Sitting of 23 March 1948

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

    Fishing Industry (Net Lofts)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in considering the special circumstances and requirements of particular fishing areas in the matter of housing, he will bear in mind the desirability of providing net lofts for the fishermen.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Yes, Sir.

    Firth of Forth (Herring Research)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the winter herring fishing in the Firth of Forth has again been a failure; and what steps are being taken to investigate the conditions of the Firth of Forth, with a view to discovering the possible causes of the changes in the movement of herrings in this area.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am aware that the current herring season in the Firth of Forth has been most disappointing. The herring research vessel "Clupea" has been working intensively for the last month investigating conditions in the area. She will continue observations in the Forth until after the normal spawning season and will then continue research on the problem in other areas. It may, however, be some time before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Secretary of State in a position to indicate the sort of research work that the vessel is doing?
    Mr. Woodburn: It is rather difficult to discover why the fish have suddenly left the Forth, or what are the reasons for the movement. The vessel is conducting research into that, as far as it can be done.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most beautiful seashore in the Forth area is now a mass of black and red from the pits there? Can nothing be done to stop this? It is bound to have an effect on herring throughout the Forth area.
    Mr. Woodburn: The pits have been there for a long time and the herring have not moved previously, so that cannot be considered to be a new factor.

    Crown Salmon Fishins (Lettins)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many salmon fishings in Scotland are owned by the Crown; what was the total sum received for them in rent for the financial year 1946–47; and what is the anticipated sum for 1947–48.
    Mr. Woodburn: The number of coastal and river salmon fishings let by the Commissioners of Crown Lands and public Departments in Scotland is 301. The total sum received from these lettings, and the net fishings worked by the Commissioners themselves, amounted to £22,953 in 1946–47. The estimated receipts for 1947–48 are £22,034. In addition there are a few salmon fishings let along with other sporting subjects for which no separate receipts for fishing can be given.
    Colonel Ropner: Does that include the fishing rights belonging to the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir.

    Shop Tenancies
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the deputation recently received by him from the Glasgow Corporation concerning shop tenancy in Glasow, whether he will inform the House of the details of the representations; the nature of his reply to the deputation; and what measures he intends

    2743
    to take to meet the wishes of the Glasgow Corporation in the protection of shopkeepers.
    Mr. Woodburn: The deputation represented that alarm was being caused by the issue in Glasgow of notices terminating existing tenancies of shops, offices and other business premises at the May term, and asked for remedial action. As I informed the deputation, I am examining the position as a matter of urgency in the light of the available evidence, including the complaints submitted by Glasgow Corporation.
    Mr. Carmichael: How long is my right hon. Friend to continue this examination? Is he not of the opinion that the matter is extremely urgent, and that unless something is done a blank cheque is being given to the speculators in property in and around the City of Glasgow and many other towns in Scotland?
    Mr. Woodburn: All these matters are questions of law, and before we take action we must be quite certain that we are acting within the law.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind since the time he announced a few weeks ago his general views upon this matter of landlord versus tenant.
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this evil is also to be found in other parts of Scotland, and that many orders for possession are being sought solely to enable the property to be resold at exorbitant prices, and a great deal of injustice is thereby being done? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to stop it?
    Mr. Woodburn: As I have said, hon. Members on all sides of the House have sent me ample evidence on all this.
    Mr. Carmichael: Recognising that the May term is a most important period, can my right hon. Friend give us some indication that his legal advisers, if they are the cause of the hold-up, will hurry on this examination and at least give us something on which to work to encourage people to resist this form of robbery—robbery of the worst possible kind—which is going on in the big cities in Scotland at the present time?
    Mr. Woodburn: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and with the people involved, but I would not like to mislead them by making a premature statement before I decide on the actual facts of the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry into the tenure of shop premises.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the Committee's terms of reference. As the Committee indicate in their Report, they fully complied with the terms of their remit.
    Sir T. Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say, in elaboration of what he is circulating, on what basis was the evidence selected, and who chose the witnesses to ensure that effect was given to the terms of reference?
    Mr. Woodburn: There was public advertisement, and all who were affected were entitled to send any case to be examined, and evidence was collected in that form.
    Following are the terms of reference:
    To investigate the present position in Scotland in which tenants of shops are placed at the termination of their tenancies, and to consider and advise—(1) whether tenants should be given a right to renewal of their tenancies and if so the terms (particularly as to rent and duration) on which any such renewal should be granted; (2) whether provision should be made for giving to tenants a right to compensation for improvements and goodwill on the termination of their tenancies; and (3) what machinery should be provided to carry into effect any recommendations made under the two preceding heads.
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the number of shop premises in Scotland upon which rent increases have been imposed in the last two years; and the approximate average increase in these cases.
    Mr. Woodburn: There are no figures available on which to base an estimate of the number of shop premises in Scotland where rents have been increased in the last two years. As regards the second part of the Question, the Taylor Committee 'reported that the average rent today where increases have been made is approximately one-third higher than in 1939.
    Mr. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the number of shopkeepers affected is now large enough to demand new legislation at an early date?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that in all these matters he has also to consider the interests of large numbers of quite modest people who happen to own these properties?
    Mr. Woodburn: The whole matter is being considered. Obviously whatever is done will not commit injustice to anyone. I take it that the wish of hon. Members is to avoid injustice, and it is from that point of view that I am examining the matter.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State has had months' notice on this matter, could he not make a standstill regulation, until there is a decision as to whether legislation is necessary or not? Surely, he could do that?
    Mr. Woodburn: That is an interesting suggestion, and it is being examined along with other things.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that, while these properties may be owned by individuals, they are being bought by trusts for speculation?
    Mr. Gallacher: By the Tories.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Inasmuch as injustices are being done in this matter, will the Minister consider some form of compensation which will be retrospective in order to compensate those who are now being victimised?
    Mr. Gallacher: For heaven's sake do something. Give us a purge of the Tories.

    Ex-Service Men's Businesses (Evictions)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce legislation to protect ex-Service men in Scotland who have received resettlement grants and set up small businesses and who are now being evicted.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am not yet in a position to say anything further in this matter.
    Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend consider this as a matter of urgency, if he wishes to prevent this hardship to ex-Service men, and also this waste and misuse of public money?
    Mr. Woodburn: I think my hon. Friend will agree that there is no point in my saying anything until I have something to say.
    Mr. McGovern: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will stop this stalling and tell us when he hopes to be able to make an announcement? It is a very serious matter, and this stalling does not help the situation.
    Mr. Woodburn: It is not a question of stalling. I realise the urgency of it. We must comply with the law, and I must examine the matters first.
    Mr. Pryde: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House when he expects to be in a position to state his intentions M this matter?
    Mr. Woodburn: I will do that as soon as possible.
    Mr. McGovern: It is a shocking exhibition.
    Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will be able to make an announcement before the Recess—otherwise it may be too late?
    Mr. Woodburn: I am not in a position to say when.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Unemployability Supplement
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider revising the regulations covering the grant of unemployability allowances to disability pensioners in the interests of the elderly disabled person for whom suitable work is not available in the locality in which he lives.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): No revision of the regulations is necessary. Where an elderly pensioner could not reasonably be expected to move the home in which he has lived for years to take up a job in another part of the country, the Ministry grants the unemployability supplement if the pensionable disablement is so serious as to make it

    2747
    unlikely that he will again obtain work in his own locality, provided, of course, that he is not receiving unemployment benefit or assistance.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions why Mr. C. Stokes of 23, Avon Road, Cheltenham, now a completely disabled ex-Service man of the 1914–18 war and unable to work any more, who attended a medical board at Bristol on 22nd January, has received no reply to repeated applications for a revision of his pension; and if he will investigate the reason for this and arrange for Mr. Stokes to receive what is due to him without further delay.
    Mr. Buchanan: For some unaccountable reason for which I can only express my very deep regret, this case was overlooked. Mr. Stokes' pension has now been increased to the 100 per cent. rate, with effect from 21st November last, and he has also, from the same date, been awarded an unemployability supplement which carries with it an additional allowance for his wife. I should like to thank the hon. Member for bringing this case to my notice, and so enabling me to give Mr. Stokes the increased pension and additional allowances which were long overdue.
    Mr. Lipson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the refreshing frankness of his answers is greatly appreciated, and that the practical sympathy which he invariably displays has given new hope to a great many ex-Service men?

    Disabled Poles (Claims)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that several of the disabled Polish soldiers who are to be repatriated to the Argentine on 28th March, and are leaving their present depot at Hermitage, near Newbury, on 22nd March, have been refused pensions by his Department; and if he will reconsider their claims sympathetically and urgently.
    Mr. Buchanan: I understand that three cases are involved. In one case entitlement to pension has already been admitted. In the other two the men concerned were medically examined by a
    2748
    Ministry Medical Board on 19th March, and their cases have now been reviewed. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that in each case entitlement has been admitted, and' arrangements for payment will be made as soon as my Department is notified by the Service Department of the date of cessation of Service pay.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend most warmly for that answer also, might I ask whether that is likely to occur before the men actually sail, or, at any rate, can they be notified of that before they sail?
    Mr. Buchanan: They are already notified. My hon. Friend has been notified, and so they will be notified. Whether we can pay before that date is doubtful, but my hon. Friend can take it that we will pay at the earliest possible moment.

    Surgical Boots (Civilians)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions whether the position with regard to the supply of surgical boots has now improved to such an extent as to enable the supply to be extended to the civilian disabled.
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that the special steps taken by my Department, in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and National Service, have caused the production of surgical boots by our main contractors to be doubled, with the result that the arrears have been so reduced as to leave only three weeks' work on hand. The contractors require double the present number of orders to keep them in full production, and action is being taken to utilise their services to the full in the interests of both war and civilian disabled.
    Mr. Lipson: Does that answer mean that in future there will be no need for men who require surgical boots to keep away from their employment for a period while their boots are being repaired?
    Mr. Buchanan: I do not anticipate that will arise, although there may be cases, where a very special boot has to be made, when there may be a little delay. But we anticipate that in most cases it will be avoided.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the subsidy on leather has been removed, the cost of

    2749
    surgical boots has risen to such an extent that it is quite beyond the capacity of some people to pay for them?
    Mr. Buchanan: There is another question on the Order Paper, the answer to which bears on that point.

    Disabled Persons, 1914–18 (Hardship Allowance)
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has come to any decision yet on the question of the issue of some form of special hardship allowance to men disabled in the 1914–18 war; and whether the terms of that allowance will be equal to the equivalent allowance for men disabled in the 1939–45 war.
    Mr. Buchanan: I have arranged to discuss this matter with my Central Advisory Committee tomorrow. I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject at an early date.

    Contractors (Notices to Quit)
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Pensions how many contractors to his Department have given notice that they must cease production as from 31st May, owing to receipt of notices to quit.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry to say that the two firms in Scotland who are contractors for the supply of surgical appliances have recently received notice to quit their premises in May next. I realise that if these firms are displaced the production of surgical appliances for the war disabled and civilians will be seriously interrupted, and I shall take every possible action to safeguard their position. In the case of one firm situated in Glasgow, a senior official of my Department has approached the parties and I hope, as a result, a satisfactory settlement will be reached.
    Mr. Willis: Has my right hon. Friend intimated these cases to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan: I called the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the cases, and I am also consulting with the Lord Advocate to see what power we have in the matter.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: What percentage of the supplies required are produced by those two firms?
    Mr. Buchanan: I would not claim that it was very high, but the fact is that they are very competent firms and do excellent work, and it would be a great pity, particularly in Glasgow, where employment is needed so much, if any employment were lost to that city.

    Limbless Ex-Service Men (Shoes)
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Pensions if he has now considered the suggestion that ex-Service men with one artificial leg should be provided with two shoes for the sound leg with every one given for the artificial leg; and if he has any statement to make.
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. The war pensioner who is supplied by my Department with a light pair of shoes on receiving his first artificial leg will in future be supplied with a second shoe for the sound foot.
    Mr. Symonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speed with which he has made this welcome concession will be much appreciated? As the difficulty of obtaining three shoes at a time will recur once the initial free issue is worn out, can there be some permanent arrangement to enable these men to obtain three shoes at a time and, in particular, can there be some adjustment of the wear and tear allowance to meet the extra cost?
    Mr. Buchanan: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, arrangements have been made that the supply of the extra shoe will be made at cost price, plus a very small percentage for working expenses. With regard to wear and tear, I hope at an early date after Easter to be in a position to say that we are able to make some adjustment to improve the position.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Anti-Aircraft Defences
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War what amount of priority is being given to anti-aircraft defences in this country; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Anti-aircraft defences in this country receive the highest degree of priority which can be given to them in the allocation of the Army's resources.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Manchester area, facilities for training the Territorial anti-aircraft units are practically nil, and will he look into the matter and see what can be done to improve the position?
    Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware of that, and I will look into the matter.
    Colonel Ropner: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire into the position in the County of Durham?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, I will look into any case which hon. Members bring to my notice, but my advice is that, generally speaking, the equipment is available.
    Mr. Scotian: Would the Minister see that at least there is a plentiful supply of brown paper for protection against atom bombs?

    Guardrooms, Cyprus (Stoves and Wicks)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the paraffin stoves issued to guardrooms in Cyprus are without any spare wicks; that this results in the guardrooms being cold at night; and if he will take immediate action to put this matter right.
    Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am aware, suitable stoves and wicks are available in Cyprus. The matter has, however, been taken up with the military authorities there, with a view to remedying any deficiencies which may exist.
    Mr. Marshall: As my information appears to be contrary to that of the Minister, if I send it to him no doubt he will look into the matter?
    Mr. Shinwell

    Pay Office, Glasgow (Removal)
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the observations of the civilian employees at the Army Pay Office, Glasgow, protesting at pending dismissals consequent on the removal of record office work to England; and if he will reconsider this matter in the light of the high figure of unemployment in Glasgow.
    Mr. Shinwell: The considerations mentioned in the letter to which my hon. Friend refers were fully taken into account
    2752
    before the move of the Highland Pay Office from Glasgow to Edinburgh was decided upon, and the move was arranged in consultation with the staff side of the War Office Administrative Whitley Council. The location of the Highland Pay Office in Edinburgh will result in substantial saving of building work which would otherwise have been necessary, and will also provide employment for the bulk of the clerks in the General Service Corps Pay Office, who would otherwise be redundant, as the Pay Office is closing down as a result of the disbandment of the General Service Corps.
    Mr. Leonard: In view of the large amount of Scottish land to be occupied by Army authorities, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of taking some civilian work up to Scotland instead of removing it from there?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are running down the staffs and, as we are closing some of the offices in the Glasgow area, naturally, we must concentrate the work elsewhere.
    Mr. Carmichael: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage of redundancy associated with Glasgow as compared with other parts of the country where he is reducing staff?
    Mr. Shinwell: Not without notice.

    Personal Case
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to enable Mrs. L. England, 27, Hampton Place, Brighton, to get to her daughter the wife of No. 7588592 S/Sgt. Stevens, at Up Park Camp, Kingston, Jamaica; and whether he is aware that the A.D.M.S. there has specially asked for her to be sent out urgently, and that nine weeks have elapsed since the War Office was approached.
    Mr. Shinwell: My Department cannot accept responsibility for moving the mother-in-law of a soldier, and she must secure a passage through the shipping companies in the same way as any other civilian. As, however, this particular application was recommended by the military authorities in Jamaica, it was submitted to the Sea Passage Board, who have recommended to the shipping lines concerned that an early passage be provided. It is understood that a berth will be offered within six weeks.

    Territorial Personnel (Training Expenses Allowance)
    Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War what amounts are payable by officers and other ranks of Territorial Army units for their subsistence during periods of training not exceeding 48 hours; and why such subsistence is not paid for out of public funds.
    Mr. Shinwell: Territorial Army personnel at camps lasting less than 48 hours can, if they require them, draw Army rations on payment of 3s. 4d. a day for the cooked and 2s. 4d. for the uncooked ration. They are paid a training expenses allowance from public funds from which the cost of the ration can be met.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister state the amount of these allowances, and say whether they are sufficient to defray the expenses of the men?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes. The allowances vary according to rank, and other factors are taken into account. According to my information, the allowances are quite adequate for the purpose.

    Judge Advocate General's Department
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the light of recent cases, he will review the administration of the Department of the Judge Advocate General.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind. If he is thinking of the recent judgment of the Divisional Court in the Boydell case, this case and its implications are being studied at the present time and I cannot anticipate the result.
    Mr. Greenwood: In bearing that case in mind, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that the public anxiety on this matter—first caused by the irregular courts martial in Burma little more than a year ago—has not been allayed by this recent case, and would not he agree that in the case of men who are subject to military discipline it is even more important than in the case of ordinary civilians that they should have complete confidence in the administration of justice?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have already said that the implications are being considered.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Boydell case court martial papers were studied and reviewed by the Judge Advocate General in the ordinary way before any civil proceedings were brought, and did he hold that this man was subject to military law?
    Mr. Shinwell: All cases are considered by the Judge Advocate General.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Are any steps being taken to make provision for appeal from courts martial?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any.

    Land Requirements, Wales
    Mr. Ernrys Robertsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the consensus of opinion in Wales. as expressed at the conference held at Shrewsbury on 22nd January, 1948, and in the resolutions of local authorities and national bodies, that the proportion of land required by the War Office in Wales should be reduced to the general level for the rest of Great Britain; and whether he has investigated the proposal made at the Shrewsbury conference that the total area required in Wales should be reduced to 50,000 acres.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am fully aware of opinion as expressed at the Shrewsbury conference on 22nd January, 1948, and by resolutions of local authorities and bodies, that the proportion of land required by the War Office in Wales should be reduced to the general level for the rest of Great Britain. I stated at the conference that I was not prepared to accept an arbitrary cut in the War Department land requirements in Wales to 50,000 acres, which could be achieved only at the expense of military efficiency, and I am still unable to accept such an arbitrary figure.
    Mr. Roberts: Is not the Minister prepared to give detailed consideration to this proposal, having regard to the fact that his rejection was made on the spur of the moment, and will he not have regard to the overwhelming feeling in Wales on this matter?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot possibly give detailed consideration to an arbitrary figure but, in fact, consultations are proceeding throughout Wales and, so far as I understand, they are achieving their object.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring these figures in Wales to a parity with the position in England and Scotland?
    Mr. Shinwell: By a process of consultation and the use of reason we are endeavouring to do so.

    R.A.S.C. Clerks, Middle East (Release Deferment)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War how many R.A.S.C. clerks in groups 68, 69, and subsequent groups, serving in M.E.L.F., are to be affected by the impending deferment of their release; if he is aware of the under-employment of many of these clerks and of the unfairness of discriminating in this respect between clerks from different arms of the Services doing identical work; and by what authority the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, has extended the principle of deferring the release of individual key men, whose services are operationally vital, to cover whole groups numbering many hundreds each.
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot forecast how many men in groups 68, 69 and subsequent groups the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, may find it necessary to defer. I have no reason to believe that the clerks concerned are under-worked. These R.A.S.C. clerks are being deferred because the job they are doing is vital and they cannot at present be replaced by men in later groups. Even if it were possible to replace them by men in the same group from other corps, no useful purpose would be served by doing so. As regards the total number deferred, I am confident that the Commander-inChief is not deferring men unnecessarily.
    Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend re-examine the question of underemployment, about which a good deal of actual evidence has been given to him?
    Mr. Shinwell: Since the matter was brought to my notice, we have been examining the allegation but, so far as I am aware, there is no under-employment.
    Mr. Charles Smith: Can the Secretary of State say how long it takes to train an R.A.S.C. clerk, and what steps have been taken to avoid such steps as this by the training of efficient personnel?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is not the Question on the Paper.

    Technical Advice (Prisoners of War)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement to the House with regard to the appeal which was broadcast over the camp radio at German P.O.W. Officers Camp 18, Featherstone Camp, Halt-whistle, Northumberland, some few weeks ago, asking for officers and armourers with technical experience of weapons and motorised vehicles in winter campaigns in the East as advisers in winter exercises.
    Mr. Shinwell: We must avail ourselves of any technical experience which would conduce to the efficiency of the Army. For this reason, it was considered desirable, in connection with a forthcoming routine indoor exercise, to obtain information about campaigning in conditions of extreme cold from any sources readily available, including any prisoners of war with the relevant technical knowledge and experience.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the Minister agree that it is a breach of international law to use these prisoners for these purposes, and does he not think that there is something reprehensible and very disagreeable in ex-Nazi officers training British soldiers, and is there not a danger that they may train our soldiers to commit the same foul deeds in Eastern territories of which they were guilty?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that it contravenes international law to ask prisoners of war for any technical information which they can furnish. At any rate, we are doing it.

    Officers' Widows (Pensions)
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds re-employed service is excluded from the qualifying period of 20 years necessary to enable the widow of an officer, who had voluntarily retired, to receive a pension.
    Mr. Shinwell: The rules for the grant of "ordinary" pensions to the widows of Regular officers are at present under review, and this includes the rule to which the hon. Member refers. I am not yet in a position to forecast the outcome. The officers in question would, of course, be aware, when deciding to retire voluntarily before they had completed 20 years'

    2757
    service, that they would by so doing forfeit their wives' prospective claims to pension.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it seems a little ungenerous to exclude the term of reemployed service since 193o from the qualifying period?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not ungenerous to fulfil what appears in the contract.

    O.C.T.U., Aldershot (Discipline)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for War why 51 cadets of C. Company, Basic O.C.T.U., Mons Barracks, Aldershot, were informed on 28th March by the Commandant that they would be returned to their units the following day, failing discovery of the perpetrator of an offence, alleged to have been committed on 12th March at Okehampton during battle training; and whether this threat was approved by him.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have called for a report on this matter. As soon as I have examined the report, I will write to the hon. Member. A threat of the kind suggested certainly would not have my approval.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Industrial Accidents and Diseases
    Mr. Thomas. Brownasked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he proposes to take to bring persons entitled to payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in respect of industrial accidents or disease, occurring before the appointed day, within the new Industrial Injuries Scheme.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The Act enables unemployability supplements and constant attendance allowances of substantial amount to be paid from the appointed day to the persons referred to by my hon. Friend in appropriate cases, and I shall be making an announcement about applications for these allowances towards the end of May. Beyond this, the Act does not apply to these cases, and much as I would like to do so I have not, as yet, been able to formulate any proposals for bringing them in.
    2758
    The principles on which the new benefits are based are so different from those underlying Workmen's Compensation that it would not be practicable, in advance of experience of the actual working of the new Act, either to transfer existing cases to the new scheme automatically or to require the persons concerned to elect whether to come in to the new scheme or to remain on Workmen's Compensation. There would, moreover, be great difficulty, at this stage, in arriving at an equitable arrangement regarding the sums to be paid by employers and insurers in respect of the liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Acts of which they would be relieved.
    I realise, however, that uncertainty in this matter cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. I therefore propose to took at it again as soon as we have sufficient experience of the working of the new scheme, and I hope to be able to reach a final conclusion one way or the other by the middle of next year.
    Mr. Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the statement he has just made will be applicable to the pre-1924 cases?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir; the pre-1924 cases will be entitled to apply for unemployment, supplementary and dependants' allowances.

    Leaflets
    Mr. David Thomasasked the Minister of National Insurance if copies of leaflets about the National Insurance scheme issued for the information of insured persons by his Department will be made available to Members.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I have made arrangement to place supplies of these leaflets in the Library as they become available.

    Uninsured Persons (Application Forms)
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of National Insurance what arrangements are being made for the admission to the National Insurance scheme of persons who are not at present insured.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As from 5th April, forms of application for National Insurance contribution cards, which are to be stamped from 5th July, will be obtainable from post offices, employment exchanges,

    2759
    and local National Insurance offices. Everyone liable to pay contributions under the National Insurance scheme and not at present insured, should complete one of these forms and send it as soon as possible, and before 24th April, to the nearest employment exchange. Information as to the persons who should apply, and those who may be excepted, will appear in the Press shortly before 5th April. Explanatory leaflets will be available at exchanges and the local offices of my Department. The arrangements to admit newcomers to this comprehensive scheme are being made as simple as possible. I hope that all those affected will study the information which is being made available, and will do their best to help to make the arrangements work smoothly.
    Captain John Crowder: Is the Minister aware that these forms contain the words "I hereby apply" to belong to, or to join, whatever the words are? Surely, if people do not want to join, these particulars are not required? Cannot the wording of the form be altered, because, otherwise, the Minister would have files in his office showing that people who may not want to join had applied to do so?
    Mr. Griffiths: They have to join unless the Act provides for their exemption. This just applies to registration at the appropriate date.
    Mr. Lipson: Will those people who are not entitled to apply because of age be able to benefit from the National Health Service.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir; they will.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the explanatory leaflet be available at post offices, and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Griffiths: We are asking the Post Office to do an enormous amount of work in operating this scheme, and we are very grateful to them for the work they do. We are anxious to avoid overloading them, and it is not too much to ask that people who want the leaflet should apply for it to the local employment exchange.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Building Workers, Hackney
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Labour how many building trade workers are registered at Hackney employment exchange as unemployed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The number was 166 at 16th February.
    Mr. Hynd: If these workers are not required on new building, can special authority be given for them to be employed in repair work which is so badly needed in that area?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is now under consideration.

    Training; Centre, Cardiff
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Labour on what date he hopes to open the Cardiff Centre for training disabled persons; and for what number the Centre will cater.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Government Training Centre at Cardiff has been in operation since October, 1945, and disabled as well as able-bodied persons have been in training since that date. It is hoped to open in June in part of these premises an Industrial Rehabilitation Unit which will accommodate about 100 disabled persons.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have a very large proportion of disabled persons in Cardiff, and that we have not sufficient provision for them, and that his reply will not cover one quarter of these people?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that there was very generous provision in Cardiff for training purposes, so generous, indeed, that we have had to shut down one of the training centres.

  CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Prime Minister if he will give a schedule of those Fascist or Communist organisations, association with which will render civil servants ineligible for certain posts in the Civil Service.
  Mr. Marloweasked the Prime Minister what factors are to be taken into account by a Minister when called upon to determine whether or not a Government servant who is not known to be a member of the Communist Party is engaging in a form of association with the Communist

  2761
  Party which is inimical to the State; and upon what principles the Minister is to decide this question.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As I have already indicated, the governing consideration in all cases is whether the association raises legitimate doubts as to the reliability and loyalty to the State of the person concerned. It would therefore be inappropriate to try to define lists of organisations the membership of which would render a civil servant ineligible for employment in certain posts in the Government Service.
  Mr. Edelman: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to safeguard the rights of the subject, so that any charge against a person is exactly defined, capable of judicial test, and not left to the arbitrary and secret action of the Executive?
  The Prime Minister: I made a statement on that yesterday.
  Mr. Marlowe: Has not the right hon. Gentleman left the position still the same by referring to legitimate doubts? If there is no guidance in this matter, may note Ministers decide on entirely different principles, with the resultant danger of a lack of uniformity? How can Ministers decide between Communists and "fellow-travellers," in view of the fact that many Ministers seem to be incapable of doing so in regard to members of their own party?
  The Prime Minister: Very good guidance will be given.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that leading Front Bench statesmen of the party opposite in The High Peak Division have been intimating to the coalminers——
  Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Fernyhough: With your permission, Sir, I was going to point out——
  Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what the hon. Member ought not to do. One asks a question of the Prime Minister to obtain information, not to give information about what some Members of the Opposition have done. That is not what we do in Parliament.
  Mr. Blackburn: Would it not have been quite impossible to frame any charge whatever, on his appointment, against Professor Nunn-May, who gave to the Soviet Union such important information on atomic energy and on R.D.X. in August, 1945? Does not that clearly show the wisdom of giving the widest discretion to the Minister, as the Prime Minister said?
  Mr. Seollan: Can the Prime Minister tell the House who was responsible for putting these Communists and "fellow-travellers" into these responsible jobs?
  Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that this purge will not affect the ordinary working employees in nationalised industries, as has been indicated in the Brigg by-election by one of the leading spokesmen of the party opposite?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not know what has been said in the Brigg by-election; but I have laid down quite clearly exactly the way in which this will apply.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Do Ministers who, in the past, have been associated with both Fascists and Communists qualify for a life purge?

  WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS
  Sir David Robertsonasked the Prime Minister why the names of holders will not be inscribed on the War Medal for 1939–45, the Defence Medal, the King's Freedom Medal and the King's Medal for Courage.
  The Prime Minister: The stamping on these medals of the names of the recipients would add substantial difficulties to the necessarily complex scheme of issue, and would greatly delay the despatch of the awards to the recipients.
  Sir D. Robertson: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the technical difficulties will not be regarded as justification for the omission of the names of the living, and particularly of those who gave their lives; and can he not appreciate the feelings of one of my constituents who had three sons, two of whom were killed in action, the third being an invalid who was wounded in an air-raid and has subsequently died?
  The Prime Minister: I can appreciate all that, but I think there is a general feeling that it is a mistake to delay the issue of medals. They should be issued as soon as possible, and I am advised that the stamping of something like 4½ million medals in this way would delay the issue for a very long time.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the possibility that at a later date, when labour conditions may be better, the medals could be handed in for stamping?
  The Prime Minister: That is a possibility which I could consider.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Will not the Prime Minister reconsider the possibility of engraving medals for those who were killed in action, as that is a matter which is causing very grave concern?
  The Prime Minister: I have given great consideration to this matter, and the technical difficulties are immense.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Prime Minister make certain that none of the relatives of Communists or "fellow-travellers" who died in the recent war will be awarded medals of any kind?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Who fought on which side?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making arrangements whereby Purchase Tax paid on prizes for small-bore rifle clubs, and similar organisations caring for matters affecting national training, can be refunded to the original purchaser when proof is given that the articles purchased have been awarded as prizes for the object designated.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Bossom: As the prizes are specially engraved and are not ordinary commercial articles, would not the Chancellor reconsider this and try to do everything possible to encourage these men who are performing their National Service in this way?
    Sir S. Cripps: It is quite impossible to distinguish between articles or their ultimate users.
    Mr. Odeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the withdrawal of the subsidy on leather and the resulting increase in the prices of leather and leather goods, he will now consider a revision in the Purchase Tax on manufactured leather goods.
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Odey: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that this industry, which is capable of making a valuable contribution to our export trade, is being virtually taxed out of existence.
    Sir S. Cripps: I will bear anything in mind, but I do not think that is the fact.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the withdrawal of this subsidy is now having its effect by incredsing prices, thus affecting the wages of the workers; and will he bear that fact in mind in considering his next Budget?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the heavy increase in cost of police clothing, due to the imposition of Purchase Tax; and whether, as this extra cost falls on the public, he will consider taking the tax off such clothing.
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement, but I would point out that there are many kinds of uniforms besides police clothing, and it would be difficult to deal with any one kind in isolation.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least bear in mind that this material is essential, is not in any way a luxury, and that the extra cost falls upon the public and not upon the taxpayer?
    Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly bear all the facts in Mind.
    Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the 61 per cent. Purchase Tax on industrial gloves for the use of electric arc welders, and the fact that two coupons

    2765
    have to be surrendered per pair are a handicap on industry; and if he will consider removing it.
    Sir S. Cripps: On the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) on 5th February. On the second part, I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that electric arc welders may apply through their employers to His Majesty's Inspector of Factories for a coupon equivalent document, with which they can buy their industrial gloves without surrendering their own coupons.
    Mr. Brooks: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that this penalises electric arc welders who have to buy expensive gloves; and will he not consider giving them the easement given to other industries? Why penalise this industry to the extent of 61 per cent.?
    Sir S. Cripps: There is no penalisation of this industry; but I will certainly bear all the matters in mind.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Chancellor take careful note of the fact that hon. Members of all parties are now asking for a reduction in the Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Chancellor say why it is necessary to give these gloves a coupon value if, in fact, it is not necessary to surrender coupons?
    Sir S. Cripps: Because there is difficulty in distinguishing them from other gloves?

    Transport and Electricity Stock
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury, in forming the opinion of the value of British Transport Stock on 1st January in purported pursuance of Section 89 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947, had regard to the fact that, other conditions being equal, stocks guaranteed by the Government have normally commanded a lower price than the Government's direct obligations; and whether regard will be had to this fact in estimating the value of British Electricity Stock.
    Sir S. Cripps: In reply to the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Baronet on 20th January last. In reply to the second part, I would refer the hon. Baronet to the answer which I gave him on i6th March.
    Sir J. Mellor: Was not the distinction referred to in the Question emphasised by the Government's attempts to wriggle out of their guarantee on the London Transport 3 per cent. Guaranteed Stock—an attempt which was thwarted only by the protests of the Opposition?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

    Production Incentives
    Mr. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the abolition of P.A.Y.E. on all overtime over a weekly agreed number of hours; and whether to encourage production he will allow 75 per cent. of the surplus of all goods produced over the 1947 target figure to be diverted to the home market.
    Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the first part of the Question is that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement, and to the second part, "No, Sir." Any large diversion of exports to the home market would reduce our ability to buy essential foodstuffs and materials, and diminish rather than increase the incentives to production.

    Reserved Services, Northern Ireland (Cost)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost per head of population in Northern Ireland of the Reserved Services under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; and how does this compare with the corresponding cost in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
    Sir S. Cripps: The cost is £2 12s. 2d. Direct comparison with the cost in Great Britain is impossible, because the Reserved Services in Northern Ireland have no exact counterpart in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
    Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the annual contribution of Northern Ireland to Imperial funds is £32 million, an immense sum for so small a country?
    Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question.

    Customs Services, Northern Ireland (Cost)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the administrative cost of the Customs frontier of 278 miles between the United Kingdom and Eire.
    Sir S. Cripps: For the year ended 31st March, 1947, the cost of Customs services on the land boundary of Northern Ireland was approximately £103,000.
    Mr. Mulvey: Would the Chancellor cause inquiries to be made with a view to ascertaining the amount realised on stock seized by Customs officials in Northern Ireland, so as to compare it with the amount spent?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that before the Irish Free State, as it then was, raised a tariff barrier against British goods, none of this expense was incurred.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.

    Loss of Office Compensation (Income Tax)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax is charged on moneys received as compensation for loss of office.
    Sir S. Cripps: The question of liability depends on the facts of the particular case.
    Mr. Beswick: But a fortnight ago my right hon. and learned Friend said that it depended upon the interpretation of the courts. In view of the fact that on at any rate two occasions the High Court has declared that such moneys do not carry Income Tax, would not my right hon. and learned Friend think it appropriate, in his forthcoming Budget to amend the law in this respect, thus preventing the evasion of payment of tax, which is going on at the present time?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I cannot make any statement about what would be appropriate in my forthcoming Budget.

    Legacy Duty (Illegitimate Children)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
    2768
    aware of the injustice caused to illegitimate children who have to pay 20 per cent. Legacy Duty compared with the 2 per cent. payable by legitimate children; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would remind my hon. Friend that, under the provisions of Section 43 of the Finance Act, 1944, where an illegitimate child or his spouse or issue takes any interest in property under the intestacy of his mother, or under a disposition made by her, any Legacy or Succession Duty is payable at the same rate as if the child had been born legitimate.
    Mr. Thomas: I think my right hon. and learned Friend has missed my point. Would he tell me whether that applies if the father leaves the property?
    Sir S. Cripps: No. In law the only parent of an illegitimate child is the mother. Very often there are difficulties in ascertaining the paternal parent.

    Government Printing (Scottish Firms)
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is satisfied that the printing industry in Scotland gets a fair share of Government printing; and that a reasonable number of houses are encouraged to tender for such work
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the 1947 figures for the total contracts placed and those placed with firms in Scotland?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will certainly consider that. I do not know whether the figures are readily available, and if not, I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish us to go to a lot of trouble to get them out.

    Short Economic Survey, 1948 (Cost)
    Mr. Errollasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the total production cost of the short version of the 1948 Economic Survey; and what was the approximate loss per copy printed.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The total production cost of the 350,000 copies of the Short

    2769
    Economic Survey printed so far is estimated at £2,811, including staff costs. This publication is still selling, and receipts are expected to cover costs.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Financial Secretary say whether it is possible to reduce the cost, if it is so popular?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have not yet covered the cost, although we expect to do so. This publication is selling at a rate of about ro,000 a day.
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Minister not to take into consideration whether we make a profit or loss on this publication, but to see that it is widely circulated?

    Statutory Rules and Orders
    Mr. De la Bèereasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps he is taking to overcome the difficulty caused by the fact that a large number of the 23,000 Regulations and Statutory Orders are unobtainable by the public through the Stationery Office.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am not aware of the difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details, I will look into it.
    Mr. De la Bere: Is the Minister aware that there were during 1947 2,900-odd new regulations and Statutory Orders, which means eight a day, day in and day out, and how does he think the public can possibly know these regulations in view of the fact that they are not available through the Stationery Office? Is it not a fact that ignorance of the law must be held to be an excuse, in view of the fact that they cannot be obtained through the Stationery Office? I want an answer. It is very unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member really must control himself.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    China Clay Exports
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the amount of china clay exported in 1938 and 1947; and the charge made for china clay in 1938 and 1947.
    Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): The quantity of china clay exported in 1938 was 367,000 tons and in
    2770
    1947, 249,000 tons. The corresponding values were £696,000 and £1,028,000.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the longterm need of the pottery industry, is it considered advisable to encourage the export of china clay?
    Mr. Bottomley: Anything which encourages exports is a desirable thing.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It seems like it.

    Pottery Industry
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received to build canteens for people employed in the pottery industry; how many of these have been granted; how many refused; and what is the number of people catered for in canteens and the number for whom there are no canteen facilities, respectively.
    Mr. Bottomley: Since the beginning of 1945, the Board of Trade have received 18 applications from pottery manufacturers in the Stoke-on-Trent district to build canteens for their employees. Of these, nine have been granted licences and three have been refused. Two licences have been withdrawn and four applications are still under consideration. Precise statistics are not available, but it is estimated that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the workers engaged in the pottery industry in this district have facilities for hot meals in canteens.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he still desires an increase in production in the pottery industry; what steps are being taken to carry out the improvements and extensions required in the factories and in the amenities and facilities for the people engaged in the industry.
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. On loth March in Hanley my right hon. Friend asked the industry to increase output by 15 per cent. over the rate at the end of 1947. Because of its great contribution to the export trade, particularly to dollar markets, every effort is being made to accommodate, within the limited building resources available, all projects which will result in increased production.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Seeing that the work-people in the industry generally are responding so well, can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that the facilities for

    2771
    improving the conditions of those engaged in the industry will receive the maximum support from his and other Government Departments?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

    Textile Machinery (Japan)
    Mr. Teelingasked the President of the Board of Trade what machinery is being offered for sale from this country in Japan; and what instructions have the representatives of his Ministry concerning the sale of new textile machinery to the Japanese.
    Mr. Bottomley: I have no knowledge of any offer of machinery from this country to Japan. At present the Supreme Commander's import programme does not include any textile machinery, so that the question of special instructions does not arise.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that representatives of the industry out in Japan are looking into the question of what textile machinery can be sold? I do not say it is being sold, but are plans and preparations being made for it to be sold in the future?
    Mr. Bottomley: Not that I am aware. Indeed, we ourselves are purchasing looms from Japan.

    Cotton and Rayon Piece Goods
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the President of the Board of Trade whether with a view to facilitating the export of cotton and rayon piece goods, he will consider abolishing export licences in respect of these goods.
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has decided to remove from export licensing control at an early date piece goods made wholly of rayon, but I regret that cotton piece goods cannot yet be freed.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Will my hon. Friend justify the decision in respect of cotton piece goods, and further, is he not aware that the present licensing system slows down exports and militates against the production of those standard lines for hard currency markets which he himself is seeking to develop?
    Mr. Bottomley: We cannot encourage excessive draining away from home supplies.
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the Minister aware that it is not export licences which are making it difficult to export cotton goods, but the increased price of cotton? Cannot something be done to keep down the price of raw materials?

    Softwood (Stocks and Imports)
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the stocks of softwoods in this country at the beginning of this year and how the present position compares with that of January, 1947.
    Mr. Bottomley: Stocks of softwood (both imported and home-grown) in the United Kingdom at the end of December, 1947, were 615,000 standards, as against 214,000 standards at the end of 1946. My hon. Friend will find these figures, together with further details, in the Monthly Digest of Statistics published by His Majesty's Stationery Office.
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the targets for imports of softwoods from Germany during the present year; and whether he is considering increasing this figure with a view to saving dollar imports.
    Mr. Bottomley: We shall obtain as much softwood from Germany in 1948 as possible in the light of price, currency and other considerations, and no specific target has been set. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) on 15th March.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this position? h he not aware that last year we received only 220,000 standards—I believe that is the right figure—and cannot Germany produce a great deal more than that, given the necessary guidance?
    Mr. Bottomley: We do consider that position, but we have to take into account the Timber Control Commission in Germany.
    Mr. 'Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman at least say whether he expects to get as much as we got last year, or more or less?

    Clothing Coupons (Theatrical Performances)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the public service rendered in the past and to be rendered this year by Aberdeen University Charities Campaign commencing on 19th April, 1948, and of the fact that last year his Department allowed 200 coupons to dress the dramatic cast, will he reconsider his reduced allowance this year of 5o coupons and extend it to 150 coupons required as a minimum to dress the cast of 65 students of which he has notice.
    Lady Grantasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the issue of 5o clothing coupons to Aberdeen University for the annual theatricals of the Students' Charities Campaign can be increased to 15o, in view of the issue of 200 coupons in 1947.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am satisfied that the coupons allocated for this purpose are as much as are justified in the present circumstances.

    Sheets (Coupons)
    Mr. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider releasing sheets from coupons, in view of the stocks now held.
    Mr. Bottomley: Our information does not suggest that stocks of sheets are abnormally large and they are, I fear, likely to fall when the full effect of the export programme is felt; we should certainly not be justified in taking them off the ration.
    Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend accept the suggestion, or will he consider the possibility, of issuing on one occasion specially marked coupons for the purpose of restoring the ravages of time in household linen?
    Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir.

    Motor Car Spare Parts (Imports)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences to import windscreen wipers from the United States of America have been granted during the past two years; and how many have been imported under such licences.
    Mr. Bottomley: Licences to import windscreen wipers from the United States
    2774
    are issued only under the Token Import Scheme, which has included windscreen wipers since r3th March, 1947. Two such licences have been issued with a total c.i.f. value of 367. I have no information as to the number of wipers actually imported under those licences.
    Mr. Skinnardasked the President of the Board of Trade what spares and parts for motor vehicles have been imported under licence from the United States of America since 1st January, 1946.
    Mr. Bottomley: Particulars of licences issued for the import of spares and parts for motor vehicles from the United States were not separately recorded prior to 1st July, 1946, but between that date and 29th February, 1948, licences were issued to a value of £1,043,410. It is not possible to give details of actual imports against licences issued.
    Mr. Skinnard: In view of the large number of dollars covered by these items and the need to conserve dollar expenditure, are any steps being taken to enable British manufacturers to make and sell these spare parts?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that these spare parts are for American cars. I am afraid that, in the interests of economy in the use of dollars, we have to keep to this method of achieving the result.

  NATIONAL THEATRE (STATE AID)
  The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. OLIVER LYTTELTON:
  59. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make on the National Theatre.
  Sir S. Cripps: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the reply to Question No. 59.
  I understand that the L.C.C. are willing to reserve space for a National Theatre on the site which they propose to develop on the South Bank as a cultural centre, and to make the land available rent-free in exchange for the site already acquired by the National Theatre Committee in South Kensington. But they have asked for an assurance that the necessary funds will be forthcoming to build the theatre. The National

  2775
  Theatre Committee so far have some £70,000 in cash, but this will be quite inadequate to meet the cost of building a theatre, which is now estimated to be in the region of £1 million. There can obviously be no certainty of their being able to raise the rest of the money from private sources. The Joint Council of the National Theatre and the Old Vic have therefore approached the Government with a request that the Government would stand behind the project so that the necessary assurance can be given to the L.C.C.
  The Government take the view that the establishment of a theatre to be operated under public auspices, which will set a standard for the production of drama in a national setting worthy of Shakespeare and the British tradition, is a scheme to which the State should contribute. I am, therefore, proposing to ask for powers to provide a substantial part of the capital cost from public funds. Since, however, it is most unlikely that it will be possible to make a start on the building within the life of the present Parliament, I propose to introduce legislation during the present Parliament to the effect that, if the L.C.C. provide a suitable site for the purpose of a National Theatre, the Treasury may make a contribution not exceeding £1 million towards the cost of building the theatre. If the House is willing to pass such legislation, the requisite powers will be on the Statute Book to be used by the Government of the day as soon as it becomes possible to make a start on the scheme. The actual amount to be provided by the Treasury would, of course,
  2776
  depend on the total contributions which may have become available from other sources at the time.
  The arrangements for the operation and management of the theatre will need further consideration. My purpose in making this announcement at the present time, and in taking the steps I have stated, is to give an assurance to the parties concerned so that they can proceed with their plans in the knowledge that they have the full sympathy and practical support of His Majesty's Government and of this House.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the legislation to which the Chancellor refers to form part of the Finance Bill, or will it be a separate Bill?
  Sir S. Cripps: I am not quite sure. We are considering that matter at the moment.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If a similar plan were submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would he give sympathetic consideration to a National Theatre being established in Edinburgh?
  Sir S. Cripps: We certainly hope that the people of Edinburgh will also raise funds in order to make it possible.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Will the Chancellor make it perfectly plain that, in the present state of the country's financial position, no one will be permitted to embark upon a theatre project of this kind?
  Sir S. Cripps: I think I have made that quite clear.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." — [The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 122.

Division No. 103.]

AYES.

3.30 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Dumpleton, C. W

Lipson, D. L.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Durbin, E. F. M.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Dye, S.

Longden, F.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Lyne, A. W.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Edelman, M.

McAdam, W.

Alpass, J. H.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

McEntee, V. La. T.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

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

McGhee, H. G.

Attewell, H. C.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McGovern, J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Mack, J. D.

Ayles, W. H.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

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

Bacon, Miss A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Balfour, A.

Fairhurst, F.

McLeavy, F.

Barstow, P. G.

Farthing, W. J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Barton, C.

Fernyhough, E.

Marquand, H. A.

Battley, J. R.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Bechervaise, A. E,

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

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Fool, M M.

Mellish, R. J.

Benson, G.

Forman, J. C.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Beswick, F.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mikardo, Ian

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

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

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

Gallacher, W.

Mitchison, G. R.

Binns, J.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Monslow, W.

Blackburn, A. R.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Gilzean, A.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Blyton, W. R.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

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

Boardman, H.

Gooch, E. G.

Moyle, A.

Bottomley, A. G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mulvey, A

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Murray, J. D

Bowen, R

Grey, C. F.

Nally, W.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

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

Bramall, E. A.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Gunter, R J.

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

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Guy, W. H.

Oldfield, W. H.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Oliver, G. H.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G

Hardy, E. A.

Parker, J.

Burden, T. W.

Harris, H, Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

Parkin, B. T.

Burke, W. A.

Harrison, J.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

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

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Byers, Frank

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Pearson, A.

Carmichael, James

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Peart, T. F.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Perrins, W.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hicks, G.

Piratin, P

Champion, A. J.

Hobson, C. R

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Chater, D.

Hoi man, P

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Chetwynd, G. R.

House, G.

Price, M. Philips

Cluse, W. S.

Hoy, J.

Proctor, W. T.

Cocks, F. S.

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

Pryde, D. J.

Coldrick, W.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Randall, H. E.

Collick, P.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ranger, J.

Collindridge, F.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Rankin, J.

Collins, V. J.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)

Reeves, J.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Janner, B.

Raid, T. (Swindon)

Crawley, A.

Jay, D. P. T.

Rhodes, H.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Richards, R.

Crossman, R. H. S.

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

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Cunningham, P.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Daggar, G.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Dames, P.

Keenan, W

Rogers, G. H. R.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Kenyon, C.

Royle, C.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Key, C. W.

Scollan, T.

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

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Kinley, J.

Segal, Dr. S.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

Shackleton, E. A. A

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lang, G.

Sharp, Granville

Delargy, H. J.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

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

Diamond, J.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dodds, N. N

Leonard, W

Shurmer, P.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Leslie, J. R

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

Skinnard, F. W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Tiffany, S.

Wigg, George

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Timmons, J.

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Titterington, M. F

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Snow, J. W.

Tolley, L.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Solley, L. J.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Williams, D, J. (Neath)

Sorensen, R. W

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Sparks, J. A.

Usborne, Henry

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Stamford, W.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Stokes, R. R.

Viant, S. P.

Willis, E.

Stross, Dr. B.

Wadsworth, G.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Stubbs, A. E.

Walkden, E.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Wallace, G. O. (Chislehurst)

Wise, Major F. J

Swingler, S.

Watkins, T. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Sylvester, G. O.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Woods, G. S.

Symonds, A. L.

Weitzman, D.

Yates, V. F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

West, D. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Simmons

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Baxter, A. B.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Odey, G. W.

Birch, Nigel

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, C.

Boothby, R.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Bossom, A. C.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Pickthorn, K.

Bower, N.

Howard, Hon. A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Hurd, A.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Robertson, Sir D, (Streatham)

Butcher, H. W.

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Ropner, Col. L.

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

Keeling, E. H.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Challen, C.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Channon, H.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Scott, Lord W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

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

Smithers, Sir W.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Spearman, A. C. M

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Low, A. R. W.

Spence, H. R.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Darting, Sir W. Y.

Mackeson, Brig H. R.

Studholme, H. G

Davidson, Viscountess

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Sutcliffe, H.

De la Bère, R.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Maclean, F H. R.

Teeling, William

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

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Drayson, G. B

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Drewe, C.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.

Dugdale, Mai Sir T. (Richmond)

Mannkigham-Burler, R. E.

Touche, G. C.

Eccles, D. M.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Marsden, Capt. A.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, O. (Bodmin)

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

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fox, Sir G.

Mellor, Sir J.

Winlerton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Molson, A. H. E.

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

Gage, C.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

Major Ramsay and Maior Conanr

Grimston, R. V.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Question put, and agreed to.

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (PERSONAL EXPLANATION)
3.45 P.m.
Mr. Churchill: I beg to move.
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Statement made to the House on 22nd March by the Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker, that he acted in his professional capacity as a solicitor against an hon. Member of this House in a matter which might have resulted in legal proceedings; and to report whether such action is consonant with the proper and impartial discharge of the duties of this office."
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would like to say on behalf of the Government that we are prepared to accept this Motion. If the House sees fit to accept this Amendment, I think it will be agreed that it is desirable for the Select Committee to begin their inquiry without delay. With your consent, Mr. Speaker, and the consent of the House, I am prepared forthwith to nominate hon. Members to serve on the Committee. I am aware that notice is normally required of Motions to nominate members of Committees, but I hope that it will be possible on this occasion to waive this requirement with the consent of the House. Perhaps I should inform the House that the hon. Members whom it is proposed to appoint have been approached and express their willingness to serve on the Committee.
Mr. Churchill: I feel that the course which the Prime Minister has adopted in accepting this Motion will be in the general interests of the House and in the interests of all parties concerned. We are obliged to him for accepting the Motion. The matter is not one of a personal character but touches certain principles which should, at any rate, be explored and pronounced upon by the House. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the alteration of procedure, we are, of course, in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but on this side of the House we have a strong feeling that this matter should be disposed of as quickly as possible in the interests of all concerned.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the House would like to know that I have given this matter consideration. One of the first matters that I have to consider is whether it would in any way prejudice the right hon. Member whose case we are considering. I have come to the conclusion that, far from that, it is probably the fairest
2782
thing to do in his interest. Otherwise, the Business of the House is a matter which we must consider, and it is not for the convenience of the House if this matter is not expeditiously dealt with. I have come to the conclusion that this matter is ultimately based on Privilege, and it is the right of the House to provide for the effective discharge of its functions, and in such matters the general rule is that for the convenience of Business or Debate this should be treated as a matter of Privilege. Therefore, the rule about giving notice can be waived.
The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
"That Mr. Eric Fletcher, Commander Galbraith, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Ernest Thurtle, Mr. Ungoed-Thomas, Mr. Viant, Mr. Westwood, and Mr. John Wilmot be Members of the Committee.
"That the Collimate have power to send for persons, papers and records and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
"That Three be the Quorum."

EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS
Motion made,
"That during the present Session the Standing Orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the public revenue shall not, in the event of Part I or Part II of the Local Government Bill becoming law, be deemed to apply to any provision of any Bill (whether public or private) which affects the rateable value of any hereditament in England or Wales or of any lands and heritages in Scotland or authorises any expenditure by a local authority in England or Wales or in Scotland, by reason only that that provision operates or may operate to increase the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the said Part I or the said Part II."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall] [King's Recommendation' signified.]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The Local Government Bill provides for a new system of equalisation grants instead of the present system of block grants. Under the block grant system, as the House is aware, grants have normally been fixed for a period of five years. However, under the new scheme, which will come into operation when the Local Government Bill becomes an Act, new expenditure by a local authority is to have immediate effect on that grant made to that authority.

