outlined a framework which would prove eminently serviceable and could be added to in detail—if necessary, without alteration in substance. I believe that if it were stated that that was the Government policy it would help to prevent war. Therefore, I hope most sincerely—I am sorry the noble Lord who is going to answer is not here—that the Chiefs of Staff Committee have (as I feel sure they have) made their recommendations on the type of Forces required now. But have the Government given their decision? I know that it is harder
908
to obtain agreement in peace than in war, and I do not blame the Government more than I blamed Governments in the past when they did not give rapid decisions. The Chiefs of Staff, if they are great men, will decide on certain points and the Government have to grasp that nettle themselves and not hand it back with the instruction: "Discuss it again." I made a speech in your Lordships' House in 1935 saying how many times Chiefs of Staff decisions were burked. Like the Government, I naturally do not want details disclosed in the answer, though I think they are being over-secretive. Unless they disclose that they are to have a force of bombers and fighters, they will not prevent war. The more I read the German papers of 1934 and 1935—and I have more time than many of the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench to read these papers—the more certain I am that showing the strength of the Navy doubles that strength.
I want for a short time to deal with my second point; this is the longer-term problem of man-power. The backbone of all defence measures, even in these days of scientific development, is still man-power. I understand that there is a great shortage of man-power for the Regular Army and for the Air Force, and also for the Navy. Voluntary recruits do not come forward sufficiently. Why should they? I have on three or four previous occasions addressed your Lordships on this matter. The more I have looked into it (and in discussing it with others I find that they have reached the same conclusion) the more I think we shall never get a solution to the recruiting problem unless we adopt some such system as the one I have indicated before. Our strength to-day comes, first, from men who join for Regular long-term service and hope to make it a life career and, secondly, from the youth of the nation who have to do a year's conscripted service. This latter does not add anything to the overall strength of the Forces, and in fact, since the small force of Regulars are called upon to provide instructors for the conscripts, it depletes the Regular Forces. I think there should be a third way of increasing the man-power of our Forces. In this I believe that I am supported by many more of your Lordships than some noble Lords on these Benches realise. I am convinced that many noble Lords on

909
the Labour Benches believe there is something in this. We should try to get men to join for three, four or five years. If they knew that by joining they would be certain of employment after their period of service was ended, I feel we should get them.
I would like the Government to initiate an inquiry. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, three times, and I have asked the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether they are looking into it. I know what is being done, and it is not being looked into. I would like to know whether an inquiry could be started to see whether a short-service system could be instituted, whereby every man who joined for three, four or five years would be automatically absolved from the National Service Act call-up; would be allowed to count the time spent under the short-service system towards a pension in any branch of the Civil Service, local government service, or nationalised industry; and, additionally, provided that they had sufficient academic qualifications, would on leaving the Services have first priority in the Civil Service, medical service, the reaching professions, and in all the nationalised services. All this, of course, would be subject to their not having shown themselves unworthy during their short-service term. This subject might take a two-days' debate, and I do not want to detain your Lordships. I would merely repeat: all those whom I have asked, who have had to do with these questions of defence, are greatly concerned with the present state of affairs. I doubt whether the Government have mapped out a decided policy, and feel rather that we are drifting along with the essential problems untackled. I trust the Government can give us some assurance.
4.48 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, more than one speaker in this debate has asked whether the lessons learned in the last war are reflected in this White Paper. I should like to develop that idea for a few moments, and would like to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, when he drew attention to the recently published Despatches of the Commanding Officers in the Far East. It is a great pity that the restrictions on newsprint prevent these Despatches reaching a wider publicity than they have had. I hope the Government
910
and their Service advisers will give them every possible attention. To my mind there are two main lessons to which every Commander drew attention. The first was the difficulty into which we fell through not being able: to make up our minds whether foreign policy was to dictate strategy or strategy was to dictate foreign policy. The second was the difficulty we met when we confused in our minds the sum we could afford to pay for defence and the minimum sum we really required for defence. Every Despatch mentions those points.
I turn, in particular, to the despatch of Air Vice Marshal Sir Paul Maltby, Air Officer Commanding in Malaya in 1941. He draws one deduction which I think is particularly important to-day. He points out the danger, when a potential enemy has the initiative, of basing strategy on political considerations which may at the last minute be completely reversed, thereby nullifying the whole of that strategy. That point is particularly important to-day, since we, as a democratic power, will never be the aggressor, and we shall always lack that initiative. I think the last six months have shown that we shall never again have the opportunity of a few months in which to pull ourselves together at the beginning of a war. That opportunity was luckily granted to us in the last two wars, but it will not be granted to us again.
Turning to the Despatch of General Percival, I would remind you that he makes this point. He says that in the past we have relied too much on a strategy based on bluff. The danger of that plan, particularly in the Far East, was that we did not bluff our enemies, and we did, unfortunately, bluff ourselves. We bluffed ourselves into thinking that we had built a fortress in Singapore. We planned a fortress in Singapore, and General Dobbie started to carry out those plans. But what happened? His financial resources were disastrously cut, and we, the British taxpayers, are accordingly to blame for the abuse thrown at General Dobbie for the failure of those plans. The whole world knew that we had planned a fortress at Singapore, but only we, the British taxpayers, forgot that we had taken away the money whereby the plans for that fortress could have been put into operation.

911
I would draw attention to the work of some of the armchair critics, whom my noble friend Lord Chatfield mentioned a little while ago. In 1942 the armchair critics—not all of them outside of Parliament—levelled some harsh abuse at our unfortunate commanders and men in Malaya. Those critics were not in full possession of the facts. We are now in full possession of these facts from the Despatches which have been published. I have not seen anybody recant their accusations, or apologise for the harsh and unjust things that were said at the time. Mud sticks, and I think it is about time we started to scratch a little of that mud off. Many commanders, many gallant men and their next of kin, are smarting under the great injustice that was done to those gallant men who did their best in appallingly difficult circumstances. If Field-Marshal Wavell is big enough a man to come out in his Despatch and publicly confess that he made certain major errors of judgment, surely these small armchair criticis can take their cue from him and apologise to the men whose reputations they have so unjustly besmirched. The taxpayers are the people who were really to blame—not the soldiers.
Mention of Singapore brings me to my next point, which is this: What is our future policy and strategy in the Far East? Since the fall of Japan, we have heard little about Malaya and Hong Kong. All we know is that domestically and economically Malaya is enjoying a standard of prosperity which we can all envy. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald is there, earning for himself a high place in the ranks of British pro-Consuls. What is to be our future policy about Singapore? Are we to make it a major base? What about Hong Kong? Hong Kong is probably the most prosperous place in the British Empire to-day; and it owes its prosperity largely to the initiative and resource of the civilian and Service staffs who, after the fall of Japan, set to work so promptly to reinstate the Colony. Surely in the last few weeks we have learned a lesson from events in the Falkland Islands, British Honduras and Gibraltar. We see envious eves being cast at various parts of the British Empire. Envious eves have also been cast at Hong Kong, and only a few weeks ago there was trouble and rioting on the mainland. There will be trouble there again from
912
Chinese hotheads whose activities will not be discouraged by certain other foreign powers who would like to see us out of Hong Kong. The inhabitants of Hong Kong are very anxious at the moment. Let us say what is our policy there. Are we going to maintain it as a major base in the Far East? Are we going to develop it, economically and strategically? Let us come out and say that we are not going to be "cheeked and chivvied" out of Hong Kong, and we intend to develop it as our base in the Far East. So far as I can see, there is little indication in the White Paper that our whole defensive and strategic policy is being planned on a Commonwealth basis. There are only casual references to this subject here and there throughout the White Paper. There is a mention of a great base to be planned in Kenya, but the reference is tucked away in the paragraph about Works, rather like the threepenny bit in a Christmas pudding. In the Air Force Estimates we see a mention of Aden, and the trouble that occurred there when a detachment of the Royal Air Force Regiment was sent to quell the riots. We have seen trouble recently at Accra, and we find the disgusting situation of ships having to be sent all the way from Capetown, and a company of the Cameronians being held at Gibraltar. All those things should show to us how widespread our commitments still are. There is a tendency, too much encouraged nowadays, to think that, because we are living in an atomic age, all our old Imperial commitments have gone by the board. They have not gone. They are just as urgent now as ever they were, and they demand just as much of our attention.
I do not wish to press the Government to produce information which it would not be in the national interests to reveal. We know that the C.I.G.S. has recently completed a series of important tours, and we understand that they have been successful. I think the country would like to know as much as it is possible to know about those tours, about the discussions and how we are progressing with our talks on Commonwealth defence. There seems to be very little said about that important matter in this White Paper. I do not press the Government to say anything which, in their opinion, would be prejudicial to public safety. Here I would say that I cannot entirely agree with the views that have been expressed