2783
Under the new method, grants are to be made to local authorities where the rateable value of the area or per head of the population falls below the average. The amount of the grant in each case will turn on two factors: first, the sum by which the rateable value in the area of the authority falls below the average; and, secondly, the expenditure of the local authority or local authorities concerned. In effect, the new procedure will mean that the Exchequer will pay rates on an imaginary property of a rateable value equal to the difference between the rateable value of the particular authority and the average rateable value.
This is quite definitely a change, in consequence of which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that when the Local Government Bill becomes law a Financial Resolution will be necessary to support any Bill, public or private, which, actually or potentially, increases the expenditure of a local authority, unless the Bill or the enactment concerned expressly excludes the additional expenditure from counting for grant. The Local Government Bill is likely to receive the Royal Assent within the next day or two, and it is, therefore, essential that immediate action be taken.
The Government, therefore, propose, as those who have read this Motion will have noticed, to amend the procedure of the House. Otherwise, we are advised that no Bill, public or private, now before Parliament, which contains provisions altering the law about rateable values or authorising expenditure by local authorities and which has not yet gone into Committee, cannot be considered in Committee until a Financial Resolution has been passed by this House authorising the increase in the Exchequer grant. In addition, no Amendment which would affect rate-borne expenditure can be made on recommittal at the Report stage of any Bill which has by now passed its Committee stage either on the Floor of the House or upstairs. Bills, of course, sent to another place can be amended there, but this House could not consider any privilege Amendments, which may fall in this category, until a Financial Resolution had been passed here. It might be possible to pass Financial Resolutions to cover the public Bills involved, but this would involve a grave dislocation of the Parliamentary timetable and seriously
2784
delay the proceedings between now and the end of the Session. The main difficulty of carrying through such a suggestion would be that it would virtually kill all private Bills affecting the spending powers of local authorities, and, as the House knows, there are a fair number of these now going through the House or about to proceed on their passage through Parliament.
The Government are, therefore, proposing purely as a temporary Measure that the House should agree to waive Standing Orders in order to allow both public and private Bills to be dealt with during this Session, and this Session only, as though the Local Government Bill had not been passed into law and the Exchequer grant system had not, in fact, been altered. Whilst this temporary expedient, which I am proposing on behalf of the Government, is in operation, the Government will undertake to examine this matter and take stock of the position and will make proposals to Parliament in the next Session to regularise the situation.
It may be asked why, if the object is not to stop the progress of Bills now before Parliament, we do not confine our proposals to Bills that have already begun their passage through this House or have reached another place but have not yet received the Royal Assent. That was considered, but in the end it was rejected, because, in the view of the Government, there would be practical difficulties if for the remainder of the Session, two different procedures were to apply to Bills according to whether they had been introduced before or after a Motion were agreed to.
Further, if the new procedure were confined to Bills now before Parliament and the Resolutions 'passed for all the rest where necessary, it is our view that it would prejudice the issue which will come before Parliament next Session. That issue should be judged in the light of the circumstances then prevailing and not prejudged by a procedure which has been in operation for a part at any rate of the present Session. So far as private Bills are concerned, I have already stated the difficulty. It would be impossible to overcome this, because the procedure which we might adopt for public Bills would be quite inapplicable to private Bills. I hope, therefore, the House will see that this difficulty is one which has to be overcome by a

2785
temporary expedient and that the suggestion made by the Government is reasonable in all circumstances.
Before I sit down I might perhaps give one or two instances of how our proceedings will affect the Bills before Parliament and would hold them up unless this Motion is passed. I should like to give one from the Representation of the People Bill. Clause 63 divides the responsibility for paying registration officers' expenses equally between the Exchequer and the local authority concerned. The Financial Resolution covers the direct Exchequer payment, but not the indirect payment which will be incurred because half the expenses are borne by the local authority. The Bill is now in Committee, and if tomorrow the Royal Assent is given to the Local Government Bill, it will be out of Order to discuss Clause 63 unless the Motion I now propose to the House is accepted and passed today.
The other instance comes from the Criminal Justice Bill which is through Committee and is now awaiting Report. Clause 68 (6) and (7) and the Fifth Schedule, paragraph 5, are three cases in which the provisions add to the rate-borne expenditure, and may impose an indirect charge on the Exchequer. If the Local Government Bill receives Royal Assent to-morrow and nothing is done by the Government, I am advised that it will be out of Order to discuss Amendments to t1his Clause and Schedule on the Report stage. It is even suggested that it might be out of Order to discuss the Bill on Report, but there seems to be some ambiguity about that. So far as my knowledge of the Bill goes, much of it can be discussed, although obviously Clause 68 and parts of the Fifth Schedule would be out of Order. That being the situation, I hope the House will realise that our proposal is most reasonable, and that it will agree to pass this Motion.
4.0 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The House has just listened to a very extraordinary statement indeed. It appears that the Government either did not foresee or did not make provision for the passing of a Measure which would stultify the whole programme of their legislation. That is a very odd thing. The first question is, did the Government foresee this result? Perhaps the Financial Secretary could give me an answer across
2786
the Floor of the House. If they did, why did they leave their present proposals so late?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am afraid I cannot discuss that matter. This Ruling is by Mr. Speaker. It would be quite out of Order and very improper for me to discuss whether what Mr. Speaker has ruled is correct or is not correct.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Not only would it be unwise, it would be impossible. The Speaker, like the Pope, is infallible. What the Speaker has ruled, is so. What I do not understand is that the Speaker's Ruling was not foreseen by the Government and that the rules of the House were so misinterpreted by the Government that they failed to foresee, when bringing forward their legislation, that they were doing something which would put an absolute bar to nearly all their programmes of legislation, to the two major Bills that were mentioned by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—the Representation of the People Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill—and would also stop a great number of Private Bills.
Of course, in those circumstances, some emergency step has to be taken. We do not wish to demur from the proposition that some step should be taken. We are as interested as are the Government in seeing that the House of Commons is enabled to operate, but we are entitled to call attention to the Government's bringing down of this statement saying that if we do not waive the financial rules of the House today, discussion of major legislation of the Session will be impossible tomorrow—tomorrow, so closely has it been run.
There was nothing unforeseeable in the position as we now have it, both on Second Reading and on Third Reading. The Minister in charge stated with emphasis, and indeed gloried in the fact, that the procedure of the block grant by which expenditure was determined in advance by the House was being swept away and that a new procedure was being adopted. On Second Reading, the Minister of Health said:
"The Exchequer will step in and become a ratepayer to the extent that the local authority's rateable value is below the average. Thus, the local authorities will precept upon the Exchequer in exactly the same way as upon their own ratepayers. In other words, the Exchequer becomes a ratepayer to the extent of the deficit."

2787
I continue with the quotation:
"Sir WILLIAM DARLING (Edinburgh, South): The taxpayer becomes the ratepayer.
Mr. BEVAN: That is even a better way of putting it—that the taxpayer will become the ratepayer to the extent of the deficit of the rateable value."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c.994.]
That is to say, the Bill puts it into the hands of local authorities to increase the charges upon the subject which have to be found by this House.
Of course, that needs a Financial Resolution. It is very nearly the foundation stone of our whole Constitution. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says, "Of course, it would be possible to deal with it according to the rules of the House by passing Financial Resolutions, but that would entail delay and trouble," I reply, "Of course, complying with the procedure of the House of Commons involves delay." It is for that purpose that the procedure of the House has been set up, so that these things will be considered. I have read to the House what the Minister of Health said as long ago as 18th November, 1947. We have since conducted a long examination of the Bill, and only parted with it in this House on Third Reading, on 24th February, 1948. On that occasion, the Minister of Health said:
"For the first time in the history of local government in this country, the Exchequer now becomes, as it were, a ratepayer. The local authority levies rates, not only upon its own ratepayers, but upon the Exchequer itself to the extent that the rateable value in the local authority's area falls below the average for the country as a whole. In order to show to what extent this is taking place in certain areas, the Exchequer will be a ratepayer in Cardigan to the extent of 66 per cent., and, in the Isle of Ely, to the extent of 55 per cent., and there will be variations of these figures in very many parts of the country. That is the first and most revolutionary act that the Bill does."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1791.]
I really think that to have introduced these proposals as long ago as r8th November and to have continued their consideration until 24th February—and indeed, until as late as last night, because it was only at 20 minutes past midnight that we finally parted with the Amendments brought from another place—and now to say today that the only way of getting out of the extraordinary emergency into which the House has been thrust by the action of the Government
2788
is to waive our financial procedure as an emergency measure from now till the end of the Session, has an importance that was a little glossed over by the very anodyne remarks of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has asked us today to waive financial safeguards which have been found necessary and have been worked out over generations in this House, and to do so at 24 hours' notice, because, unless we do so, the programme of this House will come to a stop. The House is owed an apology by the Government for the position in which it has been placed.
It appears that the remedy which the Government have taken is a hypothesis of an almost unprecedented nature, The Minister knows that we have discussed many hypothetical aspects of the Bill during the many months passed. The Bill assumes the existence of a hypothetical tenant. The hypothesis to which the Minister drew attention is that on certain issues of valuation the Bill was not on the statute book. That is a very vigorous hypothesis to put on the statute book. Now the Government come here with a still more far-reaching hypothesis, that the only way in which we can escape from the position, in which we are now placed is on the hypothesis that the work of this House upon the Local Government Bill from 24th February until last night has not happened, and that the Bill is not on the statute book.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): It is not there yet.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, but the hypothesis upon which the House, has to operate is that the Bill is not on the statute book.
Mr. Bevan: If the Bill is not on the statute book we do not require a hypothesis. It is not there.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In that case we should not have required the white sheet in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has draped himself or the proposition which he has placed before the House now. We, like the Minister, do not believe in fairy tales. We believe that it is very likely that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent, unless the still more extraordinary procedure is adopted by which the Bill will be held up at the last moment by the old formula, "Le Roy s'avisera." I do not think it is likely that that will take place. The Financial Secretary says:

2789
"What we now propose is that we are to act as though the Local Government Bill has not been passed." The statement made by the Minister of Health: "That is the first and most revolutionary act that the Bill does," is an understatement. A new and still more revoluntionary thing has taken place. A Bill passed by King, Lords and Commons is to be deemed not to have passed, and unless we deem it not to have passed we shall stop the whole procedure of Parliament.
The Government have done many un-businesslike things in their life and it has brought forward many remarkable proposals, but to say to us: "You shall work all the winter, and the result of your toil will be that we shall assume that nothing has happened at all," is an experiment with time which has not been paralleled since the days of King Hezekiah. He asked for a miracle, and it was suggested that the shadow might go backwards over the sundial for a considerable number of hours. That was regarded as the most extraordinary thing that could be asked for, and to grant it would be a proof of divine providence which would convince the King that the Lord really was going to overlook all his failings. It convinced him so, and that is what the Minister asks the House to do now—"Let, I pray thee, the shadow go back on the dial." To turn the shadow back on the dial from 24th February, 1948, to 18th November, 1947—that is the solution which the Government brings before us. Sooner than stop the procedure of Parliament, we will not divide against that proposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Indeed, we will not, because the Minister not only comes in a white sheet, but says that he is totally unable to bring forward any proposition now and that he will give an undertaking to bring forward propositions at a later date which will attempt to regularise the extraordinary position in which the present Government has placed the House.
When they come forward, we shall examine them very closely, because the difficulties in which the House has been placed are not likely to be easily escaped from. It would be quite wrong for us—the Minister begs us not to try—to do anything else but accept this temporary measure because it will prejudice the House when holding an inquest on the position, which it will do in greater leisure
2790
at a later stage; but I have seldom seen a more humiliating position for the Government of the day to find themselves in. I hope that not only will the Government tender to the House a sincere apology for the results of this action, but when they bring forward permanent propositions to deal with the matter, they will not again place the House in the same embarrassing position in which it has been placed this afternoon.
4.13 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that the Minister's white sheet was not really quite long enough, or very white. No doubt we are all of us to blame about this. No doubt every hon. Member of the House ought to have spotted the difficulty which was going to arise. There is blame, no doubt, from that point of view on this side of the House as well, though I think not as much as on that, but clearly the Treasury Bench were under a very particular duty to see the effect of what they were doing and this ought to have been foreseen sooner, and when it became necessary for the Financial Secretary to do what he has just done, it should really have been done more explanatorily and more apologetically.
I do not feel at all so sure as my right hon. and gallant Friend that this ought not to be divided against unless we are to be given more assurance than we have been given. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke of "proposals to amend the Procedure of the House," and at that stage in his speech I had thought that he had meant to leave this proposal to be, if not permanent, at any rate sine die, lasting until some unannounced date; but later in his speech he said that this was purely a temporary measure. There is a proverb in French, and it is almost universal experience in our own country, that temporary measures are what last longest, and I do not think it is satisfactory to be told, as we have been told, that early in the next Session, whatever the Government here may then be—it may or may not be the one which at present adorns the Treasury Bench—something like permanent proposals will be made.
I should have thought that this is not really a party matter. This is really a

2791
House of Commons matter. This goes almost, if not quite, to the foundation of all House of Commons procedure and of all House of Commons power in relation to both the Crown and the Lords. In that matter, I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to be concerned merely with the difficulties which the Government have got into by their own fault and, in the strict sense of the word, their own incompetence—because that is what this is. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to think beyond that mere "Government versus Opposition" consideration.
This is what I wish them to consider: if this temporary measure is now necessary—and I am prepared to admit that it is, if it is admitted, as the Financial Secretary has admitted, that it should be a completely temporary measure—surely we should have in this Session, and we should now be promised for the earliest possible date after Easter, the Government's proposals, whether those proposals are to be brought before us as Cabinet proposals or whether they are to be brought before us from a Select Committee, for which I think there is a very great deal to be said. The whole of the House of Commons control over charges upon the public has now had a hole punched in it which we ought all to have noticed at the time of the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. I take my share of the blame. However, we cannot all read all of the Bills. Still, we ought to have noticed it, and certainly His Majesty's Ministers ought to have noticed it, and it is evidence of gross incompetence on the part of His Majesty's Ministers to come down with something of this nature that must be dealt with before midnight. Today we are dealing with three such things, the matter with which we have just dealt, the matter on which we are now engaged, and the Palestine matter. This is planning, this is.
That is gross incompetence on the part of Ministers opposite, and the least they should do by way of purging their sins is to say, "We will not face a House of Commons in a future Session, whether of this Parliament or after a general election, with the difficulty we are now in." Otherwise, what is to happen? Suppose there is a general election this summer and there comes in a new Government,
2792
which may have as much difficulty—which will have as much difficulty—as the present one. It will have all the natural difficulties inherent in this year of grace, and also all the difficulties created by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It will have plenty on its hands to do. It seems to me most unfair that we should wish on to whatever Government is here in the Autumn, whether it is this Government or some new one, the duty of dealing with this fundamental matter of our procedure and Constitution and deciding what is to be done. I for one, if anybody will help me, am prepared to divide against the Government unless they are prepared to say that they will have permanent proposals put before the House with ample opportunities for full discussion, whether by Select Committee or otherwise, before the end of this Session.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should have been inclined to agree with what the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said, in opening his remarks, that this is really not a party matter but a matter in which all hon. Members of the House of Commons are interested in order to see that the ordinary constitutional safeguards are observed. That part of his remarks seemed quite inconsistent with his later remarks and with the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who seemed to be trying to make this an opportunity to pass strictures upon His Majesty's Government which were entirely undeserved.
Mr. Pickthorn: They made the opportunity.
Mr. Fletcher: I am prepared to approach the matter as the hon. Gentleman suggested when he began, not as a party matter but as one in which the House was entitled to consider what were the natural consequences likely to flow from the passage into law, which would take place within two or three days, of the Local Government Bill.
This House, by an overwhelming majority on Second Reading and on Third Reading, has accepted the proposition that in future the Exchequer should take its place as a quasi-ratepayer in the majority of municipalities in this country. That carries with it the corollary

2793
that the local authorities, when this Bill is passed, have under their existing powers the possibility of increasing, by their own decision, uncontrolled and unfettered by anything we say in this House, the amount of the contribution the Exchequer shall in future pay to local authorities. As a general proposition that —be it right or wrong, and I think it is right—is something which this House has decided and which another place has agreed, so that in future local authorities, in the ambit of their existing powers, which are considerable, will themselves, unchecked by this House, be able to determine the amount of the contribution from the national funds which will be payable as a contribution to the rates.
All we are concerned with, as I understand it, in this Motion, is to consider what is necessary in the way of Financial Resolutions in regard to Measures which come before this House where, either directly or incidentally, local authorities are given new powers. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Government need appear in a white sheet or, indeed, make any apology to this House. If, in future, additional powers are given to local authorities to do this or that, I am not at all sure it is necessary that there should be any specific provision in a Financial Resolution covering that. That is a matter which I should have thought ought to be worked out in this House. However, if it is eminently sensible and eminently necessary that the House of Commons should meet today to consider the new situation which may or may not have been present in our minds when we considered the Local Government Bill—and, if not, it is a matter for which we should all take responsibility—I should have thought that the sensible, normal and natural course to follow was to pass this Motion so as to preserve the existing rights of the House in the matter, to enable the Government to consider what is appropriate in the Bill. As I have said, I doubt whether it is necessary that Financial Resolutions in future should make specific reference to this matter.
I should also have thought it was necessary that in this present Session, in the case of any Bill now in Committee or that will be sent to Committee, the power of the Committee, which is considerable, should not be fettered by the absence of any Financial Resolution. I
2794
hope that the Minister of Health, who I gather will reply, will make it clear that one effect of this Motion will be that in respect of the Bills in Committee which are governed by it there will be no objection to the Committee enlarging, if it so desires, the powers conferred on any local authority. As I understand it, one effect of this Motion will be that any Committees sitting for the remainder of this Session which are considering any Bills will be able, notwithstanding any limitation in the Financial Resolution, to enlarge powers, if they so desire, which are given to any local authority under any Bill which it may be considering.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Scollan: When I listened to the Financial Secretary I had at first some difficulty in following exactly what he was trying to get us to agree to, but from the point of view of the Opposition the position which arises is very disturbing, and it must be disturbing to the whole House. If I understood the Financial Secretary correctly, this affects not only the Local Government Bill but all the legislation we have passed. If that is the case, then one can quite easily accept the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) ——
Mr. Bevan: Not all; only the legislation which involves local government expenditure.
Mr. Scollan: Which means more than the Local Government Bill.
Mr. Bevan: Certainly.
Mr. Scollan: There is quite a lot of legislation that affects local government expenditure, apart from the Local Government Bill.
Sir William Darling: Agriculture.
Mr. Scollan: It appears to me that what is wanted is a comprehensive, omnibus resolution that would cover all the omissions from the legislation that operates with regard to finance and local government. That is a fairly hefty thing to bring forward at this late stage. I shall not go into sackcloth and ashes, but I am prepared to admit that somebody has blundered. I do not know why, but if my right hon. Friend comes forward at

2795
this late stage and says, "Oh, no, we foresaw all this," then why were we not told about it? Obviously somebody has slipped up, and the Front Bench evidently are not going to become the penitents for them. I think the Government might take steps to see that comprehensive legislation covering a Bill is announced to the House at the time it is brought forward, and not in this fashion.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. Henry Strauss: I support the principle underlying the speech of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). I was astonished that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), with his legal attainments, should have looked at this proposition on the Order Paper and have seen nothing exceptional or peculiar about it.
Mr. E. Fletcher: I did not say I saw nothing exceptional or peculiar about it; I said I thought it was a perfectly proper and natural Motion——
Mr. Pickthorn: "Normal."
Mr. Fletcher: —for a Government to bring to this House in view of the terms of the Local Government Bill which has been accepted by this House.
Mr. Strauss: I understood the hon. Member to use the word "normal," but the OFFICIAL REPORT will speak for itself. He certainly said there was nothing improper in letting it go through with the minimum of discussion this afternoon——
Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. and learned Member will permit me, I said nothing whatever about getting this through with the minimum of discussion. I said nothing about a minimum of discussion. I have no objection to the House discussing this all night.
Mr. Strauss: The point is that it has to go through today. The hon. Member seemed to see nothing improper, and thought that the Government ought not to be accused of any lack of foresight merely because they are in this position, and must have this proposition agreed to this afternoon.
I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Health, who has nothing to lose by being reasonable in this matter. What I shall, ask, and what the senior
2796
Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has asked, is in no way inconsistent with what is on the Paper and with what the Government wish us to adopt. It is a plea which was made also by the hon. Member for West Renfrew, that an undertaking should be given, if we pass what is now proposed, that a permanent Measure will be announced at the earliest opportunity, and that we shall not have to wait until next Session.
I should like to make one other small point which, again, is not in opposition to the Motion we are debating. It is a little point of draftsmanship, which may or may not be relevant to the more permanent Resolution which is to follow, and which I should like the Attorney-General and his advisers to consider. There are some words two lines from the end which are so clumsy as to be difficult to construe, namely, "by reason only that that provision operates." Strictly speaking, I think the additon of the words "of the fact," is required after "only," so that it would read, "by reason only of the fact that that provision operates." Alternatively, if it is not wished to add three words, it could read "solely on the ground that." This is a point worthy of attention when something more permanent comes to be considered.
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have been present in the House of Commons on many occasions, sitting on the opposite side of the House, when the Government of the day have had to bring forward Motions indemnifying themselves, or some Member of the Government, from very heavy damages or for spending millions of pounds of public money in error. We always accepted the fact that that situation arises from time to time but, in my submission, no attempt was made to make party politics out of it. We have a Constitution and Standing Orders which are capable of being construed in several ways. It was one of the most interesting diversions of Parliamentary life to consider the various ways in which our Standing Orders can be construed. It is because they are capable of being construed in many diverse directions that our Constitution is so flexible and we do not get ourselves into too much trouble and can extricate ourselves out of difficulty by a simple instrument such as the Motion we are discussing.

2797
As the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said, this position has been made perfectly clear, and there was no attempt to obscure what the Local Government Bill does. But the relation between the Local Government Bill and the Standing Orders of the House were not in doubt we thought, because, in fact, there is a precedent. The Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, provided for some similar grants, although on a smaller scale, but, as authorities on the situation will agree, the amount does not matter. The Exchequer paid one quarter of the actual rates levied on agricultural land, so, in point of fact, this has been done. Mr. Speaker, in his discretion, said that in his opinion it was necessary for Financial Resolutions on Bills to make provision for this expenditure in the future where the expenditure involved the action of local authorities, and would involve money from the Exchequer.
Mr. Pickthorn: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman. Was that not an occasion where a Bill did it once, but did not authorise a muriicipality to go on doing it indefinitely?
Mr. Bevan: It was a continuing expenditure, where the amount of money attracted from the Exchequer would depend on the initiative of the local authority, and was therefore unpredictable. In other words, here we have exactly the same kind of thing although I admit the former instance was a microcosm. Mr. Speaker of those days did not insist that whenever a Bill was brought forward which involved local authority action attracting money from the Exchequer provision should be made for it in a Financial Resolution. I anticipate no difficulty whatever in so framing Financial Resolutions on public Bills in the future as to make provision for this.
The real difficulty we shall be brought up against is when we come to consider private Bills, and because it is not possible for us to hurry up the inquiry. I think hon. Members will appreciate that local authorities are entitled to be consulted in whatever alterations we find it necessary to make in private Bill legislation. If they are to be preceded by a Financial Resolution, they will be frustrated. Therefore, some means will have to be found to deal with private Bill legislation. Again, I anticipate no formidable
2798
difficulty; in fact, we envisage what it might be possible to do in regard to private Bill legislation. I see no difficulty at all. I do not accuse the Opposition of not having seen this——
Mr. McKie: Not to the same extent as the Treasury.
Mr. Bevan: —but the Opposition must not blame the Government for not having seen this, because we were perfectly entitled to believe that there was no essential conflict between what we were doing today, and what had been done before. But Mr. Speaker has determined otherwise, and it would be presumptuous and impudent for me to comment on what Mr. Speaker has decided. If I were giving a private view, I should have said that it was far better, as we are extending this practice, that the Financial Resolutions and procedure should provide for private Bill legislation and that in the future we should not rest on the slender precedent of the 1923 Act. I entirely agree with that. On many occasions in Opposition I have defended the financial procedure of this House because it is on that procedure that the control of the Executive by the Commons ultimately depends. It will be necessary for us to examine this matter and bring proposals before the House adequately to deal with both public Bill procedure and private Bill procedure.
Mr. Pickthorn: In this Session?
Mr. Bevan: It may be very difficult to consult the local authorities quickly, but there is no actual difficulty about it, because this Motion will provide an umbrella for legislation this Session and we shall have ample time to consider what protection is necessary for future occasions. I assure the House that the Government are as anxious as any hon. Member in any part of the House to regularise the position, and keep firmly the grip of the House of Commons on its financial procedure.
4.38 p.m.
Sir William Darling: I am not impressed, although I would like to be impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has related that he has been familiar in his extensive experience of the House with financial cover being given for unexpected or uncovenanted expenditure. But this is not such a case. The pride of the

2799
Minister and those who spoke for the Government was that this was a Local Government Bill which was going to make a new taxpayer, that is to say, the Government were to become the ratepayer. There was no suggestion that this was unforeseen. It was in the very texture of the Bill that there was to be brought into the new arrangement of local government a new pay out of rates and taxes, and that was the Government. Now the Minister tells us that this was something which comes into the category of the unforeseen for which indemnity was necessary. I fail to see any parallel. This Bill has as its central tenet that the Government of the day should become a contributor to local rates. If that were not foreseen, the Government have neglected their duty and fumbled and muddled the arrangements, and the Motion we are asked to pass at such short notice is the measure of the degree to which they have failed to appreciate the consequences of their own policy.
Resolved:
"That during the present Session the Standing Orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the public revenue shall not, in the event of Part I or Part II of the Local Government Bill becoming law, be deemed to apply to any provision of any Bill (whether public or private) which affects the rateable value of any hereditament in England or Wales or of any lands and heritages in Scotland or authorises any expenditure by a local authority in England or Wales or in Scotland, by reason only that that provision operates or may operate to increase the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the said Part I or the said Part II."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PALESTINE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress. 19th March].
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

  PALESTINE BILL

    CLAUSE I.—(Termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    4.40 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The events that have taken place over the weekend have not unduly disturbed the tenor of the remarks that I was in the course of making when the Committee adjourned last Friday. I was dealing at that moment with the position of the Trusteeship Council and its responsibilities in relation to the future of Jerusalem and the Holy Places. It is perhaps an unhappy coincidence that my doubts about the capacity of the Trusteeship Council to deal adequately in the time with the problem of Jerusalem have been so much increased by the astonishing and what may well be the disastrous somersault in the policy of the United States with regard to the future of Palestine.
    There is, however, some meagre consolation to be derived from this remarkable change that has taken place in American policy. In the past few years the British Government have been accused by all sides, in Palestine of shilly-shallying, tergiversation and so forth, but all this is more than outclassed by the rapid change that has taken place in such a short time in the policy of the United State, Government. This point emerges from the latest development that has taken place. It may well be that trusteeship will require forces hardly less than the implementation of the partition proposals would have required, and in this connection it is right and proper that the Colonial Secretary and His Majesty's Government should give a very clear indication that the decision of the United States has not made any difference in the policy or commitments of the British Government in regard to Palestine.

    2801
    The Trusteeship Council may have this advantage from the point of view both of America and of the British Government, that the Russians have so far refused to take part in the work of the Trusteeship Council, but if as a result of the latest change that has taken place in the situation the United Nations becomes the trustee for Palestine, under a trusteeship agreement, Great Britain cannot avoid some share of responsibility as a member of the Trusteeship Council. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies can give the Commitee some reassurance on that issue. We know from our experience of what took place on Friday that the mind of the Colonial Office is, as Palestine may well be after 15th May, a complete vacuum, but on this particular point of our responsibilities under the Trusteeship Council, in my submission, it is very necessary that the British Government should make it quite clear to the Government of the United States that the recent change in American policy does not mean that the British Government are prepared to undertake any additional responsibility in regard to Palestine. I hope, therefore, that we may have some official statement from the Government Front Bench this afternon. It seems to me to involve a point of some consider-able magnitude. Many people in the world today, unfortunately, have little faith in the United Nations——
    4.45 P.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am afraid the Debate is getting exceedingly wide. I hope we shall not have too much discussion on the United Nations.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: With the utmost respect, Mr. Beaumont, I think that in the circumstances that have taken place since this Bill was introduced and in view of the statement made overseas, it is vital that we should consider the United. Nations' aspect. Otherwise, we on this side of the Committee will not be able to decide what our attitude is to be towards this Bill.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. What I should have said was that I do not want the Debate to deal too much with the attitude of the United States.
    Mr. Janner: It seems to me that the attitude of the United States which has taken this very peculiar and unfortunate turn is a matter which is material in the consideration of Clause 1 of the Bill. I would ask you to reconsider your decision in that regard, because, after all, the United Nations organisation and the States which constitute that organisation are very material and important matters in this Debate.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I want to meet the wishes of the Committee, and I want to allow as wide a latitude as possible. I am only expressing. the hope that we shall not have too long a discussion on the attitude of the United States.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Again with the utmost respect, the recent announcement made by the Government of the United States regarding their own attitude as a member of the United Nations has brought a new issue into the discussion of this Bill It seems to me impossible to take part in a Debate on the Committee stage of this Bill unless we can examine the significance of the statement of the Government of the United States.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I quite agree, and I am only too anxious to meet the desire of the Committee. I only wished to express the hope that the Debate would not concentrate too much upon the United States.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was on the verge of concluding what I had to say on this aspect of the matter. There is undoubtedly a feeling in the Committee that the events of the week-end cannot possibly be divorced from our consideration of the problem which we are trying to solve in the Palestine Bill. However, as. I have no doubt this point will be touched upon at least by succeeding speakers, I am content to proceed to the next point that I should like to make in connection with the Bill.
    It has always struck me as extraordinary that the policy of the Colonial Office in regard to Palestine has been this: If we can only succeed in alienating as many people as possible and creating in Palestine a situation in which no one is satisfied with the British administration there, we have succeeded in proving to the world our impartiality, our blamelessness and our innocence in the administration of Palestine, and so we are giving

    2803
    up the Mandate, leaving behind us goodness knows what. The discussion that took place on Friday failed to elicit from the Government what they have in mind, and I very much doubt—although we must all make an attempt in that direction—whether we shall succeed in extracting very much more from the Government Front Bench than we were able to extract on Friday. However, we have got to keep on trying, and it may well be that either from this side or from the other side of the Committee we shall succeed in eliciting from the Government what they really have in mind.
    Now I come to the second point I want to make, which is in connection with the surrender or giving up of the Mandate. Here, again, we seem to have created a situation of the utmost difficulty for ourselves which will affect the manner in which our troops are to be withdrawn from Palestine. Last Friday, the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) referred to what seemed to involve an inevitable loss of stores. It will be impossible, on the basis of the figures which he gave—and we have no others before us on which to arrive at a conclusion—to remove from Palestine much more than half the military stores that are now to be found in that country. I am wondering whether the Colonial Secretary can hold out any hope that the conclusion of the new Treaty with Transjordan might simplify our problem in that respect. If there is to be a complicated operation, as a result of which our troops and materials will converge on the port of Haifa, it may well be that a supplementary form of withdrawal should be envisaged which would save lives and material.
    The recently concluded Treaty with Transjordan which, I believe, was ratified only a day or two ago, makes provision for a joint defence board, the functions of which are to include consideration of and necessary recommendations for the location of British Forces at places other than the two Royal Air Force stations which are already in operation. I believe that evacuation from Palestine would be more rapidly brought about if, instead of our troops and materials converging on the Port of Haifa alone, there was withdrawal into Transjordan. The Treaty provides for that possibility, and I respectfully suggest that advantage should be taken of that new Treaty.
    2804
    Article 4 of the Annexe to the Treaty also makes it clear that Transjordan agrees to afford all the necessary facilities for the movement of units in transit across Transjordania, with their supplies and equipment, so that position seems to have been considerably simplified. The boast of the Government, all along, has been that there would be no piecemeal surrender or lengthening of the time of the withdrawal. Nevertheless, the fact that the Mandate will come to an end on 15th May, and that the last of the British troops and materials are to be withdrawn on or about 1st August, means that for two and a half months there will be all the complications arising from a possible duality or triplicity of jurisdiction in Palestine. During their withdrawal British troops will, presumably, have to fight a three-cornered contest. That is a position which cannot be regarded with any degree of complacency in any quarter of the Committee.
    A much better solution, although perhaps now impracticable, would have been for the withdrawal of troops and the ending of the Mandate to have coincided. Then the Government could have claimed that there would be no piecemeal surrender, evacuation or withdrawal. I hope that on these two points—first, the effect of the American statement that Palestine should be handed over to a trusteeship council; and, second, the possible advantages to be derived, in the present difficult circumstances, from the recent conclusion of the Transjordan Treaty—the Minister will be able to give assurances which will allay the disquiet and anxiety which I am sure is felt in all quarters of the Committee.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): In the Debate on Friday last a number of questions were addressed to me about our future position in Palestine during our withdrawal, and the situation which might arise after 15th May. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has drawn the attention of the Committee to recent developments at Lake Success, as a result of which the Security Council are now confronted with a new proposal which, in some respects, changes the outlook so far as the future Government of Palestine is concerned. His Majesty's Government have asked, in this Clause, that the jurisdiction of His

    2805
    Majesty in Palestine shall be determined on 15th May, or sooner, and I also announced that by 1st August the withdrawal of troops would be completed. It is the intention of the Government to stand firm on these dates. We shall proceed with the winding-up of The civil administration so that our authority under the Mandate comes to an end by 15th May, and we shall proceed as rapidly as circumstances permit with the withdrawal of troops so that all troops will be out of Palestine—and stores, so far as they can be brought out—by 1st August.
    The situation after 15th May is obscure, but whatever obscurity there may be there is nothing but clarity in the policy of the Government in respect of the withdrawal of troops and the termination of our authority under the Mandate. Our anxiety, in winding up our affairs in Palestine, has been that on withdrawal we should leave the country in such a state that ordinary Government can continue. Our effort has been to preserve the economic structure of Palestine and, so far as our powers could be used, to reduce violence and maintain law and order, so that the transition could be effectively and efficiently made, and that instead of Palestine being plunged into disorder and chaos by our removal ordinary Government could proceed.
    5.0 p.m.
    During the discussion many charges have been made against the British Government to the effect that we have obstructed the work of the Palestine Commission, that we have pursued a policy in Palestine which was calculated to make for chaos on our withdrawal, and that we have forgotten our responsibilities as an important member of the United Nations. I wish for a few moments to rebut some of those charges, because it is so easy to lay the blame for the present position at the door of His Majesty's Government, and to forget that the Palestine Commission was charged with a responsibility which it had not the means to discharge, and with a task which in the conditions of Palestine was somewhat unreal.
    At New York we have tried to assist the Palestine Commission to the utmost of our power. We accepted the recommendation for the Resolution of the United Nations Assembly of 29th November, and our purpose since then has been
    2806
    perfectly honest and straightforward. But we have at no time undertaken to implement the decision that was reached by the Assembly on that date. But we have placed at the disposal of the Palestine Commission all the experience and knowledge that we could command. We have initiated discussions on problems which were emerging in Palestine and on problems which will become of importance when we leave Palestine on 15th May, and we have tried to provide in this interim period for effective responsibility to be seized by the various local authorities and for security forces to be created, so that in the difficult background of Palestine at least some degree of normal and orderly life might prove possible.
    It is true that the situation in Palestine severely deteriorated after the passing of the United Nations Resolution, and it was a situation which had not been provided for by the Palestine Commission. Further, the Resolution which was passed by the United Nations paid little heed to the enormous problem which confronted the Palestine Government itself, not only in the winding up of administration but in the maintenance of law and order and of a sound security position until the troops could be withdrawn. I say that the Resolution of the United Nations took little account of the very heavy responsibility which the British Government was obliged to carry until 15th May. Accordingly, when it was suggested that the terms of the recommendations agreed by the United Nations should be put into effect, there were particulars in which, on practical grounds, those terms could not be agreed.
    I am most desirous of emphasising that this situation was visualised by us before 29th November, and we did point out to the United Nations, when this problem was under discussion, that at no stage while we held the Mandate could we accept a position of divided responsibility in Palestine. We made it clear that this responsibility must be carried by the British Government up to the termination of the Mandate because it was obvious to us that the security position in Palestine would, as a result of the opposition of the Arabs, become impossible if a concession were made on that particular point. Nevertheless, the recommendations of 29th November were carried, and it was clear right from that time that it

    2807
    would be virtually impossible for certain of those proposals to be brought into operation.
    For instance, we had made it clear that it would be impossible for us to open a port on 1st February for unlimited immigration, for the inflow of armaments and men, because of the entanglement into which the British Forces must inevitably Get in the withdrawal of their stores and men. We made it clear that the Arabs would resort to violence, and that there would be considerable trouble is such a concession were made. All this was known before the United Nations passed the Resolution of 29th November.
    I submit that insufficient attention has been given by the public to the difficulties which face the Palestine Government in carrying through its responsibilities or to those which face the British Government in their responsibility for the security of Palestine, and also to the necessities of the situation for the withdrawal of our Administration and British troops. We have never behaved out of disrespect for the United Nations. Indeed we have been forthcoming in all these discussions with the Palestine Commission, trying to meet their wishes in almost every respect, giving them all the information they wanted, and, as I have said, initiating discussion on those questions which would be of particular moment when they themselves took over the administration in Palestine.
    It was not only at Lake Success that we did our utmost, but also in Palestine itself. In the last few months there has been, as I have already suggested to the Committee, a great transfer of responsibility from the central Government to the local authorities. In many cases, new local councils have been created. In many cases new police forces have been brought into being. The responsibility for services necessary for normal life—health, schools, water, agriculture, etc.—has been transferred to the local groups so far as possible in order that normal life should continue once the central Government was no longer there to carry on. I suggest, therefore, that it is unreasonable that we should be charged, either with obstructing the work of the United Nations through the Palestine Committee, or with trying to create conditions of chaos in Palestine when we withdraw.
    2808
    During the Debate last Friday suggestions were made that we had given insufficient attention to the situation in Jerusalem. I wish the Committee to appreciate what steps were taken by the British Government in regard, not only to that ancient city, but to the Holy Places as well. The Chairman of the Palestine Commission has made it perfectly clear that Jerusalem cannot be dissected from the rest of Palestine in regard to the orderly conditions after 15th May. He has pointed out that the proposed international State depends very largely for its maintenance on the maintenance of services which are built up in the States surrounding the international State which it is proposed for Jerusalem. He has pointed out that the water supply for Jerusalem comes from the hills, which will be inside the Arab State. The communications to the coast will be completely cut off, and if a state of war exists around Jerusalem, it will be extraordinarily difficult for the normal life of the city to be maintained.
    The Arabs, in turn, have pointed out that they regard the special arrangements in relation to Jerusalem as part and parcel of the general partition plan, and, therefore, they have refused co-operation, both on the Trusteeship Council, and in Palestine in the arrangements which we were intending to make in regard to the safeguarding of the future position of Jerusalem and the Holy Places. What we sought to do was, first, to obtain a truce in Palestine between the Christians, the Moslems, the Arabs and the Jews, in the hope that, in the future, there would, at least, be some degree of tranquility, less conflict between the various sects, and an effort made to secure peace and normal conditions for the city.
    So far, we have met with little success in regard to these efforts for a truce. We have, at the same time, tried to strengthen the police force in Jerusalem by the recruitment of special civil guards, both on the Jewish side as well as on the Arab side. We have also tried to strengthen the position of the municipal authority so that it could at least, carry on during the transition period. With the present conditions in Jerusalem it is very difficult for normal services to be maintained. The working people, who are responsible for the normal sanitation service and the rest of the services, are not particularly eager to carry on in conditions of very great danger to

    2809
    themselves, and it is very difficult at the present moment to maintain the essential and basic services of the municipality, and to persuade the people to carry out their normal daily work.
    5.15 p.m.
    At the Trusteeship Council, to which the United Nations have referred the future of Jerusalem, we played some part in drafting the Constitution to which the Council had been asked to agree. We gave of our experience and knowledge of Palestine, and of Jerusalem in particular, in the shaping of the Constitution which should operate in this international State. In all these discussions at the Trusteeship Council we have made it clear that this matter is one of great urgency, largely because of the anxiety felt in many parts of the world as to the future of the city and the Holy Places. We pressed the Trusteeship Council, as the responsible authority, to appoint a Governor for the new international State without delay. We were particularly anxious that that appointment should be made, chiefly because the Holy Places will be safeguarded by a security force recruited by the Governor himself. Under the Constitution and the Resolution of 29th November of the United Nations, it is required that the Governor should recruit a sufficiently strong security force for the defence of the Holy Places——
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think many hon. Members may find themselves in the same difficulty as I am in, in following this point. My right hon. Friend said, a little while ago, that the Jerusalem part of the partition scheme cannot be implemented alone, either by the British Government or by anybody else. How, then, is it supposed that a Governor appointed from a long way off, and beginning to recruit a force from somewhere to protect this little part of the partition scheme, would be any more effective?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The position under the Resolution of 29th November was that a Governor should be appointed by the Trusteeship Council at an early date, and that the Governor should proceed to the recruitment of a security force for the protection of the Holy Places. The British Government have no responsibility, either for the appointment of the Governor, beyond their membership of the Trusteeship Council——
    Mr. Silverman: Accepting for the purposes of the present argument that the British Government have no responsibility at all, how does my right hon. Friend suggest that the position would have improved if a Governor had been appointed under the scheme, and the preliminaries of recruiting a force carried out? How would that have helped, in view of his statement that that part of the partition scheme could not be implemented alone?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Does the decision of 29th November now stand?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is still the operative decision of the United Nations Assembly. No one can tell what the Security Council will do. It does not meet again until tomorrow. With regard to the point raised, the purpose of the security force was merely to protect the Holy Places, and a Governor's police force for that narrow purpose could have functioned quite well. That was recognised as a United Nations responsibility.
    Mr. Janner Mr. Janner rose——
    Mr. Creech Jones: I want to finish this particular point in regard to Jerusalem, because many questions have been asked about it and many hon. Members are very anxious about what the British Government have been doing in regard to it.
    The further point I want to stress is that the Trusteeship Council has delayed its further consideration of this problem until the end of April. That delay, when it occurred, was under protest from the representative of Britain, because he—as I have done on the Security Council and in respect of other organs of the United Nations—made it perfectly clear that we regarded this matter as of considerable importance; that our public were very anxious about it; and that a decision ought to be taken. We have done all in our power to get this matter straightened out before 15th May. I have also made it perfectly clear to the chairman of the Palestine Commission and to the Commission itself that after 15th May a very heavy responsibility rests at their door for some provision to be made in regard to the Holy Places from 15th May to 1st October, when it was anticipated that the new statute would come into full operation.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the Committee what he contemplates will take place now, in view of the decision arrived at by the United States in the Security Council at Lake Success? Would he tell the Committee what action the Government contemplate in view of the changed circumstances?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Security Council is meeting on Wednesday when the question of procedure, the question of a recommendation, will be discussed. That will embrace the problem of Jerusalem as well as the rest of the problem of the Jewish and Arab States in the whole plan of partition. Our own position is quite clear. We are definitely withdrawing our civil administration on 15th May and our troops also are withdrawing from Palestine as quickly as conditions will permit, but certainly they will be out by 1st August.
    Several questions were asked about other matters. One question was put about Palestinian passports. As I understand the position, after 15th May Palestinian citizens will cease to be British protected persons. Passports belonging to such persons will not, however, be withdrawn and will continue to be valuable documents showing that their owners are Palestinian citizens. A question was asked in regard to diplomatic representation. The position is that after 15th May the care of British interests in Palestine will fall to the Foreign Office who are making adequate arrangements for representation in Palestine.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: To whom will the representatives be accredited?
    Mr. Creech Jones: For the moment, the British Consuls will be there, but we are very much in the dark about what is likely to happen in Palestine. I have not the gift of prophecy. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has made the statement that after 15th May the responsibility is that of the United Nations. In any case, it is proposed to make arrangements for representation on the termination of the Mandate.
    A question was raised in regard to interference by citrus interests in the withdrawal of troops and stores. I have made inquiries into that matter. I am assured that the whole plan for the withdrawal of
    2812
    troops is not in any way interfered with by the conveyance of citrus crops, and that we are conforming with our time schedule in regard both to stores and the withdrawal of men. I am also assured that we do not anticipate that we shall be hampered in any way by the trade in these commodities which is so necessary for the economic life of Palestine.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the question I asked. It is all very well for him to say what he has said. Indeed, he and other right hon. Gentlemen have said it on frequent occasions. The figures which they have given, and figures which the Palestine Government or the Army in Palestine published the other day, show that that is not the case. I ask the Committee not to be content with a vague protestation from the right hon. Gentleman on this most important subject.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member must be misinformed in regard to his figures. The information at my disposal which is information from the Services as well as from the High Commissioner, is that which I have just conveyed to the Committee. There is no interference, and the withdrawal of stores and troops is proceeding in accordance with schedule. Neither the general officer commanding nor the High Comissioner anticipate any difficulty in completing the withdrawal in acordance with the plans which they have laid down.
    Mr. Low: May I have some other figures? All the figures I gave were figures provided by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. It may be that those figures are wrong. If they are wrong, the Committee should be told, because Ministers should not give wrong figures. When I have taken the trouble to give the Committee the figures in full, it is no good for the right hon. Gentleman merely to say that there is some mistake unless he says what the mistake is.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have been given the figures which the hon. Member used. He said that 648,000 tons of stores were to be removed. That figure related to Army stores and equipment now in Palestine and Egypt, and it included R.A.F. stores in Palestine as well. I have the actual figures for the Army and R.A.F. stores in Palestine alone. They

    2813
    are very much below the total figure which the hon. Gentleman used in the discussion last week.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Can we have some indication as to the position which will arise, or might arise, in the definite and final withdrawal of the British troops and administration from Palestine on 15th May, and the possible creation of a hiatus which will border upon a condition of anarchy with complete absence of administration? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible for some interim period to be contemplated which will enable the new administration to take over from the present administration?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There can be no interim period which involves British troops or the British administration. We are quite definite. The Government are absolutely adamant that the dates I have announced must be observed. We withdraw on 15th May and we hope that all our troops will be out by 1st August. We have done everything in our power to create conditions in Palestine so that ordinary life can continue when the British troops withdraw; but it is now a responsibility of the United Nations. It is a responsibility which has been assumed, as announced by the Secretary General during the week. There, I think, we must leave it. We cannot prophesy, we cannot foresee, what the position in Palestine will be after 15th May.
    Mr. Blackburn: Would my right hon. Friend say a word on immigration? On what date will our policy of stopping the immigration ships come to an end? Is it 15th May?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Our civil administration comes to an end on 15th May. After that, we have no responsibility in regard to immigration.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: We have had a very long detailed statement from the Secretary of State, which appears to us almost completely to disregard the events which have taken place since Friday last when we were considering this Bill. To deal first with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and before I come to the more substantial points, may I say that I do not wish in any way to
    2814
    withdraw the view expressed by myself on behalf of the Opposition in the course of the passage of this Bill through its earlier stages in Committee, or to say that we disagree in any way with the Government on the two main propositions which the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech; namely, that at no time were we prepared to implement the decision for the partition of Palestine, and, in the second place, we agree with him that there could be no divided responsibility as long as we were still in authority. We therefore agree absolutely with those statements, and, in regard to the rest of his speech, there was practically really nothing which he had not said previously to the Committee or which was not known before.
    What the Committee now wants to know is what is the Government's general attitude in regard to this Bill, and, in particular, towards Clause 1 which we are now considering, in the light of the decisions and statements made by the United States Administration, and the new position, as we see it, which has arisen in the United Nations? There has been no reference whatever by the Secretary of State to that statement, and the only result, in this Committee, outside in the country and overseas, will be that people will be somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman can speak in Parliament and make no reference whatever to this decision. I, therefore, would like very strongly to press the right hon. Gentleman, before we agree to the passage of this Clause, to make some allusion, at least, to the events which have taken place. If he is incapable of doing that, may we ask the Foreign Secretary, who is attending this Debate and thereby showing the importance which he attaches to this problem, to make some statement in order that the position can be cleared up to some extent, and so that we may know what kind of action they are intending to take?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that I have not made reference to the events over the week-end. I made it perfectly clear that the announcements which had been made by the Security Council did make the future of Palestine, after 15th May, very obscure, and I made it perfectly clear that, whatever decision the Security Council might take, our position remains

    2815
    as previously announced. We are withdrawing our civil administration on 15th May; we are withdrawing our troops. We will, meantime, do everything in our power to effect an orderly transfer. That we are doing, but the situation, from the point of view of the British Government in respect to this Bill, has not altered at all. This Bill seeks to give us the necessary power in regard to the termination of the Mandate, and whatever has happened in the last four or five days at Lake Success does not alter our determination or the purpose for which the Bill is now before the Committee.
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that when I took part in the Debate earlier, I drew the attention of the Committee to the anxiety felt by my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee and myself about the obscurity of the situation as it existed on Friday last. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman then used the expression that "the house was ready for the tenant to come in," and we then had some vague idea who the tenant was. Now, we have no idea who the tenant is or what arrangements are being made when we leave Palestine. There are some of us who feel, in the tradition of our country, that we have no right easily to assent to the passage of this Clause if we have no conception of the attitude of the Government as to who is to be the successor authority and what arrangements are to be made. I think the right hon. Gentleman should have been able to give us some more indication of what the position is likely to be.
    Let me try to state as clearly as I can, and I certainly do not want to make an obscure position more difficult, the manner in which we see this Bill in the light of the present situation, with a view to trying to encourage right hon. Gentlemen opposite to give us more information. As we see it, since Friday last, when we started to discuss this Clause, there has been this important statement by the Secretary of State and by the State Department in America on the subject of the ending of the partition plan which caused that proposal to be abandoned. Instead, a trusteeship is proposed under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. So far, we are all agreed that that is the new position. I have been able to obtain——
    Mr. Creech Jones: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? This proposal was put forward on the Security Council itself. No decision in regard to this proposal has been taken. There is before the Security Council the recommendations of the Assembly and the views of the Palestine Commission as well. What the Security Council will decide, whether for a trusteeship, a truce or the partition plan, no one at this moment can say.
    Mr. Butler: If that be the case, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make the situation more clear? Can he give any indication of what the attitude of the Government is towards this situation, and what attitude they are likely to take up on the Security Council in regard to the future of Palestine after the passage of this Bill? If he can give any indication, I should be very glad to have it.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I should like to say that, on this matter, the Government have not changed their policy, and they cannot change their policy, because some other State makes a proposition—and that same State has made a number of propositions in regard to Palestine. The fact before the world is that the Assembly has made the decision. When this process has gone through the Security Council, they may be calling another Assembly to say what action should fie taken. No one can say what is going to happen, but that does not affect this Bill. This Bill covers our responsibilities in coming out. Neither this announcement nor the Assembly could do anything to affect our coming out.
    Now hon. Members opposite are asking what is the attitude of the Government going to be to the question of trusteeship? His Majesty's Government have stated all the way through that they will support anything which can be agreed between the Arabs and the Jews, but that they will not take part in enforcing anything, whether a trusteeship or anything else, on the one or the other. That has been their attitude all the way through. I wish other people would realise what enforcement meant before they voted so easily.
    His Majesty's Government take the view that it cannot anticipate these further discussions that will go on. We shall remain in a neutral position until we know what the proposals actually are. Would

    2817
    the right hon. Gentleman opposite stand in this place and give an answer on what he would do in this or that situation when he has not seen the actual detailed proposition? I am not sure of the reactions of Arabs or Jews, or what they arc going to do about it, and I do not know what the chances of a truce are. We have taken the line that we will do all we can to promote harmony between these two races.
    One other point. We have made up our minds very strongly on a point on which I hope the Committee will support us. We cannot be in the same position as the rest of the members of the United Nations until we are out of Palestine. While we have troops there, while we are there, involved as we have been, we do not get the same position as any other member of the United Nations. After 15th May, and we are out, and the transition is taking place in the administration, a very different situation can and may arise, but that is a matter that I cannot foresee at the moment. I do want to emphasise that we have to get into a position to enable us to be out of Palestine. That is the fundamental point of British policy. It has been asked whether we will hand over to chaos. That will not be the case: we have handed over to the United Nations. If the United Nations, in taking over, has produced chaos, how can it be said that Great Britain has handed over to chaos? It is not we who have done so. We have been willing to hand over to the Security Council or to anybody else.
    Mr. Mikardo: The Government refused——
    Mr. Bevin: We have never refused to hand it over——
    Mr. Mikardo: It was refused here on Friday.
    Mr. Bevin: We did nothing of the kind. We declined to have it in the Bill.
    Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose——
    Mr. Bevin: Wait a moment. If hon. Members cannot argue fairly, I do ask them to be truthful, for the sake of the world. We did not do that; we declined, as I understand it, to have it stated in the Bill.
    Mr. Warbey Mr. Warbey (Luton) rose——
    Mr. Bevin: Wait a moment. It was a very good thing that we did not put it in the Bill because we should have been tied. At the same time as we were moving, another country was moving in an entirely different situation. We are ready to hand over to whatever form of body the United Nations ultimately decide we shall hand over to. Let me make that perfectly clear.
    Mr. Warbey: Is it not a fact that earlier this year the Palestine Commission asked His Majesty's Government that they should go to Palestine in accordance with the decision of the General Assembly? Is it not also a fact that His Majesty's Government told them that they could not go at that time?
    Mr. Bevin: That is another issue altogether. That is a question of the date on which the Palestine Commission should arrive in Palestine, and who should provide for their security on arrival. That is another issue altogether, but we have made it perfectly clear that we have not opposed the United Nations decision ever since it was taken. Let whoever cares to misrepresent us do so, but that is the fact and I hope that it will go out quite clearly. If other people have created a muddle, why should His Majesty's Government be blamed? We were blamed because we did not do the right thing in Palestine when we were responsible; we were blamed when we were trying to get out; we are blamed for what is happening when we are going out. The quicker we are out, the better.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to thank the Foreign Secretary for intervening in the Debate in a very useful manner. He has now made clear to us, in supplementing the speech of the Secretary of State, what is the definite attitude of the Government. That enables me to divide up our attitude on the Bill in this way, in the light of what has been said here and the statement made on Friday in another country. The Clause we are discussing is entitled: "(Termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine.)" We consider that we should support the Administration in letting this Clause go through because we think that, in view of the general uncertainty prevailing, we should definitely continue to support, as we said we should before this latest declaration,

    2819
    the withdrawal of our jurisdiction from Palestine. In regard to this first Clause, therefore, we have no doubt of the right action to take.
    5.45 P.m.
    As to the rest of our discussion on the Committee stage, I must give a word of warning. The rest of the Bill may not be drawn in such simple terms, as this part, namely matters dealing with assets, legal proceedings, troop withdrawals, and so on. It may be necessary, as we see it, for the Government, even though they adhere to their decision to withdraw from Palestine, to re-draft this Bill in certain contingencies in the future which at present we cannot foresee. Therefore, when we come to later parts of the Bill, we on this side of the Committee shall have to reserve the right to state that there may need to be amending legislation in certain contingencies which we cannot foresee, even although we agree with the main proposition contained in the Bill. If we state our position on those lines, we shall be safeguarding those who speak on this side of the Committee.
    I should like from the Government, preferably on the passage of this Clause, or later in the Bill, a statement that will make the position clear, that if it were necessary to introduce amending legislation in the light of further developments occurring in the United Nations Security Council, the Government will undertake to introduce amending legislation to put the matter right, even though the Bill may be passed in its present form today. That is a reasonable request and it would, at least, put us straight with our own conscience in the light of the great uncertainty prevailing. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will realise that we are trying at least to bring a little clarity into the situation. The one plain element appears to be that we should now be clear in our determination to withdraw from Palestine and put ourselves on a par with the other nations.
    Mr. Bevin: I would readily give that undertaking but, for the sake of the record, I prefer the phrase "the United Nations Assembly" rather than "the Security Council," or both. In this procedure one does not know exactly what will happen, but if we pass out of Palestine altogether and some new situation arises
    2820
    which we cannot foresee, then, if His Majesty's Government are willing or prepared to take any other step involving a change of legislation, I readily give the undertaking.
    Mr. Butler: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Janner: There are one or two points I wish to make in regard to the speeches which we have heard from the Front Bench. Today, for the first time, it has been made categorically clear that when we leave Palestine we propose to hand over the administration and jurisdiction to the United Nations. We were not told that on Friday. We were not told that at any time in the course of the Debates on this Bill, and, although a specific demand was made during the Debate on this first Clause, the position was left unclear. It has been stated by the Colonial Secretary —whose attention I would like for a moment—that every effort was made to assist the Commission and to assist the United Nations in putting into effect the recommendations of the Assembly. I would like to point out that the actions taken by the Government ever since the Assembly placed its recommendations before the world, have in no sense justified the statement he has just made.
    Whilst it is true that he said we should not participate by giving our troops or any other support towards the implementation of those recommendations, my right hon. Friend surely cannot deny that the whole of the actions which have been taken—the acts of omission—cannot but leave everybody to conclude that he did not desire to put into effect what the Assembly wanted, and that he had no intention of allowing anyone else to do so. The recommendations were clear. The steps which were to be taken were made perfectly clear. They were made clear, not for want of proper knowledge of the whole situation, but with the full knowledge of everything that had to be stated about the situation. We have been told, time after time, that His Majesty's Government have placed at the disposal of those who were considering proposals, all the information in their possession. Quite obviously they had been told about these dangers to which they allude today; we are told by my right hon. Friend that he had informed them of every detail available, but, never-