913
by one or two noble Lords on the subject of security. I think the Government are being unjustly badgered in this respect. I would be the last person to ask them to produce one single piece of information which they, knowing the full facts, thought was not in the interests of the country. I think we should be doing a disservice if we asked them to produce that information.
But I would, in all humility, ask them whether they are quite certain that they have a clear idea in their minds as to what is and what is not in the interests of national security. Certain information produced in the Naval Estimates concerning new ships of the Navy, and certain information which was let out concerning the size of the Home Fleet, makes one think that a proper appreciation of what is and what is not genuinely in the interests of security is overdue. I would repeat that, if the Government say that they are not prepared to produce certain information because it is not in the public interest to do so, I think we should be doing the nation a disservice to badger them. I hope they will stick firmly to that point.
In conclusion, I have one question to ask, and I think it is the chief question that we should ask in regard to this White Paper: Are we getting value for money? I calculate from the figures given that by this time next year we shall have something like 700,000 men and women under arms, and we shall be paying something like £700,000,000 for them. The chief accusation that has been levelled at the Government during this debate—and I am afraid I must join in that accusation—is that there is no overall defence plan. I would go further and say that the reason there is no defence plan is that there is no appreciation of the factors upon which that plan can be drawn up. Those factors are available. A year ago the situation was much more obscure. But in the last year, as has been stated by more than one noble Lord, the situation has been clarified a great deal. We know more clearly now who are our friends and who are our potential allies, and we certainly know who are our potential foes. It should be possible, therefore, to draw up an appreciation upon which a plan can be made. This White Paper, so far as I can see, is an unco-ordinated statement of the resources
914
which the various Service Departments have squeezed out of a grudging Treasury and a grudging Ministry of Labour. It is certainly not, I am afraid, a statement in relation to defence.
5.0 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: My Lords, when I sat down to prepare what I was going to say this afternoon, I found myself in some difficulty because, as your Lordships know, I am a newcomer to this House, and I was not quite clear into how much detail one could go in a subject of this character on a White Paper entitled Statement Relating to Defence. I was somewhat put out by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, who took the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to task for mentioning battleships and bombers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It did not worry me.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: At any rate. I noticed that before the noble Lord finished his speech he treated us to a dissertation on battleship bottoms. I do not see how you can discuss defence without mentioning the various parts of defence. After all, what we are really discussing now is defence policy, and that policy must result in the end in the provision of certain weapons.
The problem with with I shall try to deal this afternoon is whether the weapons that we are now planning to produce are, (a) sufficient and, (b) of the right character. There seem to be two problems, the long-term problem and the short-term problem. The long-term problem, with which we are faced now, has already been alluded to this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others. That is the problem of atomic energy, the atom bomb, pushbutton warfare, rockets and all the horrible inventions with which we shall be bombarded in the future. It is obviously of the greatest importance that research into those weapons should be pushed on with the greatest speed, and that all necessary finance should be made available for that. I am not particularly worried about that aspect of the problem, because I have a great confidence in British scientists, from Sir Henry Tizard downwards. Before the last war they were certainly ahead of scientists in the rest of the world in almost every field of research in connection with defence, and I see no reason why they should lose that lead now. I am not, therefore, going

915
to deal with that aspect of the matter, although I do not want your Lordships to think that I am in any way unmindful of it.
The short-term problem, on the other hand, is this. Pending the results of this all-important research, what is it that we require now or shall require, say, within the next two years, should war come? That is the problem about which I am afraid and worried. We have nearly a million men under arms, and what have we to show for it in terms of defence? In the first place, what have we with which to strike quickly; and, in the second place, what have we for immediate defence? I do not pretend to be able to answer that question myself, because I do not know; and I am very anxious that the answer, if it can be given, should be the right one. There is another problem linked with this, and that is whether the Forces which we have are of the right pattern and the right balance. Take the Navy, for instance. The Admiralty, I think wisely, have adopted a personnel policy for a long-service Navy. They are gambling that a major emergency will not arise in the very near future, and that within a reasonable space of time there will be a properly manned long-term Navy. The question I ask myself is: Will the right sort of ships be in commission when the manpower is fully trained?
I am not worried, like the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, about the scrapping of the old battleships. What I feel is that the threat at the beginning of the next war will surely be the submarine. We look at our most probable enemy, and see that he has not a strong surface fleet, and that he is a specialist in submarines. Therefore, it seems to me that the ships which we have in commission should provide for that. I also ask myself: What was the greatest naval battle in the last war, and what was the greatest victory that the Navy won? I would answer that by saying that it was the battle of the Atlantic. It was the one naval battle which, if it had been lost, would have finished us. One looks with pride, of course, on actions such as the River Plate and Matapan, but those actions were not vital in the sense that the battle of the Atlantic was vital. My memories as the Commander-in-Chief of Coastal Command tell me that for this battle—that is
916
the anti-submarine battle—we want fast escort vessels in large numbers and some destroyers. I would like to know, before my anxiety can be relieved, how many such vessels should we have ready if war came to-morrow.
Let us take next the problem of the R.A.F., which has already been discussed at some length by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I agree with practically everything they said. We need, first of all, a striking force to act as a deterrent to aggression. We also need fighter defence for the United Kingdom and for our overseas bases. I do not quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he says that a fighter defence is perhaps not so important as it was. I cannot see that. It is true that in time, when this push-button age comes upon us, fighter defence as we know it now may well become obsolete.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I never suggested that it would become obsolete. I said that I thought the emphasis had changed, and that the most vital thing was the bomber striking force. I did say that it was essential to have up-to-date fighters, both for defence and for escort.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: I am sorry; perhaps I misunderstood the noble Viscount. As I say, the ordinary air force which we should have to meet to-day, still equipped with the orthodox type of bombers, is one for which the fighter defence (on somewhat the same pattern, only with much faster aircraft than we knew during the war) would be effective. I ask myself: What do we possess in this, and how many aircraft can we actually put and maintain in the air to-day or next year. We have 270,000 men—that is over a quarter of a million—in the Air Force, and the operational effort which it is alleged by some that they could produce would not seem to justify that number of men. I think the answer to that is, of course, the question of the shortage of trained personnel, especially skilled ground personnel. Much of the effort of the present skilled men, as with the Army, goes into training the unskilled. On the other hand, I think the Air Ministry have done a great job by having demobilised more than the strength of the R.A.F. at the end of the war.
That is the problem with which they are now faced, but I wonder whether it

917
would not be a good thing if the Air Force took a leaf out of the Navy's book and went more for a long-service Air Force. After all, there is no time to train the National Service men in the skilled trades, and they can be used only in the unskilled or semi-skilled trades. I suggest, therefore, that the Government might consider whether the Air Force should be put on the same basis in this respect as the Navy. I would rather have a small, well-trained Air Force, than a large half-trained and half-baked one. If that policy is to be followed, obviously there are two things which are necessary immediately. One is a recruiting drive for the Royal Air Force. In that connection I suggest that consideration should be given, first of all, to improving the pay of the skilled tradesmen, and, secondly, to the important question of married quarters. I am sure that many men are deterred nowadays from enlisting in the Services because of the lack of married quarters.
Finally, may I say a word concerning the Army? The Regular Army has certain clear-cut commitments at the present time—for instance, in Germany and Palestine. But I think it is not unfair to say that these Forces are not at a particularly high standard of training and efficiency, owing, perhaps, to the proportion of new recruits in their ranks; and the efforts of long-term Regulars are almost entirely occupied in training National Service men. That is probably unavoidable, and I do not suggest that there should be any great change. But what I would like to ask is this: What is the rôle of the Army in any probable major war? That is a matter about which I am not clear, and I have seen no indication of it in the White Paper. If the rôle is not decisively laid down, I do not see how the Chiefs of Staff and the Government can properly plan the structure of the Army required.
The same question goes for the Territorial Army: What is the rôle of the Territorial Army? Again, I can find no indication in the White Paper. I am inclined to think, though I may be wrong—I hope I am wrong—that, for instance, anti-aircraft is being pushed into the background (I almost said "as usual" but perhaps that would be unfair). Antiaircraft has always been the Cinderella of the Services, and has been starved of men and of priorities in production and
918
equipment. Yet anti-aircraft generally will be the first part of the Army to go into action in the next war. And if we lose the first round of the war, we shall not require an Expeditionary Force of fifteen divisions, or whatever the figure may be, because the war will be over long before they can get into action. Therefore, I beg the War Office to give all they can spare to anti-aircraft.
I am afraid this speech has been rather inconclusive. It is largely a question mark. I find it difficult to say what the conclusion ought to be, because I do not know the answers to many of the questions I have propounded. Perhaps I am unnecessarily anxious—I hope I am—and I shall be overjoyed to be told that I am wrong to be anxious. But frankly, my Lords, I am anxious, first of all about the size, and secondly about the composition, of the Forces that we could actually deploy on land, at sea, and in the air, if war came upon us within, say, the next year or two years.
5.13 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we have listened to an excellent and forceful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Douglas. I was most interested to hear what he said about the Battle of the Atlantic and the necessity for a great number of small ships I am entirely in sympathy with that view having myself served in: he Battle of the Atlantic under the noble Lord when he was in command of Coastal Command. The field of defence policy has been largely covered by many noble Lords today, but there are one or two aspects of this policy which I should like to emphasise. I should also like to direct certain questions to the noble Lord who is to reply for His Majesty's Government.
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that we are already living in the shadow of war—not only a possible war some five or ten years hence, but war that may come upon us in the near future. I think it is true to say that many of the conditions of such a war are the same to-day as they were in 1939; and war might well come upon us through the difficulties in Palestine, which, as we know, are increasing daily. And who can say when the Communist advance in the West will not have to be halted by an ultimatum which may well lead to war? The Western Powers may not always be able or willing to continue

919
a policy of appeasement of Communism. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who said that Communism was stealthily advancing across Europe.
I suggest that our defence policy should be geared for a short-term view as well as a long-term view. That point was specifically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas. I feel that such a short-term policy is day by day becoming more necessary in support of Western co-operation. What does Western co-operation mean? If it mean anything at all, it means co-operation in economic, political and cultural fields, but, in the light of present conditions in Western Europe, it means also a military alliance or guarantee; and such a guarantee or military alliance is now being concluded very successfully by the Foreign Secretary.
The point is, what is our military guarantee worth to the nations of Europe? Does the White Paper on Defence supply the answer? I suggest that the White Paper rather sketchily outlines a long-term plan for the Services, but for the immediate future it is a dispiriting document and displays our weakness to the world—in spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, that this White Paper is better than most. It appears from the White Paper that it is the intention of the Government to provide only sufficient forces for existing commitments, but I suggest that it is essential to have some form of reserve striking force, such as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and many other speakers. The failure to make this provision of a reserve striking force will be a source of weakness to our foreign policy.
I had the honour, only a few days ago, to lead a Parliamentary Delegation to the French Parliament; and I can assure your Lordships that friendship between France and this country is stronger than ever. But the French have always been realists, and they are undoubtedly concerned about our military weakness. And not only France, but the Scandinavian countries, who are on the edge of the abyss, are looking Westwards to see what support may be forthcoming. What have we to offer in the immediate future? Treaties without the force to back them up are useless and dangerous. Could we put a striking force into the field at short notice? The noble Lord, Lord Nathan,
920
said that the composition of such a striking force would depend on the strategic provisions at the time. I think that is a most unsatisfactory statement, and a very dangerous one. It may be argued that we have a large body of trained men in reserve, but have steps been taken to work out a mobilisation scheme to call them up in sufficient numbers in an emergency, and to produce a striking force? And are we able to arm them with modern weapons and provide the necessary vehicles and transport? I suggest that we must be able to make a positive contribution to Western co-operation in addition to our existing commitments. It was only a day or so ago that many of us, I suppose, must have read in the American Press that an emergency call up plan for the National Guard and Regular reserves is being prepared, and a large increase in the Air Force has been decided upon.
Many questions on defence have been touched on to-day, but I do not think mention has been made of the extreme vulnerability of this island and the importance of dispersal. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether any plans have been prepared for this purpose. Again, are we still to rely on this country for war production and, if not, have we arranged to standardise our weapons and equipment with the United States and with Western Europe? I thought that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading (if he will allow me to say so) made a powerful speech on that particular point. It is undoubtedly true that our defences are to-day in a weak state, and I think it has been largely due to the decision of His Majesty's Government to reduce the period of National Service training. I think it is true to say that the Army and, to a certain extent, the Navy and Air Force, have become nothing more than a Service of schoolmasters, engaged day by day in training short service recruits instead of being able to concentrate on fighting efficiency. I suggest that His Majesty's Government should review afresh the whole structure of the Armed Forces, including the present working of the National Service scheme. We are spending an immense amount of money on the Services and are getting little to show for it.
A good plan has been suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in connection with a short service plan for