    2821
    tneless, this independent body came to a definite conclusion, and pointed out the methods by which that conclusion was to be implemented.
    I ask my right hon. Friend, even at this stage: Why do not we do what the Assembly asked us to do? Why do we not allow the necessary forces—I do not mean British forces—to be used in Palestine for defence purposes? Why do we not allow the Jewish settlers—who have done no harm in Palestine at any time, but who have been constructive in their efforts, and have performed something really worth while—to defend themselves? Why do we still give arms to Arab States which have declared categorically that they will defy the United Nations, whatever the United Nations does, so far as its recommendations are concerned with regard to partition, or any solution of that nature?
    Why do we allow Fawzi Kawukji, armed to the teeth, to come into Palestine with his supporters, from those very States to whom we are sending arms? These are questions of considerable importance. It is no good protesting that we tell these States not to use our arms in this way. The fact of the mattes is that arms are being brought into Palestine from Syria, from Transjordan and from Iraq—countries to whom we are at present sending arms. It is ridiculous to suggest that those arms are not, in one way or another, being used against the Jewish settlers by the very States who openly declared that they will defy the United Nations, in carrying out its conclusions.
    So far as America is concerned, I think everybody will agree that in the last few days there has been perhaps as big a betrayal as we have witnessed from any other source. The question is: What has been going on behind the scenes? I wonder whether we can be told if the State Department in America has had any contact with our own Departments here? Have we emphasised to them that we still propose to stand by until a day or so before the Mandate is relinquished, and not to allow the Commission to come in? What is the good of our saying that the Commission was being supported, and that we were doing everything for the Commission, when we would not let the Commission go into Palestine? No; the true position is quite clear. The Assembly
    2822
    made its decision, and on the strength of that decision one of the parties in Palestine proceeded, to help to bring that decision to a proper and effective conclusion.
    The Jewish settlers in Palestine, acting in conformity with the decision of the Assembly, acted in the manner in which the Assembly would have them do, and they have arranged to set up a government in a part of Palestine, although, in effect, by so doing they were prepared to relinquish a considerable amount of the claim which they had in respect of Palestine, and which was legitimately their due according to the Mandate. At this stage we must not say that we intend to leave these stalwarts in a position which will not enable them to continue that which the Assembly decided. We should now tell the United Nations definitely: "We have changed our mind with regard to the obstructive measures that we have been adopting hitherto. We are prepared to let the Commission carry out its work. We are prepared to do what the Assembly stated we should do." Everybody wants our troops out of Palestine and out speedily. I contend that we must not create in Palestine a position which will leave the Jewish builders there fighting with their bare hands against armed bandit Arab forces—forces whom we, and nobody else, have enabled to be armed.
    I tried to ask my right hon. Friend a question about Jerusalem. I did not understand quite what he intended to convey to the Committee in his speech. Am I to understand that the Government were agreeable to a Governor of Jerusalem being appointed forthwith? Would that governor collect around him the necessary forces to control Jerusalem, and would those forces be allowed to take over straight away? If that is so, I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. But if it is so, how can that be done with regard to Jerusalem while at the same time it is contended that with regard to the rest of Palestine the Government are not prepared to do the same. If that is the case, if there is to be dual responsibility in Jerusalem, pending the termination of the mandate, what difference is there between that dual responsibility and the dual responsibility which the Assembly itself conceived when it asked that the Commission should go

    2823
    to Palestine and make the necessary preparations without delay?
    What is wrong with opening a port for emigrants? The boundaries of Palestine are being crossed by armed bandits. Why not let the immigrants from Cyprus go into Palestine? What earthly harm can they do? They have to go in before 15th May. Why not open a port and let them in now?
    Mr. Lipson: They may be killed.
    Mr. Janner: The Jewish settlers in Palestine are not so free from responsibility or humanitarian concern as to want their harassed relatives there if they cannot protect them. They know they can protect them. They would have been able to protect the whole community if the recommendations of the Assembly had been properly accepted. When is my right hon. Friend going to open the door to these persecuted people? When is he going to allow them to come in? Are we going to wait until a day or two before 15th May, or are we going to take our stand straight away, side by side with other members of the United Nations Assembly, and let them in forthwith? These questions ought to be answered this afternoon. No one wants to stand in the way of passing this Bill through as speedily as possible, but we ought to have proper answers to those important questions which I have asked.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It was said rightly several times in the Debate on Friday that Clause I was the most important Clause in this Bill. By this Clause the Mandate is relinquished, and by this Clause the date of 15th May has now been inserted. The discussions on this Clause have been particularly important for another reason altogether, namely, that until the intervention of the Foreign Secretary a few minutes ago, information as to how this Clause would be translated into effect was singularly conspicuous by its absence.
    The Colonial Secretary gave a number of what I must admit I thought were very unconvincing replies to particular points put to him from this side of the Committee on Friday. He referred to the position
    2824
    of Palestinian subjects holding British passports. As far as I understood it, he said that these British passports, in possession of Palestinian subjects after 15th May, were to be kept as valuable documents. Hitherto, the value of a British passport to the holder has been that the holder was entitled to some protection from Great Britain. After 15th May that protection no longer exists. I do not quite follow what value a British passport will have for Palestinian subjects after that except as a museum piece. What is to be the position of those Palestinian subjects, who are residents outside Palestine? Can they use British passports to travel from one country to another? Although the protection afforded will no longer be in force, will the passport have international recognition? I think we are entitled to have rather fuller replies on that question.
    We should also like to know a little more about the scheme for the evacuation of British civilians and non-military personnel from Palestine. On Friday, the Colonial Secretary told us we could not have much information about the plan for military withdrawal for security reasons. There cannot be any security reasons for not telling us the plan for the withdrawal of civilian personnel. There are quite a large number of them—British subjects in religious institutions, British subjects who work in commercial undertakings. What is to be the plan of evacuation for these men, women and children? The Committee is entitled to know. A further point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), was not taken up by the Colonial Secretary, namely, would any financial provision be made for those who are infirm, sick or impoverished and, hitherto, whose livelihod has depended upon residence in Palestine? What kind of compassionate financial assistance is to be available to them?
    I want to refer once again to the withdrawal of the British troops—this was discussed on Friday, the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) raised it again this afternoon. We on this side of the Committee are not quite certain as to which of two Ministerial statements is the right one. The original statement made by the Colonial Secretary on 11th December was that normal trade, and especially the citrus trade, would be interfered with as little as possible by

    2825
    troop movements. The second statement on 26th January, was that troop movements have complete priority over everything else. Then we have the report in "The Times" of 15th March, emanating from the military authorities in Palestine, which explained quite categorically that the capacity of the Palestine railways was no more than 22 trains of all kinds a day. The report went on to say that much of this traffic was not available owing to the high priority demands of the citrus trade.
    I am not an expert on Q-movements, but if the capacity is only 22 trains a day it is perfectly obvious that the withdrawal cannot be completed by the named date if both citrus or troop movements have a priority. They cannot both have the priority at once. We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the actual state of affairs about the withdrawal of the troops. He said in his remarks earlier this afternoon that we would try to withdraw as much of our military stores as we could by 1st August. What sort of stores does he envisage leaving behind after that date? Does he mean equipment which is not movable, or does he envisage a state of affairs on 1st August which will necessitate a certain amount of stores being left behind owing to the method of withdrawal, in that the timetable will not be complete, and, therefore, they will be abandoned on some dump to rot? We should like a little information about that.
    Lastly, I want to refer to the Holy Places. The Colonial Secretary made what he could with what I thought was rather a weak case to convince the Committee that our hands were quite clean and our consciences quite clear about this question, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as every Member of this Committee, that the question of the Holy Places is causing a great deal of concern all over the country and all over the world. He referred on Friday in the Second Reading Debate to the special Force which was to be recruited by the Governor in Jerusalem. It is really no good trying to pretend that that special Force has the slightest chance of being in existence on the 15th May—that is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the public—for the very simple reason that it cannot be recruited until the Governor is installed, and the Governor has not yet been appointed. Even supposing he were
    2826
    appointed tomorrow there is still not the slightest chance of the special Force being recruited within six weeks.
    In any case, from events of the last 48 hours, it is quite clear that the United States intends to drop tile partition scheme and, presumably, if the partition scheme drops, the Jerusalem enclave comes out of it also. What would the position of Jerusalem then be in the new set-up? I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter because it calls for an answer. One of the most pathetic examples of pious hopes I have ever heard in my short period in the House of Commons was from the lips of the Minister of State in the Second Reading Debate when he said the safety of Jerusalem
    "will depend on the behaviour of its 200,000 inhabitants… It is the responsibility of the citizens there. That, I fear, must be our main hope at the moment." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1361.]
    If the events of the past months are any indication for the future, all I can say is that the omens are not at all good.
    By any reasonable forecast we know we shall be handing over the custody of the Holy Places to no organised authority at all. It is, in my view, a very bitter condemnation of twentieth century Christendom that apparently, in spite of the Christian nations who sit on U.N.O., no effective steps can be taken to prevent the Holy Places from becoming the battleground of Jew and Arab alike. Will the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre be violated by the tommy-gun and the hand grenade in this violent racial struggle between Jew and Arab? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to attach more than "considerable importance" to quote his own words, as a degree of priority, to this question. I urge him to make still further representations of the highest possible priority, and with all the emphasis and weight he can command, to the United Nations organisation that something must be done to avoid leaving a complete vacuum in respect of the custody of the Holy Places after the 15th May, lest it be said of our generation that we failed to appreciate the significance of the Holy Places in our history.
    Mr. Mikardo: I want to make no more than a passing reference to the speeches we have heard from the

    2827
    Front Bench this afternoon, because I do not think they did, in fact, clarify what are obviously widespread doubts amongst the Committee about the situation as it will exist with the passage of Clause 1, and in particular in the light of the happenings since we discussed this matter on Friday. I may be in a minority of one in this Committee, but I thought the intervention of the Foreign Secretary, far from clarifying the position, made it a good deal more obscure than it was before.
    The right hon. Gentleman came in like a deus ex machina, dropped a thunderbolt, and then disappeared leaving us to sort out exactly what he meant. He said that at no time have His Majesty's Government expressed or shown any disinclination to pass jurisdiction over to the United Nations, when that jurisdiction is relinquished, as we now know, not later than 15th May. I wish that the Foreign Secretary had been present on Friday to listen to some of the speeches made by his colleagues, especially the speeches of the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General. I have to be extremely careful in what I say in reference to any remarks of the Foreign Secretary, because if you quote him quite literally, including the commas, you are then accused of misrepresenting him, but if you leave the commas out, you are dashing the cup from his lips.
    He said today that it was misrepresentation to suggest that His Majesty's Government had at any time expressed any disinclination to pass over jurisdiction to the United Nations, and all they stood for on Friday last was the insertion of the passage of such jurisdiction to the United Nations in the Bill. I do not think that any Members who were present on Friday would accept that as a correct interpretation of what was said from the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. S. Silverman: It is in direct conflict with the speech of the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Mikardo: Yes, it is in direct conflict with what the Attorney-General said. It was stated on Friday that if His Majesty's Government committed themselves to passing over jurisdiction to the United States, and if, for whatever reasons, when the time arrived for passing over that
    2828
    jurisdiction the United Nations were unwilling to accept it, then this would put His Majesty's Government into a position in which they could not pass over the jurisdiction at all. There was a great deal of talk about what happened if a baby was left on someone's doorstep and the door was not opened to take it in. Therefore, the Government argued on Friday that we could not commit ourselves. Those who read HANSARD will see that what I have said is borne out, and that the Government stated that they could not commit themselves to passing over jurisdiction to the United Nations if, for some reason or other, the United Nations would not accept it, which means that we are left in a position in which we cannot pass over the jurisdiction at all. The Foreign Secretary now comes along and says that we are committed, and that we have always been committed to passing over jurisdiction to the United Nations. If that is so, I want to know what we were debating on Friday. I wish that my right hon. Friend had been present on Friday, because he could have saved us an hour or two of Debate.
    6.15 p.m.
    Everyone regrets that it is not possible to pass the remaining stages of the Bill at the rate the Government hoped. Members of the Government, particularly the Lord President of the Council, have expressed their disappointment that members of the Committee have been such a bunch of naughty boys in not getting on a good deal faster. I would point out, however, that it is the Government who are doing their best to make the proceedings as long as possible. Until yesterday, I had not the slightest intention of taking part in the Debate on this Clause, but I have been compelled to take part in the Debate, as I was on Friday, because of an observation made, not for the first time, by the Lord President of the Council in reply to a question on Business.
    The Lord President of the Council persists in seeking grossly to misrepresent the object which some Members of the House had in putting down a reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading of this Bill, and in seeking further to amend the Bill in Committee. I said on Friday that I found it necessary to make a speech, which I would not otherwise have made, because of the reply given by the Lord President of the Council to a question put

    2829
    on Business, in which he suggested that the only issue which now remained in connection with this Bill was whether or not we should get out of Palestine on 15th May. Those who were present on Friday will know that if there is one issue about which there is no division of opinion in any quarter, it is this issue. Therefore, the issues in question are quite different. Over and over again that has been made abundantly clear in the Debates on this Bill.
    The Lord President of the Council has many other duties, and for that reason he has been unable to be present during the proceedings on this Bill. He is, I am sure, the hardest working Member of the House, and he has many commitments, but he nevertheless persists in coming to the House and trying to pretend, I do not know for what reason, that there are some Members who are seeking to delay the exodus of our Forces and administration from Palestine, and every time that he does that, it becomes necessary for some one to get up and say that this is not the issue. I hope, so far as the House is concerned, that we shall dispose of this Bill by today, but if we do not, I have the fear that the Lord President, in answer to some question tomorrow, will once again produce this story, and then we shall have to make more speeches to protect ourselves from misrepresentation, and the House will be held up in its desperate efforts to pass this Measure.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) should express so much astonishment over the apparent difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary, because if he goes back to 1945, he will find that there has been considerable difference of opinion all along. The hon. Member is quite right in asking the Colonial Secretary what exactly is the position now, so far as handing over to the United Nations is concerned, because on Friday the Attorney-General said:
    "After the appointed day Palestine will become, in effect, foreign territory and nothing done under an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament could, as a matter of international law, in any way affect the rights which His Majesty possesses to protect British subjects and British property abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 2507.]
    It is extremely important, especially in the light of what has happened over the
    2830
    weekend, that, while we do not want to alter the date of 15th May, we should consider very carefully what is to happen between 15th May and 1st August to our own subjects in Palestine, and to the Palestine subjects with British passports to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) has referred. If we are to have a consulate or some political representative, where is he to be situated, and to whom are his credentials to be presented? It is most important that this should be cleared up, and that we should be told whether any equivalent to the British consulate will be in Palestine.
    There are one or two other points with which I want to deal, particularly in the period between 16th May and 1st August. Some time ago, the Minister of Defence was asked a question by another hon. Member and myself on the matter of the evacuation of hospital patients after the very unpleasant incident which had taken place in a hospital against British troops. The Minister of Defence said on that occasion that he did not think that we could start moving them out now, because there might be some who were too seriously ill to move. If that is the case now, it may quite easily be the case on the final day. What is to happen then? Are they to be left there because they cannot be moved? One can recall many parallels during the war in which people far more dangerously ill than some of those in Palestine, were moved far greater distances. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will be able to tell us that some steps are being taken, if necessary in conjunction with the Egyptian Government, to get our hospital casualties away now, because I know that there are many parents in this country who are extremely worried about the position.
    There is one other point which I wish to touch upon. That is the question of the Holy City having been the capital of Palestine, and what is to happen now? Is the centre of government to be carried on in those buildings? I urge the Colonial Secretary to represent to the United Nations that the sooner any form of central government can be cleared out of Jerusalem the better. I believe that there is nothing that antagonises the people in Jerusalem more than the fact that the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency are there exacerbating any difficulties that may exist already. I

    2831
    should have thought that the sooner they could be moved out the better. I hope that the experiences of our officials who have been in Palestine for many years will be used to recommend to the United Nations as to where the new capital should be.
    I hope that the Holy City will not be the capital of Palestine, whether Palestine is eventually partitioned, federalised or made a trustee territory. Whatever the case, the mere existence of these rival governments or rival heads of races in Jerusalem itself will, I believe, undo any progress that may be made in the future, or prevent any progress being made in the future towards peace in the Holy City. It is one of the most lamentable things when we remember what this week is, to think of the Holy City being torn as it is today. I hope that the-Colonial Secretary will do everything in his power to get it across to the United Nations that Jerusalem as the Holy City should no longer be the capital of Palestine, whatever else is decided by the Security Council or the General Assembly.
    There is the more mundane matter of concessions, which I think we shall be able to deal with in greater detail on Clause 3. There are many concessions which affect both Jewish, Arab and British people in this country. Under the original plan of 25th November, the United Nations reported that there was to be an economic union, and the concessions were to stand with the new authorities giving the concessions. What is now to happen? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what may happen if there is a battle immediately after wards? British subjects would be interested in that, and I think he has an obligation to the British in these concessions, and also an obligation to ensure that British employees of other concessionaries are protected. As I see it, there will be, even after 15th May, quite a few civil employees of concessionaires in Palestine whose position may be practically untenable, and if any efforts are made by either side to end these concessions, what is going to happen to the British citizens who are there? I hope that we may have some clarification of that position.
    In conclusion, may I refer to what was said by the hon. Member for West
    2832
    Leicester (Mr. Janner). I am sorry that he has left his place. He tried to make out that the Zionists in Palestine and the Zionist leaders had to look after their own people and would not welcome the people from Cyprus if they knew that they were likely to be killed. I hardly think that any leaders who ship their people across the Mediterranean in the so-called "hell ship," are likely to be squeamish when it is a matter of bringing reinforcements to fight a war for them. I hope that the United Nations will be advised to take steps to see that the Jews at present in Cyprus are removed as quickly as possible, and if possible are not sent into Palestine itself. It seems that if they go there, it will make the position worse than it is.
    I criticised the Government on the Second Reading for being limited in the way in which they had advised the United Nations. I said that I thought they were right in saying that we as a nation would take no further action, but, nevertheless, they should say something to the United Nations as to what they suggested should be done. Have they done that over the matter of future immigration between 15th May and 1st August? I am disturbed from the point of view of our own troops who will be left in Palestine after 15th May, if immediately after that, date illegal immigration, as it used to be known, starts again. It seems that all it will do will be to bring in all the thugs who have been shipped to Palestine, and diverted to Cyprus, and make things worse.
    It is no good the hon. Member for West Leicester saying that we cannot tell the Jews what to do, if, at the same time, he is trying to tell the Arabs what to do with the arms which we are giving them under Treaty obligations. We used to be criticised for "governessing" Europe. The hon. Member for West Leicester wants to governess the Arab States. If they are sovereign States they have the right to have Treaty obligations that we honour. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pay much attention to what the hon. Member for West Leicester had to say on the matter of the Arab States.
    Mr. Mikardo: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say under what Treaty obligations rifles are at present being sold by British authorities in Palestine to Palestinian Arabs?
    Major Legge-Bourke: I am not aware of that fact. I doubt if they are, and I am sure that if they were doing that, they would be court-martialled, and quite rightly so. I am referring to the Arab States with which we have Treaties, and with which we are under Treaty obligations to provide the wherewithal to defend themselves. If other sovereign Governments misuse that, that is a matter for the Arab people concerned and the United Nations, but certainly not for us in this Debate today.
    As hon. Members know, originally I tried to argue the opposite case, because I felt an injustice was being done to the Arab people. The Government stuck to their guns on the matter and we in this House have to accept their decision. The actions of the Government are more likely to lead towards peace if they stick to a decision once it is made rather than change their minds every five minutes. I did my best to get the other point of view accepted, and I still think it an injustice to Palestine that that decision should have been taken. However, the Government thought otherwise, and now that that decision has been taken, I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in the Government will adhere to the decision to get out on 15th May, and to withdraw completely by 1st August and that there will be no change from those dates.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Benn Levy: I would not have spoken this afternoon had it not been for the intervention by the Foreign Secretary. He rose in answer to a request by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) ostensibly to bring clarity and light into the Debate. Instead it seems to me that he produced a dense mass of artificial fog, and I want, if I may, to try to dispel some of it. During his brief but characteristic intervention, he managed to accuse the Committee of untruthfulness, unfair argument and misrepresentation. I do not want to throw back those charges, but I should like to see how far they are completely irrelevant to the case he himself made.
    The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden asked him a plain question—what was the Government's attitude or policy? As far as I could understand my right hon. Friend's reply, it was that the Govern-
    2834
    ment's policy was solely to support an agreed solution between the two parties, the Arabs and the Jews. That sounds very well but only for a moment, because nobody in this Committee believes that such a solution is possible. Nor does my right hon. Friend believe it either. He himself has gone on record saying specifically in so many words that there can be no such solution, and it, therefore, follows that what he was saying was that the Government have no attitude and no policy.
    In point of fact, to have no attitude and to have no policy is to have a policy supporting the status quo. If a change is not supported, then the existing situation is supported, and it is partly because the Government have consistently supported the status quo that there is, in fact, nobody at this present time to whom we can hand over control. The responsibility for the locked door on the step of which we are laying the baby, is in large part our responsibility, and the Committee ought to realise that what the Foreign Secretary's intervention has revealed quite clearly is that the Government have no overt policy, but have still what they have had for the last two and a half years, a covert and ill-advised policy of oblique Arab appeasement. The present impasse is the result.
    Mr. Lipson: I do not think the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) is quite fair to the Foreign Secretary. He said that the Government had no policy. The Foreign Secretary in his announcement was quite consistent with the attitude that the Government have maintained hitherto. The Government have decided—and I believe the majority of the people of this country are behind them—that British troops shall no longer be used in Palestine nor should they risk their lives to enforce on either side a policy to which either one or the other objects. That is a perfectly reasonable and sound attitude to take up, and I would ask the hon. Member for Eton and Slough if he is prepared to go down to his constituency and say that he is willing that British troops should be used to enforce on the Jews or the Arabs a solution which either or both of them do not want?
    Mr. Levy: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has evidently been listening closely not to what I said but to what the Lord President of the Council

    2835
    persists in saying. The Lord President persists in saying that the critics on this issue are opposed to the withdrawal of British troops. I repeat for the hundredth time we are opposed to nothing of the kind; we favour it.
    Mr. Lipson: I asked the hon. Gentleman a straight question and he has not given me a definite answer. Unless there is an agreed policy it follows that there must be one to which one side or the other objects. It is obvious, therefore, that force would have to be used to implement that policy. If we are not prepared for our troops to be used for that purpose, we are told that we are disloyal to the United Nations.
    Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must put forward his own perfectly sincere views in his own perfectly sincere way, but he will only obscure the issue if he persists in misrepresenting other people. There is nobody in this House who believes that at this time under the Mandate the jurisdiction of this country should be prolonged by five minutes beyond 15th May, nor is there anybody in this House who believes that any British soldier should remain in Palestine five minutes longer than it is physically possible to take him out.
    Mr. Lipson: I thought the matter at issue was, what was to happen when we came out, and if the solution of partition were still standing and had to be enforced, it would have to be enforced by the United Nations. I am sure that those who are criticising the Government are anxious that we should join and take our part in any international Force required. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] I am very glad to have got that out of them at least.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must not say, "I am glad to get that out of them." If he had taken the trouble to come to the House on Friday he would have heard it ad nauseam.
    Mr. Lipson: If that is so, then there is even less justification than I thought for the criticisms which have been made of the attitude which His Majesty's Government have taken up since the decision of 29th November. Apparently, we are all agreed that we should lay down the Mandate on 15th May, and that all troops should be withdrawn by 1st August. For
    2836
    that reason I support the Motion that the Clause stand part. What we must also be anxious about is that there should be peace in Palestine. I believe that people outside Palestine have a contribution to make towards ensuring that peace is likely to happen. They will not make that contribution, however, by supporting the extremist view of either one side or the other but by asking—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Eton and Slough is now applauding me—for an agreement between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.
    The only solution which will bring peace to Palestine is one which results from agreement. The alternative is bloodshed in Palestine until one side has destroyed the other. I, therefore, appeal to everybody not to say anything that is likely to make a bad situation worse, by encouraging the extremists on both sides. I welcome the recently announced change of attitude on the part of the United States. It shows that that country is facing the facts of the situation as we realised them from the outset. The United States now realises that the proposal for partition is not practical politics. I do not think they ought to be blamed, they having realised their mistake, for changing their mind. It is much better to do so when one has made a mistake than to persist in the mistake and so make matters very much worse.
    I hope that we shall take every possible step to come out of Palestine upon the appointed day and that we shall persist in the attitude that, whatever proposals may come forward in the future with regard to Palestine, we are not prepared to use our troops in more fighting there. On the other hand, we must try to be a conciliatory influence. I hope that that attitude will have support from all sides of the House.
    Mr. Thomas Reid: Since we last discussed this matter a notable change has been effected at Lake Success, although nothing has been definitely decided yet. In my humble opinion, however, partition is dead and buried—I hope for ever. I hope that the people who came to that decision at U.N.O. have at last realised what people who knew the situation well have all along realised, that the setting up of a Jewish State in a part of Palestine was unjust, unwise, and unworkable. The proposals for partition meant that the United Nations were setting

    2837
    the Near East in flames but, having provided the conflagration, they did not provide the fire brigade for putting it out.
    So far as one can see, now there will be no United Nations Commission to take over from us in Palestine. If so, a vacuum will be left. The new policy seems to be that Palestine is to be placed under the Trusteeship Council. Whether and when that will be set up is not yet known. Nor is it known who might be the ambitious State that will wish to be the trustee for Palestine. I hope that our Government will think twice before accepting this damnosa hereditas. Current events seem to show that some people in Palestine want to take the law into their own hands by setting up a Jewish State or an Arab State. If that happens, we shall be in a very difficult position while we are responsible, until 15th May, for law and order. I hope that the Government will consider what they will do in case one or both of those States is set up, rebellious as it will be against the United Nations and against the mandatory Power.
    The Clause we are discussing enables us to leave. And I support it. We cannot carry on any longer, and we cannot legislate in this Parliament for the United Nations. Reference has been made to the fact that Jews and Arabs cannot possibly settle their disputes. The decision of the United Nations Security Council, if carried out, means that the Security Council and the United Nations will not vote for partition, will not vote, in other words, for a Jewish State. There cannot be peace in Palestine as long as there is any attempt to create a Jewish State there. If that possibility is removed, in the interests of Briton and Arab, and above all in the interests of the Jews, peace can be established in Palestine in spite of the ferment which exists there at the moment. When I was a member of the Palestine Commission in 1938 and since, I have said that the average Jew and the average Arab longed only for peace for themselves and their children. I say so still. Provided the Jewish State policy is abandoned, there can be a settlement.
    Jews and Arabs in Palestine should come together, in their own interests and in the interests of Palestine. They should not take notice of their tormentors outside Palestine. Even at this late hour, let the Jews give up the idea of the Jewish State. Let there be a free and independent Palestine, in which the rights of
    2838
    the Jews there can be guaranteed. That is the only practical solution of this problem.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope that we shall have some elucidation from the Government upon the points which have been raised in the Debate. It is not easy to put those points in order of importance. I thought that the observations made by the Colonial Secretary about diplomatic representation were woefully and totally inadequate. He told us that representation would be adequate and that on 15th May it would be the responsibility of the Foreign Office. If there are plans for diplomatic representation, this Committee is entitled to know what they are and to whom those representatives will be accredited. It has the right to be assured that there will be adequate protection for those representatives.
    So far, all that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman is a statement that representation will be adequate. I must press the right hon. Gentleman to be frank with the Committee and to tell us the plans of the Government for that diplomatic representation. In particular, we want to know to whom the representatives will be accredited. Are they, as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rather indicated, to be accredited to the United Nations? If not, to whom?
    We have been told that responsibility falls upon the United Nations after 15th May. That statement confirmed the argument I put forward last Friday that, when we give up the Mandate, the right to exercise jurisdiction will go to the United Nations. That view seems to differ considerably from the advice which the Attorney-General gave to the Committee on Friday. If we have to wait until after 15th May to see who seizes power in Palestine, which is the right hon. Gentleman's view, how can we be assured that there will be diplomatic representatives after 15th May accredited to anyone in a part of Palestine that we do not occupy? I thought that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Benn Levy) was certainly wrong in one, at least, of his observations, in suggesting that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had accused hon. Members of unfair misrepresentation. It was nothing of the sort. He termed hon. Members on that side of the Committee, not this side——
    Mr. Levy: I wonder why.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Well, the hon. Member will agree that that was an incorrect representation of the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Levy: I was paying him a compliment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I now come to another matter——
    Mr. S. Silverman: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, will he favour the Committee with his view on whether the Foreign Secretary was right or wrong in the charges he made, because he has just said something which appears to mean that the (right hon. Gentleman was wrong?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Whether the Foreign Secretary was right or wrong in the observations he made is not for me to judge on this issue, but I think we ought to have the Government's statement clarified. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the responsibility falling on the United Nations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that no jurisdiction will be exercised in Palestine except by those who obtain power after 15th May.
    Mr. Silverman: Which is right?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I leave it to the Front Bench to explain. I now come to the question of passports. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said that British passports will not be withdrawn from Palestinian citizens. I dare say that the collecting of British passports from Palestinian citizens would be a most difficult undertaking. It is most valuable to have the assurance that they will not be withdrawn. We are then told that the British passports will be valuable documents showing their owners to be Palestinian citizens. I wonder whether the Palestinian citizens will value these documents very much after 15th May. What useful purpose will these documents have? We ought to be told something more about that, too.
    First, with regard to the Palestinian citizens who are in Palestine, what proper diplomatic documents can they obtain after 15th May? If they want to travel outside Palestine, will they be entitled to obtain passports from the United Nations? Have there been any
    2840
    discussions on that? What about the Palestinian citizens who are now in other parts of the world? I think I am right in saying that many Palestinian citizens went to South America before the war and are there on Palestinian passports. What will be their position after 15th May? Will they be able to get another passport enabling them to travel, and if so, from whom? We ought to have an explanation about that.
    Here is another matter. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about the evacuation of British civilians who were not in Government employment. What will be done about them? Are they to be offered facilities? If so, let us have some detailed information about it. What about British civilians who happen to be in hospital at the present time? A question has been asked more than once as to what will be done about British troops in hospitals. We have had no clear statement about that. Quite apart from the position of British civilians, there are, and have been for a long period, both Jews and Arabs in the Government service who have served the Government well. It may well be that a number of these servants of His Majesty's Government will not wish to remain in Palestine after 15th May. It may well be that some of those Jews who have served the Government well will wish to leave the country. Will any facilities be offered by His Majesty's Government to assist them in their departure? Will any facilities be open to other Jews—old Jews or anyone else—who wish to leave the country before that date? We ought to be told something about that.
    There has been reference to the removal of stores. My hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) quoted a lot of figures on the last occasion. Now, after considerable pressure, the Colonial Secretary has given some further information on that point. However, can he indicate to what extent stores will be left behind after 1st August, because on the Second Reading of this Bill he made what appears to me to be a very remarkable statement. He said:
    "Thus the funds and other movable property vested in or belonging to the Government of Palestine can be vested in appropriate authorities here. Immovable property will, of course, be left to the successor authorities except such as is vested in a Government Department here, such as the War Office."

    2841
    What will happen with regard to movable property vested in the War Office in Palestine after 15th May? The Secretary of State went on:
    "Regarding Palestine assets and liabilities generally, we are at present negotiating with the United Nations Commission in New York about them. Our object is to hand over the general assets of the Government to the successor authorities on their undertaking to meet liabilities. It may be that we shall be unable to complete satisfactory arrangements until well after 15th May, or possibly not at all.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 1248.]
    Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information now as to the progress of those negotiations? Can he tell us, too, to what extent our stocks and assets will be left behind after 1st August?
    I now come to the very important question about the Holy Places. A great deal has been said about this from both sides of the Committee, but no word which could give comfort to any Christian in this country has come from His Majesty's Government. I really hope that every possible effort will be made to ensure that some protection is secured for the Holy Places in the gap which is now bound to occur before any other force can possibly protect them.
    I understand that the mail service to Palestine for civilians will be suspended. What will be the position about communicating with the British subjects who remain in Palestine after 15th May—such as British inhabitants of religious houses in Palestine? Will it be the case—I fear it will, and if it is so it should be made quite clear—that after 15th May there will be no facilities for getting in touch with those British subjects who remain outside the areas which after that date are occupied by our troops?
    It has been said that this is perhaps the most important Clause of the Bill, and we ought not to pass from it without much more information about these questions than we have already had from the right hon. Gentleman. We ought to have from the Attorney-General some reconciliation, if he can make it, of the apparent—I do not say that they exist in fact—discrepancies between the statement he made on Friday and the statement which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made today.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Before the hon. and learned
    2842
    Gentleman sits down, perhaps he would be so kind as to tell me what the discrepancy is. I have been looking for it in vain. I dealt with what the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to as the technical question of juristic sovereignty and said there was no automatic transfer of juristic sovereignty. I said, not once but three times, that I was not dealing with political or moral questions. The Foreign Secretary today, as I understood him, was making it quite clear that it was his view that the United Nations had assumed the political responsibility for the future government of Palestine. I certainly never said that they were incapable of doing that. Whether that results in their obtaining juristic sovereignty in Palestine depends on the development of events.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I would like him to answer this question: can we have diplomatic representatives accredited to the United Nations when it holds political responsibility, or must our diplomatic representatives be accredited to a Power having juristic responsibility? Would he explain what he means by the expression, "political responsibility"? If he would explain those matters—the relationship between political responsibility for what happens in Palestine after r5th May, and juristic responsibility, and in particular answer the question, to whom diplomatic representatives will be accredited—it will assist discussion.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I do not propose to do that because, if the hon. and learned Member will do me the honour of reading my speech he will find that I dealt with the point explicitly and in detail on Friday. If he did not understand, I can only express regret, but I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee in repeating my view. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is serious when he asks me to distinguish between a technical juristic responsibility and a political responsibility.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am not complaining and perhaps it is easier for me to be serious. I am perfectly serious, when I ask to whom should the United Nations be responsible, and how can that be enforced? What is meant by saying that

    2843
    the United Nations are politically responsible? To whom are they responsible?
    Earl Winterton: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    As I am entitled to do, I desire to put to the Chair, under the guise of a point of Order, the reason for submitting this Motion. In this very important Debate, which has raised important questions quite outside the ambit of the Colonial Office, we have not had present any representative of the Foreign Office or of the War Office. In my long recollection it is quite unprecedented for the Foreign Secretary to take part in a Debate and make a speech, of great importance, and then be unrepresented on the Front Bench. I submit that in those circumstances I am entitled to move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Burden): I quite appreciate the point put by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) but I am afraid that at the present stage I am not prepared to accept it.
    Earl Winterton: I am sorry to burden you with a further point of Order. Do I understand you refuse it on the ground that, as the Foreign Secretary is not present and has no representative present, that is not a reason for moving to report Progress?
    The Temporary Chairman: It may be a reason for the right hon. Gentleman to move, but I am not prepared to accept it.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On that point of Order, I would like your guidance as to how my right hon. Friend the noble Lord can put his perfectly legitimate case that on this Debate the Foreign Office are not represented, whereas for the whole of Friday the Foreign Office were represented by the Minister of State. In the second place, the War Office are not represented. How is my noble Friend to put his point with regard to that, if he is unable to move his Motion?
    The Temporary Chairman: I feel the point is a difficult one, but I am obviously not in a position to compel any Minister to be present. I feel that at the present stage of the Debate we are reaching what I think to be a conclusion—
    2844
    [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and it would be a mistake on my part to accept a Motion to report Progress.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: At what stage in the Debate Mr. Burden do you propose to accept such a Motion?
    The Temporary Chairman: That is a hypothetical question based on a hypothesis with which I cannot agree. Mr. Silverman.
    Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order——
    The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Silverman.
    Earl Winterton: I am afraid I regard this as of some importance. Strange as it may seem, I always thought it to be the duty of a Committee to insist, through the Chairman upon having a Minister present. Without attempting to controvert your Ruling, Mr. Burden, I suggest that there is abundant precedent for a Chairman of a Committee to give some reason for refusing a Motion to report Progress to call attention to the absence of a Minister whose Department is being inferentially discourteous. During the whole of the years I have been in the House I have never known a Chairman refuse a Motion when two Ministers have been absent, without the slightest attempt made by the Leader of the House or by the Government to obtain their presence. If you regard it as a small or trivial matter, I do not think the Committee will, or the public outside, and I ask you to give a considered Ruling on the subject.
    The Temporary Chairman: My Ruling is that I am not prepared in the circumstances to accept the noble Lord's Motion, in view of the very long Debate the Committee have had on the Motion that the Clause stand part.
    Mr. Low: It may not have entered your mind before you gave your Ruling, Mr. Burden, that particularly ought the Secretary of State for War to be here today, as several hon. Members made speeches from this side of the Committee on Friday which require a reply from his Department, and no other Department. Those speeches have been on the record since Saturday morning, and I respectfully suggest that that was a very good reason to demand the attention of the

    2845
    Secreary of State for War, or the Under-Secretary of State for War, and that we should report Progress until they are able to be here.
    The Temporary Chairman: It may seem a very good reason to the hon. Member, but in the circumstances, as I have explained, I am not prepared to accept the Motion.
    Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order—[HON. MEMBERS: can keep a point of Order going for two hours if necessary. Further to that point of Order, would you not agree that on every precedent, the Chairman of Committees has always given some reason why he should not accept the Motion to report Progress when those concerned—[Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members shouting at me. I am going to put this point of Order, and the longer they shout, the longer I shall be in putting it. Never in the history of this Committee has a Chairman refused to give a reason why Progress should not be reported when an important Minister has been absent from the Debate in which he has previously taken part. For the benefit of future Chairmen, I ask you to give a considered reason why you should not accept my Motion.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee that I am not prepared to accept the Motion. A number of Ministers were present on Friday when I happened to be in the Chair and when I believe the right hon. Gentleman the noble Lord himself was not present. Mr. Silverman.
    Earl Winterton Earl Winterton rose——
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. May I ask at what point requests for a clarification of a Ruling become a dispute of the Ruling, and whether it is in Order for an hon. Member, or the noble Lord, to dispute a Ruling?
    The Temporary Chairman: I appreciate the point, but I have asked the hon. Member to continue the Debate.
    Earl Winterton: Will you further clarify the Ruling, as I understood you to say that as a Private Member of this House was not present on Friday that was a reason why the Minister should not be present when his Department is being discussed?
    The Temporary Chairman: I have already explained the point to the hon. Member——
    Earl Winterton: The right hon. Member.
    The Temporary Chairman: —the right hon. Member, and I see no reason to depart from it. Mr. Silverman.
    Mr. S. Silverman: If we may now continue the Debate, I wish to say that since I made a speech on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill on Friday I would not have thought it——
    Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Proctor: On a point of Order. Did I hear the noble Lord say, "The worst Chairman I have seen," and is that not a reflection on the Chair?
    The Temporary Chairman: I did not hear it myself.
    Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order, as the noble Lord is giving an outstanding demonstration of his desire to act as a rebel, would it not be desirable to introduce a purge?
    Mr. Silverman: I was endeavouring, to explain that as I took part in the——
    Mr. Blackburn: Further to the point of Order, not only did I hear the remark attributed to the noble Lord quite distinctly, but when you took the Chair, Sir Charles, the noble Lord very loudly said, "Hear, hear."
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think anyone has ever cheered me before.
    Mr. Silverman: Since I made a speech on the Motion "that the Clause stand part of the Bill" on Friday, should not have thought it necessary to intervene again, but for two facts.
    The first concerns my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council who is, I am glad to see, present on the Bench. My right hon. Friend has now twice on the Floor of the House stated that the issue between those who support and those who oppose the Government on this Bill is whether or not our jurisdiction shall cease on 15th May, and whether or not our soldiers shall come out of Palestine at the earliest possible moment and, in any case, not later than 1st August. I was presumptuous enough to correct him

    2847
    on both occasions when he said it on the Floor of the House, and I hope I am not committing any breach of confidence if I say that I took steps privately to explain the mistake in between the two occasions on which the mistake was made. I must, therefore, warn my right hon. Friend that if he persists in repeating this quite untrue assertion, somebody may think that he is deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and others may think that he is not at all anxious to get his Bill through the Committee very quickly. The first reason I have for venturing to speak again on this Bill is to make it abundantly clear that I do not believe the Mandate ought to continue beyond 15th May, that I support enthusiastically the Government's policy in ending British jurisdiction in Palestine on 15th May, and that my only quarrel with the Government's decision to get the troops out not later than 1st August, 1948, is that I think that it gives them too long a period and that they ought to be out quicker. I hope I have made that clear now beyond any further misrepresentation by anyone.
    I would like to know, in view of the rumours that are circulating, whether the Government are of that mind still, because I see statements in some of the newspapers that, if partition were abandoned and some sort of trusteeship substituted under the United Nations, His Majesty's Government might have second thoughts. I have even heard it suggested that there have been in London over the weekend representatives of the State Department discussing that very matter with His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Stanley: Would that be with representatives of the Foreign Office? In that case we ought to have someone from the Foreign Office here.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not know with whom the conversations took place if, indeed, any conversations took place. I am referring only to rumours, not because I give any credence to them, but because these rumours ought to be denied at once if they are not true. I welcome the plain statement made by the Foreign Secretary in his intervention a little earlier which seems to be utterly inconsistent with any such rumours, but I hope that it will be made perfectly clear at some stage that our decision, which we
    2848
    made when we referred the matter to the United Nations, was that we would take no further responsibility, no matter what the United Nations did. I think that decision was right, and I would like to be sure that the Government remain of that opinion.
    7.15 p.m.
    The other thing about which I thought it right to intervene was the demonstration to which the world was treated over the week-end of the American way of life, the question obviously being whether that makes any difference to our policy. In my view, what the United States have so far done makes no difference at all. They have made a proposal to the Security Council and, if the Security Council accepts it, we shall still be no further until, and perhaps not even then, a general assembly of the United Nations has changed that view to which it came last September. And it may very well be that once a great majority of the nations of the world have been convinced that a particular solution, though not ideally just, is nevertheless the best obtainable or attainable, it may not be so easy to make them change their minds. And it will be all the more difficult if the view is not expressed—and this seems to be the position of the United States as I understand the announcement—that there is anything wrong in principle with the decision reached last September.
    I do not understand that the announcement made by the State Department includes any statement to the effect that they disagree with the partition solution of the Palestine problem. What they say is, "It has become clear to us that it cannot be implemented except by force; we cannot find sufficient force to implement it and, therefore, we no longer support it." They do not say that it is wrong. What the United Nations would be doing if they accepted that view would be to confess not merely their impotence, but their moral bankruptcy. They do not say, "This solution that we reached is the best available; we thought so then, we think so now; we abandon it and leave nothing but chaos and anarchy in its place, not because there is anything wrong in it, but because we are not prepared to enforce it." I think it may be difficult, therefore, to persuade other nations who are perhaps not so dominated by the American way of

    2849
    life, to accept that view, and I would like to quote to the Committee an extract from a French newspaper, "Le Populaire" of 22nd March:
    "What will be the attitude of France? France cannot leave a nation in the shadows of destruction, a nation which has fought side by side with her, and which represents one of the most advanced domocracies of the world. Neither can she allow the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, and its decisions to be frustrated by special motives, however important they may be."
    That may be the view of other States, and I say to the Committee that they must approach this question of Clause 1 in this Bill not on the assumption that anything had changed, but on the assumption that nothing has changed except the opinion of some United States statesmen which may or may not ultimately be the view of their government, and which may or may not ultimately be the view of the governments of other countries. After all, when the United States came to its decision last September, everybody said, "Oh, it is election year." Well, it is still election year——
    Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Silverman: I am greatly relieved, Sir Charles, to understand that the applause does not refer to anything I have said, but to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who has just come in. That being so, we are left in the position in which we were, and that is that we go away. We are right to go away, and wrong not to leave anybody with the right to exercise jurisdiction when we go; to leave the house fit or unfit for an incoming tenant, but not to have any incoming tenant. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) as to the conflict between the view of the Foreign Secretary concerning the position after we leave Palestine and the view of the Attorney-General on Friday last. The Attorney-General says that there is no difference, that he was talking about law and that the Foreign Secretary was talking about politics. I do not think that is so. The Foreign Secretary was saying that we were prepared to hand over jurisdiction to the United Nations or to anybody appointed by the United Nations. We all heard him, and that is what he said.
    Those were the very words of the Amendment which the Government were
    2850
    resisting. The Attorney-General said jurisdiction will not automatically pass to the United Nations unless the United Nations are there in Palestine—and not merely that, but unless they are there in Palestine with sufficient forces to assume sovereignty; that if they are not there with sufficient forces to exercise de facto sovereignty, then de facto sovereignty will go to whoever can seize it by force, and de jure sovereignty will follow the event. The Attorney-General is perfectly clear about that. Unless the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary were both making speeches in support of the Amendment which the Government and the Committee rejected on Friday, they just do not make sense and do not fit in with one another. In that position we are invited to leave this Clause.
    Brigadier Peto: I rise to make only two points. One was put into my mind by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) who said that, in his view, it would be quite impossible to have a Jewish State in Palestine. I want to make my position clear. I spoke in the Palestine Debate early last year, and I held the view very strongly that it was quite possible to have a Jewish State in Palestine alongside an Arab State as a temporary measure, leading to fusion in the end. What has happened now? We have had disorder stirred up to such an extent that instead of leading to fusion, it has led to confusion. My view now is that it would not be possible to have a Jewish State separately, and I consider that the United States have done very wisely in making known during the weekend the decision which they have now taken.
    My second point is one which the Colonial Secretary put into my mind. He spent some part of his speech doing what he called rebutting the charges that the disorders and the trouble in Palestine were caused by this country and its Administration. I cannot allow him entirely to get away from those charges with impunity. In my opinion, the disorders were mainly incited by influences, Jewish and otherwise, outside Palestine, but they were partly caused by the promises made to the Jewish people in Palestine by the Labour Party at the election, which have not so far been fulfilled and will never be fulfilled by that party. The two factors—the outside influences stirring up trouble in Palestine, and the promises

    2851
    which have not been fulfilled for one reason or another—are the cause of Palestine being in utter chaos and the reason why there is no body to whom we could hand over satisfactorily. Speaking for the people of my constituency, I can only tell the Committee that this determination of the Government to be out of Palestine by 1st August and that our Mandate shall cease as from 15th May will be welcomed by one and all. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Siverman) said earlier in an intervention, no one in this Committee disagrees with the Government on that point.
    Mr. Gallacher: The Government have had this Mandate for nearly 30 years, and the purpose of the Mandate was that we should take charge of Palestine and carry out the responsibility of preparing Palestine for democratic self-government. That is the Mandate; why do not the Government carry it out? Can the Government walk out of Palestine and leave it in chaos, without any attempt to carry out and complete their responsibility? I would have the troops out tomorrow. I would have had them out last year—in fact, long ago—but getting the troops out does not relieve the Government of their responsibility. It is not troops which bring about democratic self-government. It is a policy which does that. [Laughter.] I know the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) has been brought up in the Army, and thinks that the only way to produce democracy is by getting a gun, and that the bigger the gun, the greater the democracy. The Government have the responsibility under the Mandate to leave Palestine in a settled condition with a democratic form of government.
    Throughout the past I have always advised Zionists against the road which they were taking. I have said at Zionist meetings in this country that the Jewish people were being led to disaster, with the Zionists and the Arabs fighting for the independence of Palestine. I have always taken that line. I say to the Government that they cannot simply lay down the Mandate as they propose without an extra earnest effort being made to carry out the responsibility given to them when they asumed the Mandate. Bring out the troops, yes; but use every possible
    2852
    measure to leave Palestine in a settled condition. Suppose that the Government sent the Foreign Secretary to Palestine instead of to Washington, and the Colonial Secretary with him. [Laughter.] What is the laughter for? The Government have responsibility for Palestine under the Mandate, which is not given up yet.
    Are we going to walk out and leave chaos where we promised to leave peace, order and democratic self-government? That is a crime for which every one in the Government is responsible. If necessary, the Government should send the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary there to bring together representatives of the Arabs and the Jews, and discuss with them between now and the end of the Mandate, the possibility of building up a combination of Jewish and Arab recognised public people who would make themselves responsible for keeping a measure of order. We are certainly committing a crime against all that we ever claimed to stand for when we took the Mandate, if we walk out and leave chaos without attempting to bring about order.
    7.30 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I know that in the minds of very many Members in this Committee there is a good deal of disquiet and feeling that we may be leaving Palestine in a state which one cannot help anticipating it may be left in and it is, therefore, only natural that Members should travel over a wide range of topics in trying to forecast—or, what is more, in trying to get the Government to forecast —what may take place after 15th May. I have listened to all the Debate, but I suggest that much of it has been largely irrelevant. Whatever the situation may be after 15th May, this Bill will apply; it is an enabling Measure, a piece of machinery which is to come into effect to meet any situation that may arise. I suggest that we have been discussing matters which are not germane in any way to the Bill, although I can well understand the natural feelings of hon. Members on this point.
    I had long thought that it was not possible to introduce any fresh matter into a Palestine Debate. I thought the ground had been covered so fully and so often that nothing new could be turned up, but the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife

    2853
    (Mr. Gallacher) did introduce a new note into our discussions. His suggestion that we should remove all our troops from Palestine, and send the unfortunate Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary there, is one that has not been made until now. For the first time for many years we have had something fresh turned over on the question of Palestine.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that we are responsible for leaving Palestine in a state of law and order, with democratic self-government, and now propose to walk out without the least effort being made to carry out our responsibilities under the Mandate?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Government have been making efforts since they have been in office to arrive at a just settlement in Palestine. Only last week the hon. Member came to see me and asked me to bring about what he called a "Dunkirk evacuation" from Palestine. His suggestion that we should remove our troops in a kind of panic evacuation from Palestine does not coincide with the suggestion he is now putting up, that we are responsible for leaving Palestine in a state of law and order after we have left that country.
    The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) repeated a query which was properly raised by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) last week, about stores in Palestine. If I answer this point now it will be a reply to a suggestion that the Secretary of State for War should have been here today. The hon. Member said that on 20th January he asked a Question of the Secretary of State for War as to what Army stores and equipment were then in Palestine. If the hon. Member will re-read that Question he will see that what he asked was about Army stores left in Palestine and Egypt which, of course, makes all the difference. The figure he quoted to us on Second Reading was the figure which he arrived at of the stores remaining in the two countries.
    I can now give the actual stores position in Palestine. The figure for Army and Air Force stores which are scheduled for removal is 250,000 tons. That was the original figure. Of this total 153,000 tons were shipped by 1st March, leaving 97,000 tons to be shipped before 1st August, so that approximately 61 per cent. of the stores to be removed have already been moved. The planned withdrawal of
    2854
    stores is in no way being held up, either by shortage of shipping or the requirements of the citrus trade. Those acquainted with this trade will know that it finishes, both as to collection and removal, at the end of March. The citrus trade cannot interfere in any way with the removal of stores. There was a slight shortage of shipping in the early stages of the evacuation, but that has now been made good. I hope the hon. Member will now be satisfied that those are the facts, and that the figure he gave was a misunderstanding of the figure given by the Secretary of State for War.
    The question of Holy Places in Palestine has been one to which the Government have given most earnest consideration. I can assure the Committee that it has caused great anxiety to Ministers. We all realise that the ancient City of Jerusalem should, if humanly possible, be preserved from desolation, desecration and looting. We have constantly pleaded with the Trusteeship Council to take this matter into consideration, to make the necessary arrangements to appoint a Governor, and then to give him the necessary powers to get a staff together and forces, either a police force or otherwise. We said that should he require police, as he will, we would be prepared to permit police officers in Palestine who desired to remain on a voluntary basis with the Governor to do So. Unfortunately, the Trusteeship Council have not come to any decision on the matter, and they have now adjourned consideration of the appointment of a Governor until 28th April.
    Mr. Janner: Could my hon. Friend say whether it was the intention of the Government that the Governor should be permitted to have these forces before our departure after 15th May?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Not before 15th May.
    Mr. David Renton: As there is the probability that the Trusteeship Council may not be able to make any satisfactory arrangements to cover the period 15th May to 1st August, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that through the most troubled times of recent years Arabs and Jews have, in the main, respected the Holy Places? Will he make an appeal to the two races and their leaders to do everything they can

    2855
    during that period to continue the respect for the Holy Places which, in the main, they have held in the past?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: We have already done that; we have suggested a truce between Moslems, Christians and Arabs. We must not forget that Christians come into this just as much as Jews and Arabs. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), there is another complication. Whatever our views may be about troops being admitted to Jerusalem before 15th May, the Jerusalem statute does not come into operation until 1st October.
    Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman ought to have had a representative from the War Office at his side. What is the position of those British troops who remain in Jerusalem for two or three weeks after 15th May? That is very important to everyone in the Committee.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Member is frying not only to forecast what is to happen in Palestine but what I am about to say. I intend to deal with that point in this way: It is only a possibility that some troops may be in Jerusalem after 15th May. Some troops may be in any part of Palestine after 15th May and before 1st August. There is no more difficulty about those troops who may be in Jerusalem than there is about troops in any other part of Palestine. I do not see the hon. Member's point. We have said that we will evacuate all troops from Palestine by 1st August. Where the troops are located between 15th May and 1st August is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief. It may be that some troops may be in Jerusalem; the Commander-in-Chief may desire some troops to be there. I cannot tell him, nor can anyone else. That is purely a matter of security, and is one for the Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. What would be the policy if something happened to endanger the Holy Places? Will any troops who are there have any responsibility for the preservation of the Holy Places or for the preservation of law and order around the Holy Places?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: They will have no responsibility for law and order after 15th May save in so far as it is necessary for
    2856
    the preservation and safeguarding of the Forces themselves in the withdrawal. There is no doubt about that.
    A point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) as to our representatives in Palestine after 15th May. It will be quite clear, from what the Attorney-General said, that that is already covered by the Government's decision. During the Committee stage, on 19th March, the Attorney-General, in an intervention, when the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Ely was speaking, said:
    "—if the United Nations are in control, we shall be able to have a consul there, accredited in much the same way as consuls are accredited to other sovereign States. If the United Nations are not in control, and there is no other Power which assumes de facto and de jure rights of sovereignty, the position will, of course, be more difficult and as a matter of international law. All I can say is that we intend to have somebody there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 2511.]
    That is quite clear. We intend to have someone there who will have the authority of a representative of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Grossman: To whom?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: He will be in exactly the same position as are all the other representatives who are there now and who, we suppose, will remain there. Again I am being asked to exploit a gift of prophecy which I have not got. I do not know, and how can I say, who will be the legal government at that date? To whoever is the legal government at that date our representative will be accredited. If there is no legal Government there at that date the other circumstances to which the Attorney-General was referring will obtain, and our representative will be there without being accredited to anyone.
    International law is made step by step by a series of accidents and eventualities, and we shall just be making a little more international law. [Laughter.] There is no difficulty about it. I do not see why the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) laughs about any suggestion which is made with which he does not agree.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I will tell the Under-Secretary of State what amused me. It was his suggestion that anarchy and

    2857
    chaos can produce international law, or that there was any necessity for that to occur. The Government could have put into their Bill the authority to whom they gave jurisdiction and could have accredited their representative to that authority. I thought that was what the Foreign Secretary said. Now the Under-Secretary is rejecting that.
    7.45 P.m.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: That is a frivolous suggestion, which was put forward to justify an empty laugh.
    The question of the evacuation of the wounded was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely. Here again I do not quite see the point at issue. We are now moving wounded from Palestine as soon as they can comfortably be moved. It may be that occasionally if a man was badly wounded he would not be moved at once; he would be left in hospital until he was in a position to be moved with safety. We shall move all wounded, if there be any such, up to 'the date of our final withdrawal. If there are any wounded at the moment of final withdrawal they will be taken away in the normal way. The British Government and the British Army are not in the habit of leaving their wounded behind, and we shall not do so.
    On the one hand, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely said he agreed to our moving our troops out; he confirmed the Government's policy in that respect, and approved it. Next he said that we must look after our concessionaires. How? It may not be possible. It is a question of negotiating with any successor Government there may be. At this stage it is quite impossible for His Majesty's Government or anyone else to see how they are to protect the interests—oil interests or other interests—of concessionaires in Palestine. The important thing for us to look after at the moment is to get our own civil authorities and troops out, and the concessionaires will no doubt be dealt with, if possible, at a later date.
    Major Legge-Bourke: It was unfortunate that I used the words "look after." What I meant to ask was whether the Government had taken any steps to inform the various British citizens working in those concessions what the position of the Government there will be after our
    2858
    withdrawal. Have His Majesty's Government asked those people what they want to do, and are they giving them any facilities to do what they want to do?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: When the hon. and gallant Member used the word "concessions" I thought he meant it. Now it woud appear that he is referring to employees of concessionaires.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Minister of State, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, was much more explicit about concessions than the Under-Secretary has been. He said:
    "I think it is plain that we should have good a title as any other member of the United Nations to demand of the Commission, in that interim period, that they should attend to our interests as far as lies in their power."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 1359.]
    Could the Under-Secretary underline that assurance, and in case of there being a Trusteeship and not a Commission, would he underline that we shall take steps to get the Trusteeship to look after our interests?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Certainly, we shall take all necessary steps. I do not want to be tied down to any particular steps with any particular body but I agree with the spirit underlying what the Minister of State said.
    With regard to civilians, the Palestine Government have undertaken that, in the event of it being necessary at the time of withdrawal to evacuate British subjects after 15th May—that is, civilians in employment or service in Palestine—arrangements will be made to do it. A register is being compiled of British subjects whose normal occupation is in Palestine and whose domicile is in this country. A note is made in that register of those who desire to remain after 15th May. We have urged them to take advantage of the present conditions and to send their wives and children to the United Kingdom before the end of April. We hope that most of them will do so.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of civilian stores before he leaves that matter——
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am going to deal with stores. If hon. Members opposite would allow me to make my speech they will find that all these points will come

    2859
    out, but I cannot make two or three speeches at the same time. With regard to War Office property in Palestine——
    Mr. Quintin Hogg Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford) rose——
    Mr. Rees-Williams: No, I am not going to give way any more. With regard to War Office property in Palestine after 15th May, I take it that immovable property is meant and not movable property. That again is a matter for negotiation with any successor Government or body that there may be. I would point out that discussion on this point would be more appropriate, subject to your approval, Mr. Beaumont, under Clause 3, Subsection (4) of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has once again, for some reason, thrown doubt on the period at which the Mandate is to end——
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Has the hon. Gentleman now left the question of personnel?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I will come back to that. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has once more cast doubt on this question of the end of the Mandate. Some rumour reached him that somebody had come over from America, or from the State Department, to meet someone in this country, and on the strength of that nebulous rumour he has come to the Committee of the House of Commons and put forward a suggestion that the Government have changed their mind——
    Mr. S. Silverman: I did not do that.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is no such thing. We have not changed our minds, and the Mandate will terminate on 15th May. It will be remembered that the Government have already amended this Bill, and that the date of 15th May is now part of the Bill. That, I should have thought, was, of itself, sufficient evidence that there has been no change of mind or heart on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne also strove to show some conflict between what the Foreign Secretary said today and the statement of the Attorney-General on the Committee stage of the Bill on Friday. The Foreign Secretary as I understood him did not say we would not hand over jurisdiction if the successor authority was not in Palestine. It was implicit in his statement that whoever was to take over the jurisdiction would have to be in a
    2860
    position to exercise it. It seems to me obvious that it is useless to hand over jurisdiction to an authority which cannot exercise it. Therefore, the Attorney-General's statement on Friday is perfectly consistent, and has to be read in connection with the statement today of the Foreign Secretary, in order to make quite clear what is the view of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I put that point to the Foreign Secretary in the middle of his speech, and he described it as a misrepresentation. I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend is now saying. With that put into the speech of the Foreign Secretary, there would be no conflict; without it there would be all the conflict in the world, but when I suggested that, he accused us of misrepresenting him.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I understood that the Foreign Secretary was not talking about misrepresentation in that regard. He was accusing some hon. Members of misrepresentation on an entirely different point.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Under-Secretary is not very felicitous in this matter. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is correct in his interpretation and I think we ought to know which member of the Government is giving which interpretation. If the Attorney-General would be good enough to elucidate the point, we would be satisfied.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not entering into the battle of giants—if battle there be —but it seemed to me while listening, although I am not an expert in these matters, that the thing was perfectly plain. If the authority is not in a position to exercise jurisdiction, then jurisdiction cannot be handed over to it.
    Mr. Hogg: What I had in mind when I sought to intervene was that the hon. Gentleman put a qualification on his assurance with regard to the statement about personnel leaving Palestine. He referred to British subjects domiciled in this country. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would make it perfectly plain that British subjects who happen to have their domicile in the Dominions, or other parts of the Empire, would not be excluded from his register or from the hope of evacuation.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I will look into that point. I think that most of them are domiciled in this country, but the hon. Member can rest assured that we should not exclude anyone from the Dominions or the Colonies who wished to be evacuated. I think there is no question about that, and I give that assurance. I hope that now, after this very full consideration, we may be given this Clause without further Debate.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 104.]