921
three or four years' service, which I support strongly. I hope that His Majesty's Government will give it their careful attention. I fully realise the importance of financial stringency at the present time, but I feel that the provision of a combined striking force of the three Services should be a first charge on the national income, especially when we see money being expended in many less important directions which could well be postponed until times were more normal. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to a resolution moved at a Socialist meeting the other day for cutting down the Armed Forces for financial reasons. Surely that would be a most dangerous policy at the present time? I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, on the controversy over the scrapping of battleships—a matter which was fully debated in this House on the Naval Estimates. I would just say that it is doubtful when and in what state a ship becomes valueless for naval purposes of some kind. Harbour defence ships, block ships, and so on, are always needed.
I should like to turn for a few moments to Civil Defence which, of course, must be associated with the whole defence policy. Your Lordships are aware—it has been mentioned by other speakers—that a memorandum on Civil Defence was recently produced by the Home Office. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman said that it was not a very convincing document. That document lays down that Civil Defence is to consist of three parts—a military mobile column drawn from the: Territorial Army, a local mobile service (which would include the Fire Services and Ambulance and Rescue Service) and lastly a local static force which would operate under the police, and who are presumably our old friends the wardens and fire guards. The memorandum goes on to state that in peace-time the local mobile Service (that is, the Fire Services and Ambulance and Rescue Service) will be administered by the local authority but in war-time will be operated by the Government. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government what plans, if any, have been arranged for such a transfer of this local mobile force, and especially if any decision has been taken with regard to financial arrangements—also a most important point. In
922
fact during the early days of the Second World War it caused a great deal of difficulty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, intended to intimate that the Civil Defence planning staff will deal with this matter. We would like to know that very much.
The memorandum also specifically states that legislation will be required. Can His Majesty's Government say when this legislation will be introduced? I would suggest: that it is important that such legislation should be brought in quickly, and that it might well have priority over many Bills which are cluttering up Parliament at the present time. I do not propose to enlarge on the possibility of bacteriological warfare and steps that should be taken against it, but I suggest that Civil Defence has now become one of the most important aspects of defence policy, and steps should be taken immediately to provide not only an adequate striking force but protection to the civil population against air attack which might come upon this country before any declaration of war is made. It was only a few weeks ago that the Prime Minister warned the public not to deceive themselves as to the possibility of war. I would suggest: that conditions have hardly improved since that warning. I suggest that the White Paper on Defence was almost out of date before it was printed, and I strongly urge His Majesty's Government to consider the many points that have been raised in this debate and recast their defence policy on a realistic and up-to-date basis. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has truly said, "Time is not on our side."
A strong, co-ordinated defence policy with Europe is the best guarantee against war but, if we are to succeed, we must speed up our defence plans and reorganisation. I would remind your Lordships of the recent words of the Foreign Secretary in winding up the session of the Sixteen Nations Conference in Paris, when he said:
"I am convinced that the fate of Europe and of the world will be decided by our determination and action in the next few months."
I hope that His Majesty's Government will support those grave words by action before it is too late.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: My Lords, in rising, I would crave your Lordships'

923
indulgence for a maiden speech. I crave this indulgence, not only because I believe it to be a custom of your Lordships' House, but also because I venture to address your Lordships on a question of vital importance to us all. I speak not as a military expert but as one of the 48,000,000 people in this country whose continued existence may well depend upon the answer. I have only recently left the Army but, during my last two years, I was Military Secretary at London District, where perhaps the dotting of i's and the crossing of t's were of more moment to me than the study of self-propelled weapons. Therefore, I do not pretend to come to you straight from the training areas and the testing grounds of new weapons. I do not propose to touch on the technical aspects in this debate. None the less, if your Lordships will allow me to do so, I would like to say a few words on the subject in general terms.
I do not think that I can be described as a pessimist, but I have no words to describe adequately the gravity of the present situation. It appears to me that history is repeating itself. It seems that the calendar would be more accurate if the date on it were 1938, instead of 1948. It seems to me beyond argument that the time has come—in fact, the time has passed—when we must ensure that our Defence Forces are in an adequate state to deal with this situation, as regards both their quality and their quantity. Appeasement and disarmament were utterly ineffective in the 1930's, and I do not think that they will do any better to-day. I speak as a layman, but judging from what I read and hear, it does not seem to me that our military situation is satisfactory at this time; and I think my doubts are shared by a great many other people. I trust that I may be wrong, but I fear that I am right. I do not propose to labour this point because I think it is well understood in all quarters, and needs no further emphasis from me. In any event, it has already been stressed by noble Lords who have spoken before me this afternoon, whose arguments I feel sure carry far more weight than mine.
But, quite apart from the very grave situation to which I have referred, I am sure that it is essential to maintain Armed
924
Forces which will merit the respect of other countries throughout the world. Had it been our policy since the war to maintain such Forces we should have escaped the pinpricks which have been our lot in all quarters of the globe during the last few months—in South and Central America, in Africa and in China. I believe that the knowledge that a nation has adequate Armed Forces, and is prepared to use them in defence of her rights, has a salutary effect on others; and had that been the case, we would have escaped a great deal of trouble. Even if these pinpricks to which I have referred did not result in the spilling of British Service men's blood, they have entailed a definite loss of national prestige, and they are incidents which, from our point of view, it would have been much better to avoid. This is not a time when we can afford loss of face. It is not only necessary to have adequate Defence Forces, but would-be offenders must be made aware of what to expect if they overstep the bounds. Within the limits of security, I do not think we want to hide our light too much under a bushel in that respect.
Some years ago I was concerned in an incident when a commendable show of force on our part was completely misunderstood by the opposition, with results that were unfortunate, although not desperately serious. Your Lordships remember the troubles in China in 1926 and 1927. Eventually several nations, particularly ourselves and the United States, had to send police forces to China to safeguard the lives and property of our respective nationals. I was a subaltern in those days, and my battalion was one of those selected to go. Various naval units were also despatched and amongst them was an aircraft carrier. It might have been supposed that the Chinese would be suitably impressed by an aircraft carrier, but unfortunately this was not the case. They had never seen such a vessel before, and they immediately jumped to the understandable conclusion that we were in such dire straits in regard to our armament that we were compelled to rush out a half completed ship without even taking time to build her superstructure. The result was a definite loss of face on our part, which was very unfortunate in those times. Luckily, only a small number of Chinese saw the vessel, and the others were not in any way affected, because broadcasting was in its

925
infancy, and wholesale subversive propaganda was a thing of the future. The whole thing passed off much better than it might have done.
The Armed Forces of a nation are, in a sense, its shop window; they are a matter of prestige, It is, no doubt, argued by some that in our present economic difficulties we cannot afford the luxury of Armed Defence Forces. I would say that we cannot afford not to have them. In a sense, they take the place in the national framework which advertising takes in commerce and industry. I am quite sure, in this economic crisis, that the better face we can put on things the better hope we have of succeeding. This is particularly true with regard to our relationship with the United States. Including my childhood, I have spent some twenty years of my life in the United States. I admit that I have not been back there since a few months before the beginning of the war—January, 1939, 10 be precise—but I keep in touch with a great many American friends and, of course, I spoke to any number of Americans both here and in Italy during the war. There are many schools of thought about us in the United States. Many admire us, particularly for our lone stand in 1940. Many like us, and many dislike us; and a great many, to use the stock phrase of Gallup Polls, "do not know." If one could take a mean average of American public opinion, probably one would find that we are regarded as a sort of quaint anachronism, as a pleasant holiday ground, studded with monuments of historical interest, and as a definite military liability—a country which periodically gets into trouble with her European neighbours, and then has to be rescued by the United States.
That is not the view of those at the highest level, those in authority, but I think it is the view of many millions of Americans. Those are not healthy views. They are views which we should do everything in our power to discourage. We should be regarded as the keystone of the Western European democracies—in fact, as the hope of the world, and as a nation strong enough to save the world. We are not likely to be regarded in that light if the chief items of news about our armaments are frequent lists and pictures in the daily Press of battleships on their way to the scrap heap. I have taken up too
926
much of your Lordships' time already, but in conclusion may I urge once again that from the point of view of the present international situation, from the point of view of our relations with other nations, and from the point of view of our prestige as a great nation, we should see to it that our defences are maintained at an adequate level.