    AYES.

    7.56 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

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

    Levy, B. W.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Allan, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Longden, F.

    Bacon, Miss, A.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Baird, J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McAdam, W.

    Balfour, A.

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

    McEntee, V. La. T.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Foot, M. M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    McGovern, J.

    Barton, C.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Battley, J. R.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

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

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Gallacher, W.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Benson, G.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    MoLeavy, F.

    Berry, H.

    Gilzean, A.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Beswick, F.

    Glanville, J. E. (Conselt)

    Marquand, H. A.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Marshall, F. (Brightside)

    Binns, J.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Messer, F.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Gunter, R. J.

    Monslow, W.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Guy, W. H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvll

    Morley, R.

    Brown, T. J. (Ines)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Hardman, D. R.

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

    Burden, T. W.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Moyle, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Harrison, J.

    Mulvey, A.

    Callaghan, James

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Murray, J. D.

    Carmichael, James

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Nally, W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Chater, D.

    Holman, P.

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

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    House, G.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hoy, J.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Cobb, F. A.

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Paget, R. T.

    Collick, P.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Collindridge, F.

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Collins, V. J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Janner, B.

    Parker, J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Crawley, A.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

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

    Paten, J. (Norwich)

    Cunningham, P.

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

    Pearl, T. F.

    Davies, Edward (Buralsm)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Perrins, W.

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

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Price, M. Philips

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Keenan, W.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Diamond, J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Key, C. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Randall, H. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Kinley, J.

    Ranger, J.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Lang, G.

    Rankin, J.

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Dye, S.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Rhodes, H.

    Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

    Lever, N. H.

    Richards, R.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Stross, Dr. B.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Stubbs, A. E.

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

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Swingler, S.

    Wigg, George.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Royle, C.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wilkes, L.

    Scollan, T.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Sharp, Granville

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

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

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Shurmer, P.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

    Tiffany, S.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Willis, E.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Tolley, L.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Viant, S. P.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Walkden, E.

    Woods, G. S.

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

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Wyatt, W.

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

    Warbey, W. N.

    Yates, V. F.

    Snow, J. W.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Solley, L. J.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stamford, W.

    West, D. G.

    Mr. Pearson and

    Steele, T.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mr. Richard Adams.

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

    Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Pooh, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Barlow, Sir J.

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

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

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Rerrton, D.

    Birch, Nigel

    Jennings, R.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

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

    Kendall, W. D.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Bower, N.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Spence, H. R.

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

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Byers, Frank

    Low, A. R. W.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Challen, C.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Maclean, F. H. R.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Touche, G. C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Medlicott, Brigadier F.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Drewe, C.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir. T. (Richmond)

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

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

    Duthie, W. S.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    While, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Fox, Sir G.

    Mullan, Lt. C. H.

    York, C.

    Gage, C.

    Neven-Spenoe, Sir B.

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

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Odey, G. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grimston, R. V.

    Osborne, C.

    Major Ramsay and

    Hannon, Sir. P. (Moseley)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Brigadier Mackeson.

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Legal Proceedings.)
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to move, in page I, line 23, to leave out "whether."
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment was discussed with the one in line 23, to leave out "or outside." I move this Amendment because I consider that the Clause as
    2864
    it stands is amorphous and ominous—all the more ominous because it is amorphous. The Attorney-General during the Second Reading Debate made one or two remarks of a febrifugal character in which he indicated that this Clause was not of such far-reaching effect as hon. Members appeared to think. He said:
    "… to quite a considerable extent it involves no more than a clarification of what we believe would, in any event, be the existing law after we lay down our responsibility for Government on 15th May."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1323.]

    2865
    The Clause would give the Government power to take any action of any kind not only inside, but outside Palestine. It would be possible under this provision for the Government to incarcerate a Member of this House who may have made a speech which conflicted in some way, in the view of the Government, with any matters connected with the termination of the jurisdiction of the Government in Palestine. The Government could close down any newspaper in this country for printing a speech which was regarded as impeding in any way the termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine. It may be said by my right hon. and learned Friend that there is no intention to exercise such powers. Why, then, word the Clause in such an all-embracing manner as to render possible the exercise of all kinds of extraordinary powers outside Palestine?
    The Clause involves unspecified action outside Palestine that might involve us in complications of very considerable magnitude and might indeed have international repercussions. It is, in my view, an example of totalitarian drafting to which it is difficult to find a parallel in any legislation that has hitherto been introduced into this House. I have ceased to be surprised or disappointed at anything the Government may say or do in relation to Palestine, but, if a similar Clause had been found in legislation of any other Power behind the Iron Curtain, it would be quoted with great indignation as an example of the dictatorial suppression of legal rights and remedies, and we would have long disquisitions about the iniquity of this kind of process from many quarters of the House.
    In the words that I seek to remove, there is neither rule nor law. I quite admit that, so far as action in Palestine is concerned, it is necessary that power of this kind should be conferred upon the Government, but I cannot see why the Government should be given power to do what they like and be immune from legal process in respect of any action which they might see fit to take outside Palestine as well. I am reminded of the comment made recently in the editorial columns of a newspaper not unfavourable to the present Government. I allude to the "News Chronicle," in which it was stated that
    2866
    the power of Ministers has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
    This Amendment provides the Committee with an opportunity of taking away a power which, in my view, it is not necessary for the Ministers of the Government to have. We do not deny the necessity of this Clause so far as action inside Palestine is concerned. Some of us feel that the assumption of such powers in respect of action outside Palestine is making a demand upon hon. Members of this House which ought to be very carefully scrutinised and resisted, unless some very adequate explanation is forthcoming why those powers should be granted.
    Mr. Janner: I rise to support the Amendment, because I feel, and I think the Attorney-General, who is to answer the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, will probably also feel, that it is essential that powers which are taken should not be wider than those absolutely necessary for the occasion. I have the grave fear that the powers which are being taken in this Clause extend well beyond anything that is absolutely essential in order to bring the provisions of this Bill, when it is passed, into effective use.
    It is a very wide power that is being asked for here. One understands the position with regard to Palestine itself, although one has very considerable fears about it. There has been for long enough in Palestine what might almost be described as a police State—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, 'there has—a state in which the inhabitants have had very little opportunity of exercising ordinary civil rights. I do not think that can be denied. The type of restrictions placed upon the individual in Palestine—the individual who had a perfect right to be there, the individual who, by his work, did something which the world should be proud of—let us understand this position properly—not on individual doing some-think which was wrong, but an individual building the whole time against adverse circumstances—has included measures which nobody in this country would dream of tolerating. I do not want that sort of thing at this very delicate stage of the handing over of the Mandate.
    Let me give an illustration, and I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to tell me the answer if he can. Would this

    2867
    Clause enable some person who was in authority on one of our ships—one of our naval vessels—to interfere with the victims of persecution, who had already had sufficient intolerance shown towards them, if they wanted to come to Palestine after we had relinquished the Mandate? Suppose somebody did that, and I am putting a case which is not an entirely hypothetical case.
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): That issue does not arise on the Amendment, but might be discussed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Janner: This Clause concerns action done outside Palestine, and I am referring to that. I want to leave out the part of this Clause which deals with action done outside Palestine, and I am talking about something that is done outside the three miles limit. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if that would open up the possibility of any officer, or any person at all, taking action of that nature without being responsible to a proper court? The proceedings referred to here are proceedings which can legitimately be taken against an individual or against a set of individuals who would have the right to defend themselves, but who, because of this Clause, would not be required to defend themselves at all, because it would be presumed that their actions were correct and nobody could possibly take proceedings against them.
    What we are actually doing in this Clause is to exclude any transgressor from the ordinary rules of law by giving to him the right, when he obtains a certificate from the Government or from the authorities to the effect that he is acting in the course of his duty, to be excluded from the provisions of the Clause and from any possibility of action against him. That is a very important concession, and it militates against the ordinary rules of legal procedure, and should not extend beyond its proper limit. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend what is the intention behind it, and, if he will give me a satisfactory explanation, I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend as well as myself will be pleased to accept that explanation and not proceed further.
    The Attorney-General: I hope to satisfy both my hon. Friends that this Clause does not really bear the construction which they seek to put upon it, but I must, at the very outset of my remarks, repudiate the suggestion that we have been conducting something in the nature of a police State. The degree of personal liberty which has been accorded and continues to be accorded to persons in Palestine is, as I think the Committee will agree, quite remarkable in view of the many acts of terrorism and violence which have been directed against the authorities.
    Nor do I think that I can assist the Committee by following my hon. Friend in his hypothetical case which he sought to put to me, but, out of courtesy to him, I will deal with the one point about immigrants. If, in fact, His Majesty's Forces were to interfere with immigrants, and if they found it necessary for their own protection so to do, there is no doubt that it would be an act of State, not actionable in the British courts on the part of any alien, quite apart from the provisions in this Clause.
    Mr. Pritt: Surely it could not be an act of State if it were committed on a British ship, as might well happen if an immigrant were taken aboard such a ship. And, in such a case, the man would have a cause of action which would be covered by this Clause.
    The Attorney-General: I should not be prepared to accept that that would necessarily be the result. All that this Clause does is to protect action of that kind if it were taken in order to facilitate the safe withdrawal of His Majesty's Forces from Palestine. Any other interference with immigration into Palestine after 15th May would not be covered by the provisions of this Clause. Whether the defence of "act of State" arose would be another matter, depending on who brought the action and the actual nature of the complaint. It is necessary, in creating the indemnity which this Clause seeks to create, to extend it to acts which are done outside Palestine provided, as paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Subsection are intended to make clear, that those acts are done for the purpose either of maintaining peace and order in Palestine or in connection with the withdrawal from Palestine. The indemnity relates only to matters concerning Palestine, and is directed to one or other of those two

    2869
    objects, according to the date at which the act takes place.
    Some of the things which are done in Palestine, either in connection with maintaining order there before 15th May, or in connection with the safe withdrawal of British forces after that date, may be ordered from outside. The Commander-in-Chief in Egypt, for instance, may have occasion to direct certain action to be taken inside Palestine. It would indeed be odd if this Clause, as would be the case if this Amendment were accepted, protected only the persons carrying out the order but gave no protection to the senior officer, who, in the course of his duty, had found it necessary to give that instruction. Whatever the theoretical position may appear to be, there is no practical risk that this indemnity will be misused or that it will be used to cover acts which do not relate to the good government of Palestine or to the actual withdrawal of our troops. If any attempt were made by a Government Department to issue a certificate under the Subsection in relation to an act which was not directed to one object or the other, this House would have the remedy in its own hands. I must ask the Committee, therefore, to accept this part of the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. Mikardo: I do not know how far my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment have been satisfied by the explanation of the Attorney-General, but I must confess that my own doubts are not completely set at rest. I think it will be agreed that, in the peculiar circumstances which would exist if British troops were for a time in Palestine in process of evacuation after the cessation of the Mandate, there should be an indemnity. It may be necessary for them, whilst arranging their evacuation, to take measures to defend themselves against attack. In the same way that we agree that some form of indemnity is necessary, we should agree equally that indemnity should not go further than the interests of good government and civil liberties demand. In giving our troops the right to protect and safeguard themselves we should not, under this guise, put into effect legislation which gives wide totalitarian powers, not only in the country but outside it.
    When the Attorney-General rebutted with indignation the charge that Palestine has for some time had the character of a police State, he was loudly cheered in
    2870
    all parts of the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will support me if I say that that cheering was based more solidly on their own patriotism than on their detailed knowledge of what has actually been happening.
    Mr. Randall: It is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Mikardo: In that case, I will adduce a little evidence, which may come afresh to my hon. Friends and which is germane to this Amendment. What are the characteristics of a police State? I am talking about the extent to which the rights which are given under this Clause should be applied inside and outside Palestine. I wish merely to give two examples, which are relevant to the question of whether the power should extend outside Palestine, which is the purpose of the second Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend. Amongst the things for which we quite rightly criticise other countries is the maintenance of censorship. For many years, since long before the terrorism started, there has been a very rigid censorship in Palestine. I have some knowledge of this censorship but I doubt whether many of my hon. Friends have had experience of it. It is one of the least intelligent censorships in the world. I can quote the example of the eminent English Christian divine who was in Palestine a few years ago at Christmas time. He was asked to contribute a leader about the spirit of the Christmas season to a journal written in English in Palestine. His leader ended with words which will not be unfamiliar to hon. Members: "Peace on earth, Goodwill to all men." The Palestine administration censored the words "Goodwill to all men." That is one of the many examples I can quote of this unintelligent censorship.
    My next point concerns specifically the question of the exercising of jurisdiction outside Palestine. We rightly condemn countries to the East and elsewhere which put the State above the law, States which operate against the citizen the right to arrest without charge and to detain without trial. That is surely the defence of a police State. That right has been exercised by the Palestine administration both inside and outside the country for many years. Perhaps another example which I can quote may interest some of my.

    2871
    hon. Friends who just now cheered and said that it was a matter of opinion. In October, 1944, 291 citizens in Palestine were arrested and deported to Eritrea. They may have been very bad people, but I do not know anything about them. They may have been perfectly awful and dangerous people but, whoever they were, no charge was ever levelled against them and they have never been brought to trial. They were arrested and given no opportunity of knowing what they were accused of and were immediately rushed to the port and shipped to Eritrea.
    That was at the same time as we in this country were operating Regulation 18B, under which we also were arresting people without trial. It may well be said that those people might have been a danger to the community in wartime, in the same way as some of the people whom we arrested under 18B. As soon as the war was over, however, we lifted 18B, the powers under which these people had been detained without trial for three and a half years.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must not pursue that line of argument. He is now going very wide of the Amendment.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: With the greatest respect, I am querying whether under this Bill, and in relation to this Amendment, these people at present being detained outside Palestine without ever having been charged with any offence, and without ever having been brought to trial, can continue to be detained by His Majesty's Government with immunity against any action in a court of law. This is not an academic question. These people were moved to Eritrea and Kenya, and are still held in detention in Kenya by His Majesty's Government. I want to know whether, in the light of this Bill, His Majesty's Government will have any immunity against any action by these people for their continued detention outside the country.
    A few weeks ago the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a Question I asked about what would be done with regard to these people, said that they would be repatriated, and that arrangements were being put in hand. I do not know whether my hon. Friend
    2872
    knows that, since then the Attorney-General in Kenya has been to these detainees and has told them to take no notice of what my hon. Friend said, or of the statement which was made to the Commission, and that they would not be repatriated before 15th May. The question I ask is: Since they were detained under defence regulations, and since those defence regulations are part of the jurisdiction of the Palestine Administration—which, under this Bill, determines on 15th May—under what powers will the continued detention of these people after 15th May be carried on? If it does go on, to what extent does this Bill provide immunity against action by the State? It is for that reason, and only for that reason—although there are many others—that this Amendment is extremely important.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the partial assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 2, line r, after "Majesty," to insert:
    "other than a deserter or a person absent from duty without leave."
    This Amendment is self-explanatory, and the point at issue is extremely simple. The Bill at present provides immunity to servants of His Majesty—including, of course, officers and other ranks of His Majesty's Forces. For reasons which I gave just now, I am sure the Committee will agree that that should be so, and that any officer or soldier or airman carrying out his duty—perhaps defending the equipment or stores of his unit against attack—should have immunity, and should be protected against any action which might arise. But a different question arises when the action is committed by a deserter.
    I must confess that this raises some legal points which are beyond me, for I do not pretend to know the law. It may be that in any event a deserter has put himself outside the law, and that in any event he could not be so protected. If that be so, I plead my lay ignorance in putting the matter forward, and if it could be made clear that that is the position, then the point which I and my hon. Friends desire to make will be fully met. I am sure the Committee will not want

    2873
    that immunity, which is properly extended to serving officers and other ranks, to be extended to those who have failed in their duty through being absent without leave, or by deserting from their units.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has rather anticipated my answer to this Amendment. The indemnity created by this Clause extends only to acts done in good faith, and in the execution, or the purported execution, of duty. A deserter, or a person absent from duty without leave could not, of course, avail himself of the protection afforded by this Clause, and this Amendment is not, therefore, required.
    Mr. Pritt: Surely, that will not do for a moment? Suppose a person who is absent without leave, perhaps for 24 hours, does something in an emergency, and purports to act in the execution of his duty, whether it is repudiated afterwards or not. Suppose he proceeds to arrest somebody and, unfortunately, kills or injures him in the course of so doing. Suppose there are then proceedings in consequence, and the Crown says, "We had better stand by this chap. He was doing his best and acting in good faith, and what he did was purported to have been done in the execution of his duty."Would that be a complete defence? The question is whether there ought or ought not to be a defence in such circumstances.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Surely, a soldier or airman who is absent without leave is in a different category from one who has deserted. If the man has not sold his uniform, or otherwise disposed of it, he is not a deserter. Will not the Attorney-General make that quite clear? There may be some extenuating reasons why the man is absent without leave, and why he cannot possibly be proceeded against as a deserter.
    The Attorney-General: That is perfectly true, as the hon. and gallant Member knows as well as I do.
    To my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), I would say that no doubt if a soldier were absent without leave and, during his absence, did something which he believed to be necessary for the performance of his duty, and the Department concerned subsequently came to the conclusion that it was necessary for the performance of his duty and gave a certificate
    2874
    to that effect, that man would be protected. This Amendment is really designed to meet the case of a man who had deserted, or who was absent, and was doing something which it was no part of his duty as a soldier to do.
    Mr. Mikardo: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in page 2, line r, to leave out from "Majesty" to "if," in line 2.
    This Amendment relates to the powers given under this Clause, with a view to ensuring that those powers are not extended beyond a reasonable and proper limit. I can understand that in certain circumstances individuals who are in a position of authority should be protected. But for a person to be able to delegate that authority—particularly in serious matters of this description—is, in my view, going beyond the necessities of the occasion, or of any occasion which might arise under this Clause.
    The proposal contained in the Amendment is quite simple, and I do not think that the Committee would regard it as unreasonable. I want to leave out the words:
    "or by any person acting under the authority of any such person."
    Those words have a very wide scope. I want somebody from the Government Front Bench to explain how the Government limit the extension of the power at present contained in the words which I am seeking to delete. I can give a number of cases in which they might apply without any reason being adduced to explain it. I do not propose to take up any more time. I merely ask for an explanation.
    The Attorney-General: The language used here follows the language in the Indemnity Act. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that there may be cases where in some emergency or other civilians have to be called in to assist in the performance of a duty under the authority or with the directions of the General Officer Commanding—for instance, to prevent a crime or assist with the evacuation of the wounded, or some other emergency of that kind—and if civilians are called in to help the Forces, and do help the Forces in good faith in

    2875
    connection with their duty, it is right that they should have the same protection as that given to His Majesty's Forces. That is why it is thought right to follow the language that has been used in this regard in previous Statutes.
    Mr. Janner: I thought that was the case. In view of the explanation—and I appreciate the circumstances although I was not sure about the words—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "or purported to be done."
    This, again, is a question of degree iii the powers of indemnity. It seemed to me and to my hon. Friends who have put down this Amendment that the words "or purported to be done" leave the width of the powers practically unrestricted. Here, again, we simply must take into account the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) in moving a previous Amendment, that we ought not to allow ourselves to be open to that charge of totalitarian behaviour and suppression of individual liberties which we make, and readily make, against some other countries. In exactly the same way we should avoid such things. I mince no words, and I am not afraid of mentioning names, and if the Russians took some Mongolian citizens out of Mongolia from October, 1944, to March, 1948, without any trial and without any charges, I know what we should say.
    One of the characteristics of the all-powerful police State to which we readily object is the relation between the State and the individual. The State takes powers in its actions against the individual which it denies to the individual in his actions against the State. It seems to us that if these words "or purported to be done" are left in, they leave an area of discretion of action to be covered by immunity which is so wide that the citizen within the community will have almost no protection against the power of the State. For example, it immunises the sort of action in which a sergeant picks up four people, disarms them, strips them and throws them into a camp—as happened a few weeks ago, and was afterwards
    2876
    indignantly denied until it was afterwards found to be so.
    I have no doubt that the Front Bench may reply—it may very well be their reply—that one has to frame these powers reasonably widely and use them with discretion—and, in fact, use them only to carry out the purposes to which the Committee has agreed. Indeed, in his reply on previous Amendments the Attorney-General seemed to suggest that, when he said that if the intention of this House was violated in the exercise of the powers under this Bill, this House would doubtless have something to say about it. The fact is that in many of these matters the Government propose and the man on the spot disposes. I would not dare to say for one moment that all the actions which have been carried out in recent months by the Palestine Administration and by the military in Palestine are such as would have the unqualified blessing of the Colonial Secretary or of the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, I could quote many actions taken by the people on the spot which are in contradiction to the policy which has been laid down in this House by the Front Bench.
    8.45 P.m.
    I wonder if I may quote a single example in illustration of that—in illustration of the way in which somebody in Palestine may purport to do an action in the course of his duty which flies in the face of the policy of the Government, as laid down in the House and elsewhere? It is well know that the policy of the Government is to deny recognition to the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, who has been described in this House many times as a criminal, a traitor and in other terms which I do not wish to mention. We have often been told that it is part of the policy of the Government that the ex-Mufti shall be excluded from Palestine territory. I think the Colonial Secretary will be surprised to know that the Army authorities in Palestine are seeking to protect the ex-Mufti from any criticisms whatever and, indeed, to make sure that no great difficulty is offered to his return to Palestine.
    Two or three weeks ago there arrived in Palestine the British film "This Modern Age: Palestine." I have not seen this film and I know nothing about it, but I have been told by students of the subject, both Zionist and anti-Zionist, who have seen the film that they think it is a

    2877
    reasonably balanced exposition of the case. However, on 16th February an Army Order was issued from H.Q. Palestine which said the following:
    "The film 'This Modern Age: Palestine' has been received in this H.Q. Its release is not authorised. It is considered that the subject matter of the film may offend the susceptibilities of the British soldier audiences for the following reasons":—
    Then three reasons are given, and the third is as follows:
    "The Mufti of Jerusalem is vilified notwithstanding the fact that he will be returning to Palestine in the near future and that his attitude is, if only nominally, friendly to Great Britain"
    If anyone wants to be the least bit cynical about it, the operative words in that expression are "if only nominally."
    Here is a clear case in which somebody can "purport" to be doing a job. I have not the least doubt that whoever was responsible for this would say that this action was purported to be done in the execution of his duty. What is his duty? Is it his duty to carry out the policy of the Government or is it his duty to carry out the policy of somebody who sets the policy of the Government at defiance? Is it his duty to try and pretend as would appear from this document, that the Government are being completely hypocritical in their manner towards the ex-Mufti?
    This shows how wide is this expression "or purported to be done" and how it enables people to take action in complete immunity. It shows how cynical it is possible for people to be in setting at defiance the interests, the desires and the wishes of the Government and of this House as a Parliament. It seems to us, notwithstanding any extent to which this expression "or purported to be done" may be Common Law, that the interests of civil liberties and the interests we all have in trying to ensure that we shall be protected against the accusations of totalitarianism—which we are the first to make when they are well deserved in other countries—suggest that all these things which can be done in the course of duty shall be clearly in the course of duty, and shall not be left to such a remote term as "purported" to be done in the course of duty.
    The Attorney-General: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) in his repeated references to persons who have been
    2878
    deported to Eritrea in order to avoid a repetition by them of grave acts of violence which they were believed to have committed, but which their own acts of terrorism made it impossible to establish by legal evidence. Nor do I propose to follow him in regard to the case to which he has referred, about which he must know I can have no knowledge. I must confine my observations to the wording of the Clause, and to the necessity of these words in the circumstances of the present case.
    Mr. Mikardo: I do not think that this sort of conduct is becoming to such a distinguished luminary of the law—that is for the Attorney-General to get up and say that he has evidence that these persons committed acts of violence, when in fact His Majesty's Government have never been willing to put that evidence before a court of law. I think that is grossly unfair and incompatible with British justice.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend obviously did not hear what I said. I said that they were people believed to have been parties to grave acts of violence which, because of their own terrorism, it was impossible to establish by legal evidence.
    Mr. Mikardo: That is what the Russians always say.
    The Attorney-General: That is the reason why it is necessary to remove these gentlemen from Palestine to Eritrea.
    Mr. Mikardo: That is what the Russians say when they remove people to Siberia.
    The Attorney-General: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend in discussion of that matter. The words "purported to. be done" are not only common form in all indemnity Clauses which have been passed by the House, but they are essential in order to create the protection which Clauses of this kind are intended to give. This is rather a complicated field of law, and I do not want to appear to be delivering a lecture about it; nor am I suggesting that I should be competent to do so. In general, there is no legal duty to do something which is illegal. If what was done was done in pursuance of a legal duty, then there would be no need to create a special indemnification in regard to it. A thing which is done in

    2879
    pursuance of a legal duty will be legal anyway, and we should not be taking up the time of the Committee in asking it to pass a Bill of indemnification about it.
    The real point about indemnity Clauses is that when we are calling for firm and strong action in an emergency, we cannot expect those who are required to take action in these circumstances to visit a solicitor first to find out whether or not they are under a legal duty to do that which it seems to them it is necessary and expedient to do. The important thing in a Clause of this kind is that people should act in good faith, believing that what they are doing is in the course of their duties, although possibly feeling doubtful about it, but acting in good faith, believing it is something which it is necessary to do. If a man considers, in good faith, that it is his duty to act in a particular way, then, if it turned out that he made a legal mistake about it according to the strict letter of the law, what he did will none the less have been done in good faith and in the purported discharge of a duty. It is exactly that kind of act which an indemnity Clause is intended to protect. If we took out these words, the Clause would give no protection at all which does not exist under the ordinary law of the land.
    Mr. Gallacher: In supporting this Amendment, I must first express my feelings of disgust that certain Members on this side must, whenever they get an opportunity, do a bit of "belly crawling" before the Tories of this country and the Tories of America. If hon. Members want to draw parallels, let them take the parallel of Northern Ireland or the Gold Coast, where they will get all they want. Obviously, if an act is done in good faith in the execution of a duty, it is something which can be a matter of judgment. But who does the purporting? What does this word mean? It means an act done and claimed to be done. Who is going to do the purporting? It is the man who commits the act. We can easily have someone in Palestine among our people who is viciously anti-Semitic, or someone who is viciously anti-Mufti or anti-Arab. That person, carrying out a particular task, can quite easily allow his feelings to affect him in such a way that he can commit a gross act of injustice against a particular individual
    2880
    or against his property. I would not mind if it were done in the case of Tory property, and it came from this side of the Committee.
    We can easily have someone with a duty to perform who, because of a vicious attitude in one direction or another, carries out a duty to such an extent that it becomes an offence. But he can claim that he is doing his duty, and he is free from responsibility under this Clause for whatever he may have done. It seems to me that that is an utterly impossible proposition to make in such a situation as exists in Palestine at the present time, where feeling is so strong and passions are so high. Those responsible for this Amendment are not asking very much from the Government. They are asking that the Clause should read simply and clearly, "If done in good faith in the execution of his duty." I do not see how it is possible for the Government to ask for anything wider than that. It gives them all that is necessary, and it can be decided whether or not a man has done his duty. Surely the man responsible should know, when he has carried out a job, whether he has done his duty, or has exceeded his duty. If he has exceeded his duty, there should be no indemnity. I urge very strongly that these words be taken out of the Clause, which will be so much better without them, and that Russia should be taken out of this discussion.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I am sorry that the Attorney-General did not take the opportunity to protest a little more strongly about the points put to him by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), which he has repeatedly put before the Committee. I for one am getting a little bit weary of them. The hon. Member so often seems to try to impute that British troops and the British authorities in Palestine are either anti-Semetic or anti-Arab. Throughout their time in Palestine, the British troops and authorities have consistently done their best to avoid taking either side, and they have tried to keep law and order and to obey the orders they have been given from this country and from the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be the last to want to do a colleague an injustice

    2881
    even though he is on the other side of the Committee. When he says that I have imputed motives against British troops in Palestine, may I remind him, first, that I did not say any such thing on this occasion, and, secondly, that prior to last Friday I had not taken part in any Debate or made any speeches about Palestine at all, and so could not have imputed any such motives?
    Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has, on occasions, asked questions in which the implication was quite clear. I hoped that the learned Attorney-General would champion the British troops for a change and have tried to show the Cornmittee and the world that the action which British troops have taken is not partisan. It is most important that it should go out from this House of Commons that the action which British troops have had to take is to the best of their ability, nonpartisan, other than their being loyal subjects of this country carrying out a very arduous and unpleasant duty.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman trying to say that it is inconceivable that any member of His Majesty's Forces could in any circumstances do anything wrong?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Of course I am not trying to say anything of the sort. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Army has its own law, and occasionally members of the Armed Forces who have broken that law appear before a court martial or are dealt with summarily by their commanding officers. I maintain, however—and I always shall maintain—that the standard of discipline in the Army is kept on a very high plane by that means. What is utterly wrong is that any hon. Member should give the impression, wittingly or unwittingly, outside, that this Committee believes that British troops at large can possibly be carrying on partisan action in Palestine. I maintain that it is utterly wrong to suggest anything of the sort.
    It seems to me most important that we should realise that when there is terrorism abroad in a country some action is often vital, and the most important thing to do is to take action. It may be that it is the wrong action, and if one had had time to consider it, one would have taken other action, but very often the one thing to do is to take action. The
    2882
    Clause, as it stands, gives the power for that action to be taken, whereas, if everybody always had to wonder whether or not he would be within the exact drafting of the Amendment, he might find that action was not taken at all, or was taken too late and disaster followed. I am glad that the Attorney-General has opposed the Amendment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: There is one thing which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has said on which I should like to express my agreement at once. I think that British troops in Palestine during the last two and a half years have been subjected to a strain which very experienced and highly-trained troops might have been forgiven for not bearing without any indiscipline at all, and when one bears in mind that for the most part the troops in Palestine have been largely untrained troops without experience of war and of foreign service and of quite tender—18 or 19—years I think that on the whole their conduct has been exemplary, and that this country has every right to be proud of them. I agree with that, but we are not concerned with that in this Amendment.
    We are concerned with the cases in which discipline has not been maintained. The hon. and gallant Member agrees that there are some cases. May I repeat again that I think that even if the number of cases had been greater, it would have been understandable, excusable and forgivable, but, nevertheless, cases have occurred. There was the case which followed a particularly atrocious crime committed by extremists on the Jewish side. In that case personnel of the British armed forces rode into Tel Aviv and fired indiscriminately into the streets and a number of perfectly innocent people were killed. It is a thing which happened, and there have been other incidents of the kind. What the Amendment is about is whether such a man ought to be covered by an indemnity merely on the claim that what he did he thought was in the execution of his duty. If it does not mean that, I do not know what it means.
    While referring to the hon. and gallant Member, may I point out that in an earlier speech this afternoon he talked about "thugs." He described the people

    2883
    in Cyprus as thugs. So far as I understand it, the people in Cyprus arc some of the handful—and it is a mere handful—of the survivors of the worst massacre in all modern history. I think it a shame that an hon. Member should describe those people, however wrong he may have thought them for getting into Palestine, having nowhere else to go, and there being no other country willing to take them—however he felt about it, it was rather a shame that he should describe them as thugs. The only people in this story who are thugs are Nazis, Fascists and fellow travellers.
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: What about the Stern Gang?
    Mr. Silverman: I am not talking about them. I have said repeatedly in this House that I regard them not only as lunatics, but as criminals, and if it gives the hon. and gallant Member any satisfaction for me to say it again, I say it again.
    I have never known the Attorney-General to be consciously or deliberately unjust. Therefore, I am bound to think if he was unjust on this occasion, it was neither consciously nor deliberately. When he talked about the deportees in Eritrea as being people who have committed, or were suspected of having committed, crimes, although there was no evidence of having clone so, and went on to say that the fact that there was no evidence of their having done so was due to their own acts, he must know that there is no truth in that at all.
    The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated dissent.
    Mr. Silverman: There was not a word of truth in it. Those people were deported under regulations which were far more stringent than any other regulations of the kind used by any Allied country in the worst years of the war. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of those regulations, but it is difficult to see how any regulations could have gone beyond them. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has taken the trouble to read them, but if he can spare half an hour in what must be a very busy life to read them, he would get some profit by doing so and by seeing how far arbitrary action can go. These people were deported under those regulations as being persons who might by their
    2884
    associations, beliefs and various expressions of opinion that they had made from time to time, somehow or other been concerned in a terrorist act. There was no charge against them at all, and I think it is wrong for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to them in precisely those terms. They were no more guilty of any offence than any internee under Regulation 18B in this country during the war was guilty of any offence. The parallel is exact.
    I can see that if we are to have an indemnity, it must be real. I can see that what a man does in the execution of his duty may not need an indemnity at all. He can only become liable if he exceeds his duty and only then may he require an indemnity. If these words "purported to be done" were no wider than to cover that kind of case, I would be quite content to leave them where they are. I think they are wider, particularly when we remember Subsection (4). They are wide enough to cover far more than excess of duty and acts done in good faith, believing that they were in the execution of duty, although in fact they were not. To protect acts of that kind would be quite right and I should have thought these words went beyond what was necessary to effect that purpose.
    Mr. Pritt: I have listened with appreciation to what has come from the other side of the Committee praising the conduct of the troops. I respectfully agree. The troops are the working class in uniform. I ask the Tories to remember that fact when the men put off their uniforms, and when they are discussing these men as not working, or not working hard enough or for long enough, or for taking part in a strike. They are just the same people.
    Mr. T. Reid: I wish to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) who said it was wrong for the authorities in Palestine to censor a certain film. It was a film of the history of Palestine. I do not know the film in the least. I understand that it was censored because among other things it vilified the Mufti. I am not now expressing any opinion about the Mufti, but after hearing what the hon. Member said I think that the authorities acted rightly. The Mufti, rightly or wrongly, has a great influence in Palestine. If the film ran him down and there was a big Arab audience in the theatre, accidents might happen.
    Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend completely misunderstands the situation. There can be no question about Arab audiences. The film was allowed to be shown to Arab audiences. It was banned to audiences of British soldiers.
    Mr. Reid: If so, that is another matter of course. I was going to use this story against the hon. Member to illustrate my own experience in the East, shortly after the Moplah rebellion in South India. A film was sent round showing what happened during the rebellion. It was pretty gruesome. In one of my capacities I had the right to censor the film. There was another official in another part of the country, and he, in his discretion banned that film because there were many supporters of the Moplahs in his area, and a lot of people who suffered from them. He banned the film and I did not. In my district there was no need to ban the film. That story illustrates what the Clause is meant to provide against. When this Bill is passed, diverse acts like those referred to, done in good faith, could not be impugned.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Attorney-General said that without this word "purported" an officer who had to carry out some odious duty might have to run round to a solicitor to find out if he was acting legally. Not only that, but a solicitor would have to be handy while the shooting was going on. An officer without legal training or even an officer with legal training would often be in doubt whether he was acting within the jurisdiction which he had. It is, therefore, necessary to have the word "purported,"otherwise in an emergency administration might be paralysed. I therefore support the Clause as it stands and will vote against the Amendment.
    Mr. Janner: The arguments in respect of this Amendment are almost unanswerable. The illustrations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) indicate that steps can be taken in the purported execution of duty which are quite outside the scope or intention of the Clause. Nobody on the Front Bench would suggest that the Army order to which my hon. Friend referred could be consistent with anything which had ever been said since the termination of hostilities by any Minister on the Front Bench or any of his colleagues.
    2886
    There is no question at all that we have been told time after time that the ex-Mufti was one of the bitterest enemies of this country and was in no circumstances to be allowed to go into Palestine. I have not seen the actual reference to which my hon. Friend directed our attention, but if that is so—I have no reason to believe that it is not so—it illustrates that "purported to be done in the execution of duty" is a very dangerous term.
    My right hon. and learned Friend says that these are regular terms. If they are regular terms, they ought to be incorporated in every section of the Bill which refers to them. However, I would draw his attention to the Bill itself. If I may throw in an aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was mistaken in what he thought was in the Bill. There is no reference to this in Subsection (4) ——
    Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say there was.
    Mr. Janner: —and it does not cover any act which purports to be done in the execution of duty. Subsection (4) shows that His Majesty's Government do not think it necessary that there should be a certificate by a Government Department and consider that anything done in the purported execution of a duty should be sufficient evidence.
    My right hon. and learned Friend cannot have it both ways. If Subsection (4) is correct and by Subsection (4) he feels that this ought not to extend to acts purported to be done in the execution of duty, what on earth is the use of putting it into the Subsection we are talking about? We cannot get a certificate and we cannot get the normal procedure adopted in accordance with the Bill in respect of an act "purported to be done" and it appears that that was very rightly omitted from Subsection (4) because it would be carrying the position much further than it ought to be carried. If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot do anything tonight, I appeal to him to do something about this before the Report stage. While there may be some cases in which purporting to do something in the execution of a duty is justified, there may be very many cases in which a very bad advantage would be taken of such an expression.

    2887
    I want to say to one hon. Member who imports into what anyone says in respect of a Palestinian matter the idea that that person has some kind of animus against our troops, that that is the very last thing in the world anybody on either side of the Committee wishes either to express or imply. We are dealing with cases of people who are committing offences and who are being protected against what would otherwise be an offence. Perhaps that is an explanation of why Subsection (4) was omitted.
    Mr. Mikardo: I have had no encouragement from the Attorney-General to consider withdrawing the Amendment. Three points have been made against it by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. I. Reid), by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), and by the Attorney-General. It would probably be more charitable to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon if I did not refer to his contribution to the discussion. As to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, I think he does the Army a great service, and I am sure they recognise it, by defending their actions and their honour, but he sometimes appears to me to have a degree of hypersensitivity which leads him to defend his gallant friends when no attack has been made on them. It is not in the least true that I have ever made any suggestion in this House, or imputed anti-Semitism to the troops in Palestine. Indeed, such criticisms that I have made have been always of the civilian administration of Palestine and not of the troops. The two examples I gave in my speech were cases of the censorship and of arrests without trial, both carried out by the civil administration and not by the military authorities.
    The Attorney-General could very easily have induced me to withdraw this Amendment, but he said something quite outrageous and when he reads it tomorrow he will regret it. He said he would not follow me in the question of the 291 persons detained without trial, and then proceeded at once to follow me. Having proceeded to follow me, he then said some things which were patently untrue and which conceded the point I made. He said that these persons were arrested without trial and had been detained for 3½ years without trial because it was clear
    2888
    they had committed some kind of terrorism and that they had by their acts of terrorism destroyed the evidence for it. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what acts of terrorism took place before 1944 to which he refers? He need not lean over to the Secretary of State for the Colonies because he cannot answer the question, for there were none.
    Mr. Stanley: The murder of Lord Moyne.
    Mr. Mikardo: The murder of Lord Moyne took place outside Palestine, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well.
    Mr. Stanley: It was done by Jews who came from Palestine.
    Mr. Mikardo: If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that these 291 people all murdered Lord Moyne, and were implicated in the murder, and that by that fact they destroyed the evidence, I would say that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the description of the reasons given by the Attorney-General for the arrest of these people does not coincide with the murder of Lord Moyne; that is to say, the murder of one individual outside Palestine could not of its own action have removed the evidence, and could not be described as terrorism which itself removed the evidence of the terrorism.
    Compare this with what happens in some totalitarian countries. How often have we heard it said that people have been arrested in such countries because they were engaged in a conspiracy against the State, such a sly conspiracy that it was impossible to get evidence to bring them into a court of law. Those words are always looked upon, and rightly, with suspicion when they come from certain parts of the world, and the Foreign Secretary has rightly protested to the Governments concerned about them. The words which the Attorney-General used tonight about the Palestine Administration are a parody or a precise copy of those words. It therefore seems to me that if one whose legal sense is so pure can be so readily defiled in this matter, there is a real danger in the width of the immunity given by this Bill, and a real need to restrict that width of immunity.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move in line 7, to leave out "on or after that day," and to insert:
    "or on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-eight"
    This is an Amendment of some considerable importance, and one on which a definite decision should be taken. We have been told in this House, time without number, that our troops are to be evacuated before 1st August. We have now received an assurance in the Bill that the relinquishing of the Mandate will be done by 15th May. There is a sufficient time between 15th May and 1st August to carry into effect all the provisions necessary for evacuating our troops from Pales-time. Everybody in this Committee is anxious that the troops should be taken out as speadily as possible. I hope that long before 1st August we shall have been able to do what we intend to do in that respect.
    If one were speaking about 15th May or some date close to it it might be that an Amendment of this nature should not be accepted. The Clause as it stands is vague. There are some tremendous powers being given in it which can be exercised against individuals, or which will fail to protect large numbers of individuals who might be completely innocent. I am asking the Committee to say that they do not think that an unlimited time should be given within which these powers should be exercised, because the implication, apart from anything else, is that the troops will not be out by a certain date, and that some troops will still be left there. I do not think that that is the intention of the Government. Therefore, I think that to leave the extended time to 1st August is to go to the full limit in laying down the period during which these powers can be exercised, and which is providing for the removal of our troops from Palestine by a specific date which is sufficiently far advanced.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment. It will be our firm endeavour to get all the troops out of Palestine by 1st August. As I have already said, we are well up, so far as the schedule is concerned, but it could happen—and this matter was discussed in the House last Friday—that, by accident, all the troops might not be out of Palestine by 1st August. Therefore, it is
    2890
    important that there should be some discretion in this Clause and I hope that on those grounds the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Warbey: I hope we shall have a somewhat fuller explanation than we have been given so far of the reasons for opposing the Amendment. When the Colonial Secretary just gets up and gives us a couple of sentences, and imagines that in that way he has disposed of this whole matter, I do not think that that is treating the Committee with the respect that this matter deserves. The position is not so clear as the Colonial Secretary has expressed it. I recall what the Attorney-General said, I think on Friday, when we were discussing the general question of what state of affairs, what state of law and what state of sovereignty is likely to exist in Palestine after 15th May, after the termination of British jurisdiction. We had a long argument, which I do not think has yet been settled. We had various different views about who would exercise sovereignty in Palestine from 16th May onwards.
    I was struck by one principle which the Attorney-General laid down on that occasion, and that was that the juristic sovereignty in Palestine would be exercised by whoever was there and established effective authority in Palestine. I am quoting from memory, and if I am wrong the Attorney-General will, no doubt, correct me. According to the Attorney-General, who is the legal adviser to the Government, that will be the position in Palestine. On 16th May British troops will be present, and the British administration—not a British civil administration—but British troops will be present in Palestine over large areas and exercising authority. They are representing, in fact, the only de facto sovereign power in Palestine itself, unless, as now appears entirely unlikely, the Palestine Commission has in the meantime arrived in Palestine with the backing of the Security Council.
    In view of what has happened over the week end, in view of the fact that the American volte face has placed the whole Palestine situation back into the melting pot, in view of the fact that it has now added confusion to existing chaos, all we can now be certain about is that the effective force and authority in Palestine, from 16th May onwards for an indefinite

    2891
    period, will be that of the British Forces in Palestine. From 16th May onwards they are going to exercise that sovereignty. They are going to be the sovereign power in Palestine under abnormal conditions, and with a very abnormal rule of law—a rule of law in which this act of indemnity that we are now asked to pass will be operative, and in which there will be no effective protection for the citizens in Palestine against any wrongful thing that may be done by any black sheep in the British Forces.
    That is to say that, from 15th May onwards, there will be something very like a totalitarian regime, at least a military dictatorship. [Interruption.] In respect of law, there will be a military dictatorship in Palestine, and nothing else. That will he the situation. I challenge the Attorney-General or any other hon. Member to deny that effective law in Palestine from 15th May onwards will be that of a military dictatorship. It is most important, for the sake of the honour of this country and our scruples about democratic principles, to know for how long that military dictatorship will last.
    I wish to remind the Committee of something said by the Foreign Secretary early this afternoon when he intervened in the discussion on Clause 1. With respect to the British position in Palestine and in the Security Council, he said that up to 15th May we are so implicated in Palestine, as the Mandate requires, and with our troops, that we must maintain a neutral attitude. He added that whatever change may be made by other countries, we cannot change: we remain neutral. We continue the attitude of neutrality that we have maintained up to now, but he continued, after 15th May we shall he out. I want hon. Members to notice the date which the Foreign Secretary used. After 15th May we shall be out and then the situation will be different. That implies, I suggest, that we shall then be free to take a new attitude to the Palestine question in the Security Council and elsewhere.
    It is rather remarkable that the date selected by the Foreign Secretary for that statement was 15th May and not 1st August, because we shall not be effectively out of Palestine, freed from our implications in Palestine, until the British
    2892
    troops are finally withdrawn from Palestine. If that were the intention of the Government, then why did not the Foreign Secretary say 1st August? Why did he say 15th May? I should like to know whether or not this is an indication that, in view of the fact that the partition decision has now been shelved and, in effect, destroyed, in view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has won a brilliant diplomatic triumph at Lake Success, there is to be a change of British policy in respect of Palestine after 15th May? Is there to be a change which will say that in certain conditions we shall retain our troops in Palestine?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Since eight o'clock only one person from this side of the Committee has taken part in the Debate. If we are now to debate general policy in Palestine, I wish to reserve the right of my hon. and right hon. Friends to take part in a general Debate on this issue. If that is in Order, we give notice that we shall take part.
    Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of Order——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The point of Order was directed to me. I agree that I have allowed a considerable amount of latitude to the hon. Member, but he must now confine his remarks to the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Warbey: I completely bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I was seeking to show that there was need for the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, and that there was need for an Amendment which would fix a precise date for the termination of this abnormal rule of military dictatorship in Palestine. That is what I was seeking to do.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member, like other hon. Members who preceded him, is tending towards a Second Reading speech rather than a speech on the Amendment.
    Mr. Warbey: I entirely agree, and I accept your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I did not wish to make another long Second Reading speech, but because, perhaps, of the changing events in regard to Palestine, the whole of the Debate on this Bill from day to day and from hour to hour has been very much like a Second Reading Debate. Personally, I should be

    2893
    only too happy if it could be confined narrowly within the limits of Order and——
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member now has the opportunity of setting that example.
    Mr. Warbey: Thank you, Mr. Beaumont. What I was putting before the Committee was the view that this Amendment is necessary in order to set a precise term to the period during which it will be possible for a regime of military dictatorship to be the effective authority in Palestine. That is really the issue. [Interruption.] I appreciate support by hon. Members opposite. Therefore, I am asking the Committee to support this Amendment in order that we may have it absolutely clear that there will be no doubt that this military dictatorship will come to an end on 1st August and that British troops will be withdrawn from Palestine on that date and will not remain any longer in that country.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) may well be an authority on those forms of Government which he described as military dictatorship, but I think it is right to assure the Committee that there is no question at all of any military dictatorship on the part of His Majesty's Forces existing after 15th May in Palestine. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon that we should be out of Palestine by 15th May. What my right hon. Friend was referring to was the fact and the law that, on that date, we shall be out of Palestine as the government of Palestine, and the best assurance that that will be so, and that the Government entertain no idea of departing from the policy which they have laid down in this matter, is the Clause which this Committee has already adopted, which provides in terms that this Government's responsibility for the Government of Palestine will cease on 15th May.
    There is no question at all of any juristic sovereignty of British troops after that date. British troops, between 15th May and 1st August, may or may not be the only effective authority in Palestine. One hopes that will not be so, but, in any event, they will not be purporting to exercise, nor will they be entitled to exercise, the power of general government or of sovereignty in Palestine. Their rights will
    2894
    be limited to doing that which may be necessary to promote and facilitate their own safe withdrawal from the country. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to assure that that withdrawal is completed by the 1st August. It is possible, and this is why we do not think it is right to insert that date in this Bill, that, at the last moment, something may happen to delay the departure of a small party of troops for a few days.
    It might be that a section of troops was expecting to he embarked on 1st August and for some reason or other—a storm or breakdown in transport for example—they could not be got away until a day or two afterwards. We have to contemplate that possibility and not tie ourselves too much within the iron framework of particular dates. That is why we are not able to agree to this Amendment. In making that clear I desire to say that it is the full intention of the Government to give up the responsibility for government in Palestine on 15th May and to withdraw the whole of our troops by 1st August.
    9.45 P.m.
    Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cocker-mouth): I have a certain amount of sympathy with this Amendment to fix a definite date, but to pursue it is really splitting straws. Anyone who has had the task, even in a small way like myself, of having to move troops, will realise that very often at the last moment all kinds of questions may arise. We might in fact be requested by the powers that be to leave behind a clearing up party or whatever it may be, in order to do the job properly. We should not be inflicting our presence upon the people who ask us to do that job. We have heard the Secretary of State for the Colonies give a definite assurance that his intention is to remove all the troops, but there might have to be a few left over to finish the job properly.
    Mr. Low: There is one matter on which I should like clarification. I understood that this Amendment sought to deprive troops or officers of the indemnity which this Clause gives them after 1st August. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and his hon. Friends, in a discussion as to whether troops should or should not be out of Palestine by 1st August as the definite date, agreed when the right hon. Gentleman said on Friday

    2895
    that it might not be possible. What they are trying to do now is to say, "Even though we agree, as we did on Friday—" [Interruption.] Oh, yes, the Amendment was negatived without a Division. What hon. Members are trying to say now is that though some troops may be in Palestine——
    Mr. Warbey Mr. Warbey rose——
    Mr. Low: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence—although some troops may be left in Palestine after 1st August, they shall not have the benefit of the indemnity. That is what this Amendment is trying to do and nothing else.
    Mr. Janner: I do not think that my hon. Friend is entitled to draw that inference. Instead of leaving this matter in an indefinite state, I am anxious to get a definite date by which our troops will be out of Palestine. If we intend to get our troops out by 1st August, I do not see why we should not, in fact, evacuate by July. If there are any parties left, let us get them out by 1st August. If we say, "after a certain date," it may be years, or even tens of years. All I am asking is for a date when we will see that all our troops are out, so that we may know that the intention will be carried into effect. I appreciate the assurances which have been given.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
    "or (c) on or after that day and before the withdrawal from Palestine of the said forces, for the protection in Palestine of the life or property of any British subject:"
    This Amendment is intended to make quite clear that the indemnification extends not only to acts done in connection with the withdrawal of British troops and stores, but also to the protection of British civilian lives and property. It really meets the object which I think was intended in an Amendment put down by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—in page 2, line 13, at end, insert:
    "or for the protection of the life and property of a British subject before the withdrawal of His Majesty's forces."
    We felt that was a little too wide, and, therefore, we sought to meet the same point by our Amendment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting the point we had in mind in putting down the Amendment to which he referred. I do not think that this point was covered in the Bill originally, and it is proper that the right of indemnity should extend to acts done in protecting British lives and British property. This is an improvement, and I think it now makes the score 40-love.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 14 and 15.
    We should like an explanation of the object and intention of this, proviso. The indemnity has been the subject of considerable discussion, and the Government have, rightly, not qualified it at all. However, by this proviso it would seem that the indemnity is of no effect if, on behalf of His Majesty, it is desired to bring any civil or criminal proceedings. It seems to me a little curious that there should be this exclusion, particularly when in line 17 one sees that the indemnity does not, in any event, apply to proceedings before courts martial. I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain why this exception is made in lines 14 and 15.
    The Attorney-General: These words also follow the language of the Indemnity Act, 192o, their object being to enable His Majesty, if so advised, to take proceedings, either against civilian officials or against soldiers in respect of, for instance, misappropriation of funds or other criminal acts, and to take those proceedings, not only in courts martial—which as the hon. and learned Member pointed out, are exempted from the indemnification Clause —but also, if need be, in civil courts at home.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely, the indemnity could not apply to cover the misappropriation of funds, because that could not possibly be an act done in good faith or in the execution of duty. If that be so, why should this proviso be inserted?
    The Attorney-General: To tell the hon. and learned Member the truth, that was exactly the point about which I inquired myself. I think, myself, it is very possible that these words are not needed, and that the indemnification could not arise. However, there seem to be two views about it.

    2897
    We have had this form of words in previous indemnification Clauses, and it was thought safer to stick to them, but I am inclined to agree with the view indicated by the hon. and learned Member.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps he would look at the matter again. It would be much better to have it tidied up, otherwise it might act as a precedent for the future. In view of his observations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, after "prevent," to insert:
    "the institution of any proceedings in respect of anything clone before the twenty-sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, or."
    This Amendment is to make clear that the indemnity only operates to protect Acts done in the necessarily confused period immediately preceding and following our own termination of jurisdiction in Palestine, and we have taken the date as the introduction of the present Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out Subsection (4).
    This Amendment, like some others that have been considered by the Committee, raises the question of indemnity. Once again, it deals with the question of the width of the indemnity. Returning to what has been raised many times today, we all agree that indemnity is necessary in the confused times for those remaining in Palestine, but we all equally agree that it would be wrong for that indemnity to be wider than is necessary to provide proper protection for them. As will be seen, Subsection (4) provides that so long as anybody can get a certificate for any act, which is carried out, that certificate covers him if the act is in the execution of his duty. I am bound to say that, since the Amendment was put down, the point has been met very largely by the proposed Amendment of the Secretary of State for the Colonies—in page 2, line 21, leave out "Government department" and insert "Secretary of State or the Admiralty."
    It seems to me that it is not quite so serious if, in order to get his indemnity,
    2898
    the person has to go to the Secretary of State or the Admiralty.
    As the matter originally stood, it meant that any corporal could give indemnity to any lance-corporal, or any sergeant could give indemnity to any corporal, and that seemed to be extremely wide. Notwithstanding the advance in the matter which has been made by the proposal of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his Amendment—a proposal which, when he comes to it, I shall, in copying the technique of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham Buller), claim as 15-love for our side as well—I want to put to the Committee that it would be a very great deal clearer if Subsection (4) were left out altogether and, in point of fact, the onus were upon the person who carried out an action, done or purported to he done in the course of duty, if there should be legal action, to establish that that was in fact the case.
    I repeat that I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the legal effect of this Subsection is that if a man is sued for an action which he has carried out, and if his defence is that under Subsection (2) of this Clause his action was done or purported to be done in the execution of his duty, instead of having to demonstrate and adduce some evidence of his having believed it to be necessary in the execution of his duty, all he has to do is to come along with a certificate and he is relieved of what would otherwise be a legal responsibility of establishing the basis of his action. I should be grateful for correction if I am wrong.
    10.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: This Clause is virtually the same as that contained in the Indemnity Act, 1920. We felt that there was no reason to depart from that precedent in the unprecedently difficult circumstances of the present situation. The Committee may think that it is not unreasonable, in the circumstances such as will exist during this difficult period in Palestine, that it should be for the Crown, through the Secretary of State, to say what is the duty of a person in the service of His Majesty. The niceties and refinements of the legalistic position are all very well, very proper and desirable in more normal circumstances, but here, where the exact limits of the legal duty involved may be the subject of a great deal of argument in one court after

    2899
    another, we think that it is better to leave the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament. I can assure my hon. Friend that these certificates will not be given lightly, and that it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself in each case that it is proper to give a certificate. In these circumstances, my hon. Friend may think that the vigilance of Parliament and the controlling action of the Secretary of State will be adequate for the protection of the interests of the subjects affected by these certificates.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think that the Attorney-General has made a satisfactory answer. I should have thought that this Subsection was so widely drawn as to make the rest of this Clause virtually unnecessary. The Subsection says that anything is right which the Government Department concerned says is right. That is very wide indeed. It means that in any case where an investigation might prove to be awkward to the Government, or in any case in which the evidence is evidence they do not wish to be disclosed, all the Government have to do is to issue a certificate that it was done in the execution of duty, and that is the end of the whole matter. That seems to be very wide indeed, and altogether too wide. The protection given by the Clause without the Subsection is sufficient. All the man has to do is to prove that what he did was done in the execution of his duty, and that is the end of the matter. If he cannot do that, he can say, "Well, I thought it was," and that is the end of the matter. If he cannot do either of those things, and if he can say, "What I did was, in any case, done in good faith for the general purpose for which I was employed in the country," then again he has a complete defence to any action no matter how illogical it was.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that the last two instances which the hon. Gentleman has quoted are not covered by Subsection (4), and he would have to give proof of them?
    Mr. Silverman: No, I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I was coming to that point, and I will deal with it now. If we look at the second part of Subsection (4) we see that he has not even to prove his good faith. The second part
    2900
    of Subsection (4) puts the onus of proving the absence of good faith on the person complaining, which, of course, is an impossible onus to discharge. To prove a negative is difficult enough in any circumstances, but to prove a negative about the state of a man's mind is absolutely impossible. Surely, if there was no objection to the rest of the Subsection, the objection to the second half of it would be overwhelming. Why in the world should a man who is before a court in the first place because he has done something which cannot be justified be given a complete defence provided only he satisfies the court that what he did was done in good faith? Why should he not accept, at any rate, the onus of proving that what he did was done in good faith? It cannot be a very difficult onus for him to discharge. He has only to go into the witness box and say so, and submit himself to cross-examination by anyone bold enough to think that he will break down under cross-examination and prove out of his own mouth that he had some ulterior motive. Here we put the onus all the other way and in most difficult circumstances.
    Before I was interrupted, I was saying how complete was the protection. I am not complaining of that. I am not against the Clause. I can see that in the circumstances a Clause of indemnity was absolutely necessary. I concede that at once, but I say that without this particular Subsection, the indemnity is complete. We begin by having to prove that something wrong was done. Unless something wrong was done no indemnity is required. When we have succeeded in proving against the defendant that something wrong was done, then he is still excused if it was done in the exercise of his duties, or in the purported discharge of his duties, or in good faith. The cases that would fall outside those three hurdles must surely be very few?
    Why in the world need we add that Subsection, which virtually removes the jurisdiction from the court altogether and vests it in an undefined Government Department and not even the chief of the Department? I do not know whether the Amendment has been accepted or not or whether it is going to be accepted or not, but in the Clause as drawn and unamended a junior clerk in the appropriate Department presumably can exercise the authority of the Department, issue a certificate

    2901
    and oust the jurisdiction of the court altogether. I say that while it is absolutely necessary that there should be a sufficient indemnity and the indemnity Clause should be wide enough, it is amply wide enough without this Subsection, and at least the man who relies on his good faith might undertake the onus of proving that he acted in good faith.
    The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might add a word. It is not correct to say that this Clause ousts the jurisdiction of the court altogether. Assuming the Committee accept a later Amendment, which the Government are prepared to accept, it will be provided that what was done was done "in the course of duty," and not merely purported to have been done in the course of duty. If we did not have this Subsection, there would be serious risk of long litigation right through the hierarchy of the courts to decide what the exact limits of jurisdiction were. If we have it, it will be for anyone to show, or to seek to show, that it was done in bad faith. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that it is impossible to do that, but he will know that it is the general, if not the invariable, practice of English law to throw the onus as to good faith, the absence of which is usually described as malice, on the person who alleges that good faith does not exist. We propose to follow that practice in this Clause. I hope that in those circumstances——
    Mr. Silverman: If my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that that is the law anyhow, he does not need this Subsection.
    The Attorney-General: It is often the case that one puts into a Bill provisions which may not be necessary, but which make it abundantly clear.
    Mr. Silverman: Why not leave it out?
    The Attorney-General: I am not prepared to leave it out, because I want to make it clear that we shall consistently follow the practice of throwing the onus of proving bad faith on those who allege it.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "Government department," and to insert "Secretary of State or the Admiralty."
    2902
    This Amendment, which adopts the spirit of another Amendment, is to make it clear that a certificate cannot be given by a minor official, but must be given by the Secretary of State or the Admiralty.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I wish to thank the Government for putting down an Amendment to trump an Amendment put down by us. This, in fact, is the fifth case in which the Government have accepted the spirit of an Amendment put forward by this side of the Committee and I think we can claim it as "game and set."
    Mr. Mikardo: I do not think we should allow the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) to get away with it, because this Amendment accepts two Amendments, one in the name of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, in line 21, to leave out "a Government department," and to insert "one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State"; and another, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, in line 21, after "by," to insert "the principal officer of." I wish to share the honour on this point, and to join with the right hon. Gentleman in thanks to the Government.
    Mr. Cecil Poole: I appreciate that the Secretary of State can issue a certificate and that the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Board of Admiralty can do so, but I do not know whether the Admiralty is a competent body to issue anything at all. I would like to know whether the wording "or the Admiralty" is correct in this connection, or whether it should be a specific Minister in charge of the Admiralty. Could we have an answer?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Low: I want to put again the position of British troops in Jerusalem. It is a matter of the greatest importance. Am I right in saying that the indemnity in this Clause will not cover British troops in Jerusalem after 15th May? They might be kept there for many of the reasons mentioned by the Under-Secretary, or for other reasons. If our troops are in Jerusalem after 15th May and become involved for any reason whatsoever that we cannot

    2903
    foresee at the moment, in trying to protect any of the Holy Places—we are all worried about that position—will they be covered by the indemnity? I understand that they would not be covered. If I am right, that would be a direct inducement to them never to interfere in anything that was happening in the Holy Places, however serious it might be. I am not arguing whether they should or should not become involved in disturbances at the Holy Places, but I should like an answer from the Attorney-General in order that I might get the position clearly in mind.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. The indemnity would not extend to any action taken in the Holy Places unless it was taken in connection with our withdrawal of troops and for their protection and safety.
    Mr. Stanley: By his answer, the Attorney-General has raised a very gloomy vista for some of us of what may happen between 15th May and 1st August. As far as I can see, the indemnity would not cover a case where British troops were at a street corner and, seeing either an Arab attacked by Jews or a Jew attacked by Arabs, intervened to save the life of one or other of them and committed some injury or caused some casualty in the course of that intervention. Are we to understand that that is the text of the Clause and that for the whole of the three months no British soldier will be able to interfere even with an act of mercy without the risk of doing something not covered by the indemnity?
    The Attorney-General: I would not like to express any final view in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I apprehend that it may well be that, in order to protect themselves and to ensure their own safe withdrawal, His Majesty's troops will have to preserve and maintain peace in the course of their duty in the area in which the troops actually are at the time.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Surely the Attorney-General is not beginning to slide away from what he said, I should have thought correctly, before. Surely, none of us dare even imagine the circumstances that will arise, still less to act as if we were a competent court after they have arisen. So far as we can see, there is indemnity for British troops who are still, rightly and
    2904
    under the authority of the British Government, in Palestine, because there will be authority for what they do and for what may be shown afterwards to have been tactically necessary for the defence of themselves or for their withdrawal. Surely it is no use the Attorney-General trying to persuade the Committee to think that if the troops like, out of the kindness of their hearts, to protect the Holy Places or prevent murder, or rape, or what not, it would be because it would somehow come into the tactical necessities of their situation. If the Committee allows itself even to look down that avenue we are going to be landed in a situation which will not be defensible in any court of law or in any international forum.
    The Attorney-General: I did not attempt to suggest anything of the kind, nor, if the hon. Gentleman had listened with care to what I said, would he have thought I suggested it. I said it might well be in the course of duty for British troops to put down breaches of the peace in their own area. It would be in the course of their duty if it was necessary to suppress breaches of the peace in order to preserve their safety and to facilitate their withdrawal.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to put one point to the Attorney-General. I am not certain whether he dealt with it in a previous speech in reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). If he will look at Subsection (4) as now amended, he will see the word "sufficient" where it says:
    "…shall be sufficient evidence of the matter so certified."
    Does he say that that means "…shall be irrebuttable evidence of the matter so certified"? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne assumed that the word "sufficient" there would mean "irrebuttable." While I do not wish to express any opinion of my own on whether it does or does not, it is a matter on which the Committee would like to have the authoritative view of the Attorney-General.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) for raising this point. I certainly thought the word "sufficient" meant "conclusive," and if "conclusive," therefore "irrebuttable." A large

    2905
    part of my argument would have been irrelevant except for that interpretation. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought so too. If "sufficient" only means "prima facie," that is a totally different matter.
    I would like to say one word about the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It seems to me that this is the dilemma in which we have been debating for the past two days, and I do not want to debate it again. We really cannot exercise jurisdiction and renounce jurisdiction at the same time. If we want to retain jurisdiction, we must not terminate it. If we terminate it, we must not grumble at the consequences. I should have thought that once jurisdiction had been terminated, we were not in a position to say what was a breach of the peace or to interfere to prevent one. We have no jurisdiction at all except in the limited case to which the Attorney-General referred when he said that if a general state of disorder was so marked as to amount to a danger to the safety of the British troops themselves, then they would have the right to interfere to prevent that much of the disorder but no more. That is the position in which we leave ourselves when we terminate our jurisdiction and provide no other jurisdiction—when we leave the house free and ready for an incoming tenant without taking care to see that there is an incoming tenant or without having a notion who he might be—but it is no good grumbling about if the result is unsatisfactory. The whole position is unsatisfactory, as some of us have been trying to say of all of Friday and all today.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the language of Subsection (5). It will be noted that it makes careful reference to "Dominion." A little while ago the Government deliberately changed the name of the Dominions Office to that of Commonwealth Relations. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is present. Moreover, this Subsection makes reference to the Dominion of Ceylon. The term "Dominion status" was very carefully not used about Ceylon a little while ago and the Secretary of State had to use a circumlocution to explain that the status of Ceylon would be what we used to denote by "Dominion status." Without
    2906
    any explanation the old term comes in. That may be quite right, but it is a little curious, and I hope the Government will give a clear lead in this matter. It is important not only to those of us who have to do a good deal of speaking about the Commonwealth, but the term "Dominion status" has a high emotional content, as we have learned in recent years.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Subsection (4) of Clause 2, as amended, still seems to indicate that whereas anyone in a Government Department outside the Admiralty must be a Secretary of State before he can issue a certificate, the Admiralty, or any person acting on its behalf, may issue this certificate of indemnity. The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole), and I was not quite clear as to what was the answer, if any. Here is another example of the. Admiralty being a law unto itself as compared with other Departments, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend could say who will be the person in the Admiralty equivalent to the Secretary of State in another Government Department competent to issue a certificate under this Subsection.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MR. DIAMOND) proceeded to collect the voices.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of Order, Mr. Diamond, I do not know whether it is within your recollection that I addressed a question to the Front Bench and it looked at one moment as if someone would answer. Would you allow an opportunity, if anyone on the Front Bench desires to take advantage of it, to deal with the point I raised?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Diamond, may I suggest respectfully that it would be convenient to provide an opportunity for an answer to some of us; for instance, the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) which, unless it is answered, leaves the whole meaning of the Clause in doubt.
    The Temporary Chairman: The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and

    2907
    supported by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not a point of Order. It is not for me to say whether the Government choose or do not choose to answer questions put to them.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Would it be a point of Order, Mr. Diamond, to ask whether the Government's failure to answer is due to the fact that they do not know the answer or is it merely discourtesy?
    The Temporary Chairman: That also is not a point of Order.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Repeal of enactments and transitional provisions.)
    10.30 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "shall," to "cease," in line 41.
    This is a drafting Amendment. As the Clause stands, it might seem to involve a contradiction in terms. The point of the Clause, as amended, is that United Kingdom enactments shall cease, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, to apply to Palestine as United Kingdom enactments; but it does not follow that they will cease to be current in Palestine as part of the law of Palestine. The presumption is that the law of Palestine will continue as it is today until it is altered or repealed; but to the extent that United Kingdom enactments continue to be applicable in Palestine they will be part of a foreign law recognised in the courts of this country as a matter of fact, and as foreign law, and they will not continue to operate as United Kingdom statutes. The intention of the Amendment is to make that position clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 43, after "that," insert:

    "(a) nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the continuance in force of any such enactment after the appointed day as part of the law of Palestine; and

    (b)"

    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "shall," to insert:
    2908
    "(subject to such modifications, if any, as may be specified in the order)."
    This Clause empowers His Majesty, by Order in Council, to provide that particular Acts of Parliament should be continued in force in relation to Palestine despite the general repeal contained in Subsection (1) of this Clause. It is just possible that in the circumstances of the transition a literal application might be inappropriate, and we therefore seek powers, subject, of course, to Parliamentary control, to make the necessary modifications. We think that we have covered all the probable cases in the Second Schedule to the Bill, but it is impossible to exclude the risk that other problems might arise which we have not been able to anticipate now, and for that reason we want to have this power. There is a number of precedents for it. The Ceylon Independence Act contained a precedent recently, and the Irish Free State Act contained a precedent a considerable time ago; and there are others.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "or application," and to insert:
    'to the United Nations Organisation or to any body or bodies authorised by the United Nations Organisation to receive it."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible to transfer property either to the United Nations organisation or to any body authorised by the United Nations organisation to receive it. This Amendment, of course, raises again in general form the question that arose on the first Clause of the Bill. I do not propose to go over again the whole ground that we covered at that time, but I want to call attention to the fact that we have had some further statements since last Friday on the question of what authority is capable of exercising jurisdiction in Palestine after the appointed day; that is to say, after 15th May. This afternoon we heard the Colonial Secretary quote a statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He referred to Mr. Trygve Lie's statement that on and after 15th May, authority:n Palestine will be the responsibility of the United Nations organisation. When the Colonial Secretary quoted that statement, I thought he was quoting it in endorsement. If so, then I understand him to mean that, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they intend to

    2909
    recognise the United Nations organisation as being the body responsible for Palestine on 16th May.
    We on this side of the Committee have put that question to the Government time and time again. I think that now we nave had an implicit answer to the question from the Colonial Secretary, and also from the Foreign Secretary, we shall also have an explicit answer that they do recognise that the United Nations organisation will be responsible on 16th May. If so, I submit that it is right and proper for us to record that recognition not merely in words, but also in action; in other words, that we should assign to the United Nations organisation in this Bill the property that we normally would give to a successor authority when our jurisdiction terminates.
    Here we are not dealing with something so tangible as we were on the first Clause. Then we were dealing with a rather intangible thing—jurisdiction—and the Attorney-General rightly made the point that there is nothing very tangible to hand over when one is dealing with jurisdiction. But now we are dealing with property, and property is very tangible, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware. Therefore, there is no difficulty in this case in deciding precisely what is in question, and precisely what should be done with it; namely, that the property should be handed over to the successor authority, and that the successor authority should be clearly designated as being the United Nations organisation.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry that my own Amendment was not called, but this Amendment will meet the purpose just as well. At the same time, I regret that it is necessary that an Amendment of this kind should have to be moved. It would be much better if the Government would give up the Mandate as they should give it up, leaving order and orderly government in Palestine. They promised to do so when they assumed the Mandate. The United Nations organisation would be the proper authority to which to leave the property. I made this suggestion some time ago, but it did not seem to be well received. I was told by some of the fellows outside who seem to know a lot about Palestine that the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary would be torn to pieces by both factions if they went there; hut we could send them, and send M.I.5
    2910
    along as well. It is quite obvious that, if we are to try to get the best of what might be called the absolutely worst situation, something like this should be done.
    What a shameful thing it is that, after 30 years of the Mandate, we are going out and leaving a condition of chaos. In view of the chaos which will be left, surely everything should be done so that whatever difficulties can be a voided will be avoided. I am certain that this Amendment to the effect that property should be vested in the United Nations would leave all those affected quite clear as to where responsibility lies. I ask the Minister—and I am not blaming him for the chaos—to try to make good. Even now, there is still a possibility that something could be done to save the situation, but if we cannot provide orderly conditions when we get out and give up the Mandate, we should do everything we can to avoid any trouble. This Amendment is one that would do something to that end.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that the Government may be able to accept this Amendment, and if they say they cannot, I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division. It raises in principle some of the questions that arose on a previous Amendment, but it raises them in relation to a different subject matter, and the objections advanced on behalf of the Government on the previous occasion do not apply here. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in dealing with the Amendment concerned with transferring jurisdiction to a successor authority in Palestine, said that jurisdiction was not a piece of property, and could not, therefore, be transferred like a sack of potatoes. That appeared to be his reason for being content with the anomalous position which it was sought to remove from Clause 2.
    The Attorney-General: I hope my hon. Friend will not think me guilty of discourtesy because I was rather slow in getting to my feet; but I want to tell him that I will deal with the point he has just raised on the Third Reading.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He is never willingly discourteous, but we did give him ample opportunity before to get to his feet and, without usurping your functions, Mr. Beaumont, perhaps I may say that I thought he would have done so. May

    2911
    I add that this is the first time I have ever heard him say he could not get up at once when he had anything to say. But whatever might be the difficulty of transferring jurisdiction like a sack of potatoes, there can be no difficulty in transferring the sack of potatoes. Here we are dealing with property, and there is no difficulty if one wants to transfer that. One has property, one exercises control over it, and under this Clause it is proposed to exercise control over property which, admittedly, is not ours. All that this Amendment suggests is that if the Government take powers by Order in Council to possess themselves of someone else's property, it should be subject to the terms of some trust and that trust, we suggest, should be the United Nations, or any body or, authority appointed by the United Nations.
    If the Government were to accept this Amendment they would be acting in complete conformity with the intervention made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs earlier this afternoon. He is getting a little fond of what used to be described by Sir Herbert Williams in the last Parliament as "blowing in, blowing off, and blowing out." That is all he did today. I am sorry he is not here to deal with this Amendment. If the Government accept the Amendment, or if the Committee agree to it, that would be in strict conformity with what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that, of course, we are handing over to the United Nations, or to any body appointed by them; but the Attorney-General later explained that in substance what he meant was something quite different and more in conformity with the diametrically opposite view which the Attorney-General expressed last Friday.
    But in regard to property there cannot be any doubt. The Attorney-General sought to reconcile his statement with the Foreign Secretary's statement by drawing a distinction between the position in law and the position in fact, but no such distinction is possible here. They either accept the powers under an Order in Council as a trustee, or not. What the Amendment suggests is that if they possess themselves of any property of the Government of Palestine, they shall regard themselves as the trustee of it for the United Nations, or the Trusteeship Council, or the Palestine Commission, or
    2912
    any state with the authority of the United Nations, or under the general direction of the United Nations; and that they shall be the beneficiaries.
    What can be wrong with that? Sometimes speakers on behalf of the Government on these matters, especially when speaking abroad, say curious things. It was said, for example, at the Security Council at Lake Success, that the cost to Britain of maintaining troops in Palestine was greater than the whole of the Palestine budget. I do not doubt that is so, but the representative of His Majesty's Government did not explain that the cost of maintaining the same troops would be just as much if they were stationed anywhere else. At any rate, the difference does not amount to very much. It amounts to very little. The impression was produced that we were spending vast sums on our troops in Palestine which otherwise we would not have to spend. There is not a word of truth in that.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I cannot see what application his remarks now have to the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sorry, Mr. Diamond, but I thought they had. If not, I accept your Ruling. I sought to meet by anticipation the argument that we need to hold the property and were entitled to keep it to reimburse ourselves for any expenses in which we had been involved by the administration of Palestine in any period of time. I was seeking to rebut that argument, because there has not been any such expense. Almost every penny has been borne by the Palestine revenues, raised largely from the Jewish community, and not from the Arabs. Any argument that we are entitled to possess ourselves of it in order to reimburse ourselves in regard to expenditure incurred in the past is a wholly misconceived argument.
    I say to the Government that they have an opportunity here to make a gesture of good faith. I expect they will say they do not intend to do anything to which exception can be taken in respect of this power. I am sure they will say so, and I will believe them; but I think it would be very much better to have it put in the Bill that Orders in Council which entitle them to take possession of

    2913
    property which admittedly is not theirs shall enable them only to take it as trustee of what the Foreign Secretary says is the natural successor whom we recognise—namely, the United Nations, or any body under the authority of the United Nations.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder if the Attorney-General or the Secretary of State can indicate whether all this property is property in Palestine, or whether some of it is property in Palestine. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) tells us that there can be no doubt on the question; but what I should like to have explained is this—is the nature of property upon territory where there is no longer either sovereignty or jurisdiction beyond doubt; or might it not be held that property is itself a conception which depends upon jurisdiction and sovereignty? Is this Subsection really going to mean anything, and in legal sense is there anything describable as property upon a territory where the legislating authority is preceeding on the assumption that there should be neither jurisdiction nor sovereignty? That is the question I should like to have explained.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is anticipated that very large commitments will be left after 15th May and they will have to be met by the Government. Some of those commitments will be recouped from the revenues and balances of Palestine, and, therefore, the object of this Clause is to ensure that liquid assets can be transferred from Palestine to this country, can be vested in the appropriate authority here, and can be dispersed by that authority in payment of various amounts to the relatives and dependants and to the widows and orphans of people who have been killed or injured in the service of the Palestine administration.
    Then, too, there is the question of the custodianship of enemy property. There is a very large sum which was originally owned by enemy nationals in Palestine. Some of this property is immovable and some movable. Of course, the immovable property raises another question, but certainly it is intended that a portion of the liquid assets which can be moved from Palestine will be vested in the custodian in this country who will disperse certain amounts under the law to those who are due to receive them. Thus the Government are accountable internationally in this respect.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The Government is accountable internationally? What is the authority to call the Government to account for property which is, ex hypothesi, now on territory where there is neither jurisdiction nor sovereignty?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Custodianship of enemy property is an obligation under international law. His Majesty's Government was at that time in charge of Palestine and they have certain obligations for assets of enemy subjects and also in the light of obligations under international law.
    Mr. Pickthorn: After 15th May, for property in Palestine?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: After 15th May it is intended that certain assets shall be transferred to this country in order to meet obligations which there are at present in respect of cases of enemy property in Palestine. These will be vested in the United Kingdom Custodian of Enemy Property so that if an account, or a demand, is made to His Majesty's Government, those funds will be there to meet it.
    Mr. Mikardo: Under what right?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The third case is immovable property. That, again, will require some legislative instrument in order that we may have power to transfer it to any successor authority as the case may be. That is the object of this particular Clause, which enables the Government to deal with movable or immovable property as the situation develops and as the demands upon the Government arise. We ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, for, of course, if the Amendment were accepted we would be obliged immediately to transfer to the authority specified in the Amendment all the assets of which we can dispose, and it would mean that we, in all probability, would have to meet large commitments—large in respect of the finances of Palestine, I mean—and there would be no funds out of which to meet them. We ask the Committee to reject this Amendment and to accept the principle embodied in this Clause.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has raised matters which we have not previously discussed with regard to the custodianship of enemy property,

    2915
    and I think that the Committee are entitled to receive some more information upon this subject. He has divided, quite properly, enemy property into two categories—movable and immovable. So far as movable property is concerned, can he state what its value is likely to be and can he state—which he did not do, in spite of the questions put to him—who is entitled to these funds from the British Government after 15th May?
    If we are still liable in respect of claims upon these funds, whatever sum it may be, of movable property, what is the position of the British Government after 15th May with regard to claims on the immovable property which remains in Palestine? Who will become entitled to it one does not know. What is the position of the British Government in respect of claims on immovable property after 15th May and, in particular, I think that the hon. Gentleman should deal with, and give us information about, the position not only of the British subject who has claims against these funds, but also the Palestinian who has claims against these funds, for no doubt there are claims by Palestinians. Are we really proposing to remove to this country those assets which may deal with these claims if they are transferred?
    The Under-Secretary has not given us much information about the financial position. What is the position with regard to the public debt? What obligation remains on the British people in respect of that? I think I am right in saying that considerable assistance was given from the Colonial Development Fund to Palestine. As it is proposed that these advances should be repaid to the British taxpayer out of the assets to be transferred to this country, I think we ought to have information about that point, and I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will explain his statements on these matters, which he has raised for the first time.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: The longer the Debates proceed on this Bill, the more difficult it becomes to discover what the Government really do believe are going to be the de jure and de facto positions in Palestine after 15th May. On Friday it appeared that we thought there was no clear-cut successor
    2916
    to carry on the responsibilities which the Government at present exercise, but this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs nominated the United Nations quite clearly as the successor to carry on the responsibilities; and now it appears from what the Under-Secretary has just said that he considers whoever else carries on the functions, or the remainder of the functions which we are at present exercising in Palestine, His Majesty's Government will need to continue after 15th May to carry out the functions (a) of looking after the dependants of servants of the Palestine Administration and (b) responsibility towards the Custodian of Enemy Property for movable property at present in Palestine, though, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he did not say whether it was wholly in respect of claims by British citizens or also in respect of claims by Palestinian subjects. That makes confusion twice confounded.
    In any event, the Subsection is itself not clear. When I first read it, I could not understand what it meant, so I turned to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum printed on the front of the Bill. The purpose of the Memorandum is to explain the Bill to people to whom it is not quite clear. Let us see what the Memorandum says. It reads:
    "It contains other transitional provisions including power by Order in Council to transfer any funds or other property of the Government of Palestine which may be required to meet the Government's obligations …"
    We must realise, of course, that the Memorandum is not meant to put precisely what is in the Bill. It is much shorter than the Bill and in clearer language, but it is certainly not meant to add any point which is not contained in the Bill. What the Memorandum does is to place upon the Government powers by Order in Council to transfer the funds of the Palestine Government with a definite limited purpose. What it says, in effect, is that they may transfer so much of the property of the Palestine administration as is necessary to discharge the obligations which will remain on the Palestine administration. No such limitation appears in Subsection (4) of this Clause.
    It seems to me, therefore, that the Memorandum is completely misleading on

    2917
    this point. The reply may be that it is intended, in any event, that Subsection (4) shall be operated in the spirit of the Memorandum and that, in fact, only as much of the property of the Palestine Government will be transferred as is necessary to honour the commitments of that Government. Why put the responsibility on His Majesty's Government after 15th May to honour the commitments of the Palestine Government? Does not this contention on the part of my hon. Friend, in fact, amount to His Majesty's Government nominating themselves as the successor state in respect of the fulfilment of certain functions? If we are going to give up our jurisdiction on 15th May, we are giving up all the powers which we exercise in Palestine as well as giving up all the responsibilities which arise out of those powers. Amongst those responsibilities are the responsibilities of the Custodian of enemy property, and the responsibility for the servants of the Palestine administration and the dependants of former servants of that administration.
    Why are we proposing to retain these responsibilities after 15th May when we have given up other jurisdiction in Palestine? Surely the logic of the thing suggests that what we should say is, "Since the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government is going to be terminated on or before 15th May, after that date His Majesty's Government will accept no responsibility for any of the obligations, etc., of the present administration." just as we are passing on the jurisdiction, so should we pass on the obligations. The Foreign Secretary came into the Committee this afternoon—and I will not describe his performance in the uncomplimentary terms used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but he made it look like a visitation upon the Committee—and in the course of what he said, beyond any question, he nominated the United Nations organisation as the body to exercise power and responsibility.
    If we are going to pass the buck to them—I do not dissent from that view, seeing that they have asked for it—why not pass the whole of the buck to them? Why retain a bit of the buck for ourselves —and the most difficult and complicated bit at that? Why not pass it all to them and say, "Now that you have taken over
    2918
    the jurisdiction from us, which apparently you wanted, judging by the General Assembly Resolution of 29th November, you have taken over with it (a) responsibility towards the servants of the Palestine Government and dependants of former servants; and (b) the responsibility for the custodianship of enemy property in respect both of movable and immovable property in Palestine, and of claims against that property by British and Palestine nationals."
    His Majesty's Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that we nominate U.N.O. as successor, whatever else happens, and that we are packing up the duties and responsibilities, and then seek to sequester some or all of the funds—because there is no limitation in this Clause. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary would answer one or two questions which I want to put to him. What I should like to know is what are the present funds of the Palestine Government? As far as can be reasonably estimated, what is the responsibility of the Palestine Government towards their present employees and the dependants of former employees? What sort of figures are we talking about and what are the amounts which are involved in movable and immovable property?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Would the hon. Member tell me how what he is saying is related to the Amendment which is now before the Committee?
    Mr. Mikardo: I do that very gladly. The Amendment concerns what shall happen in respect of the disposal or application of any property vested in or belonging to the Government in Palestine. In his speech the Under-Secretary purported to show why that could not be disposed to the United Nations, and said that there were certain obligations we had to watch. If it is in Order for him to say that certain funds are wanted for certain purposes, I submit respectfully that it is in Order for me to ask how much is wanted for these purposes. I want to ask, (a) what are the present funds of the Government in Palestine; (b) what are the sterling amounts involved in the responsibility with regard to dependants; and (c) what are the amounts involved in this matter of the Custodian of Enemy Property?

    2919
    The Under-Secretary must know what the amounts are on this last point, because he introduced the subject in his speech. I also want to know the amounts involved in movable and immovable property in respect of (a) British subjects, and (b) Palestinian subjects.
    If we take a notional figure of £10,000,000 as the total funds, and take the amount required for the purpose he illustrated as only £500,000, what safeguard is there in the Subsection as now drafted that he is not going to take the £10,000,000 in order to honour the £500,000? Might I point out once again that since we are ending our jurisdiction, we have no right to say that we are going to keep some of the funds to carry out the jurisdiction we are ending. If, as the Foreign Secretary said quite clearly and unequivocally this afternoon, we are going to pass the problems of Palestine to the United Nations, we have no right to say that we pass the problems and we keep the moneys. On these grounds the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The answer to my hon. Friend is simple. There are certain obligations now being met by the Government of Palestine, and if my hon. Friend could assure us that there will be successor authorities, and that they will assume the obligations and pay up to the end of their term, then there might be no difficulty in accepting what he proposes; but he would be a bold man indeed if, for example, he would assure us that, if there is a Jewish successor state and an Arab successor state, pensions paid to dependants of the former servants of the Government of Palestine will be paid by these successor states.
    Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member asks me whether I will give him assurances. I think it would be a waste of time, because I do not think that my hon. Friend will ever accept anything I say, but I hope that he will accept what the Foreign Secretary stated when he nominated the United Nations as the successor state. If he has any doubts about the integrity and probity of the United Nations, they are not shared by the Government.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member has enough perspicacity to know that the Foreign Secretary was referring to quite
    2920
    a different matter. I accept all that the Foreign Secretary said. This Clause relates to persons who may be receiving quite small pensions and who can barely make ends meet. It is right for the Government to assume responsibility for these pensions being paid. As for the question of the custodianship of enemy property, I presume it refers to property held by fairly large numbers of Germans in Palestine. It does appear to me that that property is in a totally different category from property of the Government of Palestine. Therefore, it is quite proper to make a distinction between the passage of that property and the passage of the property now belonging to the administration in Palestine. I feel quite satisfied with what the Under-Secretary has said on that point.
    I am not quite so happy about another matter which I did hint at in the earlier stages of the Bill. It appears to me that the end of British rule in Palestine may leave the British taxpayer with two substantial burdens, and I should like to ask the Government if they can give us an assurance that, as far as possible, these burdens shall not fall on the British taxpayer. One is in respect of the camps in Cyprus for Jewish refugees. I can foresee that there may be a quite large liability which will fall to be borne by the British taxpayer because there is no one else to bear it. I would point out to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that if the Jewish population in Palestine, in virtue of its greater resources, pays a higher share of taxation than the Arab, the Arabs are being called upon to pay a share of the cost of the camps in Cyprus, which is inequitable on all moral standards.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I was not dealing with the whole range of this matter, on which there is no doubt something to be said. I was dealing only with the very narrow point that it would be wrong to say that we would possess ourselves of any property of the Government of Palestine in order to reimburse ourselves for the expense, because in fact the whole of the expense had been borne by the population of Palestine, and of course part of it by the Arabs.
    Mr. Thomas: I do not wish to see the British taxpayer saddled with the cost if the successor authorities should be unable or unwilling to accept this obligation.
    Mr. Seollan: Why should the British taxpayer boggle at having to pay? We are paying £25,000,000,000 for the two previous wars. This is only a flea-bite by comparison.
    Mr. Thomas: The fact that we are paying so much for the two previous wars is surely an argument for not taking on any unnecessary burdens now. The second point that arises is the terms of compensation for the Palestine Police. This is another matter that ought properly to be borne by the successor states. The Government have properly given an assurance that, if they do not assume that burden, the Government will foot the bill. I should like to suggest that we should be in a position to sequestrate, if need be, property belonging to the Government of Palestine so that these obligations might be met, and I should like to know if the terms of this Clause make it possible so to do.
    Mr. Austin: Having regard to the fact that we are a member of the United Nations, the Amendment is very reasonable, and we ought to face up to our responsibilities and obligations in so far as we can leave behind in Palestine, under the United Nations organisation for the successor authority, the goods and stores to which reference is made in Subsection (4). But I rise to obtain clarification of a matter raised by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) on Friday, in regard to the disposal of Army stores and equipment. I hope I am in Order in submitting this. The Subsection says:
    "for the disposal or application of any property vested in or belonging to the Government of Palestine.…"
    On Friday last, we had a very reasoned argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Blackpool to the effect that there were something like 640,000 tons of Army equipment and stores in Palestine.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot go back to Friday. That was on Clause 1.
    Mr. Austin: With all respect, Mr. Beaumont, may I ask for your interpretation of Subsection (4, a) of this Clause. Am I to understand that that Subsection also refers to Army equipment and stores, of which there are 640,000 tons?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is in Order in talking about Army equipment, but it is not in Order to deal with last Friday's Debate.
    Mr. Low: I am guilty, I am afraid, of misleading the Committee on Friday. The actual figure was given at an earlier stage of the Debate this afternoon by the Government. I do not want to be held guilty by the Committee of misleading the hon. Gentleman, who might waste a good deal of time by arguing about 640,000 tons. That was quite wrong.
    Mr. Austin: I am very grateful for such enlightenment; but it appears to me there will be a substantial amount of stores left in Palestine at the date of our withdrawal. If we owe a responsibility to the United Nations, in my submission we ought to vest in the United Nations the right to use such stores. What will those stores be? They may be medical supplies, and nobody can deny the fact that in the ensuing months in Palestine medical supplies wig be very necessary. They may be arms and equipment, and these might be necessary for any body constituted by the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining order. They may be stores of some other kind, or they might be food, an essential to a country in a devastated state, which we can—
    The Deputy - Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are out of Order. Army stores are not vested in the Government of Palestine, and this Clause deals with property vested in the Government of Palestine.
    Mr. Austin: Subsection (4, a) goes on to say—
    "property vested in or belonging to the Government of Palestine or any public authority constituted under any law in force in Palestine before the appointed day."
    In my submission, Army stores and equipment may come within the purview of that Subsection, and if so, the alternative that faces the Government is either to dispose of them——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that Army equipment and stores are not vested in the Palestine Government, and, therefore, do not come within this Amendment.
    Mr. Austin: All I want to say is that whatever stores may be available in Palestine, whether purely Government property and not Army stores, I hope the Government will see their way to vesting these in the successor authority rather than disposing of them possibly by blowing them up or destroying them in some other way. They should be put to some use.
    Mr. Janner: I should like to bring the Committee back to the fundamental issues in this matter. I cannot for the life of me understand, when we are paying service to the United Nations organisation, how the Government can possibly expect this Clause to be carried as it is. Captain Bourne—I beg your pardon, Mr. Beaumont.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I wish the hon. Member did not refer to the past quite so often.
    Mr. Janner: I assure you it is an association of ideas going back to some years ago when similar matters were discussed. I should like to point out we are not the owners of the Palestine property. We are trustees, and the beneficiaries are those who were declared by the Mandate to be the beneficiaries; and we have no right, acting as trustees, to insist upon taking to ourselves the privilege of utilising the moneys of the beneficiaries for our own gain, without taking into consideration the proper rights and duties which we owe to the beneficiaries. That is why, at this stage, an Amendment is being moved: so that the appropriate body shall decide what sums of money are to be paid to us in respect of our proper claims, and how the rest of the money, how the rest of the property, and the rest of the assets, shall be distributed afterwards. I am not speaking without the book. We are at present admittedly acting under the Mandate. We have not yet renounced it. We have no right, at this stage, when we are the Mandatory Power—and we can only claim to be the Mandatory Power under the Mandate itself—to transgress against the other regulations and conditions of the Mandate. The other conditions of the Mandate are clearly stated in the Mandate in respect of these matters. The only condition that is put in the clauses of the Mandate in relation to termination is that in the event——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that in this Amendment there is nothing about the Mandate. The hon. Member must confine himself closely to the Amendment, which deals with the application of any property vested in the Palestine authority.
    Mr. Janner: May I say that if we are dealing with the disposal or application of any property vested in, or belonging to the Government of Palestine, we are obviously dealing with the proper way of disposing of property which is vested in that Government as a trustee Government, which cannot escape from the obligations that it has towards the beneficiaries who are named in the Mandate. I will take the matter a step further. I think that we cannot deal with mandatory property without considering the terms of the Mandate itself. We have to take the full Mandate into consideration. We were told today that the United Nations organisation was the body to whom we would hand over jurisdiction if it should be in Palestine. May I ask what is the use of handing over jurisdiction to the United Nations organisation if we have not only filched the cash, but have taken the till as well?
    What is the United Nations organisation going to do there? We are taking the property out of its control and are going to ask it to take over jurisdiction, if it is able to do so. We are not going to allow it to have what it asks for, and that is, that the movable assets shall be allocated to the Arab and Jewish peoples, and the City of Jerusalem on an equitable basis; that the allocation should be made by the United Nations Commission; that the immovable assets should become the property of the Government in whose territory they are situated; and that during the period before the termination of the Mandate, the Mandatory Power shall, except in respect of ordinary operations, consult with the Commission on any measure which it may contemplate involving the liquidation, the disposal or encumbrance of asssets of the Palestine Government, such as the accumulated Treasury surplus, bond issues, state lands, or any other assets.
    11.30 p.m.
    There can be no question about what the United Nations organisation wants. There can be no question about the legal or moral rights. We have no legal right,

    2925
    and no moral right, to take these assets unless and until the international body to whom we are responsible says, as it will say, what assets or portion of the assets, we are entitled to have. Why cannot we trust the United Nations? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that, in the course of a just distribution, we will not get as much as we shall be able to take if we take it ourselves? Why should we not do what is an honourable obligation upon us, and that is respect the body which is the recognised international body to have the funds of Palestine in their hands as was intended, and make our claim properly so that the distribution may be made in a just and equitable manner?
    If we do what we say we are going to do and make ourselves judges in the distribution, as well as the recipients, we are doing something morally wrong. We shall do something we are not entitled to do unless we accept the Amendment on the Order Paper. We are committing a direct breach of our obligations under the United Nations Charter as well as committing a great offence against what was originally intended in the Mandate.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must ask the Under-Secretary of State to give an answer to the question which has just been asked. Will he do that?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I was going to answer. I think there is a misunderstanding; perhaps it is due to my own failure to make myself clear. The position is that under this Clause, the matter is left quite open. The Government, if there is a successor authority, can vest such property as is thought desirable in that body by means of an Order in Council. That can be done by arrangement between the Government and a successor authority. The same thing applies to the United Nations. If, as a matter of arrangement and discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Commission it is thought desirable to invest the property in the United Nations, then under this Clause the vesting can be performed.
    But it may be that no successor authority will take over on 15th May. His Majesty's Government are already committed in ways which I have explained; they are committed to the widows and other dependants of those killed or injured in Palestine, and in these circumstances
    2926
    the Government should reserve the power to take from the funds at their disposal the amounts which are necessary to discharge these obligations. It does not in any way commit this Government to exclude the United Nations from receiving the funds. There is no suggestion of that. It merely leaves the position open, and as a result of negotiations and discussions, the outcome will become apparent.
    As to the financial outlay, I have some figures which may interest the Committee. On 31st December last year, Palestine revenue balances were £(Palestine) 5,500,000, but, naturally this year, there has been a decrease in the collection of revenues as can well be imagined. Liabilities up to the 31st March, 1948, are expected to total some £(Palestine)10 million; these include a normal expenditure amounting to £(Palestine)5 million and about £(Palestine)2,250,000 in respect of the camps in Cyprus. It is anticipated that on 31st March of this year there will be a small surplus, but that after that date heavy liabilities will be incurred, and it is expected that the revenue may decline still further and that Palestine will be faced at the end of the Mandate on 15th May with a substantial deficit. This deficit has to be met. The deficit will chiefly be incurred owing to these pensionable emoluments which, as a result of the termination of the Mandate, become payable to civil servants and others and to the police in Palestine. The amount of the pensionable emoluments cannot be at this moment stated with any exactitude. We can only estimate it, because we do not know how many of the various categories of civil servants or police will go on pension, or take gratuities or continue in the service. There can only be a rough estimate of the amount of commitments to which His Majesty's Government will be put.
    Mr. Stanley: What about the Palestine loan guaranteed by the Treasury? Is that one of the commitments to be covered?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have some details on the position of the loan, but I would rather seek guidance on that point and give the right hon. Gentleman an answer at a later stage.
    Mr. Stanley: When?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: There may be a later stage during the progress of the Bill.
    Mr. Warbey: The Under-Secretary said there was some doubt who would be the Government of Palestine on 16th May. Surely what we are dealing with in this Clause is not who will be the Government, but who will be the trustee? The question is—shall the trustee be His Majesty's Government or the United Nations? Has the hon. Gentleman any doubt that the United Nations will exist on 26th May or be capable of acting as trustee?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Under-Secretary has not sought to answer any of the questions I put to him. He has said nothing with regard to enemy property in Palestine.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Attorney-General will deal with that.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope someone will deal with it. I want an answer to that question and also with regard to funds spent in Palestine out of the Colonial Development Fund.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am very worried about the question of property, and I want to put a point to the Under-Secretary. After 15th May how are the Government going to be responsible particularly for movable property in Palestine unless they have the police and military to look after it?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On Clause 1 I asked for a Ruling whether we should put points dealing with the financial position on that Clause or on Clause 3. I had not anticipated that we should get into details about the custodianship of enemy property, finance, or the Palestine loan. Discussion of all these has been encouraged on this Amendment, and I therefore consider that we cannot allow them to go by now, because the Chair ruled that they could not be discussed on Clause 1. They have been permitted to be discussed on this Amendment. I therefore maintain that we ought to have an answer on these points. The Minister says he is unable to answer the question about the Palestine loan put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I must ask the Government either to give an answer to that question on this Amendment, on which discussion has been per-
    2928
    mitted, or on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    The Attorney-General: I am intervening only to say a word about the position of the Custodian of Enemy Property. The position in regard to enemy property is settled by an international agreement known as the Act of Paris, which lays down responsibility to an inter-allied organisation called the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency. The Government have accepted responsibility, and our departure from Palestine will not relieve us of it. What we propose to do is to remove the liquid assets, which, of course, form only part of the enemy assets in Palestine—and I cannot give exact figures —into the hands of the Custodian. We shall inform the United Nations that we are no longer able to discharge our international obligations in regard to immovable property which remains in Palestine and will no longer be under our control. But so far as liquid assets are concerned, we shall transfer them and shall continue to deal with them in accordance with the international obligations into which we have entered. So far as the total figures are concerned, they do not exceed £27,000,000, but I cannot give the breakdown.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I had put the question of the claims of residents in Palestine after 15th May and about British subjects' claims there, but I understand from what has been said that claims against immovable property will have to be referred to the United Nations and claims in regard to movable property will have to be dealt with by the British Government.
    The Attorney-General: In accordance with the provisions of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency and the general terms in regard to these matters laid down by the Act of Paris, enemy assets are in the main to be used for reparations purposes. In regard to individual claims, we hope the United Nations will accept liability for those which relate to immovable property and the Custodian will continue to deal with those that relate to movable property transferred to this country.
    Mr. Low: I would like to have more clarification on the figures given to us rather quickly by the Under-Secretary of State. He seemed to me to confuse, in the short time that he dealt with those

    2929
    financial matters, the assets and liabilities on the one hand and the deficit on current account on the other. I should like to know what is to be the balance sheet position, so far as can be estimated, on 15th May. Obviously one item which will have to be taken into account is what is to be the approximate deficit on current revenue and expenditure. Unless we have these figures I do not think we can really see what the position will be.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I gave the figures in regard to revenue accounts as at 31st March. I stated that there could be no real estimate of the deficit on 15th May, in view of the fact that we do not know how many people are going to go on pension. That is a heavy liability.
    Mr. Low: That liability has not been taken into account?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It comes within what I am talking about. There will be on 15th May a small credit balance, and thereafter there will be heavy liabilities arising. The intention is that the liquid assets shall be payable so that we shall have something to recoup ourselves from if there is no successor government in Palestine which can take over this liability, or if the United Nations cannot take over. I think it is quite clear.
    11.45 P.m.
    Mr. Low: It is getting a little clearer, from my point of view. It is apparent that this large liability which will arise because of pensions is a continuing liability which will go on. What is the total lump of assets from which that liability is to be satisfied? As the hon. Gentleman knows, pensions are not the only liability which either the Government of Palestine or His Majesty's Government have to face after 15th May. There are liabilities on the loan both for payment of interest and for payment of capital. What is the total of the assets from which we are going to be recouped in order that we or the Government of Palestine may satisfy those liabilities?
    With reference to something which the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) said earlier, surely any guarantor is always entitled, if he is called upon to satisfy his guarantee, to lock to the property of the person he has guaranteed? So we have a right in law to look to many
    2930
    of those assets which belong, as he says, to the Government of Palestine. He cannot possibly argue against that proposition. I do not want to pursue it further than that, but I do want to know much more about the assets of the Government of Palestine from which these liabilities are to be satisfied.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: While the Under-Secretary is thinking out the answer to that, may I ask him what will be the position of the currency on 16th May? Under this Clause, as far as I can see, the assets will have been removed by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was going to seek guidance on these financial matters. I do not know whether he has sought guidance, but we would like to know what is the position of the Government in respect of the public debt. I believe it is something in the neighbourhood of £4½ million. I think that the Treasury guaranteed the interest. What arrangement is to be made for the payment of the interest and repayment of the capital? These are matters of some substance and to which we are entitled to have a reply.
    Mr. Stanley: I think that we are entitled, in view of the fact that the whole of this subject was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary himself, and that at a later stage he read out a set of figures, to have a definite and clear answer on what these figures mean. I must confess that at the end of hearing them, I was completely confused. We started, hon. Members will recollect, with accountable balances of, I think, £5 million, but that was last year. We then shifted once or twice to rather uncomfortable liabilities. We then got, for a brief moment, to running down in the revenue, and we were left, at the end, I think, with a deficit which, as far as I can see, is about the only thing which the Government will have left to dispose of under this Clause.
    I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a categorical question. He has talked about liquid assets. We want to know—as he must know—what, within a few weeks of the transfer or the abandonment of jurisdiction, the total amount of these liquid assets is going to be. I defy anyone listening to the list of figures which he read out to have made any computation at all. We want to know what will be

    2931
    the total of the assets which may be available for disposal under this Clause in payment of the guarantees. We want, secondly, to have some idea of what the guarantees may amount to; and in that connection it seems that the Government ought to know whether one of the many purposes for which these liquid assets can be used is the payment of the service of that debt which, through the Treasury, is guaranteed. It is not a very abstruse question, and I hope that, in view of the fact that the pigeon post has been working overtime, we may now have an answer.
    The third question—and I think we must very definitely have an answer on this—is, when the hon. Gentleman talks about liquid assets, does he include the assets of the Palestine Currency Board? I could not say offhand what they amount to, or in what form they are held, although I suppose it is in some form of Treasury bill. I want to know whether the Government consider they are entitled under this Clause to divert those assets from the purposes of being a backing to the Palestine currency—whatever the Palestine currency becomes —to the payment of these deficits. Those are three quite simple questions: what is the total amount of the liquid assets on which we can count; what are the liabilities we may have to meet, and whether they include the service of the debt; and do we include among the liquid assets covered by this Clause the balances of the Palestine Currency Board?
    Mr. Warbey: I do not desire to claim the attention of the Committee for long. The purpose of this Amendment is not simply to extract from the Government a series of figures. During the last half an hour or so it might have appeared, from the speeches made opposite, that that was its only purpose. It really is about something much more serious—about a principle, and the principle is, in fact, whether we trust the United Nations organisation. I intervened to put a question to my hon. Friend, which he did not answer, and I put it again. It is not a question, in this Amendment, of what will be the Government of Palestine on 16th May. He has said there is some doubt about what the Government of Palestine will be. We are not concerned in this Clause with what the Government of Palestine will be. What
    2932
    we are concerned about is who will be the trustee for the funds. The only question is whether that trustee shall be His Majesty's Government or the United Nations organisation.
    Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: Are we not entitled to have some answer from the Government?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I was under the impression that the answers would be given on the Question "that the Clause stand part," and I understood that that had been suggested on the other side of the Committee. The Committee will appreciate that we are in very considerable difficulty in regard to the assets and liabilities of the Palestine Government. There are few reliable figures available as to what the position is likely to be either on 31st March or at the time when our civilian administration comes to an end. What we have set ourselves to do is to gather up all the information we possibly can as to what the assets and liabilities are likely to be, and to present them for discussion to the United Nations Commission with the hope of reaching some agreement with that organisation as to how these assets shall be disposed of and the liabilities met.
    That information is at the present time with the United Nations Commission and discussions are going on. Should it happen that the Palestine Commission passes out of operation, then the United Nations organisation will resume these discussions in anticipation of the situation, which will exist on 15th Nay. We have, therefore, acted in the spirit of the Amendment. It is not that we are anxious to take hold of the assets for the benefit of the British taxpayer. It is that we have been trying to reach an agreement as to how the assets may be realised and the liabilities met. There are some very heavy liabilities, including those in respect of the police, dependants' and pension allowances, and there are quite a number of important funds which are held in trust by the Palestine Government for particular purposes. We feel, quite rightly, that there should be a clear understanding in regard to the disposal of all those funds so that their objectives are achieved, and, further, that the British taxpayer should not be at a disadvantage as a result of our administration in Palestine.