TREATY WITH WESTERN EUROPEAN POWERS.
5.37 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, might I crave your permission to intervene for a moment? I am sure we should all like to congratulate the noble Earl on a very clear and emphatic maiden speech.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is now making the following statement in another place, and I will, with your Lordships' permission, repeat that announcement in his own words. This is what the Prime Minister says:
"I have asked for he momentary adjournment of the House so that we may mark a great occasion. At this moment, in Brussels, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has just signed a Treaty which provides for economic, social, cultural and defensive collaboration between the five Western European Powers—namely Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom. This is indeed no ordinary Treaty. It is not an alliance based on self-interest and fear; it is, rather, an association of like-minded neighbours who, engaged jointly in shaping their way towards some closer social and, indeed, spiritual integration, base themselves on the essential similarity of their civilisations, and solemnly pledge on paper their common obligations and their common intentions alike.
The text of the Treaty is now available in the Library, and I am arranging for it to be published as a White Paper. I will not, therefore, attempt to describe it in detail here. It is consistent with our policy to build up good neighbourly relations, based on the widest co-operation in all fields. Let me make it clear that it is directed against none. The recent negotiations, which have taken

927
place since my right honourable friend made his statement on January 22, have been conducted with understanding and cordiality and with the determination to face the real facts. This is not only a Treaty, but a basis for activity in the economic, social, cultural, and security fields. This instrument provides the opportunity for the consultation and collaboration which will enable all of us to secure such conditions as will contribute to a higher standard of life for all our peoples."
5.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I know that I shall be speaking on behalf of all who sit on these Benches when I welcome warmly the statement that has just been made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. This, as he has said, is a great and, it may be, an historic occasion. It marks the recognition of the identity of friendly interest between those nations who to-day constitute the core of Western civilisation. They have the same history and the same traditions, and their future welfare and prosperity, both in Europe and outside, is, inevitably, closely linked. I hope that this is only the first step, the prelude to a wider combination which may include such nations as Italy, should wisdom prevail, as I hope it may, in that country. This is not an offensive combination but, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, a coming together of friends and neighbours. It is based entirely on mutual interest and is in complete accordance with the principles of the Charter, which is, after all, the basis of British foreign policy. If I may say so, as an old supporter of the Western Pact, I should like to congratulate the Government and, in particular, the Foreign Secretary, upon the success which has been achieved by him and the other Statesmen concerned.
5.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I add a sincere word of welcome to the Treaty which has just been announced, and also a word of congratulation to the Government and the Foreign Secretary, and, over and above the Government and the Foreign Secretary, to the ordinary men and women of the five countries who are affected by
928
this Treaty and who, with their eyes on the future, must be congratulating themselves that at least some step has been taken towards the establishment of a more stable and pacific world.

DEFENCE.
5.43 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, we in this House sometimes hear of our demerits. It has always seemed to me a great merit that for every debate, on every subject, the House seems to form itself automatically into a panel, into which are drawn the people who know the subject inside and out. And the panels are constantly refreshed from outside. I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to begin by saying how much we welcome the new recruit to the panel who has joined in our discussion on matters of defence to-day, and to congratulate him on the outspoken nature of his speech, on the fact of having in a maiden speech raised two laughs, and, generally, on his powerful exposition of his views.
The news which has just been announced must have a tremendous bearing on the subject of this debate, but I do not propose to intrude upon that to-night. Bacon has left us a saying that:
"It were better in causes of weight that the matter were propounded one day and not spoken to 'till the next day; In nocte consilium."
I should like to know more about the subject before attempting to express its bearing on the Motion which we are now discussing. In view of the late hour, I have followed the example of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and have torn up most of my notes. I wish to speak only on one subject, except that, generally, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Chatfield in saying that I find the White Paper distinctly encouraging—apart from one passage. That exception relates to a matter on which I spoke some eighteen months ago, on the last occasion when I took part in a debate on defence. I refer to the Empire side of this question.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested that in calculating the strength of our forces, the minimum criterion was that they must provide an efficient deterrent (he is not here now so I cannot get him to

929
check this). But it always seems to me that in calculating the deterrent to a potential aggressor we are bound to take into account the strength of the Empire as a whole, just as the Dominions, for example, in assessing their own position, have to assess our strength. That, of course, is an argument for close co-operation and that argument is strengthened by paragraph 56 of the White Paper in which it is stated that:
"The potentialities of these new weapons also enhance the need for greater co-operation within the Commonwealth. The security of the United Kingdom is one of the keystones of Commonwealth defence, but, equally, the United Kingdom alone, without the support of the Commonwealth, would lose much of its effective influence and power."
That is extremely well put, and it strengthens the argument for co-operation.
What do we learn from the White Paper on the subject of co-operation? We learn from paragraph 49 that the United Kingdom liaison staffs which were featured strongly in the White Paper and in the debate of October, 1946, have now been established in Canada and Australia and South Africa, but not yet in New Zealand. Then, in paragraph 50, we are told of a very important Conference of Empire scientists on Imperial Defence science. That is all very much to the good; the liaison arrangements are satisfactory, but mainly from the point of view of regional defence. It was for regional defence that they were originally proposed. But the outer regions of the Empire do not seem to me to be specially threatened at the moment. It is in Europe that the storm clouds are brewing.
Distant thunder is heard; and lightning ever and anon may be seen. Yet in the White Paper I find nothing about high-level contacts at the centre or, for that matter, anywhere else; and it is high-level contacts we need so much at the present time. I venture to recall once more that Mr. Curtin, who was, I believe, the first to propose the regional liaison scheme (I have the paper in my possession in which he proposed it) which was later espoused by Mr. Chifley, laid down:
"It is fundamental to future arrangements for co-operation in defence that appropriate machinery should be created to provide for an effective voice by the Governments concerned in policy and in the higher control of planning on the official level."
Appropriate machinery was to be created. There was already in existence machinery,
930
which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has described to us very fully and very convincingly. But Mr. Curtin asked that "appropriate machinery" should be created, so he was not quite satisfied with what they had. Surely there never was a time in the history of the Empire when appropriate high-level machinery was more necessary to stimulate and control planning and, still more, to concert the policy on all great questions of the day.
The whole world is in a ferment. Europe is in a dither; America is fuming; and Russia is chuckling. It is not at all a pleasant outlook. We are, as it were, watching the spread of a horrible disease to which no one has yet found an anti-dote. Much of the Continent is infected. We are not immune. Neither are the Dominions. Only yesterday I happened to meet at different times two old friends from the Dominions, both men of wide and official influence. Both of them, curiously enough, said, "How fortunate you people are to be so much less affected by Communism than we are." We are all up against this common menace, and I feel we should be studying together both that problem and the other mass of problems that have to be settled. It is a question of what are the right weapons to combat this new and subtle form of warfare. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, mentioned the German Fifth Column. I go back much further in history, to Jenghiz Khan, and especially to his successor, Sabutai, who prepared the way for the Mongol, invasion, first, of the whole of Asia and then of a large part of mediaeval Europe, at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries, by sending a cloud of spies and propagandists beforehand to poison the relations of the different States. It is still much the same kind of warfare that we face. Some people talk of dealing with it by the use of the atomic bomb. That is rather like sending a gunboat to bombard white ants, as in H.G. Wells' story. And can you profitably use atomic bombs against an enemy who is in occupation of territory where most of the population are those you want to free? These are only some of the threads of an immense ganglion of inter-connected problems which I feel we should be discussing with the Dominions.
There is one other reason why these discussions ought to take place: that is as an

931
example, as a demonstration, to the world that we are still all standing together, as firm as ever. The British Commonwealth and Empire is still a factor in international affairs and there are times when it ought to be showing itself. We want to demonstrate that those methods which have been so successful in the past are again possible at this moment, when we have contracted an arrangement to enter into closer economic and even defence relations with other European countries. There is much else I could say, but I will say no more. I hope noble Lords opposite will not take this as a criticism or as an attack, because I do not mean it in that way. I would emphasise that this is a time in which, if it is possible, we should co-operate to show that we are still standing together.
5.57 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, last week the Government issued an urgent appeal for 500,000 more workers for the textile and other basic industries. Last week they also issued an Economic Survey in which it was stated that without substantial external aid we have no hope of attaining a reasonable standard of living within the next few years. Last week, again, the House of Commons voted Service estimates for a total of 940,000 men, plus 590,000 civilians entirely employed in supporting and supplying these men—making a grand total of 1,530,000 persons, at a cost of £692,000,000 per year. I am all in favour of armed strength and military might, to the utmost we can afford, and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he says there is a minimum of defence below which we cannot afford to fall. But if we are to agree to such an immense expenditure, both of men and money, surely we must make as certain as we can that we are getting full value for it. And in not a single speech that I have heard throughout this debate has any noble Lord, expressed satisfaction on that point.
Before 1914 our traditional policy was an all-powerful Navy and a first-class but small Army. At any rate, at the beginning of the 1914–18 war we were able immediately to put six first-class divisions and one cavalry division into the field. Then arose the R.A.F. In my opinion, the R.A.F. has become the most important arm of the Services, at any rate in
932
regard to its deterrent effect before and at the very beginning of any conflict. So we did our best to keep up a powerful Navy, a powerful Air Force and a first-class small Army, and we were able to put into the field at the start of the last war four divisions and one armoured division, in addition to a considerable force in Egypt. The strength of our Army in 1939 was 210,000, of whom 50,000 were in India and Burma, and paid for by those Governments. The total cost falling upon the British taxpayer was £81,000,000 for a total of 162,000 men. Even that £81,000,000 was somewhat inflated by the fact that considerable expenditure was then being incurred by the late Viscount Caldecott in preparation for the war which seemed to be imminent. A more comparable figure would be the £54,000,000 which the Army cost in 1936, before we had begun those extra preparations. This year we are paying for a total of 715,000 soldiers at a cost of £340,000,000—that is to say, about six times the cost of 1936; and, of course, we have about five times the number of men.
How are those men disposed? There are 265,000 of them outside Europe, of whom 151,000 are Colonial troops and Gurkhas, and the other 114,000 are British. I have nothing to say about that. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has pointed out to your Lordships this afternoon the many and widespread obligations that we have overseas. Although one may hope that with the evacuation of Palestine those obligations will become less, it still seems necessary to keep an adequate force in various parts of our far-flung Empire. I would invite your Lordships' attention for a few minutes to the 452,000 soldiers that we have in Europe. The great majority of them, I take it, are in Germany. What are they in Germany for? Are they there to stop the Russians, or to deter the Russians? I venture to think that that cannot be the case, because the New Statesman has told us that the striking force is only two divisions and an odd brigade or two. Therefore, they cannot be there for that purpose.
Personally, I am not one of those who think that the Russians intend to make military war. Why should they? They have just conquered a large country without moving a man or a gun. Although