    2933
    There are some very heavy liabilities, which conceivably might fall on the British Treasury unless this action which is laid down in the Bill is actually taken. It has been suggested that the exact figures should be furnished to the Committee. I have some figures in front of me, which if they are given I am rather afraid are likely to confuse the Committee. I should like to give the general picture that by 31st March it may be that there will be on balance very little in hand. There are increasing difficulties in collecting revenues in Palestine at the present time. Those difficulties will undoubtedly become all the greater before the Mandate comes to an end, and it is just possible that on the balance sheet of the Palestine Government by 15th May a deficit may have occurred.
    12 m.
    A question was asked with regard to the 3 per cent. Guaranteed Loan. There is no doubt that when this loan was purchased, the Government did give guarantees to the purchasers that the loan would be redeemed, that the interest would be met, and for all practical purposes it was a very sound security. At the moment that loan is guaranteed by the British Treasury and that position will continue. I hope there will be no apprehension in the minds of people that we will not do our best to honour those obligations, but we shall certainly try to transfer this responsibility over to the successor govern-
    ments when they are set up in Palestine. But failing that, the British Government do recognise the guarantee which was given at the time this loan was issued. I doubt whether I can add very much more that is useful to the Committee, except that I can, of course, flood the Committee with a great number of figures which certainly would tend to confuse its appreciation of the position.
    I come to the final point that is urged in the Amendment, that we should right away transfer all these funds to the United Nations. I submit that that is a counsel of perfection in so far as, long before these assets are realised, heavy liabilities will have been incurred by the Palestine Government, and it is fit and proper that the Mandatory Power should be in a position to meet the liabilities incurred and thereby prevent these charges from falling on the British taxpayer. It is for these reasons that we ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and accept the position as stated in the Bill.
    Major Tufton Beamish Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes) rose——
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 178: Noes, 37.

    Division No. 105.]

    AYES.

    12.4 a.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Crawley, A.

    Guy, W. H.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Alpass, J. H.

    Daggar, G.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Baird, J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Balfour, A.

    Dobbie, W.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Donovan, T.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hcwitson, Capt. M.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Holman, P.

    Boardman, H.

    Dye, S.

    House, G.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Edo, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hoy, J.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Buchanan, Rt Hon. G.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Janner, B.

    Burke, W A

    Fairhurst, F.

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

    Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)

    Farthing, W. J.

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

    Callaghan, James

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Foot, M. M.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Keenan, W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Kendall, W. D.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Gallacher, W.

    Kinley, J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Collins, V. J.

    Gilzean, A.

    Lindgren, G. S.

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Longden, F.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Mack, J. D.

    Randall, H. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Ranger, J.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    McLeavy, F.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Tiffany, S.

    Mann, Mrs J.

    Richards, R.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Rogers, G H. R.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Royle, C.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Sargood, R.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Scollan, T.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Monslow, W.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Sharp, Granville

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Moyle, A.

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

    Wigg, George

    Nally, W.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

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

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wilkes, L.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

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

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Orbach, M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Steele, T.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Peart, T. F.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Willis, E.

    Piratin, P.

    Swingler, S.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Price, M. Philips

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Yates, V. F.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Astor, Hon. M.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Birch, Nigel

    Mackeson, Brig, H. R.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Moll-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

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

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Drewe, C.

    Renton, D.

    Major Conant and

    Gage, C.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Brigadier Thorp.

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

    Scott, Lord W.

    Question put, "That the words 'or application' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes.12.

    Division No. 106.]

    AYES.

    [12.12 a.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    Debbie, W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Donovan, T.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Holman, P.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    House, G.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Dye, S.

    Hoy, J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

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

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Keenan, W.

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Kendall, W. D.

    Burke, W. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

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

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Kinley, J.

    Callaghan, James

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lindgren, G. S

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Gilzean, A,

    Longden, F.

    Champion, A. J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Mack, J. D.

    Coldrick, W.

    Guy, W. H,

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

    Collindridge, F.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    McLeavy, F.

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

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Crawley, A.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Daggar, G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Mellish, R. J.

    2937

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Wadsworth, G,

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Royle, C.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Moyle, A.

    Sargood, R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Nally, W.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Sharp, Granville

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

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

    Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Paton, J, (Norwich)

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

    Wigg, George

    Peart, T. F.

    Sorensen, R W.

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

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

    Steele, T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Price, M, Philips

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Swingler, S.

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Willis, E.

    Randall, H. E.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Ranger, J.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Yates, V. F.

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow.

    NOES

    Austin, H, Lewis

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Wilkes, L.

    Foot, M. M.

    Orbach, M.

    Gallacher, W.

    Piratin, P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Janner, B.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Mr. Warbey and Mr. Mikardo.

    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): The next Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and other hon. Members is not being called.
    Mr. Mikardo: I wonder, Mr. Diamond, whether I might ask, with the greatest respect, the reason why the Amendment is not being called. I would point out that it raises a completely fresh point.
    The Temporary Chairman: In reply to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), may I say that I do not think it would be in the best interests of the Committee that reasons should be given why an Amendment is not selected by the Chair.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out paragraph (c).
    If the Government had really wanted to get this Bill through quickly, they could, I think, have dispensed with all the matters we have so far discussed, and been content with this one Subsection, because this is the most all-inclusive piece of legislation ever presented. I hope I may be forgiven if, even at this late hour, I read two and a half lines. They should be permanently enshrined upon the records. The Subsection concerned begins by giving His Majesty power to make provisions by Order in Council, and paragraph (c) tells us for what purpose. It says:
    "for any other purpose which appears to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient in con-
    2938
    sequence of the termination of his jurisdiction in Palestine."
    Why, I would ask the Government, have we spent two days discussing Clauses and Amendments in detail when, in fact, there was this completely unlimited power to make any Order in Council the Government likes in order to deal with anything in the wide world? I am wondering what the rest of the Bill has been about. There is just no limitation of any kind here. There is no control. There is no question that any Order in Council that might be made could be held to be ultra vires; all that will be required, no matter how extravagant or unreasonable might be the demand, is the production of an affidavit by some Secretary of State to say that in his opinion—and not necessarily in his opinion—it apears to be necessary to do something. The Order in Council would be valid.
    Under this Subsection the Government can do anything. I suppose its action would have to have some relation to Palestine, but I do not think it need even be limited to that extent, because if any Minister thinks it expedient, in consequence of the termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine, to do something, it might be done anywhere; it might be in Cyprus, Kenya, Malta, this country, or anywhere.
    The Opposition benches are thinly populated at the moment, and yet, during the two and a half years this Government has been in power since the General Election of 1945, I seem to remember that hon.

    2939
    Members opposite have had a good deal to say about delegated legislation. They do not like it. I do not think anyone likes it, but all of us have thought that, in the complicated society in which we live, some delegation of law-making is necessary. The Government have said it is a necessary evil, and that they will use it only in moderation and only where it is necessary, and subject to any reasonable checks or controls.
    I wonder what the Opposition is going to say about this paragraph? Are the Conservative Party going to stand for that? If we divide the Committee on this, are they going to remain in splendid isolation, silent, and not voting? If they do, they are unwise, because some day or other the Government may introduce some other Bill on a more popular subject—perhaps more popular to hon. Gentlemen opposite, or to hon. Gentleman on this side of the Committee. They may take powers by Order in Council to do anything which it appears to His Majesty is "necessary or expedient" in consequence of the main purpose of that Bill, whatever it may be. This paragraph gives complete legislative authority to the King in Council, without any limitation of any kind. I think that the Government, if they really mean to retain this provision, might have limited the Bill to these three lines alone.
    The Attorney-General: If this had been done in an ordinary Bill dealing with the ordinary day-to-day problems with which the hon. Members generally have to deal in the legislation they pass, I must say I would have had some sympathy with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). This is certainly an extraordinary Bill, as he says, dealing with quite extraordinary circumstances. We have tried, in the face 6f the great difficulties with which our administration has to contend, to deal with every matter we thought was likely to arise and to require legislative provision, but we cannot be sure we have dealt with them all.
    The circumstances are so extraordinary and so unprecedented, and the emergency so acute, that we cannot be sure we have envisaged or made express provision for every matter for which legislative authority may foe required. There may be quite unforeseen problems and emergencies, matters of a temporary or transitional
    2940
    nature which will have to be dealt with under legislative authority at once, and without any possibility of the delay occasioned by coming to Parliament and asking for fresh statutory powers.
    That is why we have had to ask for these admittedly far-reaching and exceptional powers. I can assure the Committee that the powers, far-reaching as they are, and exceptional as they are, will be used with great jealousy, and I would remind the Committee that their use will be subject to control by the House. When we get to the next Clause, we shall find provision for Parliamentary control over Orders in Council, and if hon. Members think that His Majesty in Council has gone beyond what is proper for the purpose and to effect our orderly withdrawal from Palestine, it will be open to them to challenge the Order in the House.
    12.30 a.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: We definitely take the view that these powers are far too wide. No doubt it is most undesirable to put in a Bill, even dealing with this subject, powers of this character. I think, to cut the discussion short, that the only consolation we were able to hear from the Attorney-General was that these matters must come before Parliament. The fact that these powers are so wide is explicable by the fact that this Bill deals with a most extraordinary situation, and what it has impressed on our minds is that it will be necessary for us to attempt to ensure, when we get to the next Clause, that Orders in Council are proceeded with under the affirmative Resolution procedure, because unless we do that we can have no certainty that the House will have proper control over any general action that the Government may take.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has occupied a good deal of our time during these last two days, attempted to take a little-more of the Committee's time in repeating the point of view of the Opposition. In answer to him, I will say that I think in general he was right—that is to say, the powers are too broad. I think that if we are to deal with this matter satisfactorily, we should accept the statement of the Government that the powers are inevitable, but ensure that Orders in Council are considered on affirmative Resolution so that the House can deal with them properly.
    Mr. Low: This Amendment gives me an opportunity of trying to get an answer on the question of compensation to the servants of the Municipal Corporation of Jerusalem. Is it the intention of the Government to use the powers under Subsection (4, a) of this Clause to make provision for their pensions or compensation?
    The Temporary Chairman: May I direct the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that we are discussing an Amendment to Subsection (4, c).
    Mr. Low: It seems to me that if there can be an Order in Council under Subsection (4, a), it would also be permitted under Subsection (4, c).
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think there is some difficulty in giving a precise reply to the hon. Member. He will appreciate that we have been trying to arrange for satisfactory compensation in respect of British and Palestinian personnel employed by the Palestine Government, but there are special difficulties in regard to British personnel employed by the municipalities in Palestine. Obviously we are most anxious that these municipalities shall accept liability in respect of compensation for their personnel in the light of the changes which are now taking place in Palestine. That is a matter which is being discussed with the United Nations, and I can assure the hon. Member that the point he has mentioned has our very close sympathy and understanding, and I sincerely hope that the upshot of these negotiations will be that justice will be done.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Mikardo: There appears to me to be a very serious feature in Subsection (4, a), and one which it was impossible for me to discuss on the Amendment that stood in my name. The Committee took a decision as to what ought to be done about the property vested in, or belonging to, the Government of Palestine. Whatever decision was taken, the Committee must now consider it to be right, as it was a result of the vote of the Committee. The Committee was impressed by the argument of the Under-Secretary that the
    2942
    Government would have responsibility with regard to pensions, and so on, and with regard to the custodianship of enemy property, and the contention that it ought to have a right to sequester some part or all of the property of the Government of Palestine in order to have money to meet those responsibilities. But why did the Under-Secretary seek to go beyond the funds of the Palestine administration? I was first disposed to look into this matter—and into the significance of the words
    "any public authority constituted under any law in force in Palestine before the appointed day,"
    —by the remark of the Colonial Secretary on Friday that he was anxious to build up the prestige of the authority of the municipal councils, the local councils, and the district councils. He is relying upon a number of governmental agencies, such as the municipal councils, to provide the nucleus of a stable government when the Mandate comes to an end on r5th May. I found it not very easy to discover the laws, or the regulations made under the laws, in force in Palestine which set up all these different authorities, and I spent a good deal of the weekend on it, but I did find, for example, a Municipal Councils Ordinance under which there are set up some 38 municipal councils. There is, too, a quite different Village Councils Order, under which there are set up 24 village councils. There is a District Councils Ordinance. It follows, therefore, that the village councils and the district councils, and the municipal councils—in fact, all the various sorts and features of local authorities—come within the definition of the words
    "any public authority constituted under any law in force in Palestine before the appointed day."
    It follows equally, therefore, that it is upon the municipal, local, and village councils that my right hon. Friend is setting, quite rightly, his hopes of law and order in Palestine after 15th May. Those hopes are set upon them, yet they can have the whole of their funds sequestrated by His Majesty's Government in order to fulfil obligations which do not arise from the work of these local authorities at all.
    The Under-Secretary said that the purpose of Subsection (4, a) was to cover emoluments, pensions, and the custodianship of enemy property. All that has

    2943
    got nothing to do with the village councils; and why should a village council be in a position in which it can have its funds sequestrated for these purposes?
    Nor are the municipal councils the only public authorities constituted under the terms of the definition. The Tel Aviv Municipal Hospital was set up under a separate ordinance and the funds of that hospital are at the mercy of His Majesty's Government under the terms of this Subsection. There are many others, for example, the Moslem Waqf Fund. These funds are of public authorities set up under an 1921 Ordinance and the funds are administered in accordance with another Ordinance of 1927. This Supreme Moslem Council's Fund amounts to about 120,000 a year. These are public authorities constituted before the appointed day. It seems very strange, since the Government reserve these powers under Subsection 4 of the Clause, as my hon. Friend says, only for the purpose of covering certain specific obligations of the Government, that they should not be satisfied with the funds of the Palestine administration, and that they should have gone beyond those powers with the funds in the hands of the municipal and village councils and other public authorities. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary if he can tell us in his reply what are the public authorities constituted under the law in force in Palestine before the appointed day whose funds he proposes to attach and impeach under the powers which he gets under this clause.
    The Attorney-General: I think I can assure the hon. Member that 'there is no intention of dealing, under this Clause, with the various municipal or charitable authorities to which he has referred. If any attempt were made to deal with any authority of that kind in the way he appears to fear, he would at once be able to deal with the situation by putting down a Prayer under Clause 4 and challenging the Order. But there are other public authorities, one the Custodian of Enemy Property and the other a body of trustees constituted to administer funds for the dependants of persons killed in Palestine. These are the two cases we have particularly in mind and it is in connection with them that we desire this power. I can give a specific assurance that muni-
    2944
    cipal and charitable authorities will not be affected.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am very grateful for that assurance. Would the Attorney-General extend that assurance for municipal and charitable authorities also to the religious organisations, both Jewish and Moslem?
    The Attorney-General: Certainly; the hon. Member can take it that my assurance is given in the widest possible terms. We do not contemplate touching authorities of that kind.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: When we were considering the Amendment to Clause 3, we had it in mind to try to give statutory effect to the undertaking given by the Government on the subject of guaranteed funds for British civil servants who have served in Palestine. We have attempted to look into the possibility of this, and we have found that it is not possible within the Order to put it in. The actual Amendment would have secured that very desirable effect. I would be most grateful if the Government could repeat the assurance they gave on that occasion, because of the satisfaction it would give to civil servants concerned. We had a similar problem in the case of India and Burma. I mention this matter on this Motion in view of what we heard from the Secretary of State on the subject of supposed assets and liabilities, but I give notice that we shall pursue these matters by way of Questions in the House as the date of 15th May draws nearer, because the assets may prove to be a deficit when the time comes.
    Mr. Renton: May I ask the Government what their proposals are in regard to what is perhaps a unique agricultural institution in the Middle East, namely, the Palestine Government Farm near Acre? It has been built up with very great efficiency and success over the past 20 years, and covers a whole range of agriculture in Palestine. It has already been of immense value to both the Jewish and Arab communities. It covers a whole range of farming and helps the Palestinian by improving the stock of horses, the produce of his dairy cattle, and deals with his poultry and plant breeding, and so on. It is also the best example of racial co-operation under the guidance of the British, for I have not heard of any friction marring the work of that farm. It would be a tragedy for the people of

    2945
    Palestine and a great loss to agriculture in the Middle East if, during the interregnum which we have envisaged, this farm were to be broken up or disbanded. Should the tide of civil strife by any chance sweep across that particular region near Acre, where the farm lies, we want to bear in mind and give some thought to the animals which are on that farm. I feel we ought to have some indication as to whether or not this particular matter is receiving the attention of the Government, and, if so, what their intentions are.
    12.45 a.m.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to ask the Government whether the disposal of property vested in or belonging to the Government in Palestine includes concessions which have not been validated. In the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the United Nations, it was laid down on page 12 that:
    "Commercial concessions granted in respect of any part of Palestine prior to the adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly shall continue to be valid according to their terms, unless modified by agreement between the concession holder and the State."
    Under the original Mandate, the Mandatory Power was given certain rights to dispose of property and allow various interests to take over and use the natural resources of the country. In the only list of concessions granted that I can find, which is in the Report of the Palestine Partition Commission of 1938, Command 5854, there are listed 11 concessions of which only four have been validated. The four which have been validated are the Dead Sea Concession, the Palestine Electric Corporation, the Jerusalem Electric and Public. Service Corporation, and the Auja Concession, which is also electric.
    The concessions which have not been invalidated are the Lake Nuleh Palestine Land Development Company, the Tiberias Hot Baths, the Lighthouses, the El Hamma Mineral Springs, and the Bonded Warehouses, owned by the Levant Bonded Warehouse Company, while six and seven deal with the transit of mineral oils through Palestine, the first being given to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the other to the Iraq Petroleum Company. What I should like the Government to tell us is whether these concessions, which were non-validated in 1938, and have since been validated, are still part of the property of the Palestine Government. If
    2946
    so, do they come under this part of this Clause which gives His Majesty's Government power by Order in Council to make provision for them, or are they covered by the ruling of the United Nations about concessions in general?
    Lastly, I would like to ask what is the situation regarding applicants for concessions who applied before the war and who, owing to the war, were not allowed to go ahead with their projects. Will the assurances given to them before the war still be binding on whoever takes over, or will the whole thing be null and void? There have been considerable assurances given to certain people about these concessions and I think it would be only fair to them that they should be told where they stand now. I know some have been in touch with the Foreign Secretary and have not been able to get much response from him up to the moment.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: On the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), it is true that many of the European and British staff concerned will be offered employment by the Colonial Office in other parts of the Colonial Empire. It is hoped also that a large proportion of the local Palestinian staff will be taken on by the successor authority. On this basis certain terms have been offered to both classes of public servant. The main question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman was as to the guarantees. In the case of British staff, the benefits which we have announced have been guaranteed outright by the Government without prejudice to the right to reclaim such amounts as may be paid out from the successor authority. With regard to the local Palestinian staff, the Government have guaranteed payment of benefits until such time as the successor authorities have emerged and are capable of taking over the liability. There is just that difference between the two. I can give a very rough estimate of the cost of this. The recurrent amount will be £822,000 and the non-recurrent £2,880,000.
    As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), arrangements have been made to enable the municipality of Acre to take over the Government farm, and continue to run it. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of

    2947
    Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I am not quite sure what the position is with regard to all the undertakings he mentioned. With regard to some of them, such as the agreement between the Palestine Government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the Consolidated Oil Refinery Company, Limited, and other oil companies in Palestine, we have tried to establish with the United Nations some agreement as to their continuation, but that is a subject of negotiation, and I cannot say at the moment what is going to happen to the concessions. The Government will naturally do their best to ensure, when the successor government takes over, that they are safeguarded by the successor government.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the non-validated ones are to be considered as concessions in the same light as those which have been validated, and whether there is any difference between them?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not aware of the exact position in that matter, but will go into it and write to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. Renton: On a point of Order. Could the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) be invited to purge the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for lying in that exceedingly prone and impolite position?
    Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member is duly reprimanded.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out "annulment in pursuance of," and to insert "confirmation by affirmative."
    This Amendment, I hope, will be regarded as an acceptable one, and I think that perhaps we may have a fellow-traveller in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler). A short time ago the Attorney-General said that this Bill was an extraordinary Bill that was being put on the Statute Book in extraordinary circumstances. That is a sentiment with which Members of all parties will agree.
    2948
    He said it is impossible to be sure that we have envisaged every matter on which legislative authority will be required. It is true that under this Bill the Government propose to take very wide powers. The Orders in Council which may be made under it are unlimited.
    I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend said that these powers will be used very sparingly and with very great care. That makes it all the more easy for him to accept this Amendment, which proposes that whatever action is intended by the Government in the shape of Orders in Council shall require affirmative Resolution by the House. That will enable the House to retain a greater measure of control in the exceptional cases in which these admittedly wide powers have to be used. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will commend itself to the Government, and that they will be disposed, in the very special circumstances which are admitted on all sides of the Committee to exist, to accept it, and thus enable the House to retain that measure of control which the difficulties and complexities of the problem require.
    Mr. H. Strauss: May I point out to the hon. Member that his Amendment does not achieve the object he has outlined? He talks about this House, but his Amendment leaves the wording "either House of Parliament," and makes the position rather worse as regards control by this House.
    1.0 a.m.
    The Attorney-General: I shall deal with this Amendment not on the technical point which has, quite rightly, been raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), but on the principle which I apprehend is underlying it. I am bound to say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy with that principle. There is, I think, no precise constitutional doctrine as to when subordinate legislation by way of Orders in Council should be made subject to affirmative Resolution, and when it should remain subject only to negative Prayer; but in general, I think, the practice the House has pursued has been that affirmative procedure has been regarded as appropriate where any substantive and substantial change in the law is involved—particularly a change involving any matter of a constitutional nature; while the negative Prayer procedure has

    2949
    been used in cases where it is subordinate legislation dealing with the machinery for implementing some policy, some principle, which has been accepted and established by statute. While that is the principle which the House seems to have followed in the past, it is necessary that every case of this kind should be dealt with on its merits and I do not think there ever has been an attempt to lay down any hard-and-fast rules with regard to the matter:
    In the case of the present Bill there is a great deal to be said in favour of the affirmative Resolution procedure, but the difficulty—and it is a real difficulty, a practical difficulty—about the adoption of that procedure now is that there may not be time to carry it out. We shall certainly want some matters dealt with by Orders in Council before 15th May, but at the speed at which we are proceeding at present it is hardly likely that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent before the middle of April. If, after that, Orders had first of all to be laid before the House and confirmed by the House, and then submitted to His Majesty in Council, that would mean that some matters with which we want to deal urgently could not be covered in time.
    While I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said, those reasons force us to the conclusion that we must resist this Amendment. We are fortified in that view by the fact that there are a number of precedents for it both in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments. The Irish Free State Act, the Ceylon Independence Act and the Mandatory and Trust Territories Act made Orders in Council subject to negative Prayer procedure. We must ask the House to agree to that procedure, I am afraid, in this case.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend who drew attention to a slight defect in the wording of this Amendment in relation to "either House of Parliament," a technical defect to which the Attorney-General also drew attention. That does not totally take away from the value of the Amendment, and as I said earlier, we are sympathetic with the line this Amendment desires to take. In the circumstances, I certainly could not say that it is incumbent upon my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side to challenge this matter in a Division. I do not think the Amendment
    2950
    actually carries out what we want, and therefore we shall have to take an opportunity at a later stage, either here or in another place, to try to get this matter rectified on lines more sound than this Amendment. While I do not think we can take the matter further now, we remain of the opinion that the affirmative Resolution is the right method of achieving the aim we have in mind.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The following new Clause (Removal of prisoners) stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Manningham-BULLER:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Removal of prisoners.)
    (1) All persons convicted of murder of or of attempted murder of or of assault upon any member of His Majesty's forces or any person in the employment of the Government of Palestine, or of the use or carrying of arms or explosives and detained in prisons in Palestine, may if their sentences will not have expired by the appointed day, be removed before that day to any British possession or to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of their sentences.
    (2) All British subjects detained in prisons in Palestine shall, if their sentences will not have expired by the appointed day be removed before that day to any British possession or to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of their sentences.
    (3) All persons convicted of the offences specified in Subsection (1) hereof and serving their sentences outside Palestine may be detained in the prisons where they now are or may be removed to any British possession or to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of their sentences.
    (4) Every prisoner removed under the provisions of this Section shall from the time of his leaving the prison from which he is removed to the time of his reaching the prison to which he is removed be deemed to be in the legal custody of the person or persons empowered to remove him, and to be subject to the same restraint, and, in the event of misbehaviour, to the same punishment, as if he had continued in prison, and as if the person or persons empowered to remove him were the gaoler or gaolers of such person; and if he escape or attempt to escape from such custody, such prisoner and every person aiding or attempting to aid him in such escape shall be subject to the same punishment as if such escape or attempt to escape, were an escape or attempt to escape from prison.
    (5) In this Section a prison shall mean any place of confinement or any place where the prisoners undergo punishment.
    (6) It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council from time to time to make, and when' made, revoke, and vary, regulations as to the' removal, return and discharge of prisoners under this Section.
    (7) Every person removed under this Section and every person punished under this Section shall be deemed to be and remain subject to the laws ordinances proclamations or other provisions in force in Palestine at the date of his conviction.
    (8) The Colonial Prisoners Removal Acts, 1869 and 1884, shall not apply to the removal of any person under this Section.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think this new Clause is largely covered by the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has put down to Schedule 2, page 5, line 15, although it is rather an odd place for it to appear. I should have thought it ought to be in a new Clause. In the hope that this is so, I do not propose at this hour of the morning to move this new Clause. If it is not so, and we are not satisfied, we will put down this new Clause on the Report stage.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Records relating to British subjects.)
    There shall be transferred to the United Kingdom on or before the appointed day all records or certified copies relating to the birth, death, marriage, or other matters entered in any public register in Palestine in respect of any British subject or of the disposition of property on the death of any British subject which shall have been so entered during the period in which His Majesty shall have exercised jurisdiction in Palestine under the Mandate referred to in section one of this Act.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause deals with records relating to British subjects, a subject we have not touched upon up to the present. It may be that this Clause is not necessary because necessary action has, in fact, been taken or will be taken prior to 15th May, but it is a matter which ought to be dealt with and cleared up. It would obviously cause a great deal of inconvenience, to say the least, if records relating to birth, death, marriage, and other matters, entered in a public register in Palestine in respect of any British subject, ceased to be available to a British subject after 15th May. It is a matter which I hope has been cleared up, so that a British subject will be able to have access, if not to the original registers, at least to copies of them in this country, or in some country under British control after that date. The same point applies with regard to any instrument dealing with
    2952
    the disposition of property on the death of a British subject. I do not think I need say more about it. I hope that we shall be told that this new Clause is not necessary, and that action to meet these points has been, or will be taken.
    The Attorney-General: We think that this new Clause is not really necessary to achieve the object which the hon. and learned Member has in mind. So far as certificates relating to marriage are concerned, duplicate registers are at present kept at Somerset House, and they are admissible in evidence. So far as births and deaths are concerned, they are registered under the law of Palestine which, of course, covers all persons, whether of British nationality or not. It would not, therefore, be possible to remove them to this country; but certified copies are admissible in evidence here, and we are at the moment discussing with the High Commissioner the possibility of transferring a complete set of certified copies relating to British subjects. We are going to try to see whether we can deal with registrations of the transfer of property in the same way. This is a matter which we may be able to take a stage further by using an Order in Council under Clause 3 (4).
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of that information, which is satisfactory as far as it goes, although I hope it will be possible to take the matter further, before this Bill becomes an Act, by means of an Order in Council. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    First Schedule agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Transitional Provisions.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "3. Any person who, before the appointed day, has been removed from Palestine under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884, may be detained under that Act after that day, and the provisions of that Act shall have effect in relation to any such person as if it had not ceased to apply to Palestine:
    Provided that the following provisions of the said Act shall not apply in relation to any such person, that is to say—

    (a) so much of subsection (1) of section eight as relates to the questioning of the conviction, judgment and sentence of a prisoner removed under that Act, and to

    2953
    the remission of his sentence and the ordering of his discharge;

    (b) so much of subsection (2) of section ten as enables the Government of a British possession from which a criminal lunatic has been so removed to require his return for trial in the event of his recovery."

    The object of this Amendment is to meet the point raised by the new Clause put down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and I am much obliged to hon. Members opposite for calling, attention to the point. The object of that new Clause, which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) did not seek to move can, we think, better be achieved by amendment of the existing Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. We think it better to make use of the existing code of law in regard to the removal of Colonial prisoners than to substitute something different. This Amendment to the Schedule will substantially cover, I think, the whole of the ground which was covered by the proposed new Clause, except Subsection (2) of that new Clause, which would have imposed an obligation to bring back all British subjects. As the hon. and learned Member will appreciate, some British subjects are also Palestinian citizens domiciled in Palestine, and they may prefer to remain there. They would not wish to be brought back to this country, and it might not be just to bring them back, and we thought it not right to accept any obligation to bring them back.
    1.15 a.m.
    Mr. Janner: I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether, by this Amendment, he will be able to take men and women who are at present suffering imprisonment, or some other form of incarceration, and who have had no trial at all. It seems to me that it would be a vicious thing to remove people from one jurisdiction to another on the termination of our control when they are people who have never been tried or found guilty of any offence. The order under which they would have been taken would be an order under Palestinian law, and if Palestinian law is to be exercised by or removed to another authority, it seems rather improper that we should take men and women who have been imprisoned in that way without giving them any opportunity at all of standing trial and having their cases properly heard.
    2954
    We heard in the course of the Debate —and this is an extremely important point, because it affects the liberty of individuals who are entitled to a proper and effective trial, and entitled to proper defence—that there are cases in Kenya and Eritrea where people are imprisoned who have had no trial. They are, we have been told, detained on some ground which has not been explained. I am certain that we should not want to perpetuate an injustice of this nature, particularly after the protracted time the people concerned have been in custody. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to say that there is nothing in this Amendment to the Schedule, as it is being proposed by him, which would perpetuate this very wrong and bad situation.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said a great deal about the terms of this Schedule, but he has really said nothing about its application. How will this new Schedule be used? He has pointed out that the new Clause which we put down was too wide, but we ought to have a statement as to the manner in which the Government seek to exercise the power which this new Schedule will give them.
    As it stands, it means that any person who is now being removed, or who will be removed before 15th May, can be detained to serve the rest of his sentence. What effect will this Schedule have with regard to those detained in Eritrea? The answer, I suppose, will be that they will not be detained after 15th May. But with regard to those convicted of offences of the nature set out in Subsection (I) of the new Clause—those convicted of murder, attempted murder, or assault on any member of His Majesty's forces or any person in the employment of the Government of Palestine, or convicted for carrying arms or explosives—is it the intention that, before 15th May, persons within these categories will be removed from Palestine?
    I think that power clearly exists now and up to 15th May to remove them. This Amendment merely provides for their lawful detention outside Palestine after 15th May. We have'had no statement from the Government as to their intention with regard to the removal of persons convicted or imprisoned in Palestine at this time for offences of that nature. I think we should have a statement on what is to

    2955
    be the Government's policy with regard to that, because it should be known that anyone who commits offences of this sort before 15th May will, if he is sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, have in fact to serve it, and will not get his release automatically on that date.
    This is of all the greater importance because the Minister of State said, in the Debate on the Second Reading, that the Government had made provision that Jewish prisoners would be transferred to Jewish areas and Arab prisoners would be transferred to Arab areas. I assume, from the fact, that the Amendment to the Schedule now appears on the Order Paper after our new Clause was tabled, that that provision is being substantially altered, and I think we should have the clearest possible assurance that persons convicted in that category of offences relating to British troops and British subjects will have been removed from Palestine before 15th May and may serve the remainder of their sentence.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: May I ask what is the position under the Schedule of a Jew or Arab who commits an act of violence against British troops two or three days before 15th May? Clearly there would not be time to bring him to trial, but he might be physically under arrest. Is he to be released before his case is brought to trial, or is he to be taken out of the country pending proceedings?
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think one ought to pass this quite extraordinary Amendment in silence. As to the point that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman, I take it in any case that this can only apply to convicted persons and not to people detained for security reasons under the Defence Regulations? On the other hand, I know it is extremely difficult and embarrassing to object to this Amendment, because one can so easily be misrepresented as condoning things which everyone condemns. We must take that risk and speak the truth in us as best we can according to our lights: however it may be misinterpreted or misrepresented here or outside.
    This is not the first time in British history that, after a period of strife, rebellion, and disorder, changes in jurisdiction have taken place. Within this century it has happened in South Africa, Ireland, India, and Burma; the last
    2956
    three, I suppose, in the lifetime of all of us and the last two in the lifetime of this Parliament. In all those cases terrible things were done. Terrible things have been done in Palestine; terrible things were done in Ireland, terrible things were done in India. All the things done in any of those places were done against the law and were crimes, and many people were prosecuted and convicted, and many of the criminals and perpetrators were sentenced.
    I cannot think—I may be wrong—that in any of those similar and parallel cases there has been any such provision as we are contemplating here. If we had had in the Act dealing with the independence of India, for instance, a provision such as this, we would have had, I suppose, many thousands of prisoners to transfer from India. If it had happened in the case of the Act which gave legislative sanction and implementation to the agreement made when the Irish Republic was set up, we would have had many hundreds—and perhaps many thousands —of persons in British prisons for many years. In those cases it was thought improper to do what is being suggested here. We do not know why; or perhaps—let us be frank—we do know why, because in the case of Ireland, ever since one remembers, there were some atrocious things happening on both sides; so much so that it was said by a well-known Liberal that the situation had deteriorated so far that it was becoming very difficult to know which were the atrocities and which were the reprisals.
    However, at the end of some years of a situation of that kind, peace was made and a new regime and a new jurisdiction was set up. Both countries, Ireland and this country, honoured the agreement which was reached, gave it sanction and implemented it. I doubt very much whether this country lost anything by not transferring in 1920 the prisoners in British military hands in Ireland as a result of what the Irish euphemistically called "the troubles." Perhaps, looking back on it 28 years afterwards, this country has reason to be proud of its generosity in the matter; but, pride or not, all would recognise now that it was a wise provision and that it did not hinder the future welfare of either country or the future relations between them. Obviously that view was taken in India. Why not have taken it here?

    2957
    I said, when I began this speech, that it would be capable of misrepresentation. I hope, nevertheless, it will not be misrepresented. I think I have said enough on the Floor of the House to show that I regarded, then and now, many of the things done in Palestine as horrible, a shedding of innocent blood in a cause in which I believe and which I hold to be a good cause, a right cause and a just cause. I wish that cause had not been so stained with innocent blood, and I do not want to say anything or do anything that would condone that in any way.
    I know that what I am saying may be misrepresented by some people. I ask the Government, and I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to consider whether what they are asking the Committee to do in this matter is really wise. Better, surely, to allow it to be said that at the end of the struggles, revolutions, and frustations of all kinds, the end was a clean and final end. Let it not be said that in this instance an exception was made and that the end was continued on foreign soil, in alien lands, in strange prisons, years and years after the events which gave rise to these crimes.
    Everyone who has spoken in these Debates since the matter of Palestine went to the United Nations has spoken of the sadness of the occasion. Well, let us not add to it. I do not think that any side in all these disputes of the last few years has had very much to be proud of, or very much that will be remembered with cheerfulness in the years to come, whatever happens as a result of what we are doing. I still think that, difficult as these matters are, and difficult as is the state of public feeling on these matters, it would be better to follow precedents which have proved to be wise and sound.
    The Attorney-General: I shall not attempt to express any final conclusion on the points which have been raised in this discussion, although I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that the matters to which he has referred will be given careful and, indeed, sympathetic consideration. Dealing, first, with the matter raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and also, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), the Amendment deals only with the case of convicted persons, and does not cover
    2958
    detainees. So far as detainees are concerned, it is not intended to detain them after our jurisdiction in Palestine has come to an end, or at any rate after our troops have finally withdrawn from Palestine. We should not contemplate releasing them at a moment when they could endanger the safety of our troops. When that moment has passed we do not intend to detain them.
    The position with regard to convicted persons is, of course, different, and persons who before 15th May commit crimes against the law of Palestine, or persons who have already been convicted of committing crimes against the law of Palestine, cannot safely assume that they are going to be released on 15th May. They certainly will not be released at any time when they could endanger British troops or civilians or property remaining in Palestine till 1st August. The whole problem of the ultimate disposal of convicted prisoners who are at present detained is forming the subject of discussions with the United Nations and very much must, of course, depend upon the result of those discussions and very much must depend upon the question whether, as in the case of Ireland, and in the case of India, referred to by my hon. Friend, some other régime, some new régime, is established and does take over from us. The matter will have to be considered, and a decision reached, in the light of those discussions and of that eventuality.
    As to the point about crimes committed in the last few days before 15th May, the position will be that such criminals will be held in custody by the Commander-in-Chief and dealt with by him in virtue of the military powers which he will possess in connection with the withdrawal of British troops.
    1.30 a.m.
    Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance about one important matter? Can he give us an assurance that all British subjects of United Kingdom origin, who must be a very small number, will be evacuated from Palestine by 15th May?
    The Attorney-General: We rather hope that that may be so, but there may be some who are of United Kingdom origin who intend to become Palestine citizens and be domiciled there. That kind of case has to be considered, but we hope

    2959
    to achieve the result which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I have it in Command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that he places His prerogrative and interests, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
    1.33 a.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): I want to take the opportunity of dealing with three points with which I intended to deal at an earlier stage of the Bill, but I missed the opportunity which I ought to have taken. I was asked whether in Clause 2 (4) the words "sufficient evidence" meant "conclusive evidence." They do not mean that. They are intended to mean prima facie evidence. The word "sufficient" has to be put in to meet Scottish law. I hesitate to express an opinion on Scottish law, but the general rule is that two witnesses are required to prove any point. So far as the English law is concerned, the phrase is intended to mean that the evidence will be sufficient in the absence of anything further. If there is further evidence the certificate may be rebutted.
    In regard to Clause 2 (5) I was asked about the expression "Dominion" with particular reference to Ceylon. We have not defined the definite constitutional status of any of the countries named in the Clause. All we have done is to say that for the purpose of this Bill they shall be regarded as Dominions. That, of course, is not intended to affect in any way their exact constitutional status. I was also asked whether the word "Admiralty" in the Amendment to Clause 2 (4) was the appropriate term. The Interpretation Act defines the term as meaning the Commissioners or other members of the Board of Admiralty. These were the three points that I under-took to clear up.
    2960
    I do not intend now to prolong the discussion that we have had on this matter by more than a few minutes. We have had a very long examination of our general policy in regard to Palestine, but this Bill is essentially a machinery Bill and the House will probably take the view that, once the matter of policy is accepted as something which has, unhappily, been forced upon us by the march of events over which we have had no control, the machinery provisions contained in the Bill are no more than the circumstances necessitate. These machinery provisions have been examined in detail and I do not propose to traverse that ground again. Nor shall I seek to canvass the general question of policy, but in the course of that discussion some things have been said, perhaps unnecessarily, which reflected on the administration. Harsh things have been said but I am not going to seek to suggest that sometimes mistakes might not have been made or that sometimes, in particular cases, things might not have been done which fall short of the high standard that we should expect. But I think it is right, in parting with this Bill, to express the thanks of His Majesty's Government and the gratitude of the House, and, I am sure, of the whole country, to the British Forces, the British Civilian administration in Palestine and to the High Commissioner. They have, all of them, discharged their duties under conditions of quite unexampled difficulty, often in circumstances of considerable public danger, and they have discharged them with great restraint and with conspicuous courage. They have maintained what we like to think are the best traditions of our country and it is right that on this occasion we should express our gratitude to them.
    Secondly, I should like to say that we must hope that these changing and unhappy circumstances in Palestine may prove, in the end, to be no more than an episode in the history of that country and that after this present ordeal, bitter and unhappy as it undoubtedly is, Arabs, Jews and Christians will learn to live, as sooner or later they will certainly have to live, in peace. We cannot seek to impose any particular solution upon them by force. But all the good offices of this country will remain available in promoting a peaceful and an agreed solution of these problems. We shall leave Palestine with sorrow and disappointment.

    2961
    Twenty-five years ago we started out with high hopes of being able to bring our Mandate to success and to lead Palestine to self-government. In that, unhappily, we have failed, but let no one forget the great advances and the great achievements that have been made in the course of our 25 years of administration there. There have been mistakes from time to time in the policy that has been pursued, but our administrators are entitled to leave Palestine unashamed of what they have done there in the past 25 years. We shall leave the country regretting that we have not been able to bring our achievements there to their full fruition, but hoping that those who go after us, the United Nations it may be, the Jews and the Arabs and the Christians, certainly, will succeed in bringing the work that we have done to its full and successful fruition.
    1.40 a.m.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: I certainly do not, at this late hour of the evening, and especially within the very rigid limits of a Debate on Third Reading, wish to cover the vast field of this Palestine question. I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said with regard to the debt that we have owed now for over 20 years to those people who have served our country, whether'in the Armed Forces or in civil employment, in most difficult circumstances and through great danger. I was very glad to hear the tributes which have been paid during the course of the Debate today to the behaviour, particularly of the troops, in the difficult times of the last few years. I should like to add, from my experience of those who worked in the civil administration in Palestine, an equal tribute to them. They went through, and they go through, much danger, as do the troops; they have as much, from one side as the other, to stretch their nerves and try their tempers, as do the troops; and they have preserved, as have the troops, courage, calmness and patience through all these difficulties.
    Secondly, I should like to reinforce what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about what we have done in Palestine in these 20 years. It is quite true that the end is indeed an unhappy one, but I am not prepared to agree that the end we have reached, or are reaching within a few weeks, has been wholly forced on us by events. I believe we
    2962
    might have made ourselves not the servants, but the masters of events, but now is not the time any longer to discuss that. We leave in sorrow and sadness with all our hopes of 20 years unfulfilled, but do not let the world assume that because our high hopes have been frustrated, we have not in these years brought to the people of Palestine many benefits and many lasting monuments. Many of these benefits were conferred, and many monuments built, in spite of the handicaps imposed on those who wished to help by the very people they wished to help.
    No one in this House can foresee with any clarity what is, in fact, going to be the situation in that unhappy country when the events for which this Bill is the preparation have taken place. I feel I must say—I do not know whether other hon. Members share the view—that the whole of this Debate has taken place in an atmosphere of complete unreality, that we have been talking as if the events of the last few days had never taken place, and as if the Resolution of 29th November was still something on which we could build.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: It still is.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member says that. Does he really believe it? Well, I leave him with his beliefs, which, I am afraid, he will find will very shortly be disappointed.
    Mr. Silverman: While it is a rather insecure foundation on which to build, I should have thought it better to build on an insecure foundation than on no foundation at all.
    Mr. Stanley: The difficulty is that when the insecure foundation disappears one may find himself with nothing, whereas there is a possibility, at any rate, of putting something in its place. Does the hon. Member really think that in existing circumstances there is any chance of doing anything which this Bill envisages, or of doing anything on what it is based, of being able on 16th May to hand over to some settled form of successor Government under whom all these things can be carried out, and to whom everything can be quietly left? I am afraid that I cannot share that optimism.
    I do agree that the decision taken by the Government in the circumstances that

    2963
    face us now—the decision to leave Palestine on r5th May and have the troops out by 1st August—is the only one we can take. I believe that we ought not to let any circumstances change us in that determination, and that I understand to be the pledge given to the House today by the Government. But, I cannot say that I regard that decision with any happiness, or that I can forecast, for the time after that decision has become effective, anything but an unimaginable reign of chaos and terror in the land which we are going to leave.
    1.48 a.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: I will detain the House for only a few moments, and will not attempt to discuss the wider issues which lie behind this Bill. Indeed, even within the terms of a Third Reading debate, I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and the Attorney-General had some difficulty in avoiding repetition of what was said on Second Reading. We have had a long Committee stage—much longer than most of us expected, and much longer than was desired by those who have the onerous and not always pleasant task of managing the business of the House. But I think it ought to be said that that long Committee stage was not without value, and that the application which the whole Committee showed in the task of improving the Bill was not without results. The Amendments which brought explanations, and in some cases the assurances that were given, do leave the Bill a better Bill at the end than it was at the beginning—which is, of course, the object of a Committee stage. That view may not appeal to those hon. Members who expressed themselves so indignantly in the corridor a few moments ago, and whose major desire is not that this House should pass good legislation, but to get home to their beds, but I am sure it is a reasonable one. With diffidence, as one who has occupied the House during these two days, I think I may be permitted to say that hon. Members on all sides of the House have cause to congratulate themselves on the spirit in which these proceedings have been conducted. We can only express the hope now that, dark as the prospect in Palestine appears to be, out of the darkness there will come some ray of hope, and that
    2964
    some solution will be found which at the moment appears to be beyond us.
    1.50 a.m.
    Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: I agree with both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that it would be quite wrong if this Bill were to receive its Third Reading without tribute being paid—a sincere and deserved tribute—to the conduct of British troops and officials in Palestine during the past 20 years throughout all the vicissitudes and changes of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. I very much doubt whether in the circumstances the troops and officials of any other nation would have conducted themselves with such restraint, such efficiency and such dignity as our troops and officials have done. I must admit that I think the discussions we have had today on Committee stage of the Bill have been misleading, because there has been throughout these discussions the assumption there would be a successor authority to whom to hand over.
    Hopes have been expressed about the possible employment of civil servants by that successor authority, but I would remind the Treasury Bench that there is not really a great deal of time with which to play. There are only six weeks between now and 15th May. To express at this late stage vague hopes about the future employment of certain civil servants after 15th May is running the time factor very close indeed. On what practical or common-sense basis is it seriously estimated that there will be any effective successor authority after 15th May. When partition was the policy of U.N.O., the successor authority most probably would have been two separate States at civil war with one another.
    Mr. Speaker: Partition is not the purpose of this Bill. It seems to me that we have decided to withdraw on 15th May and that ends the matter. The future is not for this Bill.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: As a number of statements had been made by the Secretary of State on the assumption that we should hand over to a successor authority, I thought it would be in Order on Third Reading to refer to the possibility of no such authority being there.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may speculate on who it might be. It might

    2965
    be Timbuctoo or anybody. It is not within the purview of the Third Reading to speculate on the successor authority.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I thought that rather misleading statements had been made which might give rise to misconceptions as to who the successor authority might be after 15th May, because partition has been dropped, and no one knows what form the proposed trusteeship may take.
    Having paid tribute in this House to the conduct of the troops in Palestine during the past 20 years, we should also, I think, send them a message of sympathy in advance in respect of the circumstances in which they will have to operate between 15th May and 1st August. As I conceive it, they may have to watch violence being committed by Jews against Arabs and vice versa without being able to intervene, however great the provocation, because they are covered by no indemnity, except in certain hitherto unspecified areas which are to be retained by British troops during the period of evacuation. I think that is a most regret-able state of affairs for any British soldier. After 15th May there will be no law and order, probably no valid currency and perhaps very little food. It would have been better if the Government had prepared the public for that sorry state of affairs instead of indicating that the house would be made ready for the incoming tenant.
    1.54 a.m.
    Mr. Cocks: The passing of this Bill, though very necessary, is a sad and melancholy affair. For 25 years members of all parties and the leaders of all parties have supported His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine for the purpose, amongst other things, of establishing the Jewish National Home. The members of my own party—the Labour Party—have been pledged up to the hilt to that cause. In fact, nearly every Member of the present Government who has been in the party for some years has been personally pledged to the Zionist cause. One of those who was pledged most deeply is the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in a very eloquent speech, moved a resolution, at a Labour Party conference, and said that he felt it would be a great day if such an experiment could be brought to a successful end.
    2966
    Altogether, resolutions in favour of the establishment of a Jewish National Home have been passed by eleven annual conferences of the Labour Party. In December, 1944, in London, not seven months before the general election, a declaration urging the unrestricted immigration of the Jews was moved by the Prime Minister himself, and carried.
    Mr. Speaker: The Labour Party declaration is not in the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Cocks: I thought it was in Order for me to speak of the atmosphere in which this Bill has been formulated, what it has done, and how it is inconsistent, to some extent, with the declarations which have been made by those who have brought in the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: That would be in Order on Second Reading, but I am not quite sure that it is relevant on the Third Reading.
    Mr. Cocks: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry that I am not able to say, quite shortly, what I feel so deeply about this matter. The learned Attorney-General did say that the Government had been ruled by events. But it seems to me—and I hope this is in Order —that when the Assembly of the United Nations adopted a policy which gave far less than we had always demanded, the Government could have ignored its decisions and have made it almost impossible for those decisions to be carried out.
    I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, this afternoon, and I would like to point out two things. First of all, we are continuing to supply the Arab States with arms, although they have made clear their intention to oppose partition by force immediately we leave the country. In the words of one of them——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not discuss administration. Supplying the Arabs with arms is not in this Bill.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I take it that it is in Order on the Third Reading of a Bill to discuss the subject matter of the Bill as the Bill stands at the time of the Third Reading, assuming that the Bill were to be enacted and put on the Statute Book in its present form.
    Mr. Speaker: I understood that we were Bill as it is, quite or even in the resolutions of United apart from what happens afterwards.
    Mr. Warbey: Further to that sword of Gideon and David, and Judas point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Bill Maccabaeus. If it comes to that, I hope does, I think, in its existing form, cover they will hold their own in their struggle the period not only up to 15th May, but with the Arab sheiks and the ex-Mufti. the period from 15th May until the final I hope they will establish a strong and withdrawal of British troops from flourishing State in which Jewish and Palestine. Would it not further be in Arab workers will prosper side by side in Order to discuss the situation during the Period while the British troops are being withdrawn?
    Mr. Speaker: But how far does the Bill go into the administration in that period? I gather that it does not refer to it, or refers only to a limited existence up to 1st August.
    Mr. Cocks: I do not strive by any ingenuity to get in what I would like to say against your wishes, Mr. Speaker, or against the Rules of Order; and so I will leave out of my speech remarks I would have liked to make. I must reserve them for another occasion. I would like to conclude with something which, I think, is in Order. The Lord President of the Council, speaking in this House on a previous occasion, appealed to hon. Members opposite to take their courage in both hands, to put the honour of their country before narrow matters of party, and to bring all the pressure they could to prevent His Majesty's Government from doing anything they ought not to do. It is, perhaps, a little late to appeal to the honour of our country. Certain people take Falstaff's view of honour. Falstaff said:
    "What is honour? A word.… Who hath it? He that died o'Wednesday.… Therefore, I'll none of it."
    This Bill was read a Second time, I think on a Wednesday, and this morning, too, is a Wednesday. We cannot vote against the Third Reading today because we want our troops withdrawn at the earliest date. But some of us who do not take Falstaff's view think that there is lasting shame inflicted on the honour of our land. When the Bill is passed, and when we have withdrawn, I am afraid that the chaos which will ensue —the chaos which has been prophesied —will strike this House in a terrible way. So far as the Jews are concerned, they will cease to put their
    2968
    trust in the pledges of Secretaries of State, or even in the resolutions of United Nations. One becomes more and more inclined to the defence of the sword; the sword of Gideon and David, and Judas Maccabaeus. If it comes to that, I hope they will hold their own in their struggle with the Arab sheiks and the ex-Mufti. I hope they will establish a strong and flourishing State in which Jewish and Arab workers will prosper side by side in that ancient land which has long been a subject of the world's debate.
    2.2 a.m.
    Mr. David Renton: I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brostowe (Mr. Cocks). As an Englishman, I am not ashamed of what history may write about our dealings in Palestine. I do not think the failure of the experiment is in any way due to our people, or to our faithful servants who have done their best out there. It has not been the failure of the indigenous Jews, or of the early Jewish colonists, or of the Arabs. It is the result very often of inflated ambitions, and, sometimes, of false leadership.
    A generation ago, there were Liberals who played a prominent part in the opening phase of this chapter of Palestinian history. The only Liberal in this House tonight is, however, myself—one who, like my hon. Friends, has tried to combine the two great traditions of Liberalism and Conservatism; and, having attempted a blending of that kind, I only wish we could have increased that blending of the Jewish and Arab characters which I have seen taking place in my three years' military service in the Middle East. I have hoped that blending might have had more natural growth, with happier results; and I hope that, one day, that may be possible.
    But to return to the Bill, I would say merely that I join with the two right hon. Gentleman who opened this Third Reading Debate, that this was our only alternative. It is a matter for sorrow, but not for shame. The Government, and the people, have been placed in a great dilemma; a dilemma which made them have to take the choice between, on the one hand, having our sons and brothers killed in Palestine for a cause in which we had already done our best, and, on the other hand, abandoning the struggle. It was a

    2969
    difficult choice to have to make. It was bound to be painful, but I think the step we are taking is one which, in practice, we cannot avoid.
    2.5 a.m.
    Mr. Janner: I do not propose to detain the House long. I know the House 'will pardon me for making some comments, as for the last 25 or 3o years it has been my privilege to watch what has been happening in Palestine generally and in particular from the point of view of the Zionist cause. I have always let the House know the standpoint I was taking.
    It is a great tragedy that the termination of our mandatory interest in Palestine should be such as it is. I had hoped that when a Bill of this nature was to be brought before the House it would have been one in whin we should have felt pride, in the knowledge that the important trust placed in our hands as the mandatory Power had been carried to its logical and proper conclusion, and that the men and women who had shown such public pride, spirit and strength in building out of the desert soil something worth while would have been able to establish their State with the help and guidance of, and perhaps as one of, the Dominions of the British Commonwealth.
    During the war through which we have recently passed, many Jewish men and women from that neutral country, Palestine, gave their lives in order that the Allied cause should prosper. Over two million Allied troops passed through Palestine, where their wants were attended to; they were given every assistance. That little neutral country provided food, sustenance, clothing, and munitions and a thousand and one other things necessary to preserve and protect the Allies in the Middle East. It was to that very Haganah which has been spoken of so much recently that the Allies turned to protect Palestine for the Allied cause when Rommel was practically at the gates of Palestine. I wish we had been able to treat those Allies in the same manner as we have endeavoured to treat other allies. I cannot understand, and never have been able to understand, why those comrades in arms, men and women from our country and other Allied countries who fought side by side with Palestinian Jews and Jewesses, should not have been able to
    2970
    maintain that splendid relationship after the war.
    There have been misunderstandings on both sides but it seems hard that those who did build in the way I have referred to should now be confronted with a position in which, by a Bill of this nature, much of what they have created and the assets they have produced, should be taken from them. They are placed in a position where enemies, not the Arabs who live in Palestine—Arabs with whom they were getting on extremely well—hut irresponsible Arabs from surrounding countries are coming into Palestine and endeavouring to wipe them out. They will not be wiped out. The Jewish people have withstood buffetings of this kind for many centuries. They will establish their State in Palestine, and I think the time will come when this Bill will be regarded as having been a black day in our history. I trust it will be relieved in time by a proper understanding between the Jewish National Home—the Jewish State and our country which will endure for the benefit not only of both countries, but of the world as a whole.
    I am sorry if I have to some extent transgressed against the Orders of the House in talking in this way. I know that I have often spoken with emotion about this matter. It is because I have seen what has happened in Palestine and I know how every visitor has come back from Palestine with wonderment at what is being produced in that land. I hope that with the aid of the United Nations organisation, as I am sure with the honest determination of the Yishuv, that is, the Jewish Settlement, the Jews will be able to live a peaceful life not only for themselves, but with their Arab neighbours, and that there will be re-created in the Middle East a magnificent Jewish State. I hope it will work side by side with an Arab State in warm co-operation and frustrate the designs of those who for many years have attempted to keep the two peoples apart.
    I sincerely hope that in the time intervening between now and r5th May we will do our utmost to allow these Jewish settlers, who have taken into their fold so many of their kith and kin who have been persecuted—these remnants of the destructions of 6,000,000 people, to work and have the opportunity of preparing to

    2971
    build up their State in peace and that we shall not deter their work.
    2.13 a.m.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: I can quite understand the feeling with which the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has addressed the House. If I have any particular emotion on this subject at this time it is an emotion which the hon. Member will also understand—one that concerns the position of our men—military and civilian—who have been there during the last two years and who are still yet to remain. I have felt throughout the discussions on this Bill during today and yesterday a great unreality. I have felt all along that too many of us have been discussing the Bill as if the announcement which was made in the U.S.A. last week had never been made at all; and, furthermore, as if the plan that had been proposed by the Assembly on 29th November had been almost implemented already.
    Really that is not so and we are, as my right hon. Friend has said, facing a period of chaos in Palestine so far as we can see. The chaos with which we are concerned in this Bill and on the subject of which I want to detain the House for a short while is a chaos that will, in my opinion, exist in Palestine between 15th May and 1st August or some such other time when our troops, and any officials with them, may leave the country.
    Now, as I see it, during that period there will be no settled authority in Palestine at all, with one exception—that of our Commander-in-Chief or local commanders in the various areas in which our troops may be. Although this Bill, and the statements of Ministers, make it quite clear that our troops, wherever they may be, will have no obligations for the maintenance of law and order—and, indeed, any action they may take for anything other than their own protection, and arrangements for their own withdrawal, are not covered by any indemnity under the Act. Only action taken for their withdrawal and own protection are covered, other actions are not. Although we have said that, and we have been arguing on that basis, and we have a Bill now to be read the Third time on that basis, have we not forgotten that there are moral obligations which appeal to British troops wherever they may be, and that
    2972
    we can never escape from these moral obligations, particularly, as I am sure the House realises, we are the only troops in the area?
    It is inconceivable that any other troops except, possibly, Russian troops, could arrive in the area between 15th May and 1st August. One has only to look at the statements in the United States and other countries about their present position. It is absolutely inconceivable that any troops other than our own should be in that area in that interim period from 15th May to 1st August. I cannot part with this Bill myself without saying, as I feel most strongly, that we are deceiving ourselves if we consider that our troops can escape from moral obligations of the sort mentioned earlier by myself in connection with the Holy Places, and, mentioned by my right hon. Friend, too, in connection with the life and safety of individual citizens of Palestine in the immediate neighbourhood of these troops. I hope that the Government will give consideration between now and the final stages of this Bill before it becomes law to face that situation. We cannot, as I have said before, deceive ourselves by thinking that the only obligations facing ordinary British citizens in uniform—the British troops—will just be legal obligations.
    Perhaps I may finish what I have to say on a note of anxiety about the future of Jerusalem. Again I can only deal with the period between 15th May and 1st August. It has always been to the honour of this country since 1918 that we have had the responsibility for the protection of Jerusalem and the Holy Places, the centre of three great religions. Are we really now saying that from 15th May, though we may be near and in a position to give protection, we are going to do nothing at all to protect the centre of the three greatest religions in the world? I cannot believe that, and I cannot believe really that any right hon. Gentleman sitting there believes it. So long as there was hope of a settled administration in Jerusalem, then it might have been all very well to make a statement such as that. But is there really any hope now of any settled authority in Jerusalem itself during this period? I must say to the House that I am most sincerely anxious about the position in Jerusalem and about our honour before the world in what we are doing in deciding, as we appear to be

    2973
    deciding, just to leave the Holy Places to what may happen regardless of any action we might be able to take.
    2.20 a.m.
    Mr. Warbey: The Attorney-General described this Bill as a machinery Bill. If it is an example of streamlined, modern machinery, then I can only say I prefer a Heath Robinson contraption, because it is a thing of scattered and disparate pieces tied together with bits of string. In that respect it reflects the situation out of which it springs and with which it attempts to deal. The general purpose of legislation is to create order out of chaos. Perhaps for the first time in Parliamentary history, and certainly in the history of this Parliament, we have a Bill which legislates for creating chaos out of order. That may be inherent in the situation, but certainly nothing that the Government have been able to tell us during any stages of the Bill has given us the assurance in any sense that they have any conception of what will happen after 15th May other than that there will be chaos, confusion and uncertainty in which—and here I share the apprehension of the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low)—British troops may inevitably be very deeply involved. I would urge upon the Government that every possible step should be taken to hasten the withdrawal of the British troops from Palestine, and to see to it that the interim period between 15th May and the final date of their withdrawal is as small as possible, so as to reduce to the shortest possible time the impossible situation in which they will be placed.
    The Colonial Secretary on this occasion has been engaged in fighting in the dust and heat of the battle, and in an arena marked out by other contestants who have not been present, except for short interventions like that by the Foreign Secretary. He has been a little unhappy and one can sympathise very deeply with him in his position. All of us feel that this is certainly a melancholy occasion. In fact, there is almost an atmosphere of a funeral ceremony about this Third Reading and it is appropriate that that should be the case because of what we are doing in this Bill. By passing the Third Reading of this Bill, whatever may he rightly said of the ability, efficiency and devotion to duty of those
    2974
    who have served in Palestine, we are burying 25 years of British administration in Palestine, burying 20 years of Labour Party pledges to the Jews, burying some part of the honour of this country, and along with other great Powers, if we are not very careful, burying also the United Nations' organisation. The only hope that one can see out of this melancholy situation is that whatever the great Powers may do, there may arise in that small territory from all factions men with courage, vision and magnanimity who may gradually with great pains rebuild order out of the chaos that others have created.
    2.25 a.m.
    Major Legge-Bourke: This Debate has rung with the words "melancholy," "funereal" and "sombre." They are certainly words which have a great bearing on the discussion we have had today. But I would like to touch on one point which, I think, is affected by this Bill but which has not been discussed in its earlier stages. That is the matter of the Imperial War Graves Commission, because there are in Palestine some war cemeteries which are at the moment controlled by the Imperial War Graves Commission.
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Bill and the administration of Palestine. Reference to the Imperial War Graves Commission is quite out of Order.
    Major Legge-Bourke: With very great respect, under the Bill with which we are dealing, any casualties in Palestine during the period 15th May to 1st August will, I understand, be buried in the Imperial War Graves Commission's cemeteries. I have a letter from the Secretary of State for War telling me that very fact and I did want to draw the attention of the House to the matter, because it seems to me that it is most important that if there should be fatal casualties between 15th May and 1st August—one hopes that there will not—they should be looked after in the interests of their relatives in this country who are extremely concerned about the matter. That is all I have to say.
    2.26 a.m.
    Mr. Grossman: I am one of those who think that most of the Debate has gone into the realms of pure illusion and wish fulfilment, and I do think that on Third Reading we should recog-

    2975
    nise the fact that we are legislating for chaos and deceiving ourselves with phrases. This Debate has had a curious history. It was just possible for various persons to believe during the Second Reading that there would be someone to whom to hand over Palestine. But by the time we came to the Third Reading, we must all have known that there was nothing and nobody to whom to hand over, except chaos, death and famine. This remarkable change has occurred between the Second and Third Readings, but it has not altered the contents of the Bill. I want to suggest something else which has happened which has changed the situation. On the Second Reading we could still believe that we had the major responsibility for the catastrophe. But by the Third Reading it has been shown that another great Power has surpassed us in the speed with which it has failed to carry out the obligations which it has taken on. It may bring us some small consolation that whereas it took us two years, from 1937 to 1939, first to accept, and then to reject, partition, it has taken the Americans only a few months to do the same thing. The problem which confronts us is the period 15th May to 1st August, the crucial period of indemnification.
    We have talked of the danger of a breakdown, but there will not only be chaos, there will be starvation. Consider Jerusalem. How will it be provided with water, electricity, gas, oil and other essential services. How will wheat for the country be imported? For all these Palestine was dependent on the British administration. When we are talking of this word "chaos" it is not merely a vague word, and the troops we are going to have to withdraw from Palestine—and here I agree so much with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low)—will find it impossible to keep within the terms of indemnification. To take another instance, in the city of Haifa we will have the whole port under our control with a mixed population of Jews and Arabs living within the line of the British troops. Are we going to be in no way responsible for these people? They will have no government, and inevitably we are going to take responsibility outside that envisaged in this Bill. Any soldiers with moral sense will have to look after these people. Are our British troops going to leave Jerusalem seeing the flames
    2976
    of the mosque behind them? Is that literally what we mean to do? It is what the Government are telling us.
    I find it difficult to believe that the occupants of the Front Bench have actually envisaged the situation which is going to occur in these three months. I am not proposing a solution, but giving a warning to the House that I do not believe that the Bill squares up to the problems facing our unfortunate soldiers between r5th May and 1st. August. I hope that the Government will not feel that by this piece of legislation they have absolved themselves from the responsibility of facing these problems in advance and having a clear policy. I have been horrified at the illusion that we shall be out by 15th May. We shall only be out by 15th May in the legal sense, such as can be employed by an Attorney-General, but a Colonial Secretary and a Foreign Secretary should deal in moral and political definitions.
    In the most difficult period of its history Palestine is going to be ruled in certain areas by British armies, preparing for withdrawal, and I have heard no word from the Front Bench which shows a realisation that just by saying and doing things here in this House, one does nothing to help the boys out there. Are these politicians going to be wiser in these three months than they have shown themselves in the previous three years? I sincerely hope so for the sake of the good name of this country. These three months are going to be a taxing time. I had always hoped that despite disasters, such as we have had before in South Africa and Ireland, the Palestine story would end with a supreme act of statesmanship such as occurred in our relations with those other countries. But this is now impossible. To atone for the failure of us politicians I can only hope that our soldiers will withdraw with decency and honour. If they can do that they will save something of our name.
    2.34 a.m.
    Mr. Delargy: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low). I hope that in the intervening period something will be done to safeguard the Holy Places, and I can speak with some emotion because I believe that I am the only member present of the Church which organised the Crusades, the Church of

    2977
    Godfrey de Bouillon, of Richard I, Saint Bernard and Saint Louis. Nevertheless, the modest life of any person in Palestine is of far more importance than the Holy cities, and the greatest theologians of my Church will agree on that point. Because I believe so many lives have been jeopardised, as well as the Holy cities, by our failure in Palestine, I cannot rid myself of some feeling of guilt because I belong to this Parliament and support this Go,Ternment, and I am sorry tonight that we are discussing the worst Bill this Government have presented to this House.
    2.35 a.m.
    Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): I do not dissent from any of the opinions that have been expressed on this side of the House during this Third Reading, and I do not think that any apology is needed for maintaining this Debate at this late hour, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) that this is one of the most important Bills that has been presented to this House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to moral obligations, and one hon. Gentleman has said he is not ashamed of what the House is doing by the passage of this Bill. I must confess that I am ashamed of what the House is doing. One of the pledges I gave when I was elected was that we should support, by the best means we could, the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine, and I believe that the passage of this Bill is in many respects a betrayal of that pledge.
    Some of us on this side do regard this Debate as being one of importance for this House, and for the party which we represent in it. I would like to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), who referred to those who have served in Palestine during the past 20 years. But there are many present in Palestine who have served there for the purpose of building a Palestinian State. They have worked with Jew and Arab to build a Palestinian State. Their hopes are betrayed tonight, as the hopes of many of us are betrayed. Therefore, I think it right that we should pay tribute to them. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) that we must face the fact of what this Bill proposes. We are pro-
    2978
    posing to the British people that we should clear out of Palestine, leaving chaos behind us, and I cannot recall any Bill which has ever been presented which has embodied such a proposition.
    If it were proposed that we should clear out of Austria, or Germany, Nigeria or the Gold Coast, or any other area in the world which we control, if we said, "We propose to clear out of this area, and leave chaos behind us, and leave no proposals how this area should be governed and controlled in future," I believe this House would condemn it. But it is a most curious situation about Palestine that this House is prepared to pass a Bill saying, "We shall clear out of Palestine, we shall leave chaos behind us in an area which is of profound strategical importance to the rest of the world, we shall go out of this area and not make any pronouncement about the kind of conditions which should exist when we leave." I do not believe that is going to happen.
    We are going to vote on this Bill tonight. I was not here when the Second Reading was voted on, but I would certainly be prepared to vote against the Third Reading. But I believe that when this event occurs, and when we are presented with a situation that the British Government must abandon all control over this vital and strategic area of the world, I believe some sudden change is going to take place,. some such change as we have seen take place in Washington in the last few days. Somebody is going to discover it is impossible to leave the whole of the Middle East in chaos. A great decision is going to be made by the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, is going to come down and make a speech defending the new situation as convincing, or perhaps more convincing, than the speech he has made today. I believe that is the situation and we are passing a Bill which is irrelevant. It is not going to last for two months. It is a Bill which hears no relation either to the Palestinian situation, or the European situation or the world situation. It is going to be torn up and I think it is time that some of us began to face the situation.
    I am not claiming that I have been right about this situation or right about the Palestinian proposals in the last two or three years. I made a speech some months ago in the House in which I said I believed it was right that we

    2979
    should clear out of Palestine. I do not argue with my hon. Friends on this side of the House who still maintain that point of view. But I think it worth considering, in view of the United States decision and in view of the whole changed situation, whether it is not the best course for the British Government, even at this late hour, to say we should maintain the Mandate.
    I think it is even worth considering that, because the other alternative I fear is that we shall see a terrible battle in Palestine between Arab and Jew. One side would win, but I do not know which. There will be a terrible battle and even at this late hour it would be a good thing for the British Government to consider whether they should make a proposal to the Government of the United States jointly to govern Palestine during these three or four months. There will be no government in Palestine, over a large part of the Middle East, if this Bill is passed. I think it is a dangerous situation in the present state of affairs that we should say there shall be no government over this vital area of the world during the next six or eight months we have to face. Therefore, although that is a course which is contrary to arguments I myself have used in this House, I think it is still a matter which the Government should consider.
    In any case, I think this Bill is a Bill which will not last. It means nothing. It is irrelevant to the present situation. It was irrelevant before the United States Government made its pronouncement and it is even more irrelevant today. It was irrelevant, first, because the British Government were unprepared to accept what was submitted by the United Nations. It is irrelevant today because they have not considered what is submitted by the United States. For these reasons, I say it is a bad Bill. It is an unthought-out Bill. I am sure it is a Bill of which most of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench are ashamed, because in fact we could have done something far better in Palestine. We could have built something far better on what had been achieved by all who had worked there for twenty years. If we had put through a partition in 1945 on our own basis, on the basis of our own policy, I am sure if we had done that we could have achieved something in
    2980
    Palestine. Instead, we have retreated and retreated and retreated, and found no safe place for all our retreats. I would appeal to the Government to abandon the advisers who have persuaded them to pursue this course over the last two and a half years and consider whether there is not some brave and decisive course which they can now take to cut through all the confusion that has been caused by this policy.
    2.45 a.m.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I rather think that if I were to attempt to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) in the very interesting speech he has just delivered, I would find myself very soon in conflict with the Chair. At this time of the morning I would wish to avoid that. The learned Attorney-General, in his contribution to the Third Reading Debate, said that this was a machinery Bill. I do not take that view. No doubt all the Clauses after the first Clause are machinery Clauses. Upon whether they are good machinery or bad machinery, I do not propose to dilate now. After all, we have spent the last two and a half days considering the details of the machinery. But Clause 1 is not a machinery Clause: it is a matter of policy. It is Clause I which declares that the Mandate under which this country has exercised authority in Palestine for nearly 3o years shall, on 15th May, or at any rate, not later than 15th May, come to an end. In spite of all that my hon. Friend has just said, we must look at this Bill in the light of that fact. I do not oppose the Bill. I have supported it throughout, and I would support it again in view of the way things have developed. I do not think that this was inevitable, but as things have developed during the last two and a half years, I think that it is much the best thing for this country, and for the world, and for Palestine, for the Government to hand back the Mandate and to terminate their jurisdiction.
    I would add only the hope that the Government will be able to take their troops out of Palestine even before 1st August. When we have done that we will have brought the Mandate to an end. But we will not have brought to an end the requirements, the obligations. or the troubles, which made us assume the Mandate in the first place. Many speakers

    2981
    during this Debate have suggested that our Debates in the last two and a half days have been unreal and irrelevant, in that they have taken place in an atmosphere divorced from realities. Some of the speakers have mentioned some of these realities. I hope I shall not be out of Order if I mention another.
    The need for the re-creation of a Jewish nation living in a Jewish national home was conceded more than 3o years ago, and is not now, I think, disputed by any responsible person. If it were necessary, and the world conceded it to be necessary, in the early 1920's, it can hardly be said to be less necessary in the late 1940's. A good deal has happened in the interval. One of the realities which we have ignored, and which this Bill ignores, is the fact that there are a few hundred thousand—not more—people surviving in Europe, living still—two and a half years after the end of the war—in displaced persons' camps who have nowhere to go. These are the immigrants to whom an hon. and gallant Gentleman referred in one of our debates earlier today. The existence of those people—still in those camps, with no hope, no future, no policy—is a reality which we have ignored. It is that reality which we admitted to be true in 1920.
    The need for a re-creation of a Jewish national home has been admitted; the recreation of Jewish nationhood, and the right to live as other nations and the right to take in their own. Sir, the conflict in Palestine has not been a racial conflict as so many people say, between Arab and Jew. It has been more a piece of litigation about land, and it has frequently been said in this House—and I would not dissent from it—that the conflict has not been between right and wrong. It has been a conflict of right and right; a conflict between rights created by His Majesty's Government; a conflict about rights created by Great Britain. I do not know what the true legal or judicial conclusion may be about the conflicting promises. But promises were made to the Jews, and they have built soz…me 3o years' history on them; and other promises were m0061de to the Arabs who have relied on them for something like a generation, and when people in this House talk with pride of what has been done, one can remind them, without re-opening old sores, that neither the Jews nor the Arabs were responsible for
    2982
    these conflicting promises in Palestine. They were made by Great Britain, and if Great Britain could not fulfil them, Great Britain should have remembered that at the time.
    If the need for a Jewish national home is greater today than ever before, that need will have to be served. In an interjection in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) I said that some, at any rate, must build on the United Nation's decision of last September. They have to build on that or perish. If people must build or perish, they build on such foundations as they can find. Although others may undermine the foundations, and because they themselves have failed, them seek to overturn them, those who must build or die will build upon them. They must do so. They will be reinforced in so doing by remembering that it is now conceded apparently everywhere that the only possible way in which any kind of rough settlement could have been done to the conflicting claims was a partition scheme. There is nobody who has ever looked at this problem who has ever come to any other conclusion. Neither on this side of the House nor on the other has there really been any other conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol has said repeatedly that during his time at the Colonial Office he came to the conclusion that partition was the only possible way. The United Nations came to it too. The decision of the United States over the weekend to cease to back it is not founded upon any lack of belief in justice or rectitude but merely on inability to implement it by force. I do not regard this as a matter of complete despair. It is not a matter of which anyone could be proud, but I think the Jews will seek to serve their leeds constructively and with the same courage and vision which has inspired their efforts in the last 30 or 40 years, and in the hope of being able to do that with the sword perhaps in one hand and the plough-share in the other.
    2.56 a.m.
    Major Tufton Beamish: Many questions have been asked and remain unanswered in this Debate and I am not going back over them, but I think it has been an unsatisfactory Debate. I have listened with amazement to some of the biased though nearly always sincere

    2983
    speeches made by hon. Members opposite particularly those who are Zionists, but they have done well to underline the fact, which has not been underlined from this side, of the broken pledges of the Party in power. I have always thought that the solution to the Palestine problem has constantly been bedevilled by the confusion of two issues. The first, the world issue, is the tragic situation of the Jews in Europe to which reference has been made; and the second, the particular problem of Palestine which is surely a local problem. I hope a solution will be found in the future by facing up to the problem now from this standpoint.
    The question of illegal immigration is of the utmost importance if our withdrawal from Palestine is to be successful. That has not been touched upon during the Third Reading Debate. As the Government know, British troops will be in Haifa until they finally withdraw. It is my information, and I expect the Government can confirm it, that plans on an ever-increasing scale are being made to enable Jews in larger and larger numbers to enter Palestine.
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot, on Third Reading, discuss the situation in Palestine. We must stick to the Third Reading and not to the administration of Palestine and what is happening from day to day.
    Major Beamish: I thought that as British troops were to be in Palestine and are there now and are naturally responsible for the control of illegal immigration until 15th May, I would be in Order.
    Mr. Speaker: No, I think not. That is quite outside the Third Reading. It is a problem of administration and not anything to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Major Beamish: I am sorry I was out of Order. I have never ceased to marvel at the ingratitude of the Zionists. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and other
    2984
    hon. Members during the Third Reading have spoken unashamedly, and rightly so, from the Zionist angle. I would draw their attention to the fact that in 1918 there were a great many less than 100,000 Jews in Palestine. Today the figure is something in the nature of 630,000. If that is not a complete honouring of the pledge given in the Balfour Declaration I do not know what else could be considered to be so.
    I had hoped to refer to a number of other matters but I shall probably get out of Order again so I will not. I am particularly anxious to have the opportunity, as one of many other hon. Members on this side of the House who have served in Palestine, of paying my tribute, as many Members have paid theirs, to our officials in Palestine and to the conduct of the Army and police in Palestine. Many Members opposite frequently seem to overlook the fact that the maintenance of law and order in a country of that nature where feeling runs so high is a highly skilled and dangerous job involving great risks and great discomforts, and I certainly would like to pay my tribute to the way in which those duties have been carried out. I believe that no other country could have administered Palestine and maintained law and order with greater efficiency and greater tolerance. I cannot disguise the fact that I look on the future in Palestine with grave anxiety, but I would, none the less, express the hope that the future of Palestine will be a prosperous and happy one in spite of the present dark outlook.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
    Adjourned at Two Minutes past Three o'Clock a.m.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Parents Pensions
  Parents Pensions
BRITISH ARMY
  Edgerton House, Shrewsbury
  Edgerton House, Shrewsbury
  Press Information
  Press Information
  Military Hospital, Wheatley (Patients)
  Military Hospital, Wheatley (Patients)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Civilian Clothing
  Civilian Clothing
  Pay Office, Glasgow (Removal)
  Pay Office, Glasgow (Removal)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Harlow New Town
  Harlow New Town
  Aycliffe New Town Development Corporation
  Aycliffe New Town Development Corporation
EMPLOYMENT
  European Recovery Programme
  European Recovery Programme
  Cotton Industry (Married Women Workers)
  Cotton Industry (Married Women Workers)
  Disabled Persons, North-East Lancashire
  Disabled Persons, North-East Lancashire
  Liverpool Appointments Office
  Liverpool Appointments Office
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  American Loan (Government Purchases)
  American Loan (Government Purchases)
  Postwar Credits (Hardship Cases)
  Postwar Credits (Hardship Cases)
  Economic Survey (Sale of Copies)
  Economic Survey (Sale of Copies)
  Sub-delegated Legislation (Publication)
  Sub-delegated Legislation (Publication)
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Universities, Scotland (Entry)
  Universities, Scotland (Entry)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MINISTRY STAFF)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MINISTRY STAFF)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Viscose Rayon Staple
  Viscose Rayon Staple
  Cotton Industry (Weaving Section)
  Cotton Industry (Weaving Section)
  Gloves (Coupons)
  Gloves (Coupons)
  Timber (Prices)
  Timber (Prices)
  Yarns (Prices)
  Yarns (Prices)
  Anglo-Yugoslav Trade Negotiations
  Anglo-Yugoslav Trade Negotiations
  New Tyres
  New Tyres
  Footwear Repairs
  Footwear Repairs
  Darning Wool
  Darning Wool
  Goods and Clothing (Exports)
  Goods and Clothing (Exports)
  Overseas Visitors (Tourist Voucher Books)
  Overseas Visitors (Tourist Voucher Books)
POST OFFICE
  Inland Telegrams
  Inland Telegrams
  Telephone Service (Applications)
  Telephone Service (Applications)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Steel Supplies, Sheffield
  Steel Supplies, Sheffield
  Harbour, Cairnryan (Use)
  Harbour, Cairnryan (Use)
  Small Agricultural Tools
  Small Agricultural Tools
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Quick Freeze Plants (Steel Allocations)
  Quick Freeze Plants (Steel Allocations)
  Camp, Weeting (Use)
  Camp, Weeting (Use)
  Building, Sidcup
  Building, Sidcup
  SHIPS (BRITISH AND SOVIET PORTS)
  SHIPS (BRITISH AND SOVIET PORTS)
SCOTLAND
  Technical Education
  Technical Education
  Hill Cattle Subsidy
  Hill Cattle Subsidy
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (EARNINGS)
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (EARNINGS)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (SUBSIDIES)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (SUBSIDIES)
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES)
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES)
  PETROL ECONOMY
  PETROL ECONOMY

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

FACTORIES BILL. [H.L.]
2.34 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Factories Act, 1937, and to provide for matters consequential on the amendment of that Act; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Hall.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BASIC PETROL.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the new agreement to import American films, they have any further statement to make with regard to restoration of a basic petrol allowance.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as the noble Earl is no doubt aware, one of the main purposes of the films agreement was to save dollars. As regards the petrol position, I would ask your Lordships to await the statement which will be made in the week following the Easter recess by my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
EARL HOWE: Does the noble Lord's answer mean that the import of American films is now considered to have priority over the question of petrol and to be more important?
LORD CHORLEY: The answer does not mean anything of the kind, as the noble Earl is well aware.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—WAR MEMORIAL.
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Lords War Memorial was laid before the Committee and agreed to.
2.—HISTORICAL RECORDS.
The Committee approved the proposals made by the Clerk of the Parliaments respecting the care of the documents in the Victoria Tower.
3.—REVISION OF SALARY SCALES.
The Committee authorised a revision in the scales of salary of certain grades allied to the Executive class in the Civil Service and the application of assimilation terms as laid down in Treasury Circular No. 2/48 dated 14th January, 1948.
4.—PROFICIENCY ALLOWANCES.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishment Officers Circulars Nos. 3/48 and 4/48 for the payment of an allowance for proficiency in either shorthand or typing to any member of the staff who passes the tests of the Royal Society of Arts.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be now considered.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, there is one item in this Report which will be of general interest to the House. Your Lordships will see that the Committee adopted, and indeed unanimously adopted, the proposals made by the subcommittee appointed to consider the form which the House of Lords War Memorial should take. These proposals, shortly, are as follows: First, to record on panels in the Royal Gallery and on an illuminated Roll of Honour the names of those who fell in the war or who lost their lives through enemy action, the names to include Peers, sons of Peers, officials of the House and, also, Peers' wives and daughters; secondly, to move to a garden in the precincts of the House the bronze figures now in the Royal Gallery; thirdly, to decorate and gild the niche in the Royal Gallery now occupied by the figures and to replace the original window—the Roll of Honour to be placed on a table in the niche.

1013
These proposals are set out more fully in the report of the sub-committee, copies of which are available in the House. The cost of the scheme is estimated at not more than £3,000, and it is suggested that an appeal be sent to all Peers in order to raise the necessary funds. I beg to move that the Report be adopted.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before this Bill passes into law, there is a point in it which I think deserves your Lordship's attention for a moment or two. I would like to say straight away that I have no complaint about the Bill itself, nor with regard to any of the parties to it. As your Lordships have not copies of the Bill in your hands I will read a short passage from it. The Bill includes the making of a tunnel under a river and Clause 17 says that:
"In order to avoid…injury to the houses and buildings within one hundred feet of such works it may be necessary to underpin or otherwise strengthen the same. Therefore the Corporation at their own expense may, and if required by the owners or lessees of any such house or building shall…underpin or otherwise strengthen the same and the following provisions shall…be binding on the Corporation,"—
The clause then goes on to say that if any parties, the lessees or owners of any house or building, object to the house being underpinned they have to put in an objection, and the notice to be given by the Corporation is ten days. I would point out to your Lordships that an objection can be brought by a lessee, even though his lease may be nearly up and it may be to the interest of the owners. Then the matter goes to the arbiter and the necessary works are decided by an engineer appointed under the Act.
1014
The Bill goes on to say:
"If in any case in which any house or building has been underpinned or strengthened on the requisition of the Corporation"—
and that is the way in which this will usually begin—
"such underpinning or strengthening proves inadequate…in every such case unless such underpinning or strengthening has been done in pursuance of and in the mode prescribed by the arbiter the Corporation shall make compensation…"
The point that occurred to your Lordships' Commission, to whom this Bill was sent, was why, under these circumstances, the undertaking should be carried on by the Corporation at the risk of the property owner, provided that they find an engineer to prophesy that the house will not fall down. If, in fact, it subsequently falls down, why should the Corporation be free of any liability in the matter? The Corporation were quite ready to meet the point and all parties were agreed. Accordingly, in the Bill we find Clause 18 directly contradicting Clause 17, which says that in any case where there is a collapse the Corporation shall give compensation.
Your Commission asked why Clause 17 was drawn in that form, and the answer given was that it was the common form. Instead of Clause 17 being altered, as the Commission thought probable, the common form is maintained, even though it appears to be unjust, and is now corrected in Clause 18 of the Bill before your Lordships. I am very much interested in this question of the common form. Your Lordships will appreciate that ten days is not long notice. If the common form is eminently fair and equitable it may be a reasonable thing to have very short notice. But if the common form is in any way inequitable, then the shortness of the notice becomes a distinct grievance to the subject. The very fact that Clause 17 has not been altered in the Bill before your Lordships, but has been entirely repealed, as it were, by Clause 18, supposes some great sanctity in these common forms—a kind of vis inertiae of wrong. If there is no real reason for the maintenance of the clause in this form, I humbly submit that it should be altered. I believe that a Committee are sitting on this matter at the present time, and I suggest that it should be referred to them. If, however, that is not the case, I would ask my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill to accept what I have said this afternoon as

1015
a question not for oral answer, in order that the Government's answer on the matter may be published in the proceedings. That is all I have to say on the matter, and I hope my noble friend will draw the attention of the authorities concerned to it.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has said and I will certainly direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the point. As I follow him, he does not desire any alteration in the present Bill, but is content that it should go through as printed. With regard to the last point made by the noble Lord, I have made some inquiries and I doubt whether it would be possible for a statement to be published, in the form that he asks, in the official record of the proceedings of the House. I will consult with the noble Lord later, but to achieve his object it may be more satisfactory if he will do as he has suggested, and put down a question not for oral answer. A written reply will then appear in the Official Report. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied, and that the Bill may now proceed to its Third Reading.
LORD SALTOUN: Perhaps the noble Lord will let me have the official answer to what I have said, and then I shall be able to formulate a question. I will certainly adopt the course he suggests.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill to consolidate the Companies Act, 1947, with the Companies Act, 1929. It is a somewhat formidable measure, as your Lordships will see, but it is a consolidation measure and it does not in any way change the law. Your Lordships will recollect that during the passage of the Companies Act through the House last year there were requests from all sides
1016
of the House that a measure to consolidate the Companies Acts should be introduced as soon as possible, and I promised that consolidation should be effected as soon as it was possible to do so. It is important that this measure should be passed into law as soon as possible, as the Government wish to bring into operation all the remaining provisions of the 1947 Act at the same time as the accounts provisions, and an Order has been made appointing July 1 as the date on which the whole of the 1947 Act will be in operation. His Majesty's Government indicated that these provisions would, if possible, not be brought into force until the Acts had been consolidated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for having so amply fulfilled his undertaking that he would do his best to see that these large Acts were consolidated into a single measure before the new companies code came into force. He has fully discharged that undertaking. But even more thanks are due to the Parliamentary draftsmen who have achieved this monumental work. We all have production targets set us to-day, but there are few sections of the community, industrial or otherwise, who so successfully attain so large a production target as the unfortunate Parliamentary draftsmen.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING.
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR rose to call attention to the recommendations for the improvement of marketing of agricultural produce put forward by the Committee appointed to review the work of the Agricultural Marketing Acts in their recent Report (Economic Series, No. 48); to inquire as to the action which the Government propose to take on these recommendations; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, before embarking upon the complicated details of agricultural marketing, I think it only right that I should pay to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his colleagues, a

1017
tribute for the Report which they have presented to Parliament. It is a valuable addition to the rather extensive literature on agricultural marketing; valuable not only on account of the proposals that it makes, but also because of the summary which it gives of the progress in agricultural marketing which was made in the years before the war under the various Agricultural Marketing Acts, of which, of course, the 1931 Act is the most important.
The marketing schemes which were brought forward under the 1931 Act have had varying success, but they were introduced, generally speaking, with the idea that they should improve the position of the farmer by improving his methods of marketing his produce in such a way as to give him a better price and a better market for his produce. In point of fact, when it came down to real work, the main objective of the marketing boards in practically every case was not to improve the marketing organisation so much as to strike a hard bargain for the farmer and so get him a better price for his produce. I think that is perfectly understandable, because when those marketing schemes were in operation England was still a market for the surplus produce of the world. The farmer was having a difficult time and could not get a decent price for his produce, and his mind was naturally fixed upon trying to get a better price. Concentration, therefore, was made upon price rather than on better marketing. It is true that subsequent enactments tried to remedy that position through the setting up of commissions and such like, but they were not very effective.
To-day, the position is vey different. There are two main reasons which account for the change. The first is that there is a world shortage of foodstuffs and, therefore, there is automatically a better market for the farmers' produce. But I do not think that is the main reason. The one upon which I place the most importance is the fact that all political Parties have agreed (without, I think, any reservation at all) that the agricultural community should have a guaranteed price and an assured market. That has been translated into action by the present Government in Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1947. It is quite true that its interpretation in that particular Act of Parliament in some respects does not go so far as many noble Lords on this side of the House think right. The guaranteed price
1018
is qualified to some extent in Section 1 of that Act and the assured market is a somewhat uncertain factor. That only really strengthens my argument, because if the Government who are in office to-day qualify the guarantee, the Government who may he in office to-morrow are not prepared to qualify it to the same extent. Therefore we may look forward at least to the present measure of security and possibly to an even greater measure of security in the future.
One other point ought to be mentioned in this connection, and that is that with our present restricted diet home produced food forms a comparatively large proportion of the total food consumed in this country. It is a point which needs to be home in mind in the light of subsequent arguments which I propose to bring forth. One other matter which I should mention is our difficulties with regard to foreign exchange. However, I am deliberately leaving that question outside my arguments. We are not discussing a short-term policy. When we discuss agricultural marketing, we discuss something which must stand for ten or even twenty years. If this country suffers foreign exchange difficulties for that length of time, there will be little need to discuss agricultural or almost any other form of marketing.
Before I get down to the details with regard to the actual marketing proposals, I think it would be as well to say a word or two about the point of view of farmers in respect to marketing proposals generally. The farmer has a profound distrust of any political promises. That is not the farmer's fault. He has recently had a number of severe blows, within the memory of most farmers, and I think he is really justified in that distrust. He also has in mind that the present world shortage of foodstuffs is possibly and probably only temporary He is reinforced in that view by statements which appeared recently in the Sunday Press, to the effect that there is going to be a bumper wheat crop. Those statements have been reinforced by the present Minister of Food, who is reported in one newspaper to have said that we can look forward to a bumper harvest in the Northern hemisphere. That is quite incidental, but I wish to goodness the Minister of Food would not make such premature statements when he cannot possibly know, because the middle of March is too early to say whether it

1019
is going to be a good harvest or not. Every farmer knows that, as I hope noble Lords opposite will realise, and it creates in his mind further distrust of political promises and forecasts.
He also realises that the guaranteed price, the price which is guaranteed to him through the enactment of the Agriculture Act, 1947, is not really operative to-day. It is not a guaranteed price; it is a selling price above which he cannot go. He knows perfectly well that if there were a free market in England to-day he would be getting considerably more for his produce than he is getting, and he cannot help wondering a little whether, when the boot is on the other leg and he is being subsidised and not the consumer, there will be the same willingness to help him that there is now, when he does not need much help.
I have laid a certain amount of stress upon the attitude of mind of the farmer. I am talking of the ordinary rank and file of the farmers, and not necessarily of the leaders of their Union, who have possibly a wider vision than their members. But I have laid this stress because in any alteration in the marketing organisation of the home production of food stuffs it is vitally necessary we carry the ordinary rank and file farmer with us. If we fail to do that, we shall not have a successful marketing organisation, and that may well have an adverse effect upon production. As one cart see from the farming Press, the farmers have so far reacted rather unfavourably to the proposals of the Lucas Report. Those proposals are fairly simple in some respects; yet they are not easy to understand, in that it is difficult to see exactly where they will lead in the future.
The proposals, to put them briefly, are that there should be set up commodity commissions which should cover each individual commodity or group of commodities. These commodity commissions would take control of the commodity concerned at the point of price guarantee, and thereafter the commodity commissions would have extremely wide powers, even to the extent of trading the commodity throughout the country. Alongside that situation, there is apparently no great objection to the maintenance of the existing marketing powers under the existing Marketing Acts. I cannot see that in
1020
that set-up there is a great deal of room for the marketing boards proposed. I am rather led to that conclusion by the instances given in the Report, with regard to a possible marketing board for livestock, where the proposed duties which the marketing board would carry out are enumerated. It appears to me that these are duties which might well be carried out by the present farmers' organisation, The National Farmers' Union, without all the paraphernalia of setting up a marketing board under the 1931 Act.
That, very briefly, is the set-up proposed by the Lucas Report; and I say quite candidly that I do not like it very much. The reasons I object to it are these. First of all, the setting up of a commodity commission would place yet one more body—and inevitably, an expensive body—in the channel that lies between producer and consumer. Although it may be said that they would usurp some of the powers at present exercised by the Ministry of Food, the Report quotes the Government Statement of 1945 to the effect that it is proposed to keep the Ministry of Food in being as an integral part of the Government organisation of this country. If the Ministry of Food continue in existence, I have little doubt that they will have a finger in the pie of English home production; if we set up also a commodity commission we are putting yet another body between consumer and producer. Furthermore, the commodity commissions which the Report envisages are to be composed of independent persons nominated respectively by the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture; and an endeavour will have to be made to find individuals who are not tied to any particular side of the industry, whether it be the production or the distribution of food.
Two points arise on that matter. The first is that it will be extremely difficult to find men who are competent to fulfil all the criteria suggested in the Report, because the distribution of food in this country is not a simple job. If men who are not interested in the distribution of food are appointed, then the commissions will have to learn a great deal about their job before they can start to carry it out. But my main objection is rather that I can find nowhere in that Report any suggestion that these commodity

1021
commissions should be answerable to any particular body. We have already had some experience of nationalised industries, and we have learned that Ministers are not prepared to answer questions in detail. It does not seem to be realised to what an extent, in ordinary commercial practice, the actions of a board of directors are governed by the knowledge that they will have personally to face an annual meeting of shareholders. I can see nothing in the proposal with regard to commodity commissions which would correspond to an annual general meeting of shareholders. An Annual Report to Parliament, a statement of accounts and a debate in another place are not quite the same thing, unless the Minister concerned in Parliament is to be allowed a say in what transpires on that commodity commission. He will be replying to a debate almost at second-hand. I do like—and I think most people like—those who compose a body controlling an important part of our public life (and food is a pretty important part of our public and private life) to be under an obligation to sit on a platform and to answer questions. There is no provision for that in this Report.
It is easy enough for me to stand up here and say that I do not like the proposals of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is not nearly so easy to say what I do like. But I will try. I agree with the Lucas Committee on one fundamental point. In the past, the marketing powers of the marketing organisations of the farmers have been producer-controlled, for the reason that the producer was at the mercy of the world markets, and he had every right to try to improve his own lot. But to-day, with the guaranteed price and an assured market, if the guarantee is to be paid for by the taxpayer or out of the consumer's pocket, there is absolutely no doubt that the consumer should have the right to a say in the marketing of that produce. In the future, he may well need protection. I agree with the Lucas Committee on that point.
The other criterion which I apply to my consideration of this problem is that at the same time we must have the good will of the farmers. Without that any marketing scheme will fail, and fail rather unhappily. With those two points in mind, I passed through various stages in arriving
1022
at my conclusions. I came to the conclusion that the marketing boards, set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and entirely producer-controlled, could not be supported under existing circumstances. I then canvassed the idea that one might expand those marketing boards to include representatives of other interests—consumers, distributors, and the like. I was rather supported in that idea by the evidence quoted in the Report of the Potato Marketing Board. They, apparently, have in train a scheme whereby the distributors are included or the Board, with provision for arbitration if agreement is not reached on the Board. However, I do not think that would work very well. There would certainly be differences of opinion which it would be difficult to solve, and the next obvious step in the train of thought would be some form of arbitration.
Another thought which occurred to me was that, rather than have an arbitration tribunal, you might, if you had inde-dependent members on such expanding marketing boards, give them overriding powers. Again, I discarded that idea, because I felt that you would not want to single out some members of the boards as being different from their fellows, with different powers. Finally, I came down on the side of marketing boards as they are at present constituted—that is to say, producer-controlled marketing boards. I do not know that it is entirely desirable that they should, as now, be formed by election. Here again, I agree with the Report when it says that that course does not necessarily produce the right men for the job. My own personal experience in that direction confirms the view that election by producers does not necessarily produce the best men to manage the marketing side. Still, there could be producer-controlled marketing boards with, over and above them, a single Commission. That Commission would be of a quasi judicial character, charged with the duty of safeguarding the interests of all parties concerned—that is to say, the consumer, the distributor and the producer.
I know that I shall stand to be shot at and criticised, and shall be told that such a Commission would have to be composed of supermen of a calibre which does not exist to-day. I am inclined to think that men of the type to do a job

1023
of that nature are more readily available than men of the type to carry out the executive functions in the complicated business which is envisaged in the commodity commissions of the Lucas Report. It is true that this single Commission would have to have certain executive functions. For instance, they would require the power to enforce their decisions. They would also, of course, be an appeal tribunal, to whom any body could appeal against anything which they considered unfair. They would have to give their decisions in such cases. They might even need the power to supersede an existing marketing board, if they thought it was not performing its function. I am not suggesting that this Commission would carry out that function, but they could supersede an existing board with other people more capable of carrying out the function. I am not suggesting at any stage that the Commission which I have in mind would in fact perform any of the marketing functions. They would merely carry out the duty of safeguarding any section of the public against any injustice.
In that set-up, there is one exception which I think must be made. The First Schedule of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, details the commodities on which price is guaranteed. There are a number of agricultural commodities outside that Schedule which still have to stand on their own feet in the face of world competition. In those cases, I can see no logical reason why the functions of the ordinary marketing boards under the Act of 1931 should not be carried out in the ordinary way, without the intervention of anybody, because they would then be producer-controlled marketing boards helping their own fellows in the face of a competition over which they had little or no control. They would be producing the commodities in which the general public, I do not say had no interest but were not supporting them so far as price was concerned.
I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but this subject of agricultural marketing is very involved. I do not believe there is any single royal road to success. Each commodity must be treated on its own merits. In the suggestions which I have outlined to your Lordships, I can see no reason why the
1024
Milk Marketing Board, for instance, should not continue to function as they have in the past, with the guiding hand of a Commission over their head. The Milk Marketing Board have done a good job of work, and I can see no reason why in the future they should be superseded entirely by a new organisation in the form of a commodity commission. There are other commodities, also—potatoes and even hops—where the 1931 procedure has worked well. There are others, such as pigs—and here I speak from personal, experience—where it did not work nearly quite so well and, indeed, practically broke down before the war. Under this procedure, however, you would be enabled to have almost any form of organisation to buy commodities—provided that it was appropriate to the commodity concerned. At the same time, so far as I can see, the consumer and the distributor would be safeguarded, and would not be placed in the background by an entirely producer-controlled organisation. Under such a set-up, too, the farmer under the control of the Commission would be able to run his own show; and that is probably the most important point of all. Unless we secure the good will of the farmer, we shall never make a success of this marketing organisation. And the fact that he has his own representatives, controlling not only his produce but the quality of his produce—which is almost as important—is something which is very near to the heart of the ordinary farmer.
May I deal, quite shortly, with two or three points which arise out of this? The first is that a simpler method such as I have outlined does not mean any multiplicity of commissions. Equally, the single Commission which I propose would have a limited executive power, instead of what appears to be an almost unlimited executive power on the part of a number of commissions. The second is that whatever scheme is brought forward it must be sufficiently flexible to protect both consumer and producer alike. And, thirdly, we must remember that there is no golden rule which applies to every agricultural commodity. That is all I have to say at this stage. In my conversations with a number of people I found that most are shying off the difficult problem of agricultural marketing. For myself, I am rather like the lady who is reputed to have said "How can I know what I

1025
think until I hear what I say?" I have heard what I say; I would not be too certain yet that I know what I really think. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, the Government welcome the opportunity which this debate affords of hearing your Lordships' views on this subject, and of exploring what I think is admitted to be a most complicated subject. We on these Benches—and probably here I also speak for other noble Lords in the House—are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for having introduced the debate, and for having given such an extremely lucid exposition of his views on the subject. He also put forward in his speech some constructive suggestions. It is very helpful to listen to that kind of approach—balanced and carefully thought out—and it assists us to reach our decisions.
I should also like, both on behalf of the Government and on my own account, heartily to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the other authors of this Report. If those of your Lordships who have a copy of the Report would turn to pages 73 to 76 you will appreciate the amount of evidence which had to be taken by the authors from innumerable bodies and individuals.
The details on those pages give some idea of the amount of work involved in hearing that evidence, weighing it up, sifting it and, finally coming to the conclusions of the Report. If your Lordships turn to page 1 of the Report you will observe that the terms of reference were:
"To review the working of the Agricultural Marketing Acts; to consider what modifications of the provisions of those Acts for the organisation of producers are desirable in the light of experience before 1939 and of the developments since then in Government policy, as it affects food and agriculture, and to make recommendations."
I think that a good many noble Lords, if they had been faced with the problem, might well have felt their hearts sinking within them and would have hesitated before they undertook such an extremely far-reaching measure of research and such an arduous task. Therefore, I think we all owe a vote of sincere thanks to the
1026
noble Lord who actually brought out this Report.
This country is in an extremely difficult economic position. The Government have come to the conclusion that they will wholeheartedly take the people into their confidence; and in the Economic Survey for 1948 they have expounded the exact position in regard to the difficulties and dangers with which we are faced, and also the proposed remedies that we think are desirable to meet the situation. So anxious were the Government to bring this to the attention of the people that they have also published a popular edition of this Report which some of your Lordships may have seen, illustrated with diagrams and drawn up in the simplest and most direct wording, so that the facts can be brought home to as many people in this country as possible.
Whatever differences of opinion may arise out of that, one thing emerges without any possible contradiction; that is the absolute necessity for increased production, and particularly the production of food grown in this country. I do not think that would be contradicted by anyone. But there is another side to this question. It is no use producing the food unless we can market and distribute it in the most efficient manner possible. We want the farmer to grow the crops, or other produce, and we want the goods to be handled afterwards and sent forward in such a manner that they finally reach the consumer in as good and as cheap a form as is reasonably possible. That is the other side of the picture. His Majesty's Government have been concerned with production for some time. We have done our best to encourage the farming community to produce more and more to meet the difficult situation in which we now find ourselves.
I am giving away no secret when I say that for some time the Government have also been extremely concerned over the process of distribution. We are determined to try to get it running on better and more efficient lines. It is for this reason—and I am speaking more particularly of agriculture and food production—that we asked Lord Lucas and his colleagues to explore the whole subject and to draw up the Report which we now have before us. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said, the Report covers a wide field. It is no wonder that some

1027
people have found it very complicated to study, and that, consequently, some misconceptions have arisen. Those misconceptions have been reflected in the Press and in statements which have been made by various people who do not seem clearly to have understood the intentions of the Report. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture tried at Reading, on February 14, to correct some of those misconceptions. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he speaks will perhaps correct others. I should like to do something in that line myself, and I propose, therefore, to deal with one or two of the misunderstandings which have become apparent.
In the first instance, I should like to point out clearly that the Report is not antagonistic to producers' marketing boards. In fact, your Lordships who have read the Report will have seen that it goes out of its way to pay a tribute to the way in which the boards have worked in the past. It also emphasises the fact that there is a place for them in the future, and that it is very desirable in some cases that they should continue. I think that is a point which should be considered carefully. It is true, however, that circumstances have changed very much since the Marketing Acts were brought in, and the powers and functions of the boards may all need to be examined in the light of the changed situation. Particularly has it to be recognised (and this was a fact which was brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor) that the guaranteed prices and assured markets which have been given to the farmer have brought an extra element which has never before existed—that of the interest of the community—into the business of production and distribution of the goods. This certainly calls for examination. What it amounts to is that the community is guaranteeing specifically to the farmer markets and prices for his goods.
I was interested in the noble Earl's suggestion for an overriding Commodity Commission. I understood him to say (I hope he will correct me if I have not understood him rightly) that this Commission would be above all marketing boards. It would, I gather, have almost judicial functions. If anything went wrong, if some injustice or inefficiency were discovered, then this Commission would have power, and sanction, to put
1028
matters right. It would at no stage own or trade in any commodity; it would instead have strong powers to correct any abuses. That, of course, is a very different conception from the commodity commission visualised in the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his colleagues. That commission is a much more active body. It would not be judicial, but an executive, functioning body, taking an active part in the control, marketing and distribution of the produce. I do not want to argue about the merits of these different types of commissions or get involved in a cross-fire on this subject between the noble Earl and the noble Lord.
The second misconception with which I should like to deal is this. The Report does not suggest, as some seem to think, that the producer should lose interest in his commodity at the farm gate. What the Report suggests is that responsibility should be taken over by the Commission at the point where the guaranteed price operates. That might be at the farm gate, of course, as in the case of potatoes. On the other hand, it might not be till the product was in the hands of the wholesaler distributor. Whatever happened, whether we accepted the commodity commission or not, the Government would have to look into the problem and see where the guaranteed price would operate in regard to each commodity. Thirdly, the Lucas Report emphasises clearly the distinction between non-guaranteed commodities and guaranteed commodities. In regard to the guaranteed commodities they suggested that a commodity commission should come into being and keep a good watch on the consumers' interest. But they were much less emphatic in regard to commodities not guaranteed. They left that very much an open question.
In regard to horticulture, the Committee stressed only the idea of the commodity commission, because they did not think that any producer board would have adequate finance to set up and reorganise the stations for packing and conservation of the product—both matters which are extremely urgent. Finance on a large scale is needed in this connection, and the Committee thought that the commodity commission would be more likely to be able to shoulder the financial responsibility for the establishment of modern packing and conservation plants than would the

1029
marketing board. But even in regard to this matter there was clear indication in the Report that the marketing boards should be given every opportunity of functioning if they wished—subject always to some modification of the powers allowed to them in the Agricultural Marketing Acts.
Fourthly, it was not suggested in the Report that the commodity commission should actually and physically own the product. Although the committee considered that in some instances it might be appropriate and indeed necessary for ownership to be assumed by the commodity commissions, they also recognised that in some cases regulatory powers would be sufficient. For instance, in the case of milk the Milk Marketing Board sell milk to the Ministry of Food, who resell to the distributors. The Ministry of Food hold the milk only momentarily in their possession, and it is more a question of book-keeping than of actually holding the produce. Such momentary control of the produce is useful. If anything is going wrong with the distribution, the Ministry can get to the root of any abuse or fault. Secondly, if the Government wish to inject a subsidy, it is easy to change the price at the point where the product is held by the Ministry and then to pass it on to the retailer and the consumer. Thirdly, the holding body are enabled to set up experimental stations, such as experimental abattoirs and creameries, which can show exactly the cost of distributing the produce, and so give a check on whether or not the ordinary channels of trade are doing their job properly, and whether they are charging excessive prices.
If I may, I would refer your Lordships to paragraph 255 of the Report, which says:
"Trading powers would only be used in so far as these agencies"—
that is, the ordinary trade channels—
"failed to provide the most efficient and economical service and for the purpose of providing the Commissions with a yardstick whereby they could measure the efficiency of these services."
I do not wish this afternoon to prejudge in any way the final decisions on the Report. At the same time, I think it is only right and fair to say this. If the type of commission suggested in the Lucas Report were accepted by the Government, it is more likely that we should regard them not as fixed bodies which could not
1030
be altered, but as organisations which could be varied in size, functions and scope, according to the kind of produce involved—cereals, or livestock and so or. We must recognise that circumstances have changed a great deal since 1931, when the original Marketing Act came into being. We must also recognise that what we do now is done not only to meet the present critical position, but is something which will have a great effect on our economic life in the years ahead. We are called upon to make far-reaching decisions which will be operating ten or twenty years ahead.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, suggested, if I quote aright, that we should at all costs secure the good will of the producers and carry them with us. I fully appreciate the importance of that, and I hope that we can. At the same time, we ask the industry to look at this question without prejudice and to consider it in combination with present events. I feel confident that they will show a statesmanlike view and will be both co-operative and wise in examining our problems. It is an extremely important subject, which must be examined with great care. For that reason, your Lordships will not expect me to make any final pronouncement this afternoon. At the same time, to use a hackneyed phrase, the matter brooks no delay. At this moment a Committee composed of the senior officials of all the Departments concerned are considering this matter, and we are expecting their report shortly. We look forward with interest to what they will have to say. I end as I began, by saying that we are extremely anxious to collect the views of all sides; particularly do we welcome the views which your Lordships will advance in this debate.
3.46 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, Lord Lucas and his Committee have produced a valuable historical survey of agricultural marketing, and have made some very interesting recommendations, but like my noble friend the Earl of Radnor I think it is difficult to see where they are leading us. I should like shortly to put two considerations before your Lordships this afternoon. The first is the position of production. One of the main principles upon which the Lucas Committee made their recommendations was the principle that, in so far as commodities

1031
with guaranteed prices and assured markets were concerned, the exclusive interests of the producer should be fixed at the point where a guaranteed price operated. I think, broadly speaking that we should agree with that, we agree that the consumer and taxpayer must be protected. We would also agree that the producer retains an interest in his product right up to the time when it is consumed.
I feel, however, that there is one thing worrying farmers to-day, and that is the term "assured markets." I realise that the Lucas Committee could not assume that the Government were not going to honour the pledges which they specifically gave last year during the debates on the Agriculture Bill in your Lordships' House and in another place, that the quality limitation would not be introduced other than in very exceptional circumstances. But, the fact remains that these words could be so used to make a farce of guaranteed prices, and could make it very difficult for the farmer to sell his produce at a reasonable price. Pledges given by one Government are not binding on another. Sometimes, even, as we have seen just recently in another place in regard to university seats, agreements between Parties are not always honoured. Further, in the position in which we now find ourselves there may be attached to any aid we shall receive conditions which will make it essential for the Government to introduce a quality limitation on the amount of any particular produce to be sold at the guaranteed price. That being so, it is perhaps not altogether surprising that some farmers find it difficult to accept the principle of losing the primary interest in their produce at the point of first sale. It will be difficult to convince them that that is necessary, unless they are satisfied they will receive a guaranteed market for their produce, and not just an assured market, which is laid down in the first section of the Agriculture Act.
My second point concerns the question of commodity commissions. It is proposed that they should be small independent bodies, not influenced by producers, retailers or processors. I agree that they should be small. I sit on quite a number of committees, and I have always noticed that the amount of work done by them
1032
varies inversely with the number of people who serve on them. None the less, I am not sure that independent people are quite what we want in this case. Paragraph 247 of the Report says:
"If suitable persons having experience of the production, processing or distribution of the commodity concerned were available to serve on the commissions their particular knowledge and experience would undoubtedly be of value, but Ministers should not, in our view, be thus limited in their field of choice. They should, if necessary, be free to canvass the general fields of industry, commerce, finance and public administration in order to secure persons of the calibre needed."
I am not at all sure that there are as many suitable people as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seems to think who would be prepared to serve on these commissions. I believe also that if these commissions are to function smoothly, and are to have the confidence of the industry, they must be composed of people who know the special difficulties of the producers, processors and retailers.
The Report continues:
"We are strongly opposed to any form of nomination of members of the Commodity Commissions by outside bodies. Members of commissions will be, in fact, the business executives of the tax-payer and as such they cannot be responsible, as delegates, to anybody else. Each member of the Commission must be interested solely in serving the aims of the commission and must not be diverted by responsibilities or affiliations to sectional interests."
I disagree rather strongly with that. I think the way to appoint the executive committee, or commission, or whatever it may be called, is by a form of modified nomination, perhaps on the lines of the county agricultural committees, where the landowners, workers and farmers nominate a number of persons, and the Minister selects the most suitable. He has also the opportunity of appointing independent members with special qualifications. This method works well. On those committees there is never any difficulty about sectional interests; all members work to the best of their ability for the agriculture of the county in which they serve, and nobody worries about affiliations to sectional interests.
I have always thought this to be an outstanding example of how we in this country subordinate our own interests for the good of the majority. I cannot help feeling that something of the sort might well be tried in marketing: perhaps something on the lines of a representative