933
one hears talk in some quarters of the Russians coming to the Channel Ports, and so on, in my humble opinion, they are likely to come to the Channel Ports only if France and Belgium go Communist. The Russians, surely, are waging a political war in every country in the world, including our own, and the weapons to use in a political war are not great armaments. Communism cannot be conquered by force of arms; Communism is a creed. You might just as well talk about conquering the Christian religion by force of arms. Communism is the negation of Christianity, and, surely, one of the weapons to use against Communism is a strong revival of our own Christianity. Another weapon is the weapon which I am glad to see the Government are now using, of rooting out the agitators and adherents to Communism and exposing them. This is necessary not only in the Government service, but even more in the trade; unions. A third weapon, of course, is the increase of social and economic prosperity. Those are the weapons against Communism. Therefore, it seems to me that the 452,000 men are not needed in Germany from the point of view of deterring the Russians.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas, in a valuable maiden speech the other day, told us that those men were there for the purpose of preventing the resurgence of German aggression. He said that that was the main reason why they were there. Again, I cannot understand all this talk about the resurgence of German aggression, because from all one hears the Germans are in an apathetic, listless, undernourished and underhoused state. Their country is divided in two, and half of it is under the Russians, with, I should have thought, no possibility in the foreseeable future of the Russians releasing that half. I should have thought that there was no chance of a resurgence of German aggression at any foreseeable future time. In the same speech the noble Lord expressed his opinion that we should soon be forced—and I think he said it was desirable—to set up a fully-Hedged German Government in the Western Zone. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the closing phrases of his speech in the foreign affairs debate clearly indicated his agreement with that point of view. Is there not some contradiction in terms there? If one feels it is desirable to set up a fully-fledged German
934
Government, is it not also desirable to reduce the police force which you keep there, and to show some trust in the Germans? So I feel it really is not necessary to keep a huge Force on the demoralising and unpleasant duty of garrisoning a hostile country, and doing little more, according to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, than training the National Service men.
In the course of his remarks, Lord Douglas spoke of the Air Force being 270,000 strong, and he expressed doubt as to the striking power which that Force could put into the field, in spite of that great number of men. Be used a phrase with which I venture most strongly to agree. He said: "I would rather have a small and well-trained Force than a large and half-baked one." What I fear about our Army at the present moment is that it rather leans to the latter category. We have too many men doing training work, and we have not got a striking force. Almost every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon has stressed the necessity of our having an efficient striking force which can operate at any moment. We certainly have not that force, and it seems to me that the first plan of the Government is to ensure, so far as the Army is concerned, that we have a first class striking force of the size which they are advised by the Chief of Staff is right for our purpose, and to get that in hand at the earliest possible moment. I was going to make some suggestions as to how that might be done in connection with the Territorial Forces, but I understand that there is shortly to be a rather special debate on the Territorial Forces. Therefore your Lordships will all be delighted to hear me say that I shall not inflict myself upon you any longer.
6.11 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the great responsibility of taking part: in a debate on Defence in your Lordships' House, and I do so only because I think I may be able to add some small part to the discussion. First, I should like to support the important speeches made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I, too, do not feel at all sure that we are getting full value for this great expenditure, or that we are to be given an immediate striking force. I wish to make one point on a matter upon

935
which I have had a little experience—namely, the standardisation of production. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, touched upon that ably this afternoon, and I am sorry that no reply in regard to it was given by the Minister of Civil Aviation.
We started the war badly in regard to standardised equipment. I speak in a modest way, but when I was a Troop Commander in A.A. Command on the East Coast, we had no less than eight different types of generators in my own battery of searchlights, and about eight or ten different types of vehicle. It was an absolute nightmare to get spare parts for those various generators and vehicles. When the threat of invasion came, we were armed with. 303 British rifles, and the Home Guard next door to us were armed with. 300 American rifles. Later on, in a junior Staff capacity, I went with the British Army Staff to Washington where a great deal of progress was made and we learned some valuable lessons. I hope those lessons will not be forgotten, because we did effect a great deal of standardisation, although nothing like enough. I do not see anything about standardisation mentioned in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the White Paper.
It is most important that vehicles, small arms, and anti-aircraft guns of all calibres should be standardised. For instance, in the early days the Americans had a 38 mm. gun and we had a 40 mm. Bofors gun. Later on, in this country, Canada and the United States, the gun was standardised on the 40 mm. basis. It took months and months to do that, but it was done. In the height of the Middle East campaign we had great difficulty in getting spare parts for British vehicles, and those vehicles had to be laid up because the parts were not standardised. The Americans generously offered us new vehicles, but we had not the shipping space to transport them. Eventually we obtained the spare parts for those vehicles, but it took a long time. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will pay more attention to this matter, because although we partly learned the lesson in the last war, we are so apt to forget it. I feel it my duty to stress that point. In conclusion, I should like to support the Motion moved by my noble friend.
6.15 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the debate draws to a conclusion after a large number of speeches, and I would like at the outset of my remarks to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on the speech which he delivered so effectively. I am sure we all look forward in this House to further contributions from the noble Earl. I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, the Minister of Civil Aviation, for the charming courtesy with which he delivered his speech. I am afraid, however, that I cannot extend my congratulations to the substance of his speech, because it seemed to me that he was repeating the points in the White Paper upon which the main criticisms have been made in this House. He repeated the vagueness and the lack of defined purpose. He added a good many meaningless assurances in general terms and, as I say, while he delivered it with his usual charm and courtesy, I fear he really added nothing to the general knowledge that noble Lords in this House possess as regards the state of the defence of this country.
National defence is, I believe, a matter considered by the citizens of this country to be largely above Party. I am sure we all wish that to continue to be the case. It is the concern of every citizen in the country but, nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Government of the day. Therefore, I feel that the Government of the day should welcome the debate and take note of the powerful speeches made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others, which contain much matter for serious thought and deliberation.
I was unable to congratulate my noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside—my old commanding officer in France—on his maiden speech, as I was unavoidably absent, but I would like to extend congratulations to him now. In his speech today he divided the problem into two: the short-term and the long-term defence problem. He said that the long-term problem—what he described as press-button warfare—he did not wish to consider in detail to-day. He felt that when the time came we should be able to cope with it. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas, and, indeed, most noble Lords, concentrated their remarks on, as he termed it, the short-term problem—the immediate

937
requirements of national defence. I think it is generally recognised that the international situation is dark, and that we cannot proceed as we did at the end of the last war, with the Government giving a directive to Chiefs of Staff that we can expect no major war for ten years. The United Nations Organisation provides us with no safety. In fact, in this darkened situation, we have to rely upon ourselves for our own safety, and we can rely upon no one else.
In the White Paper on Defence the Government said that the supreme object of British policy must be to continue the prevention of war. But I would submit to the Government that there is a second main purpose almost equal in importance, and it is to see that if we are engaged in a war we are prepared for it and will be able to win it. It seems to me that there are no assurances, either in the White Paper or in the speech we have heard to-day, that our defences are in such a state of preparation that we can sit back confidently, knowing that if we are suddenly aggressed we shall be able to deal effectively with the aggressor. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said that our safety was assured by vast reserves of men who have left the Forces, who are getting older and getting rusty in their knowledge. I should scarcely regard that as an adequate assurance.
LORD NATHAN: I know the noble Lord would not desire in any way to misrepresent me. What I wished to say, and what I think I did say, was that these men would get old and in the course of time would become rusty, but that meanwhile they are the answer to the situation.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: So we have the assurance repeated. I made a note of the noble Lord's words. What he said was: "Our safety is assured by vast reserves of men who have left the Forces …" I do not think that is an adequate assurance for the safety of this country from a Minister of the Crown, in view of the possibility, which always exists, of sudden aggression. I regret that the Minister's intervention added to the misgivings which all of us feel as a result of listening to the speech he made this afternoon. It seemed to me that the noble Lord repeated again that motif that runs through the Defence White Paper, which perhaps I might paraphrase thus: "Do
938
not worry too much about the present, because we are awfully busy on research for the future."
As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others have said, research for the long term (to use the division made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas again) is no substitute for the provision of essential safety for the short term. The next war may give us no time for building up arms from the industrial potential, and no time for applying the results of research which it is essential to carry on now but which would not help us if the hour struck soon, Action and decision in the next war may be swift; therefore we must be ready now and always—and I believe that we must be ready with the best which the nation can afford. Only the Government can say what part of our national income can be spent on general defence requirements. None of us can say. We have not the secrets of the economic position—except for some rather grim facts revealed in the White Paper. We do not know the details. But what we do say is that when such a sum has been decided upon and allocated to defence, it should be a first charge upon the national resources. It seems to me that the White Paper gives defence only a relative priority. Our equipment of the Air Force is subordinate to the needs of industry. I could give quotations, but the noble Lord will know them already. Man-power deficiencies exist to-day and have to be accepted, because recruiting has not been successful and industry is attracting men. The position of defence is one of relativity to the other directions of national effort, whereas we had thought, having settled what the immediate requirements for defence were to be, that they would be a first charge on our national resources.
I believe that we cannot afford all three Services on a big scale. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, in the course of his speech said: "All three Services must be adequately equipped." Those were the noble Lord's words; and that is an ideal. One wonders whether, with the state of our national economy, we can afford to contemplate defence in that bright light, or whether we have no: to say that minimum standards of defence must be laid down, that those requirements of defence shall be interpreted in terms of air, sea and land. Then it may well be that the Navy and the Army, during

939
the present time of crisis, will have to give way to what has become the predominant striking force in warfare, air power.
LORD CHATFIELD: I am quite prepared to agree with what the noble Lord says, but I should like to point out that I was dealing in principles, and that we must not consider in our principles whether one Service should be strong, another half strong and another quarter strong. It may be that one of the Services has the greatest need to be strong. If you go to war, and one of the Services is insufficiently equipped, then all the steps and all the trouble you have taken will be useless.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not dispute what the noble Lord says, but the fact is that we cannot have everything we wish to-day. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pointed out so effectively, in time of war the Army, the Navy and the Air Force can, broadly speaking, obtain all their requirements—and quite rightly. But now we come to a restricted time, a time of great national difficulty; and it is natural and right that the great Service chiefs, who have risen to the highest positions in their particular Services, should demand all they feel is necessary for the equipment of their particular Services. The answer is that they cannot have it in the present circumstances. It is the Government who must courageously take the stand that some of the Services will not be able to have their full requirements granted them. I entirely believe in inter-Service co-operation, but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, the big men will not agree. I think that when Chiefs of Staff agree in peace time, when there is an inadequate amount of money for them, it is a sign that some big issue is being shelved and not tackled. If I heard of agreement between Chiefs of Staff when an inadequate budget had been given them I should be very worried—more worried than if they were disagreeing fiercely. Having settled the main needs of defence, the Government should make up its mind and take bold decisions.
I speak with great humility, in view of the rebuke to laymen administered by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield. The noble Lord said that we laymen were treading
940
on dangerous ground in these matters and that only those with numbers of gold rings on their cuffs, the senior officers, are really entitled to speak—
LORD CHATFIELD: And not they.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Then if the senior officers are not entitled to speak, and the laymen are not entitled to speak, and the Minister will have to follow the advice of the Service chiefs, I do not know who should speak.
LORD CHATFIELD: I should be sorry to suggest what should be the composition of the Royal Air Force with the confidence with which some propose what should be the composition of the Navy.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: What I am trying to do is to defend my position, now that I am about to be bold enough to put forward certain ideas. I remember that in 1941 the senior Service officers made serious prophecies as to the incapability of the Russians to resist the Germans: now at first they gave the Russians two weeks, and then grudgingly three weeks, and so on. So I do not think that the Service men are absolutely infallible; laymen on both sides are entitled to give their views.
It seems to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, puts the position very clearly. What we need is a force of short-range and long-range fighters for home defence, anti-aircraft guns, mobile forces and a powerful striking force of bombers. Only the Government can say whether the striking force should be fifty, seventy or one hundred squadrons; but what we would like to know is whether there is a striking force ready and available to-night, to-morrow night and the night after. I think that is an assurance which we are entitled to seek from the Government. Have we an effective striking force which the Government feel would fulfil our requirements if we were attacked to-night or to-morrow night? We ask for an assurance from the First Lord on that particular point. I think that we should consider, from an Imperial point of view, the defence bases from which our aircraft can operate. As was said in another place, there is no target in the world which is not within seven hours' flying of an Empire air base. Therefore, if the Government are considering the proposition of defence of bases, let it be

941
with an Imperial and not a domestic out-look.
The problem will be for the Government to get the men for this essential Defence Service. I believe that here the Government will have to re-open the question of the conditions of service in order to obtain the skilled man-power required to man this force of minimum defence requirements. I am not talking only about pay and allowances but about amenities—married quarters, better living conditions, and so on. There I come to the question of relative and absolute priority. The White Paper shows that defence has a relative priority, as regards building living quarters, married quarters and other buildings, with the other housing requirements of the nation. I submit that, if we are to have the minimum essential Defence Force, they should have that first charge. It is no good building houses for miners, or giving consumer goods to textile workers, if the mines or factories are to be blasted out of existence because we have not an adequate Defence Force. Whether we have an adequate Defence Force or not depends on whether we have the skilled man-power present to maintain it. The Government will have to reconsider the conditions of service in the near future in order to attract skilled manpower to the Services.
Finally. I wish the Government could tell us something more about the state of the Royal Air Force to-day. I know that the Government must decide how much is secret, but the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said there was a general impression in the Services that there was a lot of criticism by people who had not the information, and that it was somewhat unfair on the Services. I think that was broadly what he said. In effect, the fact that all Services suffer from lack of information being given must be the responsibility of the Government. If the Government gave the information to those who asked for it, there would be no need to criticise, and no need to ask for information which we feel should and could reasonably be given. We know that the Royal Air Force to-day is definitely hampered, as regards fulfilling all its tasks, by a shortage of skilled men. It is stated in the Air Estimates and also in the Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates.
Could we put forward a sustained effort of fifty or a hundred or a hundred and
942
fifty bombers? I do not think that the First Lord would be able or willing to tell me that, but it is the sort of question about which there are grave misgivings in the country at the present time. How many fighters can we put up now? Before the war we knew, at: any rate, the total strength of our Forces. Could not the Government consider giving such information as the total number of first-line aircraft that we possess? That would afford us a measure of reassurance as regards our needs for immediate Defence which we feel is lacking at the moment. Time is short; and perhaps there is very little time left to us. The responsibility upon His Majesty's Government for the defence of the country is tremendous, If we are adequately defended for the short-term requirement, then let the Government say so to-night. Let them say that we are defended with an effective striking force and an effective Home Defence Air Force. I am not talking about the Army and Navy because my knowledge of those Services is not great. In any case, I feel that the Air Force is the paramount weapon at present. We await the speech of the First Lord with eager anticipation. The White Paper on Defence, the speeches in another place and the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, all fail to give us an assurance, that the provisions for the safety of the Realm are those which all citizens demand at the present time.
6.38 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down in his opening remarks said that he hoped the Government welcomed this debate. Speaking on behalf of the Government, may I say that of course we welcome a debate of this kind, and; indeed, any debate in your Lordships' House. We welcome the speech of the noble Viscount who opened what I regard as the second part of the debate. I am referring to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. His was a speech which could be delivered only by someone who has had a long experience in ministerial Departments, undertaking great responsibility and himself actively associated with one of the Fighting Services at a time when that Service, with the other two Services, was faced with very great difficulty. I have no complaint at all

943
to make about his speech, with the possible exception of his reference to the White Paper and his vision of the immature elephant. I am not sure to whom the noble Viscount was referring. I make a guess, but I hope that I am wrong.
I refer also to the speech that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, whose work for the Services and for administration has given him all the qualifications necessary to enable him to speak—and not only to speak, but to be respected. The same can be said of my old colleague the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, who has had such a distinguished career, not only at sea, but for twelve years as a member of the Board of Admiralty, and who afterwards became Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I may say the same of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I could say almost, but not quite, the same of other noble Lords, but so far as experience and length of service go they have not lived quite so long as the other noble Lords to whom I have referred by name. Every speech has been worth delivering and worth listening to. I would refer particularly to two maiden speeches—first to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtkside.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It was not a maiden speech.
VISCOUNT HALL: It was the first time I had heard the noble Lord speak. It was a speech from someone who has been right through it. His Service experience, his administrative experience—indeed, his whole life—entitle him to speak, and compel us to listen to what he has said, and the way he said it. If I may say so, I quite enjoyed it. I would also like to join in the congratulations extended to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on his very practical maiden speech.
My Lords, may I say that I am pleased with the tone of the debate? There has been some pretty hard criticism—and, if I express my own opinion, without attempting to be politically controversial, there has been some very hard and unjust criticism—against the Government and against the White Paper which was issued by the Minister of Defence. I do not want to be too controversial because,
944
as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, rightly said, foreign affairs in this country at the present time are taken out of political controversy. I and His Majesty's Government would like political controversy to be taken out of Defence Services. Let us have that kind of continuity which we ought to have. Noble Lords must not for a moment think that the Government of which I am a member will take second place to any Government of this country in its desire to preserve and protect this nation and the Commonwealth against any attack, from wherever the attack comes, either inside or outside this country.
There is just this feeling which I had when listening to the speeches to-day. If for a moment one examines the record of the Government of which 90 per cent. of noble Lords who delivered speeches today were members in the period between the two wars—and I will not ask your Lordships to accept any evidence from me; read Lord Chatfield's book or, indeed, study some of the speeches delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—then, notwithstanding the difficulties which existed during that period, criticism could fairly have been levelled at such a Government, which had not one per cent. of the difficulties with which this Government have been confronted. I detected signs of impatience, and a little unrealism, I thought, when noble Lords sought to get something more in the matter of defence policy. I know that complaints are made to the effect: "Why do you not give us more information?"
In the course of the last three or four months I have got myself into serious trouble for giving too much information. I was told that it was much better to issue an official statement in relation to any rundown, or to any part of the Services which might have to be scrapped, or anything of that kind. So I said: "Very well, I will issue it," and everyone said, "We agree with the scrapping of battleships, but what we complain of is that you made it public." Had that not officially been made public there is not a single newspaper in this country which would not have exaggerated possibly three, four, six or eight times, the truth of what was published at that time. Indeed, there is not a noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon, and who has asked for information, who would deny that there is any Government

945
of any other country in the world, which is under such pressure from any source whatsoever for fuller information concerning the Defence Services than His Majesty's Government at the present time.
If it were a question of giving information merely to the Leaders of the Opposition, to the people of this country, or to the people of the Commonwealth, certainly I would say, "Give every possible piece of information upon every branch of the Defence Services." But noble Lords know that we cannot limit the information to the people to whom we would like to give it. His Majesty's Government rightly decided, for certain reasons, that it would be better for the time being that information about dispositions—and, indeed, in some cases the numbers, with the exception of global numbers—should not be given until such time as further consideration can be given to that matter.
I can reply at once to all the questions which have been put about disclosing certain information. The Prime Minister on March I said he fully realised how important it was to keep the people of this country informed, and that he would consider it. He is at the present time considering how much information can usefully be given to noble Lords opposite, to Members of another place, to the people of this country, and to the Commonwealth. That is the position. I cannot agree with the statements which have been made concerning the White Paper. I offer no excuses, and I am not going to apologise for it. With the three Services as they are at present one can expect nothing from the Services but statements of the kind we have had to-day. But the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, in his admirable speech, rightly indicated that you can get from a document of that kind what you seek. If you look at the document for the purpose of criticising it, you leave out the more important part from the point of view of the information—namely, the purpose of the Government and their determination. You should rather look at the Defence White Paper from paragraph 51 onwards, and then ask yourself whether any part of it will give you satisfaction.
When I was in opposition to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in another place, and was one of a very small Party, we sometimes criticised the Government; but we had to trust them. What we must ask
946
of noble Lords opposite, recognising our great responsibilities, is that they should trust us; and I think we are not asking too much. Noble Lords cannot have any doubt of the earnest endeavour of His Majesty's Government to build up a sound defensive system. If they have, let them consider the steps which have been taken to strengthen the situation to-day in relation to what it was in 1936 or 1937. A deal of criticism has been levelled against the Minister of Defence. The Ministry of Defence was set up eighteen months ago. The functions of the Ministry were explained in a White Paper. They did not quite have that organisation—that perfect organisation—which was spoken of by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. It is true that the Chiefs of Staff were operating and there were the organisations subsidiary to the Chiefs of Staff. But the Minister of Defence had to build up his own organisation, the purpose of which was, to some extent, not to supersede but, so far as possible, to co-ordinate the three Services. He has been Minister of Defence now for just a year.
Not one noble Lord who has spoken from the opposite Benches has failed to ask: "What is your policy? What is your plan?" I think that question is just a little unreasonable. All I can say is, that the Defence Committee meets regularly and has the benefit of the advice of the Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Planning Staff system, operating under the Chiefs of Staff, ensures that departmental proposals are fully co-ordinated. The Minister of Defence not only, consults the Chiefs of Staff from day to day but himself attends their meetings whenever he or they desire it. No one, I am sure, will suggest that there are any serious differences of opinion between Chiefs of Staff. But there are matters which it is for the Minister himself to decide. That is one of the advantages of having such a Minister at the present time; he can, if necessary, resolve differences as between one Service and another.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I ask whether the Minister resolves those differences?
VISCOUNT HALL: If he does not, then the differences must—as they did in the old days, as Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said—go to the Cabinet to be resolved.