1033
marketing board, consisting of all interests, who would themselves elect a small inner executive committee from their own members. I have touched on only two points this afternoon, and in regard to both I have been rather critical of the Report. However, I would not like your Lordships to think that I underestimate its value, or the value of the suggestions made in it. All I hope is that, before any decision is taken, the Government will make quite sure that the farmers are behind them; that there is no misunderstanding about their intentions, and that the commissions or committees, or whatever they may be, are composed of the most suitable people.
3.56 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should certainly not have the effrontery to launch myself on the main current of this debate, but there is one point, legal, and therefore, if you will, prima facie tedious, which I wish to raise; because it seems to me not unimportant. As I understand the position under the 1931 Act, there are certain bodies—the producer boards—which are empowered to determine whether individual producers have, in fact, violated the provisions of the marketing scheme; and, if they come to the conclusion that the producers have been guilty of violation, to impose upon them not inconsiderable monetary penalties. Moreover, these tribunals, if my information be correct, are entitled to proceed with complete disregard of the ordinary accepted rules of evidence which are followed in courts of law.
When I had the honour to introduce to your Lordships some time ago a Bill for the preservation of certain rights of the subject (a Bill which, with your Lordships' permission, I hope to reintroduce at a suitable moment) there was included in it a provision dealing with these tribunals under the Marketing Acts, for the purpose of proposing that the powers of these tribunals should be transferred to the ordinary courts of the country. The view was taken that the normal courts of summary jurisdiction were perfectly competent to deal with this matter, and that it was unnecessary to have extraneous tribunals established which, as I have already said, do not obey the normal rules of evidence, but have power to inflict these substantial monetary penalties.
1034
When that Bill was discussed on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who replied for the Government, said:
"At the present moment this matter is being considered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; yet whilst it is sub judice, and before the noble Lord has made his Report, this clause is put into the Bill. I think that it is most extraordinary, and, except on the basis of its being a slogan, I should have thought the noble Marquess might have waited (if only as a matter of courtesy) until the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has reported and brought the whole matter under review."
It may be that the noble and learned Viscount was in a somewhat uncharacteristically censorious mood that afternoon. I certainly had no intention of being in any way discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. But I am prepared to plead guilty to ignorance, because I confess that at that time I had no idea that the Committee, the labours of which are now being discussed, had been set up. I am raising the point this afternoon in response to the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion—I would not put it as high as an invitation—that I should wait until the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had reported and brought the matter under review.
On page 70 of the Report is the recommendation in this respect from the Lucas Committee. Under the heading "Powers and Duties of Boards" there is paragraph (1), "Imposition of penalties by boards," which suggests that:
"the 1931 Act should be an ended to provide that Penalties Tribunals should be composed of special committees of the board, to be presided over by an independent person who should be a Barrister of not less than five years' standing."
I confess that I can see no advantage in setting up that tribunal. It seems to me to have practically every disadvantage of the existing system, and no new advantage to compensate for that lack of attraction. The fact that the tribunal is to be "presided over by a Barrister of five years' standing" does not, I am afraid, carry complete conviction with me. It is quite possible that he may be a civil servant who, five years ago, was called to the Bar and has never practised in his life. It seems to me that it is far more satisfactory from every point of view that this not unimportant jurisdiction should be confided to the hands of the ordinary courts, and that persons thought to be guilty of offences against the provisions of the Act

1035
should be tried according to the ordinary rules. It is in an endeavour to extract or invite from the Government some indication as to their attitude towards this matter, and their intentions with regard to any legislation affecting it, that I venture thus briefly to intervene.
4.1 p.m.
LORD PIERCY: My Lords, I should like to begin by associating myself with the expressions of gratitude to the noble Earl for having brought forward this Motion, which has given the Government an opportunity of indicating their general attitude, and I hope that something more may fall from the Leader of the House. I should like also to say that, in my view, this is a masterly Report by the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Lucas, though on that I can add nothing to the expressions which have already fallen from several noble Lords.
The problem of agricultural marketing has always been seen to be a difficult one. On the one hand, the agricultural community consists of a multitude of small businesses—indeed tiny businesses. To apply one yardstick, if you divide the number of agricultural holdings into the agriculturally employed population in England and Wales, you find that there are on the average 2.8 persons employed per farm; there are less than 5,000 farms in England employing more than 10 persons, including the farmer, and the average on those farms comes out to less than 30 persons. In that particular structure of British agriculture there has always lain some difficulty for the effective marketing of its produce, particularly as the British farmer has never taken kindly to co-operation and did not even take very kindly to the marketing board.
On the other side, between the farm gate and the kitchen table, there is a complicated mass of agencies of old standing but which have never been very satisfactory. It may be that its orientation has been more towards the handling of imported produce; but, however that may be, it has not given satisfaction to the home farmer. To-day, that mass of agencies is riddled with factors of change—new methods of storing and preserving produce, new methods of storing and processing; not only canning, but freezing and freeze drying, and a whole lot of things. That puts the whole complex in
1036
a transitional state. One can look at the problem of marketing from another angle. The focus of attention up to now has tended to be on the farmers' problem of marketing his produce; that is to say, of exchanging his produce for cash. But the problem can be looked at from the other aspect—that of supplying farm produce efficiently to our great urban aggregations. A lot of what we have done in the past has been related to the first of those issues, but, as has been justly pointed out this afternoon, now that there are guaranteed prices for the main products and an assured market—whatever those guarantees and promises may precisely be worth—the balance of attention must shift over to the other side, the terminal consumer; in other words, the kitchen table rather than the field.
With that preamble, I should like briefly to re-state, if I can, the Lucas Committee's solution of this problem as I see it, cheerfully ready to be corrected by my noble friend if in some respect I have it out of perspective. It seems to me that the Lucas Committee's solution rests on three positions. The first position relates to the functions of the Ministry of Food. The Report quotes statements by the Minister of Food in 1945 that, on its permanent footing, the Ministry would be responsible
"for the procurement and subsequent distribution of all foods of importance in the national diet,"
and
"for the operation of such modified controls as might be necessary to reform the system of food distribution."
As I understand it, one of the main themes of this Report is to clarify the future position of the Ministry of Food. The Report does not contemplate—at least it hopes that it may not be necessary to contemplate—that the Ministry of Food in future years will continue to purchase all the home supplies of produce and share them out through the channels of distribution. Starting with that point, the Committee do not consider that the Ministry of Food should be responsible for the rationalisation of the system of distribution or the modernisation of its apparatus and technique.
Those two points are fundamental to the whole question. Until it is resolved what the future position of the Ministry of Food in this field will be, everything else is somewhat academic. I do not expect the Government to be able to make

1037
any pronouncement upon that point today, but I do say that it is one of the three positions upon which this solution rests, and a position which must be clarified. Personally, I am impressed by the arguments of the Committee upon this particular aspect. They point out that the handling of British crops from the fanner to the consumer is essentially a commercial operation for which, in their opinion, the organisation of a Government Department is not really suitable. Furthermore, they point out that the bringing about of an
"efficient system of agricultural marketing"—
this is one of the important points—is bound to
"entail a fairly ruthless cutting away of many distributive margins, and the elimination as redundant of many distributive and processing interests."
They point out that matters such as that are politically invidious, and if it were possible they would be better left to be dealt with at the level of business operation where the necessary acumen and, it may be, the necessary ruthlessness towards vested interests, might perhaps be most successfully used.
That is an impressive argument, and it might be enforced by another, which is the difficulty of converting a war-time organisation into a satisfactory peace-time organisation, particularly after several years of operation. Some of your Lordships may perhaps know the Navy Department building in Washington. It was set up in the last war and has been added to since. It contains a great many passages and corridors which seem to lead nowhere, and staircases which again do not seem to have any particular rationale. In my time in Washington it was said that a stranger who lost his way might easily, in the corner of a corridor, come upon the skeleton of some previous person who had lost his way and never got out! That is a parable of what a war-time Department can become if projected too far into times of peace. What the Committee say on this subject is this—and I think your Lordships will all endorse it. The Ministry of Food achieved admirably its war-time aim of "fair shares for all." But the system was not
"designed to promote marketing efficiency and it has not done so. It was conceived as a temporary device and in order to secure
1038
co-operation of the distributive trades, undertakings were given to vested interests as to the eventual resumption of their normal operations and margins were paid out for services that were no longer rendered. The costs of distribution were and remain unnecessarily inflated."
The first point, then, is that the future position of the Ministry of Food's permanent functions should be clarified, and that it should revert as soon as may be to a policy-making and supervisory department.
The second position relates to the marketing boards. The Committee's analysis clarifies and crystallises the proper functions of marketing boards. The great point there, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and other noble Lords, is the fundamental difference that is introduced into the situation from the farmer's point of view, when his price is guaranteed and his market assured, and he is told more or less that everything he produces will find an outlet. One does not then need to press forward with plans for boards with a great range of optional powers, or to instil into our widespread farming community a far reaching interest in the final markets for their products. On the other hand, as the Committee point out, the taxpayer now has underwritten the producer's price, and while, because of that, the producer's interest in what takes place beyond the point of delivery of his produce is much reduced, the interest of the taxpayer and consumer in what happens is very much increased.
The Committee do not in the least suggest that the marketing board as a device has no future. On the contrary, the functions which they suggest for them are very real functions. They would first have the duty of settling with the agency—which in the Committee's scheme is to be the commodity commission—which is going to accept delivery of the produce, the terms and conditions of annual or seasonal contract. There is a great deal to say for the producer having his representative board for this. Secondly, it will take responsibility for the due fulfilment of the contracts by fie individual farmers concerned. It will police the contracts. For that purpose the boards will require statutory powers; and we must beware that the statutory powers shall not be such as would be obnoxious to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading,

1039
who made some very just animadversions on the powers at present possessed or capable of being possessed by marketing boards. Thirdly, the marketing board would have important functions of reflecting back to individual producers the requirements and the advice of the buyer. And then there would be a marginal zone, in which the marketing board or the Commission indifferently might be the agency for setting up warehouses for grading storage and so forth.
That, then, is the second position, the clarification and re-definition of the province of the marketing board, and that part of the Report I find convincing. Marketing boards with those functions would not be liable to the criticism that in the past has been levelled against them; there would not be any question of restriction or of consumers' interests. And, after all, the most successful of the marketing boards, the Hops Board, was successful precisely in restricting access to the market on the basis of quotas and thus maintaining the price. It is a fortunate fact that its operations made no appreciable difference to the price of beer.
The third position is the Committee's substantive proposal, the creation of a new type of business unit, called perhaps the commodity commission, to take responsibility for all marketing and distributing operations—one commission for each of the commodities or related groups of commodities scheduled in the Agriculture Act plus one for horticultural produce and perhaps one for hops. I will not go closely into the appointment and set-up of these boards, but it may be worth while briefly to enumerate their functions. Their primary duty would be to negotiate the annual or seasonal contracts with the producers, to take delivery and to make payment. Then they would have responsibility for the subsequent storage, transport, and distribution. They would have a kind of supervisory control over the whole complex of marketing process between the farm gate and the kitchen table. To enable them to exercise those powers they will not rely simply on the fact that at the initial stage they acquire property in the produce; they are intended to be clothed with a range of powers which are set out in page 59 of the Report. These represent a kind of eclectic gathering together of useful powers in this field,
1040
which before the war were exercised by various authorities. In the conception of the Committee, these commissions are intended in one way or another to set on foot a rationalisation of the whole of these post-delivery marketing processes. They are designed to have no inhibitions about introducing simplification and rectification in these processes, perhaps very drastic simplifications. They will not displace existing processors but they will be free to enter the field with a view to exploring or exhibiting the technique, or with a view to establishing their own check on costs. They would dispose of the necessary capital for these operations.
The basic elements in the conception of the commodity commissions are two. One is the general design of the commissions, their functions and powers, on which I hope I have dilated at not too great a length. What I conceive that the Committee have managed to do, in a very striking way, is to combine the fruits of experience of marketing boards and the commodity commissions before the Second World War. The other element is the organisational make-up of the commissions. There I am bound to say that I feel they have displayed sense, as well as originality, in suggesting that the controlling personnel of these commissions should be people of general ability and background, and should not be nominated, elected or appointed by reason of specialist qualifications. I am not sure that the noble Lord who dealt with that point, and who did not favour it very much, appreciated that it is part of the pattern that each of these commissions will work with a number of advisory committees representing the wholesalers, the retailers, the processors, the producers and so forth. I suggest that this method of bringing in the representation of the various interested bodies and parties fits with the notion of the commission itself as being an independent body of general ability, with no attachments. As a final point, these commissions would naturally be advisers, both to the Ministry of Food and to the Ministry of Agriculture, and they would be the agents perhaps for the administration of subsidy.
Is the setting up of a number of corporations like this, one for each of the main comodities or group of commodities, amounting perhaps to eight, nine or ten commissions, a feasible plan? That

1041
largely turns on the possibility of collecting together sufficient business ability to form the organising nucleus for each of these organisations. A start could clearly be made with two or three. Apart from the question of the organising nucleus, one must bear in mind that there are large elements of organisation lying around, controlled by the Ministry of Food and otherwise, which would naturally be brought into these new organisations when set up. Although this has not been stressed in the Report, it would be essential to tailor these new organisations into the existing system. Some of the existing bodies may transform themselves into commissions, and others may be disbanded. All I mean is that you are not precisely setting up these commissions in vacuo; to a certain extent, you will be rearranging elements of organisation which are already there.
As to the notion that these bodies are an addition to an already large complex of agencies, one must bear in mind that once the commissions are set up, if they do their job, there should result over the course of a few years, at whatever cost to vested interests, a considerable diminution in the amount of the marketing machinery in existence, coupled with (we may hope) a much greater efficiency in the full utilisation of the crops and a reduction in the total spread of cost between the point of delivery by the farmer and the point of consumption by the consumer. I might clinch that point by reminding your Lordships that before the Second World War products of British agriculture came to a value of more than £200,000,000 a year. They are probably double that amount now. Indeed, recently the Ministry of Agriculture suggested a much higher figure.
LORD WOOLTON: I have been interested in this subject for a long time. I think it would be useful to the House if the noble Lord could tell us why he thinks that there would be this reduction in cost in the operations if we had these commissions created. I think he made it as a general statement. I am sure that he has some evidence behind him; otherwise he would not have made the point.
LORD PIERCY: I am afraid that my remarks did not proceed so much from evidence as from general reasoning,
1042
though I am sure that evidence could be put together. I am thinking of this: in the first place, there is great room for simplification of machinery so that we might have a smaller number of margins. That should mean a reduction of cost. Also, by modern techniques of storing, sorting and grading, and the help of other new methods with which the noble Lord is familiar—such as the new processes of drying and freezing—the total commercial value of the crop should be improved. That may be a Utopia, for I see the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is smiling. He would perhaps agree with this: that associated with the fluctuations in market prices to which we have been accustomed—seasonal gluts and all the rest of it—there has been a great waste of product and of value. If you have a more rational control of the handling of the total crop, the total value would be greater at the same time as the spread of costs between the farmers should be less. I cannot prove that; I can only respond by giving roughly what was in my mind.
LORD WOOLTON: Thank you.
LORD PIERCY: So far as I understand this excellent Report, I regard it as containing a scheme of solid value; but certainly the possibility of putting it into effect begins with a clarification of the future position of the Ministry of Food. I sincerely hope that the official committee which my noble friend has said is now sitting will give that point its fullest possible consideration.
There is one large point which overshadows all these discussions and which is germane to the question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. There are many economists who feel, and so far as I can see, justly feel, that it will be difficult for us to maintain our standard of living in this country unless somewhere in the total economic system we can effect very large economies. It has always been thought that, in the distributive system between farm or factory and the consumer, there is room for great economies of human power and monetary costs. The problem, taken as a whole, is a difficult one which any Government might shrink from tackling. Present circumstances have brought to light, I suggest, a possibility of dealing with this problem in the particular case of agricultural marketing. Perhaps the

1043
Lucas Committee Report shows us the way.
4.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to intervene for only a few minutes as your Lordships will wish to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who will no doubt be able to put us right on this subject. He has been the Chairman of the Committee which produced this Report—a Report which has caused those of us who sit on committees connected with the farming industry many hours of discussion. It is due to the noble Lord that we have had much extra work to do; but I think that has probably been a good thing, because the Report is certainly timely. It has been mentioned that the guaranteed price is, in effect, a restriction, and it is possible, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, that instead of it being a guaranteed price the farmer might be able to get more if it were not a maximum price. That is a point with which all farmers agree, and it is a view very widely held. There are many who remember the slump of 1929 and 1930, and we hope conditions such as that will not recur. But who can tell? They may recur, and no one can say with conviction that, notwithstanding all our plans, we will not see the same sort of slump again. Many farmers, therefore, are rather wary of relinquishing the powers they had under the 1931 Act.
However, arguments have been adduced, and no doubt they will be again, that farmers are not themselves capable of tackling the job of adjusting distributive margins and all the complex matters connected with marketing. The report has admitted quite freely, however, that the powers which farmers have under the 1931 Act have never been abused, and it is a little alien to our philosophy to think that they may be abused in the future. However, much depends on whether or not the Ministry of Food is maintained as a permanent body. I am not sure, but I think it has not been stated definitely whether or not they will remain. However I believe their retention is envisaged. We cannot, therefore, really form a good opinion of these recommendations until we know whether or not there is to be a permanent Ministry of Food. I was glad to hear the
1044
noble Lord, Lord Piercy, say that possibly the Ministry of Food was not the ideal body to market farm produce. I think that is what he said, and that, of course, was said also in the Lucas Report. It is at once apparent to those connected with the industry that a successful marketing organisation must, as business men have always done, have the ability to make decisions and, if those decisions are wrong, face the consequences.
I think farmers will feel somewhat frustrated if they lose their powers, because they are not quite happy that their interests are adequately safeguarded in the proposed set-up of commodity commissions. There may be advisory committees—such committees are indeed suggested—but they are, as I understand it, purely advisory, and the commodity commission is not bound to accept their advice. As I say, the farmers may get a feeling of frustration if they are to lose the powers they have under the 1931 Act. There is quite enough frustration in the country to-day, and it would be unwise to create more. On the other hand, we must not be too opposed to the new recommendations, because if a successful compromise—and I suppose it will be something of a compromise—is worked out between all the interests concerned, we may see a much better position in the future.
I do not wish to say much more, because the debate has already covered a large number of the points which one might have wished to make. I would, however, like to conclude by saying that I am sure the producer is willing to play his part in seeing that the consumer gets a square deal; and if any new recommendations (of which there are a number in the Report) do come to fruition, I am sure no one will be happier than the producer that the consumer is getting his produce as cheaply as possible whilst a reasonable margin is still allowed to everyone. But I feel that the primary producer should have the best guarantee of a wider margin because, after all, he is the one who does most of the work and, if it were not for him, none of the ancillary people who deal with the distribution of food would be necessary at all.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it is hardly necessary for me to disclose to your Lordships' House my

1045
special interest in the Motion which has been moved with characteristic courtesy by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I had the great honour of occupying the position of Chairman of the Committee which was charged by His Majesty's Government with carrying out an inquiry into the working of the Agricultural Marketing Acts and the framing of recommendations for the organisation of marketing agricultural produce in the future. The Committee presented its Report to the appointing Ministers on September 30 last, and it was published with commendable promptitude a few weeks afterwards. Since that time it appears to have excited some comment, and to have been the subject of some criticism in certain agricultural quarters. During this period I have thought it wise to remain silent, feeling that the most appropriate place for myself, as Chairman of the Committee, to make any observations in reply to criticisms would be in your Lordships' House. Therefore I am doubly grateful to the noble Earl for putting this Motion upon the Order Paper, because it gives me the opportunity of replying to some of the criticisms that have been made—criticisms which, I am frankly bound to admit, are, I think, based on a non-reading of the Report in some cases, misunderstanding in others and, in a large number of cases, entire misconception.
In the course of my speech to-day, I trust I shall be able to reply to the points which have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor and other noble Lords who have joined in the debate. There is one criticism which has been made, with which I would like to deal before I go any further; that is, that the Committee went outside their terms of reference, and that there was nothing in those terms of reference which entitled them to make any incursion into the field of distribution. That, my Lords, is literally correct. Distribution per se was ruled out of the terms of reference of the Committee. It somewhat restricted the Committee. I have no complaint because, if it had been included, I do not think I should be standing here this afternoon to address your Lordships; I might have had that opportunity some years hence! But, as was proved as the inquiry went along, if the Committee had not gone as far as they did, it would have made nonsense of any Report which they might have produced,
1046
because the production, the processing, the manufacture and the distribution of agricultural produce are so intermingled that it is impossible to divide, with a clear cut line, one from the other.
I think it will be appropriate if I disclose that, at quite an early stage of the Committee's inquiry, I addressed a communication to the appointing Ministers asking that a certain interpretation should be put upon the terms of reference which would allow the Committee to go to the length to which they eventually did go, and such permission was readily granted. The terms of reference of the Committee were not only to review the past, to be guided by the experience gained, but to have regard to Government policy and the developments in Government policy since that date. I would ask your Lordships' House to consider very seriously what that Government policy is. The noble Earl dealt with one aspect of it fully and admirably, but, if he will forgive my saying so, he practically disregarded the other part of Government policy which was so well mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Piercy.
Government policy as regards agriculture is laid down in Part I of the Agriculture Act. In Part I, Section 1, dealing with the subject of guaranteed prices, the Agriculture Act says that the farmer will be guaranteed and paid a price arrived at after consultation with the appropriate representatives of the agricultural industry, and that price will be such that it will allow him to provide good conditions of labour, pay reasonable rates of wages and receive a fair return upon the capital employed in the industry. That is what it says, and that is what the Committee understood it to mean. As regards the assurance of markets, the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, in the course of the Second Reading debate on the Agriculture Bill in another place, said on behalf of His Majesty's Government that they accepted the principle of an unqualified guarantee for the whole of the produce of the agricultural industry, so far as could reasonably be foreseen, with two exceptions—one in connection with oats, and the other in connection with sugar beet. The Committee took those points to mean what they said they meant. The Committee were never charged with making recommendations in some hypothetical

1047
circumstances at some hypothetical time, if these policies were jettisoned, or if one of them should mean something which it did not say it meant.
A further point is that on November 5, 1945, the then Minister of Food made a statement in another place concerning the Government's policy with respect to food. He said that it was the Government's intention that the Ministry of Food should in future be a permanent Department of State charged with the responsibility for the procurement and distribution of the basic foods of this country at reasonable prices. That declaration, again, the Committee took to mean what it said it meant. So those are the two fundamental points upon which the Committee had to base their Report. As regards the first, the Committee came to the conclusion without any hesitation—and I would emphasise here, for it will save repetition, that the Report of the Committee was unanimous—that Part I of the Agriculture Act in relation to guaranteed prices meant, in effect, that at the point where guaranteed prices operated the produce became the property of the taxpayer.
It has been said in some quarters that that is open to argument. In the view of the Committee there is no room for argument about that whatsoever. I make that statement emphatically, because if your Lordships appreciate that, you will appreciate why many of the Committee's recommendations are as they are. As I say, the Committee took the view that at the point where the guaranteed price operated, wherever that might be (and that is a point with which I will deal a little later), the produce became—according to Part I of the Act—the property of the taxpayer. It was inconceivable to the Committee that the responsibility for marketing that produce, the responsibility for all its processing from that point onwards should be in the hands of a sectional monopoly as under the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933. It was also inconceivable to the Committee that the Ministry of Food, charged with the responsibility for the procurement and distribution at reasonable prices of the nation's basic foodstuffs, should hand over that responsibility to a sectional monopoly composed of producer interests.
1048
What agency should we substitute for the producer marketing board? The noble Earl, I think—I hope he will forgive me if I misinterpret him; certainly the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, was of this mind—rather tentatively suggested that a guaranteed price is of course only a ceiling price. The noble Earls rather suggested, I thought, that they wanted to go back to the days of laissez-faire, to the free market of 1931, because if you want the best return on the swings, you must always be prepared to take the worst of the losses on the roundabouts.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not wish to interrupt, but I should like to point out that I said that at the present time the guaranteed price is a ceiling price. I did not say anything about going back to the days of laissez-faire.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl will forgive me; I did not hear him say "at the present time." But the 1931 conditions are ruled out. What is the alternative? Is the alternative between a commodity commission or a producer marketing board, which latter the Committee ruled out? They had to consider the question whether the present distribution method of control by the Ministry of Food, which is the system operating to-day, should continue. The Committee felt so strongly upon this point that they were moved to put their conclusions in the Report in language which I think I can claim at least to be unambiguous. We did not consider a Government Department to be the appropriate agency for carrying out the huge commercial transactions that would be involved in processing, manufacturing and distributing the foodstuffs of this country.
Also, and here I repeat what my noble friend, Lord Piercy, said in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, it is a misconception that all we have done is to insert another intermediary in this vast conglomeration of intermediaries. In paragraph 243 we say there must be a radical alteration and rationalisation of the channels of distribution with the aim of cutting down the intermediaries and the distribution margins. A Government department is no instrument to do that, and a producers' marketing board, composed of a sectional interest, is no instrument for doing that either. So we unhesitatingly said that at the point where

1049
guaranteed price operates, the controlling authority shall be an independent commodity commission.
The noble Earl suggested—he will correct me, I know, if I am wrong—that marketing boards as at present constituted under the Acts of 1931 and 1933 should have all their powers, including monopoly control, continued past the point of guaranteed price, but should be subservient to a grandiose commission that would sit over them and regulate them. I am free to confess that the Committee considered that aspect and rejected it out of hand. There are so many practical impossibilities, but the main objection, and it must be the main objection, is the point I have just made: that the Committee cannot agree that any sectional interests of producers should have control over the taxpayers' property past the point of first sale. That is fundamental. The noble Earl, in the course of explaining his very interesting alternative, doubted whether we should find men of sufficient calibre to operate on a livestock board, a cereals board, a potatoes board or a milk board. I hesitate to think of the difficulty that would confront him in trying to find people to sit on a board that had to combine the brains of all of them!
The noble Earl asked to whom the commissions are to be responsible. I know he will forgive me if I say I could not help smiling at his picture. He would like to have this grandiose Commodity Commission sitting on a platform confronted with irate consumers—the 47,000,000 people who comprise the population of this country. In my mind, I went from Hyde Park to the Albert Hall, because I did not know what kind of meeting that would be! Surely it is only sensible that the body to whom a commodity commission must be responsible are the elected representatives of the taxpayers, the House of Commons. Again, surely it is sense, in view of the Government's policy on agriculture and food, that a commodity commission must be responsible to the Government.
It has been suggested that the Report drives the farmer back to the farm gate. That, again, is untrue. We say that these commissions should operate at the point where guaranteed price operates, and this, as my noble friend (Lord Piercy) pointed out, can be movable. It can be right up almost at the chain of distribution. In
1050
the case of fatstock it can be on one side of the abattoir or even on the exit side. It all depends on the negotiating skill and economic sense of the representatives of the agriculture industry and of the Government, who to-day are responsible for meeting to arrange the prices of agricultural produce. To attempt to drive the farmer back to the farm gate, and to say the producer has no interest in his produce past the point at which he is paid for it, whether it be at the farm gate or anywhere else, is (if your Lordships will forgive the very strong expression) arrant nonsense. It does not make sense to anyone with a knowledge of the proper merchanting of agricultural produce. The producer's interest is there all the way through, from the point of production to the consumer's table, and it must be properly looked after.
But to say that a producer has an interest in his product right up to the consumer's table is a very different thing from saying that he has a monopoly interest and should preserve a monopoly control. I would illustrate it in this way. Agricultural produce goes into the sphere of adaptation, manufacturing or processing and then into the sphere of wholesale and retail distribution. I am quite prepared to admit that the producer has a monopoly interest in the process of production, but he must share his interest in the produce in the second sphere with the processor and manufacturer, and jointly they must share with the distribution system in the third. We tried on sound lines to preserve the rightful interests of the producer, right through the whole process. We said that the commodity commission was to be appointed jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, and as the Minister of Agriculture was the guardian angel of the producers' interests, surely he would see that the producers' point of view would be represented on a commodity commission.
Secondly, we said, very firmly, that a producers' marketing board composed solely of producers should have jurisdiction and monopoly control right up to the point of first sale. Thirdly, a point not yet mentioned, we said that there should be nothing—and there is nothing in any recommendation which this Committee makes—to prevent a producers' marketing board from going into manufacturing, processing,

1051
or wholesale or retail distribution. When it does, it stands on all fours with every other interest in that sphere of the industry. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent a producers' marketing board from opening retail shops, but it does so all square with every other interest.
Criticism has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords, of the independence of the commodity commissions. That is one of the strongest points made by the Committee. I think that your Lordships, on reflection, will agree that where there are commodity commissions handling millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, surely it is not practical politics that they should be mandated by sectional interests and should be looking over their shoulders all the time at the people who sent them there. Surely, you must have on bodies like this men who are knowledgeable and at the same time thoroughly independent of outlook. That is the only conception we could possibly take of that appointment. We did not rule out the advisability of bringing in the knowledge of all sections of the industry—the knowledge of the processor, the knowledge of the manufacturer and the knowledge of the distributor. That is why we recommended that there should be set up advisory committees—advisory committees to advise. I know that immediately one talks of advisory committees the cynic raises a smile and says that an advisory committee are a body whose advice is never taken. That is not an indictment of the principle, but an indictment of the proper working of the advisory committee. While we were certain that the advisory committee could and should play a proper part, we felt that the executive authority must rule, wholly and solely, in an independent commission, answerable to nobody but to the taxpayer and the Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? All his arguments apply equally to the election of Members of another place by sectional interest.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will pardon my ignorance if I am wrong, but I always thought that a Member was elected to another place to represent the citizens of his constituency. It may have been altered since I learned my elementary politics, but that is what I
1052
have always believed. If the Members do not represent their constituents, and the whole of their constituents, they should receive the same fate as the member of a commodity commission who does not do his job—that is, the sack.
I would like now to deal with the place of producer boards. It was suggested to the Committee very strongly, in evidence which we could not lightly disregard, that in the future agricultural economy of this country there was no place for producer marketing boards. That we rejected, because we considered that there is a wide function for which producer boards should operate. We took time to study our conception of the relationship between the commodity commission and the producer board. They would include the arranging of the contract, the premium prices for plus grades. Any noble Lord who has any interest or experience in the industry will know that unless safeguards are constructed, a system of guaranteed prices inevitably breeds inefficiency. We felt, first of all, that the producer board has all those cultural functions to look after. I will cite a case. Mention has been made of the Milk Marketing Board. The Milk Marketing Board did not in fact carry out all those functions which were in the minds of the architects of the 1931 Act until the Ministry of Food took over all their marketing organisation. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, was quite right when he said that in the main the Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933 were used only for price amelioration. They were never used for the purpose for which the architects (the chief architect being my noble friend who sits below me on the Front Bench) intended that they should be used. I am sure my noble friend would say that the cultural functions, the production of the proper graded produce to the National Mark standard, and all those things which were in the minds of the architects of the 1931 and 1933 Acts, were honoured more in the breach than in the observance. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I am not casting any blame. Economic conditions, the law of survival, dictated the course in 1931 and 1933.
May I now turn to the case of horticulture? As has been pointed out, the Committee drew a distinction on all non-price guaranteed produce, of which horticultural produce is the biggest. There

1053
the producer still has to bear the commercial risk. We have said that while he has to do that, and until such time as an over all embracing Commission is, set up, he should have the powers under the Agricultural Marketing Acts. The trouble with the horticultural industry is not so much in production as in distribution. While the producer marketing boards can do a tremendous amount to improve the qualities of horticultural produce, the big problem to-day is in the conservation of produce, the re-siting of markets and in the whole structure of distribution. Unless something is done in that direction we as a nation, in a measurable space of time, will not know what a fresh vegetable is; we shall be consuming them out of tins.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, asked a question to which, even in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, I would venture to reply. As the Marketing Acts stand at the present time, disciplinary powers are vested in committees, and they can exercise those disciplinary powers over anyone who commits, not a breach of the Acts but a breach of the scheme that is put forward under the Acts. We went half-way towards meeting the noble Marquess. We took what I would suggest is the common-sense view, that all the breaches upon which this disciplinary committee would have to adjudicate would be breaches of agreements: the fanner or the producer undertaking to do something, and not doing it. It is not questions of law, but questions of common-sense, business and commercial practice. We felt that the elementary principles of justice would undoubtedly be preserved by the appointment as chairman of a barrister of five years' standing. We thought that if we made the chairman a man with a trained legal mind we could safely leave it to the committee to see that justice and equity were dispensed. We went on to add to this a recommendation that expenses should be paid at the discretion of the tribunal, and also that the tribunal should hold their sittings at points slightly more convenient to the delinquent than heretofore. I am sorry the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, does not think we went very far, but we did not feel called upon to make a recommendation that would send every small delinquent farmer into the local court of summary jurisdiction.
1054
May I be permitted three closing observations? I could not have presided over this Committee for nine months and, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has been kind enough to say, engage in any intensive review, without becoming greatly interested in this problem of agricultural marketing. I would pose three questions to the agricultural industry. The first is: What is the choice before the farmer to-day? The choice is not between this Report, or something very like this Report, and the conditions of 1939; the conditions of 1939 are gone for ever. The choice before the farmer is between this Report, or something like this Report, and the conditions as they are to-day, where the fanner has to operate under the control of a Government Department, right back behind the farm gate. That, we say, would not be in the national interest.
I would not claim that the last word in agricultural marketing has been uttered by this Report, or that this Report contains all the wisdom upon the subject. I do say, however—with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor—that any scheme put forward which allows the taxpayer's money, and the distribution and processing of this nation's food, to be in the hands of a sectional monopoly, after the point at which the guaranteed price operates, would be against the national interest. Fear has been voiced that the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets will go, will be altered, or in some way will become meaningless to the farmer. If there is a danger that that will ever happen, it lies, in my view, in the perpetuation and continuation of the extravagant, wasteful and inefficient distributive system we have to-day. I do not think the taxpayer of this country will be willing to find the millions required to ensure the stability—and the proper stability made necessary in the national interest—of the farming community and at the same time see a perpetuation of the system of wasteful distribution and processing which results in high prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, addressed to my noble friend a question which I could have answered. As Chairman of that Committee I heard accounts of the intermediaries between the fat stock beasts on the farm and the abattoir; the countless intermediaries building up the cost and adding not one scrap to the

1055
efficiency. And there were innumerable other examples of the same sort of thing. Twenty-five years ago a member of your Lordships' House, the Marquess of Linlithgow, presided over a Committee who were confronted with the same task as the Committee over which I presided. The Report of that Committee said that distribution costs were a far heavier burden than society would permanently consent to bear. Society has had to bear them for the last twenty-five years, but will society consent to bear them in the future; and will it subsidise and make secure, at the cost of millions, the agricultural industry at the same time? If there is any danger that the agricultural industry will go back to the days of 1931, it is in that direction that the danger lies.
5.15 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am going to intervene for a moment or two, because the noble Lord who has just sat down referred in a sense to a debate upon a Motion on the subject of distribution moved by myself on June 3, 1942. I am glad that the noble Lord took notice of this particular point, although I do not suppose for a moment that he has read the report of the debate, which lasted the whole afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, took part in that debate, together with many other noble Lords. I shall leave the main points of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to be answered by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor, but there was one thing in the speech which struck me as being somewhat curious. I hope that I have not misunderstood him, but I think he mentioned that guaranteed prices were inclined to lend themselves to inefficiency.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I actually said was this: There is always the seed of inherent inefficiency in a system of guaranteed prices.
LORD TEVIOT: I wonder whether the noble Lord would apply that to guaranteed wages?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I apply it to any monetary guarantee.
LORD TEVIOT: Although I am not of the political persuasion of the noble Lord, I would not say that. I have enough confidence in the integrity and
1056
the honesty of purpose of my race to think that, if they receive what they regard is a fair deal, they will do everything they can to carry out their side of the bargain. I was a little disturbed at the noble Lord's repeated references to processing and manufacture in regard to agricultural produce. Being (as some noble Lords know) one of those who believe in getting on to the tables of the people of our country as much freshly grown, home-grown food as possible, so far as we are concerned here I would put the question of processing and manufacture in a secondary position.
As I have said, I was interested and glad to hear the noble Lord concentrate a great deal of his speech on waste in distribution. The noble Lord may be interested to hear that in my speech in 1942 I made the same point. I spoke of the Linlithgow Report—which was made in 1922 and was followed in 1940 by Lord Perry's Report on Milk Marketing and the price of milk—and I indicated that this was the sort of thing that was happening then. It is, I believe the sort of thing which is still happening to-day. I said then that a good deal less than one quarter of agricultural and market gardening produce went through two intermediaries; nearly one-fourth through four intermediaries, and over one-eighth through five intermediaries. A very small amount went through one intermediary. I do not know what the figures are today, but at the time when this debate took place £650,000,000 worth of food, either grown in this country or imported, required £850,000,000 for its distribution.
I hope the Government are turning their attention to that matter. I am not familiar enough with what is going on now to know what is the position in regard to those figures, but let me suggest this to your Lordships. We are spending now about £400,000,000 in food subsidies. Does it not seem that we might very materially reduce the costs of distribution? That would help to reduce the subsidies, all of which come out of the taxpayer's—in other words, the consumer's—pocket. It seems to me that it would be quite easy, somehow or other, by organisation, to arrange for a material reduction in the cost of distribution. The consumer would benefit and at the same time it would help to establish confidence in the minds of the farmers that what was obtaining to-day

1057
would continue. There is a tremendous waste of expenditure in the realm of distribution and food subsidies.
Your Lordships may remember that we had considerable discussion on this subject some time ago. On that occasion a good deal was said about zoning. Your Lordships will be aware that a great deal of the farmers' produce travels a long way; and it has always seemed to me that that could be obviated by a system of zoning, such as the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, introduced in the war. So far as I remember, that system did away with the necessity for this movement of produce. If there was too much food in one place and too little in another, food was moved to redress the balance. That seems to me a simple operation, which could easily be arranged. At that time I was living in Northamptonshire, and some of us there started the Banbury local market. It proved of great benefit to the farmers in that district, as well as to the quality—through having a local grading—of the goods supplied. Everybody responded, because they knew that the better quality would bring them a better price in that local market.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, referred to what the Government had done for the farming industry. I should like to remind him that—at any rate so far as I know—nothing is being done to give the farmer help in the form of farming machinery. He has been promised priority of raw material over and over again. I know there are difficulties, but let us try to go ahead and arrange for the manufacture of farming machinery—even though there are, I know, steel shortages and consequent shortages of spare parts all over the country. I should like now to say a word on the subject of the size of the market for the farmers' produce. Naturally, the size of the market is governed by consumption, and here distribution is of enormous importance. It is no use the farmer producing more by his efficiency unless it results in lower distribution costs and unless the consumer reaps the advantage of the produce retaining its quality.
There is another point I should like to mention. I am all in favour of having the farmer as near as possible to the consumer. In other walks of life—in business, for instance—we get as near as possible
1058
to our customer in order to find out what he desires and what suits him. I want to see the farmers and their representatives closely in touch with the consumer in order that they may know exactly what he wants. The consumer appreciates good quality and will be prepared to pay a good price for it. It is all very well to talk about applying controls and taking the matter out of the hands of the people who are in fact producers, and having some other intermediary between the consumer and the producer; but I am a great believer in the producers being brought as closely as possible in touch with the consumer It means better quality and less cost. I hope that my few remarks may perhaps bear some fruit in the future policy of the Government on this important question.
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I hesitate to intervene to-day, but I have been invited by my colleagues to do so as the Minister who was responsible for the first Agricultural Marketing Act. So far as the governing necessities of the situation are concerned, they remain the same as they did at the time of the passage of that Act, except that machinery and adaptations have changed. It is just as true to-day as it was then that there should be as well organised, efficiently working and economical a system as possible to secure the reasonable marketing of producers' products. I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in paying a tribute to the meticulous examination of that problem which is presented in this Report. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his colleagues have rendered a great and enduring public service. If anyone wants to study the record of the very slow development of improvements in these matters, he could not do better than study this Report. It shows how slowly we move.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, drew attention to the Linlithgow Report, to which I should like to turn for a minute or two The progress in this field, to which Lord Linlithgow drew attention, between then and now has been lamentably small. As to the general comments in the Report on the development of the agricultural marketing boards, I will be quite frank and say that I, with many others, have

1059
been rather disappointed. It was our intention when we framed the first Act that the boards would be brought into being on behalf of the producers who would not only secure the realisation of a proper price for their products, so far as that was possible, but would also co-operate in securing their better marketing. We had in our minds at that time the immense advantages that were being derived from improved grading, packing and all that sort of thing. I must say that, in reviewing the operations of the different boards that have been set up, I have been disappointed, and the Report only emphasises that disappointment.
I feel that it is better to say quite frankly that the directors of those boards, whilst quite properly concentrating their attention upon the realisation of fair prices, have not developed the many other activities of the marketing boards and of the producers' boards which we hoped would be developed when the Act was passed. The encouragement of research and improved methods of many kinds were in the minds of many noble Lords (some of whom are sitting opposite me now) who co-operated heartily in discussing some of the provisions of that Act. I am quite sure that we should be rendering no good service if we did not admit a certain measure of disappointment that these other activities of the boards, exceedingly useful for the producers and even more so for the consumers, have not been exercised as widely as we had hoped. I think it is only right that that should be said.
To a great extent, the Milk Marketing Board are a notable exception. There is no doubt at all that they completely transformed the collection and the marketing of milk, from one end of the country to the other. In so doing, the Board, in fact, saved thousands of farmers from bankruptcy, because their position then was very bad indeed. Apart from that, I cannot say that one is satisfied that the Potato Board, the Meat Board or even the Hops Board are contributing to the research into improved methods of collection, grading and so forth, for which some of us had hoped. Unfortunately, that does not make it any the less true that it is necessary that there should be an organisation of this kind to organise and help the sale of the producers' product. I suppose the fact that
1060
we have not one is due to our emergence from the war period and other adverse circumstances of long standing which have resulted in our making such very slow progress in some of the improvements in the distribution of food which are clearly our ultimate aim.
The noble Lord opposite has, as I have said, called attention to the Linlithgow Report. On my part, I well remember the Perry Report. In fact, we have had quite a crop of Reports. They all came to the same conclusion: that the costs of distribution for many foods were unnecessarily high. I think that in that respect the reflections of the noble Lord opposite have great justification. It was one of the things for which we had hoped, but in which we have been disappointed. I had hoped that this Committee, in their examination of this problem, would have presented to us some suggestions on how the matter could be dealt with, because, with regard to some of our processes of distribution, there is no doubt at all that the margin in price between the producer and the consumer is higher than it ought to be. There is no doubt about that.
I will confess that I was a little disappointed in one respect, in considering the Report of my noble friend. I see that the Committee somewhat shied off the question of horticultural marketing. I have said before in this House, and I say so again, that we never had time during the Second World War to get on to that matter, but the distribution of horticultural produce in this country is a disgrace to an intelligent community. That is the plain English of it. We should go to a few other countries to see how much better it is managed there. There has never been a producers' board for any of these commodities. As my noble friend has said, it is an exceedingly difficult problem. Therefore, whether it is the kind of body about which the noble Earl spoke or whether it is one of the commodity commissions that my noble friend has suggested, I do think that the necessity for calling into existence in some form or other a body of men who will address their minds to the improvement of these marketing processes is urgent. Personally, I should have said that the improved marketing of our horticultural produce stands out almost as a first necessity, so far as the diminution of distribution charges is concerned.

1061
We are immensely indebted to the Committee for calling attention to this matter and making some suggestions as to how it should be handled. I have studied the matter with great care, and I am sure that many of your Lordships have done likewise. It is, of course, impossible to take far-reaching recommendations of this kind without immediately raising a considerable number of questions of great administrative difficulty and complexity. As I have said, one question that occurred to me as soon as I read the Report was: What is to be the relation of any commodity board, for example, to the Government of the day? It must be a body with large finances at its disposal. It must have great authority. I do not think Parliament would be willing to create a body of this kind, with these immense powers and with this great authority, unless it was anchored in some way to our ministerial operations and responsibilities. The association of the commodity boards with the Government, or with some Departments of the Government, is one of the matters which clearly have to be explored before we can come to any conclusion about it.
Then, the financial relations of the commodity boards are also matters which would need, I think, a good deal more study and elucidation. At the same time I do feel grateful to my noble friend and his colleagues. They have taken the big view in these matters. They have seen that, in order to bridge the gap between the supply of the producer's produce and the needs of the consumer, we need a much more rational, economical and sensible organisation of distribution than we have at present. There is no doubt about it. That is the position in regard to many commodities. I take it that it would be one of the first duties of these commodity boards to bring that about. I am not quite sure whether they would proceed as my noble friend has the courage to say in one place, which I will venture to quote, for it is nevertheless a vital thing and one to be borne in mind. In paragraph 243, page 57, these words appear:
"We believe that efficient agricultural marketing will entail a fairly ruthless cutting of many distributive margins, and the elimination as redundant of many distributing and processing interests."
With regard to the marketing of livestock, I am sure that that in many respects
1062
is abundantly true. If we are to secure an efficient marketing system in this country, we must contemplate the development of some machinery which will gradually reduce these margins, which are exceedingly costly to the community. I am not going to-day to discuss that tempting subject—I have referred to it many times in your Lordships' House—but I say that the efficiency of any organisation, whether on the line now suggested or some other, will have to be judged by one or two tests. It will have to be capable of developing a system of more reliable and better graded supplies for the community, and it will have to be a system which will eliminate waste, diminish distributive margins and make for a more prompt supply. As it seems to me, we are really only at the beginning of that process in this country.
It is sad to say so, but, although we have been talking about it, to my knowledge, for at least twenty-five years, we have made little progress in improving the actual marketing, after they leave the producer, of the supplies that the people need. It is not to our national credit that that statement should be true, but, unfortunately, I am afraid it is, and it is better to admit it. I think this Report is the most comprehensive and courageous study of that question that I have ever read. I am not in any way saying that we can be committed to some of its somewhat drastic conclusions, but it does put up for our consideration and thought a framework of machinery whereby we may attempt to achieve these desirable ends.
Before I sit down, I would like to make one comment on the opening remarks of the noble Earl and on something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. They appeared to me to cast doubt upon the durability, if I may so term it, of the assured price system. I do not think that is either very well warranted or quite fair. So far as it goes at present we have embodied this system in an Act of Parliament. It is true that some other Parliament might alter it—no Parliament can guarantee the actions of its successors. But still, I am asking myself, what more could be done than we have tried to do—namely, to make it an assured part of our agricultural system. I believe that there is one thing that the farmers of this country can rely upon from all Parties at the present time, and

1063
that is that we must, by some machinery or other, assure that the producer is properly paid for his product. The machinery that is set up by the Agriculture Act is only in its initial stages but is, as it seems to me, workable on the whole. At all events, I do not think it is right that we should allow it to be suggested that there is in the mind of any Party any idea of going back upon that vital principle which we consider is essential to the development of sound British agriculture. I must be allowed to conclude my observations with that very moderate protest.
5.43 P.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, your Lordships will not expect me to reply to all the points raised in what I think has been a very interesting and, I hope, helpful debate. May I first reply to the last point made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, whose intervention I welcome very much indeed because his knowledge of the marketing problem is as great as that of any member of your Lordships' House, The point I made was not that I myself, or that other people, normally doubted the guaranteed price as embodied in the Act of 1947, but I was putting a point of view that is often expressed by a large number of rank-and-file farmers who, as I said previously, have some reason for doubting political promises. I am quite convinced personally that the reasons for those doubts are now gone, and I hope that those farmers realise it too.
May I now deal with one or two of the points which have been raised? I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon—an interest which I regret waned somewhat as the speech neared its end. I was hoping for some announcement on the part of the Government. I must confess that when I put the Motion down I did not expect any earth-shattering announcement to-day, but I did expect something a little more than the one phrase which the noble Earl used, which was that this matter "brooks no delay." That is a fine phrase! In the other place not long ago they had a debate upon Civil Service language, and it was suggested that the words "It will have to receive consideration at a high level" may be interpreted to mean, "We have lost the file, but we are looking for it."
1064
I do not know whether "brooks no delay" comes into that category, but it is something of that sort.
I entirely agree with the legal point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that these matters of penalty—particularly rather heavy monetary penalties—ought rightly to be in the hands of the proper courts of law, and that no tribunal, whether headed by a barrister or not, is quite a substitute for the courts of law. There is, however, one objection of which I know from my own experience. It is an objection which comes from the potential delinquents. Their own marketing board in the past has been far more reluctant than a court of law would be, either to take action or, having taken action, to exact the penalty; therefore the potential delinquent is likely to get off more lightly at the hands of the unofficial tribunal than he would be in a court of summary jurisdiction. That, presumably, is not a point of argument which would appeal to a lawyer, but it is an argument of fact.
A good deal of the discussion, especially in the latter part of the debate, has hinged round the question of distribution costs. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go into those points at any great length, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, costs of distribution were really outside the terms of reference of the Lucas Committee. I am rather glad, however, that that Committee went outside their terms of reference to the extent they did, because, as Lord Lucas rightly said, the Committee's Report would have made nonsense otherwise. It is easy enough to say that the costs of distribution are far too high. As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, remarked, that has been said for about twenty-five years—I would say it is nearer fifty years. It has been said over and over again. Successive Governments have failed entirely to grapple with the problem, and I very much doubt whether a commodity commission would have any greater success in dealing with that extremely intricate and difficult question.
I would, however, say that, so far as distributors generally are concerned, the distribution of food, as of other products, does not mean only conveying the product from the producer to the consumer. There is an element of service—and a very large element of service—in the distribution

1065
of food. Take, for instance, a common illustration used a great deal in the past—that of two firms distributing milk in the same street, when one can do it. The mere fact that there is a rival on the doorstep keeps each firm up to the mark, and the people who live in the street probably get their milk before breakfast, which is when they want it, instead of in the middle of the morning when the men have gone to work. Those things have to be borne in mind when one is considering distribution costs, and one must remember that, however hard one tries, perfection will never be attained, even with an absolute monopoly.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, mentioned that under the proposed system of commodity commissions advisory committees would be in operation. They would be an adjunct to these commodity commissions, and would keep them on the right roads. I know that advisory committees are recommended in the Report. I have had some experience of advisory committees. I have been a member of such committees, and I have also served on bodies which have had advisory committees to help them. If you are a member of an advisory committee advising an executive body you generally suffer from a sense of frustration because the body that you are advising do not always take your advice. If you are a member of an executive body advised by an advisory committee you have a feeling of irritation with the advisory committee for interfering with your proper job. I think that anyone who has had experience of advisory committees will agree that the employment of such committees is not a satisfactory method of getting business done.
I would come now to a point made by Lord Lucas, one which I think is of great importance. Lord Lucas said—I think I have his words right—that at the point where a guaranteed price operates, the commodity becomes the property of the taxpayer. The noble Lord said that that was the unanimous opinion of his Committee, and that that has coloured the whole of their recommendations. I must say that I find that statement astounding—even more astounding in the circumstances as they are today when the guaranteed price, as I explained, is the ceiling price and the taxpayer is not in the least involved. Even if the taxpayer were having to pay something in guarantee
1066
he would certainly not be paying for the whole of that commodity. I cannot see why the noble Lord and his Committee take the view that at that particular point the commodity becomes the property of the taxpaper and of no one else. Has the farmer no interest in his commodity after that point? Is he right out of court the moment he receives his money? I submit that he has a definite interest extending beyond the point at which he is paid.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether the noble Earl is inviting me to give him a reply at this point. I am prepared to do so, but if we go into all the complicated matters that are involved it will take a long time. I agree that the producer has a very real interest in his products after the point at which he has received his guaranteed price. But after he has received the guaranteed price he has no monopoly interest and no direct financial interest. That must be apparent. I do not want to enter into discussions with the noble Earl about ceiling prices. In such a discussion we might have some interesting things to say as to where £400,000,000 goes every year.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Of course the producer has not a monopoly interest after the point where the guaranteed price operates. But he has an interest in maintaining and, if necessary, enlarging his market. He has an interest even in the distribution costs, because if they are too high it will deter people from buying the produce which he produces and will make them turn to something cheaper. I desire only to register the point that in my view that statement that at the point where the guaranteed price operates the taxpayer has a monopoly interest—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: He owns.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: —that at the point where the guaranteed price operates, the taxpayer owns the commodity, is an astounding statement. At that stage the taxpayer may not have paid anything for the commodity, and we certainly hope that he will never pay for the whole value of the commodity.
I have only one other comment to make. Again, quoting from the Report, Lord Lucas said that guaranteed prices breed inefficiency. That suggestion has

1067
already been answered to some extent by my noble friend Lord Teviot. When the guaranteed price is, as now, the ceiling price beyond which the farmer cannot go, there is, I agree, a tendency to breed inefficiency. When the guaranteed price is a minimum—which is what it may have to be one day—and the farmer by being efficient can get more, that surely will not breed inefficiency. It will not breed inefficiency if farmers of this country seek a better price by producing a better product, by improved methods of distribution and so on. I cannot agree with the rather sweeping statement made by the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What the noble Earl says is quite right, or it would be if it applied to an altruistic world. But why did not the farmer do as the noble Earl has just been suggesting in the period 1931–1939? You will always get a section of the community who once they have obtained a guaranteed price will relax and be content. I invite your Lordships to consider Part I of the Agriculture Act which says that the guaranteed price will be one which will give the farmer a fair return on the capital invested. Many, once they have obtained that fair return, want no more; and there are farmers we know, with whom, in order to secure efficiency, one would have to arrange a contract so that premium prices were paid only for plus crops. That was the very argument which the noble Earl himself used.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In the 1931–1939 period, there was nothing in the nature of guaranteed prices. The farmer was fighting for his life and striving to get guaranteed prices. I do not think that I have any further comments to make. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I said at the conclusion of my opening remarks that I should know what I thought when I had heard what I had said. I have heard nothing in the debate to alter the opinion which I formed at the conclusion of my opening remarks. With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a:
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of March 18), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
CROMER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Mersey be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in place of the Lord Rushcliffe, and that the Viscount Mersey be Chairman of the said Committee: Read and agreed to.

BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY BILL.
Reported with amendments.

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

Urban District of Chertsey;

Rural District of Lydney:

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