947
But indeed, it is surprising how many differences the Minister himself resolves. The noble Viscount shakes his head. He, himself, of course, has experience of the old system which existed between the two wars.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Exactly the same.
VISCOUNT HALL: It led us into the difficulties which we were in when my noble friend Lord Chatfield was appointed Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence; and every noble Lord in the House knows what those difficulties were. I say to the noble Viscount—and I hope he will accept the assurance from me—that the Minister of Defence and his Ministry are working, and working very well. I would like to refer to the excellent work done by the strong Defence Research Policy Committee under the Chairmanship of that very distinguished scientist, Sir Henry Tizard. That Committee is devoting its time to scientific research and development of the equipment of the Fighting Services. Your Lordships need have no fear in this connection: every scientific and technical question receives the closest examination by that Committee, and I can assure you that that consideration extends also to all matters (I cannot deal fully with them now, of course) such as atomic energy, atomic bombs and bacteriological warfare.
The question has been raised, and rightly raised, by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, as to whether defence policy is formulated in close consultation with the Foreign Office. I feel that I need hardly say what the answer is, because I am sure that the noble Viscount knows that foreign policy and strategy must go hand in hand. That is done as a matter of course at all levels, from the top levels right down to the lowest. The Ministry of Defence and the Service Departments are in direct and close consultation with the Foreign Office on day to day problems, and they are also represented on numerous Ministerial and official committees.
I would like again to remind your Lordships that never before in time of peace has this country adopted a policy of universal military service, which places the obligation upon every person of eighteen years of age to perform a period of National Service with the Colours, and,
948
of course, to discharge his Reserve liability. I suppose that any noble Lord, or indeed any other person going to the camps to-day, if they judged the efficiency of the Services by the strength of the Forces they could see, might get a wrong impression, owing to the run-down of the Forces. I do not wish to make excuses, but I want to help your Lordships to understand the difficulty. I agree with what has been said in the debate—we just cannot afford not to have National Service. It is essential. But we are now in the transitional stage between the operation of the old Act and the operation of the new Act. Five million men and women have been demobilised in less than three years. The personnel of the Royal Navy has been reduced from 850,000 to 145,000. I think that proportions almost similar can be quoted with regard to the Royal Air Force and the Army. And in the run-down there must be just that transitional state, in view of the fact that so many of the well-trained men have left and new men have been brought in.
I think the case of the Royal Navy best illustrates this. Last year we lost 90,000 men, and we have taken in, since recruiting commenced—I do not want to be tied strictly to a figure—anything from 36,000 to 40,000 men. That is over a period of two years. Who is there, knowing what a gigantic and complex structure a modern battleship is, who can say that for the operation of radar, for anti-submarine work, for dealing with all the technical equipment that is found aboard those ships, a man can be fully trained in anything less than two years? It just cannot be done. When I listened to some of the statements which were made in the debate on naval matters, and indeed in this debate—in view of his experience, Lord Teynham, for instance, really ought to know better what is the position of the Royal Navy—I must say that they surprised me.
LORD TEYNHAM: What I was suggesting was that one year was quite useless for naval training. If the period had not been reduced, but had been kept at two years, it would have been much better.
VISCOUNT HALL: It never was two years; it was eighteen months. I do not

949
want to enter into an argument, but I ask the noble Lord whether he would prefer one year to nothing at all. I would like to have a reply. Would the noble Lord sacrifice the operation of National Service if the training were to be based upon a period of only one year?
LORD TEYNHAM: Certainly not. We must do the best we can with one year—but I do not think it is long enough.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Might I ask the noble Viscount if he would give me an answer on certain points? I sent him a note with regard to what I was going to say about the short-service system. From what he says, I gather that he agrees that one year is not long enough to train men for technical work and for the Regular Army. Could he say anything with regard to the short-service system?
VISCOUNT HALL: I am hoping to come to the points which have been raised by the noble Viscount, for I think they are important. I hope I shall not be driven off them, for I really want to deal with them. Much has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, about the allocation of money. I was rather interested in his speech. I gather that he agrees with priority but thinks that there might be some difficulty in financing the three Services, and then we would have to select one and leave the other two to do the best they could. Priorities were agreed to
It has been suggested that research is an excuse; but it is absolutely essential that we should devote as much time and money as we can to get the most modern weapons of every kind to equip our new Defence Forces. That is why scientific research is placed first. The Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army are not to be placed, one, two and three; or one, two, and "three also ran"; or one, and "two and three also ran." The allocation of the global sum was not done in the method the noble Lord seems to imagine. It was properly apportioned to the three Services after consultation, and the global sum was based largely on estimates submitted by the three Services. It was not a question of giving everyone a bit, without giving one Service enough. On the contrary, the policy has been to ensure that each Service is equipped to
950
perform its particular functions. I think it would be appropriate to remind your Lordships of the financial provisions made for defence for the year 1948–49—£631,000,000 and, in addition, £61,000,000 for the Ministry of Supply and £600,000 for the Ministry of Defence, making about £700,000,000 in all.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred to standardisation. There is standardisation so far as it can possibly go. The Ministry of Supply is the standardising authority. I do not know whether the noble Marquess had in mind the standardisation of equipment for our own Forces, or standardisation between our Forces and the Commonwealth Forces, or standardisation with our late Allies; but so far as standardisation in this country is concerned, we are endeavouring to bring it about. With regard to vehicles, I would ask the noble Marquess whether the Ministry of Supply is to open up an industry for building the necessary vehicles, or should the Minister use for the production of vehicles the industrial capacity in existence at the present time? There is standardisation, and the Ministry of Supply was brought into existence for the purpose, so far as possible, of bringing about standardisation.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Viscount asked me a question. I suppose I ought to go through the motions of making some reply, though I did not intend to intervene. Does the noble Viscount mean that the best that can be done by the Ministry of Supply is to produce the multiplicity of vehicles we had during the war, or does he mean there is a possibility of our being able to reduce the number of types to something more manageable?
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Marquess must know that the Ministry of Supply came into being immediately before the outbreak of war, and had to take the multiplicity of vehicles produced in the various industries.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Is it intended that that should go on?—that is my point.
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Marquess is basing his criticism on what happened six or seven years ago instead of ascertaining the facts at the present time. The

951
Ministry of Supply is the co-ordinating authority and is in process of standardising, so far as possible, not only vehicles, but other commodities which are used by the Services; and it is standardising to the extent of an expenditure of £61,000,000 this year.
As noble Lords will realise, the planning required for the three Services is entirely different. The R.A.F. and the Navy are highly technical Services. Their trained personnel, equipment, aircraft and ships take a long time to produce. The planning required for those two Services takes a long time, even though everything possible is being done to encourage research and development. The R.A.F. constitute our first striking force. Effort must, therefore, be made to secure a Force supplied with aircraft of the highest quality and latest design, in an advanced state of readiness and manned by personnel trained to the highest pitch. While everything possible is being done to encourage research and development of unmanned weapons, we are not losing sight of the need for research and development in respect of the aircraft, armament and equipment which will be required for use during the next few years. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, will know that it is already possible to see the next stage when suitable crews will be required for the manning of bombers and fighters flying in the stratosphere, and when special and new equipment for navigation and bombing will be required.
When we know more of future scientific developments of the equipment now under development, the Air Ministry will be able to decide what new types must be brought into full scale production. Meanwhile, they realise the importance of not falling between two stools and they have not stood back and waited for the arrival of the supersonic aircraft. Our jet fighters—I do not know whether there is any need to repeat it, but I think it worth while to do so—are the finest in the world. Our lead in the development of jet engines is being maintained. We can keep our superiority over all comers in the interception fighter class. The re-equipment of all Fighter Command interceptor squadrons with the latest jet types has been virtually completed. The re-equipment of the bomber force with jet bombers has been deferred until new jet engines have been fully approved. The
952
prospect of jet bomber aircraft of exceptional performance is in sight. Pending such developments, the re-equipment of our bomber squadrons with Lincolns will be completed this year. The importance of an adequate bomber striking force is appreciated, in the realisation that the existence of an efficient striking force is this country's most effective safeguard against aggression.
With regard to the Navy, in present circumstances the Government do not think there are any reasons to justify modifying in fundamentals the traditional character of the Fleet. On the other hand, they are advisedly not at present initiating any programme of large scale construction. I need not trespass further on your Lordships' time to discuss naval matters, about which I spoke, I am afraid, too fully when I had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House last week.
I would like to deal now with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, in relation to armour potential. As the noble Lord will be aware, the maintenance of this capacity at an adequate level for use in an emergency is a very difficult problem. It seems that peace-time Service requirements do not absorb more than a negligible proportion of the total capacity required in war-time, and there is little commercial application to which armour can be put. Furthermore, armour plant can only with difficulty be adapted for other purposes. The development of the modern Army and its increasing demand for armour has further complicated the difficulty which we experienced after the First World War. But the noble Lord should know that a Joint Standing Committee has been set up to keep under review the whole field of capacity for armour and protective-plating production. This Committee regard the problem of maintaining the armour production capacity in peace-time as a problem applicable to all the Services, and they will make recommendations on the steps required to maintain plant and other facilities.
LORD CHATFIELD: What about experimentation and research? Can they be given subsidies to-day, as they were before?
VISCOUNT HALL: I think that is one of the questions with which the Committee are concerning themselves. If it is not, I will certainly consider the matter, and

953
possibly discuss it with the noble Lord. A decision on the capacity which will be permanently retained must await a fuller assessment of future war-time requirements. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked whether there is anything equivalent to the ten-year rule in existence at the present time. The ten-year rule in its pre-war form, by which it used to be renewed annually, came to have the effect of being even more than ten years (it was very much larger) and its cumulative consequences were very prejudicial to our Defence Forces. Experience then showed that it is dangerous to forecast a definite period of established peace in the same way as it is impossible to forecast when war might occur. This mistake is not being made by the present Government, and I should like to take this opportunity of disposing, as emphatically as I can, of any misgivings which may exist upon that point.
The noble Viscount also referred to the question of priorities as between civilian and military requirements. He said that for defence purposes it should be absolute and not relative. We feel that all priority must be relative in practice. The demands of research and development, and the demands of the three Services, must be considered in relation to other priorities in the civilian field. This does not mean that implementation of the defence policy will be in any way prejudiced. It must be viewed in its true perspective in relation to the problem of ensuring that our economic position is stabilised as quickly as possible. I am sure the noble Viscount will see that it is difficult to define or, indeed, to arrive at any decision, and in circumstances such as those with which we are confronted at the present time it is difficult to decide the percentage for the one and the other. In any case, I think it may be said that a good deal of the research carried out for the Services is helpful to civilian production, and there is a close liaison between the Defence Committee and the Committee of Industrial and Scientific Research.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pictured as a minimum defence requirement a mobile striking force of air and naval units, all to operate from bases overseas equipped to receive it. I appreciate the noble Viscount's discretion in not asking for details of our present dispositions. I can assure him that we are
954
taking as the fundamental basis of present and forward defence planning the very factors which he so rightly stressed—striking power, mobile and self-contained Forces, and strategic base organisations. I was pleased to hear so many noble Lords stressing the necessity for maintaining these bases. They are very essential. The noble Viscount also referred to his earlier proposal that short service in the Forces should be regarded as a recognised form of entry to the public service. As he was informed, following the discussion of this point in your Lordships' House on October 28 of last year, the problem of the resettlement of Regulars was referred to an interdepartmental Committee, by whom it is still being considered. It is a problem which raises many points of great difficulty, and I am afraid that the Government are not yet able to make any firm announcement. But I will see what can be done with a view to speeding up the Report of this Committee and I will let the noble Viscount know.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, rightly spoke of the question of Commonwealth defence. In this connection I would like to refer to the consultations which took place in London at the last Commonwealth Conference, held to study this flexible system of handling problems of common concern to ourselves and the Commonwealth nations. The Conference recorded their appreciation of the value of the consultations which had been maintained between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Commonwealth, which they said exemplified the system of free discussion and exchange of views that is characteristic of the relations of the countries of the British Commonwealth. They considered that the existing methods of consultation had proved their worth, and were sufficiently flexible to meet a variety of situations and needs. They said that the common outlook of the members of the British Commonwealth, despite their individual independence, has resulted in the development of the type of consultation so appropriate to the characteristics of the British Commonwealth. They regarded the flexible methods of free consultation as preferable to any rigid, centralised machinery, which they felt would not facilitate, and might even hamper, that autonomy and unity which is so characteristic of the British Commonwealth

955
and is one of its great achievements.
In the light of these views, His Majesty's Government have developed a system of consultation between ourselves and the Commonwealth nations. As has been pointed out in the Defence Paper, we have established liaison staffs in Canada, South Africa and Australia, and will shortly be doing so in New Zealand. I have on a previous occasion referred to the valuable results of the meeting of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Defence Science in London in November last. Co-operation has also been impressive in the exchange of ideas in tactics, armament, and navigation, following the dispatch from this country of specially equipped aircraft and skilled men, as well as specialists in other branches, to Canada, South Africa and New Zealand, and, of course, by the interchange and bringing over of persons from the Commonwealth to the Staff College. In the production sphere contacts have been no less close, and the results equally satisfactory. The action of the Commonwealth of Australia in establishing a range and an organisation where it will be possible to watch the development of controlled missiles, and to carry out full-scale tests under the most suitable conditions, is perhaps the most striking instance of Commonwealth defence co-operation in this field. Furthermore, we have not overlooked the question of the dispersal of production throughout the Empire. This is linked with the question of the standardisation of the equipment used by the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations. Much useful work has been done in the United Kingdom in this field.
We have, of course, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said a responsibility for Colonial defence. In this there are two important points to be considered—the security of the territories themselves, and the extent to which they may be able and willing to play their part in the wider field of Commonwealth defence. We have had these matters closely under examination during the past year, both here and in the Colonies themselves. In East and West Africa we hope to establish regular military Forces under a voluntary system on a scale adequate to provide a basis for expansion in war, supplemented by part-time
956
local forces on the model of the Territorial Force in this country. In other Colonies which cannot, because of the smallness of their population, raise whole-time Forces, we hope to establish Auxiliary Forces on the Territorial level. A permanent Naval Force has been established in Malaya, and in some cases Colonial Naval Reserve Forces already exist. Every encouragement is being given to the maintenance of these Forces as a nucleus for the development of the permanent Naval Forces.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And I hope for the air, too; ground troops for airfields.
VISCOUNT HALL: I think something is being done, but I will make inquiries and let the noble Viscount know. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that time is not on our side. I agree with that statement if we do not make proper use of our time. I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that we are endeavouring to make very good use of time, and I hope that critics will not be impatient if, in a period of development and research, the results of our efforts are not now put into the shop window.
As for the Government's effort in the wider field, I need refer only to the clauses of the Treaty of Brussels. I am sure your Lordships, like myself, listened with pleasure to the report of the signing of the document which took place in Brussels this evening, and which must fill us all with a considerable amount of satisfaction. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, also referred to the defence against the enemy outside our gates, and to the fact that we must defend ourselves against the enemy in our midst. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the danger of a Fifth Column in any future war, and to the need for taking adequate measures for meeting it. The announcement by the Prime Minister in another place on Monday, of the action which His Majesty's Government propose to take against Communists and Fascists in Government service, is an indication of the importance which we attach to this question, and to the determination of the Government not to be caught unprepared in this matter. I am pleased at the reference which the noble Lord made to the work of the trade unions in this matter. I think they are one of the greatest bulwarks in this country against the spread of this pernicious doctrine.

957
In conclusion—and I am afraid that I have again had to leave quite a number of questions unanswered—
LORD TEYNHAM: Could the noble Viscount say something about Civil Defence, especially as regards legislation?
VISCOUNT HALL: Yes, I can—I was afraid I was taking up too much time. As the noble Lord will know, the Prime Minister, in a defence debate in another place, referred to legislation. He said it would be premature for him to make a statement with regard to legislation at that time, but he assured the questioner that the matter was not being overlooked, although in the meanwhile there was a good deal of planning which could go ahead without additional legislation. The point is being kept under review. In conclusion, may. I say that we are all anxious to pay respect to the hopes reposed in the United Nations, and we shall work for its success. But we must frankly recognise that in the present state of international feeling its members must still depend upon their own Forces for their safety. For this nation, the one trustworthy guarantee of security is the tried system of the British Commonwealth, together with those countries who will join with us for the protection of their and our age-long liberty. In this our aim must be to give to our defence the utmost effectiveness which the overstrained resources of this country will allow.
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the fact that this debate has gone on for so long may perhaps be some indication that it was worth while holding it. I am grateful, as I am sure are my noble friends on these Benches, to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for their full and forthcoming replies. We had some heartening pieces of information from the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. What he said about there being no such thing as a counterpart of the ten-year rule was very cheering to all of us. What he said about Colonial defence and Commonwealth matters was also very pleasing. Apart from that, perhaps I am not being too ungrateful in saying that we are not much the wiser. There was a certain amount of special pleading. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, referred to the state of affairs between
958
the wars and, of course, he is quite right in saying that everything was not done between the wars which might have been done to put this country into a sound state of defence. But there are two differences about the state of affairs then and the state of affairs now. One is that history has been written for all to read, and the other is that His Majesty's Government will not be troubled, I hope, with interference by the Opposition in these matters; rather will they receive support, for what it is worth.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said something which made me think that we were invited not to say too much because it was bad for the morale of the troops. I am afraid that I cannot accept that or, to put it in plain language, "I am not buying that one"—I mean the suggestion that the morale of the troops will suffer if we say that the Minister of Defence ought to do more for them. It is our duty, if we think so, to say so. In my time in the Service I have listened to a good many tributes, and those tributes are well received if the action is suited to the word, but they do not go down well in other circumstances.
There was the question of the eighteen months' service. On these Benches we said that the eighteen months' service should never have been reduced to twelve months, and the fact that it was reduced—as we think, in a hurry—has led to a good many of the troubles which the Service Departments, particularly the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, are experiencing in the present arrangments for National Service. I asked if there was such a thing in existence as an Order of Battle for the Army, and I was told that it was against public policy to disclose the Order of Battle. I am still in ignorance as to whether an Order of Battle exists or not.
On the matter of security, I ask once again that we should no: put our heads in the sand and arrange our security plans in a way which will keep information from people in this country, but will not succeed in keeping it away from other people. The real things in which we want security are things like the radius of action of aircraft, performance of weapons and of vehicles, and so forth. Those are things which you can keep secret; but, as has been recognised, you cannot keep secret indefinitely the number of the units or the number of ships.

959
I think we have reached this point. We have now, after the statement that was made by the noble Viscount who leads the House, an obligation to play our part in the defence plans which are included in the arrangements with the four other countries announced this afternoon: there is no doubt whatever about that. As the White Paper says, we recognise that the first essential is a strong and sound economy; and we accept the inference that defence plans must be properly related to it. But the converse is also true—that our economy, whatever it is, cannot really be strong and sound unless our defence plans match the rest of the arrangements.
We have been invited by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in very compelling words, "not to shoot the conductors, because they are doing their best." We shall, therefore, watch for the results which have been promised. Meantime, it seems to me that the next task before us—as we are all agreed on the principles and on the way we are going—is to see that guidance is given and that people in the country, as well as members of your Lordships' House, irrespective of Party, really understand the importance of national defence in the time ahead, and of making personal efforts and personal sacrifices in order to achieve the national defence which is necessary. With those words, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

WALLINGFORD GAS ORDER 1948.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Walling-ford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, by virtue of the powers vested in him by Section 2 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Acts, 1919, he had nominated the Lord Luke to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee established under that Act, and to serve for the duration of the present Parliament, in the room of the Lord Heming-ford (deceased).
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.